[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 86 (Thursday, May 5, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9963]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 5, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 52 and 81




Approval and Promulgation of State and Federal Implementation Plans; 
Proposed Rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[FRL-4848-4]

 
Approval and Promulgation of State and Federal Implementation 
Plans; California--Sacramento and Ventura Ozone; South Coast Ozone and 
Carbon Monoxide; Sacramento Ozone Area Reclassification

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of section 110(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or ``the Act''), EPA today proposes federal implementation plans 
(FIPs) to attain, by the applicable statutory deadlines, the national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone in the Sacramento and 
Ventura nonattainment areas, and to attain the NAAQS for ozone and 
carbon monoxide in the South Coast nonattainment area. EPA's final FIPs 
must be signed by the EPA Administrator no later than February 1995. 
EPA requests comment on these proposed FIPs.
    EPA expects the California Low Emitting Vehicle (LEV) program will 
substantially reduce emissions from cars and light trucks, compared to 
the federal standard. In addition, for motor vehicles, EPA requests 
comment on an enhanced in-use compliance program to provide extra 
emissions.
    The FIP proposes a federal enhanced motor vehicle inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) program. If California adopts an approvable enhanced 
I/M program, EPA will either withdraw or refrain from promulgating this 
federal program.
    The FIP proposes stringent emission standards for heavy-duty 
vehicles and provisions to limit usage of older and dirtier heavy-duty 
trucks within the State and the FIP areas.
    The FIP describes federal rulemakings in progress for both light 
and heavy-duty categories of nonroad engines, and proposes additional 
measures in the FIP areas.
    The proposed FIP includes innovative control programs to reduce 
emissions associated with airports and, particularly within the South 
Coast, emissions from locomotives, ships, and ports.
    EPA proposes rules, specific to each area, for industrial and 
commercial sources, and proposes to implement on a statewide basis 
federal rules for architectural coatings, consumer products, aerosol 
spray paints, and pesticides. EPA also proposes an ``emissions cap'' 
program, which allows sources the flexibility to develop their own 
compliance approach in order to achieve the needed annual emissions 
reductions.
    Finally, EPA proposes to approve in part and disapprove in part the 
proposed South Coast CO State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
designed to address CO requirements of the 1990 Amendments to the Act.

DATES: Written comments on the proposal will be accepted throughout the 
public comment process. EPA expects to hold public hearings in early 
July 1994, and expects that the deadline for written comments will be 
approximately 30 days after the public hearings. EPA will give notice 
in the Federal Register of the public hearings and public comment 
deadline as soon as possible, but at least 30 days prior to the hearing 
dates.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed FIP and SIP promulgations 
must be received by EPA at the address below on or before the close of 
the public comment period. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, 
if possible) to: EPA Air Docket Section, Attn: Docket No. A-94-09, 
Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code--6102), Waterside Mall, Room 
M-1500, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 (phone 202-260-7549).
    Docket No. A-94-09, containing material relevant to this NPRM, is 
located at the above address. The docket is available for public 
inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon, and between 1:30 p.m. and 
3:30 p.m. EPA may charge a reasonable fee for copying.
    A copy of the docket is also available for review at: Regional 
Administrator, Attention: Office of Federal Planning (A-1-2), Air and 
Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Interested persons may 
make an appointment with Ms. Virginia Petersen at (415) 744-1265, to 
inspect the docket at EPA's San Francisco office on weekdays between 9 
a.m. and 4 p.m.
    Copies of this NPRM, the technical support document, and the 
regulatory impact analysis, are also available for review at the 
addresses listed below:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, 
California
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 8411 
Jackson Road, Sacramento, California
Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 3000 S Street, Suite 300, 
Sacramento, California
El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, 2850 Fair Lane 
Court, Bldg. C, Placerville, California
Feather River Air Quality Management District, 463 Palora Avenue, 
Yuba City, California
Placer County Air Pollution Control District, 11464 B Avenue, 
Auburn, California
Yolo-Solano County Air Pollution Control District, 1947 Galileo 
Court, Suite 103, Davis, California
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, 
Diamond Bar, California
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Colton Office, 851 S. 
Mt. Vernon Avenue, Colton, California
Southern California Association of Governments, 818 W. 7th Street, 
Los Angeles, California
Southern California Association of Governments, Inland Empire 
Office, 3600 Lime Street, Riverside, California
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 702 County Square 
Drive, Ventura, California

Electronic Availability

    This document is available May 5, 1994 as an electronic file on 
EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). For 1200 bps or 2400 bps 
modems, use 919-541-5742; for 9600 bps use 919-541-1447. The FIP NPRM 
will be under the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) board, in a section 
for ``Recently Signed Rules.'' Users should check the initial CAAA 
announcement screen for updates on file availability. Because of its 
size, the FIP NPRM will be divided into several pieces, and stored in 
the compressed ``ZIP'' archive format. The file names will begin with 
``FIP.'' If you need help in accessing the system, call the systems 
operator by phone at (919) 541-5384 in Durham, North Carolina.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For stationary and area source issues 
and general information on the FIPs, call EPA's FIP Hotline (415) 744-
1151 or Julia Barrow (415) 744-2434, at the Office of Federal Planning 
(A-1-2), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
    For mobile source issues, call EPA's FIP Hotline (313) 668-4361 or 
Jane Armstrong (313) 668-4471, at the Office of Mobile Sources, Motor 
Vehicle and Fuels Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, 
Michigan 48105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. Introduction
B. EPA's Goals
    1. Provide for the emissions reductions needed to meet EPA's 
obligations
    2. Develop the FIPs in a manner which encourages and assists the 
implementation of air quality measures by State and local agencies
    3. Minimize federal intrusion into state and local affairs
    4. Minimize adverse socio-economic impacts
    5. Ensure fairness with respect to impacts on population as a 
whole and on individual air pollution sources
    6. Ensure that the federal government does its part to 
contribute to the solution
C. Summary of the FIP Contents
    1. Required emission reductions
    2. Selection of control strategies
    3. Specific control measures
    a. Stationary/area source measures
    b. Mobile source measures
D. Role of State and Local Agencies
    1. SIP responsibilities
    2. State and local opportunities
E. Public Involvement
    1. Public participation in the development of the FIPs
    2. Public meetings prior to proposal
    3. Process for post-proposal public involvement
    4. Solicitation of comment

II. Background and Proposed SIP Actions

A. Description of Affected Areas
    1. Sacramento
    2. Ventura
    3. South Coast
B. SIP Status
    1. Introduction
    2. Sacramento
    3. Ventura
    4. South Coast
    5. State of California
C. Proposed Action on South Coast SIP Revisions
    1. CO Plan
    a. Statutory provision and General Preamble requirements
    b. Procedural requirements
    c. Emissions inventory
    d. Reasonably available control measures
    e. Attainment demonstration
    f. Quantitative milestones and RFP
    g. Adoption of mandatory measures
    (1) Enhanced I/M
    (2) Oxygenated fuels
    (3) Clean-fuel vehicle fleet program
    (4) Employee commute options program
    h. VMT forecast and contingency measures
    i. TCMs to offset growth in VMT
    j. Fully adopted and enforceable control measures
    k. Implications of EPA's proposed action
2. Ozone Rate of Progress Plan
    a. Statutory provisions and General Preamble requirements
    b. Description of plan
    c. Conditional approval of commitments
    d. Implications of EPA's proposed action

III. California FIP

A. Basis for the FIP Actions in Applicable law and EPA policies
    1. FIP Obligation
    a. Introduction
    (1) Passage of the 1990 Amendments
    (2) Applicable law
    (3) New law applies
    b. The FIPs must demonstrate attainment
    (1) What attainment deadline governs?
    (a) Background
    (b) Current law
    (2) These FIPs need not address new requirements other than the 
requirements to demonstrate attainment
    (a) Reasonable Further Progress
    (b) Reasonably available control measures, including reasonably 
available control technology
    c. FIPs may use new provisions providing additional flexibility
    d. Maintenance demonstration for South Coast
2. Other issues relating to EPA's authority
    a. Comprehensive FIP authorities under the Clean Air Act
    b. EPA authority to charge fees
    c. Restrictions on EPA's authority regarding fees
    d. Land use
    e. Parking management
    f. Authority to order the State to implement specific measures 
requiring the State to legislate or expand money
B. Overview of Components of Each FIP
    1. Introduction
    a. Control approach
    b. FIP enforcement
    c. Application of FIP requirements to OCS sources
    d. Application of FIP requirements to sources located in Indian 
country
    e. Proposed rules without regulatory text
    2. Common elements
    a. Mobile source regulations
    b. Stationary and area source regulations
    (1) Regulations for specific source categories
    (2) Regulations imposed statewide
    (3) Cap regulations
    3. Sacramento Ozone
    a. Reduction requirements for 1999 and 2005
    b. SIP rules
    c. FIP rules for 1999 and 2005
    d. 1999 attainment option
    (1) Onroad heavy duty trucks
    (2) Nonroad growth cap
    (3) No drive days
    (4) Recreational boat fees or prohibitions
    e. EPA's preferred option
    (1) EPA authority to initiate bump-up
    (2) Rationale for bump-up to ``Severe''
    (3) 2005 attainment option
    f. Summary of 1999 and 2005 attainment options
    g. Attainment demonstrations
    4. Ventura Ozone
    a. Reduction requirements
    b. SIP rules
    c. FIP rules
    d. Attainment demonstration
    e. Alternative attainment date discussion
    5. South Coast Ozone
    a. Reduction requirements
    b. SIP rules
    c. FIP rules
    d. Section 182(e)(5) provisions
    (1) statutory provision and General Preamble requirements
    (2) need for additional time to develop new technologies
    (3) federal role in support of technological development 
activities
    (a) Scope of EPA's responsibilities
    (b) Recent national initiatives
    (1) Climate Change Action Plan
    (2) Technology Innovation Strategy
    (3) Clean Car Initiative
    (c) SCAQMD Technology Advancement Office
    (4) Demonstration that progress requirements for 1990-2000 are 
met without need for Sec. 182(e)(5) measure reductions
    e. Attainment demonstration
    f. Alternative attainment date discussion
    6. South Coast CO
    a. Reduction requirements
    b. Attainment demonstration
    c. Alternative attainment date discussion
C. Stationary and Area Source Rules
    1. Introduction
    a. Source category description and significance
    b. Selection of control strategies
    (1) source-specific RACT rules
    (2) traditional stationary source category rules
    (3) cap regulations
    (4) new technology measures under section 182(e)(5)
    c. Future evolution of rules
    2. Regulations for specific sources
    a. Introduction and rationale for selection of sources
    b. Formica Corporation (Placer)
    c. Sierra Pine Limited (Placer)
    d. Michigan California Lumber Company (El Dorado)
    e. Reynolds Metals (Placer)
    3. Regulations for specific source categories in the FIP areas
    a. Introduction
    (1) rationale for selection of rules and reduction rates
    (2) relationship to existing and pending SIP provisions
    (3) relationship to other applicable FIP provisions
    (4) rule structure
    b. Solvent cleaning operations (Sacramento, Ventura)
    c. Wood products coatings (Sacramento, Ventura)
    d. Auto refinishing operations(Sacramento)
    e. Adhesives and sealants (Sacramento)
    f. Can and coil coating (Sacramento)
    g. Commercial bakeries (Sacramento)
    h. Municipal waste landfills (Sacramento)
    i. Livestock waste management (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)
    j. Fugitive emissions (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)
    (1) oil and gas production facilities and pipeline transfer 
stations
    (2) gas processing facilities, refineries, bulk plants, bulk 
terminals, and chemical plants
    k. Service stations (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)
    l. Waste burning (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)
    m. Residential water heaters (Sacramento)
    n. Stationary internal combustion engines (Sacramento)
    o. Industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, steam 
generators, and process heaters (Sacramento)
    (1) biomass boilers
    (2) gaseous/liquid fuel-fired boilers (equal to or greater than 
5 mmBTU)
    (3) gaseous/liquid fuel-fired boilers (greater than 1 but less 
than 5 mmBTU)
    p. Gas turbines (Sacramento)
    4. Regulations imposed statewide
    a. Introduction--rationale for statewide control
    b. Architectural coatings
    (1) relationship to national rule development
    (2) relationship to local rules
    (3) alternative reduction approaches
    (a) fees
    (b) corporate average VOC emissions (CAVE) limit
    (c) manufacturers bubble
    c. Consumer products
    (1) FIP promulgation of existing CARB rules
    (a) consumer products
    (b) antiperspirants and deodorants
    (2) aerosol paints
    (3) alternative reduction approaches
    (4) need for additional reductions
    d. Pesticides
    (1) Summary and applicability
    (2) Specific provisions
    (3) Reporting, recordkeeping and test methods
    (4) Relationship to State rules
    (5) Relationship to FIFRA
    5. Cap regulations
    a. Introduction
    (1) rationale for approach
    (2) reduction rate
    (3) withdrawal of rules based on SIP progress
    (4) relationship to other applicable FIP provisions
    (5) implementation and enforcement issues
    (a) compliance mechanisms
    (b) EPA resources
    (c) emission quantification mechanisms
    b. Control approach
    (1) rule structure
    (2) applicability and exemptions
    (3) determination of baseline emissions
    (4) compliance plans
    (5) reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements
    (6) penalties
    c. Industrial and commercial solvents and coatings
    d. VOC emissions associated with the manufacturing of products
    e. Disposal of materials containing VOCs
    f. Commercial food preparation and/or baking
    g. Petroleum and natural gas extraction, processing, and storage
    h. NOX emission sources
    (1) Source category description
    (2) Issues
    i. Alternatives to the FIP cap program
    (1) Trading of emissions
    (2) Manufacturers bubble for industrial and commercial solvents 
and coatings
    (a) introduction
    (b) withdrawal of rules based on SIP progress
    (c) relationship with other FIP provisions
    (d) implementation date
    (e) applicability
    (f) exemption limit
    (g) conceptual design
    (h) recordkeeping and reporting
    (i) implementation and enforcement issues
    (3) The use of other economic instruments to incentivize 
emission reductions
D. Mobile Sources
    1. Overview of mobile source issues and measures
    a. Emissions credit for the California Motor Vehicle Control 
Program
    b. Summary of mobile source FIP measures
    (1) Programs for light-duty vehicles
    (2) Programs for medium-duty vehicles
    (3) Programs for heavy-duty vehicles
    (4) Programs for nonroad vehicles and engines
    (a) nonroad heavy-duty engines
    (b) small nonroad equipment
    (5) Programs for national transportation sources and Federal 
activities
    (a) locomotives
    (b) commercial aviation
    (c) general aviation
    (d) military installations
    (6) Programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled
    (a) employee commute options programs
    (b) parking cash out
    (7) Special issues for mobile sources
    (a) inspection and maintenance
    (b) retrofit programs for mobile sources
    (c) adjustments based on local control of VMT growth
    2. Program for onroad light-duty vehicles and engines
    a. Overview
    b. Air quality significance
    c. Enhanced inspection and maintenance
    (1) Introduction
    (2) Enhanced I/M
    (3) Background
    (4) Summary of proposed Federal enhanced I/M program
    (a) Applicability
    (b) Enforcement
    (c) Network type
    (d) Test type and procedure
    (e) Vehicle coverage and test frequency
    (f) Waivers and special warranty protection
    (g) Enforcement and oversight
    (h) Convenience issues
    (i) Onroad testing
    (j) Program start date
    d. Enhanced in-use compliance programs for light-duty vehicles
    e. Onhighway motorcycles
    f. Discussion of emission registration and fee systems for 
light-duty vehicles
    g. Parking cash-out
    h. Importation of vehicles into California
    3. Programs for onroad heavy-duty vehicles and engines
    a. Overview
    b. Air quality significance
    c. Enhanced in-use compliance program for heavy-duty vehicles
    4. Programs for nonroad vehicles and engines
    a. Overview
    (1) Statutory authority
    (2) General nonroad background
    (3) Sierra Club suit
    (4) Rationale for implementing the federal programs in the FIP 
areas
    (5) California's Nonroad Program/Preemption
    b. Federal Nonroad Requirements
    (1) Federal Requirements for Compression Ignition Engines at or 
above 37kw
    (a) Applicability
    (b) Standards
    (c) Compliance Dates
    (d) Certification and Test Procedures
    (2) Federal Requirements for Spark Ignited Engines at or under 
19kw
    (a) Background
    (b) Overview of Program to Control Emissions from SI Engines 
under 19 kW
    (c) Standards
    (d) Regulatory Scheme
    (3) Federal Requirements for Spark Ignited Marine Engines
    (a) Overview of Requirements for Spark-Ignition Marine Engines
    (b) Definition of Spark Ignited Marine Engine
    (c) Applicability
    (d) Emission Standards
    (e) General Enforcement Provisions
    (f) Compliance Dates for Certifications
    (g) Averaging, Banking, and Trading
    c. Special FIP Measures
    (1) On-Highway Motorcycles and Nonroad Engines Used in 
Recreational Vehicles and Nonroad Motorcycles
    (a) Overview
    (b) Definition of On-Highway and Nonroad Motorcycles
    (c) Applicability
    (d) Standards
    (e) Certification and Test Procedures
    (f) Authority
    (2) Fees on Marine Pleasure Craft
    (3) Nonroad Compression Ignition Engines under 37kw and Nonroad 
Spark Ignited Engines over 19kw and less than 37kw
    d. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Nonroad Engines over 
37 kW
    e. National Transportation Sources
    (1) Introduction
    (2) Civil and Military Aviation
    (a) General Description of Category
    (1) Aircraft Operational Classes
    (2) Related Mobile Sources
    (3) Need for Control
    (4) Level of Control
    (b) Commercial Aircraft Operations
    (1) Overview
    (a) Airline Focus and Specific Sources Covered
    (b) Geographic Scope
    (c) Control Period
    (2) Key Regulatory Elements
    (a) Summary
    (b) Pounds per PEU Scheme
    (c) Fee System
    (d) Averaging and Trading
    (e) Reporting and Recordkeeping
    (f) Exemptions
    (3) Legal Authority and Regulatory Interactions
    (4) Ground Access Vehicles Controlled by Other FIP Elements
    (5) Issues for Comment
    (6) Aviation Working Group Issues/Concerns
    (c) Military Aviation
    (1) Overview
    (a) Military Air Base Operations
    (b) Control Strategy
    (c) Geographic Scope
    (d) Control Period
    (2) Key Regulatory Elements
    (a) Summary
    (b) Baseline Inventory and Emissions Cap
    (c) Averaging and Trading
    (d) Annual Compliance Determinations
    (e) Reporting Recordkeeping
    (f) Exemptions
    (3) Legal Authority
    (4) Issues for Specific Comment
    (d) General Aviation
    (1) Source Description
    (2) Overall Control Strategy
    (3) Key Regulatory Elements
    (4) Issues for Specific Comment
    (e) Public Aviation
    (3) Locomotives
    (a) Introduction
    (b) Freshly Manufactured Locomotives
    (c) Remanufactured Locomotives
    (1) Option I--National Regulations
    (2) Option II--California Only Requirements
    (d) Additional Measures for the South Coast
    (1) Fleet Average Standard Program
    (2) Compliance Program
    (3) Authority
    (4) Emission Reductions
    (5) Other Options
    (4) Marine Vessels/Ports
    (a) Background and Program Description
    (b) Control Strategies--Fee System Based on Emission Levels
    (1) Fee Categories
    (2) Emission Reduction Technologies
    (c) Control Strategies--Discount for Using Port Facilities while 
Hotelling
    (d) Control Strategies--Discount for Staying outside of the 
Region
    (5) Non-Aircraft Military Installations
    5. Impact of Economic Incentive Program Rule on Fee Programs in 
the FIP
    a. Introduction
    b. Requirements under the EIP
    (1) Surplus
    (2) Quantifiable
    (3) Enforceable
    (4) Consistent with SIP attainment and RFP demonstrations
    (5) Permanent
    (6) Uncertainty Provisions
    (7) Auditing
    (8) Reconciliation Procedures
    (9) Implementation Schedule
    (10) Administrative Procedures
E. Fuels Programs
    1. Reformulated Fuels
    a. Reformulated Gasoline
    b. California Reformulated Gasoline (Phase II)
    c. California Reformulated Diesel Fuel
F. Severe Area Requirements for Sacramento
    1. Introduction
    2. Employee commute options program
    a. Introduction and statutory requirements
    b. Program requirements and implementation approach
    c. Employer and compliance plan requirements
    d. ECO rule development issues.
    3. RACT for 25 ton per year sources
    a. Applicable requirements
    4. New source review
    a. Background
    b. Overview of Rule Requirements
    (1) BACT
    (2) Offsets
    (3) Statewide Compliance
    (4) Alternative Siting Analysis
    c. Existing NSR Rules
    d. Changes from Original APCD Rules
    (1) Changes to Address Severe Area Requirements
    (2) Changes to Address Federal Approvability
    (3) Changes to Address Federal Implementation
    e. Dual Permit Application and Review
    f. Operating Permits
    g. Federal Implementation and Delegation to Local Agencies
    5. TCMs to offset VMT increases
    a. Applicable requirements
    b. Demonstration that motor vehicle VOC emissions will not 
increase from one ozone season to the next
    6. Reformulated gasoline
    a. Provision satisfied in FIP/SIP actions above
G. Sec. 182(e)(5) New Technology Measures for the South Coast
    1. Introduction
    2. Commitment to adopt measures and schedule of emission 
reductions
    a. Stationary/area sources
    b. Mobile sources
    3. Commitment to adopt contingency measures
H. Attainment Demonstrations
    1. Introduction
    2. Baseline inventories
    a. Adjustments to State's emissions inventories
    b. Basis for projected emissions inventories
    c. Stationary sources
    (1) Sacramento
    (2) Ventura
    (3) South Coast
    d. Mobile sources
    (1) Highway vehicle emission factors
    (2) VMT estimates
    (3) Nonroad vehicle and engine emission inventory
    (i) Heavy duty engines greater than 50 hp
    (ii) Spark ignition engines less than 25 hp
    (iii) Recreational marine engines
    (iv) Locomotives
    (v) Aircraft and airports
    (4) Mobile baseline inventory summary
    3. Air quality data and modeling analyses
    a. Sacramento Ozone
    b. Ventura Ozone
    c. South Coast Ozone
    d. South Coast CO
    4. State and local control measures
    5. Attainment demonstrations
    a. Sacramento Ozone
    b. Ventura Ozone
    c. South Coast Ozone
    d. South Coast CO
I. Transportation Conformity
J. Delegation; FIP Implementation by State and Local Agencies
    1. State and local obligation to incorporate FIP requirements in 
operating permits
    2. Full transfer of authority through delegation
    3. Full transfer of authority through SIP approval
    4. Partial transfer of authority through delegation

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Federalism Implications

Appendix I

A. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Light-Duty Vehicles and 
Trucks
B. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
C. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Nonroad Engines over 37 kW

Proposed Revisions to CFR

40 CFR 52 Subpart GGG

40 CFR 52.2950--General FIP Provisions and Delegation
40 CFR 52.2951--New Technology Commitments under Sec. 182(e)(5)
40 CFR 52.2952--Stationary and Area Source VOC Cap Rules 
(Sacramento)
    Industrial and Commercial Solvents and Coatings
    VOC Emissions Associated with the Manufacturing of Products
    Disposal of Materials Containing VOCs
    Commercial Food Preparation and/or Baking
    Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, Processing, and Storage
40 CFR 52.2953--Stationary and Area Source VOC Cap Rules (Ventura)
    Industrial and Commercial Solvents and Coatings
    VOC Emissions Associated with the Manufacturing of Products
    Disposal of Materials Containing VOCs
    Commercial Food Preparation and/or Baking
    Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, Processing, and Storage
40 CFR 52.2954--Stationary and Area Source VOC Cap Rules (South 
Coast)
    Industrial and Commercial Solvents and Coatings
    VOC Emissions Associated with the Manufacturing of Products
    Disposal of Materials Containing VOCs
    Commercial Food Preparation and/or Baking
    Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, Processing, and Storage
40 CFR 52.2955--Stationary and Area Source NOX Cap Rules 
(Ventura)
40 CFR 52.2956--Stationary and Area Source NOX Cap Rules (South 
Coast) [Reserved]
40 CFR 52.2957--Consumer Product Rules
    (a) Consumer products
    (b) Antiperspirants and deodorants
40 CFR 52.2958--Aerosol Paint Rule
40 CFR 52.2959--Architectural Coating Rule
40 CFR 52.2960--Pesticides Rule
40 CFR 52.2961--Stationary and Area Source Rules
    (a) Solvent cleaning operations (Sacramento, Ventura)
    (b) Wood products coatings (Sacramento, Ventura)
    (c) Auto refinishing operations (Sacramento)
    (d) Adhesives and sealants (Sacramento)
    (e) Can and coil coating (Sacramento)
    (f) Commercial bakeries (Sacramento)
    (g) Municipal waste landfills (Sacramento)
    (h) Livestock waste (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)
    (i) Fugitive emissions from gas processing facilities, 
refineries, bulk plants, bulk terminals, and chemical plants 
(Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)
    (j) Service stations (Sacramento, Ventura, South Coast)
    (k) Waste burning (Sacramento, Ventura, South Coast)
    (l) Residential water heaters (Sacramento)
    (m) Stationary internal combustion engines (Sacramento)
    (n) Biomass boilers and steam generators (Sacramento)
    (o) Gas turbines (Sacramento)
    (p) RACT rule--Formica Corporation (Sacramento)
    (q) RACT rule--SierraPine Limited (Sacramento)
    (r) RACT rule--Michigan-California Lumber Co. (Sacramento)
    (s) RACT rule--Reynolds Metal (Sacramento)
    (t) Fugitive emissions from oil and gas production facilities 
and pipeline transfer stations (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)
    (u) Large industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, 
steam generators, and process heaters (Sacramento)
    (v) Small industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, 
steam generators, and process heaters (Sacramento)
40 CFR 52.2962--Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Motor 
Vehicles
40 CFR 52.2963--Enhanced I/M Program
40 CFR 52.2964--Importation of Vehicles
40 CFR 52.2965--Requirements for Engines Past Their Useful Life
40 CFR 52.2966--Enhanced In-Use Compliance for Heavy Duty Engines 
and Vehicles Program
40 CFR 52.2967--Nonroad Vehicles and Engines, On-Highway Motorcycles
40 CFR 52.2970--Civil Aircraft Operations
40 CFR 52.2971--Locomotives
40 CFR 52.2972--Military Aircraft Operations
40 CFR 52.2973--Ships and Ports
40 CFR 52.2975--Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Nonroad 
Engines over 37 kW
40 CFR 52.2999--Employee Commute Options Program Rule (Sacramento)
40 CFR 52.3000--General Permit Requirements (Sacramento)
40 CFR 52.3001--New Source Review (Sacramento)
40 CFR 52.3002--Emissions Reduction Credit Authorization 
(Sacramento)

Appendix to 40 CFR 52 Subpart GGG

40 CFR 81 Subpart C

40 CFR 81.305--Reclassification of Sacramento Ozone Nonattainment 
Area

I. Executive Summary

A. Introduction

    EPA issues this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under court orders to 
propose by February 1994, and promulgate by February 1995, federal 
implementation plans (FIPs) to attain the ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the Sacramento and Ventura areas,\1\ and to 
attain both the ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS in the South Coast 
area. These obligations arise from provisions of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments (CAAA) of 1977 and 1990, from successful citizen suits to 
compel disapproval of 1982 attainment plans for the three areas, and 
from district court orders requiring EPA to prepare federal plans 
demonstrating attainment of the NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\EPA is not currently under a district court schedule order 
for the Ventura FIP. EPA and the plaintiffs have, however, recently 
negotiated an agreement providing for a proposal and promulgation 
schedule consistent with those for the South Coast and Sacramento. 
The settlement agreement will be filed shortly with the court.
    \2\In the case of Sacramento, the lawsuit was filed by the 
Environmental Council of Sacramento and the Sierra Club; see ECOS v. 
EPA, No. CIVS 87-0420, slip op. (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 1991). The 
plaintiff in Ventura is Citizens to Preserve the Ojai; see CPO v. 
EPA, No. CV 88 00982 HLH. For the South Coast, disapproval of the 
1982 attainment plan followed litigation by a private citizen, Mark 
Abramowitz; see Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987). 
The South Coast FIP order resulted from a lawsuit brought by the 
Coalition for Clean Air and the Sierra Club, Inc.; see Coalition for 
Clean Air v. EPA (reported as Coalition for Clean Air v. Southern 
Cal. Edison), 971 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 
1361 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, these proposals are the result of the historical 
inability of each of the three areas to develop adequate state 
implementation plans (SIPs) under the Clean Air Act of 1977. Because of 
these failures, EPA was required by law to produce federal plans. The 
courts have interpreted that this federal responsibility was continued 
by the U.S. Congress even as it substantially amended the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990.
    Although EPA is issuing this NPRM today because we are legally 
required to do so, EPA intends to use this opportunity to assist 
renewed state and local efforts to achieve clean, healthy air for the 
citizens of California. Therefore, the agency has tried to keep one 
central principle in mind as we fashioned our approach: EPA wants to do 
this in conjunction with the ongoing efforts of the local communities, 
not simply impose federal plans upon them. EPA believes that if these 
combined efforts are to be successful, the FIP process must both 
develop appropriate emissions reduction strategies, and support the 
local-state-federal-public cooperation necessary to attain clean air. 
These proposals therefore contain not only the specific control 
strategies necessary to demonstrate attainment in each of the three 
areas, but also plans to coordinate, to the extent feasible, an 
expanded public participation process with that of each local air 
board. This coordination is especially important because each local air 
board is currently developing its own SIP under the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990. These SIPs must be adopted and submitted to EPA by 
November 15, 1994. If they can be approved by EPA, then these local 
plans can replace proposed federal controls. In light of these ongoing 
efforts, EPA strongly believes that a coordinated, inclusive process is 
the best way to address the regulatory, social and economic changes 
which will be required to achieve clean air.
    Looked at collectively, the plans proposed here will directly 
affect more than 15 million people--almost half of California's 
population--and virtually all businesses in the South Coast, 
Sacramento, and Ventura areas. In each FIP area the proposed stationary 
controls will require emission reductions from small commercial sources 
such as bakeries and print shops to large industrial sources such as 
petroleum refineries and large manufacturing operations. Most 
commercial and industrial activities will be affected. Proposed area 
source controls may result in cost increases and reformulation of 
products as diverse as hair spray, deodorant, pesticides and house 
paint. Mobile source emission reduction requirements for autos, trucks, 
planes, trains, boats, ships, and off-road equipment may result in 
higher costs to some and significant changes in the mode of 
transportation for others.
    These reductions are made even more difficult--and costly--because 
they must come on top of years of significant efforts and reductions. 
For example, the South Coast area has managed a reduction in peak ozone 
levels of nearly 75% since its worst days of the mid-1950's. Yet it 
remains the center of the worst air pollution in the country. 
Sacramento and Ventura, though not facing the same extreme levels of 
air pollution as the South Coast, have also made significant strides in 
reducing ozone levels; but they, too, remain close to the bottom of any 
urban area ranking of air quality levels.
    Taken together, the cost associated with the proposed pollution 
control strategies necessary to reach attainment in these three areas 
ranges from $4 billion to $6 billion per year over the next 16 years. 
While these are not new, additional costs (they were included in the 
analysis done prior to the passage of the CAAA of 1990), clearly part 
of developing these plans is coming to terms with the fact--regardless 
of which governmental body assumes responsibility for the effort--that 
most of the emission reductions that were easy or inexpensive were 
achieved in these areas some time ago.
    The obvious questions at this point are, ``What are the benefits of 
clean air for these areas? Is it really worth the cost?'' Ultimately, 
the second question will be answered by the citizens, and future 
citizens, who live in these communities. In order to make this 
judgement, citizens will need to know the answer to the first question. 
While we have a firm understanding of the many health, economic, and 
aesthetic benefits of clean air, quantifying these benefits has proved 
difficult.
    What we do know is that the reactivity of ozone causes health 
problems because it damages lung tissue and sensitizes the lungs to 
other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of 
ozone not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as 
asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Regular exposure 
to ozone for 6-7 hours at concentrations below the levels in the South 
Coast, Ventura or Sacramento has been found to significantly reduce 
lung function in normal, healthy people during periods of moderate 
exercise. Animal studies have demonstrated that repeated exposure to 
ozone for months or years can produce permanent structural damage in 
the lungs and accelerate the rate of lung function loss and aging of 
the lungs. It is also well accepted that ozone can cause significant 
crop yield losses, extensive damage to forests, and deterioration of 
buildings as well.
    We also know that exposure to elevated carbon monoxide levels is 
associated with impairment of visual perception, work capacity, manual 
dexterity, and learning ability, and with illness and death for those 
who already suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly angina or 
peripheral vascular disease.
    What we don't know enough about yet is how to assign a direct 
monetary value to protection from these air pollutants. Benefits such 
as reduced health care costs, increased employee attendance and 
productivity, increased crop yields, reduced materials damage, and a 
healthier ecosystem clearly have value. The quality of life values 
associated with more than 15 million people finally being able to 
breathe air free of unhealthful levels of smog and carbon monoxide must 
be added to the total as well. On balance, these values--when compared 
against the costs--were strong enough to compel the U. S. Congress to 
mandate that all Americans be provided with this public health 
protection. That is what the Clean Air Act is all about. Ultimately, 
these federal implementation plans, and the state and local efforts 
which will coincide with them, are about finally bringing that 
protection to the citizens of California.

B. EPA's Goals

    As the above discussion suggests, we seek to meet several goals as 
we engage in the development and promulgation of FIPs for these 
California areas. These goals compel EPA to go beyond normal boundaries 
of rule development and implementation. EPA views both the SIP and FIP 
processes as an opportunity to make real progress towards clean air on 
a variety of fronts. To do that, these FIPs must include more than 
rules which reduce emissions; they must also involve a concerted effort 
to make the process of bringing clean air to California work better. 
This effort will require even better cooperation and coordination among 
local, state and federal air pollution control agencies, better 
coordination with the other governmental agencies which must contribute 
to the solutions, and more public involvement and education. Success 
demands that everyone work together on creative and innovative 
solutions to the difficult air pollution problems these areas still 
face.
1. Provide for the Emissions Reductions Needed To Meet EPA's 
Obligations
    First and foremost, EPA's goal is to meet its obligations under the 
Clean Air Act and under court orders, to promulgate plans in 
Sacramento, Ventura, and the South Coast which provide for attainment 
of the health-based ozone and carbon monoxide standards. Due to 
historical failures of these three nonattainment areas to develop 
adequate plans themselves, the courts have determined that the Clean 
Air Act, as amended in 1990, requires EPA to provide plans now. 
Although EPA disagreed with the retention of the FIP obligations in the 
wake of the 1990 amendments, EPA takes its obligations, and their 
ultimate objective of clean air very seriously.\3\ In EPA's view, any 
efforts to fulfill other goals stated below must complement this 
ultimate objective of clean air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\EPA has previously published advance notices of proposed 
rulemakings (ANPRs) and/or notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRs) for 
FIPs in the three areas. For Sacramento, ANPRs were published on 
April 5, 1990 (55 FR 12669) and May 27, 1992 (57 FR 22194). For the 
South Coast, EPA published an ANPR on December 7, 1988 (53 FR 49494) 
and an NPR on September 5, 1990 (55 FR 36458). EPA published an NPR 
for Ventura on January 17, 1991 (56 FR 1754). While the approach of 
these FIPs is quite different, the reader should consult these 
notices for an account of the litigation, settlement agreements, 
modifications to the agreements, regulatory history, and EPA's then-
current interpretations of its obligations. For an account of EPA's 
views on timing and circumstances of these FIP obligations, see 
especially the executive summary of the South Coast NPR. See also 
Coalition for Clean Air, 971 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Develop the FIPs in a Manner Which Encourages and Assists the 
Implementation of Air Quality Measures by State and Local Agencies
    It is most appropriate for state and local agencies to play the 
lead roles in addressing their own air pollution problems. In fact, 
that is how Congress, through the Clean Air Act, intended it to work. 
Traditionally, this approach has placed EPA in the roles of technical 
advisor, grant officer, and, as a last resort when local or state 
responsibilities are not met, as a backstop. But the air quality 
problems faced by these California areas are tremendous, and despite 
their efforts the state and local governments have been as yet unable 
to provide a plan for attaining the health standards. It has therefore 
become necessary, both legally and practically, for EPA to play the 
backstop role at this time.
    As EPA pursues this role, we believe that we must do so in a manner 
which both encourages and supports the efforts of the state and local 
governments to meet their continuing air quality related 
responsibilities, especially regarding the development of the November 
15 SIP submittal. In short, this means moving beyond the mere 
fulfillment of our legal responsibilities toward the establishment of a 
full working partnership among all parties.
    Obviously, the first real test of this new partnership begins now. 
As has been previously discussed, these FIPs are being proposed at the 
same time as state and local agencies are preparing to meet many of the 
Act's most important requirements, including their own plans to address 
the very same obligation as these FIPs: attainment of the ozone 
NAAQS.\4\ EPA is concerned that issuance of comprehensive regulatory 
FIPs within the FIP time frame has the potential to disrupt the SIP 
planning process. State and local agencies will be in the process of 
designing air quality measures for legislative or board consideration 
at the same time the federal government is proposing to promulgate 
measures to cover the very same emission sources. At the very least, 
these parallel planning processes are likely to create confusion for 
the public and the regulated community. EPA's goal is to develop the 
FIPs in a manner that supports effective air quality planning by the 
responsible state and local agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\For carbon monoxide, the South Coast is revising its CO SIP 
which was submitted to EPA in 1992. The South Coast is currently 
scheduled to submit this revised SIP to EPA in November 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Minimize Federal Intrusion Into State and Local Affairs
    EPA will meet its obligations to prepare federal plans for clean 
air in these three areas of California, and EPA must, and will if 
necessary, implement the measures it promulgates. However, EPA firmly 
believes that clean air is more likely to be achieved faster, and in 
greater harmony with local economic and community goals, if its own 
role is minimized by effective state and local actions.
    EPA's current challenge to minimize federal intrusion is through 
the proposal and promulgation of these federal plans--plans which EPA 
hopes to see replaced by state and local regulations. Consequently, EPA 
will withdraw or rescind any federal measure it proposes or promulgates 
as soon as it can approve acceptable SIP measures submitted by the 
state which provide for commensurate emissions reductions. In fact, EPA 
hopes these FIPs will become obsolete as a regulatory matter. The 
remaining value of these FIPs would then be the partnerships and 
solutions which both minimize federal intrusion and enable the state 
and local agencies to achieve the clean air goals as the law envisions.
    To put this another way, while EPA's goal is to minimize federal 
intrusion into state and local decision making and implementation 
authority, only prompt action by California officials--within the 
timetables of the CAAA and the court ordered deadlines--can 
significantly diminish the FIPs' impact on the state. EPA intends to 
assist the state and local agencies in their efforts to adopt and 
submit ozone SIPs with the requisite emissions reductions and ozone 
attainment demonstrations. As pointed out earlier in this discussion, 
successful state and local action will allow EPA to withdraw the 
regulatory pieces of the federal plan or reduce the scope and 
stringency of its imposed or impending measures.
4. Minimize Adverse Socio-Economic Impacts
    EPA has attempted to fashion these proposed FIPs to meet the 
attainment obligations while trying hard to avoid unnecessarily severe 
social and economic impacts, both through the choice of the particular 
regulations and by the timing of their implementation. Despite these 
mitigatory approaches, federal regulation sufficient to achieve the 
NAAQS in these heavily polluted areas has the potential for significant 
social and economic disruption. This is the inevitable result of the 
extraordinary emission reductions required, the advanced level of 
control that already exists, and the constraints on EPA's authority and 
practical ability to enact and implement many of the most appropriate 
control approaches for these areas.\5\ Current control strategies in 
these areas, especially in the South Coast, already employ state of the 
art technology and regulatory design for many pollution sources. To 
achieve attainment in these areas, in effect, we must do even better. 
To mitigate the severe impact of further near-term emission reduction 
requirements, EPA has attempted to identify control options which 
provide emission sources with flexibility and incentives for 
technological development, product reformulation and pollution 
prevention. We will look to the public comments on the proposals to 
further identify such strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\The proposals in this rulemaking are designed to achieve the 
substantial emission reductions required in these three areas and 
are not necessarily appropriate for areas with lesser problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We want to emphasize here again that state and local agencies are 
in a far better position to tailor plans for the areas that minimize 
adverse impacts of the attainment obligations. Through proximity they 
have a better understanding of their emission sources and their local 
communities. They can also achieve significant mobile source reductions 
from transportation and land use measures that are beyond EPA's 
resources and authority to implement directly.
    For example, there is a growing body of evidence supporting the use 
of market-based programs, sometimes incorporating fees, to encourage 
emissions reductions and transitions to cleaner technologies and 
processes. Such policies can be effectively designed and implemented at 
the local level where a specific understanding of local conditions and 
economies can be integrated into a flexible program and, regarding fee-
based programs, where revenues can be redistributed within the 
community. A well designed program can effectively minimize the 
disruptive impacts of major emissions reductions. Conversely, federal 
measures for local implementation must be general enough to provide for 
enforcement from a distance, and have severe legal restraints relative 
to local revenue issues. The federal Miscellaneous Receipts Act, for 
example, requires revenues from any such federal fee-based programs to 
be deposited in the U.S. Treasury, thereby preventing their 
redistribution within the local community. In short then, locally 
designed and implemented plans become the best means of minimizing 
socio-economic impacts.
5. Ensure Fairness with Respect to Impacts on the Population as a Whole 
and on Individual Air Pollution Sources
    The extent of the air quality problems in these three areas, as 
well as principles of equity, demand that emission reductions must come 
from every source of pollution--from cars to refineries to hand-held 
spray paint. Fairness is an elusive goal--what seems fair to one may 
not seem fair to another--but there are a few facts to bear in mind as 
we formulate a plan for clean air: (1) Some emission sources have been 
required to reduce more than others in the past; (2) Some emissions can 
be reduced more cheaply than others; (3) Some individuals and sources 
of emissions can more easily afford to comply with air pollution 
regulations than others.
    Myriad sources comprise the pieces of the air quality problem, and 
each of these sources must be part of the solution. What part of the 
solution each will contribute, and how to fashion those contributions 
into a plan is where the challenge lies. EPA has and will continue to 
consider the issue of fairness as it develops these FIP strategies. We 
encourage the regulated community and the public to make sure that the 
clean air strategies which ultimately get implemented are fair by: (1) 
Constructively participating in the FIP public involvement processes; 
and (2) supporting the development of appropriate SIP measures to 
displace as much of each of the FIPs as possible.
6. Ensure That the Federal Government Does its Part to Contribute to 
the Solution
    The solution to these air quality problems will require the 
participation of all sectors that can contribute. There are several 
ways that these FIP proposals embody the federal government's 
contribution to the solution. First, EPA is meeting its legal 
obligations to provide plans for attainment in the FIP areas. EPA has 
proposed plans which, building upon existing state emission control 
strategies, will meet the ultimate goal of attainment. EPA hopes that 
this federal effort will, by actually providing a complete plan, 
leverage state and local efforts to complete their 1994 ozone 
attainment SIPs.
    Second, some of the federal rules proposed today would achieve 
reductions from emission sources over which the federal government has 
sole jurisdiction. Emissions from sources such as new locomotives, ship 
engines, aircraft engines, and some farm and construction equipment 
have not been previously included in state and local efforts to develop 
comprehensive and complete attainment plans. While EPA believes that 
these sources are appropriate for regulation, there remain unresolved 
legal and policy issues regarding the extent to which, if at all, EPA 
can or should continue to regulate them indefinitely. In other words, 
should SIPs, such as those due in November 1994, be allowed to take 
credit for federally-mandated reductions from these types of sources? 
EPA is requesting comment on this issue.
    Third, the FIPs proposed today include reductions from federal 
facilities such as military bases. EPA intends to continue working with 
other federal agencies to reduce emissions from their operations in 
these FIP areas as well as other nonattainment areas.
    Finally, as we have stated earlier, EPA views these FIPs as an 
opportunity to contribute much more than a comprehensive set of 
regulations. The ultimate goal of clean air requires public support and 
education, development of new clean technologies, use of 
environmentally sound modes of transportation, and a fundamental shift 
to include pollution prevention into our everyday decision making both 
at home and at work. Along with these proposed FIP rules, EPA as an 
agency is pursuing a set of initiatives which will contribute to these 
pieces of the clean air solution. These efforts include implementation 
of the President's Climate Change Action Plan; an increasing emphasis 
by the agency on public awareness of environmental issues and solutions 
and implementation of the National Environmental Education Act; 
participation in the development and funding of a government-wide 
Environmental Technology Initiative; and a direct, agency-wide focus on 
pollution prevention in every rulemaking we undertake. Over time, these 
efforts will provide significant emissions reductions not only for 
California, but across America as well.

C. Summary of the FIP Contents

    Under the Clean Air Act, nonattainment areas are classified 
according to the severity of their pollution problem. The attainment 
deadlines that are then assigned reflect the classification. The 
current classifications for the three FIP ozone nonattainment areas are 
set forth below. Also depicted are the attainment deadlines, which are 
as expeditious as practicable, but not later than the following dates: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Attainment
            Area                      Classification             date   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast..................  Extreme......................        2010
Ventura......................  Severe.......................        2005
Sacramento...................  Serious......................        1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a number of reasons, EPA believes that the control strategies 
available to the Agency to attain the ozone standard in the Sacramento 
area by 1999 could result in unacceptable socioeconomic hardship. For 
example, nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions within the Sacramento 
area are overwhelmingly from mobile sources. And, while significant 
reductions of mobile source NOX emissions will result from the 
scheduled phasing in of cleaner engines and fuels, this changeover to 
cleaner engines and fuels will take some time (e.g. manufacturing 
changes, replacement costs, infrastructure changes). This is especially 
true since owners legitimately want to continue to receive the benefits 
of a full useful life from their present vehicles and engines. 
Therefore, in order to get the planned emissions reductions earlier, 
i.e., before 1999, EPA must either restrict the use of current, dirtier 
vehicles and engines, or somehow force turnover in the current vehicle 
and engine fleet. That means considering options like no-drive days, 
and/or dramatically increasing the costs associated with operating 
vehicles and engines currently in use.
    Moreover, in order to attain by 1999, stationary sources in the 
Sacramento area would be required to reduce their volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) emissions by 20% by 1999, which because of the 
magnitude of reductions could lead to potential production cutbacks or 
shutdowns. As a result of these negative socioeconomic impacts, EPA is 
proposing, in addition to the 1999 attainment option, the option of 
reclassifying the Sacramento area to severe. EPA's reclassification 
proposal would move the attainment deadline to 2005, and would allow 
the Sacramento area, for purposes of attainment, to benefit from 
substantial emissions reductions without the use of more disruptive 
emissions reduction options. Even with the additional requirements 
associated with a severe designation (e.g. the Employee Commute Option 
program, and more stringent New Source Review requirements) the Agency 
believes that this 2005 deadline can result in attainment without the 
onerous consequences associated with Sacramento's current 
classification.
    The South Coast is classified as a serious CO nonattainment area 
and is required to attain the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, 
but not later than 2000.
    Given these attainment deadlines, the principal technical 
objectives of the proposed FIPs are to: (1) Determine the pollutant 
emission reductions needed to attain the NAAQS in each area; (2) select 
the additional control strategies best suited to achieve these 
reductions; and (3) develop specific measures for each strategy.
1. Required Emission Reductions
    The first task depends on the collection and analysis of critical 
data relating emissions to ambient concentrations. To the greatest 
extent possible, EPA's proposed FIPs use data compiled by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the responsible local 
agencies (e.g. the local air pollution control districts and councils 
of governments) regarding current and future sources and levels of 
emissions in each area. In order to remain consistent with state and 
local planning efforts, EPA has made adjustments to these data only 
where absolutely necessary to correct errors, improve the precision and 
currency of the data, or analyze more effectively the impact of control 
measures.
    Of necessity, the proposed FIPs rely on air quality measurements 
and meteorological input from the extensive CARB and district 
monitoring networks. Finally, in order to relate emissions levels to 
ambient pollutant concentrations, EPA has chosen to rely on modeling 
analyses developed cooperatively with the involved state and local 
agencies and used in their ongoing SIP development activities.
    These technical foundations of the FIPs are discussed in section 
III.H., and further details may be found in the technical support 
documents accompanying this proposal. The data and analyses will be 
revised to reflect the final FIP strategies and to conform, to the 
extent possible, with new information and assumptions used by the state 
and local agencies in the 1994 ozone SIPs for each area.
    The results of these complex technical assessments confirm the need 
for massive further reductions in emissions of the ozone precursor 
pollutants in each area.\6\ In the most challenging case, current 
levels of VOC must be reduced by 90 percent and NOX emissions must 
be reduced by 70 percent to reach attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the 
South Coast by the target date of 2010. In Ventura, approximately a 40 
percent reduction of both VOC and NOX appears to be necessary for 
ozone attainment by 2005. The reduction requirements for the Sacramento 
area are slightly lower, but still amount to roughly 40 percent for VOC 
and 30 percent for NOX by 1999 or 2005. Finally, approximately a 
45 percent reduction in CO emissions is needed in order to attain the 
CO standard in the South Coast Air Basin by 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\Ground-level ozone, more commonly known as smog, is formed 
when nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs) react with high temperatures. Strategies for reducing smog 
generally require reductions in both VOC and NOX emissions. 
Ozone causes health problems by damaging lung tissue and sensitizing 
the lungs to other irritants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Selection of Control Strategies
    EPA's selection of control strategies for the FIP areas began with 
a review of the existing emissions inventories to determine which 
pollution source categories were present in each area and the extent to 
which each category contributed ozone precursor (VOC and NOX) 
pollutant emissions. All mobile source categories are present in each 
FIP area with the exception of ocean-going vessels in Sacramento, but 
the relative importance of individual mobile source categories varies 
significantly among the three areas. While the South Coast area 
includes most industrial and commercial source categories, the 
emissions inventory for the Sacramento area includes very few of these 
sources. The importance of agriculture in Ventura County is reflected 
in the unusual proportion of that area's VOC inventory assigned to 
pesticides use. More details on the inventory profile for each area may 
be found in sections II.A and III.H.
    For stationary sources, EPA next reviewed the extent to which each 
category was currently controlled under either federal, state, or local 
regulations. In those few cases where the existing level of control 
failed to meet existing national requirements for application of 
reasonably available control technology (RACT), EPA prepared remedial 
regulations for specific industrial sources identified in section 
III.C.2., below.
    EPA then reviewed the potential for further reductions from each 
stationary source category in each area, based on upgrading the level 
of control to match that required by the best existing rules, by 
further enhancements to existing rules to reflect available technology, 
or by imposing requirements that could be met through technology 
transfer from similar sources. From this exercise, EPA selected and 
prepared most of the industrial and commercial source control measures 
discussed in section III.C.3.
    That brings us to the first decision point where the awkwardness of 
having the federal government undertaking air quality planning for a 
particular state or locality becomes obvious. How will the remaining 
emission reductions be apportioned among mobile sources, factories, and 
consumer products and services? The choice is best made with both a 
consideration of the costs and benefits associated with particular 
control measures and a knowledge of the local impacts that will occur 
when a specific choice is made. In addition, each locality has a 
different mix of industries in different states of economic health and 
with differing capabilities to absorb the costs of emission control.
    Lacking detailed, specific information about every emissions source 
in each FIP area, the choice EPA has made in this proposal is to seek 
further reductions in all categories of pollution sources generally in 
the same proportion as their remaining contribution to the problem. 
Given EPA's distant starting point in this area of regulation (i.e. EPA 
is not the local air board) this approach is as fair as EPA can be. 
This means that the FIPs' reductions are generally apportioned in an 
``equal,'' across-the-board fashion even though individual pollution 
sources or source categories may vary substantially in their starting 
points (the extent to which they have already reduced their emissions) 
and in their ability to achieve further emission reductions. Local air 
boards have a greater capacity for developing the kind of detailed, 
specific information about local emissions sources which can improve 
and replace these policies. EPA encourages the local boards to do so 
wherever possible.
    As a result, significant further reductions must be achieved by 
industrial sources, such as petroleum refineries, which may have 
already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in control equipment. 
EPA is proposing that these sources reduce their VOC and NOX 
emissions still further, not only through conventional, technology-
based regulations (for example, the fugitive emissions regulation 
presented in section III.C.3.j.), but also through market-based ``cap'' 
rules, which allow sources the flexibility to select their reduction 
approach so long as overall emissions are reduced annually (see section 
III.C.5.).
    Area source emissions must also be dramatically reduced through 
regulations that apply either to individuals or, in some cases, the 
national manufacturers and distributors of materials whose application, 
storage, or use contribute evaporative VOC emissions. The category of 
area sources proposed for new (or further) regulation in the FIPs 
includes such diverse substances or activities as clean-up solvents, 
architectural coatings, waste burning, landfills, pesticides, consumer 
products, livestock waste, and residential water heaters (see sections 
III.C.3. and III.C.4.).
    Certain of the area sources present special challenges both to the 
regulated community and to the regulator. For example, today's NPRM 
includes a proposal that manufacturers of pesticides not only continue 
to comply with existing state and federal rules that address toxics 
concerns but also reformulate their products sold in California to 
diminish VOC emissions (section III.C.4.d.). Regulation of other area 
sources, including most categories of consumer products, involves 
complex considerations of the extent to which additional reductions can 
be achieved without negatively affecting the products' quality or its 
effectiveness.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\In the case of consumer products, CARB has already undertaken 
these analyses and adopted regulations. These FIPs do not include 
any new requirements for these consumer product categories, but 
would make the existing state requirements federally enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA began its selection process for mobile source control 
strategies with those measures that were required in all states by the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and those measures being implemented 
by the State of California and local agencies. EPA considered the 
impact of these measures as well as the expected benefit of national 
mobile source rules in process. For example, the California Low 
Emissions Vehicle program (LEV) relies on advanced emission control 
technologies, clean gasoline, and an on-board diagnostics system which 
achieve substantial reductions beyond those which will result from 
federal cars. As described above, EPA then developed mobile source 
control strategies such that generally equal, proportional reductions 
would be achieved in all stationary, area and mobile source categories. 
EPA developed strategies which, if implemented, would result in cleaner 
vehicles and engines via further improvements in technology or mobile 
source users selecting alternatives with lower polluting 
characteristics. EPA also developed strategies which rely on declining 
emission limits for other remaining mobile source categories, both to 
provide sufficient reductions for attainment and to assure that each 
category of emission source was contributing to the solution.
    In 1990, passenger cars, other highway vehicles, nonroad engines 
and equipment, and the transportation facilities used in interstate 
commerce produced from 53 to 63 percent of the total inventory of 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and from 70 to 94 percent of the 
total inventory of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the FIP areas 
covered by this proposal. In order to demonstrate attainment of the 
ozone standard in these areas, EPA is proposing regulations which 
assure significant reductions in mobile source emissions--beyond those 
already expected from the continued turnover to newer, cleaner vehicles 
and engines. The mobile source category covers a very broad range of 
sizes of equipment, types of fuels, uses and operating modes, and 
extent of current pollution control. Therefore, there is no one measure 
or even one uniform type of measure which is proposed across the 
category to achieve the reductions needed for the attainment plans (see 
section III.D.1.).
    The ozone attainment responsibility also falls on mobile sources 
that may operate on a national (or even an international) scale. Many 
of these mobile sources have not previously been controlled and must 
now undertake for the first time challenging pollution abatement 
assignments. For example, EPA is proposing that locomotives and large 
ships work to reduce NOX and VOC emissions from their respective 
activities in the FIP areas (see sections III.D.4.e.(3). and (4).). 
Airline operators, though to some extent previously regulated for air 
quality purposes, will also be asked to make further emissions 
reductions from aircraft and other airport activities (see section 
III.D.4.e.(2).).
    In addition, high quality inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs 
for vehicles remain the single most cost effective and important 
measure for achieving mobile source emissions reductions. In the FIPs, 
EPA is proposing a program which follows closely the model for meeting 
the performance standards for all I/M programs nationwide, and which 
EPA could effectively implement. EPA and the State of California are 
continuing to hold discussions on a different enhanced program design 
which would meet the national enhanced I/M performance standard if 
implemented by the state. If an agreement is reached, appropriate 
legislation and regulations are adopted, and an approvable SIP revision 
is submitted, EPA will withdraw or rescind the FIP I/M program (section 
III.D.2.c).
    One reason that vehicle emissions continue to be such a large 
portion of total VOC and NOX emissions--despite increasingly 
stringent emission standards for vehicles--is because of high growth in 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This VMT increase reflects the simple 
facts that more cars are on the road today than ever before, and more 
people are driving more miles than ever before. In order to encourage a 
reduction in VMT, and in the number of cars on the road, EPA is 
proposing two programs designed to decrease growth in VMT by targeting 
single occupant vehicle use. The proposed measures will require 
increases in average occupancy in personal vehicles in Sacramento and 
encourage shifts to carpooling and public modes of transportation in 
all the FIP areas (sections III.F.2 and III.D.2.g). Various other 
strategies could be used to achieve decreases in VMT. As discussed 
below and elsewhere in today's NPRM, EPA resources, and statutory 
authority have constrained our ability to propose these possibly more 
effective strategies.
    In designing these FIPs, EPA has attempted, wherever possible, to 
structure the proposed FIP rules so that responsible state and local 
agencies can adopt the rules as part of their SIPs or accept EPA 
delegation to implement the federal rules (section III.J.). For 
example, the proposed New Source Review (NSR) regulations for the 
Sacramento FIP area tracks the existing rule format and terminology 
shared by the 5 Sacramento area air pollution control districts, rather 
than following the design of EPA's existing federal NSR regulations 
(section III.F.4.).
    While the emission reduction targets in Sacramento and Ventura are 
formidable, the overwhelming reductions needed for ozone attainment in 
the South Coast appear to require that each individual pollution source 
within the FIP area eventually abate its emissions almost completely. 
For practically every controllable source category, this ultimate 
degree of control is beyond a level now foreseeable with existing 
technology and control techniques.
    Congress recognized that this unique South Coast attainment 
challenge required sustained commitment to seek and apply new 
technological solutions. EPA's proposed FIP employs the special 
provision in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, which allows for 
commitments (rather than fully adopted regulations) as part of the 
South Coast ozone attainment demonstration. The South Coast FIP 
includes these commitments and outlines some of the federal activities 
currently underway to support the development and commercialization of 
new control technologies or pollution prevention techniques (see 
section III.B.5.d.).
    The state has already submitted a SIP for the South Coast 
demonstrating attainment of the CO NAAQS by the year 2000. This 
demonstration relies primarily on existing state programs for clean 
fuels and vehicles, supplemented by an enhanced motor vehicle 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. Since the state has not yet 
developed and submitted legislation and regulations to implement an 
enhanced I/M program, EPA is proposing to complete the state's 
attainment demonstration with a single federal measure: the contractor-
run I/M program discussed in section III.D.2.c. As discussed above, EPA 
believes that an I/M program is a necessary part of the ozone FIPs as 
well.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\See earlier discussion on I/M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Specific Control Measures
    a. Stationary/area source measures. With few exceptions, industrial 
and commercial sources in the FIP areas are already subject to air 
pollution controls that match or exceed the stringency of rules applied 
elsewhere in the country. In the Sacramento FIP area, however, EPA was 
able to identify four major industrial facilities (Michigan-California 
Lumber Company; Formica Corporation; SierraPine Limited; and Reynold's 
Metals) for which the applicable local regulations do not reflect the 
minimum level of control required nationally. The state and local air 
districts remain under an obligation to adopt and submit ``RACT'' 
regulations for these sources. Since these agencies (specifically, 
Placer County and El Dorado County Air Pollution Control Districts) 
have not yet acted, EPA is today proposing detailed provisions that 
will contribute to attainment in the Sacramento area by supplementing 
the applicable regulations to match available control technology. See 
section III.C.2, and proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(p)-(s).
    EPA selected a second set of proposed FIP controls by comparing 
existing air pollution regulations in each FIP area with the best 
existing state or local regulation, on a category-by-category basis. 
Where a more effective control measure that could provide significant 
reductions already existed (either as an adopted or draft rule), EPA 
has adapted and proposed the rule for federal administration in the 
applicable FIP areas. Since existing South Coast controls are generally 
the most stringent in the country, many of these proposed rules were 
based on existing SCAQMD regulations and are proposed for the 
Sacramento and Ventura areas. In some cases, the proposed FIP rules 
newly regulate sources in the area (e.g., commercial bakeries and 
municipal landfills in the Sacramento FIP area). In other cases, the 
proposed rules significantly strengthen existing regulatory provisions 
(e.g., tighter coatings and solvents limits in Sacramento and Ventura). 
The costs, regulatory strategy, and technical basis of these measures 
are discussed individually in section III.C.3. The regulations 
themselves appear in proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(a)-(o) and (t)-(v).
    EPA is proposing to enforce on a statewide basis a group of four 
area source rules. EPA proposes that they be administered on a 
statewide basis primarily because ensuring compliance only within the 
FIP areas would be relatively ineffective. EPA's rationale for 
statewide control appears in section III.C.4.a.
    The first of these controls simply proposes CARB's existing 
consumer product regulations, which regulate products such as 
detergents, floor finishes and deodorants, and are enforced against 
manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. While the CARB regulations 
have been adopted and enforced by the state for several years, 
California has not yet submitted them to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. 
The proposed FIP measure would make the measures federally enforceable, 
and is discussed in sections II.B.1. and III.C.4.c. The proposed 
regulation is 40 CFR 52.2957.
    The second proposed statewide control is based on a draft CARB 
consumer product rule for the aerosol spray paint category, as well as 
rules developed by SCAQMD and the Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District. Proposed rule 40 CFR 52.2958 would limit the VOC content of 
spray paints that could be sold or used within the state.
    The third proposed statewide control deals with one of the largest 
nonmobile sources of VOC: architectural and industrial maintenance 
(AIM) coatings, including most primers, paints, lacquers, stains, and 
specialty coatings used for residential, commercial, and industrial 
purposes. The proposed rule progressively tightens restrictions on VOC 
content in three phases of reduction through the year 2003 in order to 
allow for development of additional VOC reduction strategies. The FIP 
rule may be amended if appropriate, in the event that EPA issues a 
national AIM coatings rule.
    The fourth rule proposed for statewide application is designed to 
reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and structural pesticides use. 
Many other pesticides are subject to CARB's consumer product rule and 
EPA's proposed 40 CFR 52.2957. The proposed agricultural and structural 
pesticides rule, 40 CFR 52.2960, is necessarily complex and is 
discussed extensively in section III.C.4.d. The rule initially requires 
producers to submit VOC analyses of their pesticides. Following EPA 
review of the data, EPA will implement a six-step procedure for setting 
a VOC limit to achieve target VOC reductions.
    In order to achieve further necessary reductions from stationary 
and area sources, EPA proposes declining emission ``cap'' rules in each 
of the FIP areas. The cap rules apply to a large portion of the 
stationary sources of VOC and NOX. For these sources, the rules 
require annual reductions in emissions from 2001 through 2005, but 
allow each source the flexibility to determine how reductions are to be 
made. If a 1999 attainment option is selected for Sacramento, the 
Sacramento VOC cap rule would require that all reductions be achieved 
in the attainment year (i.e., by January 1, 1999). EPA strongly 
encourages affected sources to identify pollution prevention approaches 
as the ideal response to this market-based initiative.
    The proposed cap rules require sources to submit compliance plans 
in the year 2000, showing how the mandated reductions will be achieved, 
using 1990 actual emissions as the baseline but subtracting emissions 
required to be reduced through any SIP or FIP rules in the period after 
1990. EPA is proposing VOC cap rules in each area, with annual 
reductions of between 4 and 9 percent, depending upon public comment 
and EPA's final determination of the appropriate and necessary 
reduction rate. A NOX cap rule with annual reductions of between 6 
and 9 percent is proposed only in Ventura, since further NOX 
reductions are not needed in Sacramento, and the South Coast has 
recently adopted a cap program (RECLAIM) achieving comparable 
reductions to the proposed FIP NOX cap rule.
    EPA is inviting comment on a number of important issues associated 
with these innovative rules. The Agency particularly solicits comment 
on whether a trading component should be added to increase compliance 
options, and whether it is preferable to establish a manufacturers' 
``bubble'' rule for industrial and commercial solvents and coatings, 
rather than regulating users (see III.C.5. and 40 CFR 52.2952-52.2955).
    b. Mobile source measures--(1) Programs for vehicles. Because the 
magnitude of needed emissions reductions is so great, the FIPs seek to 
build on reductions already being achieved by the California Low 
Emission Vehicle (LEV) program. In order to achieve these reductions, 
EPA is asking for comment on the need for and benefits of adopting an 
enhanced in-use compliance program which would provide extra in-use 
emissions reductions beyond the substantial reductions already provided 
by the California LEV program.
    Specifically, EPA is proposing to strengthen the recall program for 
cars and light and medium duty trucks. Vehicle manufacturer's recall 
responsibilities will be determined by testing the emissions 
performance of typical vehicles instead of only vehicles which have 
been properly maintained. EPA is also proposing to increase 
manufacturer's liability for repair of vehicle emissions control 
equipment. Both of these proposals are intended to provide incentives 
to manufacturers to increase the durability of the emissions control 
systems in the vehicles they produce (III.D.2.d., Appendix I.A., and 40 
CFR 52.2962).
    EPA is also seeking comment on a program which would require that 
on-board diagnostic systems of new vehicles be capable of 
communicating, to on-road sensors, the operational status of the 
emission control system. This approach would be intended to 
particularly target high emitting vehicles, and would remain in effect 
for the life of the vehicle (III.D.2.d.).
    For the South Coast, EPA is also proposing a requirement that 
certain commercial vehicle fleets make the majority of their purchases 
from inherently low emitting vehicles (ILEVs),\9\ including, for 
example, natural gas and electric vehicles, 40 CFR 52.2962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\Beyond very low exhaust emissions, these vehicles must have 
little or no evaporative emissions even when emissions control 
systems malfunction. In practice this means using fuel sources which 
have little or no evaporative emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For light-duty vehicles, EPA proposes to prohibit California 
residents from importing or registering vehicles purchased outside of 
California that are not certified to meet California's stringent 
vehicle standards. This prohibition would begin in 1999, and is 
described in section III.D.2.h. The proposed regulation is 40 CFR 
52.2964.
    Given the level of emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate 
attainment in each of the three FIP areas, EPA believes it is 
absolutely essential to propose an enhanced inspection and maintenance 
(I/M) program for vehicles which meets national performance standards. 
As previously discussed, the structure of the FIP proposal will follow 
EPA's model program. If the state enacts and submits approvable 
legislation and regulations for its own enhanced program which meets 
national performance standards, EPA will withdraw or rescind the FIP I/
M program. This issue is described in more detail in sections 
III.D.1.b.(7).(a). and III.D.2.c. The proposed regulation is 40 CFR 
52.2963.
    For heavy duty trucks, the FIP proposals include tighter 
hydrocarbon (HC) and NOX exhaust standards for model years 1999 
and beyond, strict evaporative HC standards to minimize shifting from 
diesel to gasoline beginning in 1999 as well, and a declining average 
NOX level for fleet operators beginning in 2000. Fees for fleet 
emission averages above the declining NOX targets are proposed to 
help maintain turnover to the newer, cleaner engines.
    At the option of the fleet owner, interstate trucks may comply with 
limitations on the number of stops allowed within FIP areas beginning 
in 1998 rather then complying with the declining NOX levels. The 
heavy duty truck proposals are discussed in section III.D.3. and the 
proposed regulations are in 40 CFR 52.2966.
    Finally, for the 1999 attainment date option in Sacramento, EPA is 
proposing to include an accelerated retirement strategy for on-highway 
heavy duty engines. This accelerated retirement strategy is discussed 
in section III.B.3..
    (2) Programs for nonroad vehicles and engines. EPA is proposing to 
regulate a number of categories of nonroad vehicles and equipment: 
Nonroad heavy duty engines, small nonroad equipment, motorcycles and 
recreation vehicles, and marine engines. See discussion in section 
III.D.4.(a)-(d).
    For nonroad heavy duty engines (at or above 50 horsepower, 37 kW), 
a phased approach would begin with a national program targeted for 
final rulemaking in May 1994. In the next phase, EPA is proposing 
additional standards for the FIP areas and increased manufacturers 
liability for repair of emissions control systems to help ensure 
continued low emission performance. An emissions- based, fleet-average 
fee system with a declining emission levels is proposed for the FIP 
areas to maintain turnover to the cleaner engines. For the 1999 
attainment date option in Sacramento, EPA is proposing a growth cap for 
the nonroad heavy equipment category. This cap is discussed in section 
III.B.3.
    For small nonroad equipment (spark ignited engines at or below 25 
horsepower, 19kW), EPA is proposing to employ a two-phased strategy of 
first setting national standards for implementation by 1995, and then 
employing negotiated rulemaking to achieve still further reductions 
after 2000 or 2001. This strategy reflects discussions already underway 
at the national level. The standards EPA will propose in the first 
phase will be similar to the State of California's regulation for 
utility and lawn and garden equipment engines manufactured in 1995 and 
beyond. In both phases, the effect of this action will be to extend 
regulations to engines which California is currently pre-empted from 
regulating (III.D.4.b.2.).
    The FIP proposals include more stringent exhaust emissions 
standards for motorcycles and recreational vehicles such as mopeds, 
dirt bikes, all terrain vehicles (ATVs), and go-karts sold in 
California after January 1996. The level of stringency may require 
substitution of 4-stroke nonroad engines for some current 2-stroke 
applications (III.D.4.c.(1).).
    Finally, EPA is proposing to apply national emission standards, 
scheduled to be proposed in 1994 and finalized by November 1995, to 
spark-ignited marine propulsion engines such as outboard engines, 
personal watercraft (``jet-skis,'' etc.), and sterndrive and inboard 
engines. These national rules will apply to new spark ignition marine 
propulsion engines produced after August 1, 1998 and are proposed to be 
combined with a registration/permitting and fee system for marine 
engine use in FIP area waters. Marine engines meeting the new national 
standards would be exempt from the fees which are proposed to begin in 
2004 (III.D.4.b.(3). and III.D.4.c.(2).). For the 1999 attainment 
option in Sacramento, EPA is proposing a fee system or boating 
restriction to reduce emissions from recreational boating by one-third.
(3) Program for National Transportation Sources and Federal Activities
    The litigation which resulted in today's FIP proposals arose in 
part from the South Coast's concern that emission regulation of 
``federal sources'' such as those associated with interstate 
transportation or military bases was not keeping pace with controls in 
other sectors. In order to achieve appropriate emissions reductions in 
these areas, the FIP proposals include controls for locomotives, 
airports and aircraft, large marine vessels, and military 
installations.
    For locomotives, EPA is relying on a national regulation that will 
apply to NOX emissions from newly manufactured locomotive engines 
in two phases, first in 2000, then in 2005. Tighter standards for 
remanufactured locomotive engines are also being proposed and may be 
implemented either statewide or nationwide. Because the necessary 
reductions in NOX emissions are so significant in the South Coast, 
EPA is proposing a supplemental program for railroads in the South 
Coast FIP. This program would require that railroads reduce their 
average emission rate of their fleet by 2010 to a level consistent with 
the reductions proposed for stationary sources. See discussion in 
section III.D.4.e.(3) and proposed regulation 40 CFR 52.2971.
    As described in section III.D.4.e.(2), EPA is proposing that 
commercial aviation operations be subject to an environmental 
performance target in the FIPs, including mobile emissions sources 
under the direct control of the airline (aircraft, aircraft auxiliary 
power units, ground service equipment, captive vehicle fleets, and any 
other airline-operated mobile source). Declining emissions rate targets 
for these emissions, consistent with the caps proposed for stationary 
sources, would be set beginning with the ozone season of 2001. This 
level of allowable emissions would translate into an industry-wide 
environmental performance factor expressed as an allowable pounds of 
pollutant per passenger equivalent unit. Airlines which exceed their 
allowable performance factor would pay a fee based on the amount of 
excess emissions. In order to provide additional flexibility in meeting 
these targets, EPA is also proposing intra-airline averaging for 
airlines with operations at multiple airports within the same FIP area. 
The Agency is also seeking comment on the establishment of an inter- 
airline credit and trading program. The proposed regulation is 40 CFR 
52.2970.
    For general aviation in the FIP areas, EPA is proposing two fee 
systems in the alternative. One proposal would simply charge a fee for 
each takeoff sufficient to discourage use without making general 
aviation prohibitively expensive. The second approach would incorporate 
an exemption into the fee program for engines that are certified to 
``clean'' emissions levels. EPA also requests comment on 
differentiation of fees based on airport proprietor's programs for 
other emissions reductions such as refueling vapor recovery and other 
alternative control programs. See discussion in section 
III.D.4.e.(2).(d). and proposed regulation at 40 CFR 52.2970.
    Section III.D.4.e.(2).(c). and (5) describes EPA's proposed 
military installation bubble for each FIP area encompassing all mobile 
emission sources under the control of the Department of Defense (DOD), 
with the exception of military aircraft and vessels. This includes 
auxiliary power units, ground service equipment, captive vehicle 
fleets, privately owned vehicles, and any other mobile source operated 
within the boundaries of the installation. A declining emissions cap 
would apply similar to the cap imposed on stationary sources within 
each FIP area. Each installation would be required to determine a 
baseline inventory from which the reductions will be achieved. The 
proposed regulation, 40 CFR 52.2972, allows trading among active bases 
and credit for base closures that generate permanent emission 
reductions.
    Marine vessels are the largest uncontrolled source of emissions of 
NOX and sulfur oxides in California. In order to encourage 
emissions reductions from these vessels in a manner consistent with 
existing international standards, EPA is proposing a flexible control 
strategy for the reduction of emissions from ships in port. 
Specifically, a user fee would be based on the type emission control 
that a particular ship used. Ship operators would be allowed (and 
encouraged) to reduce the fees which would be applied by using low 
emission engines, using electrical onshore power service instead of the 
ship's engines while in port, and for travelling outside of the Channel 
Islands. Compliance with all three operational changes would eliminate 
the fees altogether. Ships that use South Coast ports more frequently 
would be faced with higher annual fees, and therefore would have a 
greater incentive to make operational changes and install more 
efficient emission control devices to reduce or avoid fees.
    In Ventura there are no large ports, but marine vessel emissions 
are still large contributors to the area's NOX inventory, because 
of the emissions that are blown onshore from passing ships by the 
prevailing winds. As mentioned above, the South Coast FIP includes a 
discount in the proposed fee system to encourage ships to move further 
out to sea when passing the Ventura coastline. See discussion of marine 
vessels and ports in section III.D.4.e.(4). and proposed regulation 40 
CFR 52.2973.
(4) Programs to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
    As described earlier, vehicle emissions continue to be a large 
portion of future total VOC and NOX emissions inventory, despite 
increasingly stringent emission standards, because of projections of 
continued high growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Due to current 
growth projections, EPA is proposing programs designed to decrease 
growth in VMT by targeting single occupant vehicle use. The proposed 
regulations require increases in average occupancy in personal vehicles 
in Sacramento (for the 1999 attainment option only) and encourage 
shifts to carpooling and public modes of transportation in all the FIP 
areas. Various other strategies could be used to achieve decreases in 
VMT, but most depend on local planning and implementation to be 
successful. Unfortunately, EPA resources and statutory authority have 
constrained our ability to propose these possibly more effective 
strategies. These constraints are discussed generally in section 
III.A.2.
    Finally, for purposes of the 1999 attainment date option for 
Sacramento, EPA is proposing a restriction on the use of on-road 
vehicles such that each vehicle in the Sacramento nonattainment area 
would be prohibited from being driven on one day out of five weekdays. 
This is, of course, one of the least desirable of mobile source options 
available to EPA, but, as is described in detail in III.B.3.d.(3), it 
appears necessary in order to meet the 1999 attainment deadline. It is 
also one of the main reasons why EPA is recommending the 2005 
attainment option.

D. Role of State and Local Agencies

1. SIP Responsibilities
    EPA has every intention of using the FIP process to propose and 
promulgate real solutions to the ozone problems in Sacramento and 
Ventura, as well as both the ozone and carbon monoxide problems in the 
South Coast. EPA will implement these solutions as it becomes 
necessary. However, under the CAAA of 1990, nothing in the FIPs 
proposed today or to be finalized in February, 1995 releases the state 
and local governments from their independent legal responsibilities to 
meet all requirements of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, failure to 
meet any of these requirements will subject applicable areas of the 
state to the mandatory sanctions required by section 179 of the Act.
    One of the most important responsibilities that any nonattainment 
area has under the Clean Air Act is to adopt and submit to EPA in 
November 1994, comprehensive plans to attain the ozone standard by its 
applicable attainment date. Regardless of the FIPs, the state must 
still implement plans sufficient to demonstrate attainment. Nothing in 
the FIP can relieve them of that responsibility under the law. As 
discussed earlier, EPA is requesting comment on whether there should be 
an exception to this requirement. Specifically, comment is requested on 
whether, as a legal and policy matter, states should be allowed to take 
credit for emission reductions associated with FIP controls applied to 
sources over which EPA has sole jurisdiction.
2. State and Local Opportunities
    EPA hopes that state and local agencies will take full advantage of 
the opportunities provided by the FIP development process. EPA believes 
that the emission reduction strategies proposed today, together with 
the public involvement process described below, can be used to leverage 
support for state and local emission reduction strategies. EPA has 
purposefully chosen to maximize the number of strategies in this 
proposal that could be adopted wholesale by state and local agencies. 
In other cases, the necessarily blunt EPA strategies should provide 
support for better tailored state and local regulation of the same 
emission sources. Finally, state and local agencies have the ability to 
adopt innovative emissions growth management, transportation control 
and land use strategies that EPA cannot propose. These types of 
strategies adopted at the local level could displace the more onerous 
strategies in the FIPs.

E. Public Involvement

1. Public Participation in Development of the FIPs
    One of the more difficult aspects of developing these FIPs has been 
to build in meaningful public participation. Sufficient time is at best 
a luxury in meeting the court-ordered deadlines to promulgate the final 
FIPs. Conversely, sufficient time is an absolute necessity for full 
public involvement. An inevitable conflict arises when trying to meet 
both of these needs.
    If community-wide support for the changes necessary to reach 
attainment were easy to achieve, there would be no need for these FIPs 
or even the attainment deadlines in the first place. Unfortunately, any 
level of real public participation in matters this controversial can 
easily degenerate into parochial disagreements with no real benefit to 
anyone involved. Any participation process which facilitates consensus 
solutions must be designed to minimize these disagreements.
    Finally, given the limited resources available to EPA for actually 
developing the strategies in these FIPs, it is a measure of the 
Agency's commitment to public involvement that we have and will 
continue to direct them toward increasing public involvement in this 
effort.
    Irrespective of these difficulties, EPA has and will continue to 
engage in every possible effort to make the final plans a product of 
local involvement and consensus. We will do so because we believe 
strongly that we can best fulfill the goal of the Clean Air Act--that 
is, clean and healthy air for all Americans--and meet our court-ordered 
obligations by preparing these plans with the state and local 
communities, not in spite of them. We are highly cognizant of the fact 
that each area affected by our rules has its own unique qualities and 
concerns. We also believe that the only way in which EPA can fully 
understand those concerns--and take them into account--is through 
direct participation by the affected interests and communities.
    Ultimately we believe that the success of any air quality plan--
federal, state or local--will be dependent upon the level of 
understanding and support which exists in the community regarding the 
need for and benefits of the plan. Without that understanding and 
support, we are unlikely to meet the difficult challenges which lie 
ahead.
2. Public Meetings Prior to Proposal
    As a result of these beliefs, we have initiated an effort to 
develop these plans in a manner which encourages local input. First, 
our plans, and their assumptions, were built with significant input 
from state and local air agencies, other local and state officials, and 
representatives of various affected interests. EPA has tried to use the 
best and most current data that these entities could provide within our 
FIP proposal timeframe.
    Second, our FIP development effort has included eight informal, 
pre-proposal public meetings (two each in Ventura and Sacramento, and 
four in the South Coast). The purposes of these meetings were to: (1) 
Begin the process of education and interaction among the various 
parties--local, state, federal, and the public; (2) solicit initial 
thoughts and concerns from the affected communities as we developed the 
proposals; and (3) solicit suggestions about how best to continue the 
interactive process through the development of the final plans due in 
February 1995. The results of these meetings are found throughout these 
FIP proposals, both in the emission reductions strategies and in the 
post-proposal process.
    Finally, our FIP development process has included numerous staff-
to-staff discussions among the local and state air boards and EPA. The 
results of these discussions, as well, are found throughout the 
proposals.
3. Process for Post-Proposal Public Involvement
    In order to organize and facilitate meaningful community 
involvement during the period between proposal and the final plans, EPA 
plans to enhance the normal notice and comment period. Our primary 
effort in this area will consist of working to coordinate the FIP 
processes with the ongoing local processes so as to minimize public 
confusion and coordinate planning resources. This approach is based on 
comments and requests received in pre-proposal meetings, and will 
rely--to the greatest extent feasible--on the processes already in 
place at the local level. Following proposal of the FIPs, EPA will 
continue to meet with responsible state and local air agencies to 
coordinate the SIP and FIP public processes, as well as with community 
groups, environmental and business interests.
    A set of conflicts exist though, which may make it necessary for 
the FIP processes to also follow its own separate track. For example, 
the local air boards are currently developing plans which not only meet 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, but also must 
meet the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. No such 
California specific requirement exists for the FIPs.
    Further, EPA believes that it is necessary for the FIPs to apply 
many of the controls to all three areas or in some cases, state-wide. 
Reliance on the various local SIP processes to engage the public on 
these particular FIP measures would make it difficult for interested 
parties to participate fully in all aspects of the dialogue, and could 
lead the public to believe that EPA has the ability to tailor these 
measures to the conditions of the local areas.
    Finally, EPA must meet the mandates of the federal courts and the 
terms of settlement agreements which require it to promulgate final 
FIPs by February 1995. This deadline cannot be changed by EPA and means 
that coordination with ongoing local processes must be constrained to 
fit within EPA's timeframe.
    For these reasons, EPA believes that we should take additional 
steps outside of the local processes in order to provide an opportunity 
for productive public input on the proposed FIPs in a timeframe which 
is consistent with the final promulgation deadline of February 1995. 
These steps will include:
    (a) Following proposal of the FIPs, EPA will convene a public 
workshop in each FIP area in order to describe in some detail our 
proposals, to help us identify appropriate issues for in-depth 
examination, and to encourage local participation and support for 
issue-specific focus meetings.
    (b) Depending on the level of support that exists, issue-specific 
focus meetings may be held in each FIP area, and possibly a central 
forum for selected statewide issues, to help develop comments on the 
FIP issues of greatest concern. The goals of each issue-specific group 
will be to develop a consensus position, if possible, and to submit 
consensus comments, if possible, on its set of FIP issues. EPA will 
also encourage each group to direct its comments to the state and local 
air agencies which will be developing ozone plans due in November 1994.
    (c) EPA will not ``select'' specific attendees or chairpersons for 
these focus meetings, but will encourage participation that is 
sufficiently representative and inclusive so as to make any consensus 
real and meaningful. To the extent possible, EPA will provide 
contractor and staff support for the meetings. EPA will encourage the 
local air districts and the Air Resources Board to provide staff 
support as well.
    (d) All group meetings sponsored by EPA will be open to the public. 
The number of meetings for each issue area will vary by issue.
    (e) Following the workshops and group meetings, formal public 
hearings will be held in each FIP area, probably in early July 1994. 
Notice will be given of the formal public hearings in the Federal 
Register thirty (30) days prior to such hearings.
    (f) The public comment period will be held open from the 
publication of the FIP proposals until 30 days after the public 
hearings.
    (g) It is EPA's intention to give great weight to any comments on 
which local consensus has been reached through this public involvement 
process. EPA, of course, remains ultimately responsible for the content 
of the final rule which must meet federal legal requirements and 
address national policy concerns. Although EPA encourages all 
interested parties to participate in focus meetings and workshops, any 
member of the public who has chosen not to do so has the right to 
submit written comments and/or testify at the public hearings. EPA will 
consider all comments received during the public comment period.
    EPA realizes that the time constraints involved pose a very real 
obstacle to achieving consensus on issues as complex and controversial 
as those raised in developing clean air strategies. The requirement to 
finalize these FIPs by February 1995 means that EPA, and the public, 
will need to make very efficient use of this period until the public 
comment period closes in mid-summer. EPA is realistic about the level 
of consensus that can be reached in such a short period of time. We 
have decided to go forward with an expanded public involvement process 
because we believe that the potential benefits are great--and at a 
minimum, all parties will benefit from a greater understanding of the 
air quality problems, the concerns of affected parties, and the range 
of solutions.
    In summary, we see the development of the final federal 
implementation plans due in February of 1995 as a real opportunity for 
local communities, in conjunction with federal and state authorities, 
to build air quality plans that can be successfully implemented. 
Optimally, this process will also provide state and local authorities 
with workable ideas and strategies that can be incorporated into the 
1994 ozone plans, thus facilitating recision of all or significant 
parts of the FIPs. Through the enhanced notice and comment process each 
participant--state, local, federal, and every interested member of the 
public--will have the opportunity to take responsibility where it 
should be taken, and to work cooperatively where it can be done.
4. Solicitation of Comment
    Written comments on the proposals contained in today's NPRM will be 
accepted throughout the public process described above. EPA expects to 
hold public hearings in early July, 1994 and expects that the deadline 
for written comments will be approximately 30 days after the public 
hearings. EPA will give notice in the Federal Register of the public 
hearings and public comment deadline as soon as possible, but no later 
than 30 days prior to the hearing dates.
    EPA encourages the public to participate both through formal 
hearing and written comments as well as in the informal workshop and 
focus meeting forums described above. Workshops will be held in each 
FIP area in mid to late March 1994. Throughout today's NPRM, EPA has 
encouraged the public to comment on specific issues and alternatives. 
We expect that these issues will be appropriate for further examination 
in informal workshop and focus meeting forums.

II. Background and Proposed SIP Actions

A. Description of the Affected Areas

1. Sacramento Area
    The Sacramento area includes all of Sacramento and Yolo Counties, 
the northeast portion of Solano County, the southern portion of Sutter 
County, and all of El Dorado and Placer Counties except for the Lake 
Tahoe area.\10\ The population of this area is approximately 1.6 
million, and is projected to increase to 1.9 million by 2000 and 2.2 
million by 2005.\11\ The annual personal income of the area exceeds $30 
billion. The economy is dominated by agricultural, commercial, and 
service sectors, with almost no heavy industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\At the time EPA's FIP obligation arose, the Sacramento 
nonattainment area did not include any portions of El Dorado and 
Sutter Counties. These portions were added in revised designations 
promulgated in conformance with the 1990 Amendments. See 56 FR 
58694, 56726 (November 6, 1991).
    \11\Population projections for 2000 and 2005 are based on the 
latest SACOG data and do not yet include estimates from the 
northeast portion of Solano County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mobile sources, particularly motor vehicles, are the dominant 
source of VOC and NOX in the Sacramento area. By 1999, mobile 
sources will account for approximately 50 percent of VOC emissions and 
over 90 percent of NOX emissions. Industrial, commercial, and 
residential solvents and coatings are also significant sources of VOC, 
contributing almost 30 percent of VOC emissions in 1999.
    Violations of the ozone NAAQS occur in the Sacramento area from as 
early as April through mid-November, although most violations in recent 
years have been confined to the warmer months of June through October. 
The Sacramento ozone design value at the time of classification was 
0.16 ppm (based on 1987-1989 data), substantially above the NAAQS for 
ozone, which is 0.12 ppm, measured as a one-hour average. Over the 
period 1990-1992, the design value was still 0.16 ppm. For this 1990-
1992 measurement period, only four areas had a higher design value: 
South Coast (.30 ppm); the Southeast Desert area, immediately to the 
east of the South Coast (.23 ppm); Houston/Galveston (.21 ppm); and San 
Diego (.17 ppm).
    Based on this design value, the Sacramento area was classified as 
``Serious'' under section 181(a) of the Clean Air Act, with an 
attainment deadline of no later than November 15, 1999. See 56 FR 
56728. However, according to EPA's most recent national air quality and 
emissions trends data (through calendar year 1992), the area also has 
the eighth largest number of average expected exceedances of the ozone 
standard in the country (9.0 days).\12\ Outside of southern and central 
California, only the Houston and Philadelphia areas have a greater 
number of expected exceedances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\The average estimated number of exceedances is the number of 
days the 0.12 ppm standard was exceeded on average at the site 
recording the highest second maximum 1-hour concentration, after 
adjustment for incomplete or missing data days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This unusual frequency of exceedances--coupled with the absence of 
easy-to-control pollution sources, the immense emissions reductions 
needed, the rapid population growth predicted for this area, and the 
possibility that some of the ozone violations in Sacramento may be due 
primarily to transport of pollution from the south and southwest--
suggest the appropriateness of a bump-up to a ``Severe'' 
classification, in accordance with the provisions of section 181(b)(3). 
See discussion below.
    Urban airshed modeling suggests that a 40 percent reduction in 
current levels of VOC coupled with a 30 percent reduction in NOX 
emissions would be needed for attainment. As displayed in a table 
included in the Sacramento FIP attainment demonstration (see section 
III.H.3.a.), other combinations of VOC and NOX reductions also 
could yield attainment, but in EPA's judgment the 40:30 option appears 
to have a greater potential to minimize dislocation and inequities 
among source categories.
2. Ventura Area
    The Ventura area includes all of Ventura County, which lies on the 
California coast between Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties. The 
1990 population was 660,000 and is projected to increase to 840,000 by 
2005. The County ranks third in California in petroleum production and 
17th in the Country in agricultural income. Twenty-five percent of the 
work force commute to jobs in Los Angeles.
    Ventura's emissions inventory is less dominated by the mobile 
source component than is Sacramento's. For the year 2005, mobile 
sources account for approximately 40 percent of VOC emissions and 70 
percent of NOX emissions. The ozone season extends from April 
through November, but very few violations have been recorded before 
June.
    Ventura is classified as a ``Severe'' ozone area, with a November 
15, 2005 attainment deadline.\13\ For the period 1990-1992, the design 
value was .15 ppm. While this design value is the same as Sacramento's 
for the 1990-1992 period, Ventura had more than twice the number of 
expected exceedance days (17.6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\Based on a request and supporting information from the 
State, EPA's designation under the 1990 CAA Amendments divided the 
Los Angeles Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area into four 
distinct areas with respect to ozone designations and 
classifications. This action made the entire Ventura County a 
separate nonattainment area with a ``Severe'' classification, 
although the 1988-1990 design value calculated for the area would 
have supported a ``Serious'' classification. See 56 FR 56698, 56700, 
56731 (November 6, 1991). Prior to this designation, the Ventura 
ozone nonattainment area included only that portion of the County 
south of the southern boundary of the Los Padres National Forest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transport of ozone and ozone precursors from Los Angeles, Santa 
Barbara, and outer continental shelf activity can be significant. 
However, emissions from Ventura itself can result in ozone standard 
exceedances independent of transport from other areas. In addition, 
mountains bordering the Ventura urban areas contribute to a meteorology 
that favors high ozone concentrations, particularly within the southern 
portions of the County.
    Based on recent urban airshed modeling analyses, EPA has determined 
that attainment requires 40 percent reductions from current levels of 
both NOX and VOC.
3. South Coast Area
    The South Coast area (South Coast Air Basin) includes all of Orange 
County and the more populated portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, 
and Riverside Counties.\14\ Ventura County lies to the northwest, the 
Southeast Desert ``Severe'' ozone nonattainment area (portions of San 
Bernardino, Riverside, Kern, and Los Angeles Counties) is to the north 
and east, and the San Diego ``Severe'' ozone area is to the south.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\For a description of the boundaries of the South Coast Air 
Basin, see 40 C.F.R. 81.305 and 56 FR 56726-56728 (November 6, 
1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current population of approximately 13 million is expected to 
grow to more than 18 million by 2010. The South Coast is the largest 
industrial area in the United States, with a gross domestic product of 
$300 billion. Practically every commercial and industrial category is 
represented in the area's economy.
    In the year 2010, mobile sources will account for 46 percent of VOC 
emissions, 81 percent of NOX emissions, and 97 percent of CO 
emissions in the South Coast.
    The South Coast area has by far the worst ozone levels in the 
Country and is the only area classified as ``Extreme.'' For the period 
1990-1992, the design value was .30 ppm and the average number of 
actual exceedance days was 134.3. Ozone levels are particularly high 
during the months of July through October, but violations also occur 
under warm and stagnant conditions in April, May, June, and November.
    The South Coast is one of only three ``Serious'' CO areas in the 
Country. Its design value is 16.4 ppm for the period 1991-1992. The 
average yearly number of exceedances for those years was 38. In recent 
years, CO violations have occurred only in the months of November, 
December, January, and February, and at certain monitoring sites in Los 
Angeles and Orange Counties. No CO violations have been recorded in the 
Riverside and San Bernardino portions of the South Coast area since the 
1970's.
    These uniquely high levels of pollution are the result of the 
massive emissions generated within the area, combined with especially 
adverse meteorology and topography. A number of factors--sunshine, high 
temperatures, ocean breezes carrying pollutants into the inland 
valleys, mountains to the north and east trapping the pollutants within 
the basin, and prolonged thermal inversion layers--conspire to create 
ideal conditions for the generation of high ozone levels. Extreme 
wintertime inversions retard the dispersion of CO emissions from the 9 
million motor vehicles within the area. This leads to a buildup of CO 
concentrations over time, particularly within west-central Los Angeles 
County. Attainment requires approximately a 45 percent reduction in CO 
emissions from the baseyear.

B. SIP Status

1. Introduction; Relationship of the FIP to the SIP
    At the same time EPA is proposing federal plans for these areas, 
the responsible State and local agencies have been developing and 
adopting their own plans and rules to meet the scheduled Clean Air Act 
requirements. In relation to the FIPs, the most important of these new 
SIP requirements and submittal deadlines are:

    (1) CO plan for the South Coast demonstrating attainment and 
addressing the provisions of section 187 of the Act--due November 
15, 1992;
    (2) Ozone 15 percent rate-of-progress plans for each area 
meeting the requirements of section 182(b)(1)--due November 15, 
1993;
    and (3) ozone plans for each area demonstrating attainment and 
satisfaction of the relevant portions of section 182--due November 
15, 1994.

    EPA has issued preliminary interpretations of the amended Act's 
provisions applicable to these SIP obligations. See, for example, the 
``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990,'' [see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 
and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)], and ``Guidance for Growth Factors, 
Projections, and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress 
Plans,'' (EPA-452/R-93-002, March 1993).
    Ultimately, EPA expects that SIP measures meeting the requirements 
of the 1990 amendments and more carefully tailored to the FIP areas 
will supplant the potentially severe measures EPA is compelled to 
propose here. EPA understands that this scenario presents facilities 
with the prospect of changing compliance requirements as the FIP is 
replaced by SIP measures. In the long term, however, it will better 
serve the area to have in place measures which are designed by State, 
regional, and local authorities, who are best situated to minimize any 
disruption of the local economy and communities.
    In the discussion below, the more important completed and pending 
SIP submittals for the State and each area are briefly described. To 
the extent that the submittals satisfy, or help to satisfy EPA's 
obligations under the existing court orders, EPA will approve the SIPs 
and refrain from promulgating FIP provisions addressing those aspects 
of the air quality problem.
    A submittal from the State and local districts of an approvable\15\ 
SIP demonstrating attainment by the applicable deadline will enable EPA 
to rescind the FIP in its entirety. EPA believes that this rescission 
is appropriate even if the SIP for the area has other deficiencies 
(such as deficient RACT or NSR rules) which trigger separate FIP 
actions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA can conditionally 
approve a state plan which lacks adopted enforceable measures as 
long as the state has been made a commitment to adopt the 
enforceable measures within one year of the conditional approval.
    \16\The Act allows states to replace FIP requirements with SIP 
measures, subject, of course, to EPA's approval of the SIP measures 
under sections 110(a), (k), and (l) of the Act. The Act provides 
that EPA is relieved of having to promulgate a FIP at all if the 
state submits and EPA approves a replacement SIP before the FIP must 
be promulgated. Section 110(c)(1) of the Act provides: ``The 
Administrator shall promulgate a Federal implementation plan at any 
time within 2 years after the Administrator [makes certain findings 
or disapproves a SIP] unless the State corrects the deficiency, and 
the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the 
Administrator promulgates such Federal implementation plan.'' 
Section 302(y) of the Act defines a FIP as ``a plan (or portion 
thereof) promulgated by the Administrator to fill all or a portion 
of a gap or otherwise correct all or a portion of an inadequacy in a 
State implementation plan. . . .'' If a state fills a gap or cures 
an inadequacy in its SIP subsequent to EPA promulgating a FIP, the 
FIP may be rescinded or revised. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit recognized this principle in Coalition for Clean Air 
v. EPA (reported as Coalition for Clean Air v. Southern California 
Edison), 971 F.2d 219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA wishes to emphasize that all existing and future SIP 
obligations remain the responsibility of State and local agencies, 
despite provisions in the FIP that may fulfill, in whole or in part, 
these obligations. Thus, the State and the applicable areas of the 
State are subject to the sanctions provisions of section 179 for any 
failure to submit a required plan or plan element, or upon EPA 
disapproval of a required plan or plan element.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\Under section 179 of the Act, two principal sanctions are 
authorized: a highway funding restriction and an increased offset 
requirement for major new or modified sources. The highway funding 
sanction is enforced through an EPA prohibition on approval by the 
U.S. Secretary of Transportation of projects or grants in the area 
except where the Secretary has determined that the purpose of the 
project or grant is to improve a demonstrated safety problem. 
Section 179(b)(1)(B) also allows the Secretary to exempt certain 
projects and grants that are intended to minimize air pollution 
problems. The offset sanction requires that major new or modified 
sources in the area obtain at least 2 to 1 offsets before 
construction.
    Section 179(a) requires EPA to impose one of these sanctions 
within 18 months and the remaining sanction within 24 months if: (1) 
The state has failed to submit a required plan or element; (2) the 
required submission is deemed incomplete; (3) EPA disapproves the 
required submission; or (4) an approved SIP provision is not being 
implemented. Section 110(m) allows EPA to impose these sanctions at 
any time after EPA has made one of these findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA's FIP promulgation process unfolds, the responsible State 
and local agencies in Sacramento, Ventura, and the South Coast are 
developing their own plans under the schedule provided by the 1990 
Amendments. Depending upon the time EPA is able to approve SIP 
replacement measures submitted by these agencies, EPA may upon approval 
of such measures either refrain from promulgating, or withdraw the 
corresponding portions of the FIP. sections 110(c) and 302(y).
    As the relationship between the FIPs and the developing SIPs 
evolves, EPA will confront a number of issues. One question that has 
been raised is whether the State may claim credit toward meeting 
progress or attainment requirements for the emissions reductions from 
FIP measures that apply to a limited category of sources over which 
State or local control is legally preempted. The issue is whether the 
State, in its plan, may seek not to replace these FIP measures, but 
rather continue to rely upon them, at the same time obtaining EPA's 
full approval for the state plan.
    Although EPA has not previously addressed this specific question, a 
straightforward reading of the Clean Air Act's text and structure 
suggests that a state plan to be approvable must demonstrate attainment 
of the relevant standard, without reliance on measures that EPA has 
promulgated solely pursuant to its FIP authority. (Under this theory, a 
state could still rely on any measures that EPA has promulgated under 
its independent authority, such as Title II, as opposed to its 
authority under section 110(c) to assume California's waiver role 
under, for example, section 209. See discussion of EPA's FIP authority, 
section III.A.2.a. To decide otherwise would require the conclusion 
that Congress intended FIP measures to remain in place, perhaps 
permanently, without sanctions being imposed on the state--a view 
arguably at odds with the Act's historic emphasis on the primacy of 
state responsibility and the role of FIPs as temporary substitutes for 
state failures.
    On the other hand, it may be argued that, for a limited number of 
sources over which the federal government, when promulgating a FIP, 
demonstrably has sole legal authority, and over which the state is 
barred from exerting control, removing the FIP measures and hence 
requiring the state to compensate for the lack of control of these 
sources may force it to impose unreasonably and inequitably harsher 
controls on other sources. Thus, the argument goes, EPA should consider 
whether there is any basis in law, and justification in policy, for 
carving out a limited exception to the traditional view.
    EPA does not resolve this complex issue here, but intends to 
continue to analyze and explore it. In this proposal we solicit comment 
on the legal and policy implications raised by this aspect of the 
relationship between the FIP and the SIP.
2. Sacramento
    On November 15, 1993, the State submitted Sacramento ozone rate-of-
progress plans for the Sacramento Metropolitan Area, addressing the 
Act's 15 percent rate-of-progress plan requirements. The Sacramento 
area's 15 percent plans involved a coordinated effort by the Sacramento 
Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and the five local air pollution 
control agencies. Each of the air agencies developed a plan for their 
portion of the area.
    The reductions in Sacramento's 15 percent plans rely on an enhanced 
I/M program, measures that the State and local governments have adopted 
or have committed to adopt, measures that the Federal government will 
have to develop and implement for the Sacramento area, and substitution 
of NOX for VOC reductions. However, an approvable enhanced I/M 
program has not been authorized by the State legislature, EPA has 
decided preliminarily that it will not accept commitments for measures 
for purposes of the Act's 15 percent rate-of-progress provision, and 
EPA cannot credit NOX reductions in place of the necessary VOC 
reductions. Therefore, EPA cannot take action at this time to approve 
this submittal with respect to the Clean Air Act progress 
demonstration.
    The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 
(SMAQMD), the Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District (YSAPCD), the 
Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), the El Dorado 
County Air Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD), the Feather River Air 
Quality Management District (FRAQMD), SACOG and CARB plan to submit a 
comprehensive revised ozone attainment SIP on or before November 15, 
1994. The local agencies hope to release a draft of this SIP in the 
Spring of 1994 and to modify it after EPA finalizes the FIP in February 
1995. The air quality modeling in the SIP and FIP are based on similar 
data and should be consistent. There may, however, be significant 
differences between the regulations included in the two plans to attain 
the ozone standard.
3. Ventura
    On November 15, 1993, the State submitted a Ventura ozone rate-of-
progress plan addressing the Act's requirement that a plan be submitted 
by that date demonstrating creditable VOC reductions of at least 15 
percent from 1990 to 1996. The plan describes how this reduction can be 
accomplished with an enhanced I/M program plus measures that the State 
committed to adopt and implement by 1996 in Ventura's 1991 Air Quality 
Management Plan. Many of the promised local measures have already been 
adopted, but an approvable enhanced I/M program has not been authorized 
by the State legislature. As in the case of Sacramento, EPA cannot now 
approve this Ventura plan submittal with respect to the progress 
demonstration.
    The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), the 
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the CARB 
plan to submit a comprehensive revised ozone attainment SIP on or 
before November 15, 1994. VCAPCD hopes to release a draft of this SIP 
by the Spring of 1994 and to modify it after EPA finalizes the FIP in 
February 1995. The air quality modeling in the SIP and FIP are based on 
similar data and should be consistent. As in the case of Sacramento, 
however, the regulations included in the two plans may be different.
4. South Coast
    On December 31, 1992, the State submitted the CO plan for the South 
Coast. This plan includes a demonstration of attainment by the year 
2000 relying on emission reductions from previously adopted regulations 
as well as from an enhanced I/M program meeting the requirements of 
sections 182(c)(3) and 187(a)(6). Because the State legislature has not 
yet enacted legislation authorizing such an enhanced I/M program, EPA 
proposes to disapprove the CO plan with respect to the requirements for 
an attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, reasonably 
available control measures, and enhanced I/M.
    On January 15, 1993, the Agency issued a finding of failure to 
submit two other mandatory elements of the CO plan: (1) Transportation 
control measures (TCMs) to offset growth, as required by section 
182(d)(1)(A); and (2) adopted contingency measures to be implemented if 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecasts are exceeded, in accordance with 
section 187(a)(3). In section II.C.1., below, EPA is proposing to 
disapprove the CO SIP with respect to these six elements: attainment 
demonstration, reasonable further progress, reasonably available 
control measures, provision for an enhanced I/M program, TCMs to offset 
growth, and contingency measures to be implemented if VMT forecasts are 
exceeded. EPA is also proposing a partial approval of other portions of 
the plan that represent an improvement over what is currently in the 
SIP, do not conflict with proposed FIP provisions, and meet some of the 
applicable requirements of the Act.
    On November 15, 1993, the State submitted a 15 percent rate-of-
progress plan for the South Coast. The 15 percent plan relies on 
reductions from currently adopted rules, but also depends upon a 
relatively small contribution from 10 SCAQMD measures scheduled for 
full adoption in 1994 or 1995 and an improved I/M program. As in the 
case of Sacramento and Ventura, EPA cannot at this time propose to 
approve this South Coast submittal with respect to the 15 percent rate-
of-progress demonstration. However, in section II.C.2., below, for 
entirely different purposes EPA is proposing to conditionally approve 
the SCAQMD commitments to adopt rules during 1994 and 1995.
    On October 15, 1993, the SCAQMD adopted rules implementing the 
Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program for NOX and 
sulfur oxides (SOX). This innovative program establishes a 
declining cap ``bubble'' requirement on most facilities with emissions 
greater than 4 tons per year of NOX or SOX. The program 
includes emissions allocation and emissions trading components. EPA 
intends to propose to approve (or conditionally approve) the RECLAIM 
regulations in separate rulemaking, following SIP submittal. For the 
purposes of the FIP attainment demonstration, EPA proposes to assign 
credit to the adopted RECLAIM program, which went into effect on 
January 1, 1994. If EPA does not finally approve the NOX RECLAIM 
rules, EPA would not be able to grant credits for associated 
reductions, and would need to amend the FIP accordingly. For more 
details on the RECLAIM rules, see section III.C.5.
    The SCAQMD, SCAG, and CARB are currently preparing a comprehensive 
revision to existing air quality plans, addressing all pollutants and 
the requirements of both the federal and State Clean Air Acts. SIP 
submittal of this comprehensive plan (or portions of the plan) is 
scheduled to occur on or before November 15, 1994. The new plan will 
include revised 1990 baseyear emissions inventories, and projected 
inventories for interim years through the year 2020. With respect to 
motor vehicle emissions, these inventories may be significantly 
different from those used in the proposed ozone and CO FIPs, because 
the 1994 plan is expected to rely on new trip modeling input data and 
revised motor vehicle emissions factors. For ozone, the plan may 
analyze additional episodes, including a weekend episode.
5. State of California
    California's motor vehicle control program (CMVCP) predates the 
first federal statute regulating motor vehicle emissions, the Motor 
Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965. In the Air Quality Act of 
1967 (Pub. L. 90-148), Congress allowed California a waiver of the Air 
Quality Act's preemption section on motor vehicle emissions control 
because of California's pioneering efforts and unique problems. The 
1977 amendments to the CAA expanded the flexibility granted to 
California in order ``to afford California the broadest possible 
discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its 
citizens and the public welfare.'' H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st 
Sess. 301-2 (1977).
    So long as California demonstrates that its motor vehicle standards 
are ``in the aggregate'' at least as protective of public health and 
welfare as applicable federal standards, section 209(b) of the Act 
requires the Administrator to waive the Act's general prohibition on 
state adoption of standards relating to the control of emissions from 
new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, unless the 
Administrator finds that California's determination was arbitrary and 
capricious, that California does not need the standard to meet 
``compelling and extraordinary conditions,'' or that the California 
standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent 
with section 202(a) of the Act.\18\ Section 211(c)(4)(B) also provides 
that a state that has received a section 209 waiver (i.e., California) 
may prescribe controls or prohibitions respecting fuels or fuel 
additives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\In section 209 waiver decisions EPA has explained that 
California standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) if there 
is inadequate lead time to permit the development and application of 
requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost 
of compliance within such period. In addition, the Agency has held 
that to avoid inconsistency with section 202(a), California's 
procedures may not impose inconsistent certification requirements 
such that manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California 
and Federal requirements with the same test vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1990 CAAA further expanded the California waiver provisions to 
cover nonroad vehicles or engines (except for certain preempted 
engines), and also established a special California clean-fuel vehicle 
program to be implemented in California (the California Pilot Test 
Program). See sections 209, 211(c)(4), and 249.
    California law reserves to CARB most authorities for adopting and 
enforcing motor vehicle emission controls (including restrictions on 
fuels and fuel content) and standards for nonroad engines and consumer 
products. Under this authority, particularly as strengthened by the 
California Clean Air Act of 1988 (Chapter 1568, Statutes of 1988), CARB 
has adopted many new provisions with the potential for vast VOC and 
NOX emission reductions. CARB regulations adopted through the 
first half of 1990 are described at length in EPA's 1990 proposed FIP 
for the South Coast. See 55 FR 36470-36479.
    More recently adopted State measures include: Low Emissions 
Vehicles (LEV) and Clean Fuels Program; Utility and Lawn and Garden 
Equipment Engine Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures; 
Standards for Consumer Products (CARB regulations adopted thus far 
cover approximately 30 consumer product categories); and Emission 
Standards for Construction and Farm Equipment.
    EPA is not generally assigning credit in the attainment 
demonstration for State (or local) regulations that have not already 
been approved as part of the SIP or are not now undergoing SIP 
approval. EPA's policy restricts State credit in either their 
attainment demonstrations or progress plans for reductions from 
measures that have not been submitted as approvable elements of the 
SIP.
    The principal reason for this policy has been to comply with 
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act, which requires that each SIP ``include 
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or 
techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable 
permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and 
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet 
the applicable requirements of this Act * * *.''
    In general, EPA policy has been to require that reductions used in 
attainment demonstrations be submitted for incorporation in the SIP, to 
ensure that the reductions are enforceable directly by EPA in the event 
that the responsible State and local agencies fail to perform their 
implementation responsibilities. It is for this reason that EPA is 
proposing in this NPRM to promulgate consumer product regulations 
comparable to rules which CARB has previously adopted and already 
enforces, but which the State has not yet submitted as a SIP revision.

C. Proposed Action on the South Coast SIP Revisions

1. CO Plan
    a. Statutory provision and general preamble requirements. The air 
quality planning requirements for CO nonattainment areas are set out in 
sections 186-187 of the Act, which pertain to the classification of CO 
nonattainment areas and to the submission requirements of the SIPs for 
these areas, respectively. EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' 
describing the Agency's preliminary views on how EPA intends to act on 
SIPs submitted under Title I of the Act [see generally 57 FR 13498 
(April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)]. The reader should 
refer to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the 
EPA's preliminary interpretations of Title I. In this proposed 
rulemaking action, EPA is applying these policies to the proposed South 
Coast CO SIP, taking into consideration the specific factual issues 
presented.
    Those states containing CO nonattainment areas classified as 
``Serious'' were required under the Act to submit by November 15, 1992, 
a plan that provides enforceable measures to achieve annual emissions 
reductions leading to attainment of the NAAQS by December 31, 2000. The 
Act mandates other specific plan elements, which are discussed below.
    In today's action, EPA is proposing to partially disapprove and 
partially approve the plan for the South Coast, in accordance with the 
provisions of section 110(k) of the Act governing EPA's review of SIP 
submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). EPA is proposing to approve the 
plan with respect to procedural requirements, employee commute options 
(ECO) program, and forecast of VMT. EPA is proposing to disapprove the 
plan with respect to the attainment demonstration, reasonable further 
progress (RFP), reasonably available control measures (RACM), enhanced 
inspection and maintenance (I/M), VMT contingency measures, and TCMs to 
offset growth in motor vehicle emissions and meet progress and 
attainment requirements. The State's submission to address the 
requirements for the clean-fuel vehicle fleet has been conditionally 
approved in a separate rulemaking. EPA will also act separately on the 
State's oxygenated fuel program. EPA is proposing to take no action on 
the plan's emissions inventory for the reasons discussed below.
    b. Procedural requirements. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act requires 
states to provide reasonable notice and public hearing before plan 
adoption. The SCAQMD satisfied this requirement by furnishing proper 
notice and adopting the plan at a public hearing held on November 6, 
1992. Following adoption by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD, the plan 
was forwarded to CARB, which submitted the CO plan as a proposed 
revision to the California SIP on December 31, 1992. On April 29, 1993, 
CARB submitted a letter correcting certain adoption and implementation 
dates for measures under CARB's jurisdiction.
    c. Emissions inventory. Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that 
nonattainment plans include a comprehensive, accurate, current 
inventory of actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants 
in the nonattainment area. The emissions inventory included with the 
South Coast CO plan generally conforms to applicable EPA guidance (see, 
for example, Emission Inventory Requirements for Carbon Monoxide State 
Implementation Plans, EPA-450/4-91-011; Procedures for the Preparation 
of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, 
Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources, EPA-450/4-91-016; 
Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile 
Sources, EPA 450/4-81-026d Revised). This guidance allows approval of 
California's motor vehicle emissions factors (in this case, the 
EMFAC7EP update) in place of the corresponding federal emissions 
factors. The methodologies used to prepare the base year and projected 
emissions inventories, as described in Chapter 3 of the plan, are 
acceptable. EPA is not proposing to approve into the SIP the State's 
emission inventories, however, because a different inventory is 
employed in the federal attainment demonstration for CO, and a new CO 
inventory has been developed for use in a South Coast SIP revision 
scheduled for adoption later this year. EPA hopes to be able to approve 
the revised inventory in the final SIP action and use this new 
inventory in the final CO FIP.
    Moreover, State and local agencies are preparing comprehensive 
revisions to the base year and projected inventories for motor 
vehicles. EPA may use some or all of this revised and updated motor 
vehicle data to amend the attainment demonstration in the final FIP. If 
the State submits an approvable CO SIP along with acceptable updated 
emissions inventories for the South Coast, EPA will be able to approve 
the revised State plan and inventories and substitute them for the 
federal plan and federal emissions inventories.
    d. Reasonably available control measures (RACM). Section 172(c)(1) 
requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the 
implementation of all RACM (including Reasonably Available Control 
Technology, or RACT) as expeditiously as practicable. EPA interprets 
this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to 
consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such 
measures as are reasonably available for implementation in the area as 
components of the area's attainment demonstration.
    The South Coast CO plan's control measures are presented in Chapter 
4, Chapter 6, Appendix B, and Appendix C. The control measures are also 
discussed below in sections II.C.1.g., h., i., and j. The State and 
local control measures (with adoption/implementation dates before 2001) 
are as follows:

M-G-12, Oxygenated Fuels Program (1991/1992);
ARB-4, Improved Certification Requirements for alternative Fuel 
Retrofit Systems (1992/1992);
M-G-5, Motor Vehicle Buyback Program (1993/1993-1997);
M-G-4, Low-Emission New Fleet Vehicles (1991/1993-2000);
M-G-11, Inspection and Maintenance Program Enhancement (1993/1994);
M-G-1, Zero-Emission Urban Bus Implementation (1992/1994-2000);
ARB-5, Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels Program (1990/1994-
2003);
ARB-1, Revised Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Medium-
Duty Vehicles and Light Heavy-Duty Engines (1990/1995-1996);
ARB-7, Low Emission Vehicle Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines (1992/
1998-2007);
ARB-11, Inspections of Fleet Heavy-Duty Trucks (1992/to be 
determined);
ARB-12, Control of Off-Cycle Emissions (1993/to be determined);
ARB-16, Retrofit/Operational Requirements for Locomotives (1993/
1992-1997);
M-I-7, Eliminate Leaf Blowers (1993/1994);
ARB-13, Emission Standards for Utility Engines (1990/1994-1999);
ARB-15, Emission Standards for Off-Road Motorcycles (1992/1995);
ARB-14, Emission Standards for Construction and Farm Equipment 
(1992/1995-2000);
ARB-18, Emission Standards for Off-Highway Vehicles (1993/1995-
2000);
ARB-17, Emission Standards for Marine Vessels (1993/1997-1999);
P-B-6, Control of Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Flares (1992/
1996);
FC-1/2g, Transit Improvements (to be determined/to be determined);
F-2/2f, HOV and Bus Lanes/Roads (to be determined/to be determined);
FC-3/M-H-5(c), Employer-Based Trip Reduction (1993/1994);
FC-4, Additional VMT/VT Reduction Strategies (1989-2000, with SCAQMD 
backstop 1994/1991-, with SCAQMD backstop 1994);
FC-5/4, Traffic Flow Improvements (1989-2000/1991-);
FC-6/M-G-7, Control Extended Idling (1993/1994);
FC-7/M-G-5, Encourage Removal of Pre-1980 Vehicles (1993/1993);
FC-8, M-G-6, Reduce Cold Start Emissions from Vehicles (1994/1994);
M-H-1, Environmental Review Program (1992/1992);
M-H-2, Trip Reduction for Schools (1993/1993);
M-H-4, Special Activity Centers (1993/1994).

    EPA has reviewed the extensive list of scheduled measures and has 
concluded that the plan would reflect RACM but for the omission of an 
enhanced I/M program. By this NPRM, EPA is proposing to disapprove the 
plan with respect to the RACM requirement because of this single 
deficiency. EPA invites comment on whether other RACM exist for the 
South Coast CO plan.
    e. Attainment demonstration. As noted, ``Serious'' CO nonattainment 
areas were required to submit a demonstration that the plan will 
provide for attainment by December 31, 2000. The SCAQMD conducted an 
attainment demonstration using both areawide (Urban Airshed Model, or 
UAM) and hotspot (CAL3QHC) modeling analyses. The two modeling analyses 
and the selection of the design value (23.4 ppm, recorded in 1988 at 
the Lynwood monitoring station) are discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix 
D of the CO plan. The modeling analyses are consistent with EPA's 
guidance (Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway 
Intersections, User's Guide to CAL3QHC: A Modeling Methodology for 
Predicting Pollutant Concentrations near Roadway Intersections, and 
Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model for 
Areawide Carbon Monoxide). The SCAQMD's modeling analyses predict 
attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS by the year 2000, based upon the 
control strategies included in the plan.
    However, since attainment depends upon large CO emissions 
reductions (587.4 tons per day) assigned to the enhanced I/M program, 
which has not yet been adopted by the State, EPA proposes to disapprove 
the attainment demonstration portion of the plan. In the future, the 
attainment demonstration could be approved if the State submits 
approvable enhanced I/M legislative authorization and regulations.
    f. Quantitative milestones and reasonable further progress (RFP). 
The CO plan must contain measures which demonstrate RFP toward 
attainment by the applicable attainment date. Reasonable further 
progress is defined in section 171(1) of the Act as such annual 
incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as 
are required by Part D or may reasonably be required by the 
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the NAAQS by 
the applicable date.
    EPA has reviewed the attainment demonstration and control strategy 
for the area (see Chapter 6 and Appendix C of the CO plan). EPA 
concludes that the plan would provide for RFP but for the fact that the 
State legislature has not yet adopted legislation authorizing an 
enhanced I/M program and California has not submitted implementing 
regulations for the program. Therefore, EPA proposes to disapprove the 
RFP provision. Again, however, this defect could be cured by State 
action to authorize, adopt, and submit an approvable enhanced I/M 
program.
    g. Adoption of mandatory control measures. The Act mandates State 
adoption of four control programs for CO areas such as the South Coast.
(1) Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
    Section 187(a)(6) requires implementation of an enhanced I/M 
program in the nonattainment area's urbanized portions (as defined by 
the Bureau of Census) with a CO design value greater than 12.7 ppm. 
EPA's regulations respecting this requirement were issued on November 
5, 1992 (57 FR 52950). The reader should refer to section III.D.2.c. 
for a detailed discussion of the purpose and components of the enhanced 
I/M program. As noted, the California State Legislature has to date 
failed to enact legislation that would authorize such a program. While 
EPA is not now required to propose a FIP enhanced I/M measure (as 
discussed in section III.A.1.), the Agency has chosen to do so as part 
of the FIP attainment demonstrations.
(2) Oxygenated Fuels
    Sections 211(m) and 187(b)(3) mandate SIP provisions prohibiting 
the sale of gasoline during winter months containing less than 2.7 
percent oxygen by weight. Increasing the oxygen content of gasoline 
causes motor vehicle engines to run with leaner overall fuel/air 
mixture, thereby reducing the amount of CO generated during the 
combustion process.
    California's adopted regulations (California Wintertime Oxygenates 
Program for the years 1992-1995, and Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline 
regulation for the years after 1995) provide for the sale of 1.8 to 2.2 
percent oxygenated fuels. On October 30, 1992, the CARB applied for a 
partial waiver from the 2.7 percent level specified in the Act.
    EPA intends in a separate NPRM to propose to conditionally approve 
the waiver under the provisions of section 211(m)(3)(A), which 
authorizes the Administrator to waive, in whole or in part, this fuel 
requirement if the State demonstrates that use of oxygenated gasoline 
would prevent or interfere with the attainment of a NAAQS or a state or 
local ambient air quality standard.
    CARB's waiver petition argues that an oxygen content above an 
average of 2.0 percent would interfere with attainment of the 
California standards for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate 
matter, because the higher oxygenated fuel levels have the potential to 
increase emissions of NOX, which is a precursor to ozone and (in 
the South Coast) nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter.
(3) Clean-Fuel Vehicle Fleet Program
    Section 246 of the Act requires that the CO SIP for the South Coast 
provide for a Clean-Fuel Vehicle Fleet program by May 15, 1994. Section 
182(c)(4) places a similar requirement on the South Coast ozone SIP. 
The Act mandates SIP provisions requiring the purchase of clean new 
vehicles, beginning in 1998, for use in centrally fueled fleets of cars 
and light-duty trucks.
    On November 13, 1992, CARB submitted as a SIP revision the State's 
regulations mandating the availability of clean fuels. At the same 
time, CARB applied for conditional approval of an opt-out from this 
requirement based upon a showing that the State's Low- Emission 
Vehicles (LEV) and Clean Fuels programs (adopted in 1990) qualify as a 
substitute for the federal clean fleet program. On November 29, 1993 
(58 FR 62532), EPA approved the State's clean fuels availability 
regulations and conditionally approved the opt-out request.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\In Section III.D.2.d.(6), EPA proposes as part of the South 
Coast FIP a clean fuel fleet program, consistent with EPA's final 
fleet program rules [see 58 FR 64679 (December 9, 1993)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Employee Commute Options Program
    Section 187(b)(2) requires SIP submission by November 15, 1992, of 
an Employee Commute Options (ECO) regulation to reduce commute trips to 
the worksites of large employers. Section 182(d)(1)(B) mandates that 
the ECO SIP requirement also applies to ``Severe'' and ``Extreme'' 
ozone nonattainment areas, and this same section establishes minimum 
program performance levels: the rules must ``require that each employer 
of 100 or more persons in such area increase average passenger 
occupancy per vehicle in commuting trips between home and the workplace 
during peak travel periods by not less than 25 percent above the 
average vehicle occupancy for all such trips in the area at the time 
the revision is submitted.''
    In December 1992, EPA issued Employee Commute Options Guidance to 
assist states in developing approvable ECO SIP revisions. This 
guidance, and the ECO requirement in the 1990 Amendments, derive in 
part from the SCAQMD employee trip reduction program, Regulation XV, 
which was adopted on December 11, 1987, as the Country's first large-
scale ECO program.
    Regulation XV has undergone several significant revisions since 
that date to expand the program and address implementation issues. The 
SCAQMD rule was initially submitted as a SIP revision on February 7, 
1989, and CARB submitted an amended Regulation XV on two occasions: 
March 31, 1991 and May 31, 1993. EPA has reviewed the amended 
Regulation XV for consistency with the Act and EPA's guidance. This 
review is available as a Technical Support Document, ``EPA Analysis of 
the Approvability of South Coast Air Quality Management District 
Regulation XV.'' Based on this detailed analysis, EPA proposes in this 
NPRM to approve Regulation XV as meeting the requirements of sections 
187(b)(2) and 182(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
    While the current Regulation XV meets federal approval criteria, 
EPA encourages the SCAQMD to continue to evaluate and adjust the 
program, if necessary, to ensure that the rule is fully and successfuly 
implemented. Any adjustments to the rule must not jeopardize timely 
achievement of average passenger occupancy targets and emissions 
reductions from the rule.
    h. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecast and contingency measures. 
Section 187(a)(2)(A) requires the South Coast CO plan to contain a 
forecast of VMT for each year until attainment. The plan must also 
provide for annual updates of the forecasts along with annual reports 
regarding the extent to which the forecasts proved to be accurate. 
Finally, section 187(a)(3) requires that the plan contain specific 
contingency measures to be implemented if the annual estimate of actual 
VMT or a subsequent VMT forecast exceeds the most recent prior forecast 
of VMT or if the area fails to attain the CO NAAQS by the attainment 
date. These contingency measures must be adopted and enforceable in the 
SIP and must take effect without further action by the State or the 
Administrator.
    The required VMT forecasts are included in Table 3-3 and Appendix A 
of the plan. The forecasts require significant update, and SCAG is now 
preparing and adopting such an amendment for a new Regional Mobility 
Plan and an air quality plan revision scheduled for adoption later in 
1994. EPA therefore proposes to approve the forecasts, but intends to 
amend the VMT projections in the FIP when the new VMT numbers are 
adopted and submitted as a SIP revision. EPA also proposes to approve 
the responsible agencies' commitments to replace the VMT projections 
and monitor actual VMT levels in the future.
    The State has not yet submitted, however, fully adopted and 
enforceable contingency measures to meet the requirements of section 
187(a)(3). The plan includes three groups of potential controls, 
identified as contingency measures. The measures, in fact, are surplus 
rather than contingent. The committal measures achieve reductions 
beyond those needed for progress and attainment, and they are scheduled 
for adoption and implementation by fixed dates, which are independent 
of determinations that VMT levels have been exceeded or that the plan 
has failed to achieve progress milestones or attainment. Although the 
measures are not designed to be triggered by excess VMT levels or by a 
failure to achieve scheduled progress or attainment, the measures could 
be approved as meeting the contingency requirement if: (1) They are 
submitted in fully adopted form, and (2) the RFP and attainment 
deficiencies are resolved by SIP submission of approvable enhanced I/M 
authorization and regulations.
    The first group of ``contingency'' measures (Table 6-4 of the plan) 
consists of two stationary source measures: P-B-5, Control of Emissions 
from OCS Exploration, Development and Production; and P-B-6, Control of 
Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Flares. Emissions reductions were not 
estimated for these possible measures. Moreover, neither of the 
controls have yet been adopted, although the plan scheduled both for 
adoption in 1992. Thus, the two measures cannot be approved.
    The second group (Table 6-5) comprises five measures. One of the 
measures is assigned to CARB: ARB-8, Fleet Average Standards for Post-
2003 Model Years (Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty 
Vehicles). The remaining four measures were scheduled for adoption by 
1992, but the State has provided no evidence that the measures have in 
fact been adopted. The four measures are energy conservation programs: 
E-D-1b, Residential Sector; E-C-1b, Commercial Sector; E-C-2b, 
Industrial Sector; and E-C-3, Local Government Sector.
    Each of the five measures is designed to serve as contingency 
measures after the year 2000. As such, the measures would be 
appropriate for SIP submission in the context of a CO maintenance plan. 
In their present form, they could not serve to meet contingency 
requirements for the attainment plan, since the measures are not 
designed to remedy plan shortfalls in achieving reasonable further 
progress before, and attainment by, the year 2000. Moreover, EPA cannot 
either approve or conditionally approve the measures since the 
scheduled full adoption date has elapsed without evidence of such 
adoption. Nevertheless, the measures are important pollution prevention 
initiatives with multiple benefits, and EPA strongly encourages further 
progress at the State, regional, and local level to implement the 
measures fully.
    The third group of ``contingency'' measures (Table 6-6) includes 11 
transportation and indirect source measures. The plan requests 
conditional approval of the measures to allow time to fully develop and 
adopt the controls, and the resolution of adoption commits the SCAQMD 
to revise the measures in 1993 to be fully quantifiable as required by 
the CAA (SCAQMD Board Resolution No. 92-36, Finding 10).
    These potentially significant measures are undergoing further 
revision at the local and regional level, in order to improve the 
design and quantification of the controls and confirm implementation 
responsibilities. This is particularly the case with respect to the 
only two measures to which substantial emissions reductions are 
assigned: FC-3--Employer-Based Trip Reduction (advances beyond existing 
Regulation XV), and FC-4--Additional VMT/VT Reduction Strategies. EPA 
hopes to receive these revised measures as a SIP submittal and will 
take action to approve or conditionally approve the controls at that 
time.
    The CO plan therefore lacks approvable measures that fulfill the 
section 187(a)(3) requirements for fully adopted contingency measures 
to be triggered if estimates of actual VMT exceed the plan's forecasted 
levels. EPA proposes to disapprove the plan with respect to this 
requirement. In separate rulemaking, EPA will propose as part of the 
South Coast ozone and CO FIP/SIP a substitute contingency measure to be 
implemented automatically in the event actual VMT excesses are 
monitored.
    i. Transportation control measures (TCMs) to offset growth in 
emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled. Section 187(b)(2) of 
the Act requires ``Serious'' CO areas to meet a TCM requirement 
specified in section 182(d)(1)(A) for ``Severe'' and ``Extreme'' ozone 
areas. The Act provides that all such plans must include specific and 
enforceable TCMs to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT 
and numbers of vehicle trips, and to achieve reductions in mobile 
source emissions as necessary in conjunction with other measures to 
comply with the periodic emissions reduction and attainment 
requirements of the Act. EPA's preliminary interpretation of this 
requirement appears in the General Preamble, 57 FR 13521-13523 and 
13533-13534 (April 16, 1992).
    As mentioned above, Table 6-6 of the South Coast CO plan includes 
11 transportation and indirect source ``contingency'' measures. These 
measures and the plan's scheduled adoption dates are as follows:

FC-1, Transit Improvements (to be determined by the implementing 
agency)
FC-2, HOV and Bus Lanes/Roads (to be determined by the implementing 
agency)
FC-3, Employer-Based Trip Reduction (1993)
FC-4, Additional VMT/VT Reduction Strategies (1989-2000, with an 
SCAQMD backstop rule adoption in 1994, if necessary)
FC-5, Traffic Flow Improvements (1989-2000)
FC-6, Control Extended Idling (1993)
FC-7, Encourage Removal of Pre-1980 Vehicles (1993)
FC-8, Reduce Cold Start Emissions from Vehicles (1994)
M-H-1, Environmental Review Program (1992)
M-H-2, Trip Reduction for Schools (1993)
M-H-4, Special Activity Centers (1993)

While progress has been made in local and regional adoption and 
implementation of certain measures (e.g., FC-1, FC-2, FC-4, and FC-5), 
none of these important measures has been fully adopted and submitted 
at this time.
    Table 3-3 of the CO plan projects VMT and CO emissions for each 
year through the attainment year. This table shows that CO emissions 
will decline each year through the year 2000, despite the predicted VMT 
growth. As a result, the CO plan does not need to include TCMs to 
offset growth in CO emissions.
    As discussed above, the CO plan would meet the attainment 
demonstration and progress requirements of the Act if the State adopts 
and submits an approvable enhanced I/M program. Until the attainment 
and RFP deficiencies are cured, it is not possible for EPA to find that 
the CO plan includes specific and enforceable TCMs that are sufficient, 
in conjunction with other measures, to meet the progress and attainment 
requirements of the Act. EPA therefore proposes to disapprove the plan 
with respect to the TCM requirement. Approval of an enhanced I/M 
program in the future would allow EPA to change this section 187(b)(2) 
disapproval to an approval.
    j. Fully adopted and enforceable control measures. The attainment 
demonstration relies upon SCAQMD and CARB stationary, area, and mobile 
controls adopted before July 1, 1990, and three additional controls: 
(1) CARB's Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) and Clean Fuels Program (adopted 
September 1990); (2) CARB's California Wintertime Oxygenates Program 
and Phase 2 Gasoline Specifications (adopted November 1991); and (3) an 
Enhanced I/M Program. Except for the enhanced I/M program, all of the 
measures included in the attainment modeling analysis are fully adopted 
and enforceable.
    The plan also includes a group of 18 supplemental measures (Tables 
4-1 and 4-2). Most of these measures have not yet been adopted in 
enforceable form, and the attainment demonstration does not claim 
credit for the potential reductions associated with the controls. If 
the measures are submitted by the State in approvable form, EPA will 
propose to approve them and assign them credit in the attainment 
demonstration.
    k. Implications of EPA's proposed action. EPA is proposing to 
disapprove in part the SIP revision submitted by the State of 
California on December 31, 1992, for the South Coast CO nonattainment 
area. If finalized, this disapproval would constitute a disapproval 
under section 179(a)(2) of the Act (see generally 57 FR 13566-13567). 
As provided under section 179(a) of the Act, the State would have up to 
18 months after a final SIP disapproval to correct the deficiencies 
that are the subject of the disapproval before EPA is required to 
impose either the highway funding sanction or the requirement to 
provide two-to-one new source review offsets. If the State has not 
corrected its deficiency within 6 months thereafter, EPA must impose 
the second sanction. Any sanction EPA imposes must remain in place 
until EPA determines that the State has corrected the deficiency.
2. Ozone Rate of Progress Plan
    a. Statutory provisions and General Preamble requirements. The 
requirements for the 15 percent rate-of-progress plans appear in 
section 182(b)(1) of the Act, which describes how ozone nonattainment 
areas must achieve an actual VOC reduction of at least 15 percent 
during the first 6 years after enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments 
(i.e., up to November 15, 1996). The General Preamble provides an 
overview of EPA's preliminary policy interpretation of this statutory 
requirement (see 57 FR 13507-13510, April 16, 1992). EPA has issued 
detailed guidance documents on the plan requirements, including: 
Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996 
Target for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans (EPA-452/R-92-005), 
and Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies 
for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans (EPA-452/R-93-002).
    The CAA requires that the 15 percent rate-of-progress plan be 
submitted by November 15, 1993. The plan must show an actual reduction 
in typical ozone season weekday VOC emissions of at least 15 percent 
for the period 1990-1996.\20\ The reduction must be calculated from the 
1990 baseline of actual emissions, adjusted in accordance with section 
182(b)(1)(B), and must account for any net growth in emissions. Section 
182(b)(1)(D) provides that reductions from the federal motor vehicle 
control program (FMVCP) as promulgated by January 1, 1990, or from the 
federal 9.0 Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) gasoline regulation may not count 
toward meeting the 15 percent reduction target. Also excluded from 
credit are ``fix-ups'' to VOC RACT rules or I/M programs to comply with 
prior statutory and regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\For the initial progress period (1990-1996), the Act 
specifies that the SIP must ``provide for volatile organic compound 
emission reductions . . . of at least 15 percent. . . .'' Section 
182(b)(1)(A). NOx emission reductions may substitute for VOC 
reductions in subsequent progress demonstrations, in accordance with 
section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Description of plan. On November 12, 1993, the SCAQMD adopted 
its Rate-of-Progress Plan, following reasonable notice and public 
hearing. CARB submitted the Rate-of-Progress plan as a proposed SIP 
revision on November 15, 1993. The submitted plan shows a 1990 base 
year emissions inventory of 1683 tons per day of reactive organic 
compounds (ROC), an adjusted 1990 inventory of 1450 tons per day (after 
subtracting FMVCP and RVP reductions of 233), resulting in a 1996 
target emissions reductions of 217.5 tons per day. After credit for 
fully adopted State and local measures and taking into account growth 
in emissions through 1996, the plan achieves almost all of the 
reductions needed to meet the target. The plan addresses the small 
remaining shortfall by commitments to adopt 9 SCAQMD measures in 1994, 
one SCAQMD measure in 1995, and one CARB measure: the enhanced I/M 
program. Even after applying an 80 percent rule effectiveness discount 
(in accordance with EPA's policy), the proposed SCAMQD measures alone 
would eliminate the shortfall, without the need to count credits 
assigned to the enhanced I/M program.
    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA has the authority to 
conditionally approve the South Coast plan based upon the State's 
commitment to adopt these measures. However, EPA's current policy does 
not allow approval of rate-of-progress plans if they depend upon 
commitments to adopt measures in order to meet the 15 percent reduction 
requirement. See Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, EPA Acting 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, ``Guidance on Issues 
Related to 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans,'' August 23, 1993. As a 
result, EPA intends not to take action to approve the South Coast Rate-
of-Progress Plan at this time.
    c. Conditional approval of commitments. As discussed above, EPA 
policy does not allow approval of 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans 
based on committal measures. In accordance with this policy, EPA does 
not propose to assign credit to the SCAQMD committal measures and 
approve the progress plan until all measures are submitted in fully 
enforceable form. However, commitments that strengthen the existing SIP 
can be approved, although without assignment of emission reduction 
credit.
    EPA proposes to conditionally approve the SCAQMD commitments to 
adopt the measures listed below, as strengthening the SIP. EPA has 
evaluated the commitments to adopt measures and finds that those 
commitments to adopt rules before 1996 are eligible for conditional 
approval under section 110(k)(4). EPA cannot propose to conditionally 
approve commitments to adopt measures with 1996 or later adoption dates 
because the SCAQMD's commitment may extend beyond one year from the 
date of the final conditional approval action (see pages 2-4 and 6-2 of 
the plan, and the SCAQMD Resolution of Adoption).
    (1) Commitments to adopt measures to contribute emission reductions 
in the period 1990-1996. The SCAQMD has committed to adopt fully 
enforceably controls in 1994 for the following measures:

P-B-7, Further Control of Emissions from Bulk Terminals;
P-C-1, Further Emission Reductions from Rubber Products 
Manufacturing;
A-B-2, Control of Emissions from Gasoline Transfer: Phase II 
Improvements;
A-B-3, Control of Emissions from Pleasure Boat Fueling Operations;
A-B-5, Further Control of Emissions from Gasoline Dispensing 
Facilities;
A-B-6, Control of Emissions from Utility Engine Refueling 
Operations;
A-B-9, Control of Emissions from Active Draining of Liquid Products;
A-C-2, Control of Emissions from Commercial Charbroiling;
A-C-4, Control of Emissions from Deep-Fat Frying.

    The SCAQMD committal measure scheduled for adoption in 1995 is A-F-
1, Installation of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology on 
Miscellaneous Sources. All of the measures are listed in Table 4-1 of 
the plan, along with the identification of the date for full 
implementation, the implementing agency, and the 1996 ROC emissions 
reductions with and without the 80 percent rule effectiveness discount. 
Appendix A of the plan provides further details on each of the 
measures, including descriptions of the regulatory history, the 
proposed method of control, and the calculation of emissions reductions 
and cost effectiveness.
    (2) Commitments to adopt measures before 1996 to contribute 
emission reductions in the period 1997-2000. The South Coast Rate-of-
Progress Plan also includes SCAQMD and ARB committal measures, with 
adoption and implement schedules, to reduce VOC and NOX emissions 
during 1997-2000. The SCAQMD commitments are to adopt the following VOC 
and NOX measures by the years shown:

P-A-2, Further Control of Emissions from Auto Assembly Coatings 
(1995);
A-B-7, Control of Emissions from Over-Filling of Vehicle Fuel Tanks 
(1994);
A-D-3, Control of Emissions from Residential and Commercial Water 
Heating (1994);
A-E-1, Control of Emissions from Pesticide Applications (1994);
A-E-2, Control of Emissions from Livestock Waste (1994);
M-G-1, Zero-Emission Urban Bus (1993);
M-G-8, Aerodynamic Devices for Trucks (1994);
M-I-1, Control of Emissions from Ship Berthing Facilities (1995);
M-I-4, Control on Marine Diesel Operations (1995);

    This list does not include SCAQMD committal NOX measures which 
have now been subsumed in the NOX/SOX RECLAIM program, 
adopted on October 15, 1993.
    For the period 1997-2000, the CARB committal measures and adoption 
dates are:

ARB-7, Low Emission Vehicle Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines (1995);
ARB-15, Emission Standards for Recreational Vehicles (1994);
ARB-16, Retrofit/Operational Requirements for Locomotives (1994);
ARB-17, Emission Standards for Marine Vessels (1994).

    In section III of this NPRM, EPA proposes to promulgate as part of 
the FIP attainment demonstration federal measures comparable to some of 
these SCAQMD and CARB committal measures. If any of the State or local 
committal measures for these categories are adopted and submitted as a 
SIP revision and achieve emission reductions comparable to the FIP 
controls, EPA will approve the SIP rules and modify the FIP rules 
accordingly. d. Implications of EPA's Proposed Actions.
    If EPA issues final conditional approval of the SCAQMD commitments, 
the SCAQMD must fulfill the commitments to adopt the rules by the date 
specified in the plan and shown above, and the State must submit these 
rules to EPA. If the SCAQMD fails to adopt or CARB fails to submit any 
of the rules to EPA within this time frame, this approval will become a 
disapproval following EPA written notification to the State.
    If the rules are submitted to EPA within the applicable time frame, 
the SCAQMD commitments will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes 
final action approving or disapproving the new submittal. If EPA 
disapproves the submittal, the measures on which the conditional 
approval was based will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA 
approves the submittal, those newly approved rules will become a part 
of the SIP and will modify or replace the measures on which the 
conditional approval is based. As discussed above, EPA's proposed 
conditional approval of the committal measures does not mean that the 
State has satisfied the initial 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress plan 
requirements of section 182(b)(1). EPA's current policy would not allow 
such approval until all necessary measures are submitted in fully 
adopted and enforceable form.
    EPA's final conditional approval of the SCAQMD commitments to adopt 
measures to achieve minimum progress requirements for the 1990-2000 
period will establish a federally enforceably obligation on the part of 
the SCAQMD to adopt these measures in fully enforceable form according 
to the committed schedule. It is essential not only that SCAQMD but 
also CARB and all other responsible agencies follow through on their 
commitments to meet the Act's near-term progress requirements through 
expeditious adoption of enforceable regulations to achieve the 
necessary creditable reductions.

III. California FIP

A. Basis for the FIP Actions in Applicable Law and EPA Policies

1. FIP Obligation
    a. Introduction. In 1988, in the wake of lawsuits and ensuing court 
orders, EPA disapproved the 1982 South Coast ozone and CO plans and the 
Sacramento and Ventura ozone plans on the ground that, among other 
things, they failed to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS by the 
December 1987 statutory attainment date, as required by Section 172(a) 
of the Act. See 53 FR 1780 (January 22, 1988). In March 1989, EPA 
entered into a settlement agreement with the South Coast plaintiffs 
which obligated EPA to promulgate federal plans for the South Coast in 
final form by February 1991. EPA issued a proposed FIP in September 
1990.
    For Sacramento, EPA also negotiated settlement agreements 
containing schedules by which EPA would propose and promulgate a 
federal plan. Pursuant to these schedules, EPA published Advance 
Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) on April 5, 1990 (55 FR 12669) 
and May 27, 1992 (57 FR 22194).
    For Ventura, EPA similarly entered into settlements setting a 
schedule, and published an NPRM on January 17, 1991.
    But as time progressed, it became increasingly clear that the South 
Coast, Sacramento, and Ventura--all areas with difficult air pollution 
problems--could not possibly meet the ambitious requirements of the 
1977 CAA Amendments without severe economic dislocation.
    (1) Passage of 1990 amendments. On November 15, 1990, Congress 
enacted the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 
Stat. 2422-2423. Among other things, Congress completely revised the 
Part D nonattainment provisions of the Act. In so doing Congress 
repealed the provisions of Section 172 that had required SIPs for the 
South Coast, Ventura, and Sacramento to demonstrate attainment by 
December 31, 1987. Those provisions had formed the basis for EPA's 
disapprovals of the California SIP submissions for those areas, and 
thus the 1990 Amendments removed the statutory justification for those 
disapprovals. Congress replaced the provisions of section 172 with a 
detailed scheme of new requirements and extended deadlines specifically 
applicable to ozone and CO nonattainment SIPs. Sections 171-193, 42 
U.S.C. 7501-7515.
    In particular, the 1990 Amendments established a graduated series 
of requirements for different areas, depending on the severity of the 
air quality problem in each. Congress established five classifications 
of ozone nonattainment areas based on the level of each area's ozone 
problem--ranging from ``Marginal'' to ``Extreme''--and two 
classifications of CO nonattainment areas. The Amendments also set new, 
extended deadlines for the attainment of the primary NAAQS for each 
classification. Sections 181(a)(1) and 186(a)(1).
    Consistent with the new Amendments, EPA issued a regulation 
classifying Sacramento as a ``Serious'' area for ozone nonattainment; 
under the statute, ``Serious'' areas must attain the ozone standard as 
expeditiously as practicable but no later than November 15, 1999. 40 
C.F.R. 81.305 (1992); CAA section 181(a). Ventura is classified as a 
``Severe'' area for ozone, and must attain as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than November 15, 2005. The South Coast is 
classified as the only ``Extreme'' area for ozone, and must demonstrate 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than November 
15, 2010. For carbon monoxide, the South Coast is classified as a 
``Serious'' area, and must demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as 
practicable but no later than December 31, 2000.
    In the 1990 Amendments Congress also imposed specific and 
increasingly rigorous requirements for Part D SIPs, depending on the 
area's nonattainment classification, with new deadlines, ranging from 
immediately to six years from enactment, for submitting various 
components of the plans to EPA. Sections 181, 182, 186, and 187. In 
addition, the 1990 Amendments amended Section 110(c)(l), the principal 
provision governing EPA's FIP obligation.
    EPA concluded that these revisions, directing States to develop 
SIPs meeting new requirements and deadlines, and to submit SIPs to EPA 
on specific schedules, demonstrated that EPA's obligation to promulgate 
FIPs would arise only upon future disapprovals of those newly submitted 
SIPs. EPA appealed to the courts to determine whether the Amendments 
had relieved the Agency of its pre-existing FIP obligations.
    In Coalition for Clean Air, 971 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1992), a divided 
panel of the Ninth Circuit held that although Section 110(c)(l) had 
been revised by the 1990 Amendments, the language of section 
110(c)(l)(B), which requires EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years 
after it ``disapproves'' a SIP, applies to pre-Amendment disapprovals. 
Thus, the court ruled that new section 110(c)(l)(B) operates 
retroactively to retain EPA's preexisting FIP obligation, even though 
the statutory provisions forming the basis for that obligation have 
been repealed. In reaching this conclusion, the court declined to 
indicate whether the requirements of the old law or the 1990 Amendments 
would govern the contents of this FIP.
    The Court acknowledged that ``the proper contents of FIPs for the 
South Coast are not before us,'' and that ``we need not decide whether 
EPA would be required to meet any additional requirement imposed by the 
1990 Amendments in promulgating FIPs for the South Coast,'' 971 F.2d at 
225.
    EPA sought, and was denied, a writ of certiorari (113 S.Ct. 1361 
(1993)).
    (2) Applicable law. Thus, although the Ninth Circuit found that the 
passage of the Amendments did not release EPA from a FIP obligation 
arising from a pre-Amendment disapproval, it did not decide whether any 
requirement of the 1990 Amendments applies to this continuing 
obligation. In the absence of any guidance from the Court, this task 
falls to EPA.
    The threshold question, then, is what requirements govern the 
content of a FIP which will take effect after enactment of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments, but which is based on a plan failure and 
disapproval arising from pre-Amendment Clean Air Act provisions which 
have since been repealed. The greatly altered legal regime established 
by the 1990 Amendments creates a discontinuity between the plan 
contents required under the new and old acts. Thus, EPA is faced with a 
choice as to how to design the FIP.
    (3) New law applies. It is well settled that ``[c]ourts must apply 
new laws to pending cases, unless such application would result in 
manifest injustice or be contrary to statutory direction or legislative 
history.'' United States v. Ford, 737 F.2d 1508 (9th Cir. 1984). See 
Bradley v. School Bd. of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711 (1974); DeGurules 
v. INS, 833 F.2d 861, 863 (9th Cir. 1987); California Cartage Co. v. 
United States, 802 F.2d 353, 357 (9th Cir. 1986). In accordance with 
the principle embodied in these cases, EPA believes that the 1990 
Amendments should be applicable to the FIPs arising from EPA's pre-
Amendment disapprovals. But an analysis of the new Act's provisions 
reveals that the new Act does not require this FIP to include each and 
every pollution control program required of States under the 
Amendments.
    The 1990 Amendments make explicit a principle that was implicit in 
the preceding Act--that a FIP corrects or fills a void in a deficient 
state plan. The amended Act defines a FIP as a plan to fill a gap or 
``correct all or a portion of an inadequacy in a State implementation 
plan.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(y) (Supp. II. 1990) (emphasis added). The 
California SIPs at issue here were rejected by EPA in 1988 because they 
were ``inadequa[te]'' to demonstrate attainment under the pre-Amendment 
deadlines, and thus EPA's obligation under the pre-1990 Act was to 
promulgate a FIP in order to correct that ``inadequacy.'' Thus EPA's 
FIP obligation is to fulfill the requirement to demonstrate attainment. 
Stated differently, what the Ninth Circuit's ruling preserved was EPA's 
existing FIP obligation to correct the state plan's failure to provide 
for attainment. That is the inadequacy that EPA must address in this 
FIP, not any failure that might have arisen under any of the numerous 
requirements of the new law.
    Of course, if the State fails to meet any of the new Act's 
requirements, that failure would trigger a new FIP obligation in the 
future, but that would be an entirely different obligation, not the one 
on which the district court orders under the old Act were premised. And 
even as to such obligations, the Administrator is not required to 
promulgate a federal plan until two years after she disapproves a 
deficient state plan or finds that the state has failed to submit a 
required plan element. Section 110(c)(l).
    With respect to new requirements imposed by the 1990 Amendments, 
there has either been no state failure, or the 24-month clock for EPA 
to promulgate a FIP has not yet run. When a state failure giving rise 
to a new FIP obligation occurs, EPA will address that obligation in a 
separate FIP NPRM. For example, FIPs addressing state failures to 
satisfy the VOC RACT catch-up requirement of the new Amendments may 
become due late in 1994 and in 1995. In the absence of approvable state 
measures correcting for these deficiencies, EPA will issue separate 
FIPs to rectify them.
    Given EPA's position as to the effect of the new Amendments, one 
might argue that the logical extension is that since the state has not 
yet failed to adopt an attainment demonstration under new section 
182(c)(2)(A), no attainment demonstration is due. But since the Ninth 
Circuit conclusively decided that the obligation to promulgate an 
attainment demonstration survived, EPA must prepare one under the new 
Act.
    For policy as well as legal reasons, this resolution makes sense, 
and it avoids extreme results. On the one hand, it would be unhelpful 
for EPA to design the FIP to meet the old law requirements that have 
since been repealed. And for EPA to impose in 1995 a regulatory regime 
that became extinct in 1990 would surely not serve Congressional intent 
or constitute sound regulatory policy. On the other hand, it would 
equally disserve Congressional intent to compel these FIPs, which are 
not based on state failures to meet any requirements of the new Act, to 
meet all those requirements and to cure failures that were not part of 
the obligation that the Court orders preserved.
    In the Coalition case, the Ninth Circuit Court itself seemed to 
imply that EPA's FIP need not address new requirements when it noted 
that the state could ``propose these new measures as revisions to the 
FIP under the timetables provided in the 1990 Amendments just as the 
state would be required to do if a FIP had been in effect when those 
Amendments were adopted''. Coalition for Clean Air, 971 F.2d at 226.
    Indeed, if the FIP were to try to meet all the requirements of the 
new Act, it would have to anticipate and cure new failures before they 
had arisen under the new Act, and before the State has had an 
opportunity to develop and submit plans to comply with the new Act. 
This would violate the express congressional determination that ``air 
pollution prevention'' and ``air pollution control at its source is the 
primary responsibility of States and local governments.'' Section 
101(a)(3).
    Thus, EPA has concluded that the FIPs must cure the original 
failure to demonstrate attainment. But in these FIPs the Agency need 
not assume additional obligations to meet new requirements as to which 
no state delinquency has yet been established under the new Act, or as 
to which EPA's FIP obligation has not yet matured.
    b. The FIPs Must Demonstrate Attainment--(1) What Attainment 
Deadline Governs?
    (a) Background. The Ninth Circuit last addressed the issue of what 
attainment deadline applied to a pre-Amendment FIP obligation in 
Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1990). But at that time the 
attainment deadline in the then extant Clean Air Act--December 31, 
1987--had passed, and Congress had not yet extended it.
    In a March 1990 opinion, prior to the passage of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments, the Ninth Circuit vacated EPA's approval of two Arizona 
carbon monoxide SIPs, and ordered EPA to promulgate FIPs consistent 
with that court's opinion. Interpreting EPA's statutory requirement to 
develop a FIP in light of the elapsed statutory attainment date of 
December 31, 1987, the Court concluded that ``the national ambient air 
quality standards must be attained as soon as possible with every 
available control measure * * *.'' 898 F.2d at 691. The Court relied 
upon EPA guidance, subsequently revoked, for the part of its 
formulation requiring ``all possible measures'' or ``every available 
measure.'' 55 FR 36505 (September 5, 1990).
    The Court, in formulating this attainment test, made plain that, 
while it understood that a Congressional re-determination of the 
attainment deadlines was in the works, the Court was constrained until 
Congress acted. Thus, at the time the Delaney Court and EPA last 
struggled to define an appropriate FIP attainment deadline, they 
confronted not only a lapsed attainment deadline, but Congressional 
silence as to an appropriate replacement.
    Quoting from its opinion in Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071, 1079 
(9th Cir. 1987), the Delaney Court stated: ``We are informed by counsel 
for both sides of their expectation that Congress will extend the 
deadline once again in the near future, but we must apply the law as it 
now stands, not as it may become. * * * Until the Clean Air Act is 
further considered * * * the Agency must `give effect to the 
unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.' We, and the EPA, are bound 
by the statutory scheme until Congress alters that scheme.'' 898 F.2d 
at 691.
    (b) Current law. Now, however, Congress has indeed ``alter[ed] that 
scheme'', the new law applies, and EPA, in formulating its FIPs, has 
the benefit of Congressional determination of appropriate attainment 
dates. With the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress has 
made specific attainment deadline determinations with respect to each 
type of area. As with other aspects of the new law, EPA believes that 
the attainment dates of the new law apply. Indeed, even if it were not 
clear that the new attainment dates apply, it is now impossible to 
design FIPs to meet the 1987 attainment date that governed the original 
state plans, and there is a clear expression of Congressional intent as 
to substitute attainment deadlines.
    As noted above, under the new Act, the ozone attainment date must 
be ``as expeditiously as practicable but not later than'' November 15, 
1999 for Sacramento; November 15, 2005 for Ventura; and November 15, 
2010 for the South Coast. Section 181(a). The carbon monoxide 
attainment date for the South Coast must be ``as expeditiously as 
practicable but not later than'' December 31, 2000.
    (2) These FIPs need not address new requirements other than the 
requirement to demonstrate attainment. As shown above, EPA's obligation 
to design a FIP arose from state failures to demonstrate attainment 
under the old Clean Air Act. The Amendments imposed for the first time 
additional, different requirements that were not in effect when EPA 
disapproved the state plans giving rise to its FIP obligation, and 
which took effect after EPA's FIP obligation matured. Thus California 
was given no opportunity to meet these requirements in its previous 
SIPs, and any failure to meet these requirements would be a new 
delinquency that was not the subject of EPA's original FIP obligation. 
EPA therefore has concluded that the FIPs need not address these 
requirements unless and until California has failed to satisfy them and 
the time for EPA to promulgate a replacement FIP under the new Act has 
elapsed.
    For example, the Amendments contain new and highly specific targets 
for Reasonable Further Progress. Section 182(b)(l) in the Amendments 
requires plans under the Act to provide for VOC emissions reductions of 
at least 15 percent by 1996, and section 182(c)(2)(B) requires an 
additional 9 percent emissions reduction every three years after 1996. 
Each of these sections contains detailed instructions for calculating 
the creditability of those reductions. Sections 182(b)(1) and 
182(c)(2).
    While EPA does not believe that these progress requirements are 
applicable to its FIP obligation, EPA has concluded that it is wise 
policy to achieve some degree of progress during the time preceding the 
attainment dates. As a result, the FIPs do establish incremental 
reduction targets for the purpose of ensuring attainment by the 
applicable attainment date.
    At this time, the State of California has become delinquent in 
meeting a few requirements in the new Act, thereby giving rise to new 
EPA FIPs obligations under the new Act's deadlines. FIPs to address 
these deficiencies, which primarily involve submissions of RACT catch-
ups and emission statements, are not yet due. EPA will address these 
FIPs in separate rulemakings as they become due.
    c. FIPs may use new provisions providing additional flexibility. 
Since EPA has concluded that the new law applies to its FIP obligation, 
EPA may avail itself of new provisions of the law that furnish 
additional flexibility in designing implementation plans.
    The Ninth Circuit in its opinion recognized that EPA could take 
advantage of increased flexibility in the new Act. For example, the 
Court noted that EPA now has authority under new section 182(e)(5) to 
approve some parts of the South Coast ozone SIP that it had disapproved 
in 1988. Coalition for Clean Air, 971 F. 2d at 226. Similarly, as 
explained below, EPA believes it may invoke section 182(e)(5) in 
designing its FIP to obtain greater flexibility to anticipate new 
control techniques or the improvement of existing techniques. To the 
extent that EPA invokes such discretionary provisions of the new Act, 
it will satisfy any new prerequisites prescribed in those sections. For 
example, as explained below, in order for EPA's FIP to obtain the 
benefit of the latitude granted by section 182(e)(5) to rely on 
measures anticipating improvements in technology, the FIP must address 
progress requirements of that section which otherwise would have been 
inapplicable.
    As described in more detail below, EPA in its FIPs is also applying 
the new law's classifications for each ozone nonattainment area, and, 
for Sacramento, the provision for ``bumping'' up an area to a new 
classification. As with section 182(e)(5), where EPA relies on a new 
provision for added flexibility, it intends to fulfill any conditions 
imposed on the exercise of that authority.
    EPA recognizes that its FIPs must weave a complicated path between 
the old and new laws, and that its FIP obligation is necessarily a 
hybrid of old and new. This complexity is unavoidable, however, because 
of the anomalous nature of the task EPA faces: EPA must cure a failure 
under an old Act, since repealed, but administer the cure under new 
law.
    d. Maintenance demonstration for the south coast. EPA's FIP 
obligations for the South Coast, Sacramento, and Ventura arose from 
disapprovals of their SIPs solely on the ground of their failure to 
demonstrate attainment by 1987 or any fixed near-term date. See 53 FR 
1280-1281 (January 22, 1988) (South Coast); 53 FR 39087-39088 (October 
5, 1988) (Ventura); 53 FR 48535-48536 (Dec. 1, 1988) (Sacramento). The 
settlement agreements for Ventura and Sacramento describe EPA's FIP 
obligation solely in terms of promulgating a plan for attainment. The 
South Coast settlement agreement refers to a plan for attainment and 
maintenance. Thus, with respect to the South Coast, EPA must determine 
what requirements apply to maintenance.
    As noted above, EPA is applying the new law to its FIP obligation. 
The 1990 Amendments changed the law with respect to maintenance 
demonstrations. Under the pre-Amendment Clean Air Act, sections 
172(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(b) required plans to include measures to 
``insure attainment and maintenance''. (emphasis added) But the 1990 
Amendments revised both the general planning and ozone and CO specific 
planning provisions to delete the requirement for a maintenance 
demonstration to be submitted simultaneously with an attainment 
demonstration.
    The Amendments revised section 110(a)(2) to delete any reference to 
a maintenance demonstration. When we look to Part D for requirements 
applicable to areas classified ``Serious'' and above for ozone, and 
``Moderate'' (with a design value greater than 12.7ppm) and above for 
CO, we find that section 172(c)(1), the closest analog to old section 
172(a)(1), also drops any mention of planning for maintenance. Sections 
182(c)(2)(A) and 187(a)(7) of the new Amendments, which set forth the 
specific requirements for ozone and CO nonattainment areas, 
respectively, to provide for attainment, similarly makes no mention of 
any maintenance requirement.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\Section 110(a)(1) of both the pre-amended and amended Acts 
requires areas to provide for maintenance (as well as implementation 
and enforcement) after EPA issues a new or revised NAAQS. But this 
is not applicable here, since that obligation is past for ozone and 
CO, and the failure that gave rise to the FIP obligation here was 
grounded in maintenance provisions of section 172(a) that were 
repealed in 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather, the requirement for nonattainment areas to provide for 
maintenance in the amended Act is now found in new section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and section 175A. These sections provide that 
maintenance plans must be submitted when an area requests redesignation 
to attainment. The combination of the amendments to section 172 and the 
addition of these new maintenance plan provisions indicates that the 
requirement for a maintenance plan arises only much later, when it must 
accompany a request for redesignation.
    This reflects a Congressional determination to focus on attainment, 
and to compel maintenance plans only when an area has progressed to the 
point when it has already attained and is ready to demonstrate 
attainment. This legal regime and policy has thus superseded any 
obligation arising out of old section 172(a).
    EPA's existing regulation, promulgated under the aforementioned 
pre-Amendment maintenance provisions, requires SIPs to provide for 
maintenance for 20 years, or for 10 years upon the making of an 
appropriate finding. Section 193 of the 1990 Amendments, the ``General 
Savings Clause'', provides in pertinent part that each regulation shall 
remain in effect except to the extent ``otherwise provided under this 
Act, or inconsistent with any provision in effect. * * *''
    As demonstrated above, the changes to section 172 and the new 
requirements of section 175A and related provisions deleted from the 
Act any requirement to provide for maintenance prior to a request for 
redesignation. The new Act thus establishes a whole new regime for 
demonstrating attainment and maintenance, the timing and requirements 
of which are inconsistent with the old law. Under the Amendments, 
attainment plans no longer must provide ``up front'' a plan for 
maintenance. And when the Act does require submission of maintenance 
plans (at the time of a redesignation request), such plan need 
demonstrate maintenance for only ten years instead of twenty.
    Although EPA has not yet accomplished the formal rescission of its 
pre-1990 regulations on maintenance, we consider the rules nullified by 
operation of Section 193, and therefore no longer applicable. EPA will 
propose in separate rulemaking to rescind these national regulations, 
which appear at 40 CFR part 51 subpart D--Maintenance of National 
Standards. EPA may or may not promulgate a replacement for the 
regulations.
2. Other Issues Relating to EPA's Authority in Issuing a FIP
    a. Comprehensive FIP authorities under the clean air act. When 
forced by a state planning delinquency to promulgate a FIP, EPA has 
wide-ranging authority under section 110(c) to fill the gaps left by 
the state failure. EPA's authority to prescribe FIP measures is of 
three types. First, EPA may promulgate any measure which it is 
expressly permitted to issue under any circumstances pursuant to pre-
existing independent statutory authority--for example, explicit 
provisions of Title II. That is, EPA may promulgate any measure which 
it has authority to issue in a non-FIP context, without reliance on 
section 110(c). Second, EPA may invoke Section 110(c)'s general FIP 
authority, and act to cure a planning inadequacy in any way not clearly 
prohibited by statute. Third, under section 110(c), the Courts have 
held that EPA may exercise all authority that the State may exercise 
under the Act.
    The second type of authority, EPA's general authority under section 
110(c), is essentially remedial, and EPA has broad power under that 
section to cure a defective state plan. Thus, in promulgating a FIP, 
EPA may exercise its own, independent regulatory authority under the 
Act in any way not clearly prohibited by an explicit provision of the 
Act. When EPA promulgates a FIP, courts have not required explicit 
authority for specific measures: ``We are inclined to construe 
Congress' broad grant of power to the EPA as including all enforcement 
devices reasonably necessary to the achievement and maintenance of the 
goals established by the legislation.'' South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, 
504 F.2d 646, 669. (1st Cir. 1974). See also City of Santa Rosa v. EPA, 
534 F.2d 150, 153-154 (9th Cir. 1976) (upholding the Administrator's 
authority to promulgate a FIP imposing gas-rationing in Los Angeles on 
a massive scale). ``The authority to regulate pollution carries with it 
the power to do so in a manner reasonably calculated to reach that 
end.'' Id. at 155.
    In addition, when a State's failure to discharge the primary 
responsibility to protect its air quality compels EPA to assume this 
task, the powers of the defaulting State accrue to EPA. As the Ninth 
Circuit recently held, when EPA acts in place of the State pursuant to 
a FIP under section 110(c), EPA ```stands in the shoes of the 
defaulting State, and all of the rights and duties that would otherwise 
fall to the State accrue instead to EPA.''' Central Arizona Water 
Conservation District v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, at 1541 9th Cir. 1993). 
The First Circuit, in an early FIP case, agreed:

    The Administrator must promulgate promptly regulations setting 
forth `an implementation plan for a State should the State itself 
fail to propose a satisfactory one.' The statutory scheme would be 
unworkable were it read as giving to EPA when promulgating an 
implementation plan for a State, less than those necessary measures 
allowed by Congress to a State to accomplish federal clean air 
goals. We do not adopt any such crippling interpretation.

South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, supra at 668.
    b. EPA authority to charge fees. State Implementation Plans for 
nonattainment areas are clearly authorized to include emission fees as 
economic incentives to reduce pollutants. Sections 110(a)(2)(A) 
(relating to SIPs generally) and 172(c)(6) broadly authorize SIPs to 
meet the Act's requirements through any ``control measures, means, or 
techniques * * * necessary or appropriate'', including ``economic 
incentives such as fees * * *''
    EPA interprets the FIP provisions to authorize fees as well, by 
virtue of both the case law that grants FIPs much the same scope as 
SIPs, and by the provisions of section 302(y), which defines a FIP to 
include--

    Enforceable emission limitations or other control measures, 
means or techniques (including economic incentives, such as 
marketable permits or auctions of emissions allowances).

EPA interprets this phrase, including the parenthetical reference to 
economic incentives, as providing authority to impose a broad range of 
economic incentives, including fees, even if not specifically listed in 
the provision. Thus, EPA takes the position that a FIP includes 
authority to impose fees concerning ozone generating emissions or other 
activities.
    c. Restrictions on EPA's authority regarding fees. As a legal 
matter, EPA's authority under section 110(c) and 302(y) to impose fees 
is limited only to the extent that the fees must be enforceable, and 
must provide an incentive that may result in a reduction in ozone 
generating emissions or other activities. As a practical matter, 
because only quantifiable emissions reductions may be credited in the 
attainment demonstration, EPA may limit the types or amounts of fees 
imposed to those that assure quantifiable emissions reductions.
    The Clean Air Act includes no provision directing that FIP fees 
collected by EPA remain at EPA's disposal; as a result, in general, EPA 
must deposit any FIP fees it collects in the Treasury, under 31 U.S.C. 
3302(b) (the Miscellaneous Receipts Act). The prohibition against 
retaining fees applies as well against directing how those fees are 
spent. For example, EPA could (by itself or through a contractor, 
described below) establish an I/M program and charge fees for 
conducting the inspection, but the Miscellaneous Receipts Act precludes 
EPA from rebating those fees to car owners who failed the inspection 
and elected to scrap their vehicles.
    Under certain circumstances, fees relating to services or products 
provided by a contractor may be retained by that contractor to defray 
its costs. See 61 Comp. Gen. 285 (1982) (contractor may charge and 
retain fees to offset costs of providing public microfilm copies of 
Federal Election Commission reports).
    d. Land use. Section 131 of the Act states: ``Nothing in this Act 
constitutes an infringement on the existing authority of counties and 
cities to plan or control land use, and nothing in this Act provides or 
transfers authority over such land use.'' This language merely 
preserves in general terms the existing authority of counties and 
cities to plan or control land use. However, this language could be 
interpreted as a constraint on EPA's authority under section 110(c). 
This could happen if, for example, the FIP proposes to regulate certain 
air emissions, which indirectly has the effect of narrowing or 
restricting a district's or locality's zoning or land use planning 
choices. However, any FIP actions taken by EPA would be for the purpose 
of regulating air emissions, not local land use or zoning requirements 
that are unrelated to air quality. As such, they would not infringe on 
the authority of local governments to control land use; rather they, at 
best, would restrain the ability of certain entities to engage in 
activities that cause certain air quality problems. This interpretation 
is confirmed by the House Conference Committee Report which states:

    Depending on the nature of the air pollution problem in a State 
and the control options available to the State, the measures 
required [to attain the NAAQS] may or may not include measures 
involving land use requirements. New section [131] clarifies that if 
land use requirements are necessary to meet the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act, nothing in the Act should be construed to affect 
State laws regarding the appropriate entities to adopt and implement 
such land use requirements * * * [nor to authorize] air pollution 
control agencies to override individual project-specific land use 
decisions made by a city or county.

See H.R. Re. No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 401 (1990) (analyzing 
section 706 of H.R. 3030, which added section 131 [mistakenly 
identified as section 130]).
    e. Parking management. FIP fees imposed with respect to parking 
management are subject to additional limitations under section 
110(c)(2)(B) and (D)--such a fee is not permissible if it constitutes a 
``parking surcharge''. A parking surcharge is defined to include--

    Any tax, surcharge, fee, or other charge on parking spaces, or 
any other area used for the temporary storage of motor vehicles.

    This provision effectively eliminates a variety of parking 
management fees, such as surcharges designed to increase parking costs. 
Several such measures were included in the 1973 FIP setting forth 
transportation control plans for several areas in California, 38 FR 
31232, 31236-31237, 31247-31248 (Nov. 12, 1973), but the parking 
measures were withdrawn when a provision to preclude them was included 
in the Energy Emergency Act of 1973, 39 FR 1848 (Jan. 15, 1974). 
(Although the Energy Emergency Act of 1973 ultimately was not enacted, 
110(c)(2) was enacted as part of the Energy Supply and Environmental 
Coordination Act, June 22, 1974, Pub.L. 93-310, S 4, 88 Stat. 256.)
    f. Authority to order the state to implement specific measures 
requiring the state to legislate or expend money. EPA's authority to 
promulgate measures in a FIP which require the State to enact 
legislation or expend state funds may be somewhat limited under prior 
case law. In general, EPA may require the State to implement FIP 
measures, including requirements for legislation and expenditure of 
funds, if the measures affect the pollution-creating activities of the 
State. However, in Brown v. EPA, 521 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1975), vacated 
on other grounds, 431 U.S. 99 (1977) (Brown I''), the court held that 
Section 113 of the Clean Air Act did not provide statutory authority 
for EPA to bring an enforcement action against the state (or other 
municipal authority) for failing to implement a motor vehicle 
inspection and maintenance program. The court reasoned that the Act 
authorized federal enforcement if the State did not implement 
regulations to control its own pollution creating activities, ``but not 
against a state that chooses not to govern polluters as the 
Administrator directs.'' Id. at 832. In a subsequent decision, the 
court rejected EPA's argument that ownership of the roads and highways 
made the State responsible for the pollution created from their use. 
Brown v. EPA, 566 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1977), vacated on other grounds, 
431 U.S. 99 (1977).
    The same court, however, held in City of Santa Rosa v. EPA, 534 
F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1976), that the EPA may require gas rationing under 
its FIP authority. The court found that the Administrator of EPA has 
authority to limit gas delivery to retail outlets and may require the 
citizens of the State to curtail their gas usage. The FIP measure in 
City of Santa Rosa did not require the State to implement the gas 
rationing scheme, and the court distinguished Brown because the 
petitioners had challenged the effect of gas rationing, not EPA's 
authority to order rationing. Id. at 155.
    The Brown holding was similarly distinguished and limited by the 
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Ohio Department of 
Highway Safety, 635 F.2d 1195 (6th Cir. 1980). The court upheld EPA's 
enforcement against the State under Section 113 of the Act for 
registering motor vehicles which did not pass an inspection and 
maintenance program promulgated by EPA. The court held that the State 
was interfering with EPA's implementation of a measure that had been 
promulgated under its federal authority. See also Pennsylvania v. EPA, 
500 F.2d 246 (3d Cir. 1974).
    The court in Brown did not reach constitutional issues raised under 
the commerce clause. It is unclear, but unlikely, that requiring the 
State to implement FIP measures which mandate legislation and 
expenditure of funds would be struck down under the commerce clause. 
See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 
(1985) (holding that the federal government may require states to pay 
minimum wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act). 
However, even assuming that the commerce clause poses no such obstacle, 
nothing in the enactment of the 1990 Amendments casts doubt on the 
continued vitality of the Brown holdings with respect to the statutory 
limits on EPA's FIP authority. Thus, the constraints discussed above 
still apply. In short, EPA may require the state to legislate or expend 
funds that affect the state's own pollution creating activities. 
Although EPA may not require the state to legislate or spend money to 
govern the pollution creating activities of others, EPA may promulgate 
and implement such measures directly in a FIP and the State may not 
interfere with EPA's enforcement of those measures.

B. Overview of Components of Each FIP

1. FIP Control Strategy
    a. Introduction. This NPRM addresses EPA's FIP obligations to 
prepare attainment demonstrations for ozone in Sacramento and Ventura, 
and for both ozone and carbon monoxide in the South Coast. EPA's task 
requires the Agency to complete four fundamental air quality planning 
activities: (1) Preparation of information on current and projected 
emissions of each precursor pollutant; (2) modeling assessment of the 
levels of these pollutants that must be reached for each area to attain 
the relevant NAAQS; (3) identification of control options sufficient to 
achieve the necessary reductions in emissions; and (4) drafting of 
federally enforceable regulations adequate to secure the reductions.
    In this section of the NPRM, EPA summarizes information used in 
establishing the technical foundations of the attainment demonstration: 
the sources of data on existing and future emissions, EPA adjustments 
to that data, and modeling analyses used to simulate the ambient 
consequences of emissions changes and to set the overall reduction 
targets for each precursor pollutant.
    The bulk of this section, however, presents the complete set of 
federal regulations for each area. The regulations themselves appear at 
the end of the NPRM, and they are further explained, in many cases, by 
technical support documents which are available as part of the docket 
for this NPRM.
    For each set of regulations, EPA has attempted to: (1) Specify 
clearly which sources are subject to the rule's requirements, and which 
are exempt; (2) describe in simple terms the most important source 
obligations, whether procedural or emissions related; (3) identify 
possible compliance options and estimated costs per unit of pollution 
reduced; and (4) characterize the emissions reduction benefits 
associated with the rule in each applicable FIP area.
    Because many of the FIP rules are unprecedented in their regulatory 
targets or approach, EPA has reserved portions of the rules for later 
development, and seeks full input from affected sources on the best 
ways to fill in these implementation details before the compliance 
deadlines of each rule approach.
    In other cases, EPA must complete ongoing technical projects, 
including further emissions sampling and analysis, to finalize 
important rule implementation elements, such as protocols for use in 
the stationary and area source cap rules. Ideally, EPA would undertake 
these projects in coordination with affected industry and State and 
local air pollution control agencies in the FIP areas. These additions 
to the FIP rules may be proposed as actual regulations or they may be 
issued as supplementary guidance materials that expand on practical 
compliance issues.
    EPA encourages readers to provide information and regulatory 
suggestions to allow EPA to improve the proposed rules' clarity and 
compliance certainty, provide for least-cost compliance approaches, and 
tailor the rules more precisely to fit local circumstances and foster 
program transfer to the State or local level.
    In many cases, affected sources are already subject to existing 
State and local emission reduction requirements, and the responsible 
State and local agencies may be developing further regulatory 
initiatives, as part of their ongoing SIP efforts. EPA has attempted to 
craft FIP rules which, to the extent possible, match the format of 
State or local regulations and minimize conflict between the federal 
regulatory regime and current or proposed State and local requirements. 
To reduce compliance costs and duplication of effort by sources and the 
enforcing agencies, EPA will consider future FIP rule amendments for 
the purpose of harmonizing federal and State controls and eliminating 
any jeopardy of the regulated community for inadvertent violations of 
similar but not identical federal and State rules.
    b. Enforcement. As described in section III.A.2.a of this NPRM, the 
FIP requirements contained in sections 52.2950-52.3002 are proposed 
pursuant to section 110(c) and other sections of the Clean Air Act. If 
finalized, these requirements will be subject to Federal enforcement 
under section 113(a)(3) of the Act. Pursuant to section 113(a)(3), EPA 
may pursue the following actions against any person who violates a 
requirement of the final FIP rules:
    (1) Administrative penalty order. EPA may issue an administrative 
order assessing a civil administrative penalty of up to $25,000 per day 
per violation.
    (2) Compliance order. EPA may issue an order to comply with any 
requirement of the FIP.
    (3) Civil action. EPA may commence a civil action for permanent or 
temporary injunction and/or assess a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per 
day per violation.
    (4) Criminal action. EPA may request that the Attorney General 
commence a criminal action against any person who knowingly violates 
any requirement of the FIP.
    Owners and operators of sources subject to the FIP rules should be 
aware that compliance with the FIP requirements does not generally 
relieve them of the obligation to comply with other applicable federal 
requirements or with their obligations under State law and regulations, 
or local air pollution control rules.
    c. Application of FIP Requirements to OCS Sources. Section 328 of 
the 1990 CAA Amendments required EPA to establish requirements to 
control air pollution from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) sources to 
attain and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and 
to comply with part C of title I of the CAA. EPA promulgated the new 
OCS air regulations at 40 CFR part 55 (``Part 55'') on September 4, 
1992 (57 FR 40792).
    As required by section 328 of the Act, OCS sources located within 
25 miles of states' seaward boundaries,\22\ must meet requirements that 
are the same as the requirements that would be applicable if the OCS 
source were located in the corresponding onshore area (``COA'').\23\ 
These include, but are not limited to, all applicable federal, state, 
and local requirements for control technology, permitting, monitoring, 
reporting, compliance and fees. New OCS sources must comply with the 
requirements of Part 55 immediately and existing sources must comply by 
September 4, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\The state seaward boundary of California extends three miles 
from the coastline.
    \23\Part 55 also establishes federal requirements for sources 
located beyond 25 miles from state seaward boundaries. However, 
there currently are no OCS sources located, or proposed to be, in 
this outer regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both VCAPCD and SCAQMD are designated as the COA for several OCS 
facilities located within 25 miles of the State seaward boundary. These 
OCS sources will be required to meet all the applicable requirements of 
the FIP when the FIP requirements are incorporated into part 55. The 
OCS rule establishes a ``consistency update'' procedure at 40 CFR 55.12 
to amend part 55 to include new federal, state, and local regulations 
when they are adopted.
    The OCS rule also establishes procedures for EPA to delegate 
implementation and enforcement of the requirements of part 55 to state 
and local agencies. Thus, any FIP requirements applicable to the 
affected OCS sources can be implemented by VCAPCD and SCAQMD when they 
are delegated authority for part 55. The reader is referred to the 
preamble of the OCS regulation for further background and information 
on part 55.
    d. Application of FIP Requirements to Sources Located in Indian 
Country. As described below, the CAA empowers EPA to apply the FIP 
requirements to affected air pollution sources in Indian country.\24\ 
Thus, EPA is also proposing to apply the FIP requirements to all 
affected air pollution sources located on Tribal lands. This means that 
the proposed FIP rules will apply with equal force to State and Tribal 
lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\Indian country includes: (a) All land within the limits of 
any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States 
Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, 
including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all 
dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States 
whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory 
thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and 
(c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been 
extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. 18 
U.S.C. section 1151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has authorized EPA to make Indian Tribes partners in Clean 
Air Act implementation in the same manner as States. See section 
301(d)(2) of the Act. As a prerequisite, EPA must identify provisions 
of the CAA for which it is appropriate to treat Tribes in the same 
manner as States. EPA may provide by regulation other means by which it 
will directly administer any other provisions of the CAA not 
identified, to achieve the appropriate purpose. See section 301(d)(4).
    The overarching purpose of the Clean Air Act is, among other 
things, ``to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air 
resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the 
productive capacity of its population.'' See section 101(b)(1) of the 
CAA (emphasis added). The NAAQS are one of the fundamental CAA 
benchmarks by which public health and welfare protection is measured.
    EPA has not yet issued rules under section 301(d)(2) authorizing 
Tribes to submit NAAQS-related CAA programs for EPA approval in the 
same manner as States. Sections 110(c)(1) and 301(d)(4) of the Act 
nevertheless evince Congressional intent to authorize EPA to directly 
protect public health and welfare where States or Tribes fail to submit 
such CAA programs or lack authority to do so. Federal implementation on 
Indian lands is especially appropriate in these particular exigencies 
where federal action will prevent voids in public health and welfare 
protection. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. EPA, 803 F.2d 545, 555-56 
(10th Cir. 1986) (affirming EPA's authority to directly implement Safe 
Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control program on Indian 
lands in Oklahoma where concluding otherwise would contradict the 
meaning and purpose of the Act by creating ``a vacuum of authority over 
underground injections on Indian lands, leaving vast areas of the 
nation devoid of protection from groundwater contamination).
    It is not necessary for EPA to determine to what extent at the 
local level the State or certain Indian Tribes would have authority 
over specific geographic areas within the scope of the FIPs. The State 
has failed to make required SIP submittals to protect the NAAQS and any 
affected Tribes lack authority to make such submittals at this time. In 
these circumstances the CAA empowers EPA to protect air quality 
throughout the affected areas. Id. at 553 (``the underground drinking 
water provisions of the SDWA apply throughout the country, border to 
border, ocean to ocean'').
2. Common Elements
    a. Mobile source regulations. The mobile source control measures 
which are discussed in section III.D. of this NPRM range in scope from 
national application to restricted application in one or more of the 
three FIP areas depending on the category. Technology improvements are 
generally required in phases, with new national emission standards 
applicable in the early years, and California, or FIP area requirements 
scheduled for implementation later. In some cases, the mobile source 
measures are applied only locally because they are adopted to fill a 
lack in a particular area's plan, such as enhanced I/M or the employee 
commute options program. Local strategies are also proposed to deal 
with the emissions from transportation and military facilities that 
contain more than one type of mobile emission source. Following is a 
brief classification of the measures according to the breadth of their 
application:
    (1) Nationwide. New emission standards have recently been proposed 
or are shortly scheduled for proposal for several mobile source 
emission categories. Both on-highway and off-road heavy duty engines 
will meet tighter NOX standards, as will locomotives. Lawn and 
garden, recreational marine, and other small nonroad equipment are the 
subject of new exhaust and evaporative hydrocarbon standards.
    (2) Statewide. In California, it is also possible to adopt 
standards more stringent than those applied at the national level, if 
it is necessary to do so for attainment purposes. The market for 
vehicles and equipment in California is large enough to encourage 
manufacturers to supply a full range of product in the state, even 
though it may be different than similar product in the rest of the 
country. Today's NPRM proposes special standards for medium duty 
vehicles, heavy duty highway engines, and onroad and off-road 
motorcycles sold and used in California and gives notice that such 
standards may become necessary for lawn and garden equipment and other 
small engines.
    (3) FIP areas. In the nonroad heavy duty engine category, the FIP 
proposal contains special NOX and evaporative HC requirements for 
engines used in the FIP areas. The standards represent a significant 
challenge for heavy duty engine manufacturers and are not considered to 
be necessary for attainment in other areas of the United States. 
Engines used in highway applications are regulated in the FIP at the 
statewide level, but the approach to the special NOX and 
evaporative HC standards for the nonroad engines will involve an engine 
registration and sticker enforcement system. For that reason, the 
standards are applied to engines actually used in each individual FIP 
area, and not to all engines sold in California.
    In several categories, the FIP proposes emission bubbles to allow 
facilities or entities with many mobile sources as much flexibility as 
possible to find reductions across different mobile emission sources. 
These bubbles are proposed for commercial airlines, marine vessels, 
railroads (South Coast only), and military installations in the FIP 
areas. In some cases, fees are proposed to encourage the purchase and 
use of the cleanest engines, to encourage activity reductions, or to 
promote the use of lower emitting operational procedures. These fees 
would apply to heavy-duty nonroad fleets, recreational marine engines, 
commercial and general aviation, and ships in the FIP areas only.
    Finally, the FIP proposes two light duty vehicle measures in only 
the FIP areas of California, namely motor vehicle inspection and 
maintenance (I/M), and parking cash out (a transportation control 
measure).
    b. Stationary and area source regulations. As discussed in section 
III.C of this NPRM, the proposed stationary source control package 
includes five general strategies:
     Regulations for specific sources;
     Regulations for specific source categories in the FIP 
areas;
     Regulations imposed statewide;
     Cap regulations; and
     New technology measures for the South Coast pursuant to 
section 182(e)(5) of the Act.
    Regulations for specific sources are, by definition, particular to 
individual sources and thus not common to the three FIP areas. In fact, 
all the source-specific regulations proposed in this NPRM apply only in 
the Sacramento area. Similarly, new technology measures proposed for 
the South Coast apply only in the South Coast as specified in section 
182(e)(5) of the Act. Some or all regulations from the other three 
categories, however, are proposed for implementation in all three FIP 
areas. These are summarized briefly below.
    (1) Regulations for specific source categories. Sections III.C.3.b-
p of this NPRM describe eighteen rules proposed for specific source 
categories in one or more FIP areas. Categories were selected for 
regulation generally because a State or local agency had already 
published a regulation that could be adapted for implementation in the 
FIP, or a previously unregulated category contributed substantial VOC 
or NOX emissions. Because the FIP areas have different emission 
inventories and local rules, the projected impact of new federal rules 
varies from area to area. Therefore, EPA is proposing to implement 
these FIP rules only in the areas where they may have a significant 
impact. As a result, only a few of the rules are common to all three 
FIP areas.
    (2) Regulations imposed statewide. As discussed in section III.C.4, 
EPA is proposing several stationary source rules for implementation 
statewide: Architectural coating, pesticides, aerosol paints and other 
consumer products. EPA believes that statewide implementation of these 
rules is necessary to assure compliance in the FIP areas.
    (3) Cap regulations. As discussed in section III.C.5, EPA is 
proposing cap regulations for both VOC and NOX in this NPRM. These 
rules cap emissions at 1989-1990 levels and require sources to reduce 
emissions below this level by a fixed annual percent, beginning in the 
year 2001.\25\ The VOC regulations are common to all three areas. The 
NOX cap rules apply only to Ventura, since stationary sources 
contribute only a small part of the NOX inventory in Sacramento 
and NOX sources in the South Coast are now controlled under the 
recently adopted SCAQMD NOX RECLAIM rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\For Sacramento's alternative 1999 attainment demonstration, 
the cap program will require full reductions by 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Sacramento Ozone
    a. Reduction requirements for 1999 and 2005. Anthropogenic 
emissions in the Sacramento area in 1990 totaled approximately 236 tons 
per day of VOC and 185 tons per day of NOX. There are many 
existing State and local regulatory requirements in the Sacramento 
area. These requirements include numerous State and local stationary 
source regulations and the existing CARB standards on new engines and 
equipment which will deliver increasing reductions each year as a 
result of replacement of old engines and equipment with newer cleaner 
engines and equipment. Sections II.B.2., II.B.5., and III.H. of today's 
NPRM discuss the adopted CARB and local districts' rules and EPA's 
assignment of credit to the rules as part of the FIP/SIP attainment 
demonstration.
    Unfortunately, projected emissions reductions from the State and 
local requirements must compete with projected growth in the area's 
population, automobile traffic and industrial activity.
    As a result, without further SIP or FIP measures, the total amount 
of emissions in the Sacramento area is not expected to change 
significantly by 1999 or 2005.
    CARB and EPA have performed extensive meteorologic analysis and 
urban airshed modeling (UAM) of ozone formation for the Sacramento 
area. This modeling suggests that several combinations of VOC and 
NOX reduction can achieve attainment of the ozone standard. As 
discussed in Section III.H.3.a., EPA is using reduction targets of 40 
percent VOC and 30 percent NOX from 1990 baseyear emission levels 
for the Sacramento area FIP attainment demonstration. In order to 
achieve the 40:30 target, SIP and FIP controls must reduce the future 
inventories for 1999 and 2005 to approximately 140 tons per day of VOC 
and 130 tons per day of NOX. (These targets are often referred to 
as ``carrying capacities.'')
    b. SIP rules. Irrespective of EPA's FIP obligation, California and 
the Sacramento nonattainment area are required to submit an ozone 
attainment SIP in November 1994. As part of this and previous SIP 
efforts, CARB and the local air agencies in the Sacramento area are 
continually adopting and modifying regulations to reduce NOX and 
VOC emissions. EPA is not proposing to act on any SIP improvements as 
part of this NPRM, but will do so on a case-by-case basis in separate 
actions.
    For purposes of the attainment demonstration in this NPRM, EPA is 
not generally assigning emission reduction credit for those measures 
that are not fully adopted in enforceable form. EPA urges the 
responsible State and local agencies to complete rule development and 
submit rules for SIP approval as soon as they are fully adopted. This 
will allow EPA to approve the regulations and substitute the locally 
developed measures for FIP rules.
    c. FIP rules for 1999 and 2005. Sacramento is classified as a 
``Serious'' ozone nonattainment area and is, therefore, initially 
required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to demonstrate 
attainment by 1999. There are several reasons why a 1999 attainment 
target for a FIP, however, would result in an unreasonable plan with 
undesirable impacts on the local economy. The following discussion 
outlines these reasons and explains EPA's proposed solution (i.e., 
bumping up the classification to ``Severe'' and extending the 
attainment deadline). EPA is soliciting comment on whether its solution 
is appropriate or whether the advantages of attainment by an earlier 
date justify the imposition of the kinds of measures which would be 
necessary.
    The FIP rules proposed for implementation in the Sacramento area 
for the 1999 and 2005 attainment options are discussed in sections 
III.B.2 and III.B.3. Mobile source measures which yield emission 
reductions for both the 1999 and 2005 options include an enhanced I/M 
program, credit for national standards for nonroad vehicles and 
engines, offroad recreational vehicle standards, motorcycle standards, 
and a parking cash out requirement. Other mobile source measures needed 
for attainment, discussed above and below, depend on the attainment 
year, 1999 or 2005. For 1999, the additional measures include 
accelerating turnover for heavy duty truck engines, capping emissions 
for nonroad fleets, restricting driving for highway vehicles and a 
strategy for recreational boats. For 2005, the additional measures 
includes strategies for motor vehicles, locomotives, recreational 
boats, airports, military installations, and an employee commute 
options (ECO) program.
    For stationary sources in Sacramento, both the 1999 and 2005 
proposals include the source specific reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) regulations discussed in III.C.2, all of the 
regulations for specific source categories discussed in III.C.3 and the 
statewide regulations discussed in III.C.4. Many sources will also be 
subject to the cap regulations discussed in III.C.5. which will require 
approximately a 20-45 percent reduction in VOCs by 1999 (for the 1999 
attainment option) or a gradual 4-9 percent per year reduction in VOCs 
from 2001 through 2005 (for the 2005 attainment option).
    d. 1999 attainment option. By 1999, the existing State and proposed 
FIP measures common to both the 1999 and 2005 proposals for both 
stationary\26\ and mobile sources will have reduced the Sacramento VOC 
inventory from 236 tons per day in 1990 to 155 tons per day in 1999, 
and the NOX inventory from 185 to 153 tons per day. Much of the 
progress on VOC and NOX comes from the stationary source measures, 
continued benefits of the current motor vehicle control programs, and a 
substantial improvement in in-use emissions of light duty vehicles due 
to an enhanced I/M program. New initial emissions standards affecting 
nonroad diesels and locomotives are just barely beginning to be felt in 
new engine purchases. New standards for medium duty vehicles, heavy 
duty vehicles, and heavy duty nonroad engines in California are just 
taking effect in the 1999 model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\The stationary measures include all of the measures 
discussed in III.C that are identified as applying to Sacramento and 
those that are applied statewide, and the cap regulation which 
requires a 20-45 percent reduction by 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1999, the shortfall in emission reductions is about 15 tons per 
day for VOC and 23 tons per day for NOX. NOX is almost 
entirely contributed by mobile sources in Sacramento. Twenty-three tons 
per day represent about 16 percent of the remaining mobile source 
emissions of NOX in 1999, or 43 percent of the remaining light 
duty motor vehicle emissions (i.e., passenger cars, light duty trucks 
and motorcycles). If the FIP must reduce the additional 23 tons of 
NOX without the benefit of new standards and normal turnover, then 
it must contain measures to require accelerated turnover and to reduce 
the activity of mobile sources. Under the option of retaining 
Sacramento's ``Serious'' area classification, EPA's strategy for making 
up the shortfall focused on mobile sources because of the absence of 
significant stationary NOX sources and aimed first at technology 
measures that are able to yield NOX reductions by 1999. EPA then 
considered whether similar opportunities existed for VOC reductions. 
The remainder of the reductions came necessarily from measures to 
reduce activity.
    (1) Onroad heavy duty trucks. On-highway heavy duty trucks are a 
category for which EPA believes an accelerated retirement/replacement 
program can be adopted and implemented because the regulatory 
development for tighter emission standards, certification protocols and 
product design work was updated in 1993. For the 2005 option, the FIP 
proposes significant changes to the emission standards and 
certification protocols which will be applied to on-highway heavy duty 
trucks beginning with the 1999 model year. However, the NOX 
standard for this category was also recently made more stringent. Since 
the 1991 model year, engine manufacturers have been certifying engines 
meeting a 5 gram per brake horsepower-hour standard. The federal 
NOX standard reduces further to 4 grams per brake horsepower-hour 
in 1998. Engines currently in use may range in design standard as high 
as 10.7 grams per brake horsepower-hour. Thus, there is an opportunity 
to require accelerated turnover in this category to effect reductions 
from the current fleet in order to contribute to a 1999 attainment 
strategy.
    In order for EPA to implement and enforce an engine replacement 
requirement, it will be necessary for California fleets to show 
compliance with a fleet average NOX standard prior to 
registration. The details of such a registration system and other 
requirements are described in section III.D.3., Programs for Onroad 
Heavy Duty Vehicles and Engines. For the 2005 option, a fleet averaging 
program begins in 2001. If the 1999 attainment option is ultimately 
selected, fleets registered in California would be required, after 
1997, to have an average gram per brake horsepower-hour level of no 
more than 5 grams.
    Some 1999 truck travel in the Sacramento area would be by fleets 
not subject to any fleet standard. The emissions reductions available 
depend on the contribution to vehicle miles traveled made by fleets 
which are subject to the rule. For the purpose of this proposal, it is 
assumed that 80 percent of the onroad heavy duty miles come from 
California fleets, yielding an estimated reduction of approximately 6 
tons of NOX per day.
    (2) Nonroad growth cap. The remaining NOX shortfall is 
approximately 17 tons per day, 13 percent of total mobile source 
inventory or 33 percent of the light duty motor vehicle NOX 
inventory in 1999. Before turning to activity reductions in the light 
duty motor vehicle category, it is reasonable to consider whether any 
reductions are available in this time frame from nonroad heavy-duty 
equipment. The difficulties of implementing a retrofit rule are 
discussed in I.D. However, there are emission reduction strategies 
which could be implemented by equipment fleet operators in the 
Sacramento area. For example, nonroad engines meeting higher national 
standards should be available from manufacturers as early as 1996. 
There are also applications which have on-road configurations as well 
as nonroad configurations, and fleet operators can purchase 
replacements meeting the tighter standards.
    One of the reasons that the overall nonroad category is estimated 
to contribute significantly to a 1999 inventory is that it has been 
unregulated up to this time. The other reason is that substantial 
growth is projected for the category: 8.8 tons per day NOX 
increase from 1990 to 1999. If growth in emissions from the largest 
NOX-emitting nonroad sources could be avoided, the task of 
attaining the standards by 1999 or any later date would be made easier. 
EPA is proposing as part of the 1999 attainment FIP that growth in the 
nonroad heavy-duty category be capped such that NOX emissions not 
exceed 1995 projected levels. The cap would be implemented via a fleet 
averaging concept like that described in section III.D.4 which contains 
the nonroad proposal for the 2005 attainment strategy. Section III.D.4 
proposes a declining fleet average emissions level to assure that the 
historical rate of engine turnover is maintained; the 1999 attainment 
cap would require that fleet operators acquire and utilize low emission 
engines as necessary to maintain NOX emissions at projected 1995 
levels. The estimated benefit of this cap is the reduction of 
approximately 4 tons per day of NOX which would have resulted from 
further growth in the heavy-duty equipment category.
    (3) No drive days. The remaining NOX shortfall is 
approximately 13 tons per day which amounts to approximately 10 percent 
of the total mobile source inventory, 16 percent of the on-road mobile 
source inventory, or 25 percent of the light duty motor vehicle 
inventory in 1999. This represents a substantial reduction from sources 
that can not be significantly controlled by further technological 
solutions or forced turnover to cleaner alternatives. Therefore, the 
shortfall would have to be achieved with even more difficult measures 
that focus on reducing the use of mobile sources.
    Activity restrictions could be obtained from various mobile source 
categories using a variety of regulatory approaches. For example, 
broad-based reductions from essentially all categories could be 
obtained with such blunt measures as fuel surcharges or gas rationing. 
More focused reductions could be made by targeting motor vehicle 
activity through fees on vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) or no-drive days.
    EPA believes such potentially severe measures should only be 
selected after substantial public participation and debate. However, 
the Agency is compelled to make a selection for the proposed 1999 
attainment date option. When faced with a similar dilemma in the 1990 
proposed FIP for the South Coast Basin (55 FR 36458), EPA chose to 
limit mobile source activity with a no-drive day program for on-road 
motor vehicles. Today's proposal also contains that control measure in 
order to achieve the sizeable, remaining NOX shortfall for the 
1999 attainment option. More specifically, in order to achieve the 13 
tons of NOX reductions needed, EPA is proposing that each highway 
vehicle registered in the Sacramento nonattainment area be prohibited 
from being driven one day out of five weekdays.
    (4) Recreational boat fees or prohibitions. A no-drive day, which 
is imposed on all highway vehicles one out of five weekdays, would 
produce approximately a 20 percent decrease in the emissions of the 
remaining NOX and VOC from highway vehicles. This would be 
sufficient to reduce NOX in the Sacramento area to the area's 
carrying capacity. However, the VOC reductions from the above no-drive 
day proposal provides only eleven out of the required fifteen tons per 
day. The accelerated retirement strategy and growth cap proposed for 
heavy duty engines do not significantly affect VOC emissions. There is 
a nonroad mobile source category, recreational boating, which does 
contribute significantly to the VOC inventory in Sacramento and which 
will eventually be reduced through the adoption of national standards 
for new engines and subsequent fleet turnover. It is possible to 
achieve an accelerated turnover similar to that required for heavy 
equipment either by restricting the operation of boats which use 
engines which do not meet new national standards, or by imposing a fee 
on the excess emissions from such boats. As a final measure in a 1999 
attainment option for VOC reductions, EPA is proposing a fee system or 
boating restriction which will reduce emissions from recreational 
boating by one-third in 1999. A similar fee system is explained in the 
2005 attainment proposal.
    As an alternative to the fees or restrictions on recreational 
boating, EPA requests comment on obtaining the additional VOC 
reductions from stationary sources. This alternative would consist of 
either increasing the cap reduction requirement or achieving further 
VOC reductions from sources which are not covered by the cap 
regulations (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer products).
    e. EPA's preferred option--(1) EPA authority to initiate bump-up. 
Under section 181(b)(3) of the Act, EPA must grant the request of a 
state to reclassify a nonattainment area to a higher classification. 
Once the area has been bumped-up pursuant to such a request, it becomes 
subject to the more stringent control requirements associated with the 
higher classification. While a state need not make any particular 
showing for the bump-up request to be granted, legislative history 
indicates that the voluntary bump-up ``is provided for areas that wish 
to impose the more stringent control measures associated with a higher 
classification or that, for reasons such as extremely rapid population 
growth, conclude that they will not be able to attain by their 
otherwise applicable date [sic].'' H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, Part 1, 101st 
Cong., 2d Sess., 232 (1990).
    In the case of the Sacramento nonattainment area, the State could 
mitigate the difficulties in achieving attainment by 1999 by requesting 
a voluntary reclassification from ``Serious'' to ``Severe,'' which 
would allow up to an additional six years to attain the ozone NAAQS. To 
date, the State has not opted to do so for the purposes of its 
attainment SIP, which must be submitted to EPA in November 1994. See 
section 182(c)(2) and (d). EPA, however, must confront these same 
difficulties now in designing its FIP proposal and, in the absence of a 
State request, must determine whether the Agency may avail itself of 
the voluntary bump-up option.
    While the Act specifically provides for an EPA-initiated 
reclassification only upon failure of an area to attain the ozone NAAQS 
by the applicable attainment date, the Agency believes that a recent 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case offers a persuasive basis for 
interpreting the Act as authority for a unilateral bump-up in the FIP 
context.
    Central Arizona Water Conservation District et al. v. EPA, 990 F.2d 
1531 (9th Cir. 1993), involved EPA promulgation of a visibility FIP to 
remedy visibility impairment in the Grand Canyon National Park. In that 
case, the court upheld EPA's action under regulations that on their 
face applied only to state action in adopting a SIP. The court stated 
that when ``[a]cting in the place of the state * * *  pursuant to a FIP 
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7410(c), EPA `stands in the shoes of the 
defaulting State, and all of the rights and duties that would otherwise 
fall to the State accrue instead to EPA.''' 990 F.2d at 1541. Based on 
this decision, EPA has concluded that when the Agency promulgates a 
FIP, it can stand in the shoes of the state in order to bump up an 
ozone nonattainment area under section 181(b)(3) on its own initiative.
    (2) Rationale for bump-up to ``Severe.'' Although the design value 
assigned to Sacramento for the period 1988 through 1990 resulted in its 
classification as ``Serious,'' a review of the most recent design 
values and yearly exceedances for several ozone areas including 
Sacramento (summarized in the following table) show that it is 
comparable to other ``Severe'' nonattainment areas with the 4th highest 
design value in the group and the 7th highest number of yearly 
exceedances. 

               Ozone Classifications and Air Quality Data               
   [Design Values and Number of Exceedance Days Based on Most Recent 3  
                             Years of Data]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Design              
          Area                   Classif.            value   Exceedances
                                                    (ppm)       (days)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast...............  Extreme................      .300       106.1 
SE Desert...............  Severe-17..............      .230        52.9 
Houston.................  Severe-17..............      .210        13.0 
San Diego...............  Severe-15..............      .170         7.3 
San Joaquin.............  Serious................      .160        22.6 
Sacramento..............  Serious................      .160         6.1 
New York................  Severe-17..............      .160         3.4 
Baltimore...............  Severe-15..............      .156         4.9 
Philadelphia............  Severe-15..............      .153         8.4 
Ventura.................  Severe-15..............      .150        17.6 
Milwaukee...............  Severe-17..............      .148         4.7 
Chicago.................  Severe-17..............      .143        4.7  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Most of the classifications were based on 1987-1989 data. Design  
  values and exceedance numbers are for 1990-1992 and derive from       
  National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1992 (November 2,   
  1993).                                                                

The urban airshed modeling which calculates the reductions needed to 
attain the standards also produces results comparable to the percent 
reduction needed for attainment in Ventura (an area classified as 
``Severe'' under the Act). The VOC reduction target is identical at 40 
percent; the NOX target is somewhat lower at 30 percent (compared 
to 40 percent).
    However, the main reason EPA believes a bump-up to 2005 for the 
Sacramento area is appropriate is the difficulty in achieving 
significant emissions reductions from a mobile source dominated 
emissions inventory where less than 10 percent of the NOX 
emissions are from stationary sources. A 1999 attainment date does not 
allow sufficient time for the emissions reductions of many of the 
mobile source strategies discussed in section III.D to occur. This 
includes strategies which rely on the normal replacement of older, 
dirtier engines and vehicles with cleaner engines and vehicles. It also 
would include strategies that rely on longer lead times to develop and 
implement lower emitting operational improvements or control hardware. 
Thus, EPA must turn to measures which require retrofits or replacements 
for in-use engines and vehicles, and restrictions on mobile source 
activity to achieve the necessary emissions reductions. A bump-up would 
allow the Sacramento area to take advantage of the new engine standards 
and other requirements proposed in section III.D, and avoid 
accelerating turnover for heavy duty truck engines, capping nonroad 
engine emissions growth and restricting driving--measures EPA is 
proposing to satisfy the 1999 attainment demonstration.
    A bump-up is also important for stationary sources which will be 
required to meet EPA's Cap Regulations (section III.C.5). Under the 
1999 attainment date, these stationary sources would be required to 
submit compliance plans by 1998 which will demonstrate an additional 
20-45 percent reduction in VOC emissions by 1999. With the additional 
time allowed by a ``Severe'' area classification, these sources would 
instead be subject to a declining cap requiring gradual 4-9 percent per 
year emissions reductions, which will not be required to begin until 
2001. The additional years for compliance would allow a company to 
investigate control options and take greater advantage of technological 
developments, and thus avoid production cutbacks or shutdowns to meet 
emissions reductions levels. EPA believes it is reasonable to 
anticipate that substantially improved emission reduction alternatives 
and control technologies will develop for stationary and area sources 
during the additional time that a higher classification for Sacramento 
would provide.
    (3) 2005 attainment option. The FIP measures common to both the 
1999 and 2005 proposals for both stationary\27\ and mobile sources will 
have reduced the Sacramento VOC inventory from 236 tons per day in 1990 
to 157 tons per day in 1999, and the NOx inventory from 185 to 149 
tons per day. Like the 1999 proposal discussed above, these reductions 
come from the stationary source measures, continued benefits of the 
current motor vehicle control programs, and a substantial improvement 
in in-use emissions of light duty vehicles due to an enhanced I/M 
program. However, by 2005 additional reductions are realized from the 
new emissions standards affecting medium duty vehicles, heavy duty 
vehicles, nonroad diesels and locomotives due to engine turnover, and 
from the enhanced in-use compliance program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\The stationary measures include all of the measures 
discussed in III.C that are identified as applying to Sacramento and 
those that apply statewide, and the cap regulation which requires a 
gradual 4 percent per year VOC reduction from 2001 through 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the benefits from the recreational boat measure and ECO 
program discussed above and in section III.D, total emissions 
reductions by 2005 will be large enough to provide for attainment.
    It is important to note that a bump-up of the Sacramento area to 
``Severe'' also leads to the following additional Clean Air Act 
requirements associated with a ``Severe'' area classification, which 
include: (1) A more stringent major source definition (25 tons per 
year, down from 50 tons per year); (2) a more stringent offset 
requirement for new major sources (1.3:1 instead of 1.2:1); (3) TCMs to 
offset VMT growth; (4) and an employer-based trip reduction rule. The 
responsibility for meeting these requirements is discussed below.
    If EPA grants the request of a state to reclassify a nonattainment 
area to a higher classification under section 181(b)(3), that area must 
meet all deadline and control requirements applicable to the higher 
classification, and is not eligible for any adjustment of those 
deadlines. H.R. Rep. No. 101-490, Part 1, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., 233 
(1990). If reclassification is promulgated by EPA unilaterally in the 
FIP, the area likewise becomes responsible for meeting all such 
deadlines and requirements for SIP purposes.
    The substance of these additional requirements is set forth in 
section 182(d) of the Act.\28\ Because the statutory deadlines for 
compliance with or submission to EPA of these requirements have already 
passed, if EPA finalizes in February 1995 its bump-up option for the 
Sacramento area, the State will be responsible for submitting the 
actual regulations to comply with the ``Severe'' area requirements at 
that time. If the State fails to do so, the Sacramento area will be 
subject to a finding of failure to submit these requirements upon final 
promulgation of the FIP in 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\For a more complete description of the requirements and EPA 
preliminary policies with respect to them, readers should consult 
the ``General Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13521).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed previously in this NPRM, EPA's current obligation is 
to design a FIP for the Sacramento area that attains the ozone NAAQS by 
1999 or 2005. EPA is not legally required to meet all SIP submittal 
requirements that appeared for the first time in the 1990 Amendments 
and for which there are no state failures which EPA must cure. 
Nevertheless, as a policy matter, and because it has invoked the 
provisions of the Amendments in initiating a bump-up, EPA is proposing 
in today's NPRM the ``Severe'' area provisions (section III.F.) in 
regulatory form.
    The measures proposed in III.F. were developed to help the State 
and local agencies meet the additional ``Severe'' area requirements if 
the Sacramento area is bumped up. For example, the proposed new source 
review rule discussed in section III.F.4. is based on the actual 
language of existing rules in the Sacramento area in order to provide a 
rule that is easy for the local APCDs to adopt and implement. The 
employee commute options (ECO) rule discussed in section III.F.2. is 
also adoptable by the local APCDs; alternatively, it may provide an 
incentive for the local APCDs to develop, adopt and submit ECO programs 
that are currently being considered. Thus, if bump-up is promulgated, 
EPA believes that the measures proposed in III.F. will help the State 
and local agencies meet their mandate in a timely fashion and avoid 
sanctions.
    If EPA ultimately chooses its preferred option of bumping up 
Sacramento, EPA plans, if necessary, to implement the ``Severe'' area 
measures proposed in section III.F. on their respective effective dates 
following final promulgation of the FIP in February 1995. Until a 
submittal of replacement measures is made by the State and approved by 
EPA, the ``Severe'' area requirements proposed in section III.F. will 
remain in effect. If EPA finds that there will be a significant time 
period before the submittal is made and approved, EPA will try to 
delegate portions or all of the federal program to the State and local 
agencies.
    f. Summary of 1999 and 2005 attainment options. The following table 
summarizes the FIP measures proposed for the alternative 1999 and 2005 
attainment demonstrations: 

Summary of Sacramento FIP Measures for 1999 and 2005 Attainment Options 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1999    2005 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Measures:                                                        
  Enhanced I/M..........................................      X       X 
  Nonroad stds (nat'l)..................................      X       X 
  Offroad recreational vehicle stds-w/normal turnover...      X       X 
  Motorcycle stds w/normal turnover.....................      X       X 
  Parking Cash Out......................................      X       X 
  Airports/Military Installations declining cap                         
   reduction............................................  ......      X 
  Accelerated turnover for heavy duty trucks............      X         
  Nonroad growth cap based on available retrofits.......      X         
  Onroad driving restrictions (no-drive days)...........      X         
  Fees for recreational boats...........................      X       X 
Stationary Measures:                                                    
  Applicable FIP Rules..................................      X       X 
  Cap reduction by 1999.................................      X         
  Declining Cap reduction by 2005.......................  ......      X 
2005 Bump-Up Requirements:                                              
  NSR Rule..............................................  ......      X 
  ECO Program...........................................  ......     X  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA requests comment on whether the bump-up is an appropriate 
solution or whether the advantages of attainment by an earlier date 
justify the imposition of the measures necessary for 1999 attainment.
    g. Attainment demonstrations. As discussed in Section III.H.5.a, 
EPA believes that the set of measures proposed in this NPRM, in 
conjunction with adopted State and local measures, will bring the 
Sacramento area into attainment with the ozone standard by 1999 or 
2005. This projection is based on extensive computer simulations of 
ozone formation performed using the Urban Airshed Model.
4. Ventura Ozone
    a. Reduction requirements. Anthropogenic emissions in Ventura in 
1990 totaled approximately 105 tons per day of VOC and 86 tons per day 
of NOX. The existing air pollution regulations controlling these 
emissions are among the most stringent in the country. In addition, 
many of the CARB and VCACPD regulations prescribe future compliance 
requirements that are still more stringent, and the existing CARB 
standards on new engines and equipment will deliver increasing 
reductions each year as a result of fleet turnover. Sections II.B and 
III.H of this NPRM discuss the adopted CARB and VCAPCD rules and EPA's 
assignment of credit to the rules as part of the FIP/SIP attainment 
demonstration.
    Unfortunately, projected emission reductions from many of these 
State and local measures are offset by continued growth in the area's 
population and activity levels. Consequently, in the absence of further 
SIP or FIP measures, emissions in Ventura are projected to be 98 tons 
per day VOC and 75 tons per day NOX by the year 2005.
    EPA, CARB, and VCAPCD have performed extensive meteorologic 
analysis and airshed modeling of ozone formation in the area. This 
modeling suggests that various combinations of VOC and NOX 
reductions can achieve attainment with the ozone standard. As discussed 
in Section III.H.3, EPA is using reduction targets of 40 percent VOC 
and 40 percent NOX from the 1990 base-year emissions levels. 
Therefore, the SIP and FIP controls must achieve, by 2005, emission 
levels of 57 tons per day VOC and 46 tons per day NOX.
    b. SIP rules. Irrespective of EPA's FIP obligation, California and 
Ventura County are required to submit an ozone attainment SIP in 
November 1994. As part of this and previous SIP efforts, CARB and 
VCAPCD are continually adopting and modifying regulations to reduce 
NOX and VOC emissions. EPA is not proposing to act on any SIP 
improvements as part of this NPRM, but will do so on a case-by-case 
basis in separate actions.
    For purposes of the attainment demonstration in this NPRM, EPA is 
generally not assigning emission reduction credit to measures until 
they are fully adopted in enforceable form. EPA urges the responsible 
State and local agencies to complete rule development and submit rules 
for SIP approval as soon as they are fully adopted. This will allow EPA 
to approve the regulations and substitute the locally developed 
measures for FIP rules.
    c. FIP rules. The set of FIP measures proposed for implementation 
in Ventura relies largely on those regulations discussed in Section 
III.B as elements common to all three FIP areas. For mobile sources, 
this includes regulations for motor vehicles and I/M, nonroad vehicle 
and engine controls, forthcoming national regulations for locomotives, 
and strategies to reduce the ambient impact of ship traffic along the 
coast. For stationary sources, it includes regulations for solvent 
cleaning operations, wood products coatings, service stations, waste 
burning, and fugitive emissions, as well as the statewide measures and 
the emission cap programs.
    One FIP measure peculiar to Ventura affects emissions from ocean-
going ships transitting up and down the Ventura coastline. In Section 
III.D.5.e.(4) of this NPRM, EPA discusses rerouting the Santa Barbara 
shipping channel farther from the coast, and a fee system designed to 
encourage ships to travel outside of the Channel Islands.
    d. Attainment demonstration. As discussed in Section III.H., EPA 
believes that the set of measures proposed in this NPRM, along with 
adopted State and local measures, will bring Ventura County into 
attainment with the ozone standard by 2005. This projection is based on 
extensive computer simulations of ozone formation performed using the 
Urban Airshed Model.
    e. Alternative attainment date discussion. Section 181(a)(1) of the 
Act requires that ozone SIPs demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as 
practicable but not later than, in the case of Ventura, 2005. As a 
result, EPA has attempted to identify practicable measures that could 
achieve attainment by an earlier date. For illustrative purposes, EPA 
focused this investigation on a target attainment date of 2000. EPA is 
not, however, proposing this attainment date or the following 
strategies in this NPRM.
    In today's NPRM, EPA is proposing two attainment options for the 
Sacramento area. 1999 is proposed because Sacramento is currently 
classified as a ``Serious'' ozone area, and 2005 is proposed because 
EPA is recommending reclassifying Sacramento to a ``Severe'' area. As 
discussed in paragraph III.B.3.e of this NPRM, EPA believes that 
attainment in Sacramento by 1999 would require unacceptably harsh 
control measures, and therefore prefers the 2005 option. Since 
Ventura's ozone problem is worse than Sacramento's (e.g., EPA is 
projecting that a 30% reduction of NOX emissions is needed for 
attainment in Sacramento while a 40% reduction is needed in Ventura), 
it is not surprising that attainment in Ventura by 2000 would also 
prove to be impracticable.
    Many of the mobile source FIP controls for the 2005 attainment 
demonstration are proposed for near-term implementation in Ventura, and 
will achieve substantial emission reductions by 2000. These include an 
enhanced inspection and maintenance program, national standards for 
nonroad vehicles and engines, offroad recreational vehicle standards, 
motorcycle standards, and a parking cash-out program. The difficulty in 
achieving full attainment by that date, however, is that many of the 
proposed mobile source strategies rely on engine and vehicle turn-over 
to reduce emissions. Tight emission standards for new onroad vehicles, 
for example, are not effective while people are still driving older 
cars. By 2000, new emission standards affecting heavy duty onroad and 
nonroad engines and locomotives will just barely begin to be felt in 
new engine purchases.
    In trying to identify practical measures for attainment in Ventura 
by 2000, EPA has considered control strategies similar to those 
proposed to bring Sacramento into attainment by 1999. These include the 
following:
    Onroad heavy duty trucks. EPA could accelerate replacement of old 
high-emitting onroad heavy duty truck engines by requiring local truck 
fleet owners to register and sticker their equipment to assure 
compliance with tight emission standards.
    Nonroad growth cap. EPA could propose that growth in the nonroad 
heavy duty category be capped such that emissions not exceed 1995 
projected levels.
    Accelerate shipping fee system. EPA could accelerate the fee system 
designed to encourage shipping companies to reroute their shipping 
activities beyond the Channel Islands.
    Accelerate airport and aircraft programs. EPA could accelerate 
programs designed to reduce emissions from commercial, general, and 
military aircraft and associated activity.
    Accelerate turnover of recreational boat engines. Emissions from 
recreational boat engines will eventually be reduced through the 
adoption of national standards for new engines and subsequent fleet 
turnover. It is possible to achieve an accelerated turnover similar to 
that required for heavy equipment either by restricting operation of 
boats which use engines that do not meet new national standards, or by 
imposing a fee on the excess emissions from such boats.
    Most of the requirements for stationary source categories described 
in section III.C.3 and the statewide area sources described in section 
III.C.4 are scheduled for implementation in 1996. EPA expects, in fact, 
that all stationary source emission reductions projected under the 2005 
attainment demonstration will be achieved by 2000 except for those 
required by the cap rules discussed in section III.C.5.
    The proposed cap programs require most stationary sources in 
Ventura to reduce VOC and NOX emissions by at least 4% and 6% per 
year respectively for each year from 2001 through 2005. Theoretically, 
EPA could require 20% or greater VOC reductions (and 30% or greater 
NOX reductions) by 2000. While this might accelerate attainment, 
EPA cannot conclude that accelerating such reductions would be 
practicable, and believes it could well be counterproductive in 
practice. Specifically, such a dramatic near-term reduction requirement 
might result in massive non-compliance that would overwhelm EPA's 
enforcement abilities and fail to achieve real air quality improvement.
    EPA has estimated the effects of an onroad heavy duty truck 
measure, nonroad growth cap, accelerated shipping fee system, 
accelerated airport and aircraft programs, accelerated turnover of 
recreational boat engines, and accelerated stationary source cap on the 
overall Ventura emission inventory. After accounting for these 
controls, EPA projects an emission reduction shortfall of approximately 
10 tons/day of VOC and 5 tons/day of NOX. Note that the NOX 
contribution by stationary sources in Ventura is substantially greater 
than in the Sacramento area. Therefore, the mobile source measures do 
not produce the same effect as they did in Sacramento.
    In order to address the remaining emission reduction shortfall, EPA 
could impose activity restrictions using a variety of regulatory 
approaches. For example, broad-based reductions from many stationary 
and almost all mobile source categories could be obtained with such 
blunt measures as fuel surcharges or gas rationing. More focused 
reductions could be made by targeting motor vehicle activity through 
fees on vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) or no-drive days.
    EPA believes such potentially severe measures should only be 
selected after substantial public participation and debate. When faced 
with an attainment shortfall in the 1990 proposed FIP for the South 
Coast Basin (55 FR 36458), EPA did propose to limit mobile source 
activity with a no-drive day program for onroad motor vehicles. In the 
1990 South Coast case, however, EPA was struggling to find enough 
reductions to attain by the latest legally acceptable date. In Ventura, 
the issue is whether there are practical measures to attain prior to 
the statutory deadline. In order to achieve the remaining emission 
reductions necessary for Ventura to attain by 2000, EPA estimates that 
two no-drive days or equivalent alternative activity reductions would 
be needed. That is, each highway vehicle registered in Ventura would be 
prohibited from being driven on two of the five workdays in each week.
    Obviously, this and other measures needed to accelerate attainment 
in Ventura would have dramatic negative socioeconomic impacts in the 
area. EPA does not consider them legally required as practical measures 
or good policy. For that reason, EPA cannot conclude that such measures 
would be practicable and EPA is not, therefore, proposing to attain the 
standard before 2005.
5. South Coast Ozone
    a. Reduction requirements. Anthropogenic emissions in the South 
Coast in 1990 totaled approximately 1913 tons per day of VOC and 1273 
tons per day of NOX for an average summer weekday. The air 
pollution control regulations now in effect in the South Coast are, 
with few exceptions, the most stringent in the Country. In addition, 
many of the CARB or SCAQMD adopted regulations prescribe future 
compliance requirements that are still more stringent, and the existing 
CARB standards on new engines and equipment will deliver increasing 
reductions each year as a result of fleet turnover. Sections II.B and 
III.H. of this NPRM discuss the adopted CARB and SCAQMD rules which are 
assigned credit as part of the FIP attainment demonstration.
    Even after allowing credit for reductions from these State and 
local measures, continued growth in the area's population and activity 
levels will erode much of the future benefits of currently adopted 
controls. Consequently, in the absence of further SIP or FIP measures, 
emissions in the South Coast will not decline appreciably. The 2010 
emissions levels are projected to be 1390 tons/day VOC and 1142 tons/
day NOX for an average summer weekday.
    Extensive urban airshed modeling of three episodes in 1985 and 1987 
provided the basis for the SCAQMD's 1991 Air Quality Management Plan, 
which concluded that ozone attainment could be achieved if basin-wide 
emissions were reduced to approximately 187 tons per day of VOC and 399 
tons per day of NOX (episode-specific emissions). Based on the 
current baseline emissions inventory, and prior to the completion of 
extensive new modeling analyses that are underway, EPA is using 
reduction targets of 90 percent for VOC and 69 percent for NOX 
from the 1990 base-year emissions levels.\29\ Assuming these reduction 
targets, the combination of SIP and FIP controls must achieve, by 2010, 
total reductions of 1726 tons per day of VOC and 874 tons per day of 
NOX from 1990 emissions, or 1203 tons per day of VOC and 743 tons 
per day of NOX from 2010 baseline emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\Other combinations of VOC and NOX reductions may be 
evaluated in preparation of the 1994 ozone SIP. To the extent 
possible, EPA will attempt to conform the final FIP (and any 
subsequent amendments to the FIP) to the State's chosen mix of VOC 
and NOX reductions used in the 1994 ozone SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with Sacramento and Ventura, EPA's control strategy analysis for 
the South Coast began with a comparison of the applicable existing 
South Coast rules to the rules currently in effect in other areas. 
Although the SCAQMD generally has among the most advanced regulations 
in the Country, EPA was able to identify stationary and area source 
categories for which new or enhanced technology-based rules could be 
promulgated immediately to yield additional emission reductions. 
Section III.C.3. discusses those new or improved category-specific 
stationary and area source rules which EPA is able to propose at this 
time.
    After credit for emissions reductions from this initial set of FIP 
measures, a massive shortfall in necessary emission reductions still 
remains. The FIP mobile source core measures are identified in section 
III.B.2. and III.D.1.b. These measures contribute substantial further 
reductions (approximately 205 tons per day VOC and 181 tons per day 
NOX), leaving roughly 1000 tons per day VOC and 562 tons per day 
NOX to be achieved by added stationary and area source controls.
    EPA proposes to achieve the remaining target reductions through a 
combination of the emission cap rules set forth in section III.C.5., 
additional mobile source controls discussed in section III.D, and the 
``new technology'' commitments discussed in section III.B.5.d. below 
and in section III.G.
    b. SIP rules. In section II.C.2., EPA proposes to conditionally 
approve commitments by the SCAQMD and CARB to continue their 
development of a number of new or strengthened regulations and to adopt 
them within the next two years to accomplish the first rate-of-progress 
installments required under the Act. These committal measures have the 
potential to deliver approximately 83 tons per day of VOC. Scheduled 
SCAQMD rule development could also contribute substantial additional 
NOX reductions.
    In preparing the November 1994 ozone attainment plan, CARB, SCAQMD, 
and SCAG are now reassessing strategies for adopting measures to reduce 
NOX and VOC emissions. The SCAQMD is also developing a VOC RECLAIM 
program for near-term adoption and implementation.
    For purposes of this attainment demonstration, however, EPA is not 
assigning emission reduction credit to measures until they are fully 
adopted in enforceable form. EPA urges the responsible State and local 
agencies to complete rule development and submit rules for SIP approval 
as soon as they are fully adopted. This will allow EPA to approve the 
regulations and substitute the locally developed measures for FIP 
rules.
    c. FIP Rules. The set of FIP measures proposed for implementation 
in the South Coast relies largely on those regulations discussed in 
Section III.B as elements common to all three FIP areas. This includes 
the controls for onroad and nonroad mobile sources, supplemented by 
such elements as I/M and sticker programs. In addition, the proposed 
FIP for the South Coast includes the mobile source controls discussed 
in the Ventura FIP summary, and two measures peculiar to the South 
Coast FIP: A fee-based program to reduce emissions from ports and a 
locomotive cap rule. For stationary and area sources, it includes 
regulations for service stations, livestock waste, fugitive emission 
controls for petroleum and chemical facilities, and waste burning, as 
well as the statewide measures and the emission cap program. Finally, 
the South Coast FIP relies on the new technology commitments discussed 
immediately below.
    d. Section 182(e)(5) provisions. (1) Statutory provision and 
General Preamble requirements Section 182(e)(5) of the Clean Air Act 
applies exclusively to ``Extreme'' ozone areas (i.e., only the South 
Coast area). This provision authorizes the State (or EPA, standing in 
the shoes of the State\30\) to rely for its ozone attainment 
demonstration on conceptual, as yet unadopted measures that anticipate 
new or improved technology. The South Coast's 1991 Air Quality 
Management Plan employs a similar approach in its ``Tier II'' and 
``Tier III'' new technology measures, which consist of brief 
discussions of control targets (percentage and emission reductions) for 
specific or general source categories, to be achieved in future years 
through technological advances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\As discussed above, the Ninth Circuit has held that ``Acting 
in place of the State of Arizona pursuant to a FIP under 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 7410(c), EPA `stands in the shoes of the defaulting State, and 
all of the rights and duties that would otherwise fall to the State 
accrue instead to EPA.''' Central Arizona Water Conservation 
District et al. v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1541 (9th Cir. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For EPA to credit such measures toward the ozone attainment 
demonstration (either by SIP approval or FIP promulgation), EPA must 
find that the measures are not needed to meet the Act's progress 
requirements for the first 10 years (see section 182(e)(5)(A)), and EPA 
must approve State commitments or make its own commitments to submit 
contingency measures no later than three years before proposed 
implementation of the measures, sufficient to ensure the required rate 
of progress and attainment (section 182(e)(5)(B)).
    EPA's General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I provides 
the Agency's preliminary articulation of how it will exercise its 
considerable discretion under section 182(e)(5). At this time, EPA, in 
approving or promulgating measures under this section, will look to see 
that the plan shows that the measures cannot be fully developed and 
adopted by the submittal date for the attainment demonstration; that 
the plan contains a schedule outlining the steps leading to final 
development and adoption of the measures; and that the plan contains 
commitments from those agencies that would be involved in developing 
and implementing the schedule for each measure (57 FR 13524, April 16, 
1992).
    With respect to the Act's requirement that the technology 
advancement measures not be needed to achieve progress required during 
the first 10 years, EPA believes that the Administrator should satisfy 
herself with respect to three separate progress requirements applicable 
during the 10-year period following enactment of the 1990 Amendments to 
the Act: (1) 15 percent reduction of VOC emissions for the 6-year 
period from 1990 to 1996, as required by section 182(b)(1); (2) 9 
percent reduction of VOC and/or NOX emissions for the 3-year 
period from 1997 to 1999, as required by section 182(c)(2)(B); and (3) 
a further 3 percent reduction of VOC and/or NOX emissions during 
the year 2000, as the initial installment of the 9 percent reductions 
required for the period 2000 to 2002.\31\ In section III.B.5.d.(4) of 
this NPRM, EPA demonstrates that each of these three progress 
requirements is satisfied (with regard to section 182(e)(5)) by the 
combination of State and local measures and the FIP regulations 
proposed in this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\EPA policies on rate-of-progress plan requirements, 
including substitution of NOX for VOC emissions reductions for 
the post-1996 period, appear in two recent guidance documents: 
Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies for 
the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans (EPA-452/R-93-002, March 
1993); and Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan and the 
Attainment Demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Need for additional time to develop new technologies in 
enacting special provisions for ozone attainment in the South Coast, 
Congress recognized that attainment in this area may require 20 years, 
even on an expeditious schedule of progress. The difficulty of the 
ozone attainment project derives primarily from the topography and 
climate of the South Coast basin, which combine to produce ideal 
conditions for the formation and persistence of tropospheric ozone. In 
this setting exists one of the world's largest industrial and 
commercial centers, with a population projected to approach 18 million 
by the attainment year.
    The technological challenge of attainment is evident in the 
extraordinary remaining ozone precursor reduction requirements--
approximately 90% for VOC and 70% for NOX--which are superimposed 
on an already very strict level of existing control. Complete 
elimination of all emissions from motor vehicles would not accomplish 
even half of the needed reductions. In fact, the South Coast could not 
reach attainment even if there were no mobile source and industrial 
emissions in the basin. The area's unique reduction responsibilities 
therefore necessitate breakthroughs in air pollution control 
technologies for practically every pollution source, coupled with the 
most advanced techniques and initiatives for preventing pollution.
    EPA believes that the pace of air pollution control technology 
development in the past provides a reasonable basis for confidence that 
the South Coast can meet the Clean Air Act's 2010 ozone attainment goal 
using section 182(e)(5). Lacking sufficiently detailed data to predict 
and mandate specific controls for each particular source category, 
however, EPA proposes to employ section 182(e)(5) commitments to extend 
the rate of progress beyond the levels now foreseeable and reflected in 
the declining cap rules discussed above. EPA also proposes to commit to 
achieving additional reductions from smaller stationary source 
categories than are covered under the proposed cap rules, as well as 
from area and mobile sources. The commitments would allow EPA, the 
State, and the affected sources sufficient time to cooperate in the 
further development and commercialization of control approaches to 
deliver the remaining reductions needed for attainment. EPA strongly 
encourages CARB and SCAQMD to devote their substantial resources to 
expediting development and adoption of State and local controls in 
advance of the section 182(e)(5) commitment dates for rule adoption and 
implementation.
(3) Federal Role in Support of Technological Development Activities
    (a) Scope of EPA's Responsibilities. From its inception, EPA has 
been charged with a leadership role in coordinating, assisting, and 
independently advancing national research efforts to develop methods 
and technologies for air pollution control. This continuous program has 
taken many forms:
     EPA laboratories to conduct research, testing, and 
development;
     EPA surveys, reports, networks, and clearinghouses to 
disseminate the most current information on technology development and 
transfer;
     EPA programs and EPA-lead task forces to coordinate 
technology development and application studies and projects with other 
Federal departments and agencies; with State, local, and international 
air pollution control agencies; with private agencies, institutions, 
and organizations; and with involved industries;
     EPA study and assessment (in accordance with section 405 
of the Act and in conjunction with the Council of Economic Advisors) of 
economic incentive measures and approaches for stimulating additional 
air pollution control progress, concentrating on air pollution problems 
for which no existing methods of control exist;
     EPA research contracts with public and private agencies, 
institutions, and individuals to carry out specific projects relating 
to new air pollution reduction technologies;
     EPA grants under section 105 of the Act to State and local 
air pollution control agencies and to other nonprofit organizations to 
conduct research or demonstration projects; and
     EPA research fellowships both at EPA and at research 
organizations or universities.
    In the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress assigned EPA additional 
responsibilities for several specific new air pollution control 
technology projects, ranging from hydrogen fuel cell vehicle test 
programs to studies of renewable energy and energy conservation 
incentives. Congress also broadened the scope of EPA's mission: ``the 
[EPA] Administrator shall conduct a basic engineering research and 
technology program to develop, evaluate, and demonstrate nonregulatory 
strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention. Such 
strategies and technologies shall be developed with priority on those 
pollutants which pose a significant risk to human health and the 
environment, and with opportunities for participation by industry, 
public interest groups, scientists, and other interested persons in the 
development of such strategies and technologies.'' Section 103(g).
    (b) Recent National Initiatives. The Federal commitment to a 
leadership role in development of clean technologies and control 
approaches is reflected in several new comprehensive initiatives.
    (1) Climate Change Action Plan. The Climate Change Action Plan was 
announced by President Clinton and Vice President Gore on October 19, 
1993. The plan consists of 50 new or expanded programs and innovative 
public-private partnerships. The unifying goal of the plan is reduction 
in greenhouse gases, which include one of the two principal ozone 
precursors: oxides of nitrogen. In addition, the majority of the plan's 
initiatives--whether in the area of energy demand actions, 
transportation actions, or energy supply actions--will directly advance 
progress toward ozone attainment in the South Coast, either through 
projects to reduce energy consumption or programs to spur increased 
reliance on clean energy sources.
    Many provisions of the Action Plan are intended to produce almost 
immediate progress, and some of these actions, like the parking cash-
out program, are already incorporated as core measures in this FIP. 
Successful implementation of this group of initiatives will reduce the 
growth in emissions in the South Coast associated with the area's 
projected population increases, economic development, rising energy 
use, and expanded transportation requirements.
    Other provisions of the Climate Change plan involve a continuing 
effort to advance long term strategies and stimulate programs and 
technologies that will yield their greatest reductions in the first 
decade of the next century. As a means of ensuring overall 
coordination, the President has instructed the White House National 
Economic Council, the Office on Environmental Policy, and the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy to co-chair interagency working groups to 
examine all budget, technology, research and development, regulatory 
and economic policies that could impact greenhouse gas emission levels 
beyond the year 2000. From this effort will come cooperative federal 
pilot projects and technical assistance programs designed to establish 
an empirical basis for the technological advances that will provide the 
foundation for sustainable development in future decades.
    An example of this coordinated long-term commitment is the 
pesticide use reduction project of EPA, the Department of Agriculture, 
and the Food and Drug Administration. The specific strategies under 
this initiative include establishing incentives for the development, 
registration, and use of biological pesticides and the promotion of the 
high-technology bio-engineering industry; initiation of demonstration 
projects for reductions in overall pesticide use; and support for 
integrated pest management programs. The success of this program should 
eventually, through regulatory and nonregulatory incentives, accomplish 
further VOC reductions beyond the air pollution achievements of the 
pesticide control measure proposed in this FIP (see section 
III.C.4.d.). Besides impressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, 
this program is anticipated to result in energy savings worth $1.9 
billion through 2000, and savings of $9 billion of the period of 2001-
2010.
    (2) Technology Innovation Strategy. EPA's newly announced 
Technology Innovation Strategy was released in draft form on November 
23, 1993. This inter-agency initiative is under the direction of the 
Innovative Technology Council. It has as its goal to foster the 
development, commercialization, and widespread use of innovative 
technologies that can efficiently close the gap tween our Nation's 
ambitious environmental goals and its ability to meet them, and provide 
the base for sustainable development as economic activity, population, 
and threats to the environment grow worldwide.
    The Strategy includes four focus areas. The first plan area, 
Environmental and Restoration Technologies, begins with an allocation 
of $10.8 million for projects in FY-94. The program's goal is to 
support the development, testing, and commercialization of 
technological breakthroughs needed for critical environmental progress. 
Projects currently funded include:
    Cleaner Processes in Plating and Metal Finishing--developmental 
research for cleaner technologies in electroplating and metal finishing 
operations;
    Pollution Prevention-Based Materials Cleaning/Decontamination--
development and demonstration of pollution-prevention based surface 
cleaning technologies for use in advanced manufacturing operations and 
service industries;
    Supercritical CO2--production of a solvent-free alternative 
technology for metal degreasing operations;
    Enhancing Market Penetration of Water-Borne and Other Low-Solvent 
Consumer/Commercial Adhesives--identification of the key technical and 
institutional barriers to the use of new adhesive technologies by EPA's 
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, pinpointing research 
and development needs, directing key product and applications research 
and development, and demonstrating successfully developed processes and 
products; and
    NOX Control by Hybrid Technologies--development of cost-
effective hybrid NOX control technologies for combustion sources, 
including advanced fuel reburning (AFR)/selective non-catalytic 
reduction (SCNR).
    The second plan area, Clean Technology for Small Business, is 
initially funded at a $12 million level. It includes many projects 
directed toward development, commercialization, and diffusion of new 
cleaner technologies. Among the projects is the Merit program in 
Southern California, facilitating the use of pollution prevention 
technologies in the South Coast.
    Clean Technology Use projects involve cooperative testing and 
development programs for less polluting technologies applicable to many 
other types of small businesses:
    Dry cleaning--EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention Technology 
projects to test and develop emerging technologies for cleaner solvents 
and alternative cleaning methods;
    Printing--cooperative projects with industry to reduce emissions 
from the flexography, lithography, and screen printing sectors of the 
printing industry;
    Printed wiring boards--projects with the Department of Energy (DOE) 
and industry to develop and disseminate information on environmentally 
improved manufacturing options;
    Metal degreasing--projects with DOE and industry to expand use of 
cleaner, safer degreasing operations;
    Solvents--updates to EPA's Office of Research and Development 
Solvents Alternative Guide l(SAGE) software system to identifying 
viable alternative solvent substitution options for industrial users; 
projects to demonstrate innovative manufacturing projects for reducing 
VOC emissions; and
    Coatings--two projects, in conjunction with Southern California 
Edison's Customer Technology Application Center, to accelerate 
development and market penetration of very low or zero VOC wood 
furniture coatings; project to promote technology transfer of 
Department of Defense powder coating technology; Applied Innovative 
Coatings Research Center projects to complete field trials of 
reformulated low- or zero-VOC coatings.
    The third plan element--Gaps, Barriers, and Incentives--will 
concentrate on identifying gaps in environmental technology development 
in order to stimulate technology innovation and create a national 
climate supportive of such innovation. Typical projects will work on 
institutional, legislative, and tax changes that can stimulate support 
for development and use of improved environmental technologies. The 
U.S. Department of Commerce is a key participant in several of these 
efforts, along with industry and other regulatory agencies.
    The fourth plan component--Improving Competitiveness of U.S. 
Environmental Technologies may also contribute to the development and 
commercialization of technologies relevant to further progress in the 
South Coast, but the primary focus of this activity is to promote use 
of U.S. technologies and expertise to solve international environmental 
problems. Initial funding for this plan area is $12 million.
    (3) Clean Car Initiative. On September 29, 1993, President Clinton 
and Vice President Gore announced the ``Clean Car Initiative,'' an 
historic cooperative effort between the U.S. automakers, the Department 
of Energy, the Department of Defense, and EPA. The primary goal of this 
initiative is to develop an ultra fuel efficient, safe, and clean 
vehicle by the year 2000.
    To implement this goal, industry and government engineering teams 
will undertake research projects in three categories:
    Technologies that can lead to near-term improvements in automobile 
efficiency, safety, and emissions--research in this area will include 
efforts to develop lightweight, recyclable materials and catalysts for 
reducing exhaust pollution.
    Research that could lead to production prototypes of vehicles 
capable of up to three times greater fuel efficiency--projects will 
include fuel cells and advanced energy storage systems such as 
ultracapacitors, to produce more fuel-efficient cars that are 
affordable, meet or exceed current safety standards, and retain the 
performance and comfort available today.
    Advanced manufacturing techniques to make it easier to get new 
product ideas into the marketplace quickly--this effort will involve 
computer-based design and testing systems and automation and control 
systems.
    In support of the Clean Car Initiative, both the U.S. automakers 
and the major utility companies throughout the country are striving to 
develop inexpensive high energy battery technology--a technology that 
will be applicable to virtually all types of mobile sources. Various 
projects are underway to develop and perfect engines that operate on 
alternative cleaner burning fuels or utilize fuel cells. The 
application of regenerative breaking technology to motor vehicles is 
being studied for light duty vehicles and is even being implemented in 
a limited number of heavy duty vehicles. Hybrid electric vehicles 
utilizing both electric and clean burning combustion technology are 
being developed and tested to demonstrate their potential in-use 
capabilities.
    EPA is also engaged in several other motor vehicle-related 
technological advancement initiatives. For example, EPA is undertaking 
a regulatory process to introduce improved vapor recovery technologies 
to automobiles for use during the refueling process. Finally, expected 
improvements in remote sensing technology may enable inspection 
programs to more clearly identify in-use high-emitters.
    (c) SCAQMD Technology Advancement Office. In addition to these 
federally managed programs and projects, EPA has provided assistance to 
the SCAQMD's critically important Technology Advancement Office (TAO). 
Since its inception in 1987, the TAO has supported research, 
development, demonstration, and commercialization of advanced emissions 
control technologies and clean fuels.\32\ EPA intends to contribute 
continued support for the TAO and anticipates that many of the new 
stationary and mobile source control technologies needed for eventual 
attainment will derive from the TAO's research efforts. EPA expects to 
incorporate the results of the SCAQMD's projects in the design of new 
technology measures issued in the future under the section 182(e)(5) 
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\Information on current and planned TAO projects may be 
obtained from the SCAQMD. Some of the TAO projects are also jointly 
sponsored by the Clean Fuels Working Group, of which CARB and the 
California Energy Commission are also members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Demonstration That Progress Requirements for 1990-2000 Are Met 
Without the Need for Section 182(e)(5) Measure Reductions
    As discussed above, section 182(e)(5) provides that an attainment 
demonstration can rely on new technology commitments if the measures 
are shown not to be needed to achieve the incremental emission 
reductions required during the first 10 years after the date of 
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Section 182(e)(5) 
contains no requirement that this demonstration be based exclusively on 
adopted and submitted measures. Section 182(e)(5) explicitly states 
that the showing need be only ``to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator.'' EPA must be able to conclude, however, that the State 
has the ability to meet the progress requirements without relying on 
the new technology measures.
    Elsewhere in this NPRM (see section II.C.2.), EPA describes the 
recently submitted South Coast Rate-of-Progress Plan, which 
demonstrates achievement of the progress requirements for the first 6 
years primarily through fully adopted State and local measures. To the 
extent that the demonstration rests on measures not yet fully adopted, 
EPA cannot now propose to accept the plan for purposes of satisfying 
the 15 percent reduction requirement of section 182(b)(1), in 
conformance with the referenced EPA policy memorandum, ``Guidance on 
Issues Related to 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans'' (August 23, 
1993).
    In this NPRM, however, EPA proposes to conditionally approve these 
measures as strengthening the SIP and for the purpose of finding under 
section 182(e)(5) that later-enacted measures are not needed to meet 
this progress requirement. Although section 182(e)(5) does not require 
conditional approval for the purpose of such a finding, EPA has decided 
to conditionally approve, under the authority of section 110(k)(4) of 
the Act, the SCAQMD's enforceable commitments to adopt in fully 
enforceable form by 1996 specific measures to deliver the small, 
remaining shortfall in necessary reductions. This conditional approval, 
combined with the South Coast plan, assures to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator that the State will ultimately be able to meet the 15 
percent progress requirements for the period 1990-1996 by means of 
recently adopted creditable control measures, along with a small number 
of new measures scheduled for full adoption and implementation in 1994, 
1995, and 1996.
    As discussed in section III.B.5.d.(1) above, the Act also 
establishes two other progress requirements applicable within the first 
10 years following enactment of the 1990 Amendments. A further 9 
percent of creditable reductions must be achieved by 1999, followed by 
an additional 3 percent for the year 2000, as part of the 9 percent due 
by 2002.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\For EPA's applicable policy on the post-1996 progress 
requirements, the reader should consult Guidance on the Post-1996 
Rate-of-Progress Plan and the Attainment Demonstration (OAQPS, 
December 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Act specifies that progress for the period 1990-1996 is 
in terms of VOC reductions, section 182(c)(2)(C) allows the 
substitution of NOX reductions for VOC in meeting the post- 1996 
progress requirements. EPA has recently issued the Agency's policy and 
procedures for substituting NOX reductions, NOX Substitution 
Guidance (OAQPS, December 1993.) For purposes of the progress plans, 
this guidance authorizes any combination of VOC and NOX emission 
reductions which total 3 percent per year, so long as the proposed 
level of NOX substitution is consistent with the emission 
reductions in the modeled ozone attainment demonstration. In the case 
of the South Coast, UAM analyses support a one-for-one substitution of 
NOX for VOC, inasmuch as peak ozone concentrations in the South 
Coast Air Basin are sensitive to both VOC and NOX controls (see 
discussion below in section III.H.).
    EPA has concluded that the Act allows NOX emissions reductions 
occurring since 1990 to be applied to the post-1996 emissions 
reductions requirements.\34\ 57 FR 13517, April 16, 1992. SCAQMD's 
aggressive rule adoption schedule for NOX has resulted in recent 
adoption of rules that contribute creditable NOX reductions during 
the period 1990-2000. Particularly important new or revised rules 
include: Rule 1109--Refinery Heaters & Boilers; Rule 1110.2--Internal 
Combustion Engines; Rule 1134--Gas Turbines; Rule 1135--Electric Power 
Generators and Boilers; Rule 1146--Crude Oil Pipeline Heaters and Oil 
Field Steam Generators, and Industrial Boilers, Heaters, & Generators; 
Rule 1146.1--Small Boilers and Heaters; and the NOX/SOX 
RECLAIM program. Creditable reductions in VOC and NOX for 1997-
2000 also derive from CARB measures, including reductions from the 
California Low Emission Vehicles/Clean Fuels Program and California's 
regulation of certain nonroad engine categories. Finally, the FIP 
contributes significant creditable NOX and VOC reductions in the 
period 1997-1999 and in 2000, primarily through the enhanced I/M 
program and initial benefits from the other mobile source controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\Emission reductions from the measures listed in section 
182(b)(1)(D) are not creditable toward meeting the progress 
requirements, whether the emissions are VOC or NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A technical support document entitled ``Calculation of Creditable 
SIP/FIP Rate-of-Progress Reductions for the Period 1997-1999 and for 
the Year 2000'' identifies individual FIP and SIP measures and 
associated creditable reductions for both progress periods. EPA's 
analysis determined that cumulative creditable VOC and NOX 
emissions reductions for 1997-1999 exceed the Act's 9 percent rate-of-
progress requirement for 1997-1999 and 3 percent requirement for 2000, 
without the need for any emission reductions from the FIP's new 
technology measures.
    e. Attainment demonstration--As discussed in section III.H., EPA 
believes that the set of measures proposed in this NPRM will bring the 
South Coast into attainment with the ozone standard by 2010. This 
projection is based on photochemical grid modeling performed by the 
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Six episodes 
representative of conditions conducive to high concentrations of ozone 
were selected for the modeling exercise. Four of the episodes chosen 
were from the period for which an intensive air quality and 
meteorological data base from the Southern California Air Quality Study 
was available.
    The emissions for the basin were projected for the year 2010, as 
discussed in section III.H.2.b, and the emission reductions resulting 
from the implementation of the set of proposed measures were quantified 
(section III H.4.). The resulting emissions were used as input for each 
of the six episodes. The projected ozone concentrations for the modeled 
episodes were below the NAAQS for ozone for all portions of the domain, 
hence demonstrating attainment of the ozone standard.
    f. Alternative attainment date discussion--As in the case of the 
Sacramento and Ventura attainment analyses, EPA considered for the 
South Coast ozone FIP a number of mechanisms to achieve attainment 
before 2010, the Act's deadline for the South Coast. For a discussion 
of possible controls, the reader should refer to sections III.B.3.d. on 
the Sacramento 1999 attainment option and section III.B.4.e. on an 
alternative attainment date in Ventura. Expedited attainment using 
these approaches is even less practicable in the South Coast than in 
the other two California FIP areas. The enormous emission reductions 
required for ozone attainment in the South Coast mean that the 
restrictions would have to be so severe as to interfere profoundly with 
the economic and social organization of the area, commerce generally, 
the provision of public services, and the effective operation of local 
governments. EPA believes this strategy would not be in the public's 
interest, despite the benefits of any acceleration in the attainment 
date.
6. South Coast Carbon Monoxide
    a. Reduction Requirements--EPA's attainment analysis uses a 1990 
South Coast CO emissions level of 7084 tons per day. Motor vehicles are 
responsible for 93 percent of these emissions. Without adoption of 
further controls, CO emissions are expected to decline to 4349 tons per 
day in the year 2000. This reduction is due primarily to turnover in 
the motor vehicle fleet (including the benefits of California's LEV 
program) and to reductions from the California wintertime oxygenated 
gasoline requirement (see section II.C.1.).
    b. Attainment Demonstration--In order to maximize consistency 
between the FIP and local SIP efforts, EPA has elected to employ the 
SCAQMD modeling analyses for purposes of the CO attainment 
demonstration. As discussed above, the SCAQMD's 1992 CO SIP revision 
based the attainment demonstration on both areawide (Urban Airshed 
Model, or UAM) and hotspot (CAL3QHC) modeling analyses, and used an 
appropriate design value of 23.4 ppm, recorded in 1988 at the Lynwood 
monitoring station.
    The modeling analyses predict attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS by 
reductions in areawide emissions of tons per day, based upon the 
control strategies included in the plan and the transportation modeling 
assumptions for the year 2000. As noted in section II.C.1, however, the 
SIP's attainment demonstration relies upon large CO emissions 
reductions (587.4 tons per day) assigned to an enhanced I/M program, 
which has not yet been adopted by the State. EPA proposes to disapprove 
the attainment demonstration portion of the SIP and fill the gap in 
necessary emissions reductions through the promulgation of the federal 
enhanced I/M program described in section III.D.2.c.\35\ In the future, 
the SIP attainment demonstration could be approved if the State submits 
approvable enhanced I/M legislative authorization and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\The FIP contributes additional CO emission reductions from 
other federal mobile source measures, as shown in sections III.D., 
III.E., and III.H., below. These reductions are not so great, 
however, as to advance the attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Alternative Attainment Date Discussion--As in the case of the 
California ozone FIPs, advancement of the CO attainment date could be 
achieved through activity restrictions more severe than those proposed 
in this FIP. For example, EPA could prohibit registration of cars 
emitting more than 3.4 grams of CO per mile, the national federal motor 
vehicle standard for 1994 and later model years. Alternatively, the FIP 
could mandate no-drive days or restrict sale of gasoline during winter 
months. EPA believes that these approaches are simply not practicable 
because of their widespread adverse consequences and enforceability 
issues. Therefore, EPA proposes not to include such additional measures 
in the CO FIP.

C. Stationary and Area Source Rules

1. Introduction
    a. Source Category Description and Significance--Stationary sources 
of air pollution are traditionally divided into ``point'' and ``area'' 
categories. Point sources include refineries, electric utilities, 
manufacturing plants, and other large industrial facilities, and have 
received considerable regulatory attention under the Act. Most, for 
example, are visited annually by District inspectors and are restricted 
to activities described in District air permits. As a result, belching 
smokestacks have largely disappeared as industrial facilities have 
installed scrubbers, incinerators, carbon adsorbers, and other 
expensive equipment to reduce air pollution. Nevertheless, EPA believes 
these sources can reduce NOX and VOC emissions even further.
    Area sources consist of widely dispersed commercial and residential 
equipment and activities. While some are not currently subject to air 
pollution regulations (e.g., pesticide application and some consumer 
products), most have been controlled in California for many years 
(e.g., gasoline pumps, dry cleaners, architectural coatings, 
degreasers, etc.). Despite regulation, these small sources are so 
numerous that they now emit more in the FIP areas than do point 
sources. Among the largest contributors are livestock waste in 
Sacramento, pesticides in Sacramento and Ventura, and coatings, 
solvents, consumer products, and petroleum extraction in all three 
areas. As discussed in sections II.A, III.G.2 and elsewhere in this 
NPRM, overall stationary source contributions to the total 
anthropogenic emission inventories range from roughly 5 percent 
NOX and 45 percent VOC in Sacramento to 35 percent NOX and 65 
percent VOC in Ventura. Even with the relatively favorable emission 
reduction targets and stationary source contributions to NOX in 
Sacramento, EPA has aggressively sought stationary source emission 
reductions to help achieve attainment. For VOC in Sacramento and both 
pollutants in Ventura and South Coast, dramatic emission reductions 
from stationary sources are essential for attainment.
    b. Selection of Control Strategies--EPA faces several large 
obstacles to obtaining the needed emission reductions from stationary 
sources. First, primary control of these sources has historically 
fallen to State and local agencies. Particularly in California, these 
agencies have developed an excellent understanding of the control 
technologies available to the specific sources in their jurisdiction, 
and have cooperated together to determine the best available retrofit 
control technology (BARCT) standards for major point sources, as 
required under the California Clean Air Act.
    Second, there are literally hundreds of different stationary 
activities that emit NOX and VOCs in the FIP areas. Even if EPA 
had the expertise, it would not have the time nor resources to 
scrutinize each source and determine the costs and technical details of 
control strategies to achieve the tremendous emission reductions needed 
for the South Coast, or even the lesser reductions needed for 
Sacramento and Ventura.
    Within these and other constraints, EPA has attempted to propose a 
set of stationary source control strategies which best fulfill the 
goals described in section I.B of this NPRM. A brief summary and 
explanation of the strategies is presented below.
    (1) Source-Specific RACT Rules. As a first step, EPA developed 
source-specific RACT rules for major point sources in the FIP areas not 
already subject to a RACT rule. These are described in section III.C.2 
of this NPRM. In addition to contributing emission reductions towards 
the overall attainment targets, these rules are an appropriate first 
stage of the stationary source rule package because (1) RACT is already 
required for these sources under sections 181 and 182 of the Act, and 
(2) promulgation of RACT for these sources establishes greater equity 
with regard to other major sources.
    (2) Traditional Stationary Source Category Rules. As discussed in 
section III.C.1 of this NPRM, EPA cannot evaluate every source category 
in the FIP areas for availability and cost of emission reductions 
needed to meet the tremendous FIP reduction targets. Nevertheless, this 
type of source-by-source evaluation and rulemaking is exactly how State 
and local agencies have traditionally regulated VOC and NOX. 
Therefore, in order to create a State/federal partnership, minimize 
federal intrusion into State affairs, and achieve the other goals 
described in section I, EPA believes it is important to propose 
traditional stationary source rules by source category wherever 
possible.
    Sections III.C.3 and III.C.4 of this NPRM describe the regulations 
that EPA is proposing under this effort. Categories were generally 
selected because: (1) A State or local agency had already published a 
regulation that could be adapted for implementation in the FIP, or (2) 
a currently unregulated category contributed substantial emissions. 
While many of these rules will not achieve all the needed reductions, 
all provide reductions in the near-term and contribute progress towards 
attainment. In addition, many of these regulations were recommended by 
State or local agencies. EPA believes these agencies should and will 
follow the FIP proposal by promulgating equivalent rules, further 
supporting the FIP goals.
    (3) Cap Regulations. Section III.C.4 of this NPRM describes a set 
of emission cap regulations designed to achieve additional stationary 
source reductions. These rules impose substantial requirements on a 
wide range of sources, but they leave the sources a great deal of 
flexibility in how the reduction requirements are to be met.
    The requirements in the cap rules are designed to achieve the 
stationary sources' share of the emission reductions needed for 
attainment in Sacramento and Ventura. While these reductions are 
substantial and challenging to the regulated community, EPA believes 
that the reductions are achievable on the schedule reflected in the cap 
rules. EPA believes that this level of reduction is achievable by 
sources in the South Coast, in the same time frame. EPA does not know, 
however, whether current technologies and control techniques are 
adequate to achieve the additional reductions necessary in the South 
Coast. As a result, EPA is proposing that the South Coast reduction 
requirements under the cap rules be similar to those proposed for 
Ventura.
    (4) New Technology Measures under section 182(e)(5). The additional 
stationary source reductions needed for attainment in the South Coast 
are discussed in Section III.G. Section 182(e)(5) of the Clean Air Act 
allows States and EPA, acting in place of the State, to postpone 
promulgation of regulations in the South Coast (the only ``Extreme'' 
ozone nonattainment area) in order to provide for technology 
advancements. EPA is proposing to include in this category all 
stationary, area, and mobile source emission reductions needed in the 
South Coast beyond those proposed for Ventura. As discussed above, EPA 
lacks evidence at this time that either accelerating the reduction 
schedule or increasing the reduction requirements of the proposed cap 
rules would be achievable, in light of feasible existing control 
options.
    EPA solicits information from industry and the public on 
demonstrated and commercially available technologies that could 
reliably achieve a greater level of reduction than required in the cap 
rules. As soon as new or improved technologies and control techniques 
are foreseeable, EPA will consider amendments to the FIP to mandate 
further reduction requirements, even in advance of the schedule for 
rule development set forth in the proposed section 182(e)(5) 
commitments. EPA also urges the State and SCAQMD to pursue aggressively 
the development and application of low-emission technologies, clean 
fuels, and pollution prevention approaches capable of advancing and 
sustaining the pace of air quality progress in the South Coast.
    c. Future Evolution of Rules--EPA intends to reevaluate these 
stationary source requirements as air pollution control technology 
continues to improve. All four of the general strategies discussed in 
paragraph III.C.1.b are subject to ongoing efforts to develop cost-
effective emission reductions. This includes industry- sponsored 
environmental audits, CARB's RACT/BARCT development, EPA's continuing 
research and development initiatives and CTG and MACT efforts, and 
SCAQMD's RECLAIM and Tier 1, 2, and 3 programs, including projects of 
the SCAQMD's Technology Advancement Office.
    Where appropriate, the final promulgated FIP rules will reflect 
modifications to the proposed regulations based on information received 
from these and other efforts during the public comment period. However, 
EPA fully intends to continue modifying the FIP rules through 
subsequent separate actions, even after final promulgation. As 
discussed elsewhere in this NPRM, EPA hopes that the final modification 
to most FIP rules will be delegation to a State or local agency or 
recision of the FIP rules in deference to an approvable State or local 
program.
2. Regulations for Specific Sources in Sacramento
    (a) Introduction and rationale for selection of sources. In 
developing the attainment demonstration, EPA evaluated the possibility 
of achieving emissions reductions from stationary point sources in the 
Sacramento area. EPA has identified several major stationary sources of 
VOC in the Sacramento area which are not subject to reasonably 
available control technology (RACT) requirements. Under section 
182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, local air pollution 
control agencies are responsible for the submittal of RACT rules for 
all major sources to EPA. Formica Corporation (Placer County), Sierra 
Pine Limited (Placer County), Michigan California Lumber Company (El 
Dorado County), and Reynolds Metal's tab lubricant operation (Placer 
County) are four major VOC sources which are not currently subject to 
RACT requirements. In order to achieve VOC emissions reductions for the 
FIP and to provide rule models that will help the local air agencies 
meet their Clean Air Act requirements, EPA is proposing the following 
source specific RACT rules for the Sacramento area.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\These four sources will also be required to achieve 
additional VOC emissions reductions required by the Cap Rules 
discussed in section III.C.5. of today's notice, as well as any 
NOX requirements that may apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Formica Corporation (Placer County) Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(p) 
sets VOC emission limits for resins used at Formica Corporation's 
Sierra Plant (``Formica'') which manufactures plastic laminate 
products. Emissions are generated from the lamination process which 
involves the application of melamine and phenolic resins to several 
types of paper, followed by oven curing. VOC emissions reductions have 
been achieved by Formica due to past changes in resin formulations. 
Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(p) represents Formica's current resin 
formulations and EPA's proposal of a RACT rule for Formica.
    Formica has made several changes in resin formulation which have 
reduced their VOC emissions. In 1987, Formica switched from a phenolic 
resin with a VOC content of 2.88 lb/gal to one at 1.85 lb/gal. In 1991, 
Formica reduced their phenolic resin VOC content again from 1.85 lb/gal 
to 1.13 lb/gal. Also in 1991, the melamine resin was switched so that 
the VOC content was reduced from 0.2 lb/gal to 0.002 lb/gal. EPA is 
proposing that 1.13 lbs of VOC per gallon of phenolic resin applied and 
0.002 lbs of VOC per gallon of melamine resin applied represent RACT 
for Formica. Proposed RACT rule 52.289(p) will also allow control 
equipment with an overall efficiency of 85 percent as an alternative to 
meeting the above VOC limits.
    Based on the 1990 CARB point source inventory, Formica emitted 
211.8 tons per year (tpy) of reactive organic gases (ROG). However, 
more recent and accurate emissions data indicate that Formica's 
emissions in 1990 were actually 601.6 tpy of VOC and that with the 
change in resin formulations in 1991, Formica's emissions were reduced 
to 461.3 tpy of VOC. Thus, with the resin changes made by Formica since 
1990, approximately 140 tpy or 0.38 tons per day (tpd) of VOC emissions 
reductions have been achieved by Formica.
    Since the resin changes required by the proposed RACT rule have 
already been implemented, there should be no additional costs for 
Formica to meet the rule's requirements. However, it appears that the 
past reformulations were cost effective.
    EPA is aware that Formica is currently in the process of obtaining 
an Authority to Construct permit from Placer County APCD to install a 
thermal oxidizer in order to bank emissions reductions credits. EPA 
also understands that Formica has plans to bank the emissions 
reductions from the second phenolic reformulation discussed above. In 
order for Formica to bank the emissions from the second phenolic 
reformulation, EPA would have to propose a rule which set the phenolic 
limit at 1.85 lbs/gal., rather than 1.13 lb/gal. The emissions 
reductions achieved by the second reformulation would then have to be 
achieved elsewhere by the FIP. Given the stringency of some of the 
other FIP measures, EPA believes that proposed rule 52.2961(p) should 
represent RACT.
    (c) SierraPine Limited (Placer). Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(q) 
controls the emissions from SierraPine Limited, a medium density 
fiberboard plant in Placer County. Estimated uncontrolled emissions at 
the facility total approximately 306 tons of VOC per year, with the 
primary emissions points at three fiber dryers (178 tpy), two press 
vents (117 tpy), and wood-waste fired boiler (11 tpy). The three wood 
fiber dryers use steam heat to dry the wood fibers but in the process 
drive off VOCs in the wood. After the fibers are dried and formed into 
the desired shape, a resin is applied. A steam heated press is then 
used to form the fiberboard. As the fiberboard is heated, VOCs (mostly 
formaldehyde) are driven off. Currently all VOCs are emitted directly 
to the atmosphere.
    Based on a review of currently available controls, emissions from 
the dryers and vents could be reduced significantly through the 
addition of a control device (e.g., wet electrostatic precipitator/
carbon adsorption system or regenerative thermal oxidation). Emissions 
at the wood-fired boiler could also be reduced by maintaining optimum 
combustion practices.
    The proposed rule for this facility would require the reduction of 
dryer and press vent emissions by 90 percent, which would be achievable 
through currently available technology at an estimated cost of $2,200 
to $3,400 per ton of VOC reduced. The cost per ton may be partially 
offset by the additional PM10 reductions expected as the result of 
controls.\37\ The rule is expected to reduce VOC emissions at the 
facility by approximately 280 to 290 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\SierraPine has applied for permits to construct wet 
electrostatic precipitators and wet scrubbers to reduce PM10 
emissions at the facility. While these controls will have some 
smalll VOC reduction benefit, EPA has determined that these controls 
alone will not address the need for RACT level reductions as 
required under the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Michigan-California Lumber Company (El Dorado) Proposed 40 CFR 
52.2961(r) controls the VOC emissions from Michigan-California Lumber 
(``Michigan-California'') which is a lumber processing and timber 
manufacturing facility located in El Dorado County. Various coniferous 
tree species, including Sugar Pine, Douglas Fir, Ponderosa Pine, and 
White Fir, are harvested, transported to the facility, and processed 
for commercial sale. The main source of VOC emissions from Michigan-
California is a spreader-stoker boiler which uses waste bark and wood 
as fuel. Due to several operational changes to increase the efficiency 
of the boiler, VOC emissions reductions have also been realized. 
Proposed 40 C.F.R. 52.2961(r) represents Michigan-California's current 
operating conditions and EPA's proposal of a RACT rule for Michigan-
California.
    EPA's proposed RACT rule will require Michigan-California to meet 
an emission limit of 150 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of VOCs in 
the stack exhaust stream from the spreader-stoker furnace. Since 1988, 
Michigan-California has made improvements in the combustion process and 
regulated moisture concentration of the wood fuel for the spreader-
stoker furnace which resulted in an average VOC emission rate of 
approximately 218 ppmv during a 1992 source test. Further changes and 
improvements made since 1992 have resulted in a VOC emission rate of 
approximately 127 ppmv during a 1993 source test. Therefore, a maximum 
VOC limit of 150 ppmv is reasonable for Michigan-California's spreader- 
stoker furnace.
    The 1990 CARB point source inventory reports Michigan-California 
emitting 251.7 tpy of VOC which was based on 1988 emissions test 
estimates. With the changes since 1988, current VOC emissions should be 
approximately 48.8 tpy. Thus, Michigan-California has achieved 
approximately 200 tpy or 0.56 tpd of VOC reductions since 1990.
    Since the requirements of the proposed RACT rule are currently 
being met, there should be no additional costs for Michigan-California 
to meet the rule's requirements.
    (e) Reynolds Metals (Placer). Reynolds manufactures aluminum ``Stay 
On Tab'' can ends in Rocklin, California and uses several VOC 
containing compounds which include end sealing compound, equipment 
cleaner and tab lubricants. Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(s) controls the VOC 
emissions from the tab lubricating process at Reynolds Metals Company 
(``Reynolds'') in Placer County. The end sealing compound is currently 
regulated by Placer County APCD and the equipment cleaner is covered by 
the Solvent Cleaning Operations rule discussed below. VOC emissions 
reductions from the tab lubrication process have been achieved by 
reducing the VOC content and application rate of the lubricant. 
Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(s) requires Reynolds' to meet limits that are 
based on the lower VOC and application rate of the tab lubricant.
    In 1992, Reynolds switched from a tab lubricant with a VOC content 
of 6.38 lbs of VOC per gallon, which was applied at a rate of 50 
milliliters per minute (ml/min) to make 3240 tabs/min (or 2.60  x  
10-5 lbs VOC/tab) to a tab lubricant with a VOC content of 5.73 
lb/gal which is applied at a rate of 25 ml/min to make 3240 tabs/min 
(or 1.17  x  10-5 lbs VOC/tab). EPA is proposing a limit of 5.73 
lb/gal for the tab lubricant and total tab lubricant VOC emissions of 
not more than 1.2  x  10-5 lbs of VOC per tab produced in a given 
press. Proposed RACT rule 52.2961(s) will also allow control equipment 
with an overall efficiency of 85 percent as an alternative to meeting 
the above VOC limits.
    In 1990, Reynolds emitted a total of 247.5 tons of VOC from which 
77.5 tons was generated by the tab lubricant process. The changes made 
in 1992 achieve an estimated 55 percent reduction in VOC (or 42.3 tpy, 
0.12 tpd). Since the tab lubricant changes required by the proposed 
RACT rule have already been implemented, there should be no additional 
costs for Reynolds to meet the rule's requirements, and apparently the 
past reformulations were cost effective.
3. Regulations for Specific Source Categories in the FIP Areas
    a. Introduction--(1) Rationale for Selection of Categories and 
Requirements. As discussed in section III.C.1 of this NPRM, EPA 
believes the FIP should include traditional category-specific 
stationary source rules where possible. Such rules improve the State/
federal partnership, minimize federal intrusion into State affairs, and 
contribute to other goals described in section I.B of this NPRM. While 
EPA is unable to develop rules for all stationary source categories, 
the proposed FIP includes 15 rules for specific categories as described 
in sections III.C.3.b-p and 3 statewide area source regulations 
presented in section III.C.4 below.
    Many of these rules have been adapted from regulations already 
existing or proposed in parts of California. In such cases, EPA has 
generally selected the most stringent requirements available and relied 
on the technical work performed by CARB and local Districts to estimate 
associated costs and emission reductions. While there may be additional 
rules that EPA could have adapted for the FIP under this effort, EPA 
used the amount of potential emission reductions as a primary screening 
device for evaluating which rules were appropriate for the FIP 
proposal. Thus, rules projected to reduce emissions by more than 0.1 
percent of the uncontrolled attainment year inventory were considered 
good candidates. EPA also considered cost-effectiveness and District 
recommendations in selecting categories and specific requirements under 
this effort. Examples of proposed FIP elements adapted from existing 
District rules are those affecting solvent cleaning operations, wood 
products coatings, and auto refinishing. Many of these category-
specific rules are based on regulations adopted by the SCAQMD or CARB. 
EPA's application of these rules to Sacramento and Ventura should not 
discourage the SCAQMD and CARB from pursuing further emission 
reductions from these source categories in order to meet the progress 
and attainment requirements of federal and State law.
    EPA also developed rules for source categories which have not yet 
been regulated under the Clean Air Act but which contribute substantial 
emissions in the FIP areas. For these categories, EPA worked with the 
State and Districts to evaluate various mechanisms for reducing 
emissions. Among the FIP rules developed under this effort are those 
affecting pesticides, aerosol coatings, and livestock waste management.
    (2) Relationship to existing and pending SIP provisions Some 
stationary sources proposed for control through category-specific FIP 
rules are already regulated by existing State or District SIP rules. 
Architectural coating, for example, has been regulated in the South 
Coast by versions of South Coast Rule 1113 since 1977. EPA's proposed 
FIP rule (section 52.2959), however, would reduce architectural coating 
emissions even further. Where a State or local rule has been approved 
by EPA into the SIP (as, for example, Rule 1113 was approved in 57 FR 
8104, August 11, 1992), affected sources would have to meet the tighter 
of each element in the two rules.\38\ Sources will, however, need to 
continue to comply with applicable State and local rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\Section 302(q) of the Act defines the applicable 
implementation plan as that ``portion . . . or most recent revision 
thereof, which has been approved under section 110, or promulgated 
under section 110(c) . . .'' While the regulations discussed in 
sections III.C.3 and 4 of this notice may effectively supersede less 
stringent provisions of federally approved SIP rules addressing the 
same source categories, the State or local rules would remain in the 
SIP and be enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section III.J. and elsewhere in this NPRM, EPA 
intends to delegate the FIP rules and/or remove them whenever the State 
submits an approvable, equivalent SIP provision.\39\ If, for example, 
SCAQMD submits a proposed SIP amendment that makes Rule 1113 an 
approvable substitute for the FIP rule, upon EPA approval, EPA would 
amend section 52.2959 to rescind its applicability within the South 
Coast. In many cases, CARB and affected Districts are already 
developing rules similar to those proposed in this NPRM. If these are 
submitted to EPA before February 1995, EPA may, upon SIP approval, 
simply amend or remove the analogous component from the final 
promulgated FIP. Alternatively, EPA may remove FIP elements under 
separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\Pursuant to Sec. 110(1) of the Act, State rules are not 
approvable as revisions to an implementation plan if they `interfere 
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable 
further progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of this 
Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, however, EPA determines that a new or modified State rule does 
not achieve emission reductions equivalent to the FIP rule, and no 
other State rule compensates for the differences, EPA will maintain 
implementation of the FIP measure.\40\ In such cases, sources could 
again be subject to overlapping State and federal requirements. 
Therefore, EPA encourages the State to adopt approvable regulations as 
soon as possible to avoid duplicative effort for both regulators and 
affected sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\EPA could also approve a substitute SIP attainment 
demonstration relying on a different mix of control measures to 
achieve attainment and interim progress that at least equals the 
FIP's schedule. In this case, EPA may rescind individual FIP rules 
that are more stringent than the substitute SIP provisions, if the 
particular FIP rules are no longer necessary to provide for 
expeditious attainment because the SIP achieves greater reductions 
from controls on other source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Relationship to other applicable FIP provisions. Many of the 
sources subject to the proposed category-specific rules described here 
will also be affected by the cap regulations described in section 
III.C.5 of this NPRM. As proposed, the cap regulations require almost 
all significant stationary sources to reduce emissions by a specified 
percentage. The reduction rates are currently the same for sources 
which are affected by category-specific rules and for sources which are 
not. As discussed in section III.C.5 of this NPRM, EPA specifically 
requests comments on whether fairness and other concerns justify 
adjusting the reduction requirements to give sources credit for 
emission reductions required in the proposed FIP rules described in 
sections III.C.2-4 of this NPRM.
    (4) Rule structure. These proposed rules generally follow the 
structure of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60. 
They contain sections on applicability, definitions, specific 
requirements, exemptions, reporting, recordkeeping, test methods, and 
additional components as necessary. Where immediate or near-term 
compliance is feasible, the effective dates of the substantive 
requirements are generally January 1, 1996, roughly one year after 
final FIP promulgation is due. Issues specific to individual rules are 
discussed in sections III.C.3.b-p and III.C.4 below.
    (b) Solvent Cleaning Operations (Sacramento, Ventura). Proposed 40 
CFR 52.2961(a) controls VOC emissions resulting from certain solvent 
cleaning operations in the Sacramento and Ventura nonattainment areas. 
Emission reductions are achieved by: (1) Limiting the VOC content and 
vapor pressure of solvents used in solvent cleaning operations; (2) 
allowing the use of add-on control equipment in lieu of meeting the VOC 
content and vapor pressure limits; and (3) prescribing procedures and 
requirements for solvent cleaning operations.
    The proposed rule applies to facilities that use VOC-containing 
materials in the production, repair, maintenance, or servicing of 
parts, products, tools, machinery, equipment, or general work areas, or 
that store and dispose of VOC-containing materials used in solvent 
cleaning operations. Affected facilities include manufacturing plants, 
printing presses, shipyards, and repair and refinishing facilities such 
as auto garages, auto body shops and workshops for buses, aircraft, 
trains and trucks. This proposed rule also applies to repair, service, 
and production operations at institutional facilities such as 
government buildings, schools, hospitals, sanitariums, prisons, 
restaurants, health clubs, and theaters.
    This proposed rule is based largely on SCAQMD Rule 1171 (Solvent 
Cleaning Operations) as adopted on August 2, 1991. Evaluation of the 
environmental, economic, socioeconomic, and other impacts of the 
proposed FIP rule's requirements can be found in SCAQMD's final staff 
report for Rule 1171, dated July 1991. This proposed FIP rule also 
incorporates changes from the draft amended Rule 1171 released by 
SCAQMD on October 6, 1993 and components of the VCAPCD Rule 74.19 
(Graphic Arts) as adopted on August 11, 1992.
    EPA is in the process of developing an Alternative Control 
Technology (ACT) Document for solvent cleaning operations. The ACT will 
primarily address recordkeeping and will not establish national 
guidelines for solvent content and work practices. The proposed FIP 
rule requirements on VOC content and work practices do not conflict 
with the draft ACT.
    As described in the technical support document, uncontrolled VOC 
emissions from affected facilities are projected to total 10.44 tpd in 
Sacramento in 1999, 11.82 tpd in Sacramento in 2005, and 3.55 tpd in 
Ventura in 2005. Implementation of this proposed rule is projected to 
reduce those emissions by 6.75, 7.66, and 2.66 tpd respectively at an 
overall cost savings of $991 per ton VOC removed (1990 dollars). A cost 
savings is projected because CARB and the Districts have identified 
compliant solvents which are less expensive than high-VOC solvents 
currently in use.
    (c) Wood Products Coatings (Sacramento, Ventura) Proposed 40 CFR 
52.2961(b) controls VOC emissions resulting from commercial and 
industrial application in the Sacramento and Ventura nonattainment 
areas of coatings while manufacturing wood products. Emission 
reductions are achieved by: (1) limiting the VOC content of various 
wood coating products; (2) allowing the use of add-on control equipment 
that reduces VOC emissions by 85 percent in lieu of meeting the VOC 
limits on coatings; and (3) restricting application of wood coatings to 
application methods and equipment with high transfer efficiencies.
    The proposed rule applies to all persons applying coating, inks, 
stains, and/or strippers in wood product coating operations for the 
purpose of manufacturing wood products, including furniture and other 
coated objects made of solid wood and/or wood composition and/or 
simulated wood material. The proposed rule does not apply to 
residential noncommercial operations. The majority of the affected wood 
products coating operators are expected to comply with the proposed 
rule through the use of reformulated coatings rather than add-on 
emission control devices.
    The proposed rule is based largely on SCAQMD Rule 1136 entitled 
``Wood Products Coatings,'' as amended on August 2, 1991. In addition, 
EPA has incorporated some of SCAQMD's proposed amendments to Rule 1136, 
dated July 23, 1993. Evaluation of the environmental, economic, 
socioeconomic, and other impacts of Rule 1136 can be found in SCAQMD 
Staff Report ``Proposed Amended Rule 1136--Wood Products Coatings,'' 
dated April 19, 1988, and SCAQMD Supplemental Staff Report ``Proposed 
Amended Rule 1136--Wood Products Coatings,'' dated July 5, 1988.
    EPA has prepared a draft Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) 
document on wood products coatings that is entitled ``Control of 
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Coating 
Operations.'' Upon publication of the CTG, revisions to this FIP rule 
may be appropriate for consistency. EPA expects, however, that the 
proposed FIP rule may be more stringent than the CTG in some regards to 
reflect the unusually difficult air pollution problems in the FIP 
areas.
    As described in the technical support document, uncontrolled VOC 
emissions from affected facilities are projected to total 0.49 tpd in 
Sacramento in 1999, 0.55 tpd in Sacramento in 2005, and 0.65 tpd in 
Ventura in 2005. Implementation of this proposed rule is projected to 
reduce those emissions by 0.45, 0.51, and 0.61 tpd respectively at a 
cost of $18 per ton VOC removed (1988 dollars).
    (d) Automotive Refinishing Operations (Sacramento). Proposed 40 CFR 
52.2961(c) controls VOC emissions from automobile refinishing 
operations in the Sacramento nonattainment area. Emission reductions 
are achieved by: (1) limiting the VOC content of various automobile 
refinishing coatings; (2) allowing the use of add-on control equipment 
that reduces VOC emissions by 85 percent in lieu of meeting the VOC 
limits on coatings; and (3) restricting application of automotive 
refinishing coatings to application methods and equipment with high 
transfer efficiencies.
    The proposed rule applies to facilities that apply coatings to 
motor vehicles and mobile equipment or their existing parts and 
components for the purpose of on-site refinishing and modification. The 
proposed rule does not apply to application of original equipment 
manufacturing coatings applied at manufacturing plants. Affected 
facilities include autobody repair/paint shops, production autobody 
paint shops, new car dealer repair/paint shops, fleet operator repair/
paint shops, custom-made car fabrication facilities, and truck body 
builders.
    Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(c) is based largely on SCAQMD's Rule 1151, 
Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations 
(September 6, 1991). Portions of the proposed FIP rule are based on 
CARB's Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and 
Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (RACT/BARCT) for Automotive 
Refinishing Operations (January 8, 1991). An evaluation of the 
environmental, economic, socioeconomic, and other impacts of Rule 1151 
requirements can be found in SCAQMD's staff report for the proposed 
amended Rule 1151 (August, 1991); this evaluation is also applicable to 
this proposed FIP rule.
    As described in the technical support document, uncontrolled VOC 
emissions from affected facilities are projected to total 4.23 tpd in 
1999 and 4.71 tpd in 2005. Implementation of this proposed rule is 
projected to reduce those emissions by 3.77 tpd and 4.19 tpd 
respectively at a cost of $7,200 per ton of VOC removed (1990 dollars).
    Under section 183(e)(3) of the Act, EPA may in the future issue 
either national regulations or a CTG for this source category, as well 
as for other categories discussed in this section. If EPA does so and 
the FIP rule is less stringent than the national guidance or rule, EPA 
will amend the FIP rule appropriately.
    (e) Adhesives and Sealants (Sacramento) Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(d) 
controls VOC emissions resulting from industrial and commercial use of 
adhesives and sealants in the Sacramento nonattainment area. Emission 
reductions are achieved by: (1) limiting the VOC content of various 
adhesives and sealants; and (2) allowing the use of add-on control 
equipment that reduces VOC emissions by 85 percent in lieu of meeting 
the VOC limits on coatings.
    This proposed rule applies to certain facilities that supply, sell, 
or use adhesives, sealants, or adhesive primers. Affected facilities 
include (but are not limited to) manufacturing plants, architectural 
and construction companies, and welding operations. Various activities 
are exempt from all or part or the proposed rule, including tire 
repair, undersea-based weapon systems manufacturing, research and 
development, and small quantity users.
    Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(d) is based largely on draft guidance and 
model rules developed by members of the CARB/California Air Pollution 
Control Officers Association's (CAPCOA) Technical Review Group included 
in ``Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available 
Retrofit Control Technology (RACT/BARCT) for Adhesives and Sealants,'' 
as presented in a workshop on September 30, 1993. In addition, portions 
of the proposed FIP rule are based on Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District (BAAQMD) Regulation 8, Rule 51, Adhesive and Sealant Products; 
VCAPCD Rule 74.20, Adhesives and Sealants; and SCAQMD Rule 1168, 
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Adhesive 
Application. Evaluation of the environmental, economic, socioeconomic, 
and other impacts of the proposed FIP rule's requirements was partially 
based on the information provided in the BAAQMD and VCAPCD staff 
reports for their respective rules.
    As described in the technical support document, uncontrolled VOC 
emissions from affected facilities are projected to total 2.64 tpd in 
1999 and 2.99 tpd in 2005. Implementation of this proposed rule is 
projected to reduce those emissions by 1.29 tpd and 1.47 tpd 
respectively at a cost of $890 per ton of VOC removed (1989 dollars).
    (f) Can and Coil Coating (Sacramento). Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(e) 
controls VOC emissions from certain metal container, metal closure, and 
metal coil coating operations in the Sacramento nonattainment area. 
Emission reductions are achieved by: (1) limiting the VOC content of 
various can and coil coatings; (2) allowing the use of add-on control 
equipment that achieves a 90 percent capture efficiency and 95 percent 
destruction or removal efficiency in lieu of meeting the VOC limits on 
coatings; and (3) restricting application of can and coil coatings to 
application methods and equipment with high transfer efficiencies.
    The proposed rule applies to facilities that apply coatings to 
metal containers, metal closures, and/or metal coils. Facilities that 
apply 1 gallon per day or less of spray coating, however, are exempt 
from the requirements of the proposed rule. Sacramento and Placer 
counties have implemented can and coil rules (SMAQMD Rule 452 and 
PCAPCD Rule 223) similar to this proposed FIP rule, although not as 
stringent. Currently, no sources exist in El Dorado and Sutter 
counties. Therefore, while the rule is proposed for implementation in 
the entire Sacramento ozone nonattainment area (as described in 40 CFR 
81.305), most of the near-term emission reductions are projected to 
occur in Yolo and Solano counties.
    Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(e) is based largely on SCAQMD's Rule 1125, 
Metal Container, Closure, and Coil Coating Operations. Portions of the 
proposed FIP rule are based on the following: CARB's ``Determination of 
Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit 
Control Technology (RACT/BARCT) for Metal Container, Closure and Coil 
Coating Operations'' (July 21, 1992); San Diego County Air Pollution 
Control District (SDAPCD) Rule 67.4, Metal Container, Closure, and Coil 
Coating Operations (1990); and SMAQMD Rule 452, Can Coating (August 21, 
1990).
    An evaluation of the environmental, economic, socioeconomic, and 
other impacts of Rule 1125 requirements can be found in the SCAQMD 
staff reports for Rule 1125 (February 2, 1979 and October 13, 1989). 
Evaluations of these impacts are also presented in CARB's RACT/BARCT 
Determination for Metal Containers, Metal Closures, and/or Metal Coils. 
Both of these evaluations are applicable to this proposed FIP rule.
    As described in the technical support document, uncontrolled VOC 
emissions from affected facilities are projected to total 2.09 tpd in 
1999 and 2.34 tpd in 2005. Implementation of this proposed rule is 
projected to reduce those emissions by 0.26 tpd and 0.30 tpd 
respectively at a cost savings of $540 per ton of VOC removed (1990 
dollars). A cost savings is projected in part because CARB and the 
Districts have identified compliant coatings which are less expensive 
than high-VOC coatings currently in use.
    (g) Commercial Bakeries (Sacramento). Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(f) 
controls VOC emissions from commercial bakery ovens in the Sacramento 
nonattainment area that emit VOCs while baking yeast-leavened products. 
The proposed rule requires that certain bakeries install and operate a 
VOC pollution control system to reduce VOC emissions by at least 95 
percent by weight. The following four yeast-leavened dough processes 
are affected: sponge dough, straight dough, liquid ferments, and no-
time dough.
    Facilities with a combined rated heat input capacity of all ovens 
less than 2 million British Thermal Units (Btus) per hour and 
facilities with ovens used exclusively for baking products leavened 
chemically (without yeast) are exempt from all of the proposed rule 
requirements, including recordkeeping and test method provisions. 
Facilities which emit less than 6.5 tons of VOC per year are exempt 
from the standards and compliance schedule requirements, but still must 
observe the recordkeeping and test method requirements.
    The proposed rule is based largely on SDCAPCD proposed Rule 67.24 
(Bakery Ovens), as presented in Workshop Draft form on September 17, 
1992. Portions of the proposed rule are based on SCAQMD Rule 1153 
(Commercial Bakery Ovens) as adopted on January 4, 1991 and BAAQMD 
Regulation 8, Rule 42 (Large Commercial Bread Bakeries) as adopted on 
September 20, 1989. Evaluations of environmental, economic, 
socioeconomic, and other impacts of the proposed rule can be found in 
EPA's ACT Document for Bakery Oven Emissions (EPA-453/R-92-017, 
December 1992).
    As described in the technical support document, uncontrolled VOC 
emissions from affected facilities are projected to total 1.28 tpd in 
1999 and 1.40 tpd in 2005. Implementation of this proposed rule is 
projected to reduce those emissions by 1.22 tpd and 1.33 tpd 
respectively at a cost of $1,200 per ton VOC removed or 0.2 cents per 
pound of bread (1990 dollars).
    (h) Municipal Waste Landfills (Sacramento). Proposed 40 CFR 
52.2961(g) controls emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) 
from certain municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in the Sacramento 
nonattainment area by collecting and processing the landfill gases 
evolved from decomposition of organic material in MSW landfills. 
Emission reductions are achieved by requiring collection of 90 percent 
of the landfill gases produced, and destruction of 98 percent of the 
NMOCs collected. By controlling NMOCs, VOCs are also controlled because 
NMOCs include, but are not limited to, VOCs.
    The substantive requirements of the proposed rule apply to MSW 
landfills that have received more than 500,000 tons of decomposable 
solid waste during their operational lifetime. The following types of 
landfills are exempt from some or all requirements of this proposed 
rule: facilities that have accepted only hazardous waste; facilities 
issued an Authority to Construct permit from the applicable air quality 
management district or air pollution control district prior to April 1, 
1995 and that have an NMOC control device in place with at least 90 
percent efficiency; and facilities that demonstrate a low concentration 
of landfill gas (i.e., less than 500 ppm by volume total organic 
compounds measured as methane) at all points near the surface of the 
landfill.
    Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(g) is based largely on VCAPCD Rule 74.17 
(Solid Waste Disposal Sites), as adopted on September 17, 1991. 
Evaluation of the environmental, economic, socioeconomic, and other 
impacts of that rule can be found in VCAPCD's ``Final Staff Report for 
Rule 74.17,'' dated September 17, 1991.
    EPA is in the process of developing ``Standards of Performance for 
New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources: 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills'' (``MSW Guidelines''). This proposed 
FIP rule is also based on work performed in development of the ``MSW 
Guidelines.'' Upon publication of the ``MSW Guidelines'' in the Federal 
Register, it may be appropriate to revise the FIP rule for consistency.
    As described in the technical support document, uncontrolled VOC 
emissions from affected facilities are projected to total 0.94 tpd in 
1999 and 1.08 tpd in 2005. Implementation of this proposed rule is 
projected to reduce those emissions by 0.60 tpd and 0.69 tpd 
respectively at a cost of $18,000 per ton of VOC removed.
    (i) Livestock Waste (Sacramento, South Coast, and Ventura). 
Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(h) controls VOC emissions from livestock waste 
operations. Livestock waste emission sources include cattle, hogs, 
sheep, and poultry operations. VOC emissions are created during the 
anaerobic decomposition of livestock wastes. Although methane emissions 
are estimated to make up 70 to 80 percent of the total organic gases 
(TOG) created, VOC emissions account for approximately 10 percent of 
the TOG. Livestock waste operations account for approximately 7.7 tpd 
of VOC emissions in the Sacramento area, 34.4 tpd in the South 
Coast,\41\ and 3.8 tpd in Ventura. Although livestock waste operations 
have traditionally not been the subject of VOC regulation, they are now 
under consideration because of the magnitude of livestock waste 
emissions and the need to achieve reductions from all FIP area emission 
VOC sources, most of which have previously reduced or will soon be 
required to reduce their VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\These estimates do not include methane and ethane emissions. 
Because limited information was available regarding the fraction of 
poultry operations within Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles 
counties which are located in the South Coast Air Basin, the 34.4 
tpd estimate includes the total poultry population found in the 
three aforementioned counties. As a result, livestock waste emission 
estimates may be slightly overestimated for the South Coast Air 
Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the rule would only apply to dairy cattle operations 
of 400 head or greater. These operations are estimated to represent 
approximately 1.8 tpd of VOC emissions in the Sacramento area and 10.8 
tpd in the South Coast. Ventura County currently does not have any 
dairy operations of greater than 200 head of cattle and, as a result, 
dairy operations would not be affected in Ventura. Although other 
livestock waste operations (e.g., chicken, hogs, sheep facilities) are 
not being proposed for regulation at this time, EPA will continue to 
investigate potential options for reducing emissions from other 
livestock waste operations as appropriate.
    Emissions from livestock waste are determined by the quantity of 
manure produced, how it is handled, and the temperature at which it is 
handled. The manure management system employed is very important. Wet 
management systems, such as liquid or slurry based systems (e.g., 
lagoons), convert large portions of the carbon to methane and other 
gases. Dry management systems, which rely on placing the manure in 
storage piles, also result in methane and other volatile organic 
compound emissions created by the anaerobic conditions within the 
storage piles. The primary emission reduction strategies available to 
reduce VOC emissions include utilizing methane recovery systems and/or 
promoting enhanced aerobic conditions in manure storage areas.
    Methods recommended for promoting aerobic decomposition of 
livestock waste include: aerating manure storage piles every three to 
seven days; scraping feedlots at least three times per year; and 
spreading oxidizing agents on feedlots. For waste management practices 
using a dry method, the proposed FIP measure will require the periodic 
aeration and removal of manure storage piles. This measure is estimated 
to reduce VOC emissions by 25 percent.
    Methane recovery and utilization systems are considered a potential 
control method for reducing VOC and methane emissions. Methane is 
considered an important greenhouse gas and also a potential energy 
source. Depending on the size of the livestock waste operation, methane 
recovery systems can pay for themselves over time and result in cost 
savings for large-scale dairy operations. Methane recovery systems are 
currently operating at 23 sites in the U.S., including at a swine 
facility near Tulare, CA and a dairy near Modesto, CA. Near Chino, CA, 
a recovery system is under development which would process an estimated 
2,500 tpd of cattle waste and 600 tpd of chicken waste. Technologies 
for methane recovery include covered lagoons, plug flow digesters, and 
complete mix digesters. Although these recovery systems represent a 
viable, demonstrated technology, some systems have not been as 
successful as expected because of improper design or other factors. For 
these reasons, EPA requests comment and information on any examples, 
circumstances, and/or reasons why a previously installed recovery 
system may not have achieved its full expectations.
    The proposed FIP rule will require that at least 55 percent of the 
manure generated be collected and managed through a methane recovery 
system. These systems are estimated to reduce emissions by 80 percent.
    The technical and economic feasibility of this technology depends 
on farm size, climate, and energy process. The off-gas (i.e., methane) 
collected can be utilized in the dairy operation for processes such as: 
electricity production (e.g., to fuel an engine generator); heating 
(e.g., to fire boilers and/or space heaters); and cooling (e.g., to 
fire chillers or other refrigeration equipment). This in turn can 
create farm profits from avoided energy costs or sales of excess 
electricity to the local utility. Although methane recovery systems 
would require a large initial investment, estimated annual costs range 
from $100 to $1,300 per year (for a 400 head dairy) to a cost savings 
of $10,000 per year (for a 1,400 head dairy). The initial investment 
could be recovered within six to fourteen years, depending on dairy 
size.
    The overall emission reductions from livestock waste operations 
will depend on the percentage of waste which is managed via the dry 
method (e.g., placed in storage piles) compared to the handled through 
a wet method (e.g., sent to the covered lagoon or digester). For 
purposes of the FIP reduction estimates, it is assumed that a minimum 
of 55 percent of the livestock waste would be sent to a lagoon or 
digester. Assuming that a hypothetical dairy farm would install a 
recovery system for liquid management and use the dry method for the 
remaining fraction of the wastes not sent to the recovery system, 
overall expected cost per ton of VOC reduced is estimated to range from 
about $2,100 per ton for a 400 head dairy to a $400 (cost) to $100 
(savings) per ton for a 1,450 head dairy.
    Preliminary evaluation of the environmental, economic, and other 
impacts of the proposed rule are discussed in EPA's technical support 
document. VOC Emission reductions expected from this proposed 
regulation are estimated at 1.0 tpd in the Sacramento area and 6.0 tpd 
in the South Coast. No reductions are expected in Ventura County 
because all livestock waste operations are believed to be less than 200 
head. Additional reductions could be achieved if the requirements were 
extended to smaller livestock waste operations, such as 250 head or 
greater.
    EPA is requesting comments and information on a number of issues 
related to this proposed measure. Comments are requested on the 
proposed FIP requirements and/or other potential emission reduction 
strategies not addressed in the proposal. Because each dairy operation 
is unique and can vary in its waste management practices, comments are 
specifically requested on alternative emission reduction methods and/or 
more cost effective strategies which might achieve equivalent results 
to those proposed.
    EPA also requests comments and information on the number of dairy 
farms in the FIP areas which contain at least 400 head and the 
percentage of dairy farms which manage at least 55 percent of the 
livestock waste through a wet method. Because the emission factors used 
to estimate VOC emissions from these sources should be updated, EPA 
intends to explore options for additional testing to verify that VOC 
emission factors accurately reflect emissions expected from both wet 
and dry waste management methods.
    (j)(1) Fugitive Emissions from Oil and Gas Production Facilities 
and Conveying Stations (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura).
    Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(t) controls VOC fugitive leak emissions 
from valves, flanges, fittings, pumps, compressors, open ended lines 
and/or other components at oil and gas production facilities and 
conveying stations.\42\ 1990 VOC emissions from these fugitive sources 
were estimated at approximately 0.9 tons per day (tpd) in the 
Sacramento area, 4.4 tpd in the South Coast, and 3.8 tpd in Ventura.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\Conveying stations include any compressor station, metering 
station, or other transfer station located between the extraction 
well and the refinery or gas processing plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule builds upon current regulations and strengthens 
and improves existing rules through retrofits on gas-operated control 
valves, lower allowable leak thresholds, correction of rule 
deficiencies, and improved inspection and repair programs. The proposed 
regulation is based on: CARB RACT guidance for the control of fugitive 
emissions of VOCs from oil and gas production and processing 
facilities, refineries, chemical plants, and pipeline transfer 
stations; Santa Barbara APCD Rule 331; SCAQMD Rule 1173; and new 
information regarding gas-operated control valves.
    Currently, gas-operated control valves are not regulated in the FIP 
areas. These valves are designed to bleed upon actuation, resulting in 
the release of uncontrolled VOC emissions. The proposed FIP rule would 
require that these valves be retrofitted using a control valve which 
would reduce gas bleed emissions by an estimated 95 percent. EPA has 
estimated a California population of 10,000 gas-operated control valves 
and assumed that these valves are evenly distributed throughout the 
state. EPA has also assumed that the control valves are only used in 
natural gas conveyance and petroleum production. Comments are 
specifically requested on the number of gas-operated control valves in 
the FIP areas and whether these valves are used in other operations 
besides those described above.
    The proposed FIP rule will establish a fugitives regulation for oil 
and gas production and conveying stations within the Sacramento FIP 
area. Previously, these fugitive sources were unregulated. The majority 
of expected reductions will be from the Yolo-Solano portion of the FIP 
area. In the Ventura FIP area, the rule builds upon requirements in 
VCAPCD Rule 74.10 and lower the number of allowable leaking components 
and leak definition to requirements consistent with existing rules and 
CARB's RACT guidance.
    In the South Coast FIP area, the proposed FIP rule will correct the 
gas leak definition in SCAQMD Rule 1173. The proposed correction 
defines a gas leak as total gaseous hydrocarbon in excess of the 
applicable parts per million limit measured as methane.
    In the Sacramento FIP area, the proposed FIP rule will establish an 
inspection and repair program. In the Ventura FIP area, the proposed 
FIP rule will further strengthen the existing program to make it 
consistent with those adopted in other districts and CARB's RACT 
guidance.
    Evaluation of the environmental, economic, and other impacts of the 
proposed rule are discussed in EPA's technical support document. 
Emission reductions expected from this proposed rule are estimated at 
0.8 tpd in the Sacramento area, 2.8 tpd in the South Coast, and 2.1 tpd 
in Ventura. (j)(2) Fugitive Emissions from Gas Processing Plants, 
Refineries, Bulk Plants, Bulk Terminals, and Chemical Plants
    (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura). Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(i) 
controls VOC emissions from fugitive leaks resulting from valves, 
flanges, fittings, pumps, compressors, open ended lines and/or other 
components at gas processing plants, refineries, bulk plants, bulk 
terminals, and chemical plants. 1990 VOC emissions from these fugitive 
sources were estimated to be less than 0.9 tons per day (tpd) in the 
Sacramento area, approximately 17.5 tpd in the South Coast, and 0.8 tpd 
in Ventura.
    The proposed rule builds upon current or proposed regulations and 
strengthens and improves existing rules through: regulation of 
additional fugitive sources; lower allowable leak thresholds; 
correction of rule deficiencies; and improved inspection and repair 
programs. The proposed FIP regulation is based on: CARB RACT guidance 
for the control of fugitive emissions of VOCs from oil and gas 
production and processing facilities, refineries, chemical plants, and 
pipeline transfer stations; Bay Area AQMD (BAAQMD) Regulation 9--Rules 
18, 22, and 25; SCAQMD Rule 1173; and EPA's proposed National Emission 
Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants (HON) from the synthetic 
organic chemical manufacturing industry and equipment leaks from seven 
other processes (FR 52 62685).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\Although EPA's proposed HON is expected to be finalized 
soon, the proposed HON covers only emissions designated as hazardous 
air pollutants, which may make up only a fraction of VOC emissions 
from affected FIP sources. The proposed FIP fugitives rule is 
intended to reduce VOC emissions. In some instances, the proposed 
HON is less stringent than adopted SIP regulations in California and 
the proposed FIP measure. Although the proposed HON was considered, 
EPA's proposed fugitives rule relies primarily on current California 
regulations and/or guidance. After the HON is finalized, EPA will 
clarify the overlap between existing SIP and/or proposed FIP rules 
and the proposed HON.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule will establish and/or lower allowable leak levels 
for affected components. Allowable leak levels for valves and 
connectors are proposed at 500 parts per million based on BAAQMD 
regulations\44\ and EPA's proposed HON. Allowable leak levels for other 
components are proposed at levels based on CARB's RACT guidance and 
SCAQMD Rule 1173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\On January 1, 1997, BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rules 18 and 25 
reduce allowable leak levels to 100 ppm for valves and connectors 
and 500 ppm for pumps and compressors. Although these lower limits 
are not being proposed as FIP limits at this time, EPA will continue 
to investigate the need for and potential reductions from leak 
thresholds consistent with the BAAQMD regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In all three FIP areas, the proposed measure will regulate 
fugitives from bulk plants and bulk terminals. Because only a portion 
of these sources have traditionally been regulated for their fugitive 
emissions (i.e., loading and storage of petroleum liquids), fugitive 
emissions may have been underestimated in previous inventory 
projections. Because emission factors were not readily available for 
these sources, emission estimates were made using fugitive emission 
factors for refineries. Preliminary analyses have determined that bulk 
plant and bulk terminal emissions may account for as much as an 
additional 2.9 tpd in the Sacramento area, 9.3 tpd in the South Coast, 
and 1.7 tpd in Ventura. Potential reductions from these sources alone 
would be 2.2 tpd in the Sacramento area, 4.1 tpd in the South Coast, 
and 1.4 tpd in Ventura. EPA requests comments and information regarding 
appropriate emission factors to use for fugitive emissions from bulk 
plants and bulk terminals.
    The proposed FIP rule will correct the gas leak definition in South 
Coast AQMD Rule 1173. The proposed correction defines a gas leak as 
total gaseous hydrocarbon in excess of the applicable parts per million 
limit measured as methane.
    Evaluation of the environmental, economic, and other impacts of the 
proposed rule are discussed in EPA's technical support document. 
Emission reductions expected from this proposed rule are estimated to 
be 0.7 tpd in the Sacramento area, 3.1 tpd in the South Coast, and 0.7 
tpd in Ventura. Fugitive emission reductions from bulk plants and bulk 
terminals are not included in the above estimates.
    (k) Service Stations (Sacramento, Ventura, South Coast). Proposed 
rule 40 CFR 52.2961(j) reduces VOC emissions from gasoline dispensing 
facilities. Gasoline service stations are a source of VOC emissions 
created during vehicle refueling and storage tank working/breathing 
losses. Service station VOC emissions are estimated at approximately 
3.2 tpd in the Sacramento area, 25.3 tpd in the South Coast, and 1.2 
tpd in Ventura. Although service stations in the FIP areas currently 
have vapor recovery systems, the proposed FIP rule builds upon current 
Phase I and Phase II regulations and strengthens and improves existing 
rules by requiring pressure/vacuum relief valves on open vent pipes and 
the phasing out of inefficient vapor recovery system components.
    Pressure-vacuum relief valves are expected to virtually eliminate 
breathing and working losses from the storage tank vent pipe. Pressure-
vacuum relief valves cost less than fifty dollars, are easily installed 
without underground construction, and improve efficiency of existing 
vapor recovery systems by one to three percent. The pressure/vacuum 
relief valves typically pay for themselves within less than one year 
and result in a cost savings. Additional emission reductions will be 
achieved through elimination of exemptions and the replacement of 
remote check valves in Phase II control systems. The Phase I efficiency 
is expected to be increased through the combined impact of the 
requirements for poppetted drybreaks in the Phase I vapor control 
systems, the installation of the pressure-vacuum valve on the vent 
pipes, and the installation of CARB certified spill boxes. Phase II 
efficiency is expected to be increased through the combined impact of 
using proper tubing between the riser and dispenser cabinet, requiring 
a certified insertion interlock mechanism on all bellows-equipped 
nozzles, and replacing non- coaxial hose with coaxial hose. Many of the 
proposed revisions are based on recent amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 
8, Rule 7--Gasoline Dispensing Facilities.
    Emission reductions expected from this proposed rule are estimated 
at 1.3 tpd in the Sacramento area, 8.9 tpd in the South Coast, and 0.3 
tpd in Ventura. Because fuel savings result from installation of the 
pressure/vacuum relief valves and because inefficient vapor recovery 
components wear out and can be replaced by more efficient components 
during regularly scheduled maintenance, the cost impacts of the 
proposed measure will be minimized. The overall cost effectiveness is 
estimated at $1,600 per ton of VOC reduced.
    (l) Waste Burning (Sacramento, South Coast, and Ventura). Proposed 
40 CFR 52.2961(k) controls VOC emissions from waste burning. Waste 
burning activities are defined as agricultural burning, range 
management burning, forest management burning, and open burning. 1990 
waste burning emissions\45\ were estimated at 3.8 tpd in the Sacramento 
FIP area, 0.7 tpd in the South Coast FIP area, and less than 0.1 in the 
Ventura FIP area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\These estimates do not include emissions from incineration 
and unplanned fires (e.g., structural fires and wildfires).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most waste burning activities are currently restricted by a 
permissive burn/no-burn day program as specified in the California 
Health and Safety Code Regulations. This program allows the local air 
district office to declare a permissive burn day or a no-burn day, 
requires that subject sources obtain a burn permit from the local 
designated county or state agency, and limits burning to permissive 
burn days. Waste burning is restricted to days with acceptable air 
quality based largely on current and forecasted visibility and 
particulate levels.
    The proposed FIP rule would complement and expand the current 
permissive burn/no-burn day program to incorporate ambient ozone air 
quality considerations. The purpose of this proposal is not to ban 
waste burning but to restrict waste burning to days when ambient ozone 
concentrations are within acceptable levels. On days predicted to 
exceed the California ambient air quality standard for ozone (0.09 
ppm), all forms of waste burning would be prohibited. EPA is currently 
investigating the methodologies used to predict ozone exceedances and 
no-burn days. These methodologies could be used to predict air quality 
conditions using current and forecasted weather, meteorology, ozone 
levels, and other relevant criteria. A similar forecasting strategy 
would be used as part of the proposed FIP waste burning rule. SMAQMD 
has a voluntary permissive burn/no-burn program which takes into 
account predicted high ambient ozone levels. VCAPCD restricts burning 
when the California ozone standard of 0.09 ppm is expected to be 
exceeded.
    Although not contained within the proposed FIP rule, EPA expects to 
establish a notification system compatible with and similar to those 
already in place for current permissive burn day/no-burn day programs.
    Because poor visibility or high particulate levels can also result 
during conditions conducive to high ambient ozone levels, there is 
expected to be some overlap between current no-burn days and any 
additional no-burn days resulting from the proposed FIP program. During 
1990 no-burn days were declared on 16 days in the Sacramento FIP area, 
68 days in the South Coast FIP area, and 311 days in the Ventura FIP 
area. Using 1990 air quality data, the proposed rule is expected to 
restrict burning on an estimated additional 45 days per year (dpy) in 
the Sacramento FIP area, 121 dpy in the South Coast FIP area, 3 dpy in 
the Ventura FIP area. In the Sacramento area, the largest impact would 
occur on days during July through September when ozone levels typically 
reach their highest levels. In the South Coast, the largest impact 
would occur on high ozone days during March through October. Because of 
Ventura's current policy on waste burning, the proposal would have 
minimal impact.
    Open burning operations at single and two-family dwellings are 
currently exempt from most permissive burn/no-burn day programs. 
Although EPA is not proposing that these sources be required to obtain 
a burn permit, the proposed FIP regulation would also require that this 
type of burning activity be restricted to permissive burn days. 
Comments are requested on the impacts and issues resulting from 
including these sources in the proposed FIP regulation.
    The cost resulting from the lost opportunity to burn waste on the 
additional no-burn days would be minimized by allowing sources to burn 
on days when exceedances are not predicted. In the case of Sacramento, 
the proposed rule is expected to allow waste burning during over 80 
percent of the calendar days each year. However, in the South Coast, 
where the state ozone standard is exceeded roughly 50 percent of the 
calendar days each year, the proposed rule would restrict burning to 
approximately 50 percent of the calendar days per year. The impact of 
the proposed FIP measure in Ventura is expected to be minimal since the 
district has already instituted a policy of restricting burning when 
the state standard is predicted to be exceeded.
    Comments are requested on the feasibility of this strategy for the 
FIP areas, especially for the South Coast FIP area. EPA also requests 
information on potential costs resulting from the proposed FIP measure. 
Comments are also requested on alternative strategies (e.g., soil 
incorporation, residue removal, after market disposal alternatives) 
which will reduce waste burning impacts on ambient ozone air quality. 
EPA seeks comments on ways to avoid any increased costs and increased 
pesticide use that may be associated with the rule. Comments are 
requested on potential VOC reductions resulting from implementation of 
the Connelly-Areias-Chandler Rice Straw Burning Reduction Act of 1991 
(California Health & Safety Code, Part 4, Chapter 3, Article 3, Section 
41865).
    Comments are requested on the necessity of exemptions in the 
proposed FIP measure. For example, California district offices may 
exempt a source from no burn day prohibitions during circumstances of 
imminent and substantial economic loss. However, these terms are 
undefined. Comments are requested on an appropriate definition for the 
aforementioned terms.
    EPA is also requesting comment on an alternative to the 
aforementioned strategy. As an alternative, a waste burning measure 
could be designed to only allow waste burning during the period of the 
year when ozone levels are within the state ozone standard, typically 
November through February depending on the area. This alternative would 
supplement the current no-burn day program and prohibit burning during 
the ozone season. This approach would provide greater certainty to 
affected parties so they could adequately plan their burn schedules; 
however, it would also provide less flexibility by prohibiting burning 
on days expected to be within ozone standard.
    While EPA is continuing to evaluate the emissions inventory and 
potential reductions from the proposed FIP measure, preliminary 
emission reduction estimates from the 1990 baseline are 1.8 to 3.6 tpd 
in the Sacramento area, 0.3 to 0.5 tpd in the South Coast FIP area, and 
less than 0.1 tpd in the Ventura FIP area. Actual reductions will 
depend on the overall effectiveness of the FIP measure.
    (m) Residential Water Heaters (Sacramento). Proposed 40 CFR 
52.2961(l) controls NOX emissions resulting from residential water 
heaters. Emission reductions are achieved by: (1) replacement of 
conventional gas-fired water heaters with low-NOX units; (2) 
replacement of conventional gas-fired water heaters with electric water 
heaters; or (3) installation of solar panels to decrease natural gas 
consumption associated with the use of gas-fired water heaters.
    The proposed rule applies to any natural gas-fired water heater 
installed in the Sacramento FIP area after August 15, 1995, which emits 
in excess of 40 nanograms of NOX (calculated as weight equivalent 
NOX per joule) and with a heat input rating less than 75,000 
British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr). The rule does not apply to 
water heaters with a rated heat input of 75,000 Btu/hr or greater, used 
for recreational vehicles, or used exclusively to heat swimming pools 
and hot tubs.
    The proposed rule is based largely on SCAQMD Rule 1121, BAAQMD 
Regulation 9--Rule 6, and VCAPCD Rule 74.11.
    Evaluation of the environmental, economic, and other impacts of the 
proposed rule are discussed in detail in EPA's technical support 
document. The proposed rule is expected to result in a cost savings 
created by the more energy efficient units and lower cost of the low-
NOX units (compared to currently sold units). Considering the 
long-term fuel costs for residential water heating, solar water heaters 
can also be a cost-effective option.
    As described in the technical support document, uncontrolled 1990 
NOX emissions from residential water heaters were 1.8 tpd in the 
Sacramento FIP area. Emissions are projected to continue to grow to 2.3 
tpd in 1999 and to 2.7 tpd in 2005. Implementation of this proposed 
rule is projected to reduce those emissions by 0.2 and 0.6 tpd 
respectively at a retail cost savings of $3.00 to $19.00 per heater 
(1992 dollars) if replaced with a low-NOX heater. Additional 
reductions will continue to occur until approximately 2008 when it is 
expected that all existing units will have been replaced\46\ by the 
low-NOX units. Energy savings and costs would also accrue if 
currently available low-NOX, higher efficiency units or solar 
powered water heaters were used. While electric water heaters are also 
an option, electricity currently costs approximately three times the 
cost of natural gas in the Sacramento area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\Estimated service life of a residential water heater is 
approximately twelve years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional reductions could be achieved in all three FIP areas by 
requiring that a percentage of new housing starts in the areas install 
solar water heater systems. While it is not feasible for EPA to require 
this approach through a FIP regulation, it is very feasible for local 
communities to adopt ordinances that require a percentage of solar 
water heaters in new construction. Examples of such communities include 
the Gold River Area Housing Development in Sacramento, the City of La 
Verne in Los Angeles County, and the cities of Thousand Oaks and Del 
Mar.
    Comments are requested on additional methods or options, such as 
market incentives and methods encouraging solar technologies, which 
might further reduce NOX emissions from residential water heaters.
    (n) Stationary Internal Combustion Engines (Sacramento). Proposed 
40 CFR 52.2961(m) controls NOX emissions resulting from stationary 
internal combustion (IC) engines. These engines are used for a variety 
of applications including electric power generation for both base and 
standby service, oil and gas pipeline pumping/transport, oil and gas 
exploration and production, irrigation, hoisting, and nuclear power 
plant emergency cooling water pump operation. Engines are generally 
classified by fuel type, method of ignition, combustion cycle, and 
charging method. 1990 NOX emissions from IC engines in the 
Sacramento FIP area were estimated at 2.6 tons per day.
    Several control techniques are available for controlling NOX 
emissions from IC engines. Combustion controls include exhaust gas 
recirculation, prestratified charge, injection timing retard, pre-
ignition chamber combustion, control of the air-to-fuel ratio, and wet 
injection. Post combustion add-on controls include selective 
noncatalytic reduction selective catalytic reduction. Other control 
techniques include conversion of fuel-fired engines to electric motors 
or the use of alternative fuels such as methanol in place of diesel 
fuel.
    The proposed rule applies to any owner or operator of an IC engine 
rated at 50 or more brake horsepower in the Sacramento area. After May 
15, 1997, all IC engines shall meet a parts per million NOX 
standard based on engine and fuel type as follows: rich-burn engines, 
25 ppm; lean-burn engines, 45 ppm; diesel 80, ppm; rich-burn (waste 
gas), 50 ppm; lean-burn (waste gas), 125 ppm. VOC and CO limits are 
also included within the standards. Engines rated at less than 50 brake 
horsepower or operated less than 200 hours per calendar year are exempt 
from the requirements of the proposed rule. Additional exemptions are 
provided for very low or specialized uses.
    The proposed rule limits are based largely on SCAQMD Rule 1110.2, 
VCAPCD Rule 74.9, and EPA's ACT guidance for IC engines.
    Evaluation of the environmental, economic, and other impacts are 
discussed in detail in EPA's technical support document. The rule is 
expected to affect approximately 100 IC engines in the Sacramento FIP 
area. Although there are additional IC engines in the FIP area, these 
sources are already meeting the proposed FIP limits or would be exempt 
from the proposed measure. As described in the technical support 
document, 1990 uncontrolled NOX emissions from subject sources 
were estimated at 2.6 tons/day (tpd). Implementation of this rule is 
expected to reduce those emissions by 2.3 tpd at an average estimated 
cost of $7,200 per ton of NOX reduced.
    It is important to note that this proposed rule will be amended in 
the final promulgation to further clarify which engines are subject to 
the rule's provisions. The effect of such amendment may be to exempt 
from the requirements of this rule any new IC engines which will be 
subject to proposed FIP nonroad engine rules or national nonroad engine 
regulations issued under EPA's authority for regulating mobile sources 
in accordance with Title II of the Act. These mobile IC engines are 
proposed to be governed by specific emission standards and other 
requirements discussed below in section III.D.4.
    The emission reduction estimates presented above are associated 
with reductions only from existing IC engines reflected in the 1990 
emissions inventory. In the final FIP, EPA will attempt to adjust this 
calculation of credit to clarify the relationship between reductions 
from this proposed rule and reductions from the nonroad engine rule 
proposed in III.D.5., which applies to newly manufactured nonroad IC 
engines. The adjustment would amend NOX reduction credits 
attributed to proposed rule 40 CFR 52.2961(m), by a factor relating to 
the expected turnover of existing IC engines through the year of 
attainment.
    (o) Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers, Steam 
Generators, and Process Heaters (Sacramento). (1) Biomass Boilers. 
Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(n) controls NOX emissions resulting from 
biomass boilers. Biomass boilers typically burn wood, wood waste, and/
or bark as a fuel source. Almond shells, landfill gas, or natural gas 
have also been used as a supplemental fuel source. Emission reductions 
are achieved through application of selective noncatalytic reduction or 
selective catalytic reduction. Both systems are post-combustion 
NOX control techniques in which ammonia (or urea) is injected into 
the flue gas to reduce NOX to nitrogen and water.
    The proposed rule applies to any owner or operator of a biomass 
boiler or steam generator with a rated heat input capacity equal to or 
greater than 5 million British thermal units per hour (mmBtu/hr) and an 
annual heat input greater than or equal to 9 billion Btu/yr. After May 
15, 1997, biomass boilers shall either meet a 70 ppm NOX standard 
or reduce uncontrolled NOX emissions by 50 percent.
    The proposed rule limits are based largely on demonstrated controls 
at approximately 30 different biomass boilers located in the U.S. 
Although a SIP rule written solely for biomass boilers does not exist 
in any other California districts, the FIP rule is modeled after 
currently adopted NOX boiler rules in California.
    Evaluation of the environmental, economic, and other impacts are 
discussed in detail in EPA's technical support document. The rule is 
expected to affect biomass boilers at five sources (Michigan California 
Lumber, SierraPine Limited, Lausmann Lumber and Moulding, Formica 
Corporation, and Blue Diamond) in the Sacramento FIP area. Three of 
these sources (Michigan California Lumber, SierraPine Limited, and 
Formica Corporation) are also subject to RACT rules in this FIP 
proposal (see section III.C.2). Although additional biomass boilers are 
located in the FIP area, these boilers are already meeting the proposed 
FIP limits.
    As described in the technical support document, 1990 uncontrolled 
NOX emissions from these five sources were 0.8 tpd. Implementation 
of this proposed rule is projected to reduce those emissions by 0.34 
tpd at an average estimated cost of $2,500 per ton of NOX reduced.
    Additional reductions could be achieved by requiring replacement of 
the biomass boilers with new boilers which burn cleaner fuels (e.g., 
natural gas), although this may not be a cost effective option for some 
sources.
    (2) Gaseous/Liquid Fuel Fired Boilers with a Rated Heat Input 
Capacity of Equal to or Greater than 5 mmBtu/hr. Proposed 40 CFR 
52.2961(u) controls NOX emissions resulting from boilers, steam 
generators, and process heaters which have a rated heat input capacity 
of greater than 5 mmBtu/hr. A boiler or steam generator is used to 
produce steam which is then used to produce mechanical power, thermal 
energy, or electricity. A process heater is combustion equipment used 
to transfer heat indirectly to water or process streams. These units 
can be fired with natural gas, propane, distillate or residual oil, or 
landfill or sewage gas.
    Emission reductions are achieved through: (1) Retrofitting units 
with low-NOX burners; (2) retrofitting units with flue gas 
recirculation systems; (3) application of selective noncatalytic 
reduction (e.g., installing an ammonia injection system); or (4) 
application of selective catalytic reduction (e.g., installing an 
ammonia injection system with a catalyst).
    The proposed rule applies to any owner or operator of a boiler, 
steam generator, and process heater which has a rated heat input 
capacity of equal to or greater than 5 mmBtu/hr. After May 15, 1997, 
all units with an annual heat input rate greater or equal to 9 billion 
Btu per year (109 Btu/yr) and using gaseous fuels shall meet a 30 
ppm NOX standard; units using liquid fuels shall meet a 40 ppm 
NOX standard. Units that operate with an annual heat input rate 
less than 9 x 109 Btu/yr shall be tuned once every six months or 
after 750 hours of operation.
    The proposed rule limits and requirements are based largely on 
SCAQMD Rule 1146, VCAPCD Rule 74.15, Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 2.27, CARB's 
RACT/BARCT guidance, and EPA's ACT document for process heaters.
    Evaluation of the environmental, economic, and other impacts are 
discussed in detail in EPA's technical support document. The rule is 
expected to affect approximately 60 units in the Sacramento FIP area. 
Approximately nine of these units are already scheduled for replacement 
with cleaner burning cogeneration gas turbines. As described in the 
technical support document, 1990 uncontrolled NOX emissions from 
these sources were 1.2 tpd. Implementation of this proposed rule is 
projected to reduce those emissions by 0.78 tpd at an average estimated 
cost of $6,900 per ton of NOX reduced.
    (3) Gaseous/Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers with a Rated Heat Input 
Capacity of less than 5 mmBtu/hr but greater than 1 mmBtu/hr. Proposed 
40 CFR 52.2961(v) controls NOX emissions resulting from boilers, 
steam generators, and process heaters which have a rated heat input 
capacity of less than 5 mmBtu/hr but greater than 1 mmBtu/hr. A boiler 
or steam generator is used to produce steam which is then used to 
produce mechanical power, thermal energy, or electricity. A process 
heater is combustion equipment used to transfer heat indirectly to 
water or process streams. These units are typically fired with natural 
gas or propane. Emission reductions are achieved through retrofitting 
units with low-NOX burners.
    The proposed rule applies to any owner or operator of a boiler, 
steam generator, and process heater which has a rated heat input 
capacity of less than 5 mmBtu/hr but greater than 1 mmBtu/hr. After May 
15, 1997, all units with an annual heat input rate greater than or 
equal to 1.8 x 109 Btu/yr shall meet a 30 ppm NOX standard. 
Units that operate with an annual heat input rate less than 1.8 x 109 
Btu/yr but greater than 0.3 x 109 Btu/yr shall be tuned once every 
six months or after 750 hours of operation.
    The proposed rule limits and requirements are based largely on 
SCAQMD Rule 1146.1 and VCAPCD Rule 74.15.1. Evaluation of the 
environmental, economic, and other impacts are discussed in detail in 
EPA's technical support document.
    The proposed rule is expected to affect approximately 25 units in 
the Sacramento FIP area. As described in the technical support 
document, 1990 uncontrolled NOX emissions from these sources were 
0.05 tpd or 19.2 tpy.
    Implementation of this proposed rule is projected to reduce those 
emissions by 9.2 tpy at an average estimated annual savings of $4,600 
per ton of NOX reduced. The savings accrue from an estimated 10 
percent reduction in fuel resulting from the installation of low-
NOX burners.
    (p) Gas Turbines (Sacramento). Proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(o) controls 
NOX emissions resulting from gas turbines. A gas turbine is an 
internal combustion engine that operates with a rotary rather than a 
reciprocating motion. Compressed air and fuel are introduced to the 
combustor section were the fuel is burned. Hot combustion gases then 
enter the turbine section, where the gases rotate one or more shafts 
which power the compressor and electric generator. Electric utilities 
and cogenerators use gas turbines to produce electricity and useful 
thermal energy. Gas turbines can burn a variety of fuels including 
natural gas, waste process gases, or liquid fuels such as distillate 
oils.
    There are three generic control techniques available for 
controlling NOX emissions from gas turbines: (1) Injection of 
water or steam into the combustor; (2) add-on post combustion controls 
(e.g., selective catalytic reduction); and (3) modification to 
combustor designs.
    The proposed rule applies to any owner or operator of a stationary 
gas turbine with a rated heat output capacity equal to or greater than 
0.3 megawatt (MW). After May 15, 1997, all stationary gas turbines 
rated equal to or greater than 0.3 but less than 2.9 MW shall meet a 
compliance limit based on 25 ppm NOX times a demonstrated percent 
efficiency. Stationary gas turbines rated equal to or greater than 2.9 
MW shall meet a compliance limit based on 9 ppm NOX times a 
demonstrated percent efficiency. Peaking units and emergency standby 
units operated less than 200 hours per calendar year are exempt from 
the reduction requirements but must keep records to verify hour of 
operation. Additional exemptions are provided for very specialized 
uses.
    The proposed rule limits are based largely on SCAQMD Rule 1134, 
CARB RACT/BARCT guidance, and EPA's ACT guidelines.
    Evaluation of the environmental, economic, and other impacts are 
discussed in detail in EPA's technical support document. The proposed 
rule is expected to affect gas turbines at only one source (i.e., 
Proctor and Gamble) in the Sacramento FIP area. However, the Procter 
and Gamble unit is currently scheduled for replacement with a newer gas 
turbine which will operate at 5 ppm NOX. Although additional gas 
turbines are located in the FIP area, these units are already meeting 
the proposed FIP limits or are exempt from the proposed rule.
    As described in the technical support document, 1990 uncontrolled 
NOX emissions from this source was 0.43 tpd. Implementation of 
this proposed rule is projected to reduce those emissions by 0.2 tpd at 
an estimated cost of $6,700 per ton of NOX reduced.

4. Regulations Imposed Statewide

    a. Introduction--Rationale for Statewide Control.--Section 
110(a)(2)(A) of the Act directs states to include in a SIP those 
enforceable control measures necessary to demonstrate attainment. This 
requirement extends to development of federal plans. Paragraphs 
III.C.4.b-e of this NPRM describe a set of area source rules that EPA 
is proposing to implement on a statewide basis in order to assure 
compliance and emission reductions. In addition, an option for a 
statewide manufacturers rule is discussed for the solvents and coatings 
categories regulated under the proposed VOC cap rules (see section 
III.C.5).
    EPA is proposing statewide requirements for area source categories 
that consist of portable VOC-containing materials including 
architectural coatings, pesticides, aerosol paints and other consumer 
products. These categories differ from traditional point source 
categories for which emissions principally occur at a few stable 
locations where products are manufactured. In contrast, area sources 
are distributed widely and emit pollutants where products are used. EPA 
believes that regulations for these categories will be most effective 
if applied uniformly throughout the State.
    Most notably, EPA cannot assure compliance for these area source 
categories at the point of emissions as achieved with point sources. 
This would require routine inspection and enforcement against 
individual consumers for using, for example, high VOC house paints and 
bathroom cleansers. EPA has neither the resources for such a program, 
nor the expectation that individual consumers should be responsible for 
monitoring the VOC contents of their paints and cleansers. Instead, EPA 
must rely on compliance at point of sale or manufacture such as, in 
this example, paint and cleanser distributors.
    Unfortunately, because there is little threat of enforcement 
against actual product users, EPA believes that regulations affecting 
these categories would be routinely circumvented if standards varied in 
neighboring areas. If, for example, the architectural coating rule 
applied only in the narrow FIP areas, house painters in southern Sutter 
County (part of the nonattainment area) might drive to northern Sutter 
(outside the nonattainment area) to purchase cheaper paints, or lemon 
growers in Ventura might cross into Santa Barbara for a pesticide 
formulation they had used the year before.
    While EPA has not attempted to quantify the erosion in projected 
emission reductions that would occur if these FIP rules were 
implemented on an area rather than statewide basis, there is much 
anecdotal evidence to confirm that considerable circumvention of the 
rules would occur. California air pollution agencies, for example, 
believe such circumvention routinely erodes the effectiveness of 
existing architectural coating, automobile refinishing, and other local 
regulations. Such circumvention is an important force behind the 
ongoing national regulatory negotiation designed to establish 
consistent architectural coating standards. It is also a primary 
rationale for existing California legislation requiring statewide 
regulation of consumer products.
    One could extend this discussion to argue that these area source 
rules should be implemented on a national basis. Particularly along the 
northern and eastern State borders, EPA expects some circumvention of 
rules affective only in California. These borders are relatively 
scarcely populated, however, and fairly far from the FIP areas. EPA 
expects, therefore, minimal impact in the FIP areas and believe that 
the State of California is the most appropriate area in which to 
implement these rules.
    While the need for enforceability is the primary and independently 
legally sufficient justification for implementing these rules on a 
statewide basis, several additional benefits to this approach are 
discussed below:
    (i) Consistency. With the exception of architectural coatings, all 
the categories proposed as statewide measures in this NPRM are 
currently addressed in California on a statewide basis.\47\ Statewide 
FIP measures maintain consistency with these regulations, minimizing 
unnecessary complexity for all concerned parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\Pesticides are regulated statewide under the California Food 
and Agriculture Code, consumer products are regulated statewide 
under the California Code of Regulations, and aerosol paints are 
proposed for inclusion in the statewide consumer products 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Fairness. Statewide rules would provide a more level playing 
field than do area-specific requirements. Area-specific pesticide 
controls, for example, might place parsley growers in Ventura at a 
competitive disadvantage compared to parsley growers in San Joaquin. 
Statewide rules minimize the potential for such inequities, helping 
fulfill one of the FIP goals discussed in section I.B of this NPRM. In 
addition, many parts of California besides the FIP areas have 
significant ambient ozone problems, including San Diego, the San 
Joaquin Valley, and the Southeast Desert. These areas may also need the 
statewide controls described in this NPRM in order to attain the 
health-based ozone standard.
    (iii) Reduce costs to industry. From an industry perspective, it is 
important for certain types of rules to be consistent throughout the 
state. In this instance, EPA believes that most manufacturers support 
statewide regulations for the suggested source categories. Coating 
manufacturers complain, for example, of the current expense and 
complexity of complying with different standards in California's many 
districts. These expenses accrue not only from research resources 
needed to develop multiple coatings, but from subsequent complexities 
in marketing, distributing, and tracking compliance. All these tasks 
would be simplified, however, by establishing one standard for the 
entire State as proposed in this NPRM.
    b. Architectural Coatings--Architectural and industrial maintenance 
(AIM) coatings are coatings or paints generally used by consumers and 
contractors. These coatings are formulated and recommended for field 
application to structures (e.g., residences, commercial buildings, and 
bridges) and their appurtenances (e.g., doors, cabinets, fences, 
railings, and gutters).
    AIM coatings primarily provide a decorative and/or general 
protective function. Although there are a myriad of types and grades, 
AIM coatings are generally classified as exterior and interior paints, 
industrial maintenance coatings, roof coatings, primers, lacquers, 
stains, traffic paints, and specialty coatings.
    These coatings are formulated with a variety of components 
including pigments, resins, solvents, and additives. Solvents, which 
are typically VOCs, often contribute to the formation of ozone as they 
volatilize after application. AIM coatings have been regulated in 
California since the late 1970s and all major metropolitan areas in the 
State have an architectural coating rule. AIM coating emissions for 
California were estimated at 197 tpd (in 1989), with approximately 50 
percent of the emissions within the three FIP areas. 1990 FIP area 
emissions were estimated at 92 tpd in the South Coast, 5 tpd in 
Ventura, and 12 tpd in the Sacramento area. Because of the magnitude of 
emissions resulting from this group of coatings, EPA is proposing a FIP 
measure which will provide reductions to help demonstrate attainment in 
the FIP areas.
    The proposed AIM coatings FIP rule (see 40 CFR 52.2959) builds upon 
the California Air Resources Board--California Air Pollution Control 
Officers Association 1989 Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for 
Architectural Coatings and upon current district rules. In addition, 
and parallel to the FIP effort, EPA is involved in a Regulatory 
Negotiation\48\ (Reg Neg) for the development of a national AIM coating 
regulation. The relationship between a potential national rule and the 
proposed FIP rule is discussed later in this section. Where possible, 
EPA has attempted to take into account the potential outcome of the Reg 
Neg and its possible impact on a FIP regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\The Regulatory Negotiation includes representatives from 
industry, user groups, regulators, and environmental organizations. 
The goal of this consensus building process is to assist EPA in the 
development of a national AIM rule or control technique guideline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal is modeled after the 1989 SCM and currently adopted 
California regulations, and it incorporates recent information 
regarding low VOC AIM coatings. The proposed regulation phases in lower 
coating limits from 1996 to 2003. In January 1996, initial limits for 
approximately 40 coating categories will go into effect. This will be 
followed by a second reduction phase in 2000 with lower limits for 
select categories such as: all clear wood finishes [350 grams of VOC 
per liter (g/l)]; concrete curing compounds (250 g/l); and traffic 
paints (125 g/l). A third reduction phase in 2003 will lower limits for 
select categories such as: varnishes (250 g/l); flats (50-150 g/l); 
many industrial maintenance coatings (275 g/l); non-flats (150 g/l); 
roof coatings (250 g/l); and traffic paints (50 g/l). In addition, the 
small container (less than one liter) exemption will be phased out as 
of 2003.
    The environmental, economic, and other impacts of the proposed rule 
are discussed in EPA's technical support document. The rule is expected 
to affect approximately 150 paint manufacturers who market their AIM 
coatings in the State. Implementation of this rule is expected to 
reduce emissions by an estimated 25-30 percent, depending on the 
stringency of the current SIP regulation for a given district. FIP area 
reductions are expected to be 2.0 tpd (1999) and 2.3 tpd (2005) for 
Sacramento, 1.7 tpd (2005) in Ventura, and 21 tpd (2010) in South 
Coast.
    The proposed FIP AIM coating rule establishes future effective 
limits which allow industry time to transition, where necessary, to 
lower VOC coatings. For the most part, low VOC coatings are being sold 
today which can meet the limits proposed for 2000 and 2003. While EPA 
acknowledges that the proposed limits may in some cases phase out 
certain high VOC technologies (e.g., nitrocellulose lacquers), the 
proposal assumes that available alternative resin technologies can 
adequately replace high VOC coatings. The proposal will also encourage 
the further development of new and improved low VOC technologies.
    As described earlier, AIM coatings are formulated with pigments, 
resins, solvents, and additives. Changes and improvements in coating 
technologies begin in the research laboratories of the resin 
manufacturers/suppliers and paint manufacturers capable of researching 
new resin technologies. The cost of phasing in lower VOC AIM coatings 
will depend in part on the ability of resin manufacturers/suppliers and 
paint manufacturers to develop and market low VOC coatings. For those 
already manufacturing low VOC products, the proposed regulation would 
initially impose no additional costs and might, in fact, lead to 
increased profits. For AIM coating manufacturers who manufacture high 
VOC coatings affected by the proposed rule, the cost may approach 
several thousand $/ton for conversion to low VOC product lines. These 
costs can be partially reduced through the assistance of resin 
manufacturers/suppliers and/or large paint manufacturers, who are 
primarily responsible for researching and developing new coating 
formulations. Upon request, most resin manufacturers/suppliers are 
willing to share information and sample low VOC coating formulations 
with interested paint manufacturers, both large and small, to assist in 
the development of low VOC coatings.
    While low VOC coatings are available today which meet the proposed 
coating limits, there continues to be debate over the performance 
characteristics and perceived limitations of certain low VOC AIM 
coatings. EPA requests comment and technical information on: available 
or soon to be available low VOC coatings which meet the proposed 
limits; previous or potential reformulation costs; performance or 
application limitations (if any) of low VOC coatings; and any AIM 
coatings or promising technologies where low VOC technology is expected 
to advance beyond the proposed AIM FIP limits.
    (1) Relationship to National Rule Development. In early 1992, EPA 
began to explore a Reg Neg (57 FR 1443; January 14, 1992) to assist in 
fulfilling its obligation for a national AIM regulation or CTG as 
described under section 183(e) of the Act. Although today's proposed 
FIP action is independent of the ongoing Reg Neg process and is not an 
attempt by the Agency to meet the requirements of section 183(e), EPA 
will fully consider the potential Reg Neg outcome and may modify the 
proposed FIP rule as appropriate.
    Either a FIP AIM coating rule or a national AIM coating rule/CTG 
will ultimately provide the basis for the regulation which reduces 
emissions from AIM coatings sold into and used in California. While the 
Reg Neg process is nearing completion, unresolved issues remain and EPA 
does not anticipate that the proposed action under section 183(e) will 
be published prior to the court-ordered FIP proposal deadline. In 
addition, there is not a statutory deadline for an AIM rule per se 
under section 183(e),\49\ so there is currently no assurance as to when 
the AIM regulation will be finalized. Because of the need to 
demonstrate through actual regulations the emission reductions 
necessary to achieve attainment in the FIP areas, EPA could not rely on 
the speculative outcome of the Reg Neg for its FIP rule and is 
therefore proposing a FIP AIM rule. While EPA is hopeful that the Reg 
Neg will result in a rule/CTG which could benefit the FIP areas, the 
court ordered deadline for the FIP proposal does not allow EPA the 
opportunity to wait for the potential national rule/CTG. Upon 
completion of the Reg Neg process and EPA's proposed national AIM rule/
CTG, EPA will reevaluate its FIP strategy for AIM coatings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\Section 183(e) of the CAA requires that EPA submit a report 
to Congress by November 15, 1993. Upon submission of the final 
report, the Administrator will establish categories of consumer and 
commercial products intended for regulation and divide the 
categories into four groups to establish regulatory priorities. 
Every two years after promulgation of the list, EPA shall regulate 
one group until all four groups are regulated. EPA has yet to submit 
the report and establish the list of categories to be regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Relationship to Local Rules. While all of the major 
metropolitan areas in California already have an architectural coatings 
rule, coating limits may vary between districts for certain AIM 
categories. Because the proposed FIP regulation will be more stringent 
than all current district regulations, the proposed FIP rule will 
effectively bring all of the areas under a common standard to provide 
equity within the industry and greatly enhance the enforceability the 
rule.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\As a matter of law, the local agencies could continue to 
enforce their local SIP rules, but manufacturers would be expected 
to formulate their coatings to address the more stringent statewide 
FIP provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Alternative Reduction Approaches. The following additional 
approaches for reducing emissions from AIM coatings were also 
considered.
    (a) Fees. Because of large diversity within and among AIM coating 
categories and because of the multitude of uses for these coatings, it 
may be preferable to establish a fee-based strategy for providing 
additional emission reductions rather than to establish limits for 
specific categories. For example, a fee-based strategy could be 
established using a combination of gallons sold and VOC in each gallon 
(e.g., an annual fee equaling total grams or pounds of VOC sold by each 
manufacturer). Because fees provide uncertainty as to actual emission 
reductions, the fees would need to be periodically adjusted to achieve 
their intended reduction and market response. Currently, EPA has 
limited FIP authority (see III.A.2.b. and c.) to collect and 
redistribute fees. Because fees have previously not been used as an 
emission reduction strategy, limited data is available to predict and 
establish the level of fee necessary to achieve the intended 
reductions. With these constraints in mind, EPA is asking for comment 
on the potential use of fee-based approaches for within the FIP. This 
concept is also discussed in III.C.5.i.(3).
    (b) Corporate Average VOC Emission (CAVE) Limit. Within the Reg Neg 
discussions, the concept of a CAVE limit has been suggested. The CAVE 
limit would allow each manufacturer to average all coatings sold 
nationally to meet a single, overall grams of VOC per liter CAVE limit. 
The CAVE limit would be based on a table of standards (e.g., VOC limits 
for each category) and the previous sales for each manufacturer. In 
theory, the CAVE approach could be applied in the FIP on a statewide 
basis. Because the limit is based on averaging, it could provide 
uncertainty as to the expected reductions (e.g., increased use of both 
a high and low VOC coating may not decrease actual emissions to the 
predicted amount). Therefore, a backstop measure (e.g., a cap on 
overall emissions per manufacturer) may be needed to guarantee expected 
reductions. Although the details of this concept have not been worked 
out, EPA is asking for comment on the potential use of a CAVE approach 
for AIM coatings regulated within the FIP.
    (c) Manufacturers Bubble. In EPA's 1990 FIP proposal, the concept 
of a manufacturers bubble was proposed as a backstop measure. This 
approach would establish a single gram or pound of VOC per year limit 
for each manufacturer selling coatings within California. Each 
manufacturer's limit could be established using a table of standards 
and historical annual sales. This approach aggressively encourages the 
use of low-VOC coatings, provides greater assurance of actual 
reductions, and could potentially be expanded to incorporate additional 
flexibility, such as a banking/trading component. Although the details 
of this concept have not been worked out, EPA is asking for comment on 
the potential use of a manufacturers bubble for coatings regulated 
within the FIP. This concept is further discussed in III.C.5.i.
    c. Consumer Products.\51\ (1) FIP Promulgation of Existing CARB 
Rules. Proposed 40 CFR 52.2957(a) and (b) control VOC emissions from 
consumer products and antiperspirants and deodorants. These proposed 
FIP measures reflect previously adopted CARB limits. Because CARB has 
not submitted the measures as SIP revisions, EPA is promulgating these 
measures, which are needed for progress and attainment in the three FIP 
areas. These measures would also provide the framework for additional 
future FIP reduction strategies as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\As specified under section 183(e)(3) of the CAAA of 1990, 
EPA is required to study emissions of VOCs from consumer and 
commercial products and to investigate the development of a national 
regulation or CTG for selected consumer products. While in all 
likelihood EPA will be developing a national regulation or CTG for 
many of the consumer products covered by the proposed FIP 
regulations, the proposed FIP regulation is not an attempt on EPA's 
part to meet its 183(e)(3) responsibilities. When and if EPA 
promulgates a national regulation or CTG for consumer products, EPA 
will reevaluate its FIP strategy for consumer products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Consumer Products. Proposed 40 CFR 52.2957(a) controls VOC 
emissions from consumer products, with the exception of 
antiperspirants, deodorants, aerosol paints, and a few other consumer 
product categories.\52\ Consumer products are chemical formulations 
used in households and institutions and includes products such as 
detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, floor finishes, personal care 
products, disinfectants, and automotive specialty products. The 
proposed regulation limits the VOC content in products sold, supplied, 
offered for sale, or manufactured for use within California. The rule 
establishes VOC limits consistent with limits previously adopted by 
CARB. 1990 Statewide emissions from consumer products are estimated at 
250 tpd, 14.2 tpd in Sacramento, 108 tpd in South Coast, and 6 tpd in 
Ventura.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\While CARB has attempted to regulate most consumer products, 
some products have not been regulated at this time. These include: 
lubricants, hand washing detergents, toilet bowl cleaners, 
disinfectants, paint strippers, laundry detergents, and herbicides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CARB and proposed FIP regulations for consumer products, 
including antiperspirants and deodorants, cover just over half of the 
consumer products in the inventory or approximately 130 tpd statewide. 
The CARB and proposed FIP consumer product rules are estimated to 
achieve a VOC emission reduction of over 25 percent. However, these 
reductions will be partially offset by growth in consumer product 
sales. The FIP area reductions after growth were estimated at 1.3 tpd 
(1999) and -1.6 tpd (increase in 2005) in Sacramento, 1.6 tpd in South 
Coast, 0.2 tpd in Ventura. Because the FIP consumer product 
requirements are almost identical to the CARB rules, the cost of the 
consumer products FIP measure is expected to be zero.
    Although the proposed FIP measure is very similar to that 
previously adopted by CARB, minor differences exist between the 
proposed FIP regulation and CARB's regulation. Differences are intended 
to simplify or reduce the administrative burden on the affected 
manufacturers or to correct rule deficiencies. The proposed FIP 
consumer products rule differs from the CARB rule in that it deletes: 
requirements for certification of charcoal lighter materials; a 
variance section; and a federal enforceability section. Otherwise the 
rules are virtually identical.
    (b) Antiperspirants and Deodorants. Proposed 40 CFR 52.2957(b) 
controls VOC emissions from antiperspirants and deodorants. The 
regulation limits the VOC content of products sold, supplied, offered 
for sale, or manufactured for use within California. The rule 
establishes VOC limits based on those previously adopted by CARB. The 
rule establishes a percent VOC by weight limit for both aerosol and 
non-aerosol products (e.g., sticks and roll-ons). Although aerosols 
make up approximately 25 percent of the market, they account for 
approximately 90 percent of the emissions from this category. Statewide 
emissions and expected reductions are incorporated in the consumer 
product totals described under III.C.4.c.(1).(a).
    Although the proposed FIP measure is very similar to that 
previously adopted by CARB, minor differences exist between the 
proposed FIP regulation and CARB's regulation. Differences between the 
proposed FIP antiperspirant and deodorant rule and the CARB rule 
include: the compliance date\53\ for aerosol products has been extended 
to January 1, 1999; deletion of the administrative requirements that 
aerosol product manufacturers apply to CARB by January, 1994 for a 
compliance date extension to 1999; deletion of the section restricting 
toxic air contaminants; deletion of certain reporting requirements; 
deletion of the variance section; and deletion of the federal 
enforceability section. Otherwise the rules are virtually identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\CARB's regulation allows manufacturers to apply for the 
January 1, 1999 compliance date if certain requirements are met. 
Based on conversations with CARB, EPA believes that most if not all 
aerosol product manufacturers have or will apply for the 1999 
compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Aerosol Paints. Proposed 40 CFR 52.2958 reduces VOC emissions 
from aerosol coatings. Aerosol coatings are self dispensing, 
pressurized products containing coating solids (i.e., pigments, resins, 
and binders) and solvent designed to dispense product ingredients by 
means of a propellant. The solvent and propellant are typically VOCs 
which make up from 70-95 percent of the product by weight. The VOCs are 
emitted into the atmosphere during the coating delivery and curing 
process.
    Aerosol spray paints account for approximately 25 tpd of VOC 
emissions in California. FIP area 1990 emissions were estimated at 1.3 
tpd in the Sacramento area, 11.6 tpd in the South Coast, and 0.6 tpd in 
Ventura. The use of aerosol paints has grown steadily since the 1950s. 
Growth peaked in 1977, but in 1978, the federal government restricted 
the use of chlorofluorocarbons as aerosol coating propellants and 
hydrocarbons were introduced as a replacement for the CFC propellants. 
Since the mid 1980s, use of aerosol paints has continued to steadily 
grow, with annual sales reaching historical highs during the early 
1990s.
    Aerosol coatings have previously been regulated by the BAAQMD 
(Regulation 8, Rule 49) and the SCAQMD (Rule 1129). CARB recently 
assumed authority to regulate the VOC content of aerosol paints. The 
FIP aerosol paint rule is based on a draft regulation workshopped by 
CARB on November 10, 1993. The draft regulation is not scheduled for 
adoption until after EPA's court ordered deadline for the FIP proposal. 
In addition, current State law giving CARB the authority to regulate 
aerosol coatings also limits CARB's ability to submit some future-
effective limits and reductions to EPA as SIP submittals.
    Because of the need to demonstrate attainment in each of the FIP 
areas, EPA is proposing an aerosol coating rule which is generally 
consistent with the regulation expected to be adopted by CARB in 1994. 
Minor differences exist between the FIP proposal and the CARB draft, 
however. The proposed FIP aerosol paint rule does not include sections 
for a special recognition label, variances, and federal enforceability. 
Also, the proposed FIP measure does not include a provision for a five 
year compliance date extension as found in CARB's draft rule. Instead, 
EPA intends to monitor industries progress and CARB's 1999 
determination regarding the coating limits. If necessary, EPA will 
consider amendments to the FIP aerosol coating rule where appropriate. 
By adopting the FIP aerosol coating regulation, EPA hopes to avoid 
having to impose more stringent requirements on other VOC sources which 
would need to compensate for the reduction shortfall pending SIP 
submittal of the adopted CARB regulation. While this proposed FIP 
aerosol coating regulation will be published prior to CARB's adoption 
of its regulation, EPA expects to modify the FIP regulation, if 
appropriate, to be consistent with the final CARB regulation.
    The proposed FIP regulation will build upon the previous work by 
the BAAQMD and the SCAQMD and closely parallel CARB's regulation. The 
proposed FIP regulation would apply to any person who sells, supplies, 
offers for sale, applies, or manufactures for use in California any 
aerosol coating products as described in the proposed regulation. 
Because of the diversity of uses and coating types, the proposed 
regulation establishes VOC limits for a variety of product coating 
types. The initial 1996 limits are based on limits in the BAAQMD 
regulation. A second phase of lower limits goes into effect in 1999.
    Aerosol coating manufacturers are expected to develop compliant 
products through propellant replacement, product reformulation, and 
improvements in packaging and delivery systems. Two promising 
propellent alternatives, hydrofluorocarbon (HCFC) 152a and dimethyl 
ether, are potential replacements for current hydrocarbon propellants. 
Reformulation to a lower VOC content could be achieved through 
increased solids, lower VOC solvents and propellants, or a combination 
of both. A further opportunity to reduce emissions lies in the redesign 
of the packaging and delivery system such that a nonhydrocarbon gas or 
mechanical device acts to displace the container's contents. 
Improvements in the transfer efficiency of the delivery systems would 
result in reduced overspray, higher surface coating percentage per 
container, and cost savings to the consumer.
    The proposed FIP aerosol coating regulation is to reduce VOC 
emission by approximately 60 percent from 1990 levels. The reductions 
from 1990 levels equate to approximately 15 tpd in California. FIP area 
attainment year reductions are estimated at 0.9 tpd in 1999 and 1.1 tpd 
in 2005 in the Sacramento area, 8.9 tpd in 2010 for the South Coast, 
and 0.4 tpd in 2005 for Ventura. Only limited data is available to 
estimate the cost of developing compliant products. The first phase of 
the regulation is expected to have a minimal cost because compliant 
products are already available to meet the BAAQMD rule. Costs of 
meeting the 1999 limits will depend in part on the availability of HCFC 
152a. Although a promising propellant substitute, HCFC 152a is 
estimated to cost five to ten times more than current hydrocarbon 
propellants. However, with increased demand for HCFC 152a, its cost is 
expected to decrease.
    (3) Alternative Reduction Approaches. CARB is currently developing 
an alternative compliance plan (ACP) approach which would allow 
additional flexibility for affected consumer product manufacturers. The 
ACP would allow manufacturers to average a limited number of products 
when determining compliance. The ACP concept is under development and 
EPA is working with CARB to assure its consistency with EPA's Economic 
Incentive Program guidance. After the ACP program is adopted by CARB, 
EPA will consider it for adoption as part of the FIP. Additional 
alternative reduction approaches as described in III.C.4. for 
architectural coatings could also be applied to consumer products. 
Comments are requested on the use of these approaches to achieve 
additional emission reductions from consumer products.
    (4) Need for Additional Reductions. Because additional reductions 
from consumer products will be needed to attain the ozone standard in 
the South Coast, EPA will continue to investigate strategies such as 
setting VOC limits, fees, a manufacturers bubble, or a corporate 
average to further encourage reductions from these products. Because a 
fraction of the consumer products inventory (e.g., laundry detergents, 
hand washing detergents, lubricants) are not regulated by current CARB 
regulations or the FIP proposal, EPA will investigate strategies for 
reducing emission resulting from these unregulated products. EPA 
intends to use section 182(e)(5) commitments for these additional 
reductions and to develop appropriate control strategies based on 
continuing evaluation of new technologies and compliance options.
    d. Pesticides. (1) Summary and Applicability. Proposed 40 CFR 
52.2960 is designed to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and 
structural pesticide application.
    Producers of such pesticides must determine the VOC content\54\ of 
their products as defined by an analytical method. All agricultural and 
structural pesticides registered in California must be tested, 
regardless of whether the producer is located inside or outside of the 
State. Distribution, application, and storage of pesticides with high 
VOC contents will be restricted in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\The actual volatility of the organic compounds in a 
particular pesticide depends on the temperature, moisture, 
substrate, application technique, and other conditions under which 
it is applied. Therefore, ``VOC emission potential'' might more 
accurately reflect the result of the analytical test methods. EPA, 
however, is using the term ``VOC content'' to be consistent with 
analogous coating regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9,500 pesticide formulations may be subject to the analysis 
requirement, and sale and use of several thousand may be subsequently 
restricted. EPA cannot determine how industry will respond to 
restrictions on each specific formulation. Generally, however, EPA 
expects that low-VOC reformulations will provide feasible alternatives 
for many restricted pesticides.
    The proposed rule is not intended to apply to consumer-oriented 
pesticides that are subject to consumer products regulations in this 
NPRM (40 CFR 52.2957) or in the California Code of Regulations (Title 
17, Division 3, Subchapter 8.5--Consumer Products, Secs. 94507-94517). 
The proposed rule is also not intended to apply to production or 
distribution of pesticides intended for use outside of California.
    (2) Specific provisions. Required submission of data. By June 1, 
1996 or 120 days after the effective date of the rule, whichever is 
later, producers must submit analyses identifying the VOC content of 
all affected pesticides. EPA believes that 120 days is ample time to 
perform this analysis, and notes that the requirement is being proposed 
over two years before the analysis will come due. Concern has been 
raised that independent laboratory capacity may be insufficient to 
analyze all regulated pesticides within 120 days. EPA believes, 
however, that most large pesticide manufacturers will perform the 
required analysis in-house, and that independent laboratory capacity 
will be sufficient to handle the remaining analytic demand.
    Analysis is required of all California-registered pesticides 
including those not currently in use. This information is needed to 
determine an accurate base-year VOC emission inventory to compare 
against future emission reductions. It is also important to identify 
all available low-VOC pesticides regardless of whether they are 
currently in use in order to maximize the available pest-control 
options.
    Establish VOC limit. The proposed rule describes a six-step 
procedure for establishing a VOC limit for pesticides.
    (i) EPA will establish a base-year pesticide use inventory for each 
pesticide registered in California. This inventory may consist simply 
of the amount of each pesticide applied in the State according to the 
1990 pesticide use report (PUR) combined with the inerts data-base, 
both of which are maintained by the California Department of Pesticide 
Regulation (DPR). The proposed rule is drafted, however, to provide the 
Agency discretion to establish the base-year inventory using other 
information. EPA could, for example, use an average of the 1990 to 1993 
PUR data for just the three FIP areas if that was determined to be more 
appropriate. In any case, EPA intends to discuss the base-year 
inventory actually used when promulgating the VOC limit pursuant to 
Sec. 52.288(c)(2)(vi).
    (ii) EPA will rank the pesticides according to their VOC content. 
The pesticide with the largest VOC content (i.e., a gas or highly 
volatile liquid) will be ranked #1. If EPA determines that adequate 
data for a particular pesticide is not submitted by the deadline, EPA 
may assign the pesticide a VOC content equal to the largest VOC content 
reported for any pesticide (i.e., also ranking it #1). This would 
effectively prohibit distribution and application of this pesticide in 
the affected area pursuant to Sec. 52.2960(c)(5). EPA's intention is to 
provide an incentive for manufacturers to submit the required data 
while simultaneously enabling the Agency to implement the regulation in 
the absence of some data. Nevertheless, the regulation is drafted to 
provide the Agency some discretion in assigning VOC contents for 
pesticides in the absence of adequate data. EPA might, for example, 
determine it more appropriate to assign VOC contents for such a 
pesticide based on the largest VOC content reported for its formulation 
type (e.g., oil, emulsifiable concentrate, pressurized liquid, etc.) 
Or, if analysis of a pesticide failed to demonstrate a specific VOC 
content but did demonstrate that the VOC content fell within a discrete 
range, EPA might assign the pesticide the largest VOC content within 
that range. In any case, EPA intends to discuss the VOC contents 
actually assigned when promulgating the VOC limit pursuant to 
Sec. 52.288(c)(2)(vi).
    (iii) EPA will multiply the VOC contents (weight percent basis) by 
the base-year inventory (kilogram-per-year basis) to establish the 
individual base-year VOC emissions (kilogram-per-year basis). A 
pesticide not used in the affected area in the base-year(s) would have 
a base-year inventory and a VOC emission of zero.
    (iv) EPA will add the base-year VOC emissions of all affected 
pesticides to determine the total base-year VOC emissions in the 
affected area.
    (v) Starting with the highest-ranking pesticides (i.e., those with 
the largest VOC content and those without adequate data), EPA will add 
the individual base-year VOC emissions until the sum equals 40 to 65 
percent of the total base-year VOC emissions. The VOC content of the 
last pesticide needed to achieve 40 to 65 percent is the VOC limit. EPA 
has assumed that restricted pesticides will be replaced on a one to one 
mass basis with pesticides at the VOC limit.\55\ Based on an analysis 
described in the technical support document (TSD) for the proposed 
rule, EPA has calculated that a 40 to 65 percent threshold value will 
achieve emission reductions of 20 to 45 percent off the base-year 
inventory. The target reduction of 20 to 45 percent was chosen for 
consistency with the range of target reductions of the stationary 
source cap rules described in section III.C.5 of this NPRM. Based on 
planned modeling and inventory analysis and comments received during 
the comment period, EPA hopes to select a specific reduction target 
from within this range for use in the final rule promulgation. The 
relationship between the 20-45 percent reduction target and the 40-65 
percent threshold value is discussed further in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\Imbedded in the one-to-one replacement assumption is another 
assumption that, in the aggregate, pesticide efficacy is not reduced 
by reformulation to lower VOC products. For some specific 
pesticides, efficacy may decrease and applicators may respond by 
using greater quantities of the reformulated product. Emissions 
associated with this phenomenon will be somewhat offset by 
replacement of specific restricted products by pesticides with VOC 
contents below the VOC content limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vi) EPA will publish the VOC limit. EPA intends to publish this 
limit in the Federal Register with a discussion of the data and 
assumptions used to generate the limit. If the limit is generated by a 
straightforward execution of the procedure described in this NPRM, EPA 
may publish the limit directly in final form. If, however, EPA 
exercises significant discretion (as provided for in the proposed rule) 
in generating the limit, EPA intends to take public comment on a 
proposed limit before publishing the final limit.
    Restrictions on pesticides. One year after EPA publishes the VOC 
limit, all persons are prohibited from distributing in the affected 
area pesticides with VOC contents greater than the VOC limit. After 
that time, distributors with remaining inventory of high-VOC pesticides 
could still sell them to persons outside the affected area.
    Two years after EPA publishes the VOC limit, all persons are 
prohibited from applying or storing in the affected area pesticides 
with VOC contents greater than the VOC limit. EPA believes this is 
sufficient time for affected applicators to apply existing inventory of 
high-VOC pesticides or to sell them to persons outside the affected 
area.
    Revisions to the VOC limit. EPA may require a producer to reanalyze 
its pesticides at any time. Based on this or other information, EPA may 
recalculate the VOC limit at any time. EPA does not anticipate 
recalculating the VOC limit frequently, as recalculation has 
significant resource implications for both the Agency and the regulated 
community. Recalculation may be appropriate, however, if EPA determines 
that the existing VOC limit is not equitably achieving the targeted 
emission reductions of 20 to 45 percent. Developments that might 
justify a recalculation include changes in pesticide use patterns and 
improved understanding of VOC emissions from pesticides.
    Alternative ranking scheme. Rather than ranking pesticides simply 
by VOC content, representatives of DPR and CARB have suggested ranking 
by VOC emissions. Under the former scheme, as incorporated in this 
NPRM, application of a high-VOC low-use pesticide (e.g., a pheromone) 
would be regulated even if it contributed much fewer VOC emissions than 
unregulated application of a medium-VOC high-use product. Under the 
latter scheme, pesticides would be ranked and regulated in order of 
their overall emissions, as determined by VOC content times quantity 
applied in the base-year(s).
    While the two ranking systems could provide equivalent emission 
reductions, EPA believes the simplicity of the former makes it easier 
to implement and enforce. Once the VOC limit is established, Agency 
inspectors can simply determine whether pesticides sold and used in the 
affected area comply with the limit. Under the latter scheme, however, 
rather than publishing a single limit, EPA would need to publish and 
regulate a list of all the specific restricted pesticides, which would 
need to be revised regularly to account for new and reformulated 
products and for changing use patterns. If, for example, a high-VOC 
pesticide had low use and low emissions in the base-year but high use 
and high emissions thereafter, it would need to be added to the list of 
restricted pesticides. Conversely, pesticides with unusually high use 
in the base-year might need to be removed from the list of restricted 
pesticides, adding to the likelihood of inequities and compliance 
problems.
    Nevertheless, EPA understands that alternatives to the regulatory 
structure contained in the proposed FIP rule offer different trade-offs 
between the various FIP goals (described in section I.B of this NPRM) 
of reducing emissions, encouraging State action, minimizing federal 
interference, etc. EPA has attempted to address some of these 
alternatives in paragraph III.C.4.d(4) of this NPRM.
    (3) Reporting, recordkeeping and test methods. Proposed 
Sec. 52.2960(f) describes the test methods required for determining the 
VOC content of pesticides. Pesticide producers may use one of two test 
methods:
    (i) Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA). This is one of the two test 
methods described in EPA's alternative control technology document 
(ACT) for pesticides (``Alternative Control Technology Document; 
Control of VOC Emissions from the Application of Agricultural 
Pesticides,'' EPA-453/R-92-011, March 1993, Appendix C). The method is 
based on the ``American Standard Test Method (ASTM) for Compositional 
Analysis by Thermogravimetry'' (ASTM E-1131-86).
    (ii) Volatile organics in pesticides (VOP) method. This is the 
second test method described in EPA's ACT for pesticides. It includes a 
purge and trap procedure conducted at constant temperature that allows 
for direct measurement of water content.
    DPR has investigated various modifications to ASTM E-1131-86 for 
analyzing a wide variety of pesticide formulations. Some of DPR's work 
is reflected in modifications to the method included in the ACT and in 
Sec. 52.2960(f)(1)(i) by reference. DPR's work is ongoing, however, and 
EPA expects that additional modifications to the method may be 
determined appropriate. Depending on the timing and scope of such 
modifications, EPA may address them through the discretion allowed in 
the proposed rule, by incorporating them into the final FIP rule, or by 
formally proposing and promulgating subsequent rule modifications. 
Modifications may include the following:
    (i) Modifications to the method for estimating water content. DPR 
is currently investigating several analytical methods for estimating 
water content including both Karl Fischer titration and spectroscopic 
analysis of the vapor-phase effluent from the TGA analysis. Until 
adequate validation of these methods is available, DPR may calculate 
water content based on the ``percentage water added'' component of the 
statement of formulation required pursuant to FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 
136a(c)(1)(E)). Because this generally does not account for water 
present as impurity, water produced in reaction, or water present as a 
component of other raw materials, it should provide a conservative 
(i.e., low) estimate of true water content. Reliance on formulation 
data is consistent with EPA's historic policy regarding analogous 
coating regulations before reliable test methods (e.g., ASTM D-4017 and 
D-3792) were available.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\See, for example, ``Procedure for Certifying Quantity of 
Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink, and Other 
Coatings, ``U.S. EPA, EPA-450/3-84-019, December 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Modifications to the method for estimating exempt compounds. 
Again, until adequate validation of a specific test method(s) is 
available, DPR may rely on the statement of formulation for estimating 
the amount of exempt compounds present in specific pesticides. This is 
also analogous to coating regulations which generally relied on 
formulation data until ASTM D-4457 was available.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Modifications to address solid pesticide formulations.
    As described in Sec. 52.2960 (d) and (e), producers of affected 
pesticides must submit copies of all raw data and a summary of the 
results of the VOC content analyses. Distributors must submit a 
distributor notification and an annual report summarizing the 
pesticides distributed in the affected area during the preceding year. 
Applicators must submit a copy of the PUR for all pesticide 
applications within the affected area.
    Pesticide producers, distributors, and applicators are required to 
maintain all information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 
regulation for a period of five years. At a minimum, this information 
must include copies of all reports specifically required in paragraph 
52.2960(d), and any technical support to these reports.
    (4) Relationship to State rules. As discussed in sections I.D., 
III.J., and elsewhere in this NPRM, EPA believes that State and local 
agencies can adopt and implement regulations that are better tailored 
to the specific characteristics and needs of the affected areas. 
Therefore, EPA strongly encourages the State to continue ongoing 
efforts to adopt approvable rules to replace all or part of the FIP.
    Pursuant to Sec. 110(l) of the Act, State rules are not approvable 
if they, ``* * * interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress * * * or any other 
applicable requirement.'' For purposes of the pesticide rule, EPA 
intends to determine approvability based largely on emissions. 
Modifications to the pesticide rule which EPA may consider approvable, 
if shown to result in no significant emission increases, include the 
following:
    (i) Provisions for exempting de minimis use of high-VOC pesticides.
    (ii) Provisions for allowing use of high-VOC pesticides to prevent 
overwhelming economic dislocation.
    (iii) Provisions for allowing use of high VOC pesticides to prevent 
harm to human health or the environment.
    (iv) Provisions for allowing use of high-VOC pesticides during 
times of the year when low ambient ozone concentrations are projected.
    (v) Modifications of the test method discussed in section 
III.C.3.d(3) of this NPRM.
    (vi) Modifications to 40 CFR 52.2960(c)(2) of the proposed rule, 
such as ranking pesticides based on emissions instead of VOC content as 
discussed in section III.C.3.d(2) of this NPRM.
    (vii) Consideration of the relative reactivity of different VOCs.
    Or, of course, the State could adopt rules based on completely 
different regulatory strategies that still achieve equivalent emission 
reductions.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\EPA, for example, considered several other regulatory 
strategies for inclusion in the FIP, and analyzed two in detail 
through a contract to Midwest Research Institute (``Development of 
Pesticide Rules for the Sacramento, South Coast, and Ventura 
Nonattainment Area FIPs,'' prepared by Midwest Research Institute 
for EPA, April 30, 1993 draft final report).
    The no-use day strategy was fashioned after existing no-burn day 
programs. EPA would establish meteorologic criteria for predicting 
unfavorable ozone conditions and pesticide use would be restricted 
on a day-to-day basis. A major drawback to this strategy is that 
postponing pesticide application for several consecutive days could 
result in significant crop damage and an increase in overall annual 
pesticide use.
    The users bubble strategy would be somewhat analogous to the 
stationary source emission cap programs proposed in this notice. 
Pesticide users (e.g., growers) would calculate a base-year VOC 
emission rate as: amount of pesticide applied times VOC content of 
pesticides divided by total acreage. Users would then be required to 
reduce their VOC emission rate a certain percentage by the 
attainment year. A major drawback to this strategy is the difficulty 
in establishing equitable baseline inventories.
    EPA selected the VOC content strategy incorporated in this 
notice for a variety of reasons including better enforceability, 
consistency with State regulatory plans, and minimization of 
disruption to the affected industries. EPA invites comment on 
mechanisms to improve the proposed pesticides rule, as well as on 
other strategies to reduce VOC emissions from pesticides. EPA is 
interested, for example, in mechanisms to encourage pesticide 
application technologies (e.g., electrostatic application) that 
decrease VOC emissions. In addition, EPA requests comment on how to 
optimize the interaction between the proposed FIP rule and ongoing 
pesticide programs and initiatives including those targeting 
pesticide use reduction, pollution prevention, and integrated pest 
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State is likely to propose substitution for the FIP rule's 
``Required submission of data'' provision in 40 CFR 52.2960(c)(1) of 
the proposed rule. DPR is currently planning to issue a data call-in 
during early 1994 which would require submittal of much of the same 
information. If these data are timely and approvable, EPA may remove 40 
CFR 52.2960(c)(1) from the final FIP rule.
     (5) Relationship to FIFRA. EPA acknowledges the unique situation 
in which the proposed FIP rule places the pesticide and agriculture 
industries, which are already subject to considerable regulation under 
FIFRA.
    However, because pesticide use is estimated to represent a 
significant component of the VOC emissions inventory in the Sacramento, 
South Coast and Ventura areas, EPA considers emission reductions from 
pesticides an important part of the overall FIP attainment 
strategy.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\As with all components of the FIP, Sec. 52.2960 is proposed 
under authority of the Clean Air Act. Failure to comply with any 
provision of Sec. 52.2960 will violate the applicable implementation 
plan for purposes of section 113 of the Clean Air Act, and be 
subject to all administrative, civil, and criminal penalties 
described therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule, EPA will establish a VOC limit that all 
pesticides must meet to be distributed or applied in the affected area. 
Specific pesticides are not regulated, and the proposed rule does not 
conflict with FIFRA's registration cancellation or suspension 
procedures (7 U.S.C. 136d). Nonetheless, EPA expects that many 
pesticides will need to be reformulated in order to meet the VOC limit 
and be useable in the affected area. EPA has accounted for the costs of 
reformulation in the technical support to this proposed rule. EPA 
specifically requests comment on how to minimize the costs of this 
regulation in light of existing FIFRA regulations while still achieving 
the necessary emission reductions.
5. Cap Regulations
    a. Introduction--EPA is today proposing to promulgate Federal 
control measure rules to reduce emissions of VOC from sources located 
in all three FIP areas, and NOX from sources in the Ventura FIP 
area.\60\ The proposed measures impose an annual rate of reduction on 
affected sources for as many controllable VOC and NOX categories 
as possible. The purpose of these proposed rules is to ensure that the 
FIP areas achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS by the statutory 
attainment dates for each area. These proposed rules are designed to 
supplement reductions achieved by other proposed FIP and SIP measures 
as necessary to make up for any emission reduction shortfalls in the 
affected FIP areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\EPA assumes that the South Coast's NOX RECLAIM program 
will be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision and that EPA will take 
some form of approval action on NOX RECLAIM so that the South 
Coast FIP area can be credited with those reductions. In the event 
that NOX RECLAIM is not submitted to EPA in an approvable form, 
then EPA will prepare regulations for NOX emissions similar to 
those proposed for the Ventura FIP area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FIP cap measures proposed today differ in several ways from 
those proposed in the 1990 South Coast FIP (55 FR 36458). Most 
importantly, the current FIP proposal adds complete regulations for 
most categories of industrial sources of NOX emissions, whereas 
the 1990 proposal dealt only with VOC sources. The NOX cap 
regulations proposed today for Ventura (and discussed as an alternative 
for the South Coast) contain comprehensive control requirements, 
including specific detailed provisions for source monitoring.
    EPA's cap regulations proposed today also make significant changes 
from the 1990 rules in terms of the cap compliance period, penalties 
for noncompliance with emission limits, and establishment of emissions 
baselines. In addition, this NPRM significantly revises the discussion 
of two potential amendments to the cap program: the development of an 
emissions trading element and the replacement of the industrial 
solvents/coatings rules with a manufacturers bubble.
    Many of these changes from the 1990 proposal derive from extensive 
EPA involvement in the evolution of SCAQMD's RECLAIM program. However, 
EPA's proposed cap rules deviate from the RECLAIM program in several 
areas. For example, in RECLAIM, which is currently a NOX and 
SOX market, the term of each emission cap is one year. In the 
proposed FIP measures, the term of each emission cap is one month. EPA 
selected the shorter compliance term as providing more certainty that 
the one-hour ozone NAAQS would not be exceeded. EPA will continue to 
evaluate the compliance period as more information becomes available. 
For each FIP area, data may allow EPA to determine that different 
compliance periods would provide sufficient security against short-term 
emission increases that jeopardize air quality progress.
    The 1990 proposal did not include regulations specifying the 
noncompliance penalty structure. This NPRM proposes penalty provisions 
for emissions cap exceedances based on EPA's conclusion (expressed 
repeatedly in the context of the RECLAIM development process) that 
exceedance-based systems of establishing penalties are the most 
appropriate for the use of mass emission caps. Exceedance-based penalty 
systems establish violations based on the amount of excess emissions 
above the facility cap. This penalty structure is most protective of 
the NAAQS and comports best with the Act and with EPA's established 
enforcement policies.
    EPA has included in this FIP a much more detailed method for 
setting baselines for the facilities subject to the cap program. The 
method requires sources to examine the following data to calculate 
their year 2001 cap emissions:
     1990 annual emissions, and
     Reductions to be made as a result of compliance with SIP 
and/or FIP control measures between the years 1990 and 2001.
    This methodology will inherently rely on emission inventory data 
and planning projections to set year 2001 emissions caps. However, the 
methodology has the advantage that it will not unfairly penalize 
facilities which have made reductions ahead of schedule. This baseline 
proposal provides flexibility beyond the 1990 proposal for facilities 
which have made early reductions of NOX and VOC emissions.
    EPA is not now proposing to incorporate a trading system into the 
program in regulatory form. EPA will observe the functioning of the 
RECLAIM market system, the Acid Rain (CAA Title IV) market system, and 
other markets to determine the design which is most successful for 
reducing emissions in the FIP areas while achieving other program 
goals, including the avoidance of air toxics hotspots. In the 1990 FIP 
proposal, EPA indicated that a trading scheme would be proposed in the 
future; in this round, given that there will be more experience with 
trading markets by the time this FIP is finalized, EPA chose to observe 
the developing markets in parallel with its own research effort prior 
to selecting a market structure.
    Finally, the 1990 proposal discussed the use of a manufacturers 
bubble as an alternative to emissions caps for users of industrial and 
commercial solvents and coatings. The current FIP proposal describes 
this concept in greater detail and discusses EPA's various reasons for 
preferring this approach, if EPA is able to successfully resolve 
certain issues involved in regulating manufacturers at the national 
level.
    (1) Rationale for Approach. All of the California FIP areas suffer 
from emission reduction shortfalls when the FIP attainment analysis is 
performed. The shortfalls, or reductions beyond the other proposed FIP 
and SIP measures, which must be accounted for in order to bring the FIP 
areas into attainment, range from at least 20 percent additional 
reductions for VOC to at least 30 percent additional reductions for 
NOX.\61\ In consideration of the limitations of available 
technology-based regulations, and to provide the regulated community 
with maximum flexibility when trying to achieve the shortfall 
reductions, EPA is proposing a facility-wide declining emission cap 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\The rates of reduction shown here represent the results of 
EPA's preliminary analysis of the FIP areas' emission inventories. 
Further analysis of these inventories is currently being performed 
and may ultimately impact the final rates of reduction for the FIP 
cap program. The reates of reduction may increase or stay the same 
as appropriate. The current rates of reduction analysis shows that a 
4 percent to 9 percent annual rate of reduction for VOC and 6 
percent to 9 percent for NOX may be necessary to demonstrate 
attainment in the FIP areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The declining facility-wide emission caps will have a monthly 
compliance period (i.e., a single monthly emissions limit for the 
entire facility that declines annually as opposed to emission limits on 
single emission points), an annual reduction rate (4 to 9 percent for 
VOC, 6 to 9 percent for NOX), and initial baseline emission caps 
(caps for the first 12 months of the program) established using 
anticipated implementation-year inventories (year 2001 projected 
inventories) for the universe of facilities included in the FIP cap 
program. The facilities subject to the FIP cap program will be those 
facilities that generate emissions of NOX or VOC greater than or 
equal to 4 tpy in the FIP areas. The universe of facilities included in 
the FIP cap program is based on process lists or emission categories 
that make up a significant portion of the emissions necessary to be 
reduced to ensure attainment in the FIP areas.
    In developing its proposal, EPA has drawn on its experience and 
involvement in other emission cap programs such as the CAA Title IV 
program (Acid Rain), the South Coast Air Quality Management District's 
Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM), and the general 
guidance provided by the proposed Economic Incentive Program (EIP) 
rules and guidance (58 FR 11110, February 23, 1993).
    Discussed below are the source categories for which rules have been 
developed. These measures would be promulgated as complete regulations 
in the FIP but would not require emissions reductions until 2001 in 
order to allow the FIP areas time to develop measures which obtain the 
necessary reductions and to allow EPA adequate time to implement these 
measures to ensure attainment and progress towards attainment by the 
statutory attainment dates. The measures for stationary and areas 
sources would mandate a linear annual reduction of emissions from 
individual facilities with emissions greater than or equal to 4 tpy in 
order to accomplish necessary reductions not achieved through other FIP 
measures and federally approved SIP rules (facilities with emissions 
greater than or equal to 2 tons per year will be subject to exemption 
verification reporting requirements). Because EPA has chosen not to 
develop conventional control measures at this time for a portion of the 
VOC and NOX inventory, the level of control for the FIP cap 
measures must be sufficient to make up for at least a 20 percent VOC 
and at least a 30 percent NOX emission reduction shortfall.
    (2) Reduction Rate. Assuming that the creditable State rules and 
FIP rules will meet minimum progress requirements (particularly in the 
South Coast FIP area) for the period up to 2000, the proposed FIP cap 
rules are designed to go into effect beginning in 2001 and to achieve 
reductions from each category of between 4 and 9 percent per year for 
VOC and between 6 and 9 percent per year for NOX until the year 
2005.\62\ This design, for example, means that in 2001 a VOC-emitting 
facility would reduce its emissions at least 4 percent from its 
baseline emissions; in 2002 the same facility would reduce its 
emissions by at least 8 percent of its baseline emissions. By 2005, the 
facility's emissions would be reduced by at least 20 percent of its 
baseline (or year 2000) emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\This design assumes that the Sacramento area's ozone 
nonattainment classification is changed to allow for a year 2005 
attainment date. If a 1999 attainment date for Sacramento is 
assumed, then the cap program in the Sacramento area would start 
with compliance plan submittal in 1998 and full reductions required 
in 1999, in order to achieve the earlier attainment date. The 
Ventura area's ozone nonattainment classification allows for a year 
2005 attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Withdrawal of Rules Based on SIP Progress. These proposed FIP 
cap measures serve as a strong incentive for State efforts, since they 
could be rescinded before their scheduled implementation dates if 
areawide emissions are reduced to the prescribed levels through the 
adoption and implementation of future SIP rules. In addition, any of 
these measures could be rescinded upon EPA approval of State or local 
measures that obtain the necessary reductions and which would not 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and 
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the 
CAA. EPA strongly encourages the State to adopt measures quickly and in 
a manner that will minimize adverse economic impacts.
    (4) Relationship to Other Applicable FIP Provisions. Given the 
overlap between the source categories in the proposed FIP cap program 
(see section III.C.5.b.(2)) and those source categories regulated by 
traditional means, EPA is proposing to include the reductions achieved 
by the other regulations (i.e., the other FIP and/or SIP measures which 
are effective at the time of the FIP cap program's implementation) in 
the FIP cap program baseline setting procedures. This design means that 
EPA is assuming that all reductions required by other portions of the 
regulatory framework are achieved by the year 2001. EPA believes this 
design to be a necessity given the emission reduction shortfalls and 
attainment dates faced in the FIP areas. However, EPA seeks comment on 
this design and potential alternatives that will ensure attainment and 
progress prior to a given FIP area's attainment date. This design also 
assumes that facilities after 2001 would not be operating under two 
regulatory frameworks; rather, the traditional regulations are assumed 
to have achieved their associated reductions and the FIP cap 
regulations would make up for shortfalls necessary in the FIP areas. 
This issue will be examined periodically to determine the impacts of 
the interface and the ultimate reduction rate for the FIP cap program 
in the FIP areas.
    In the proposed FIP cap regulations EPA assumed no participation of 
new sources in the program. EPA's design assumes that new sources will 
be subject to federally approved new source review rules and emission 
limits. However, EPA seeks comment on means for including new sources 
in the FIP cap program and alternatives to the current design.
    (5) Implementation and Enforcement Issues. The emission reduction 
requirements derive from the areawide emission reduction requirements 
of the FIP, rather than from the normal Agency assessments of available 
technologies. As such, they may be costly and disruptive, and the 
prospect of their federal implementation, in the case of inadequate 
State progress, should inspire successful adoption of the SIP.
    Over time, the State and local agencies can develop carefully 
tailored economic incentive programs or traditional rules based upon 
the most recent technologies and regulatory approaches. For example, 
the SCAQMD has recently adopted the RECLAIM program and also has a 
multi-million dollar technology development program to assist industry 
to identify and successfully apply the latest scientific approaches 
that can be employed to reduce pollutant emissions. With these types of 
resources and, most importantly, with additional time to develop the 
most feasible control approaches, the State and local agencies are in a 
superior position to construct regulations that avoid social and 
economic dislocation.
    (a) Compliance mechanisms. As designed, the FIP cap program 
requires affected sources to submit facility compliance plans to the 
Agency for review by 1999. These plans must outline the facility's 
means to achieve the specific annual reductions from 2001 to 2005. The 
options for meeting the annual reductions include, but are not limited 
to, product reformulation, product substitution, control equipment, 
and, if necessary, production curtailments.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\See section (i) for a discussion of the option of trading 
credits as a possible means of meeting reduction requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA will review and approve or disapprove these plans depending on 
whether they achieve the required emission reduction requirements. 
Given that these plans will encompass multiple emission sources with 
different emission measurement methods, EPA believes that the 
compliance plan review effort will be resource intensive. For those 
sources subject to Title V operating permit regulations, the provisions 
of the compliance plans would be federally enforceable permit 
conditions. For such sources, procedures used in reviewing and 
approving the compliance plans would not supersede public participation 
and other requirements found in the Part 70 Title V regulations.
    Compliance with the monthly caps established in the FIP cap program 
will be determined by two means. Routine inspections to determine 
whether or not monthly caps are met will be conducted. In addition, 
facilities subject to the FIP cap program will be required to certify 
that they met their monthly caps on an annual basis by submitting 
annual reports within 60 days of the close of each calendar year. Prior 
to the implementation of the FIP cap program, EPA will prepare a 
statistical showing that the aggregate effect of the specified 
averaging time is consistent with attaining the ozone NAAQS and 
satisfying applicable progress requirements on a typical summer day 
basis in accordance with the proposed economic incentive program rules 
and guidance (see 58 FR 11110, February 23, 1993). EPA seeks comment on 
the term of the emission caps (i.e., monthly as opposed to a shorter or 
longer timeframe) and the means by which to determine compliance at 
facilities subject to the FIP cap program.
    (b) EPA Resources. EPA believes that the compliance mechanisms 
outlined above require a significant resource investment by the Agency. 
These resources include staff to review the compliance plan submissions 
and evaluate the subject facilities' compliance status. EPA seeks 
comment on alternative designs to those outlined in the FIP cap 
regulations that may reduce this resource burden (including the 
delegation of these responsibilities to the State or local agencies 
discussed elsewhere in this NPRM).
    (c) Emission Quantification Mechanisms. EPA recognizes that in 
order to quantify mass emissions, the suggested emissions 
quantification mechanisms may need further development. EPA will be 
evaluating the methods outlined and alternatives for adequacy prior to 
implementation of the FIP cap program.\64\ EPA may develop and propose 
additional methods to obtain the appropriate mass emission results 
required of the FIP cap program prior to its implementation. EPA seeks 
comment on the methods outlined in the proposed regulations and any 
alternative means for determining emissions from the affected source 
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\This issue may impact the structure of any emission 
reduction trading market established as a result of subsequent 
analysis. See discussion later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Control Approach-- (1) Rule Structure. This overview explains 
the format used in the proposed FIP cap program rules.
    All of the proposed rules contain sections discussing definitions, 
applicability, specific provisions, reporting, recordkeeping, testing, 
and monitoring requirements. The definitions section of each rule 
contains the definitions which apply only to that rule. The 
applicability section specifies the area to which the rule applies, who 
is subject to the rule, and references the sections and/or paragraphs 
of the rule to which subject persons must comply.
    The specific provisions section of the rules specifies applicable 
VOC or NOX limitations and requires subject persons to submit 
baseline VOC or NOX emissions data to the EPA. Once implemented, 
the rules would require affected facilities to annually reduce VOC 
emissions by 4 to 9 percent and NOX emissions by 6 to 9 percent 
beginning in 2001 and ending in 2005 to achieve at least a 20 percent 
VOC reduction and at least a 30 percent NOX reduction overall. It 
is expected that subject facilities would continue to maintain VOC and 
NOX levels at 2005 levels after 2005.\65\ EPA may reduce the 
annual percent reduction requirement during one or more years if rules 
adopted by the local, State, and EPA (through the promulgation of 
additional FIP or national measures) achieve the VOC and NOX 
reductions necessary to demonstrate progress toward attainment of the 
ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\Except in the case of the South Coast, where continued 
reductions may be necessary to achieve attainment. See the 
discussions elsewhere in this notice of EPA's use of section 
182(e)(5) of Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the reporting, recordkeeping, testing, and 
monitoring requirements of the proposed rules is to complement the 
compliance plan and to ensure their enforceability. The reporting 
section specifies annual reporting requirements (subject to 
certification requirements) to demonstrate compliance with the monthly 
caps and the recordkeeping section requires subject persons to 
maintain, for at least three years, all information necessary to verify 
compliance with the VOC and NOX limitations. The testing and 
monitoring section of the rules require persons to test and/or install 
monitoring equipment to demonstrate compliance with the VOC and 
NOX limitations as requested by EPA. The VOC and NOX cap 
regulations incorporate the specific methods for reporting, 
recordkeeping, testing, and monitoring. EPA intends that facilities 
which use the incorporated test methods will have satisfied the 
requirements discussed in the proposed enhanced monitoring program\66\ 
regarding the source-specific analysis otherwise required by the 
proposed enhanced monitoring program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\The proposed program was published on October 22, 1993--see 
58 FR 54648.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the proposed source category specific rules, EPA is 
proposing a general provisions section which will be applicable to all 
sources covered in each pollutant's cap program (i.e., one section for 
VOC sources and one for NOX sources). The general provisions 
section includes definitions applicable to all of the rules and test 
methods and procedures referenced in the testing and monitoring 
sections of most of the rules.
    (2) Applicability and Exemptions. The proposed rules are designed 
to regulate and limit VOC and NOX emissions at subject facilities 
(process sources and other sources). Examples of process sources 
include extraction, manufacturing, fabrication, and combustion 
operations. Other sources include the use of solvent and paints (not 
directly used in extraction, manufacturing, and fabrication processes), 
VOC waste disposal and storage sites, and smaller combustion processes 
(for example, smaller internal combustion engines). The FIP cap rules 
are proposed for the following source categories:
    For VOC:
    (a) facilities which emit greater than or equal to 4 tons per year 
from any of the following processes or combination of these processes:
     Industrial and commercial solvents and coatings;
     VOC emissions associated with the manufacturing of 
products;
     Disposal of materials containing VOCs;
     Commercial food preparation and/or baking;
     Petroleum and natural gas extraction, processing, and 
storage;
    For NOX:
    (a) facilities which emit greater than or equal to 4 tons per year 
of NOX from any of the following processes or combination of these 
processes:
     Any boiler, furnace, oven, dryer, heater, incinerator, 
test cell and any solid, liquid or gaseous fueled equipment with a 
maximum rated capacity greater than or equal to 2 million Btu per hour;
     Any internal combustion engine with rated brake horsepower 
(bhp) greater than or equal to 50 bhp, regardless of operating time;
     Any gas turbine rated greater than or equal to 0.2 
megawatts excluding any emergency standby equipment or peaking unit;
     Any petroleum refinery fluid catalytic cracking unit;
     Any petroleum refinery tail gas unit;
     Any kiln or calciner;
     Any equipment burning or incinerating solid fuels or 
materials;
     Any sulfuric acid production unit;
     Any portable combustion and process equipment;
     Any emergency standby equipment or peaking unit;
     Any NOX source for which NOX emissions reported 
to the State or local agency were equal to or greater than 2 tons per 
year for the calendar year 1990.
    Only those sources which emit greater than 4 tons per year of 
NOX or VOC are subject to the emission cap requirements found in 
the rules. Those sources which emit 2 tons per year but less than 4 
tons per year in the above categories are exempt from the cap 
requirements provided that they maintain emissions below the 4 tons per 
year inclusion level.\67\ However, EPA notes that the South Coast 
RECLAIM program could subject sources which emit less than 4 tons per 
year to the cap requirements to get additional necessary reductions. 
EPA encourages the South Coast to reduce its RECLAIM emissions 
threshold in order to achieve necessary reductions for attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\It is important to note that while sources which emit less 
than 4 tons per year of NOX and VOC are not required to comply 
with all of the elements in the FIP cap program, if a source which 
is classified as being in one of the categories listed emits greater 
than 2 tons per year but less than 4 tons per year, then that source 
will be subject to annual exemption verification requirements to 
ensure that it remains exempt from the other requirements of the FIP 
cap requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules for most of the source categories contain exemption levels to 
minimize potential impacts on small businesses. The proposed rules 
require owners or operators of exempt facilities to certify to the EPA 
by January 1, 2000, that they are exempt from the VOC and NOX 
limitations of the rules and to submit calculations which demonstrate 
the VOC and NOX emissions from their facility will not exceed the 
exemption level. If a facility exceeds the level on and after January 
1, 2000, the source must notify EPA within thirty days that the 
exemption level was exceeded. The source would then comply with the VOC 
and NOX limitations of the rule beginning on January of the 
calendar year following the exemption level exceedance. Once an exempt 
facility exceeds the exemption level, it would always be subject to the 
VOC and NOX limitations of the rule.
    (3) Determination of Baseline Emissions. The proposed FIP cap rules 
require baseline emissions and emission reductions to be calculated on 
a monthly basis. The rules require baseline emissions to be determined 
based on emission inventory records, production, throughput, or usage 
level. If daily emissions records are available for the period 1989-
1990 and are consistent with the State or local agency's November 15, 
1992 inventory submittal, then this data would be used. If daily 
emissions records are not available for the 1989-1990 period, then the 
baseline would be established based on the average daily emissions 
value calculated by dividing the average emissions over the 1989-1990 
period by 730 days. These baseline emissions are annualized and reduced 
by the projected reductions from 1990 through the year 2000 (using 
anticipated control factors from control measure implementation). 
Finally the reduced baseline is prorated to establish monthly emissions 
caps by dividing annual emissions by twelve. The purpose for using the 
median or average value for calculating baseline emissions is to 
determine the representative emissions of the affected facility.
    (4) Compliance Plans. This proposed regulatory format requires 
owners and operators of subject facilities to calculate total VOC and 
NOX emissions from all process and area emissions sources at the 
facility for the base year 1990, adjust these emissions by the 
projected reductions to be achieved by 2000 and then reduce the year 
2000 emissions by 4 to 9 percent for VOC and 6 to 9 percent for 
NOX per year from 2001 through 2005. Owners or operators could use 
a variety of methods to reduce VOC and NOX emissions by installing 
new control equipment and/or increasing control efficiency of existing 
equipment, process modifications or substitutions, or reducing 
operating schedules.
    The specific provisions sections of the rules require each owner or 
operator of a subject facility to prepare a VOC and/or NOX 
emission reduction compliance plan for the years 2001 through 2005 and 
submit the plan to EPA by January 1, 1999. EPA could comment on any 
plan and request additional information if needed to adequately 
evaluate the requirements of the plan. Each owner or operator would 
submit a revised plan to EPA within 30 calendar days of the receipt of 
EPA comments. The source would then comply with the provisions of the 
most recent plan approved by EPA. The owner or operator would include 
the following information in the plan:
     Name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and the person responsible for preparing the 
plan;
     An estimate of baseline (year 2000) VOC and/or NOX 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility;
     Methods to be employed to achieve the annual percent 
emissions reduction;
     Test or demonstration methods used to demonstrate 
achievement of the VOC and/or NOX emissions reductions;
     Projections of annual VOC and/or NOX emissions for 
each source through the year 2005 after application of the VOC and/or 
NOX reduction methods described in the plan; and
     For all sources, all information required as part of the 
facility's Title V operating permit. If a source is not subject to 
Title V, then the source would submit information similar to that 
provided by sources subject to Title V.
    EPA is proposing to require submittal of the plans two years prior 
to the effective date of the limitations of the rules (i.e., January 1, 
1999) to obtain a more accurate estimate of baseline VOC and NOX 
emissions, to identify subject facilities, and to encourage subject 
facilities to develop a comprehensive, long-range control strategy for 
reducing VOC and NOX emissions.
    The submittal of baseline VOC and NOX emissions data in 1999 
will provide the EPA with more accurate, facility-specific data for 
evaluating progress toward attainment of the ozone NAAQS and will allow 
EPA to evaluate whether the cap rules should require higher or lower 
VOC and NOX reductions than the proposed annual rates. In 
addition, this information is important to EPA because it will provide 
a current estimate of emissions for the affected sources. Hundreds of 
small, uninventoried facilities are located in the FIP control areas 
account, in the aggregate, for a significant source of the VOC and 
NOX emissions. Although the databases contain area source 
emissions estimates to account for uninventoried sources classified 
under some source categories, the area source emissions estimates are 
based on inexact data (i.e., the amount of coating or solvent used in 
the county, etc.) rather than emissions associated with individual 
facilities in the control area.
    EPA will also use the emission reduction plans submitted to 
identify the number and location of subject facilities. This 
determination is needed to estimate resource requirements for 
conducting facility inspections for enforcement of the rules. 
Enforcement personnel will also use the plans to prepare for facility 
inspections.
    (5) Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance Requirements. Owners 
or operators of facilities which would be subject to the VOC and 
NOX limitations of the rules would also be subject to annual 
reporting requirements.
    Owners or operators would certify to the EPA by March 1 of each 
calendar year, beginning in 2002, that they have complied with all of 
the requirements of the rule for the previous calendar year on a 
monthly basis. Owners or operators would also submit documentation of 
the methods used to achieve the VOC and NOX reductions.
    (6) Penalties. In the FIP cap rules, EPA proposes an exceedance-
based approach to establishing statutory maximum penalties for monthly 
emission cap exceedances. EPA favors the use of an exceedance-based 
approach to establishing penalties for emissions limit violations in 
cap programs and as such, is proposing such an approach for the FIP cap 
program. The FIP cap rules specify that each 50 pound increment or 
fraction thereof above a monthly emissions cap would be considered a 
violation for federal enforcement purposes. For example if a facility 
was subject to a 2000 pound per month emissions cap and in one month 
exceeded its emissions cap by 500 pounds, then that facility would have 
been liable for 10 violations when establishing the statutory maximum 
penalty for federal enforcement purposes. EPA is seeking public comment 
on the specific increment (50 pounds per violation--also referred to as 
a violation-increment) found in the proposed regulations. EPA will 
consider whether values in a range up to 200 pounds per violation are 
necessary or adequate. However, the ranges discussed in the FIP should 
not be construed as what would necessarily be required for all types of 
cap programs or economic incentive programs including those developed 
at the State or local level either as a supplement to the FIP cap 
program or as a replacement for the FIP cap program. For example, 
State/local agencies may design programs which incorporate enforcement 
authorities that are unavailable to EPA (e.g., mandatory minimum civil 
penalties for violations) and which may compensate for somewhat higher 
violation-increments. In addition to the emissions limit violation 
penalties, all of EPA's enforcement authorities under section 113 of 
the CAA apply in the FIP cap program.
    Following is a detailed description of each source category for 
which EPA has proposed emission cap rules.
    c. Industrial and Commercial Solvents and Coatings-- (1) Source 
category description. The industrial and commercial solvents and 
coatings source category includes emissions from dry cleaners; 
degreasing operations; and all types of coating and/or solvent clean-up 
operations. Examples of coating operations include, but are not limited 
to: aerospace component coating; automobile and light-duty truck 
assembly-line coating; can and coil coating; paper, film, and fabric 
coating; flatwood products coating; large appliance coating; magnet 
wire coating; marine vessel coating; metal and wood furniture coating; 
miscellaneous metal parts and products coating; motor vehicle and 
mobile equipment refinishing; plastic parts coating; and graphic arts 
(printing) operations.
    While EPA has proposed an exemption level similar to that found in 
the traditional regulations for this source category, EPA seeks public 
comment on the exemption level found in the rules and will review this 
exemption level prior to program implementation.
    (2) Issues. The major issue on which EPA seeks comment is whether 
these emissions should be covered by the cap rule as proposed or by a 
manufacturers bubble approach (see section (i) for discussion). The FIP 
cap rule approach would provide the owners or operators of facilities 
using industrial and commercial coatings and solvents the most 
compliance flexibility. Owners or operators could use a variety of 
methods to comply with the rule. Such methods include installing new 
emission control systems or increasing the efficiency of existing 
control devices, process modifications or substitutions, or limiting 
the amount of solvent used at the facility. Process modifications 
including installing new, more efficient processes, increasing the 
efficiency of existing processes, or limiting process operating time. 
Substitutions include the replacement of solvent-based coatings with 
low-VOC coatings.
    d. VOC Emissions Associated with the Manufacturing of Products-- 
(1) Source category description. The rule for this source category will 
regulate VOC emissions from manufacturing and fabrication processes 
used to produce organic chemicals, gases, rubber and miscellaneous 
plastic products. Examples of products manufactured or fabricated by 
processes that would potentially be covered by this rule are:
     Industrial organic chemicals and gases. Industrial organic 
chemicals include, but are not limited to, gum and wood chemicals, 
cyclic organic crudes and intermediates, organic dyes and pigments, and 
280 organic chemicals (listed in the TSD).
     Drugs which include, but are not limited to, medicinal 
chemicals and botanical products, pharmaceutical preparations, in vitro 
and in vivo diagnostic substances, and biological products.
     Soaps; detergents; cleaning, polishing, and sanitizing 
preparations; surface active agents, finishing agents, sulfonated oils, 
and assistants; and perfumes and cosmetics.
     Food additives and sweeteners.
     Paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels, inks, primers, paint 
removers, thinners, stains, shellacs, cleaners, putty, coatings, 
adhesives, fillers, sealants, explosives, and carbon black.
     Fabricated rubber and miscellaneous plastics products 
including, but not limited to, tires and inner tubes; rubber and 
plastic footwear, hose, belting, gasket, packing, and sealing devices; 
and molded, extruded, and lathe-cut mechanical rubber goods.
    The proposed rule for this source category contains an exemption 
level of 10 pounds per day of VOC emissions. While EPA has proposed an 
exemption level similar to that found in the traditional regulations 
for this source category, EPA seeks public comment on the exemption 
level found in the rules and will review this exemption level prior to 
program implementation.
    e. Disposal of Materials Containing VOCs
    (1) Source category description. The proposed rule for this source 
category would regulate VOC emissions at organic waste disposal 
facilities. Organic waste disposal facilities include any facility 
which is operated as a business or owned by a state or municipality and 
is used to treat, store, or dispose of organic wastes that contain VOCs 
or to reclaim or recycle organic compounds or gases from organic wastes 
that contain VOCs. Examples of organic waste disposal facility include: 
landfills; publicly owned treatment works (POTWs); hazardous waste 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and sewage sludge, solid 
waste, and hazardous waste incinerators. Waste solvents, coatings, and 
other products which contain VOCs are the major source of VOC emissions 
at these facilities. The VOCs contained in consumer products which are 
flushed to POTWs after use may be a major source of VOCs at POTWs. 
Given the limited data available on emissions from these facilities, no 
exemption level is included in the proposed rule. Upon receipt of 
baseline data in 1999, EPA will evaluate an exemption level for this 
source category.
    (2) Issues. EPA is requesting any information which can be used to 
characterize the number, size, and location of, and VOC emissions from 
organic waste disposal facilities located in the FIP areas. EPA is also 
requesting public comment on the need for this rule because the 
reductions associated with the industrial and commercial solvent use 
and the consumer and pesticide products rules may result in a reduction 
in VOC emissions at organic waste disposal facilities.
    f. Commercial Food Preparation and/or Baking--(1) Source category 
description. The proposed rule for this source category will regulate 
VOC emissions from commercial food preparation facilities. Commercial 
food preparation facilities include commercial bakeries and commercial 
charbroiling, fruit and vegetable preservation, grain mill production, 
malt beverage production, vegetable oil production, and wine- or 
brandy-making facilities, and restaurants involved in any of the 
aforementioned activities. The rule for this source category includes 
an exemption level of 10 pounds per day of VOC emissions. While EPA has 
proposed an exemption level similar to that found in the traditional 
regulations for this source category, EPA seeks public comment on the 
exemption level found in the rules and will review this exemption level 
prior to program implementation.
    (2) Issues. EPA is requesting public comment on methods for 
adjusting requirements for sources which barely exceed the exemption 
levels. For these small sources, it will become increasingly onerous to 
reduce emission levels. EPA is considering implementing the initial 
emission reduction requirements at a later date (though within a 
timeframe consistent with the attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the FIP 
areas) for these sources.
    g. Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, Processing, and Storage--
(1) Source category description. The proposed rule for this source 
category would regulate VOC emissions from all VOC sources at oil and 
natural gas drilling wells (both on-shore wells and wells located 
offshore that, by virtue of the rule for onshore wells, would then be 
regulated by EPA's Outer Continental Shelf regulations in 40 CFR part 
55); oil refineries; and petroleum, gasoline, and natural gas storage 
facilities. Storage facilities include extraction and refinery 
facilities, bulk gasoline plants and terminals, or any other facility 
which distributes petroleum, gasoline, or natural gas to retail outlet 
and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities.
    The intent of this proposed rule is to reduce VOC emissions 
associated with petroleum and natural gas production, processing, and 
storage without limiting gasoline supplies. Retail gasoline service 
stations are exempted from this rule because these facilities already 
are complying with existing regulations.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\Service stations will be further regulated through category 
specific regulations proposed elsewhere in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Issues. EPA is undecided on whether wholesale purchasers/
consumers should be subject to the VOC limitations of this rule. A 
wholesale purchaser/consumer includes any business which is the 
ultimate consumer of natural gas, gasoline, or other petroleum-based 
fuel. Examples of wholesale purchaser/consumers include airports and 
fleet vehicle operations. Public comment is requested on potential 
control methods for wholesale purchasers/consumers (other than 
restricting the amount of petroleum, natural gas, or gasoline 
purchased) which could be applied under the rule.
    h. NOX emissions sources-- (1) Source category description. 
The proposed rule for this source category will regulate NOX 
emissions in Ventura County from the following processes:
     Any boiler, furnace, oven, dryer, heater, incinerator, 
test cell and any solid, liquid or gaseous fueled equipment with a 
maximum rated capacity greater than or equal to 2 million Btu per hour;
     Any internal combustion engine with rated brake horsepower 
(bhp) greater than or equal to 50 bhp, regardless of operating time;
     Any gas turbine rated greater than or equal to 0.2 
megawatts excluding any emergency standby equipment or peaking unit;
     Any petroleum refinery fluid catalytic cracking unit;
     Any petroleum refinery tail gas unit;
     Any kiln or calciner;
     Any equipment burning or incinerating solid fuels or 
materials;
     Any sulfuric acid production unit;
     Any portable combustion and process equipment;
     Any emergency standby equipment or peaking unit;
     Any NOX source for which NOX emissions reported 
to the state or local agency were equal to or greater than 2 tons per 
year for the calendar year 1990.
    The proposed reporting exemption level of 2 tons per year of 
NOX emissions is based on work done by the SCAQMD in their 
development of the RECLAIM program.
    (2) Issues. EPA is requesting comment on alternative exemption 
levels particularly for the FIP areas for these sources. For instance, 
the participation level could be as low as 2 tons per year, with an 
exemption level of 1 ton per year in the control areas. With respect to 
the South Coast FIP area, EPA is intending to use the RECLAIM NOX 
program's reductions for use toward attainment in lieu of implementing 
the FIP cap NOX program (this strategy may also be used in the 
case of a VOC RECLAIM program if the South Coast should develop such a 
program). If EPA is unable to approve the NOX RECLAIM program, EPA 
would promulgate the NOX cap program in the South Coast to achieve 
comparable reductions.
    i. Alternatives to the FIP cap program--At present, EPA has 
identified several alternatives to the design of EPA's proposed FIP cap 
program. For example, the FIP cap program does not include a trading 
component (i.e., the current proposal does not provide for trading of 
emission credits to achieve reductions). In addition, the industrial 
and commercial coatings and solvents source category could be regulated 
at the manufacturer level as opposed to the user level. Finally, the 
use of other economic instruments such as fees is also an alternative 
to the cap program proposed today. EPA seeks public comment on any of 
the following issues as well as any other issues or designs that may be 
available to achieve equivalent emissions reductions.
    (1) Trading of emissions. Although EPA's thinking on how to 
incorporate trading into a facility-wide emissions cap program has 
advanced in the last several months, EPA believes that the trading of 
emissions in the three FIP areas to meet facility emissions caps 
requires further study prior to implementation. To this end, EPA will 
be examining many of the issues that arise as a result of the use of 
emissions trading to meet emissions cap requirements. Some of the 
issues that will be examined are:
     The impacts of emissions trading on the FIP areas' ability 
to meet ozone attainment requirements;
     How enforcement of applicable requirements will be carried 
out with a trading system;
     Whether VOC trading would pose an increased exposure to 
toxic emissions (or hazardous air pollutants, many of which are also 
VOCs) and whether toxics trading would be allowed given EPA's work on 
Title III regulations and EPA's commitment to environmental justice;
     Whether differences in accuracy of emissions 
quantification methods would necessarily limit trading to source 
emissions that could be quantified within some minimum level of 
accuracy, or to limit trading to sources which are in the same source 
category;
     Whether there would be an economic impact on the three FIP 
areas because of emissions trading;
     The interface between trading and new source review 
requirements in the FIP areas;
     Market structure issues, such as the length of the 
compliance period, the type of market established, market 
administration, implementation of trades, and general data tracking 
involved with trading; and
     Resource issues involved with the implementation of a 
trading system (i.e., can EPA provide the additional resources needed 
to administer a trading program?).
    (2) Manufacturers Bubble for Industrial and Commercial Solvents and 
Coatings. (a) Introduction. All of the California FIP areas suffer from 
emission reduction shortfalls after application of the proposed 
conventional FIP stationary, area, and mobile source controls. These 
shortfalls must be accounted for in order to bring the FIP areas into 
attainment. In this NPRM, EPA is discussing and taking comment on the 
use of a statewide manufacturers ``bubble'' rule as an alternative to 
the cap program to obtain required reductions in the FIP areas. Given 
that manufacturers sell products throughout California, EPA believes, 
based on its experience with other designs,\69\ that statewide 
regulation is the only effective means of controlling these emissions 
at the manufacturer level. The intent of EPA's extensive discussion is 
to provide sufficient detailed discussion of the manufacturers bubble 
concept so that between the proposal of the FIP and its final 
promulgation, EPA can develop and include in the final FIP promulgation 
a measure in final regulatory form that will incorporate the concepts 
discussed (EPA will avoid the task of a supplemental proposal by 
discussing the manufacturers bubble in detailed form). The purpose of 
this rule would be to reduce VOC emissions from industrial and 
commercial solvents and coatings. This reduction would be realized by 
limiting the VOC content of these products at the point of manufacture. 
This type of regulation is consistent with EPA's new commitment to 
preventing pollution at the source, rather than at the end of a process 
or processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\In particular, EPA is aware of CARB's efforts to design a 
similar program for consumer products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This manufacturers bubble rule would serve as a method to regulate 
the emissions of VOCs from industrial and commercial solvents and 
coatings. This proposed regulatory program would establish a VOC 
content limit that companies who manufacture solvents and coatings 
would have to meet, on average, for all of their products sold in the 
State of California. EPA is proposing this alternative in preliminary 
form only at this time and solicits the public's comments on the 
concept and technical merit of this program. If this approach is 
ultimately selected, actual rule language will follow, and will 
incorporate the concepts proposed in this NPRM, as well as ideas and 
concerns expressed in comments received.
    While EPA realizes that the most straightforward means of 
regulation would be to put a firm limit on the maximum allowable VOC 
content on every coating and solvent, EPA has determined that this 
regulatory strategy may become, at some point, excessively onerous on 
the manufacturers and users of industrial and commercial solvents and 
coatings, and would limit the availability of commercially useful 
solvents. Imposing content limits stringent enough to obtain the 
necessary reductions in VOC emissions needed to bring the FIP areas 
into attainment may be technology forcing. In addition, EPA does not 
have the resources to effectively research the solvent and coating 
industries to determine feasible content limits for every coating and 
solvent, especially considering the court-ordered deadline for 
promulgation of this FIP.
    EPA intends that the manufacturers bubble rule discussed here would 
achieve the VOC reductions necessary to bring the FIP areas, along with 
other control measures discussed elsewhere in this action, into 
attainment while minimizing any technology-forcing aspects of the rule. 
EPA believes that, within the FIP context, promulgating a rule that 
allows manufacturers to comply by averaging VOC content may provide 
necessary emission reductions with a minimum of adverse regulatory 
impact. Such a rule would allow manufacturers the flexibility necessary 
to comply at minimum cost.
    (b) Withdrawal of rules based on SIP progress. As noted elsewhere 
in this NPRM, the manufacturers bubble program rule may be affected 
(i.e., rescinded or modified) by State or local measures which are 
adopted and implemented prior to implementation of the manufacturers 
bubble program and which represent the necessary emission reductions 
from industrial and commercial solvents and coatings.
    (c) Relationship with other FIP provisions. EPA intends that the 
manufacturers bubble rule discussed in this subsection will work 
simultaneously with the FIP cap program proposed elsewhere in this NPRM 
to obtain a significant portion of the reductions needed to reach 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the FIP areas. However, EPA is 
considering additional options for the interaction of these two 
programs (the FIP cap program for these emission sources and the 
manufacturers bubble for these same sources) and requests public 
comment on the merit of these options. EPA is considering using the 
manufacturers bubble program to preempt portions of the cap program 
(particularly the FIP cap program covering industrial and commercial 
coatings and solvents). The manufacturers bubble program may be used to 
relieve portions of the cap program requirements either for a 
particular source category (such as industrial and commercial solvents 
and coatings), or to reduce the total VOC emission reductions expected 
from the cap program. The following sections provide a detailed 
discussion of the proposed manufacturers bubble program.
    (d) Implementation date. EPA is proposing that the manufacturers 
bubble rule would be implemented January 1, 2001 to be consistent with 
the implementation date of the FIP cap program discussed earlier while 
achieving the necessary reductions for attainment, unless it is 
withdrawn prior to that date on the basis of State or federal progress 
in reducing emissions of VOCs.
    (e) Applicability. This proposed rule would affect U.S. 
manufacturers and importers who offer for sale in the State of 
California industrial and commercial solvents and coatings. These 
solvents and coatings include, but are not limited to, the categories 
listed in section iii.c.5.c.(1) of this NPRM.
    EPA requests comment on the inclusion or exclusion of these and 
other categories from the definition of industrial solvents and 
coatings.
    (f) Exemption limit. EPA proposes and requests comment on two 
options for determining the minimum size of a manufacturer that would 
be subject to this rule. It is EPA's intention to include in this rule 
only those sources whose products have a potential to emit a nontrivial 
amount of VOC to the atmosphere. Therefore, EPA proposes that only 
those manufacturers whose products have a potential to emit at least 
0.5 ton of VOC in California in a calendar year be subject to this 
manufacturers bubble rule. This potential would be measured by 
multiplying the manufacturer's total annual sales in the State of 
California by the VOC content of those products.
    As an alternative to using potential VOC emissions as a measure of 
the minimum manufacturer size that would be subject to this rule, EPA 
requests comment on using a manufacturer's pretax gross revenues to 
determine their relative potential to emit VOCs. With this method of 
exemption measurement, manufacturers of industrial and commercial 
solvents and coatings with annual pretax gross revenue below $500,000 
would be exempt from this rule. Another alternative to determining this 
exemption level is to base it on annual unit sales of VOC-containing 
compounds. Under this option, a manufacturer who sold less than 100,000 
units of VOC-containing materials in the State of California in one 
calendar year would be exempt from the rule.
    (g) Conceptual design. This rule would establish VOC content limits 
for a variety of solvent and coating categories (see the applicability 
section of this discussion for details). These content limits would be 
derived from EPA's published Control Technique Guidelines,\70\ as well 
as the reasonably available control technology/best available retrofit 
control technology (RACT/BARCT) determinations established by CARB or 
current District rules. Manufacturers would be in compliance with this 
rule if the average VOC content of their products was less than the 
average content limits set for those categories that the manufacturer 
produced. This average would not be a simple arithmetic average. 
Instead, it would be a weighed average, where the weights on VOC 
content would be derived from the demonstrated number of units sold by 
that manufacturer during the compliance period in the State of 
California. This averaging is expressed mathematically in the following 
formulas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\These limits could be expressed in pounds per gallon (grams/
liter), weight percent, or volume percent of VOC. EPA seeks comment 
for a preferred means of expressing these limits.

TP05MY94.000

Where:
N=Number of Products;
i=Product Index;
VOCCi=VOC content of product i;
SWi=sales weight of product i
Si=sales of product i
VOCi=Content Standard for the ith product;
    A manufacturer will be in compliance if:
Average Emissions  Average Content Standard
    That is, if average emissions are less than or equal to the average 
content standard, the manufacturer is in compliance.
    EPA currently is proposing that the compliance period be quarterly. 
Prior to the implementation of the manufacturers bubble program, EPA 
will prepare a statistical showing that the aggregate effect of the 
specified averaging time is consistent with attaining the ozone NAAQS 
and satisfying applicable progress requirements on a typical summer day 
basis in accordance with the proposed economic incentive program rules 
and guidance (see 58 FR 11110, February 23, 1993). However, EPA is also 
considering annual, monthly, and flexible compliance periods, and is 
soliciting comment on the appropriateness of the duration of these 
compliance periods.
    EPA is also soliciting comments on establishing a single VOC 
content limit for all industrial and commercial solvents and coatings, 
which would be the level that a manufacturer's sales weighted average 
must be less than or equal to in order to be in compliance. This option 
differs from the averaging scheme discussed above in that instead of 
having several VOC content limits for each source subcategory that 
would be used to determine if a manufacturer was in compliance, a 
single VOC content limit for all industrial and commercial coatings and 
solvents would be established. Manufacturers products would have to be 
less than or equal to this content limit, on average, in order to 
comply with the rule. This option is exhibited mathematically in 
following formulas:

TP05MY94.001

Where:
N=Number of Products;
i=Product Index;
VOCCi=VOC content of product i;
SWi=sales weight of product i
Si=sales of product i
VOCi=Content Standard for the ith product;

    A manufacturer will be in compliance if:
    Average EmissionsAverage Content Standard
    That is, if average emissions are less than or equal to the content 
standard, the manufacturer is in compliance.
    While the proposed manufacturers bubble rule provides compliance 
flexibility for manufacturers with several products, requiring 
manufactures that produce only one solvent or coating to meet content 
limits could put them at a disadvantage. Because of this, EPA is 
soliciting comments on options to ease the regulatory burden on 
manufacturers with one product. Specifically, EPA is considering the 
following options:
     Including these manufacturers despite the competitive 
disadvantage
     Excluding these manufacturers from the rule
     Raising the minimum size manufacturer that would be 
subject to the rule for these manufacturers
    (h) Recordkeeping and reporting. To demonstrate compliance, EPA 
will require manufacturers subject to this proposed manufacturers 
bubble rule to submit documentation to EPA. This documentation will be 
submitted in two parts. The first part will be a plan describing what 
products the manufacturer intends to market during that compliance 
period, the VOC content of each product, an estimate of their sales 
during the compliance period, and how the manufacturer intends to 
conclusively show what the sales of those products during the 
compliance period actually were. EPA will review this plan for 
completeness and the viability of the proposed sales reporting method. 
EPA will approve or disapprove this submission within the 90 days of 
the compliance period. In the case of an incomplete submittal or 
disapproval, EPA will notify the submitting manufacturer of the 
deficiencies, and will require another submittal before the end of the 
second quarter of the compliance period.
    The second part of this compliance demonstration will be submitted 
to EPA at the end of the compliance period. This document will contain 
the sales demonstration for each of the manufacturer's products that 
are subject to this manufacturers bubble and their VOC contents. This 
demonstration will follow the methodologies approved by EPA in part one 
of the compliance demonstration. Manufacturers will be required to 
retain all documents pertaining to this compliance demonstration for a 
period of five years. EPA solicits comments on these proposed 
recordkeeping provisions.
    (i) Implementation and enforcement issues. Because of EPA's limited 
resources, the agency intends to require manufacturers subject to this 
proposed rule to structure their compliance demonstrations in such a 
way so that the agency can minimize its review and enforcement costs. 
EPA invites comment on ways to accomplish this goal. The agency invites 
comments from other entities with experience in designing and 
implementing these types of manufacturers bubble programs. EPA 
especially seeks comment on ways to reduce the cost of enforcement 
against manufacturers with a potential for multiple inspection 
locations.
    (3) The use of other economic instruments to incentivize emission 
reductions. EPA is also examining the use of other economic instruments 
to achieve emission reductions equivalent to the proposed FIP cap 
program. The primary instrument that EPA is considering is the use of 
emission fees to accomplish the necessary reductions in the FIP areas. 
The use of fees will involve examining at least the following issues:
     Fee structures: how much should be charged for a given 
quantity of pollution and how will the fee structure affect the FIP 
areas' ability to attain the ozone NAAQS? Should fees be constant up to 
an allowable emissions limit and increase as excess emissions increase?
     Permitting issues: how will NSR and other permitting 
issues be addressed?
     Enforcement issues: how will EPA or the FIP areas enforce 
a fee program?
     Economic impacts: how will the use of fees affect the FIP 
areas' economies?
    EPA seeks public comment on the above fee-related issues as well as 
comment with respect to the use of other economic incentive strategies 
not discussed in this proposal.

D. Mobile Sources

    1. Overview of Mobile Source Issues and Measures--a. Emissions 
Credit for the California Motor Vehicle Control Program. The California 
LEV program relies on advanced emission control technologies, clean 
gasoline, and an on-board diagnostic (OBD) system, which together with 
enhanced I/M, or its equivalent, are designed to assure that in-use 
vehicles emit at levels close to their respective emission standards. 
EPA is confident that the LEV program will achieve substantial emission 
reductions beyond those which will result from federal cars. Emission 
reductions for the LEV program used in the FIP reflect a substantial 
reduction in the rate of emission deterioration compared to current 
vehicles.
    EPA believes that the California LEV program has addressed the 
problem of excessive in-use emission deterioration with its on-board 
diagnostics program, which requires the identification of individual 
vehicles whose emissions exceed the certification standards by more 
than 50 percent. Furthermore, ARB's assessment of the new technology 
which will be used to comply with LEV standards has identified many new 
components and control techniques which will improve emission 
durability. These features of the LEV program will help assure that in-
use vehicle emission deterioration will be substantially reduced from 
current levels and that the low emission attributed to the program by 
ARB will be realized in-use.
    b. Summary of Mobile Source FIP Measures--In 1990, passenger cars, 
other highway vehicles, nonroad engines and equipment, and the 
transportation facilities used in interstate commerce produced from 53 
to 63 percent of the total inventory of volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs) and from 70 to 94 percent of the total inventory of oxides of 
nitrogen (NOX) in the FIP areas covered by this proposal. In order 
to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard in these areas, it will 
be necessary to propose regulations which assure significant reductions 
in mobile source emissions--beyond those already expected from the 
continued turnover to newer, cleaner vehicles and engines. The mobile 
source category covers a very broad range of sizes of equipment, types 
of fuels, uses and operating modes, and extent of current pollution 
control. Therefore, there is no one measure or even one uniform type of 
measure which is proposed across the category to achieve the reductions 
needed for the attainment plans.
    In addition to those measures that are required in all States by 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and those measures being 
implemented by the State of California and local agencies, EPA 
considered measures requiring cleaner vehicles and engines via further 
improvements in technology or through incentives for users to select 
alternatives with lower polluting characteristics. EPA also developed 
measures which will achieve emission reductions from other remaining 
mobile source categories, both to provide sufficient reductions for 
attainment and to ensure that each category of emission source was 
contributing to the solution. The following specific measures were 
developed.
    (1) Programs for Light Duty Vehicles. EPA expects the California 
Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program will substantially reduce emissions 
from cars and light duty trucks, compared to federal standards. 
However, despite the use of advanced technologies and the OBD 
requirements, ARB projects LEVs will exceed their certification 
standards in-use. Emissions above the certification standards will 
occur because some models may experience more in-use deterioration than 
expected, or because individual vehicles experience component failure 
or improper maintenance which is not immediately corrected by the 
various existing in-use compliance programs, including enhanced I/M.
    Because the magnitude of the emission reductions needed for 
attainment is so great, the adoption of further measures to reduce 
these in-use emissions will help reach attainment of the ozone 
standard. EPA is therefore seeking comments on the need for and 
benefits of adopting an enhanced in-use compliance program which would 
provide extra emission reductions above and beyond the substantial 
reduction provided by the California LEV program.
    Specifically EPA is considering three approaches. The first would 
modify the current federal recall program to initiate recalls based on 
the emission results of vehicles tested in their as-received condition, 
but from vehicles which are subject to the new enhanced I/M program and 
thus should be well maintained. Obviously tampered or abused vehicles 
would also be excluded from that sample. This differs from current 
practice and would result in a shift in responsibility for ensuring low 
in-use emissions from the consumer to the manufacturer.
    The second approach would make manufacturers responsible for 
vehicle repairs in those cases where vehicle failure rates for a 
particular model in an enhanced I/M program exceed a threshold level 
(e.g., greater than 5 percent within the first 5 years). This approach 
(i.e., an I/M-based, selective recall program) also provides an 
incentive for vehicle manufacturers to increase the durability and 
reliability of their designs.
    The third possible program involves adoption of a requirement that 
the on-board diagnostic system of new vehicles be capable of 
communicating, to on-road sensors, the operational status of the 
emission control system (i.e., whether a fault has been detected). This 
approach would allow for the immediate detection of high emitting 
vehicles so that they may be submitted for repair.
    (2) Programs for Medium Duty Vehicles. California's medium duty 
standards for 1995 and later model years apply to all vehicles between 
6000 and 14,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). 
Manufacturers have previously been able to certify medium duty vehicles 
over 8500 pounds under the less stringent heavy duty standards and 
procedures. California rules require further reductions to be phased in 
between the 1998 and 2003 model years, through a California medium duty 
LEV program. EPA proposes to accelerate the medium duty LEV program 
phase in and to require additional emission reductions. EPA is also 
requesting comment on including all 1999 and later model vehicles 
certified under California's medium duty LEV program (as modified by 
the FIP) in an enhanced in-use compliance program similar to that 
described for light duty vehicles. An option to certify engines used in 
these vehicles under the stringent heavy duty engine program described 
below is also available.
    (3) Programs for Heavy Duty Vehicles. Currently, heavy duty engines 
for highway vehicles are certified to national emission standards; no 
waiver is in place for the State of California to enforce different 
standards for engines sold in the state. EPA proposes that, beginning 
with the 1999 model year, more stringent standards would apply for 
NOX and HC exhaust from heavy duty engines sold in California, and 
strict evaporative hydrocarbon requirements would also be applied to 
prevent a shift from diesel to gasoline fuel which could make 
reductions in NOX easier but would result in higher HC emissions. 
As with light duty vehicles, the FIP proposes additional measures to 
enhance in-use compliance for the engines' full operational life, 
including as-received recall requirements. The FIP also proposes to 
include some pre-1999 model year heavy duty vehicles in the I/M 
program.
    Since the emission reductions from the heavy duty engines are very 
important to the attainment demonstration, it is also necessary to 
ensure that the fleet operated in California continues to experience 
normal turnover. The introduction of tighter standards can work against 
turnover, however, if heavy duty vehicle owners perceive that costs 
will rise or that new technology is risky. To ensure a normal turnover 
in heavy duty engines, the FIP proposes a declining average NOX 
level for operating fleets starting in the year 2000. The decline in 
average NOX will reflect the historical level of new engine 
purchases and old engine retirements..
    Many trucks operating in California are also engaged in interstate 
commerce. California Air Resources Board (CARB) data show that about 20 
percent of the mileage accumulated for heavy-duty vehicles in 
California is from trucks registered in other States. If new emission 
standards are adopted for California trucks, the interstate trucks 
would likely remain certified only to the less stringent federal 
standards, and their use in California could increase, preventing the 
new California standards from achieving their full potential for 
emission reduction. Tighter emission standards only on California 
registered trucks could impose a cost burden on California shipping 
firms that would not exist for shippers based outside of the state. EPA 
wants to avoid such a competitive disadvantage for trucking firms based 
in California since it could result in even more operation by out-of-
state trucks, and is requesting comment on two options for a policy to 
deal with federally certified interstate trucks driving in California. 
These programs could be implemented together or separately.
    First, starting in 1999, EPA proposes that any time a federally 
certified truck (i.e., not meeting the FIP standards and not included 
in a California fleet averaging program) with multiple-state 
registrations operates in the state, it could make no more than one 
stop in either the South Coast, Ventura, or Sacramento FIP areas. Any 
pickup or delivery would be considered a stop. Also interstate trucks 
making a stop in one of the FIP areas would not be permitted to make 
more than two stops statewide.
    Second, starting in 2005, EPA is proposing to require all trucks 
which do not meet FIP standards operating in the state to be certified 
to the federal emission standards for 1998 and later model engines. 
Preventing earlier models from operating in California would greatly 
reduce the emission contribution from the interstate portion of the 
heavy duty fleet.
    (4) Programs for Nonroad Vehicles and Engines. EPA has begun the 
process of setting national emission standards for a wide variety of 
nonroad sources including, but not limited to, small spark ignition 
engines used in lawn and garden and other utility equipment, 
recreational vehicle and marine engines, and heavy duty farm and 
construction equipment. In addition to these national standards, 
special California-only standards are proposed in the FIP for certain 
subcategories of engines and equipment:
    (a) Nonroad Heavy Duty Engines (engines at or above 50 horsepower, 
37kW). Phase 1 of the FIP proposal incorporates the national program 
for control of NOX from new nonroad heavy-duty engines which will 
be published in final rulemaking by May 1994. The FIP also proposes 
standards for HC, CO, particulates, and smoke. These standards are 
consistent with the nonroad equipment standards which have been adopted 
in California. The effect of Phase 1 is to extend the application of 
the California standards to farm and construction equipment which 
California is currently pre-empted from regulating.
    New engine standards would be phased in on a national basis by 
engine size over four years beginning January 1996. The national 
standards apply to all compression ignition engines at or above 50 
horsepower (37kW) except engines used in underground mining activity, 
aircraft, marine vessels, or to propel locomotives.
    Phase 2 of the FIP proposal for this equipment category contains a 
program to ensure that nonroad engines over 50 horsepower used in the 
FIP areas meet stringent NOX and HC standards over their full 
useful lives. The program includes a combination of low NOX and HC 
standards, very stringent ILEV evaporative requirements, and other 
elements of an enhanced in-use compliance program. Requirements are 
also proposed for engine rebuilds.
    For Ventura and the South Coast, the FIP proposes the same 
numerical NOX standard for nonroad engines as is proposed for on-
highway heavy duty engines. It proposes a less stringent standard for 
nonroad equipment used in the Sacramento area, because less NOX 
reduction is needed for attainment.
    Nonroad engines and equipment are generally not registered or 
licensed by a state, with the exception of recreational boats. This 
fact makes it difficult to administer and enforce a rule for equipment 
that is different in California (or even in some areas of California) 
than it is in the rest of the country. But if these subcategories are 
to contribute their share to the attainment plan (and their share can 
be quite large as all other types of mobile sources are tightly 
controlled), then EPA must consider going beyond national standards, 
fashioning a plan which assures that equipment used in the FIP areas 
meets tighter standards, and that equipment purchased outside the 
control area cannot be used to avoid the cost of control. That is what 
the FIP proposal attempts to do for nonroad heavy duty engines.
    A fleet-average standard with a declining emission level which 
reflects the historical number of new engine purchases and old engine 
retirements, similar in concept to that for on-highway heavy duty 
engines, is proposed. Operation of heavy equipment in the FIP areas 
will be prohibited if the equipment is not part of a registered fleet. 
Nonroad equipment owners may pool their fleets to facilitate 
compliance, just as with highway fleets. An equipment labeling system 
is proposed to allow enforcement by EPA.
    (b) Small Nonroad Equipment (spark ignited engines at or below 25 
horsepower, 19kW). Since March 1992, EPA has held several public 
workshops and meetings to solicit information on technical 
characteristics, emissions, potential regulatory strategies, and other 
issues related to small spark ignition engines. The Agency believes 
that the best approach for setting emission standards in this category 
will be a consultative approach of negotiated rulemaking often called 
``reg neg.'' But there is also a sense of urgency about the need for 
areas to benefit from the reductions in emissions that will result from 
standards in this category. The result is that EPA will be pursuing a 
two phased approach to regulation of small spark ignition engines.
    In the first phase, EPA will propose regulations through the normal 
regulatory process. These regulations will be similar to California's 
regulation for 1995 and later utility and lawn and garden equipment 
engines. EPA's proposal will extend the regulations in California to 
engines which California is currently pre-empted from regulating. The 
second phase of regulation will utilize the reg neg process to develop 
consensus on important issues, such as useful life, in-use emissions, 
evaporative emissions, test procedures, and market based incentive 
programs. EPA believes that Phase 1 standards will result in a 40 
percent reduction in the HC inventory from small engines. Phase 2 will 
achieve a 90 percent reduction in HC inventory from this category. The 
agency expects that achieving a 90 percent reduction would not depend 
solely on more stringent exhaust emission standards, but rather on a 
combination of strategies (e.g., scrappage or other programs to 
accelerate turnover, fuel requirements , and/or evaporative controls).
    EPA's Phase 2 rulemaking is intended to apply nationally in 
approximately 2000 to 2001. If the Agency's phase 2 program does not 
come out of the reg neg process providing for a 90 percent reduction in 
HC, then EPA has committed to propose those more-stringent measures 
applicable to California, either statewide or in the FIP areas, which 
are necessary to the overall attainment strategy. The federal rules are 
expected to explicitly exclude spark ignition marine engines, engines 
used in underground mining, motorcycle engines, aircraft engines, and 
those used in recreational vehicles which will be covered elsewhere.
    (c) Motorcycles and Recreational Vehicles. EPA believes that by 
using existing on-highway motorcycle technology, it is possible to 
reduce the contribution of nonroad motorcycles and recreational 
vehicles to the HC and NOX emission levels in the FIP areas. 
Therefore, it is proposing to treat on-highway and nonroad motorcycles 
in California equally and to apply a more stringent set of exhaust 
emission standards to all new on-highway and nonroad motorcycles sold 
in California after January 1996. This proposal encompasses engines 
used in such vehicles as mopeds, dirt bikes, all terrain vehicles 
(ATVs), and go-karts. The standards are being proposed statewide, 
because EPA believes that that is necessary to assure that the 
equipment used in the FIP areas meets standards. The level of 
stringency may require the substitution of 4-stroke nonroad engines for 
the 2-stroke engines currently used in some nonroad applications, but 
there is also the prospect that catalyst technology may be viable.
    (d) Spark-Ignition Marine Propulsion Engines. Reductions from this 
subcategory of nonroad equipment will come from a national program of 
emission standards and from a registering/permitting fee system for 
operation in FIP-area waters. The national regulation, scheduled to be 
final by November 1995, will reduce emissions from outboard engines, 
personal watercraft (jet-skis, etc.), sterndrive engines, and inboard 
engines through application of new engine emission standards. The 
standards themselves are not being proposed in the FIP, but will be 
proposed in September 1994. Reductions in per-engine emissions are 
expected to be on the order of 70-80 percent from current two-stroke 
outboard and personal watercraft engines, and up to 30-50 percent from 
current 4-stroke carbureted sterndrive and inboard engines.
    The standards will apply to new spark ignition marine propulsion 
engines produced after August 1, 1998. Certification procedures will be 
similar to on-highway procedures, with some modifications appropriate 
for the ways these engines are used. The program may also include 
features such as assembly-line testing and recall.
    Although these national standards will result in substantial 
emission reductions per new engine, overall reductions in emissions 
from this category will depend on how much boating activity uses the 
newer, cleaner engines, and how much activity uses older engines. EPA 
expects that approximately one half of the total fleet of marine 
pleasure craft owned by FIP-area residents will meet the standard by 
the year 2005. However, equal use of old and new engines, in 
combination with other available measures to reduce VOCs, does not 
appear to be enough to meet the goals of the FIP. Therefore, EPA is 
also proposing a permit based fee system for marine engines produced 
before the new standards take effect, to strongly discourage use of 
these very high emitting engines in the FIP areas. The fees for 
emission permits would be based on the average excess emissions of pre-
control engines compared to engines meeting the new emission standards. 
This fee system would take effect in 2004, and would apply to only 
operators of marine pleasure craft who wished to operate a boat in the 
FIP areas. Owners who live in the FIP areas but only use their boats 
elsewhere would not be affected. Owners of boats meeting the new 
emission standards would be eligible for emission permits free of 
charge.
    (5) Programs for National Transportation Sources and Federal 
Activities. The litigation which resulted in today's FIP proposal arose 
at least in part from a feeling in California that the emission 
regulation of certain sources was not keeping pace with the attainment 
needs of California areas or with the stringency of control imposed on 
other sectors of the California economy. For today's FIP proposal, EPA 
is proposing controls for these sources which include the following 
provisions:
    (a) Locomotives. Today's proposal has three parts: a program for 
freshly manufactured locomotives which will be implemented nationwide; 
a program for remanufactured locomotives which could be implemented 
nationwide or in California only; and a South Coast program. Reductions 
from new and remanufactured locomotives should be achievable without 
causing economic damage to the railroad industry or causing a shift of 
the freight carrying business to truck-based forms of transportation. 
At the same time, it will extend the burden of clean air attainment in 
California to the locomotive sector.
    EPA will propose a national regulation that will apply to freshly 
manufactured locomotive engines beginning in 2000, and may also apply 
to the remanufacture of engines which were made since approximately 
1973. Locomotives may operate for many decades and be remanufactured 
many times before they are retired. Extending the application of 
standards to remanufactured engines will accelerate and extend the 
overall emission reductions in the category.
    EPA estimates that a national program for freshly manufactured and 
remanufactured engines would reduce locomotive emissions in the South 
Coast by approximately 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2010. As the 
total NOX reduction from all sources required in the South Coast 
is approximately 70 percent, EPA would like to achieve comparable 
reductions in this category. The FIP proposes that average engine 
NOX emissions from locomotives and sources directly associated 
with locomotives be lowered to the new engine levels through use of 
clean engines, electric power, and other means. California would retain 
the right to regulate operational changes in railroads, including time 
spent idling, rail lubrication, operating times, etc. The overall 
average would allow companies the maximum flexibility in meeting the 
additional emission reduction target.
    (b) Commercial Aviation. Commercial airports become increasingly 
important in the attainment effort as time goes by. In the South Coast 
Air Basin, there are five commercial airports which will contribute 
nearly 9 percent of a 2010 allowable attainment inventory of NOX 
and 6 percent of VOC if left uncontrolled. The emissions contributions 
in Sacramento and Ventura are smaller than in the South Coast. Airport 
mobile sources include aircraft; ground service equipment such as 
baggage carts; and ground access vehicles such as passenger cars, 
taxis, shuttle buses, etc. Aircraft are the dominant source. The 
percentage contribution and absolute amount of emissions from ground 
access vehicles in the future decrease substantially as other FIP 
measures take effect; ground service equipment emits a smaller fraction 
of the airport total.
    The FIP proposes an airline emissions bubble comprising mobile 
emission sources under the control of the airlines. These include 
aircraft, aircraft auxiliary power units, ground service equipment, 
captive vehicle fleets, and any other airline-operated mobile source. 
The FIP proposes declining targets for emissions for all commercial 
airline operations in the Sacramento area, Ventura, and the South Coast 
Air Basin during the ozone season beginning in 2001. The emission 
reduction requirements are consistent with those proposed for 
stationary sources under the emission cap program. This level of 
allowable emissions would translate into an environmental performance 
factor, applicable to each airline, expressed as an allowable pounds of 
pollutant per passenger equivalent unit. Airlines which exceed the 
limit would pay a fee based on the amount of excess emissions 
generated.
    There are a number of ways that an airline could reduce emissions 
under its control to avoid compliance fees. Higher plane load factors 
(fewer empty seats), electrifying ground service equipment, towing 
airplanes to the runway, increased use of single engine taxiing, and 
bringing the cleanest planes to the California airports all contribute 
to emission reductions under the FIP concept. The Agency is proposing 
that each airline be allowed to average the emissions from its 
operations at all airports within a FIP area. Such intra-airline 
averaging could provide airlines with additional flexibility in 
demonstrating compliance with the emissions target. EPA is also 
requesting comments on establishing an inter-airline credit and trading 
program to further enhance compliance opportunities.
    (c) General Aviation. General aviation is comprised of a wide 
variety of aircraft types with significantly different engines: piston, 
turboprop, and turbine. Much of the general aviation fleet is old, and 
there appear to be few, if any, significant technological improvements 
in emission performance which could be obtained without a large 
investment in research and development. Currently the general aviation 
manufacturing industry is also in a precarious economic state.
    EPA proposes to achieve emission reduction targets for general 
aviation which are consistent with the emission cap requirements for 
many stationary sources in the FIP areas. EPA is proposing two fee 
system options in the alternative for achieving the reductions in 
general aviation. In the first option, aircraft owners/operators would 
be charged a fee for each takeoff from an airport in the FIP areas. The 
fee would be set high enough to discourage use without making general 
aviation flying prohibitively expensive.
    The second option is identical to the first, but incorporates an 
exemption for engines that are certified to ``clean'' emission levels. 
It is possible that an engine manufacturer may find a differential fee 
system sufficient incentive to begin producing cleaner aircraft for 
certification and use in California. The proposal also requests comment 
on differentiating fees for specific airports based on the 
implementation of other emission reduction measures by the airport 
proprietors such as refueling vapor recovery where applicable.
    (d) Military Installations. Military installations can include a 
significant amount of mobile source activity. The FIP proposes, with 
certain exemptions, a military installation bubble in each FIP area 
encompassing mobile emission sources under the control of the 
Department of Defense (DOD). This includes auxiliary power units, 
ground service equipment, captive vehicle fleets, privately owned 
vehicles, and any other mobile source operated within the boundaries of 
the installation. A declining cap will be applied which corresponds to 
the cap imposed on stationary sources within each FIP area.
    (e) Ships and Ports. Marine vessels are the largest uncontrolled 
source of emissions of NOX and sulfur oxides (SOX) in 
California. According to a study prepared for CARB, marine vessels 
account for approximately 40 percent of all SOX and 12 percent of 
all NOX emissions from both mobile and stationary sources 
statewide. While most emissions associated with marine vessels occur at 
sea, a great deal is emitted while the vessel is in port, during 
maneuvering and hotelling activities. Both are of concern in the South 
Coast area, since emissions from vessels at sea are transported onshore 
by the prevailing winds and can affect air quality, and because there 
are large ports and significant shipping activity in the area.
    EPA does not believe that it is practical to pursue a conventional 
regulatory strategy for marine vessels in the FIP for a number of 
reasons. Not all ships are equally high emitting, and not all ships 
spend a lot of time in California ports. An expensive retrofit 
requirement may serve only to drive shipping traffic to competing port 
facilities where this special technology would not be required. Also, 
regulation of ocean-going vessels, especially foreign-registered 
vessels, is traditionally undertaken by international organizations 
like the International Maritime Organization (IMO). A unilateral action 
by EPA to require such technology on all ocean-going ships that enter 
California's ports may be considered inappropriate by the international 
organizations that oversee such vessels.
    EPA is proposing a flexible control strategy for the reduction of 
emissions from ships. This strategy would rely on economic incentives 
to encourage operators of ships that frequently use Southern California 
ports to take the necessary steps to reduce their emissions. 
Specifically, an emissions fee would be based on the type of emission 
control that a particular ship used. Ship operators would be allowed 
(and encouraged) to reduce the fees which would be applied by using 
electrical onshore power service instead of the ship's engines while in 
port. Ships that use South Coast ports more frequently would be faced 
with higher annual fees, and therefore would have a greater incentive 
to install more efficient emission control devices to reduce or 
eliminate those fees.
    In Ventura, there are no large ports, but marine vessel emissions 
are still large contributors to the area's NOX inventory, because 
of the emissions that are blown onshore from passing ships by the 
prevailing winds. The FIP includes in its fee system provisions for 
encouraging ships to move further out to sea when passing the Ventura 
coastline.
    (6) Programs to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Passenger cars, 
light and heavy trucks, buses, and motorcycles have met increasingly 
stringent new vehicle standards for years, and industrial sources of 
pollution have installed increasingly sophisticated controls to reduce 
emissions. But the trends in the total emissions of VOCs and NOX 
barely show any reduction over time. One reason for this is the growth 
in economic activity which causes increases in emissions from 
stationary and area sources; another reason is the fact that the number 
of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has grown, significantly undercutting 
the impact of improved vehicle emission controls.
    VMT is increasing for several reasons: more Americans are working; 
travel by automobile is cheap and convenient; alternatives to 
automobile travel are not convenient or do not exist at all in many 
situations; workers commute suburb to suburb; and workers commute many 
miles each way in order to be able to afford a single family home. But 
there are things that local communities can do to change some of the 
factors that cause the reliance on the automobile. Land use and zoning 
policies can support mass transportation and car pooling as they now 
support single occupant vehicle travel. Investments can be made in 
providing travel alternatives for work and leisure. Communities can 
begin to make the real cost of driving be reflected in fee systems for 
parking or use of congested roadways during peak hours. EPA does not 
have the authority to make the land use planning policies that would be 
effective in reducing VMT growth in the FIP areas. The Agency could 
impose fees on passenger vehicles in the FIP, but it could not return 
the revenue that would be collected to the local area to support 
transportation alternatives. Therefore, the FIP focuses primarily on 
additional requirements for improvements in vehicle technology which 
will contribute to a decrease in per vehicle emissions. But, EPA has 
also considered whether there are controls which can be imposed via a 
federal implementation plan which can lead to reductions in vehicle 
miles traveled. Two measures are proposed in today's NPRM:
    (a) Employee Commute Options Program. EPA is proposing two 
alternative attainment dates for the Sacramento area. The first is the 
1999 attainment date which is required by the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990, for areas classified as serious nonattainment for ozone. EPA 
is also proposing to bump the Sacramento area up to the severe 
classification with a 2005 attainment date. Under the Clean Air Act, 
severe ozone nonattainment areas must implement employee commute 
options (ECO) programs designed to reduce work-related trips and 
vehicle miles traveled during peak commuting periods. Specifically, 
employers with 100 or more employees must develop and implement a plan 
to encourage employees to use alternatives to the single occupant 
vehicle commute. Both the South Coast and the Ventura areas have 
implemented ECO programs, but the Sacramento area has not yet enacted 
the necessary legal authority, although an ECO program is required 
under California law. Elsewhere in this NPRM, EPA is proposing to 
approve the South Coast ECO program. Although EPA is not at this time 
prepared to approve the Ventura ECO program, EPA need not do so as part 
of this FIP. Even though EPA is similarly not required to promulgate an 
ECO program for Sacramento at this time, EPA is proposing to do so 
because the obligation of Sacramento to do an ECO program under federal 
law would be a direct result of EPA's proposed bump-up. EPA is 
therefore proposing an ECO program for the Sacramento area to be 
implemented if the area's classification is changed to severe. Affected 
employers must within two years develop programs which are designed to 
increase the vehicle occupancy of their employees to a target which is 
25 percent above the current average vehicle occupancy for all commute 
trips in the area.
    (b) Parking Cash Out. Even in downtown areas, most employees in 
California receive free or subsidized parking spaces. Current tax codes 
allow employers to offer this benefit without the employer or the 
employee having to pay taxes on the value of the space. Since parking 
costs represent the bulk of the daily cost of driving to work, these 
``free'' spaces are a strong incentive for employees to drive to work 
alone.
    As part of his Climate Change Action Plan, President Bill Clinton 
has called for transforming much of the existing tax subsidy for 
employer-paid parking into a powerful reward for commuters to ride 
transit, carpool, or find other ways to get to work. The Administration 
will shortly propose changes in the tax law necessary to bring about 
parking subsidy reform. This same proposal is included in the FIP, in a 
form which is consistent with EPA's authority. The proposal does not 
modify the tax code or require payments by an employer. Rather it 
applies certain restrictions.
    Employers of 25 or more employees who lease parking spaces for 
their employees may not offer free parking unless they offer employees 
the option of retaining the parking or accepting a cash allowance equal 
to the market cost of the parking space. The cash allowance will be 
considered taxable income, but under current law, up to $60 per month 
of the cash may be taken in the form of a transit pass, which would be 
tax-exempt. Those who opt for the parking space will be unaffected by 
the change. Whether the employee decides to take the free parking or 
the cash allowance, the company can still deduct the cost from 
corporate income tax. Research indicates that such a program may reduce 
single occupant commuting by 20 percent in densely developed areas 
where most employer-provided parking is through leased spaces. The 
improvement which is achieved will also assist employers in complying 
with the ECO programs in each of the FIP areas.
    (7) Special Issues for Mobile Sources. (a) Inspection and 
Maintenance.
    While stricter standards act to ensure that new vehicles are 
cleaner than were their predecessors, there has been no guarantee that 
these vehicles would ``stay clean'' in actual use. Historically, 
tampering, lack of proper maintenance, maladjustment, and control 
equipment failures have meant that cars on the road would emit on 
average 3 to 4 times more pollutants than the levels for which their 
control systems were certified. The evolution of vehicles to fuel 
injection and closed-loop computer control along with the reduction in 
availability of leaded fuel have significantly reduced the amount that 
owners tamper with or maladjust their vehicle emission control systems. 
Simply, the cost advantage of using leaded fuel has disappeared, and 
vehicle performance has become so closely tied with having all systems 
operating as designed that it is no longer widely perceived to be 
beneficial to remove or render inoperative any of the various vehicle 
systems. Malfunctions of the engine and emission control systems can 
still occur, however. Periodic vehicle emissions inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) programs are designed to identify and repair these 
malfunctions.
    For this reason, I/M plays an important role in the FIP proposal. 
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require areas such as the FIP 
areas which are classified as serious or worse ozone nonattainment to 
implement enhanced I/M programs. Up to this time, the State of 
California has not enacted an enhanced I/M program which meets the 
requirements of the national I/M rule which was published in 1992. A 
recently signed law in California retains the current Smog Check 
network of licensed inspection garages in slightly altered form. The 
national enhanced PI/M regulations require that inspection and repair 
functions be conducted separately to avoid conflict of interest and 
improper testing unless there are other features which provide 
sufficient reductions to meet the enhanced I/M performance standard. 
EPA and the State are currently discussing a program design which would 
meet the enhanced I/M performance standard, but which would also 
preserve as much business as possible for the currently licensed 
inspection stations. This program has not yet achieved consensus among 
all parties and is not represented by specific legislation or as a SIP 
revision.
    The FIP I/M design must also deal with the further constraints that 
are imposed on EPA, namely that it cannot order the State to implement 
any of the FIP's required programs, nor can it add to its own 
appropriation in order to staff the various programs. That means that 
EPA must design programs which require the minimum level of oversight 
and administration.
    EPA is proposing an enhanced I/M program which follows closely the 
model program which sets the performance standard for all I/M programs 
nationwide. EPA would implement the program in the FIP areas through 
legal agreements between EPA and a private firm or firms which would 
provide testing services to California motorists. The firm(s) would be 
authorized to charge a specific fee for the test; EPA's oversight costs 
would have to be absorbed by the Agency.
    EPA believes that an I/M network run by one or a few private firms 
will, in fact, be the most cost-effective, convenient option for the 
State in providing I/M testing. It may not, however, meet other 
economic and social objectives held by State and local authorities, 
special interest groups, or the public. Some in California have 
indicated a desire to continue to involve as many individual businesses 
as possible in the program; some are also interested in exploring 
alternative test procedures. The fact that these features do not appear 
in the FIP proposal does not mean that they necessarily could not be 
pieces of the I/M program which California ultimately adopts in the 
SIP. However, if a SIP I/M program with a licensed test-and-repair 
station element is less effective than the I/M program proposed in the 
FIP, substitution of the former for the latter would require the 
addition of compensating increases in the stringency of other measures 
or the addition of measures not proposed for the FIP at all.
    Because of the reasons outlined above, EPA is proposing an enhanced 
I/M program in the FIP. However, EPA and the State are continuing to 
hold discussions on a program design which would meet the enhanced I/M 
performance standard. EPA would not finalize the FIP I/M program, 
should an agreement be reached, if appropriate legislation were adopted 
and an approvable SIP revision submitted.
    (b) Retrofit Programs for Mobile Sources. There has been a 
considerable amount of interest expressed by California air pollution 
control officials in retrofit/replacement options for highway diesel 
vehicles, heavy duty nonroad equipment, and locomotives. These are the 
categories (in addition to light duty vehicles) which contribute the 
bulk of the NOX emissions in the FIP areas. And, a retrofit 
requirement could accelerate the emission reductions that would 
normally result from equipment turnover. In order for a retrofit/
replacement strategy to work, however, there are a number of tasks 
which must be completed.
    The general knowledge about how and where different types of 
engines are used must be increased significantly. For each category, 
there will be different typical lifetimes and rebuild or repower 
practices as well as differences in current technology and the 
feasibility of lowering NOX through in-field engine modifications. 
To estimate the impact of any measure, it is necessary to know the 
market share for the engines for which low emission models are 
available and much more about the usage patterns, for example, how much 
of the VMT in the inventory is due to local operations versus out-
county or even interstate operations. It is also important to consider 
fleet fueling practices and whether or not there might be difficulties 
in gaining reasonable access to alternative fuels. Some technological 
modifications may not be appropriate for engines used on nonroad 
applications if they accelerate engine wear or reduce reliability in 
the rugged working conditions which are common to the category. 
Finally, the economic impact to individual industrial segments as well 
as on the overall economy in the FIP areas is a critical component in 
the regulatory decision. Nonroad engines are very specialized to their 
applications, and the costs of re-engineering engines and fuel systems 
cannot be spread over large numbers of sales as is the case with on-
road vehicles.
    If, after consideration of many factors, a decision were made to 
require retrofit or engine replacement for NOX, it would be 
necessary to set emission performance standards for the retrofit/
replacement and to promulgate the appropriate test protocols. The fact 
that there are specialized applications with a very wide range of 
vehicle duty cycles and engine types and sizes makes it extremely 
difficult for EPA to develop appropriate test cycles. EPA would also 
need to devise a process for identifying the individual pieces of 
equipment to which the requirements would apply, to implement a program 
in which a fleet operator would certify the efficacy and durability of 
a retrofit/replacement, and to establish an enforcement system which 
assured that the emission reductions which were predicted would 
actually occur.
    EPA believes that it has neither the knowledge nor the time which 
would be necessary to develop an effective retrofit strategy for on-
highway or nonroad heavy duty engines in the FIP areas. For the 
locomotive category, EPA is proposing to develop national or state 
regulations which will address the rebuilds for locomotive engines. 
These regulations will contain the test protocols, emission standards 
and enforcement mechanisms to assure that the reductions occur. 
Although it is not proposing a retrofit program for existing trucks in 
any of the FIP areas, EPA is proposing a fleet average standard 
strategy for on-highway heavy duty engines and a growth cap for the 
nonroad heavy equipment category as part of a 1999 attainment option 
for the Sacramento area. The necessary standards, certification 
protocols, and enforcement mechanism either already exist or are being 
developed for other FIP areas. The specific details of these 
requirements are discussed elsewhere in this NPRM.
    (c) Adjustments Based on Local Control of VMT Growth. As discussed 
earlier, the expected growth in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) by on-
highway vehicles in the FIP areas contributes to the stringency and 
wide applicability of the many emission reduction measures in the 
proposed FIP. For practical reasons, EPA is proposing only a limited 
set of measures that can be expected to affect VMT growth, specifically 
the parking cash out requirement and the employee commute options 
program in Sacramento. Consequently, there remains considerable 
opportunity for state and local governments to do more to influence VMT 
growth, and EPA urges them to do so.
    EPA invites public comment on what measures in particular could be 
designed by the state and local agencies which would be less expensive, 
less dislocating, and more equitable than the FIP's controls. Those 
measures which make more expansive use of market incentive approaches 
and those which address land use planning are the most likely 
candidates.
    If the state and local agencies are able to identify and adopt 
measures which effectively lower the rate of VMT growth from what is 
currently projected, then EPA could entertain the removal of certain 
FIP measures which impose the most stringent controls. EPA invites 
public comment on which of the FIP measures might be a candidate for 
earlier removal. State and local action now on measures to reduce 
growth will also make it easier in the long term to replace the bulk of 
the FIP with a State Implementation Plan, since there will be more 
flexibility for the state to choose an optimum set of measures.
    Although the FIP contains an attainment strategy for the South 
Coast area, it does not contain the fully adopted regulations that will 
ultimately be needed. In fact, attainment there will clearly require at 
least all the elements proposed today or their equivalents. EPA does 
not envision an adjustment process for that area although the 
flexibility that lower growth provides would still hold true. Also, 
because of the limited time before 1999, EPA does not think it would be 
possible to revisit VMT growth in the Sacramento area soon enough to 
affect the strategy for the 1999 attainment option.
    It is a requirement of the Clean Air Act that every SIP and FIP 
attain as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the date 
specified by statute. In any VMT revisitation and strategy adjustment 
process, EPA could not and would not remove reasonably available 
measures from the FIPs. EPA believes, however, that some of the 
measures proposed today and likely to be finalized go beyond the test 
of reasonable availability. These are candidates for later removal as 
described here.
    2. Programs for Onroad Light Duty Vehicles and Engines. a. 
Overview--Despite requiring vehicles to meet increasingly rigorous 
certification standards, California's air quality is among the poorest 
in the country. High emission levels have persisted even though 
emission standards for light-duty vehicle (i.e., passenger cars) (LDV) 
and light duty truck (LDT) exhaust hydrocarbon emissions have dropped 
more than 90 percent since 1970. The continuing high emissions derive 
from considerable increases in the number of vehicle miles traveled 
(VMT), the increased expected life of vehicles in the temperate 
California climate and the failure of many in-use vehicles to meet the 
standards to which they are certified when new.
    In order to reduce the emissions from onroad light duty mobile 
sources, EPA has developed two distinct control strategies. The first 
strategy, described in detail in section III.D.2.c, is the 
implementation of a centralized test only enhanced I/M program. In the 
second strategy, described in section III.D.2.d, EPA is proposing to 
complement the California LEV program with enforceable requirements 
providing lower in-use emission levels. EPA believes that both of these 
strategies are necessary in order to bring all of the California FIP 
areas into compliance.
    b. Air Quality Significance--Light duty onroad mobile sources 
(cars, light duty trucks and motorcycles) are significant contributors 
to the emissions inventories in all three of the FIP areas. The table 
below (``1990 Base Year Inventory for Light Duty Vehicles'') details 
the level of emissions from onroad light duty mobile sources in each of 
the FIP inventories for the 1990 base year. The information contained 
in this table illustrates the large portion of the FIP inventories that 
is attributable to emissions from onroad light duty mobile sources. No 
control strategy could achieve attainment in the California FIP areas 
without affecting these engines which are central to the California 
economy. 

                                1990 Base Year Inventory for Light Duty Vehicles                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Sacramento                 Ventura                 South coast       
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad LDVs (tons)................        108.5         78.0         38.3         27.0        772.6        421.1
Percent of total inventory........          46%          42%          36%          31%          40%          37%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance--(1) Introduction. In its 
studies of in-use vehicle emission performance, EPA has found that 
vehicles typically emit at 2-3 times their certification standards in 
actual use. Factors such as lack of durability, tampering with emission 
control equipment, design defects, and poor maintenance all contribute 
to making cars and other mobile sources much dirtier in use than they 
should be.
    EPA has found that an efficiently designed and managed vehicle 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program is one of the most effective 
and cost effective ways of cleaning the air. I/M programs are able to 
produce significant emission reductions after only a single inspection 
cycle, and the effort the consumer must expend to comply with I/M can 
be offset with improved fuel economy and performance.
    (2) Enhanced I/M. I/M programs achieve their objectives by 
identifying vehicles that have high emissions as a result of one or 
more malfunctions and requiring them to be repaired. An ``enhanced'' I/
M program covers more of the vehicles in operation, employs inspection 
methods which are better at finding high emitting vehicles, and has 
additional features to better assure that all vehicles are properly 
tested and adequately repaired.
    Given the severity of the air quality problem in the FIP areas 
covered by this proposed action, EPA is proposing to implement an 
enhanced I/M program in all FIP areas as one of the most significant 
and productive of its FIP measures.
    (3) Background. The first mandatory I/M programs were required by 
the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, which called for I/M programs 
in areas with long term air quality problems. The 1990 Amendments to 
the Act expanded the role of I/M, directing EPA to develop guidelines 
and performance standards for two levels of I/M program--basic I/M for 
areas with moderately dirty air, and enhanced I/M for areas (like those 
addressed by this proposed FIP) with more serious and chronic 
nonattainment problems. On November 5, 1992, EPA published a final 
regulation (40 CFR part 51 subpart S) establishing certain minimum 
requirements and performance standards for both basic and enhanced I/M 
programs. It is this regulation and its supporting documentation that 
will form the basis for much of what will be proposed in this action. 
Readers are encouraged to consult the preamble to the final I/M rule 
for a more thorough explanation of the costs and benefits of I/M 
programs and the specific regulations.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\Although the proposed I/M program will meet the requirements 
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, as well as the performance 
standard for enhanced I/M programs promulgated on November 5, 1992, 
EPA is not obligated to meet these requirements as part of its 
California FIP proposal. EPA would only be required to do so within 
2 years of a state failure related to such requirements. EPA has 
chosen the proposed program design because it is one of the most 
productive and cost effective means by which to meet the requirement 
that the FIP demonstrate attainment with the ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state-administered I/M program known as Smog Check has been in 
existence in California since March 1984, and is currently operating in 
all three of the FIP areas. The Smog Check program includes a biennial 
tailpipe and antitampering inspection of 1966 and newer model passenger 
cars, as well as light- and heavy-duty trucks. The inspections are 
conducted in a decentralized network of private garages and service 
stations which are licensed by the State and which may perform both the 
emissions inspection and emissions-related repairs. The tailpipe test 
consists of a simple idle test for VOCs and carbon monoxide (CO) for 
vehicles up to the 1979 model year and a two-speed idle test for model 
year 1980 and newer vehicles. The program also includes antitampering 
inspections for all significant emission control components. Owners of 
subject vehicles must present proof that the vehicle has either been 
tested and passed or been waived from the program requirement prior to 
registering their vehicle(s) in even numbered years for even numbered 
license plates and odd numbered years for odd numbered license plates.
    Since the beginning of the program in California, a review 
committee of State and local air quality professionals has been 
conducting a continuing evaluation of the Smog Check network in order 
to recommend improvements to the Legislature and to address problems in 
program operation as they are identified. The ``California I/M Review 
Committee's Fourth Report to the Legislature'' details the results of 
comprehensive station audits and vehicle emission tests and concludes 
that the current program is yielding less than one-half the potential 
emission reduction benefits of the program if properly implemented due 
to improper testing and inadequate repair in the garages.
    Based upon its own audits, as well as those conducted by California 
and other states, EPA has concluded that I/M programs throughout the 
country which combine the functions of testing and repair in a single 
facility are only roughly half as effective as programs which separate 
the two functions. The I/M rule which applies to enhanced areas 
requires the separation of test and repair unless a State can 
demonstrate that its current test-and- repair program is equal in 
effectiveness to a test-only network. In making this demonstration 
states will receive only one half the emission credit for the tailpipe 
test than that allowed for test-only facilities unless the state can 
demonstrate higher reductions from its program.
    During the 1993 legislative session, the California legislature 
considered but did not pass legislation which would have authorized the 
upgrade of the Smog Check network. Citing concerns over jobs and 
consumer convenience, state legislators advanced a bill designed to 
improve the State's failing Smog Check system without fundamentally 
changing its test-and-repair structure. Although the bill contained 
some important measures, EPA had to inform the legislature that the 
bill fell short of meeting the Clean Air Act's standards for an 
enhanced I/M program. EPA officials are continuing to work with the 
California legislative leadership in the hopes of achieving consensus 
on a program design which would meet both the Clean Air Act 
requirements and California's unique needs. EPA is proposing an 
enhanced I/M program design which incorporates the most sophisticated 
testing techniques with features to maximize consumer convenience and 
to mimimize the cost of inspection. If the State should develop and 
adopt an alternative program design which meets the Act's performance 
standard for enhanced I/M programs prior to finalization of the FIP, 
then the alternative program will be proposed for approval as a State 
plan revision and its reductions will be substituted for those which 
would be expected from a federally imposed I/M program. EPA would 
propose additional measures if necessary to provide equivalent emission 
reductions as part of the FIP attainment demonstration. Once the FIP I/
M program is finalized, however, the State will need to meet not only 
the requirements of the I/M rule, but will have to produce a plan that 
fills any shortfall between the State I/M program and the FIP I/M 
program, so as not to jeopardize the FIP's required attainment 
demonstration. This could be done through the State I/M program or 
other emission reductions.
    (4) Summary of Proposed Federal Enhanced I/M Program. The proposed 
program would cover all model year 1966 and newer onroad, gasoline-
fueled vehicles--including heavy-duty trucks but excluding 
motorcycles--and would be conducted on a biennial basis to optimize the 
measure's emission reduction potential and cost effectiveness, as well 
as to minimize the disruption created by any transition from the 
current, state-run Smog Check program.
    The proposed program would be conducted in a network of test-only 
stations (i.e., stations in which both owners and operators are legally 
barred from profiting either directly or indirectly from the sale and 
servicing of motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts). The tests 
performed would include a transient, mass-emissions tailpipe test known 
as the IM240 which would measure hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and 
oxides of nitrogen; purge and pressure tests to assure that the 
evaporative control system is working properly; and a visual 
antitampering inspection for the presence and proper connection of the 
positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) and air systems.
    EPA intends to enter into a legal agreement with one or more 
entities for the performance of all possible program activities, other 
than enforcement of the motorist registration requirement, and 
oversight requirements which would constitute a conflict of interest. 
This entity shall hereafter be referred to as the ``test provider.''
    The biennnial test is estimated to cost between $20 and $25, and 
the average wait time at the high volume inspection stations should 
average less than ten minutes.
    A more detailed discussion of the FIP's proposed I/M program and 
its various program elements follows:
    (a) Applicability. The enhanced I/M requirement will apply to all 
vehicles registered, or required to be registered, in the counties 
listed in Table IM-1 and to vehicles in commercial fleets which are 
primarily operated within these same counties. Vehicles which are 
operated on Federal installations located within the I/M program area 
must also comply with the I/M requirements regardless of their 
registration status. 

                           Table XX-X.--Counties Included in the Enhanced I/M Program                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Sacramento area                             Ventura                            South coast           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento............................  Ventura..............................  Los Angeles.                     
Yolo..................................  .....................................  Orange.                          
Placer (part).........................  .....................................  Riverside (part).                
Solano................................  .....................................  San Bernardino (part).           
Sutter.                                                                                                         
El Dorado (part).                                                                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: The portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, Placer, and El 
Dorado counties to be covered by the FIP I/M program would be the 
same as are currently covered by the State's Smog Check program.

    The current Smog Check program covers more than the required areas, 
and therefore carrying this coverage over into the FIP I/M program is 
sufficient to satisfy the Act's enhanced I/M requirements. EPA is 
requesting comment, however, on whether the geographic coverage is 
sufficient to include all significant contributors to FIP area 
emissions and whether there is any reason that it should be expanded 
beyond the scope of the existing I/M areas.
    (b) Enforcement. Under this proposal, the Secretary of State of 
California, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, its employees, 
any any other persons representing the State of California are 
prohibited from registering any subject vehicle which does not present 
a valid certificate of compliance with or a valid waiver from the FIP's 
I/M program requirements. At Federal installations, where vehicles may 
not have California registration, the vehicles may not be issued a base 
sticker or other operating permit without evidence of compliance with 
enhanced I/M program requirements. EPA or the test provider(s) will 
issue these certificates.
    (c) Network Type. Two basic types of inspection networks have 
existed since the start of I/M programs--centralized, test-only 
networks and decentralized, test-and-repair networks. A centralized, 
test-only network consists of inspection and retest at high-volume, 
multi-lane, usually highly automated stations, run by either a 
government agency or a single, state-hired contractor within a defined 
area. A decentralized, test-and-repair network consists of inspection 
and retest of vehicles at privately owned, licensed facilities, such as 
gas stations and other shops which may also do repair work. 
California's current I/M program is of this latter variety.
    While the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 called for EPA to 
develop performance standards for both basic and enhanced I/M programs, 
they also established minimum requirements for certain program 
parameters. In the case of enhanced I/M programs, network type was one 
of these prescribed parameters. Specifically, section 182(c)(3)(C) of 
the Act states that enhanced programs must include, at a minimum, 
``operation of the program on a centralized basis, unless the State 
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that a 
decentralized program will be equally effective.'' Based upon its 
evaluation of current decentralized, test-and-repair programs, as well 
as upon data gathered by individual states on their own I/M programs' 
effectiveness, EPA provided for the approval of a decentralized test-
only network as an equally effective alternative, because the inherent 
conflict of interest found in test-and-repair programs had been 
removed. It may be that the State of California will ultimately choose 
to design a decentralized test-only system in order to guarantee that 
there are many independent businesses which participate in providing 
inspection services. But it is not a practical choice for a federally 
implemented I/M program. Given the significantly lower implementation 
burden of a centralized system, EPA has determined that it is 
appropriate to propose a centralized program for the FIP.
    Although EPA has the authority to forbid the State of California to 
register vehicles which do not have a certificate of compliance with 
the prescribed enhanced I/M program, it does not have the authority to 
order the State to write the program rules, oversee the construction or 
licensing of test-only stations or carry out any of the tasks involved 
in program implementation and oversight. Therefore, it is necessary for 
EPA to design a program which will divert as few as possible resources 
from the national environmental effort to the day to day operation of 
what would ordinarily be a state-run emission control program.
    EPA is proposing that the California FIP I/M program would be a 
centralized, test-only network operated by a private entity or entities 
(if each FIP area is to be treated separately) that have entered into a 
legal agreement with the federal government. This entity or entities 
will be known generically as the test provider(s). Program oversight 
would be facilitated through the award of a contract to provide for the 
collection of data in the form of overt and covert auditing of the 
testing contractor's sites and performance. The test provider(s) would 
be reimbursed through the collection of a fee paid directly to the test 
provider(s) by motorists at the time of testing. Once EPA has entered 
into an agreement with the test provider(s), it will be the State's 
obligation to enter into its own agreement with the test provider(s) 
when the State wants to replace the FIP program with its own. EPA does 
not intend to place itself in the position of assuming any legal 
penalty through termination of a contract with a test provider as a 
result of California starting its own program; comments are requested 
on how this result may be achieved.
    The test provider(s) would perform many program activities, with 
the exception of enforcement of the registration requirement (which 
shall remain a State responsibility) and any oversight requirements 
which would constitute a conflict of interest, such as covert and overt 
auditing of the test sites and testing personnel. In addition to 
establishing the test sites and conducting the testing, therefore, the 
testing provider would provide for both mechanic and inspector 
training, tracking and reporting of effectiveness data, performing 
other program data collection and reporting requirements, conducting a 
campaign of public information, establishing and maintaining a repair 
technician hotline, performing motorist compliance surveys, designing 
and issuing program documentation such as certificates of compliance 
and waivers, and designing and managing a program of onroad vehicle 
testing via remote sensing technology. Separately, EPA would award a 
contract to a different entity or entities to collect the information 
needed to oversee the performance of the test provider(s) and to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the I/M program. Duties under this 
oversight contract would include purchasing vehicle records or 
otherwise entering into a cooperative agreement with the California 
Department of Motor Vehicles to facilitate testing and database 
comparisons for program effectiveness and enforcement analyses, 
procuring vehicles for covert testing, conducting covert station 
audits, and performing periodic overt audits to confirm that the 
testing equipment is accurate within the quality specifications.
    Under the legal agreement EPA envisions entering into with the test 
provider(s), no funds would accrue to EPA, because that is prohibited 
by the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, which only allows each Federal 
agency to retain those funds which have been specifically appropriated 
for its use by the Congress. Awarding of the oversight contract and 
program administration duties would, therefore, require EPA to divert 
funds and human resources from other activities to perform the role 
currently performed in California by the Bureau of Automotive Repair.
    EPA requests comment on its proposal to establish a centralized, 
test-only network and to enter into a legal agreement with one or more 
test providers as well as awarding a separate contract for data 
collection in support of program oversight. EPA also requests comment 
on whether the Agency should enter into separate agreements and award 
separate contracts for each FIP area, or if a single agreement and a 
single oversight contract for all FIP areas are appropriate.
    (d) Test Type and Procedure. The California Smog Check program 
currently employs a steady-state, unloaded, tailpipe test, which is 
conducted with the vehicle parked and idling. The test is called 
``steady-state'' because the vehicle is operated in only one or two 
operating modes (typically at idle, or at both idle and 2500 rpm, 
depending upon the model year of the vehicle); it is considered 
``unloaded'' because the vehicle is parked and therefore encounters no 
additional power demands to overcome road resistance. Emissions are 
measured by placing a probe in the tailpipe to gather a sample which is 
analyzed to determine the relative concentrations (i.e., percentage or 
parts per million) of CO, carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons in the 
exhaust (the analyzer-test type combination used in the Smog Check 
program is currently unable to measure NOX emissions). Given that 
the volume of exhaust from any vehicle is unknown, the concentration of 
pollutants measured during a Smog Check cannot indicate the emission 
level of the vehicle in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per mile 
driven--or from the fleet all together in terms of tons of pollutant 
emitted per day.
    Studies conducted by EPA's Office of Mobile Sources, at the 
National Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory and elsewhere have shown 
that steady-state, idle, concentration-based tests such as those used 
in California's Smog Check program are not highly effective at 
identifying and reducing in-use emissions from the types of vehicles 
which currently dominate the fleet (and will continue to dominate the 
fleet in the future). (See the I/M rule's technical support document, 
entitled ``I/M Costs, Benefits, and Impacts,'' November 1992, for more 
details on these studies and their results.) Steady-state idle tests 
were originally designed to detect excess emissions from relatively 
low- technology, pre-1981, carbureted, non-computerized passenger cars 
and worked well enough for these vehicles because the typical emission 
control problems they experienced tended to involve ``rich'' air/fuel 
mixtures which are detectable at idle as well as other driving modes. 
To meet increasingly stringent emission standards, however, current 
high-technology cars must use an elaborate array of sensors and 
computer feedback controls to continuously adjust engine operations, 
optimizing the air/fuel mixture depending upon the current driving 
mode. Such vehicles are more effectively tested with procedures that 
address the full range of driving modes, including cruise, idle, 
acceleration, and deceleration cycles under loaded conditions.
    Emission tests which include driving cycles are called ``transient 
tests,'' and are performed by running a vehicle on a treadmill device 
known as a dynamometer which allows the vehicle to be driven in place 
and which can be made to simulate road load conditions by increasing 
the resistance on the treadmill rollers. Transient tests capture a 
known volume of exhaust and produce actual grams-per-mile results as 
opposed to the relative concentration values generated by steady-state, 
idle tests. Transient, mass emission testing also measures fuel 
economy, and the results can be provided to the vehicle owner. A 
transient test known as the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) has been used 
for certification testing of new vehicles for over twenty years and is 
considered the yardstick by which other testing strategies are 
measured.
    A full Federal Test Procedure involves special vehicle preparation 
and takes several hours to conduct, making it impractical as an I/M 
test type. But EPA has developed a shortened version of the FTP known 
as the IM240, which more closely reflects how vehicles perform under 
actual driving conditions than do current idle inspections, while also 
being short enough to be practical in an I/M setting (the ``240'' 
stands for the maximum number of seconds it takes to perform an IM240 
test). In its development and evaluation of the IM240, EPA has found 
the test to be superior to alternative I/M testing strategies for all 
relevant evaluation criteria, including accuracy and overall cost 
effectiveness. Using the pass/fail limits proposed in this action, the 
IM240 has been shown to have a zero percent false fail rate, while also 
accurately identifying the vast majority of the highest emitting 
vehicles. The result is that the IM240 is able to get more emission 
reductions by failing fewer cars than is the case for other I/M tests 
yielding comparable emission reductions. Furthermore, since the 
equipment required to perform the IM240 is based upon that used to 
perform certification testing, IM240 test sites will not become 
obsolete with future changes in vehicle technology; driving cycles and 
testing algorithms may require changes in software, but the hardware 
configuration will remain substantially similar well into the next 
century. Transient testing is also the only currently known reliable 
way to test for NOX emissions--something not possible with an 
idle-based test, yet nevertheless required in order to achieve the 
NOX reductions necessary for ozone attainment, and specifically 
required by section 182(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act.
    The enhanced I/M program being proposed in this action also 
includes two functional tests to detect excessive evaporative 
emissions. Over the last several years, EPA has learned that vapors 
which escape from various points in a vehicle's fuel system represent a 
huge source of hydrocarbon emissions, generally greater than those 
present in now highly controlled tailpipe exhaust. In response to this 
finding, EPA has developed two functional tests which can determine 
whether vehicle evaporative emission control systems are operating 
properly. The first test is a simple pressure check to find leaks in 
the fuel system (e.g., bad gas caps or cracked evaporative system 
hoses). The test, referred to as the ``pressure test,'' is simple to 
perform and highly cost effective. The second test--called the ``purge 
test''--is a check of the evaporative system's purge function, which 
involves removing gasoline vapors stored in the charcoal canister and 
routing them to the engine where they can be burned as fuel. The purge 
test is performed in conjunction with the IM240 (i.e., while the 
vehicle is operating on the dynamometer). Performance of the purge test 
is not possible using a traditional idle inspection, since most 
automobiles are not designed to purge extra vapors when they are not 
needed during the idle mode.
    EPA is proposing to use the IM240, and purge and pressure testing, 
as the main group of high-technology emissions tests around which the 
FIP's I/M program would be built. The FIP's I/M program would also 
retain the current Smog Check program's visual antitampering 
inspections for the air pump and PCV system, but would eliminate the 
catalyst, inlet, and evaporative canister inspections. The evaporative 
canister inspection would be eliminated because it would be redundant 
in the face of the more rigorous purge and pressure tests. The catalyst 
and inlet checks would be eliminated because the IM240 is sufficiently 
sensitive to detect the fact that a catalyst has either been removed or 
poisoned through the use of leaded fuel. The air pump check, on the 
other hand, would be retained because this emission control device only 
operates during cold start conditions and its malfunction affects 
emissions only in this driving mode. Since vehicles will generally be 
warmed up by the time they arrive for their I/M inspection, this type 
of malfunction is difficult to detect without a visual inspection. The 
PCV inspection would be retained because malfunction of this device can 
produce emission leaks that are not detectable through the tailpipe. 
Lastly, the FIP's I/M inspection would also include a test portion 
involving connection to and the interrogation of the onboard diagnostic 
(OBD) computer on vehicles so equipped beginning with the 1994 model 
year. Information in the form of trouble codes would be downloaded from 
the OBD computer and analyzed for the presence of emissions-related 
system malfunctions.
    All of the proposed FIP I/M program's inspections would be 
conducted in compliance with the test procedure guidance developed and 
issued by EPA in conjunction with the I/M rule. The IM240 standards 
will be set at the following gram-per-mile cutpoints for HC, CO, and 
NOX, respectively, for Tier 0 vehicles (with somewhat more 
stringent first and second test cycle standards for Tier 1, TLEV, LEV, 
and ULEV vehicles in the pre-1999 model year group):
    First test cycle: 1.2 / 20 / 3
    Second test cycle: 0.8 / 15 / 2
    Third test cycle: 0.6 / 10 / 1.5
    The third test cycle cutpoints represent the final IM240 cutpoints 
for 1983-1998 model year vehicles and would be used for all subsequent 
test cycles. Model year 1999 and newer vehicles are addressed as part 
of the discussion of the enhanced in-use compliance program in section 
III.D.2.d of this preamble; I/M cutpoints for these vehicles are 
contained in Appendix 1, section A(4). EPA is also in the process of 
developing test procedures for performing the OBD check portion of an 
I/M inspection and will propose these as amendments to the I/M rule 
later in 1994.
    (e) Vehicle Coverage and Test Frequency. The proposed FIP I/M 
program would cover all model year 1966 to 1998 gasoline-fueled 
vehicles, excluding motorcycles but including heavy-duty vehicles to 
19,500 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR), including vehicles 
with engine-based certification. The proposed FIP I/M program would 
also cover all model year 1999 and newer vehicles of all fuel types, 
excluding motorcycles, but including heavy-duty vehicles to 14,000 
pounds GVWR (except for 8,500 to 14,000 pound vehicles with engine-
based certification). The IM240 tailpipe emission test would be 
performed on all vehicles including the heavier trucks for 
administrative simplicity. Model-year based cutpoints for pre-1983 
light-duty vehicles are included in this proposed rule, as are 
cutpoints for heavy-duty trucks, although these latter cutpoints are 
subject to possible amendment prior to program implementation, based 
upon the experience of state-adopted enhanced I/M programs that begin 
operation prior to the scheduled implementation date for the proposed 
FIP I/M program. The purge, pressure, and visual inspections would be 
performed on all model year 1971 and newer vehicles. Older model years 
were not equipped with the evaporative control systems subject to the 
purge and pressure tests. EPA will also study the sales and in-use 
performance of pre-1999 diesel and alternatively fueled vehicles, to 
determine if significant, additional emission reductions can be 
achieved by testing such vehicles as part of the FIP I/M program.
    EPA proposes to require I/M testing biennially in the California 
FIP areas, with new vehicles being exempt until the second anniversary 
of the initial registration date. Notification of scheduled testing 
times would be through regular mass mailings conducted by the test 
provider(s), with individual motorists receiving notification no less 
than 45 days prior to the individual's testing deadline. The test 
provider(s) would use mailing lists obtained from the Department of 
Motor Vehicles to conduct the test notification mailing.
    EPA has chosen to retain biennial testing for the California FIP's 
I/M program due partly from an interest to minimize the disruptive 
impact of the new program, but mainly because biennial testing is 
simply more cost effective, especially when conducted within the 
context of a high-technology I/M program such as the one proposed. 
Simply put, the IM240, purge, and pressure tests are so effective that 
a biennial test program will yield almost the same emission reduction 
benefits as an annual program. In its research on the relative benefits 
of test accuracy versus test frequency, EPA has found that doing the 
test right is far more important than doing it more often. Furthermore, 
the types of repairs needed to pass these high-technology tests are 
substantive and durable--something which is not always the case with 
repairs aimed at passing an idle-based I/M program.
    (f) Waivers and Special Warranty Protection. The FIP I/M program 
would include the opportunity for owners of failing vehicles to apply 
for a cost waiver once they have spent at least $450, adjusted annually 
for inflation, in relevant emission control repairs. The $450 figure is 
required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 for state-adopted, 
enhanced I/M programs. While EPA is not required to include such a 
waiver limit in this FIP, EPA is proposing this waiver limit because it 
is practical, ensures repair of virtually all failures, and will 
simplify the transition once California adopts its own program. The 
$450 figure will be adjusted annually, based upon the difference 
between the Consumer Price Index for the current year and that of a 
1990 base year, and would not include costs related to the repair of 
tampering-related defects or emission control components the servicing 
of which are covered by an unexpired warranty. The test provider(s) 
would be responsible for issuing such waivers and for conducting a 
visual inspection to confirm that all claimed repairs have, in fact, 
been made. Motorists on public assistance would be able to apply for a 
one-time, non- renewable time extension on making repairs, not to 
exceed one full test cycle. Only one such time extension will be 
granted per the lifetime of a vehicle.
    The California Motor Vehicle Control Program provides for 
warranties similar to those included under Federal law. These 
warranties would be available to owners of failed vehicles up to the 
specified age and mileage limitations which vary depending on the model 
year of the vehicle. Special warranty protection would be available to 
owners of vehicles certified under the proposed enhanced in-use 
compliance program for model year 1999 and newer vehicles (see Section 
III.D.2.d).
    (g) Enforcement and Oversight. Under the FIP I/M program, it would 
be a violation of Federal law for the California Department of Motor 
Vehicles (DMV), its employees, or any other representative of the State 
of California to register any vehicle subject to the FIP's I/M 
requirement for which a valid certificate of compliance or waiver 
(either paper-based or electronic) has not been presented. DMV 
employees or other State representatives suspected of violating the FIP 
I/M requirement would be subject to prosecution under Federal law and, 
if found guilty, could be subject to civil penalties up to $25,000 per 
violation. Each instance of unlawful registration would be considered a 
separate offense.
    Motorists who were late for either regularly scheduled tests or who 
failed to comply with an out-of-cycle test required because the vehicle 
was identified by a remote sensing unit (see below), would be assessed 
a late fee at the rate of $10 per week late. EPA requests comments on 
other means of enforcing program requirements, including the 
possibility of tying penalty fees to the length of violation multiplied 
by the level of excess emissions.
    (h) Convenience Issues. EPA would make customer convenience an 
important criteria in entering into any legal agreement with a test 
provider(s). Minimum convenience requirements would be established and 
addressed. For example, EPA intends to require in any such agreement 
that test stations be sited such that 80 percent of all subject 
motorists are within a 5 mile radius of a test station, with 95 percent 
of all motorists within a 10 mile radius. Wait times between entering a 
test station queue and the initiation of actual testing would be 
tracked and would not be allowed to exceed 15 minutes on average. 
Scheduling individual vehicles for tests would be required to be done 
on a weekly basis, as opposed to monthly, to help reduce the impact of 
the end-of-the-month rush. To avoid being assessed a late penalty, 
motorists would have to report for testing sometime during the 
scheduled testing week, with the week beginning on Sunday and ending on 
Saturday. The test provider(s) would be allowed to use late fees paid 
by motorists who do not show up during the specified test week to 
either create an incentive program to stimulate off-peak test lane 
usage or to expand capacity. The test provider(s) would also be 
required to offer ``valet testing'' for a reasonable fee. Such an 
option would allow motorists to have their vehicles picked up for 
testing from their homes, work places, etc., and returned.
    (i) Onroad Testing. Although not expressly required to do so as 
part of its FIP effort, EPA proposes to use remote sensing devices 
(RSD) as a supplement to the proposed FIP I/M program, because EPA 
believes RSD to be a useful way of identifying gross emitters for 
possible out-of-cycle repairs. The actual onroad testing would be 
performed by the test provider and would cover a larger percentage of 
the fleet than the minimum required of state-adopted enhanced I/M 
programs under the I/M rule (i.e., approximately 10 percent). Owners of 
vehicles which fail the RSD check would be notified of the failure by 
registered mail, and would be required to report for an out-of-cycle 
confirmatory test at a test-only test site. Should the vehicle fail 
this confirmatory test, the owner would be responsible for the 
procurement of necessary repairs and would be required to submit the 
vehicle for retesting. The owner would have an opportunity to apply for 
a waiver, but only after meeting all the same criteria that would apply 
during the regular testing cycle. Vehicle owners who did not respond to 
the NPRM of RSD failure would be assessed a late penalty at the time of 
their next scheduled test. The late penalty would be the same as that 
charged for missing a regularly scheduled test (i.e., $10 per week 
late).
    (j) Program Start Date. The FIP I/M program would initiate testing 
100 percent of the subject vehicle population beginning in January 
1997.
    d. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Light-Duty Vehicles--EPA 
expects the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program will 
substantially reduce emissions of cars and light-duty trucks, compared 
to the federal standards. However, despite the use of advanced 
technologies and the OBD requirements, CARB projects LEVS will exceed 
their certification standards in-use, although, for the reasons noted 
in Section III.D.1.a(2), by a much smaller margin than has occurred in 
the past. Emissions above the certification standards, referred to as 
excess emissions, will occur because some models may experience more 
in-use deterioration than expected, or because individual vehicles 
experience component failure or improper maintenance which is not 
immediately corrected by the various existing in-use compliance 
programs, including enhanced I/M. Because the magnitude of the emission 
reductions needed for attainment is so great, the adoption of further 
measures to reduce these remaining excess in-use emissions will help 
reach attainment of the ozone standard.
    EPA is therefore seeking comments on the need for and benefits of 
adopting an enhanced in-use compliance program which would provide 
extra emission reductions above and beyond the substantial reduction 
provided by the California LEV program, and cause in-use emissions to 
approach the certification standards. Specifically, EPA is considering 
three approaches. The first would modify the current federal recall 
program to initiate recalls based on the emission results of vehicles 
tested in their as received condition. This differs from current 
practice, and would result in a shift of responsibility for maintaining 
low emissions from the consumer to the vehicle manufacturers.
    The second possible program would make manufacturers responsible 
for repairs for vehicles whose failure rate for that model in an 
enhanced I/M program exceeds a threshold level (e.g., greater than 5 
percent within the first 5 years). This approach, like the first 
approach, provides an incentive for vehicle manufacturers to increase 
the durability of their designs, or implement other programs designed 
to maintain the emissions of their products in-use. Both of these 
possible programs would apply throughout a vehicle's statutory useful 
life.
    The third possible program involves adoption of a requirement that 
the on-board diagnostic system of new vehicles be capable of 
communicating, to on-road sensors, the operational status of the 
emission control system (i.e., whether a fault has been detected). This 
approach allows for the immediate identification of high emitting 
vehicles, and their timely repair. Unlike the first two approaches, 
this approach would remain in effect for the vehicles's entire life, a 
significant point since over 40 percent of cars and light trucks on 
California's highways have over 100,000 miles on their odometer.
    EPA requests comments on these three approaches, and on any other 
approaches to further reduce in-use emissions. Comments should address 
the need for and viability of EPA implementing, within the context of 
the FIP, compliance programs in addition to those already adopted by 
California. EPA is proposing to adopt the enhanced in-use compliance 
program described in Appendix I A.
    e. On-highway Motorcycles--Provisions for on-highway motorcycles 
are contained in section III.D.4.c(1). Because engines used in nonroad 
recreational vehicles such as all terrain vehicles and dirt bikes are 
similar to those used in on-highway motorcycles, all control strategies 
for these engines are contained in the section referenced in the 
preceding sentence.
    f. Discussion of Emission Registration and Fee Systems for Light 
Duty Vehicles--In the light duty vehicle and light duty truck sector, 
emission reductions can result from direct regulation of the vehicle 
and fuels or can be brought about by regulations or incentives (either 
positive or negative) to change vehicle ownership patterns and/or 
driver behavior. Emission standards for light duty vehicles and their 
fuel have significantly decreased the amount of pollution emitted by 
any one vehicle over a given mile. Standards continue to tighten and 
within the FIP EPA is proposing to reduce tailpipe and evaporative 
emissions even further.
    Additional reductions could come from incentives to increase the 
number newer vehicles on the road and reduce the number of older 
vehicles. Accelerating fleet turnover through any means would reduce on 
road emissions by replacing older vehicles (which have older emissions 
technology) with newer, cleaner vehicles.
    Increasing the number of newer vehicles purchased could be achieved 
either by offering incentives, such as rebates or reductions in 
registration fees, and/or with disincentives for owning older vehicles, 
i.e. higher registration fees based on age or on emissions.
    Despite the impressive reductions in tailpipe emissions, on highway 
motor vehicle emissions remain a source of concern. Increases in the 
number of vehicles on the road and the number of vehicle miles traveled 
(VMT), threaten to outpace gains from technology. For the three FIP 
areas EPA utilizes the VMT growth projections provided by the local MPO 
or air quality management district. Growth in VMT can have significant 
impact on a given nonattainment area's ability to show attainment.
    In most, if not all, nonattainment areas changing driver behavior 
has been addressed primarily (if at all) through implementation of 
transportation control measures (TCMs). The TCMs found in SIPs have 
generally, in the past, been voluntary in nature and often have 
consisted of efforts to make transit more available through increased 
bus routes, light and heavy rail expansions and the building of park 
and ride lots. While these steps are laudable they do little to change 
the current equation faced by a user of our transportation system. 
Because our road and highway system is financed in large part by 
general revenues (40 percent), and because drivers do not pay for the 
congestion and pollution they cause, the use of our roadways appears to 
users to carry a relatively low cost. In addition, single-occupant 
vehicles have considerable advantage in terms of convenience and 
privacy. Thus, any attempt to promote the use of alternatives to 
single-occupancy vehicles faces quite a challenge.
    The limited effectiveness of traditional TCMs has led many in 
Federal, State and local government and in academia to promote instead 
the use of market-based TCMs. (See Cameron, Shoup for DOT, EPA/DOT 
Report to Congress, forthcoming NARC report by Apogee). Congestion 
pricing, parking reform, and VMT and emission fees all show great 
promise as effective means of changing driver behavior by making travel 
choices reflect more closely their true social costs.
    EPA seriously considered making market-based TCMs an integral part 
of the FIP, however, within the context of the FIP, neither traditional 
TCMs nor market-based TCMs lend themselves easily to Federal 
implementation. The very nature of many traditional TCMs limits their 
usefulness within the context of the FIP. FIP authority does not allow 
the Agency to take on fundamentally local roles such as building new 
transit lines, expanding bus services, or building HOV lanes. If EPA 
were to impose emission fees or VMT fees or to institute congestion 
pricing, all revenue generated would have to go to the Federal Treasury 
(see the above discussion of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act in section 
III.A.2.b). Such a flow of revenue out of the FIP areas could have 
numerous adverse impacts.
    In addition, the issue of fees, especially VMT fees, raises other 
inherently local issues such as land use planning. There are many 
theories and explanations for the rapid and continual growth in VMT 
over the last few decades--increases in women in the work force, 
population growth, increases in average income--but suburban sprawl 
also plays a significant role. For a variety of reasons, crime, housing 
costs, land costs, etc. the bulk of growth in metropolitan areas has 
been occurring in the suburbs. The lower housing densities and lack of 
mixed use zoning in most suburbs have made use of a car a daily 
necessity. Just as these patterns of land use occurred over a long 
period of time in response to local demands, so must future changes.
    Despite the EPA assessment that control of VMT growth and the use 
of market-based TCMs are most appropriately considered at the local 
level, EPA would like to present an outline of a reasonable and, at the 
state or local level, an arguably workable light duty vehicle fee 
system, based on both emissions and vehicle miles traveled. EPA invites 
comment on federal implementation of this approach or any other 
appropriate market-based measures. If changes in technical estimates or 
in the stringency of other controls are made following public comment, 
EPA may have to turn to a fee system as described below despite the 
reservations voiced above. In such a case, EPA would obtain more public 
input on program specifics before implementation, including if 
appropriate, reproposal and public comment.
    A fee on the product of emissions level and VMT would provide 
incentives for individuals to reduce emissions but also would provide 
them with some flexibility to achieve those reductions. A driver could 
choose to reduce her fee by buying a cleaner vehicle, or she could 
reduce her fee burden by driving fewer miles. Most likely, individuals 
would consider the trade-offs they face and choose a course of action 
most appropriate for their circumstances. In thinking about this fee 
system, EPA has attempted to remain sensitive to many issues 
surrounding fees and the incentives they provide. EPA used as a guide 
California Senate Bill 1070, and many of the principles it provides. As 
in Bill 1070, EPA believes a fee collected at biennial inspection and 
maintenance points which is a function of VMT in excess of an annual 
per driver allotment of 5,000 miles and of the vehicle's I/M score 
recorded after any necessary repairs have taken place would be most 
workable.
    EPA recognizes that the automobile represents for many people in 
the FIP area the only means of getting to work. Therefore, EPA suggests 
each licensed driver over the age of 18 could be allocated 5,000 
``free'' miles annually. Drivers in one household could combine their 
allowances however they choose, and use them to cover some of the VMT 
from the household's vehicles. EPA suggests this lifeline level based 
on data in the 1990 National Personal Travel Survey (NPTS) conducted by 
DOT. According to the 1990 NPTS, on average 32 percent of VMT and 26 
percent of trips are directly the result of commuting. The average new 
car mileage (older model years are driven fewer miles in each 
successive year) is 15,000 miles. Thus 5,000 represents, on average, 
the upper end of commuting miles for a given driver. However, EPA 
invites comment on this issue.
    Obviously the emission component of the fee provides an incentive 
for the vehicle owner to reduce vehicle emissions. How an individual 
chooses to do so is somewhat dependent on the way in which the fee is 
set. If the fee is charged based on how much the vehicle's emissions 
exceed the average emissions from other vehicles from the same model 
year, then the owner of the vehicle is interested in keeping the 
vehicle in good working order to ensure average or better emissions for 
a car of that model year. A fee set in this way does not penalize an 
owner for having an old car (and therefore old emissions technology) 
per se, but for having an old car dirtier than other cars of its age. 
The fee then does little to encourage the owner to replace the vehicle 
with one offering newer and therefore cleaner technology.
    If, on the other hand, the fee is set based on actual emissions, 
owners still have an incentive to keep each car as clean as possible, 
but they face an added incentive to invest in cleaner technology. An 
added bonus for California of this type of emission fee is that it 
would address the question of vehicles not meeting California emissions 
standards which are brought into California by new residents (``49 
state vehicles''). Any additional emissions resulting from a 49 state 
vehicle would be appropriately charged a fee, eliminating the need for 
a separate program to address those emissions.
    However, such an incentive structure raises obvious questions 
regarding equity. Many, although not all, older cars are often 
perceived to be utilized by citizens with lower incomes. Thus, one 
could argue straight emission-based fees are regressive. However, on 
average, older vehicles are driven fewer than 5,000 miles annually for 
reliability reasons. A fee formula structure which forgives the first 
5,000 miles of VMT and emissions, such as the system outlined here, 
allows low income car owners continued free use of their vehicles for 
daily necessities.
    If EPA or the FIP areas were to adopt a VMT/emission fee system 
other details would need to be addressed. For example, EPA would 
suggest using actual VMT for each vehicle as determined by odometer 
checks at the time of the biennial I/M inspection. To discourage 
odometer tampering, EPA would propose to include in all registration 
material home and work addresses for all household members so that the 
distance from home to work could be estimated. EPA would also propose 
some type of system to ``stop the clock'' on VMT additions when the 
vehicle is being used out of state as during a vacation. (Granting fee 
exemptions for all VMT outside the FIP area appears to be too complex 
and/or cumbersome). EPA invites comment on this and other odometer 
tampering issues.
    For the emission portion of the fee calculation, EPA would suggest 
using the actual IM240 scores without regard to model year and with no 
adjustments for evaporative or cold start emissions. Since all three 
FIP areas need substantial reductions in both VOC and NOX 
emissions, EPA suggests that the emission readings for the two 
pollutants be given equal weight in calculating the VMT/emissions fee. 
As with other fee programs described in this document, the fee could be 
charged at the rate of $10,000/ton of emissions, based on the emissions 
generated by an individual car.
    Again, EPA is not proposing a VMT/emission fee within the FIP. EPA 
believes such a fee system is most appropriately implemented at the 
local level and invites comment on the suggested program outlined here.
    g. Parking Cash Out--Even in downtown areas, most employees in 
California receive free or subsidized parking spaces. Current tax codes 
allow employers to offer this benefit without the employer or the 
employee having to pay taxes on the value of the space. Since parking 
costs represent the bulk of the daily cost of driving to work, these 
``free'' spaces are a strong incentive for employees to drive to work 
alone. For example, in downtown Los Angeles the average employer-paid 
subsidy for employee parking is 43 percent more than the cost per 
average commute trip for gasoline.
    As part of his Climate Change Action Plan, President Clinton has 
called for transforming the existing tax subsidy for employer-paid 
parking into a powerful reward for commuters to ride transit, carpool, 
or find other ways to get to work. The Administration will shortly 
propose changes in the tax law necessary to bring about parking subsidy 
reform. This same proposal is included in the FIP, in a form which is 
consistent with EPA's authority. The proposal does not modify the tax 
code or require payments by any employer. Rather, it applies certain 
restrictions.
    Certain employers may not offer free parking unless they offer 
employees the option of retaining the parking space or accepting a cash 
allowance equal to the market cost of the parking space. The cash 
allowance will be considered taxable income, but under current tax law, 
up to $60 per month of the cash may be taken in the form of a transit 
pass, which would be tax-exempt. Those who opt for the parking space 
will be unaffected by the change. Whether the employee decides to take 
the free parking or the cash allowance, the company can still deduct 
the cost from corporate income tax.
    The cash out provision would be applicable to employer-paid parking 
provided by firms of 25 or more employees, located in an access-
controlled parking lot not owned by the employer. Those spaces or lots 
leased by employers from a third party before March 14, 1994 are 
included only if the lease explicitly includes the value of the parking 
per space and the lease allows the employer to reduce the number of 
parking spaces leased without monetary penalty. The provisions will 
apply to all spaces leased on or after March 14, 1994, regardless of 
the form of the lease. Employers who execute leases on or after this 
date should make sure the per space value and the right to reduce the 
number of leased spaces are included in the lease. Absence of either 
will not be grounds for exemptions. Absence of a per space value will 
mean that the employer may not offer free parking.
    At this time EPA lacks information on the number of employers and 
employees who would be affected by this program or the average value of 
leased parking spaces in each of the three nonattainment areas, making 
it difficult to estimate the exact impact of a cash out program. 
Analysis by Dr. Donald Shoup of UCLA suggests that if offered in 
downtown Los Angeles, one form of parking cash out would reduce 
employee solo driving by 20 percent, and would eliminate 9,000 vehicle 
trips per day. (See: Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Final Report FTA-CA-
11-0035-92-1, December 1992.)
    Dr. Shoup's analysis of Los Angeles predicted these impacts in a 
location where parking costs approximately $5.00 per day. Once EPA has 
more specific information on the three nonattainment areas, EPA 
proposes to assume for emission reduction crediting purposes a linear 
relationship between the value of parking in a given area and the 
employee response to a cash out program, based on Dr. Shoup's work. EPA 
invites comment on this assumption. EPA also asks for information on 
the employer composition and parking lease practices in the three non-
attainment areas.
    It should be noted that for this proposal EPA has assigned credit 
to the ECO program in the Sacramento FIP area assuming a 20-percent 
reduction in affected employers' employees who drive alone to work. The 
universe of employers who are subject to ECO and to the cash out 
provisions do overlap and in the final FIP rule EPA will ensure that 
emission reductions taken for the two programs do not include any 
double counting.
    EPA recognizes that this provision is similar to the cash out 
legislation recently enacted in California. Since the Administration 
will soon offer legislative language to enact parking cash out 
nationally EPA is proposing a cash out program in keeping with the 
federal proposal. The most obvious difference between the two proposals 
is in the definition of affected employers. California's legislation 
applies to employers with 50 or greater employees, while the Climate 
Change Action Plan calls for parking cash out for employers with 25 or 
more employees. The EPA proposal simply makes mandatory an option many 
employers have had as a way of achieving the South Coast and Ventura 
goals. As with the President's plan, this proposal requires cash out in 
such a way to ensure that no employer will have a net loss.
    h. Importation of Vehicles Into California--Little data are 
available on the population and characterization of 49-state vehicles 
in California and nationwide. However, it is estimated that out-of-
state passenger vehicles (49-state vehicles) currently make up about 10 
percent of the VMT in California. As a result of the California's LEV 
program and the proposed enhanced in-use compliance program, the 
difference in the emissions level between California certified vehicles 
and federally certified 49-state vehicles is expected to increase, and 
49-state vehicles will therefore have increasing negative impact on air 
quality. Moreover, if California and 49-state vehicles further diverge 
in design there may be an increased incentive for California residents 
to purchase vehicles designed to meet only 49-state standards. 
Currently, 49-state vehicles with less than 7500 miles of operation 
(classified as new) may not be brought into California, but older 
vehicles can be upon payment of a California DMV fee, which is not 
prohibitive in comparison to many vehicle's market value.
    Today's FIP therefore proposes to impose a restriction, starting in 
1999, on California residents importing 49-state vehicles. 
Specifically, EPA proposes to prohibit (with an exception noted below) 
the State of California from allowing California residents to register 
for the first time in California any vehicle that was previously 
registered in another state, unless that vehicle was originally 
certified to the vehicle requirements set forth in this proposal for 
its class. In addition, EPA proposes to prohibit California residents 
from owning and keeping a car in California that is currently 
registered in another state.
    As an exception to this prohibition, EPA proposes that the State of 
California may allow recent immigrants to California (defined as 
residents of California for less than three months) to register a car, 
over 7500 miles, that they had previously registered for at least three 
months in another state while a resident of that state. EPA's 
attainment demonstrations are based on migration patterns for out-of-
state vehicles that match the restrictions described above. EPA 
solicits comments on these rules and restrictions.
    EPA is also inclined to provide exemptions for historic and 
collector vehicles, and requests comment on methods for providing these 
exemptions.
3. Programs for Onroad Heavy Duty Vehicles and Engines
    a. Overview--Heavy-duty mobile sources (trucks and HDVs) are large 
contributors, especially for NOX, to the emissions inventories in 
the three FIP areas. Existing standards for heavy-duty engines in 
California are, for the most part, the same as the Federal standards. 
Further control of these engines is necessary to meet the attainment 
targets. For these reasons, EPA will propose an enhanced in-use 
compliance program for heavy-duty vehicles, similar to the one proposed 
for light duty vehicles, which includes not only tighter standards but 
also selected controls on higher emitting interstate trucks.
    Larger heavy-duty engines see substantially heavier use than 
smaller engines. These engines are built to very high durability 
standards and are designed to be cost effectively rebuilt one or more 
times within their total lifetime. To provide assurance of emissions 
control over this extended actual life, this proposal includes 
certification and liability requirements for rebuilt engines as well.
    b. Air Quality Significance-- Heavy-duty highway mobile sources are 
significant contributors to the emissions inventories in all three of 
the FIP areas. The table below (``1990 Base Year Inventory of Heavy 
Duty Vehicles'') details the level of emissions from onroad heavy-duty 
mobile sources in each of the FIP inventories for the 1990 base year. 
The information contained in this table illustrates the large portion 
of the FIP inventories that is attributable to emissions from onroad 
heavy-duty mobile sources. 

                                 1990 Base Year Inventory of Heavy Duty Vehicles                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Sacramento                 Ventura                 South Coast       
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad HDVs (tons)................         12.7         48.3          5.5         14.8        107.8        246.7
Percent of total inventory........            5           26            5           17            6           19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Heavy-duty Vehicles--EPA 
is proposing an enhanced in-use compliance program for onhighway heavy-
duty engines. The heavy-duty vehicle program described in Appendix I 
Section B is based in large part on the enhanced light-duty vehicle 
program, described in Appendix I Section A. However, certain changes 
and additions were made in order to deal with the differences between 
heavy- and light-duty vehicles. The reader is advised to read the 
discussion of the enhanced in-use compliance light-duty vehicle program 
as the information will facilitate understanding the heavy-duty 
program.
    The enhanced program for heavy-duty vehicles consists of several 
parts: More stringent emission standards, new full useful life 
requirements, high-emitting interstate truck regulations, expanded 
recall scope, a fleet averaging program and I/M for certain vehicle 
classes. Each of these program elements is discussed further in 
Appendix I Section B; however, a short introduction is provided here.
    Heavy-duty on-highway engines contributed 19 percent of South Coast 
NOX emissions and 6 percent of South Coast VOC emissions in 1990. 
These engines are predicted to continue to contribute significantly to 
the inventory, even though, for NOX, the applicable standards have 
decreased in recent years (1989 and 1990) and will continue to do so 
(1998). These NOX inventory contributions continue to be 
significant largely because the heavy-duty engine NOX standards 
have been introduced relatively recently and because of a continued 
increase in heavy duty VMT. In addition, the heavy-duty NOX 
standards are significantly less stringent than the light-duty 
standards due to the historical inability of heavy-duty diesel engines 
to attain low NOX levels. The VOC contribution from heavy-duty 
engines, although smaller than the NOX contribution, is also a 
significant part of the inventory. Additional reductions in the 
contribution of heavy-duty engines to the NOX and VOC inventory 
are required in order to meet the objectives of the FIP. Thus, EPA has 
developed the enhanced heavy-duty vehicle program being proposed today.
    California's heavy-duty engine standards are not significantly more 
stringent than federal standards. A large part of the reason for this 
relates to interstate commerce. Approximately 22 percent of the VMT 
traveled by heavy-duty trucks in California are from out-of-state 
trucks engaged in interstate commerce. California cannot effectively 
deal with its air quality problems without regulating these engines, 
but the State has hesitated from regulating interstate commerce because 
of concerns about the impact on in-state firms and lawsuits. In order 
to effectively deal with NOX from heavy-duty engines, controls on 
interstate trucking must be considered. For these reasons, the program 
proposed today for heavy-duty vehicles includes not only tighter 
standards (as described in Appendix I Section B(3)) and a fleet 
averaging program (as described in Appendix I Section B(9)), but also 
selected controls on higher emitting interstate trucks (as described in 
Appendix I Section B(7)).
    Larger heavy-duty engines see substantially heavier use than 
smaller engines. These engines are built to very high durability 
standards and are designed to be cost effectively rebuilt one or more 
times within their total lifetime. To provide assurance of emissions 
control effectiveness over this extended actual life, this proposal 
includes revised recall provisions (similar to those for light-duty) 
and certification and liability requirements for rebuilt engines (as 
described in Appendix I Section B(4)).
    EPA is proposing to adopt the enhanced in-use compliance program 
described in Appendix I Section B. EPA also requests comments on all 
aspects of its proposal and on any other approaches to further reduce 
in-use emissions.
4. Nonroad Engines and Vehicles
    a. Overview--(1) Statutory Authority. Authority for the actions 
proposed to regulate nonroad engines is granted to EPA by sections 110, 
203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215, 216, and 301(a) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7522, 7523, 
7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a)).
    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 extended EPA's authority 
regarding regulation of nonroad engines and vehicles. Specifically the 
revised CAA section 213(a) directs EPA to: (1) Conduct a study of 
emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles; (2) determine whether 
emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from nonroad engines and vehicles are 
significant contributors to ozone or CO in more than one area that has 
failed to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
ozone and CO; and (3) regulate those categories or classes of nonroad 
engines and vehicles that contribute to such air pollution if nonroad 
emissions in the aggregate are determined to be significant by November 
1992. Under CAA section 213(a)(4), EPA may also regulate emissions 
other than CO, NOX, and VOCs from new nonroad engines and vehicles 
if EPA determines that such other emissions contribute to air pollution 
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 
welfare. Finally, Section 213 directs EPA to regulate emissions from 
new locomotives.
    EPA is already required by statute, and, in some cases, court 
order, to promulgate national rulemakings for various categories of 
nonroad engines. In this NPRM, EPA proposes to allow credit for these 
rules, which will be promulgated either before or within a relatively 
short time after promulgation of these FIPs. Thus final issuance of 
these rules is legally compelled well in advance of their scheduled 
implementation.
     Because of the imminence of these rulemakings, and because EPA's 
commitments to them are legally guaranteed, EPA believes it is 
appropriate to give credit in the FIP for the emissions reductions they 
are expected to generate. The emissions reductions involved are 
relatively small, and are further ensured by EPA's regulatory guarantee 
to achieve the level of credited emission reductions by other means if 
necessary.
    Canvassing the alternatives to this approach bolsters EPA's 
conclusion. One option is to accelerate the statutory and court-ordered 
deadlines so that they precisely fit the FIP promulgation date. But the 
rulemakings at issue are national in scope, and it would be detrimental 
to cut short the time Congress and the courts have allocated for their 
analysis and consideration as a technical accommodation to the 
localized FIP deadlines. The only remaining alternative would be to 
promulgate temporary, interim measures that would in all probability 
never be implemented, and that would evaporate when the national rules 
were issued. This approach would be wasteful, inefficient, and 
confusing for regulated sources.
    (2) General Nonroad Background. This section provides general 
background on nonroad sources excluding large ocean-going ships, 
locomotives, and Federal sources such as aircraft. These sources will 
be covered starting with Section III D.4.e of this preamble. The 
Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study (hereafter, ``Nonroad 
Study'') required by section 213(a)(1) was completed in November 1991. 
The Nonroad Study is available in docket A-91-24. The determination of 
the significance of emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles in more 
than one NAAQS nonattainment area, required by section 213(a)(2), was 
proposed on May 17, 1993 (58 FR 28809). At the same time, the first set 
of Federal regulations for a class or category of nonroad engines that 
contribute to air pollution, required by section 213(a)(3), was also 
proposed (58 FR 28809) for new nonroad compression-ignition (CI) 
engines at or above 37 kilowatts (kW) (50 hp). As EPA continues to 
implement section 213(a) (3) and (4), it will propose Federal emission 
standards for new nonroad spark-ignition (SI) engines at or below 19 kW 
(hereafter, ``small SI engines''), and spark-ignition (SI) marine 
engines (hereafter, ``SI marine engines'') as well as other classes or 
categories of nonroad engines that contribute to air pollution.
    On the basis of the Nonroad Study, EPA has proposed its 
determination that emissions of CO, NOX, and VOCs from nonroad 
engines and vehicles contribute significantly to ozone or CO in more 
than one NAAQS nonattainment area (see 58 FR 28809, May 17, 1993). 
According to the Nonroad Study, nonroad engines and vehicles contribute 
an average of 10 percent of summer VOCs and 17 percent of summer 
NOX in the 19 ozone nonattainment areas included in the study. 
Small SI engines are the source of half of those nonroad summer VOC 
emissions. CI engines over 50 kW used in farm, construction, and 
utility applications are a major source of nonroad NOX emissions. 
In the 16 CO nonattainment areas included in the study, nonroad engines 
and vehicles account on average for 9 percent of winter CO emissions. 
Small SI engines are the source of 56 percent of the nonroad winter CO 
contribution, according to the study. In the Sacramento, Ventura, and 
South Coast FIP areas, nonroad sources comprise 10 percent, 5 percent, 
and 6 percent of the baseline VOC inventory, respectively. Nonroad 
sources contribute 22 percent of Sacramento's baseline NOX 
inventory, 12 percent of Ventura's, and 21 percent of South Coast's.
    (3) Sierra Club Suit. The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund brought 
suit against EPA in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia 
for failure to meet certain deadlines required under the Clean Air Act 
(Sierra Club v. Browner, Civ. No. 93-0197 NHJ (DDC 1993)). Plaintiffs 
and EPA have entered into a settlement agreement in that case that, 
among other things, requires EPA to finalize Federal emission standards 
for certain categories of nonroad engines on the following schedule: 

Heavy Duty CI Ignition Engines........................  May 1994.       
Small Nonroad SI Engines Phase I......................  May 1995.       
Small Nonroad SI Engines Phase II.....................  April 1997.     
Marine Pleasure Craft.................................  November 1995.  
                                                                        

    The Settlement also requires that EPA make a decision regarding 
whether to regulate SI engines over 19 kW (25 hp) and CI engines under 
37 kW (50 hp) by December 1996. Given the reductions available through 
other measures proposed today, it will not be necessary to develop 
special control measures for the FIP areas for these two categories of 
nonroad engines. However, certain SI engines over 37 kW (50 hp) may be 
affected by the enhanced nonroad program described in the Appendices of 
today's proposal.
    (4) Rationale for Implementing the Federal Programs in the FIP 
Areas. Nonroad sources are a diverse class of engines used in as many 
as 80 applications. The structure of the industry that manufactures 
nonroad engines and vehicles is complicated in that it is not 
integrated. Some manufacturers manufacture only engines, others 
manufacture only equipment, few manufacture both engines and equipment. 
Much of the equipment is portable and is not registered, making 
enforcement of regulations challenging. Almost without exception, 
nonroad engines have not been regulated previously by EPA for 
emissions. Much of the data which existed relating to emissions from 
nonroad engines prior to 1991, while adequate to estimate emissions 
inventories for the purpose of the Nonroad Study, needed updating and 
analysis before comprehensive regulatory programs could be developed. 
For some categories of engines, little emissions data existed; for 
other categories of engines, EPA believes that the emission test 
procedures need to be validated to ensure accurate representation of 
in-use emissions using advanced control technology.
    The Agency is now in the process of gathering more emissions data 
and validating and developing test procedures for nonroad engines. 
Because of the need to achieve near-term emissions reductions from 
nonroad sources in the nonattainment areas and the lack of certain 
data, the Agency adopted phased Federal regulatory strategies for two 
nonroad categories: CI engines at or over 37 kW and SI engines at or 
under 19 kW. In Phase 1 for each of these categories, EPA either has 
proposed or will soon propose standards that will achieve maximum 
reductions in the near term using existing test procedures and 
technology or modifications of existing technology. Phase 2 will deal 
with those issues for which a longer review time is advisable, such as 
development of new technologies and test procedures.
    For the purposes of the FIP, the Agency proposes to implement 
certain Federal programs that have not yet been promulgated by EPA. In 
particular, the Agency proposes to implement the Phase 1 and Phase 2 
Federal Standards for nonroad SI engines at or under 19 kW. These Phase 
1 and 2 standards are now under development and will be proposed by May 
of 1994 and May 1996, respectively. EPA also proposes to implement the 
Federal Standards for CI Nonroad Engines at or over 37 kW which have 
been proposed (58 FR 28809) and will be made final by May 31, 1994, and 
National Standards for Spark-ignition Marine Pleasure Craft which are 
under development and will be proposed by September 1994. These 
programs are described in the section entitled, ``Federal Nonroad 
Requirements.''
    (5) California's Nonroad Program/Preemption. Section 209(e)(1) 
prohibits California, and all other states, from adopting standards for 
new locomotives and for new engines and vehicles used in farm and 
construction equipment under 175 hp. CAA section 209(e)(2) authorizes 
California to adopt and enforce emission standards for all other 
nonroad engines if it is California's determination that such standards 
will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and 
welfare as applicable Federal Standards and if EPA finds that: (1) 
California's determination is not arbitrary and capricious; (2) 
California needs such standards to meet compelling or extraordinary 
conditions; or (3) California's standards and accompanying enforcement 
procedures are consistent with that section. CAA section 209(e)(2) also 
authorizes other states to opt into California standards.
    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has chosen to create 
categories for regulation of nonroad sources based on application or 
end use of the engines. The Federal program for control of emissions 
from nonroad sources creates categories for regulation based on engine 
parameters and characteristics such as size and fuel system, rather 
than application. The Agency believes that this regulatory scheme 
provides criteria that make it easier to clearly determine which 
engines are covered by which set of standards. The Agency does consider 
application or operating environment in its regulatory scheme for some 
engines. In general, the Federal categories are broader than those 
chosen by California and encompass a wider range of engines and 
applications. CARB has approved standards for nonroad lawn and garden 
and utility SI and CI engines from 0-25 horsepower. EPA is currently 
reviewing CARB's section 209(e) waiver request for its lawn and garden 
and utility rule. A decision will be issued once EPA's section 209(e) 
procedural rule is finalized. There is potential for other states to 
adopt the California standards, which are scheduled to become effective 
in 1995. CARB also has proposed standards for other classes of nonroad 
vehicles.
    Federal Standards will be more comprehensive than California's 
proposed standards for lawn and garden equipment or heavy-duty farm and 
construction equipment because the Federal programs will cover engines 
used in new farm and construction equipment under 175 hp which 
California is preempted from regulating. About 1 in 5 engines that 
would otherwise be covered by California's proposed lawn and garden 
standards are preempted because they are classified as farm or 
construction engines. The Federal program for control of SI marine 
engines, which will be proposed by September 1994, will also be applied 
in the FIP areas. California has no proposed standards for marine 
pleasure craft, however, CARB has conducted a public meeting to 
consider a plan to control emissions from ``large'' marine vessels.
    b. Federal Nonroad Requirements--(1) Federal Requirements for CI 
Engines at or above 37 kW. This section provides a general overview of 
the major elements of the Federal program to control emissions from new 
nonroad CI engines at or greater than 37 kW.
    (a) Applicability. The regulations are expected to apply to all new 
nonroad CI engines at or above 37 kW with certain exemptions and 
exclusions. Engines included in this rule will be referred to as 
``large nonroad CI engines.''
    The vast majority of large nonroad CI engines currently being used 
and manufactured are diesel-fueled engines. The use of alternative 
fuels will not be necessary to meet the emission standards. However, 
these regulations would apply to large nonroad CI engines regardless of 
the fuel that is used (for example, diesel, compressed natural gas 
(CNG), rapeseed, methanol, ethanol, and blends). Provisions are 
expected to be included which will allow manufacturers to apply for 
Administrator approval of alternative test procedures if fuel other 
than diesel is to be used.
    (b) Standards. EPA expects to adopt NOX emission and smoke 
standards for all large nonroad CI engines at or above 37 kW as 
proposed May 17, 1993 (58 FR 28809). Furthermore, EPA expects to adopt 
standards for HC, CO, and PM emissions for engines at or above 130 kW, 
consistent with those standards adopted by California in section 2420-
2427, Chapter 11, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, 
``California Regulation for New 1996 and Later Heavy-duty Off-road 
Diesel Cycle Engines.'' 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Smoke A/L/P 
               Net Power (kW)                   HC g/kWh     CO g/kWh    NOX g/kWh     PM g/kWh      percenta   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130..............................          1.3         11.4          9.2         0.54        20/15/50
75 to <130.......................          N/A          N/A          9.2          N/A        20/15/50
37 to <75........................          N/A          N/A          9.2          N/A       20/15/50 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aSmoke Opacity Standards are reported in terms of percent opacity during an acceleration mode, a lug mode, and  
  the peak opacity on either the acceleration or lug modes.                                                     

    (c) Compliance Dates. Under the expected regulations, all engines 
produced by an engine manufacturer on or after January 1 of the 
implementation year specified below by power category would be required 
to be certified by the engine manufacturer according to the 
requirements in effect for that year. EPA expects equipment 
manufacturers to begin installing certified engines as soon as they 
become available from engine manufacturers, with some lag time expected 
for equipment manufacturers to clear out normal inventories. Early 
certification will be allowed one year prior to the applicable 
effective date for engines participating in the averaging, banking, and 
trading (ABT) program. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Engine size (kW)                   Implementation date 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
130 to 560..................  January 1, 1996.    
75 to <130.............................  January 1, 1997.    
37 to <75..............................  January 1, 1998.    
>560..............................................  January 1, 2000.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Certification and Test Procedures. The exhaust emission 8-Mode 
test procedures for NOX emissions and the smoke test procedures 
are expected to be adopted as they were proposed with minor revisions. 
The 8-Mode test procedure would also apply to emissions of HC and CO.
    For PM emission measurement, EPA would adopt the California test 
procedures as finalized in Section 2420-2427, Chapter 11, Title 13 of 
the California Code of Regulations, ``California Regulation for New 
1996 and Later Heavy-duty Off-road Diesel Cycle Engines.''
    Manufacturers of engines that are not able to operate properly over 
the 8-Mode or smoke test cycles (such as engines with constant speed 
governors), would be able to petition the Administrator to allow use of 
an alternative test procedure. Upon adequate demonstration of need, the 
Administrator may allow use of alternative procedures. If an engine is 
unable to be operated over the smoke test procedure, the manufacturer 
would be required to submit an alternative test plan to the 
Administrator for approval in advance of any testing.
    The particulate standard adopted in the rule would be based on the 
use of the low sulfur fuel. Should a manufacturer or EPA choose to 
perform certification or in-use compliance testing with commercially 
available fuel containing higher sulfur, the particulate measurement 
will be adjusted by using the following equation to reflect the effects 
of higher sulfur content of the fuel on particulate emissions

PMadj=PM--[BSFC x 0.0917 x (FSF-USLFCA)]

    Where: 
PMadj=adjusted measured PM level [g/kWh]
PM=measured weighted PM level [g/kWh]
BSFC=measured brake specific fuel consumption [(G/kW-hr) hr]
FSF=fuel sulfur weight fraction
USLFCA=upper sulfur level weight fraction of California test fuel 
specification

    This adjustment only applies to engines with no exhaust gas 
aftertreatment. No adjustment is provided for engines with exhaust gas 
aftertreatment.
    (2) Federal Requirements for Small Nonroad SI Engines at or Under 
19 kW.
    (a) Background. Since March 1992, EPA has held several public 
workshops and meetings to solicit information on technical 
characteristics, emissions, potential regulatory strategies, and 
general regulatory issues related to small SI engines. Public notice of 
such meetings may be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
    At the March 1992 public workshop, the Engine Manufacturers 
Association and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute encouraged 
Federal regulation of nonhandheld small SI engines and expressed 
interest in working in a cooperative program with EPA to develop 
regulations by November 1993. Likewise, the Portable Power Equipment 
Manufacturers Association encouraged Federal regulation of portable 2-
stroke power equipment and expressed interest in working cooperatively 
with EPA.
    Following the March 1992 workshop, EPA determined that setting 
emission standards for the small SI engine category might be suitable 
for a consultative approach to rulemaking, such as negotiated 
rulemaking. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 581-590) 
establishes a framework for conducting negotiated rulemaking. The goal 
of a regulatory negotiation committee is to reach consensus on the 
language or issues involved in a rule. If consensus is reached, it is 
used as the basis of the Agency's proposal.
    EPA initiated a convening process to determine the best way to work 
with industry and other interested parties in developing regulations 
for small SI engines. The conveners interviewed individuals in 
leadership roles in key organizations identified by EPA to determine 
what parties were interested in these regulations, what issues were 
important to interested parties, and whether a consultative rulemaking 
process would be feasible and appropriate. A copy of the convening 
report dated August 24, 1992, is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    The convening report recommended an exploratory meeting of 
interested parties to discuss, but not initiate, a consultative 
process. Time-forcing factors lending an air of urgency to issuance of 
the rule include: (1) The need of states to realize emission reductions 
from nonroad sources that are creditable toward Reasonable Further 
Progress requirements of the CAA, and (2) the potential threat to 
industry of patchwork regulation if a number of states opt into 
California's program in order to attain national air quality goals. The 
deadlines created by the settlement of the Sierra Club suit mentioned 
earlier led to even further need to issue a rule quickly.
    The exploratory meeting recommended in the convening report was 
held in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on November 16-17, 1992. Participants 
decided that state and public interest representatives needed more 
technical information to fully understand some of the regulatory issues 
participants might face. It was also decided that another meeting was 
necessary to discuss the potential design of a consultative process for 
a small SI engine rulemaking. The technical briefing for state and 
public interest representatives was conducted in Ann Arbor on December 
16, 1992. On January 28-29, 1993, a meeting to discuss consultative 
process design was held in Ann Arbor.
    At the January meeting, it was suggested that EPA consider a two-
phased approach to regulation of small SI engines. In the first phase, 
EPA would propose regulations for small SI engines through the normal 
regulatory process rather than a consultative process. The suggested 
Phase 1 regulations would be similar to California's Regulation for 
1995 and Later Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines, modified 
as necessary to meet CAA requirements. (For example, EPA's proposal 
would modify CARB's program by including engines preempted from 
regulation in California.) The Phase 1 proposal would be completed as 
soon as possible, but no later than the spring of 1994. The final rule 
would be completed no later than spring of 1995. The second phase of 
regulation would be developed through the consultative process of 
regulatory negotiation. It would include issues such as useful life, 
in-use emission, evaporative emissions, refueling emissions, test 
procedure, and market-based incentive programs.
    Today's action proposes that both phases of regulation for small SI 
engines be applied to the FIP areas. An overview of what EPA 
anticipates will be included in a Phase 1 program is outlined below. 
EPA believes that the Federal Phase 1 Standards will result in a 40 
percent reduction in the HC inventory with a slight (less than l 
percent) increase in NOX. Phase 2 small SI engine regulations are 
expected to achieve 90 percent reduction in the small SI engine 
baseline HC emissions inventory. The Agency expects that achieving a 90 
percent reduction would not depend solely on more stringent exhaust 
standards, but rather a combination of strategies (i.e., a scrappage 
program or other programs to accelerate turnover, spillage control 
programs, fuels requirements and evaporative emission controls) that 
added together would result in the anticipated reduction. Negotiations 
have been underway since Fall 1993 and will continue for approximately 
18 months.
    The phased approach to regulation of small SI engines is 
incorporated in the Sierra Club v. Browner settlement. Phase 2 
regulation is expected to apply federally and in California in 
approximately 2000-2001. Should the Agency's Phase 2 small SI engine 
program fail to provide for a 90 percent reduction from the current 
uncontrolled emissions inventory, EPA shall promulgate a more stringent 
program applicable to California, or the FIP areas, or propose fees for 
commercial operators of SI engines at or under 19 kW.
    (b) Overview of Program to Control Emissions from SI Engines Under 
19 kW. The general provisions that EPA expects to propose for the Phase 
1 and Phase 2 rules, as well as the rationale for the key parts of the 
proposal, are briefly described in the following section.
    EPA expects to propose to regulate the emissions of hydrocarbons 
(HC), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO) from 
certain new nonroad SI engines that have a gross power output at or 
below 19 kilowatts (kW) (small SI engines). An SI engine is an internal 
combustion engine in which the air/fuel mixture is ignited in the 
combustion chamber by an electric spark and are generally fueled by 
gasoline. The scope of these rules are expected to encompass a broad 
range of small SI engine applications, including farm and construction 
equipment, which states are preempted from regulating under section 
209(e)(1) of the CAA. Anticipated exclusions from the rules are 
detailed below.
    1. Engines used to propel marine vessels as defined in the General 
Provisions of the United States Code, 1 U.S.C. 3 (1992). A ``vessel'' 
includes every description of watercraft or other artificial 
contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of 
transportation on water. 1 U.S.C. 3 (1992).
    2. Engines used in underground mining or engines used in 
underground mining equipment and regulated by the Mining Safety and 
Health Administration (MHSA). See 30 CFR parts 7, 31, 32, 36, 56, 57, 
70, and 75.
    3. Engines used in motorcycles and regulated in 40 CFR part 86 
subpart E.
    4. Engines used in aircraft as that term is defined in 40 CFR 
87.1(a).
    5. Engines used in recreational vehicles. Recreational engines are 
those engines which have no installed speed governor and which have a 
rated speed of greater than or equal to 5000 revolutions per minute 
(RPM). Recreational engines are not used to propel marine vessels and 
do not meet the criteria to be categorized as a Class III, IV, or V 
engine under this rule.
    (c) Standards.
Phase 1
    Under the expected Phase 1 proposal, exhaust emissions from small 
SI engines cannot exceed levels for a given engine class as listed in 
the table below (``Phase 1 Small SI Exhaust Emission Standards''). 
Engine classes are specified both by engine displacement, as measured 
in cubic centimeters (cc), and by the type of equipment the engine will 
power--either handheld or nonhandheld. The emission standards that EPA 
expects to propose are considered Phase l small engine standards. 

               Phase 1 Small SI Exhaust Emission Standards              
                      [In grams per kilowatt hour]                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Hydrocarbon                          Oxides 
       Engine class         plus oxides  Hydrocarbon   Carbon      of   
                            of nitrogen               monoxide  nitrogen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.........................       16.1    ...........       402  ........
II........................       13.4    ...........       402  ........
III.......................  ...........        295         805      5.36
IV........................  ...........        241         805      5.36
V.........................  ...........        161         402      5.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Class I: engines less than 225 cc in displacement
Class II: engines greater than or equal to 225 cc in displacement

Engines powering equipment defined as handheld must meet Class III, IV, 
or V emission standards as follows:

Class III: engines less than 20 cc in displacement
Class IV: engines at or above 20 cc to less than 50 displacement
Class V: engines equal to or greater than 50 cc indisplacement
Phase 2
    Standards are currently being negotiated for Phase 2 through the 
regulatory negotiation process and will cover exhaust as well as 
evaporative emissions.
    (d) Regulatory Scheme.
Phase 1
    This rule is expected to propose the following regulatory scheme:
     Designation of product lines into groups of engines with 
similar emissions, and manufacturer emission testing of selected 
engines with a specified test;
     Labeling of engines, and alternatively, equipment 
labeling;
     Submission of an application for certification for each 
engine family;
     Inclusion of various certification requirements such as 
the prohibition of defeat devices;
     Issuance of an emission certificate of conformity for each 
engine family;
     Prohibition against sale of engines in the U.S. not 
certified by EPA;
     Requirement that equipment manufacturers use the 
appropriate handheld or nonhandheld certified engine in their 
equipment;
     Recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
     Design warranty provisions and prohibition on tampering;
     Inclusion of all farm and construction engines preempted 
under the CAA from state regulation;
     Development of an engine manufacturer's program to 
evaluate in-use emission deterioration;
     Requirement that, if catalysts are used in an engine 
family, catalyst durability must be confirmed by means of the 
evaluation procedure that is specified in this NPRM;
     Defect reporting;
     Importation provisions; and
     Production line Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA).
Phase 2
    The regulatory scheme for Phase 2 will be negotiated through the 
regulatory negotiation process.
3. Federal Requirements for SI Marine Engines
    The EPA is currently in the process of developing a Federal 
rulemaking to control emissions from SI marine engines. The proposed 
standards will be expected to result in a 70-80 percent reduction in HC 
emissions from two-stroke outboard engines which comprise over half of 
the engines in this category. On average there will be a 50-60 percent 
reduction in emissions from the fleet of SI marine engines. However, as 
a result of controlling HC emissions, NOX emissions are expected 
to increase by a factor of 2-4 (baseline NOX for these engines, on 
average, is about 2 Pg/kWh). This Federal program will apply to FIP 
areas. EPA is under court ordered deadline for this regulation; the 
schedule is for the NPRM to be signed by the Administrator by September 
30, 1994 and final rule signed by November 24, 1995. The general 
provisions that the Agency anticipates will be included in the proposal 
for regulation of SI marine engines are briefly described in the 
following section. Today, EPA is also proposing a system of emission 
based fees for use of SI marine pleasure craft in the FIP areas. If the 
Agency finds that the Federal program for controlling emissions from SI 
marine engines does not achieve the anticipated reduction, adjustments 
will be made to the stringency of the fees or the standards to 
compensate for any loss in benefit from the Federal program.
    (a) Overview of Requirements for SI Marine Engines
    EPA will propose to regulate the emission of hydrocarbons from SI 
marine engines. Included under this regulation will be emission 
standards for SI marine propulsion engines which include the following 
engine types: outboard, sterndrive (inboard/outboard), inboard, and 
personal watercraft (e.g., Jet Ski).
    A compliance program involving pre-sale certification and in-use 
enforcement is also expected to be proposed for marine engines. The 
proposed program will be similar to the current on-highway engine 
program. EPA expects to include the following provisions:
     Designation of product line into groups of engines with 
similar emission characteristics (such groups are called engine 
families);
     Manufacturer emission testing of selected engines with the 
specified test procedure to demonstrate compliance with emission 
standards;
     Labeling of engines from each engine family;
     Submission of application for certification for each 
engine family by model year;
     Issuance of an emission compliance certificate for each 
engine family;
     Prohibition against sale of engines not certified by EPA;
     Recordkeeping and reporting;
     EPA confirmatory certification testing;
     Production line Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA);
     In-use testing and enforcement;
     Warranty and prohibition on tampering; and
     Importation provisions.
    Certain modifications to the on-highway program are expected to be 
proposed for this program. These modifications include: (1) only one 
emission test engine required, and (2) a national averaging, banking, 
and trading program modified to suit this industry.
    For the FIP areas, EPA proposes that phased emission standards and 
certification of new engines commence with the 1998 model year for 
outboard, sterndrive and inboard engines, and 1999 model year for 
personal watercraft.
    (b) Definition of SI Marine Engine.
    A spark-ignition engine is an internal combustion engine in which 
the air/fuel mixture is ignited in the combustion chamber by an 
electric spark. EPA is expecting to propose defining marine engines as 
any nonroad engine which is used on a ``vessel'' as defined in 1 U.S.C. 
Section 3 (1992).\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\The word vessel includes every description of watercraft or 
other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a 
means of transportation on water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Applicability. Under the expected proposal all SI marine 
engines must comply with the proposed emission standards, with some 
exceptions as discussed below.
Exclusions from the Proposal
    Certain engines that are included within the proposed definition of 
marine engine just discussed are expected to be excluded from the 
Federal marine engine emission standards. SI engines expected to be 
excluded are the following:
    (1) Engines used in marine ``vessels'' as defined in 1 U.S.C. 
Sections 3 (1992) which are used exclusively as marine auxiliary power 
generation units;
    (2) Exported engines, either loose marine engines or marine engines 
in boats or vessels that are to be exported.
Exemptions From the Proposal
    Pursuant to section 203(b)(1) of the CAA, the Agency is expecting 
to propose categories of exemptions from new SI marine engine 
regulations similar to the existing exemptions for new large nonroad CI 
engines (see 40 CFR part 89 subpart I). These include exemptions for 
purposes of research, investigations, studies, demonstrations, 
training, or for reasons of national security. Exemptions are justified 
in these cases because the sources are limited in number or scope so no 
environmental harm results, the particular use of the source is 
determined to further air quality research, and/or the exemption is 
vital to the security of the nation. (See 39 FR 10601, March 21, 1974 
for history of on-highway exemptions policy.)
    (d) Emission Standards. The numerical emission standards are 
expected to be proposed for the category of SI marine vessels which 
includes inboard engines, sterndrives, and outboard engines. EPA 
realizes that these standards will cover engines that use different 
technology, but EPA believes that creating separate standards based on 
categories such as 2- and 4-stroke engines sets up artificial barriers 
to competition in the market and will not achieve as efficiently 
reductions from this category as a single set of standards. EPA will in 
its proposal for the Federal program take comment on the scheme of 
classification and level of standards. Separate standards are expected 
to be set for HC and NOX emissions on a brake-specific basis 
(i.e., grams of pollutant per brake kilowatt-hour). EPA realizes that 
there is a tradeoff between the level of HC emissions and NOX 
emissions and intends to take comment on setting a combined HC+NOX 
standard for this category of nonroad engines.
    EPA believes that for current outboard engines these standards will 
be technology forcing. For other types of engines these standards may 
require better calibration and more advanced fueling systems. The 
emission standards will be proposed to take effect at the earliest 
possible date, as required by paragraph 213(b) of the Act.
    SI marine engines are very rarely designed to operate on 
alternative fuels. EPA does not believe that new emission standards for 
marine engines will require increased use of alternative fuels. EPA 
therefore does not expect to propose procedures or emission standards 
for SI alternative-fueled marine engines. EPA does expect to request 
comment on the need for regulations and the potential for increased 
market share for SI marine engines that operate on alternative fuels 
such as natural gas, methanol, or ethanol.
    In addition to the numerical emission standards described above, 
EPA expects to propose to prohibit direct emissions of crankcase vapors 
into the atmosphere. Motor vehicles have been subject to an analogous 
requirement since the first stages of emission-control regulation.
    (e) General Enforcement Provisions. The Agency is expected to 
propose regulations that require marine sources to obtain certification 
and subject them to selective enforcement auditing and in-use 
enforcement. The Agency is also expected to propose regulations similar 
to those for on-highway vehicles under sections 203, 204, 205, and 208 
of the Act.
    (f) Compliance Dates for Certification. The Federal marine program 
as it applies to the FIP areas will phase standards in over time. EPA 
proposes that emission standards become effective in the FIP areas 
beginning in the 1998 model year for outboard, sterndrive, and inboard 
SI marine engines, and in the 1999 model year for personal watercraft 
SI engines. Companies considered small marine businesses will be 
defined in the Federal rule and would first be subject to emission 
standards no earlier than the 2000 model year.
    (g) Averaging, Banking, and Trading. Provisions of the national 
enforcement program are expected to include an averaging, banking, and 
trading Program. EPA will not propose an averaging, banking, and 
trading program for marine engines specifically for the FIP areas. 
However, EPA does plan on proposing such a program for the Federal 
regulation.
    c. Special FIP Measures. The Agency believes that the above Federal 
programs will have sound technical basis and will achieve projected 
emissions reductions. The Agency also acknowledges that the marine 
pleasure craft standards are likely to be technology forcing. However, 
the Agency also recognizes that many other sources, which have been 
previously regulated, will be required to meet new and more stringent 
standards than they are required to meet federally. For the purposes of 
equity and to achieve added emissions reductions from nonroad sources, 
the Agency proposes to and will take comment on a fees program for 
certain classes of these nonroad engines. The Agency is also proposing 
today a program to control emissions from engines used in recreational 
vehicles and nonroad and on-highway motorcycles as a special FIP 
measure.
    (1) On-Highway Motorcycles and Nonroad Engines Used in Nonroad 
Motorcycles. The Agency intends to exclude from its regulation of SI 
engines at or under 19 kW, engines used in recreational vehicles 
because they have fundamentally different operating characteristics 
than other small SI nonroad engines. In general, engines used in 
recreational equipment are similar to engines used in on-highway 
motorcycles in that they use a continuously variable throttle (not a 
governor), have rated engines speeds in excess of 5000 RPM, and wide 
variations in both engine load and speed. These engines, like 
motorcycle engines, are primarily used to transport people. CARB has 
estimated that engines used in nonroad vehicles such as motorcycles, 
all terrain vehicles, go-carts and other nonroad recreational vehicles, 
contribute 21 tons of HC and 100 tons of CO per day to the statewide 
inventory. Further, EPA estimates that on-highway motorcycles and 
engines used in nonroad motorcycles, including dirt bikes, ATVs, and 
similar equipment contribute 3, l, 30.3 tons of HC per day to the 
emissions inventories in the Sacramento, Ventura, and South Coast, 
respectively. To achieve reductions from this category of nonroad 
sources as well as to achieve reductions from on highway motorcycles 
and mopeds, EPA proposes to promulgate emissions restrictions for 
motorcycles and nonroad recreational vehicles similar to EPA's existing 
on-highway motorcycle program found in 40 CFR part 86 subpart E.
    (a) Overview. EPA today proposes to promulgate a definition of on-
highway and nonroad motorcycles applicable in the State of California 
for the purposes of the FIP, as well as standards for those classes of 
motorcycles and engines used in them. Today's proposal encompasses on-
highway motorcycles, and engines used in such vehicles as mopeds, dirt 
bikes, all terrain vehicles, and go-carts. EPA is also proposing a more 
stringent set of exhaust emission standards applicable to all new on-
highway and nonroad motorcycles sold in the State of California after 
January 1, 1996. EPA proposes that all other requirements of the 
current Federal motorcycle regulations contained in 40 CFR part 86 
subparts E and F, apply to motorcycles sold in California, including 
provisions for certification, test procedures, and enforcement.
    (b) Definition of On-highway and Nonroad Motorcycles. For the 
purpose of the FIPs, EPA proposes to use the definition of motorcycle 
in 40 CFR part 86 to refer to on-highway motorcycles and add the 
following definition for nonroad motorcycles.
    A nonroad motorcycle means any motorized land vehicle designed for 
transporting persons or property and manufactured for sale, sold, 
offered for sale, introduced into commerce, or imported into the State 
of California and which has two wheels, or three or more wheels and a 
curb mass less than or equal to 680 kilograms; it does not include 
devices regulated by the State of California as other classes of motor 
vehicles or devices regulated by EPA as other classes of nonroad 
engines.
    (c) Applicability. The Agency believes that it is necessary to 
control emissions from all on-highway motorcycles and engines used in 
nonroad motorcycles, as defined in the previous section, on a statewide 
basis to achieve needed emission reductions in the FIP areas. It is the 
Agency's intent that the standards proposed today, as well as the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 86 subpart E, apply to all on-highway 
motorcycles, and engines used in nonroad motorcycles regardless of 
displacement. The following are examples of vehicles covered by the 
definition of nonroad motorcycles: dirt bikes, all terrain vehicles, 
go-cart, and mopeds. It is the Agency's intent that engines used in 
these vehicles and similar nonroad vehicles meet the standards. It is 
also the Agency's intent that on-highway motorcycles with displacements 
less than 50 cc (3.1 cu. in.) meet the proposed standards.
    (d) Standards. EPA proposes that all motorcycles sold in California 
meet a 0.8 g/km standards for HC, a 0.8 g/km standard for NOX, and 
a 12 g/km standard for carbon monoxide.
    Certification data from current technology on highway motorcycles 
indicates that over 50 percent of these motorcycles are certifying to 
exhaust HC emission levels at or below 0.8 g/km HC. EPA believes that 
by using existing on-highway motorcycle technology it is reasonable to 
expect that motorcycles should be able to achieve comparable emission 
levels for HC. The Agency understands that an 0.8 g/km standard may 
require substitution of 4-stroke nonroad engines for 2-stroke nonroad 
engines currently used in dirt bikes, ATVs, and similar vehicles. 
However, EPA is also aware that catalyst technology exists and is 
currently being applied to 2-stroke motorcycles and mopeds sold in 
other countries to meet stringent legal emissions levels in those 
countries. EPA believes that this simple oxidation technology is viable 
for reducing emissions from engines used in both on-highway and nonroad 
motorcycles to the 0.8 g/km HC and 0.8 g/km NOX level.
    The Agency has considered a 0.5 g/km HC standard for on-highway 
motorcycles and takes comment on restricting emissions from on-highway 
motorcycles to this more stringent level and on the applicability of 
this standard to the smaller displacement on-highway motorcycles under 
50 cc (3.1 cu. in.).
    Although the test data on NOX emissions from motorcycles is 
more limited, experience with light duty cars suggests that with a 
catalyst, NOX emission levels are approximately equal to HC 
emission levels. In addition, legal emission levels for motorcycles in 
Taiwan, beginning in 1996, will be 0.8 g/km for both HC and NOX. 
Testing data submitted by one catalyst manufacturer shows that 
HC+NOX levels range between 0.30 g/km and 1.88 g/km. The Agency 
realizes that there is a trade-off between HC emission and NOX 
emission and solicits comment on the benefit of setting a combined 
standard of 1.6 g/km for HC + NOX.
    EPA also realizes that less emission data exists for nonroad 
engines used in nonroad motorcycles and solicits data from 
manufacturers as a basis for evaluating the level of the standards 
proposed today.
    (e) Certification and Test Procedure. EPA proposes that the test 
procedure for on-highway and nonroad motorcycles will be the same as 
that procedure described in 40 CFR part 86 subpart F. EPA acknowledges 
that the test procedure described in 40 CFR part 86 subpart F, in 
general is performed on a dynamometer designed for two-wheeled 
motorcycles and that many motorcycles as defined above have more than 
two wheels. The test procedure described in 40 CFR part 86 subpart F, 
involves testing motorcycles as whole vehicles on chassis dynamometers 
designed for two-wheeled motorcycles, driving the same driving cycle 
(vehicle speed versus time) that is used for cars and light trucks.
    Current Federal regulations contain a general provision for EPA to 
authorize special test procedures for vehicles which cannot be properly 
tested under the standard procedures. EPA believes it is appropriate to 
test all of the new motorcycles and engines included in today's 
proposal as whole vehicles under this same procedure used for current 
motorcycles. The special test procedure provision would be applied as 
necessary to test any vehicles which cannot be physically tested using 
current motorcycle dynamometers. For example, vehicles having more than 
one drive wheel on an axle exceeding the width of current motorcycle 
dynamometer rolls might be tested using normal passenger car chassis 
dynamometers, or motorcycle dynamometers with specially widened rolls. 
Vehicles with multiple drive axles would be handled, as much as 
possible, like four-wheel drive passenger cars and light trucks are 
currently tested, with all the power supplied through only one primary 
drive axle. If the foregoing adaptations of the currently available 
motorcycle and passenger car chassis dynamometers cannot be applied, 
EPA would expect to apply special procedures involving directly 
connecting the drive axle to a dynamometer, driven at an axle speed 
that corresponds to the required vehicle speed. EPA solicits comments 
on the test procedures outlined in 40 CFR, Subpart F, and its 
applicability to four-wheeled nonroad motorcycles. EPA specifically 
requests comments on J1088 as an alternative test procedure. For J1088 
and other alternative procedures suggested, EPA specifically requests 
data to allow correlation between the stringency of the proposed 
standards as measured on the test procedure defined in 40 CFR, Subpart 
F, and any test suggested by commentors.
    (f) Authority. As explained above, in promulgating a FIP under 
section 110 (c) of the Act, EPA may take any actions that the state 
could take. As section 209 of the CAA provides that California is not 
preempted from adopting and implementing a motor vehicle emissions 
control program provided its program satisfies the criteria of section 
209(b), EPA believes that it, acting on behalf of California in the 
context of a FIP, may adopt a motor vehicle program or supplement 
California's own motor vehicle program provided that EPA's actions 
would satisfy the criteria of section 209(b) for a waiver of Federal 
preemption. Moreover, EPA believes that it, acting on behalf of 
California in the context of a FIP, may adopt a nonroad engine program 
or supplement California's nonroad engine program provided that EPA's 
actions satisfy the criteria of section 209(e)(2) for a waiver of 
Federal preemption and provided that the program does not establish 
emission standards or accompanying enforcement procedures for any new 
nonroad engines that California, under section 209(e)(1) is precluded 
from regulating (i.e., new locomotive and new engines used in 
locomotives and new engines used in construction equipment or vehicles 
or used in farm equipment or vehicles and which are smaller than 175 
horsepower). Section 209 provides that EPA is to grant California a 
waiver of preemption if the State determines that its standards ``will 
be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and 
welfare as applicable Federal standards.''
    Section 209 further provides that no waiver or authorization is to 
be granted if EPA finds that: (A) the determination of the State that 
the standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public 
health and welfare as otherwise applicable Federal standards is 
arbitrary and capricious; (B) State standards are not needed to meet 
compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (C) the State standards and 
accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 
202(a) (or are not consistent with section 209, as is the case of 
nonroad engines under section 209(e)). EPA has interpreted the 
consistency criterion as meaning that California standards and 
accompanying enforcement procedures must be technologically feasible 
within the leadtime provided, taking into account the cost of 
compliance, and that they not impose inconsistent certification test 
procedure requirements such that the same vehicle or engine could not 
be used to comply with both State and Federal certification 
requirements.
    EPA believes that the on-highway and nonroad motorcycle program 
that would be applicable to vehicles and engines in California under 
the proposed FIP would satisfy the section 209 waiver criteria. Thus, 
California could undertake the on-highway and nonroad motorcycle 
program described above, and, therefore, EPA has authority under 
section 110(c) to undertake the proposed programs.
    With respect to the protectiveness of the standards, all of the 
proposed standards are at least as protective as the otherwise 
applicable Federal standards.
    With respect to the need to meet compelling and extraordinary 
conditions, EPA has repeatedly found that California's air quality 
problems satisfy the need criterion of section 209. Moreover, the 
magnitude of the reductions in emissions needed to reach attainment in 
the FIP areas, including mobile source emissions, provides ample 
evidence of the need for more stringent motor vehicle emission 
standards in California.
    Finally, with respect to the criterion of consistency with section 
202(a) or section 209, EPA believes that its proposed enhanced nonroad 
program is consistent with both the technological feasibility and 
certification elements of that criterion. EPA believes that the various 
elements of the program are technologically feasible within the 
leadtime provided, taking into account the cost of compliance. 
Moreover, no aspect of the program establishes any new certification 
test procedures that are inconsistent with either existing Federal or 
California test procedure requirements. Consequently, EPA believes that 
its proposed on-highway and nonroad motorcycle program satisfies this 
prong of section 209 as well.
    In addition, as none of the classes of nonroad equipment EPA is 
regulating under this program are new farm or construction equipment or 
new locomotives, this program meets the requirements of section 
209(e)(1).
    (2) Fee on Marine Pleasure Craft. Although the new national 
emission standards for spark ignition engines in marine pleasure craft 
described above will result in substantial emissions reductions per 
engine, overall reductions in emissions from this category will depend 
primarily on the amount of fleet turnover after the new standards are 
introduced. Under conditions of normal turnover, EPA expects that 
approximately one half of the total fleet of marine pleasure craft will 
meet the new standard by 2005. However, even normal turnover may not 
result in enough emission reduction to accomplish the goals of this 
FIP. EPA believes that additional measures are needed to strongly 
encourage the use of only cleaner engines in the FIP areas. Therefore, 
EPA proposes to require that all owners of marine pleasure craft with 
spark ignition engines obtain an emission permit before operating their 
boats in the FIP areas during each area's ozone season beginning in 
2004.
    Under this proposed permit system, all operators of marine pleasure 
craft will be required to carry an emission permit on board their boats 
while operating in the FIP area. Since boats are often operated in 
areas other than where the owner resides, permits will be required only 
for operation of a boat within the FIP area, not for ownership of a 
boat within the FIP area. Boat-owners who reside in the FIP area but 
only use their boats outside the FIP area would not be required to 
purchase permits.
    Two types of permits will be sold, annual permits and daily use 
permits. Owners of boats meeting the new emission standards described 
above would be eligible for permanent emission permits free of charge. 
Owners of all other boats could choose to buy either an annual permit 
which would allow them to operate their boats in the FIP area for the 
entire year, or a daily use permit which would allow them to operate 
their boat on a single specified day in the FIP area (owners could also 
purchase multiple daily use permits if they plan to operate their boats 
in the FIP area for only a few days per year).
    The fees for emission permits will be based on the average excess 
emissions of pre-standard engines compared to engines meeting the new 
emissions standards described above. For the purpose of permit fee 
calculation, the engines of marine pleasure craft will be divided into 
the following classes: 4- cycle gasoline inboard, 4-cycle gasoline 
outboard, 2-cycle gasoline outboard, 4-cycle gasoline sterndrive, 
sailboat auxiliary engines, and personal watercraft (e.g., Jet Ski). 
EPA invites comment on whether these general categories are appropriate 
for permit fee calculation, or whether they should be further 
subdivided to reflect differences in emissions or use within a class 
(e.g., some of these classes, such as 2-cycle outboards, could be 
further subdivided based on horsepower to reflect the very wide range 
of horsepower, usage, and total emissions that might be seen within the 
class).
    Average excess emissions per engine would be calculated separately 
for each engine class based on the difference between the sum of 
average HC and NOX emissions for pre-standard engines and the sum 
of average HC and NOX emissions for engines meeting the 
appropriate new standard. Total average excess emissions would then be 
calculated as the product of average excess emissions per engine for 
the engine class and the time of use for the engine class. For an 
annual permit, time of use would be based on the average annual use for 
the particular engine class. For a daily permit, eight hours of 
continuous use would be assumed for all engine classes. EPA requests 
comment on other options for time of use when assessing fees for daily 
permits.
    EPA currently estimates that a boat with a typical pre-standard 2-
cycle gasoline outboard motor would be assessed an annual fee of 
approximately $400, based on typical emission rates and hours of use 
and using a rate of $10,000 per ton of excess emissions (this example 
assumes 35 hours of annual use, with HC emissions reduced from 118 g/
hp-hr to 35 g/hp-hr as a result of the new standard while NOX 
emissions increase from 2.4 g/hp-hr to 4.7 g/hp-hr; this example is 
based on EPA's best current estimates which may change as more 
information is received and as the engine standards are finalized). At 
this time, EPA believes that this fee level will effectively discourage 
the operation of pre-standard engines in the FIP areas. However, EPA 
will monitor the effectiveness of this fee level in discouraging 
operation of pre-standard engines, and increase the fee per ton if 
needed to discourage virtually all such operation.
    To obtain a permit a boat owner would have to present to the permit 
office documentation regarding the engine class and whether or not the 
engine meets the new emissions standard. The boat's state registration 
documentation may be sufficient to ascertain the engine class. If not, 
one time physical inspections may be needed, in which case EPA would 
seek to delegate such inspections to local or state agencies. Engines 
meeting the new emissions standard will be required to be labeled as 
such by the manufacturers. Boat owners will be required to show that 
their boat engines have such a label in order to obtain a free permit. 
In the absence of such proof, the permit fee will be based on the 
assumption that the boat engine does not meet the new standard.
    Some boat engine manufacturers may already be producing engines 
that meet the new standards, before the labeling requirements have been 
finalized. These manufacturers have the option of presenting to EPA 
evidence (in the form of emissions test data which meets EPA's test 
requirements for these engines) of which engines met the requirement 
before it went into effect. If EPA accepts this evidence, owners of 
such engines could qualify for a free permit if they can prove that 
their boat engine qualifies based on the serial number of the engine.
    Emission permits must be prominently displayed at all times in 
boats operating in the FIP area under this proposal. EPA will enforce 
this permit system through the inspection of permits at boat ramps, 
marinas, and other access points, and through patrols of boating areas. 
EPA will have the authority to inspect boat engines, permits, and any 
other required documentation. Failure to display the proper daily or 
annual permit, falsification of a permit or of any documentation 
required to get a permit, or failure to surrender documentation or 
allow inspection of a boat or engine will be strictly prohibited and 
will be punishable by fines of up to $25,000.
    As explained above, in promulgating a FIP under section 110(c) of 
the Act, EPA may take any actions that the state could take. As Section 
209 of the CAA does not preempt states from regulating the use of 
marine engines, EPA believes that it, acting on California's behalf in 
the context of the FIP, may adopt this fee program.
    (3) Measures for Nonroad SI Engines over 19 kW and CI Engines under 
37 kW. The Agency will decide whether to propose and implement national 
control programs for emissions from heavy-duty SI nonroad engines 
greater than 19 kW and small CI nonroad engines under 37 kW by November 
1996. These small CI engines are used in such types of equipment as 
generator units, pumps, air compressors, welders, and pressure washers. 
The heavy-duty SI engines are used in forklifts and a small percentage 
of farm tractors.
    Today's proposal does not contain provisions for controlling 
emissions from these engines except for certain SI engines over 37 kW. 
The Agency does not today have information sufficient to determine 
whether such engines should be regulated in the context of section 213 
(a)(3). The Agency solicits comments on the greatest degree of 
emissions reductions which may be achieved from these engines through 
the application of various technologies and information on the costs of 
such technologies; the time period within which manufacturers could 
implement technologies; and the safety, noise, and energy implications 
of such technologies.
    d. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Nonroad Engines Over 
37kw. EPA is proposing an enhanced in-use compliance program for 
nonroad engines that is intended to apply to most of the larger nonroad 
engines, both compression ignition (CI) and spark ignition (SI). More 
specifically, it covers all nonroad engines at or above 37 kilowatt 
(kw)(50 horsepower (HP)) in size except for engines used in aircraft, 
locomotives, underground mining equipment, SI engines used in 
recreational marine engines and low speed CI (diesel) engines used in 
oceangoing ships. Most of these engine categories are dealt with in 
other portions of this FIP.
    The proposal is very similar to the program for new heavy-duty 
onhighway engines. The program will contain tighter NOX standards 
for the FIP areas. It will also have an HC standard and evaporative 
free requirements to prevent a shift to engines operating on high 
volatility fuels, such as gasoline. Finally, a ``normal maintenance'' 
recall program and engine rebuild requirements will be applied. Readers 
should refer to the onhighway descriptions of these programs (contained 
in Sections A. and B. of Appendix I) as well as Appendix I, Section C., 
regarding nonroad, for more information.
    These nonroad engines are proposed to be regulated because of their 
significance to the FIP area emissions inventories. In 1990, emissions 
from nonroad engines constituted 24 to 27 percent of the NOX 
emissions, depending on the FIP area concerned. NOX emissions 
reductions of 40 to 70 percent are required for attainment of the ozone 
standard. These reductions are well beyond those expected from the soon 
to be adopted Federal nonroad standards. EPA's data shows that without 
control beyond the national standard, the percentage contribution of 
these engines will increase by almost one-third in each FIP area.
    The standards being proposed are the same as those proposed for 
onhighway heavy-duty engines. Since the engines involved are often 
derived from onhighway engine designs, the technologies used for 
compliance in the onhighway sphere can also be applied here. These 
rules ensure that similar stringency is applied across engine 
categories in the FIP.
    Many of the provisions for nonroad engines that are being proposed 
are similar to EPA's earlier proposed Federal nonroad program. That 
program was proposed in May of 1993 (58 FR 28809, May 17, 1993), and 
when finalized will provide details regarding definitions, test 
procedures, general certification and enforcement protocols. The reader 
is referred to that proposal for further information.
    EPA is proposing to adopt the enhanced in-use compliance program 
described in Appendix I, Section C. EPA also requests comments on all 
aspects of its proposal and on any other approaches to further reduce 
in-use emissions.
    e. Programs for National Transportation Sources and Federal 
Activities. (1) Introduction. The litigation which resulted in today's 
FIP proposal arose at least in part from a feeling in California that 
the emission regulation of certain sources was not keeping pace with 
the attainment needs of California areas or with the stringency of 
control imposed on other sectors of the California economy. For today's 
FIP proposal, EPA is proposing controls for these sources, and this 
section details the mixture of new engine standards and innovative 
market- based controls that will be proposed.
    The table below (``1990 Base Year Inventory of National 
Transportation Sources'')\73\ details the level of emissions from 
national transportation sources in each of the FIP inventories for the 
1990 base year. The information contained in this table illustrates 
that while these sources are not as large as other mobile sources, 
their contribution to the emissions inventories warrants control by 
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\The inventories for locomotives are derived from assuptions 
made by EPA based on inventories acquired from the Booz-Allen 
reports entitled: Locomotive Emissions Study and Report on 
Locomotive Emission Inventory: Locomotive Emissions by County.

                           1990 Base Year Inventory of National Transportation Sources                          
                                                 [In tons/day]                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Sacramento                 Ventura                 South Coast       
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locomotives.......................         0.34         8.70         0.04         1.18          1.5         29.7
Military aircraft.................          1.0          0.7         0.27         0.24          7.7          3.3
Commercial aircraft...............          0.1          0.9         0.07         0.18          5.9         14.0
General aviation..................          0.4          0.1         0.23         0.25          1.1          0.1
Vessels...........................          0.0          0.0         0.35         8.41          1.4         31.9
Percent of Total inventory........          0.8          5.6          0.9         11.7          0.9          6.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Civil and Military Aviation
    (a) General Description of Category
    (1) Aircraft Operational Classes
    Aircraft operations can be segregated into four general categories:
    Commercial--aircraft operated on a scheduled basis by 
international, national, regional, and commuter air carriers, and 
unscheduled charter operators
    Military--aircraft operated by the Department of Defense
    General Aviation--aircraft privately owned and operated on a 
nonscheduled basis
    Public--aircraft operated by federal, state, or local government 
agencies other than the Department of Defense
    Aircraft in each category are operated in considerably different 
fashion. For example, commercial aircraft operate on a relatively fixed 
schedule while military aircraft operate according to specific mission 
requirements. For that reason, each aircraft category will be 
controlled separately under this proposed FIP program.
    (2) Related Mobile Sources. Emissions related to aircraft 
operations are generated by a variety of mobile sources. Ground support 
equipment (GSE) includes vehicles such as aircraft tugs, baggage tugs, 
fuel trucks, maintenance vehicles, and other miscellaneous vehicles. 
Ground access vehicles include vehicles used by passengers, employees, 
freight operators, and other persons using an airport. These sources 
have been considered in developing this program.
    (3) Need for Control. Aircraft and aircraft-related emissions as a 
category represent significant sources of air pollution in the FIP 
areas. In the South Coast air basin, the FIP area where airports 
represent the greatest portion of the inventory, aircraft operating at 
the five commercial airports alone contributed 0.3 and 1.1 percent of 
the total 1990 baseline emissions inventory for VOC and NOX, 
respectively. At projected growth rates, aircraft at these five 
airports--Los Angeles, Ontario, Burbank, John Wayne, and Long Beach--
will consume nearly 3.9 and 4.4 percent of the basin's allowable 2010 
NOX and VOC inventory, respectively, if left uncontrolled.
    (4) Level of Control. EPA intends to reduce emissions resulting 
from aircraft and aircraft-related activities in the three California 
FIP areas to a level and at a rate commensurate with that required for 
stationary emission sources in those areas which are subject to the 
proposed emission cap rules described in section III.C.5. of this NPRM. 
This approach was selected by EPA for aviation primarily because of the 
difficulty in identifying specific control measures given the diverse 
operational nature of the aviation sector and the leadtime available 
for FIP development, the difficulty of requiring specific operational 
or procedural control measures for aircraft due to safety and 
operational flexibility concerns, and the desirability of achieving 
emission reductions comparable to those being demanded from other 
significant source categories.
    Currently, the proposed stationary source rules include a range of 
potential emission reduction requirements. Consequently, the overall 
reduction targets for aviation reflect the same range of stringency. 
The proposed control levels for these sources are expressed as the 
percentage reduction from the respective 1990 baseline emissions 
inventory that must be achieved by 2005. The range of required 
reductions for each pollutant by area are shown below. 

    2005 Aviation Emission Reduction Requirements: Proposed Range of    
           Percentage Reductions From 1990 Baseline Emissions           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                VOC            NOX      
                  Area                   -------------------------------
                                            Low    High     Low    High 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast.............................      20      45      30      45
Ventura.................................      20      45      30      45
Sacramento..............................      20      45     N/A     N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency will promulgate a specific percentage reduction target 
in the final rule based on public comments and any additional technical 
information.
    (b) Commercial Aviation. (1) Overview. (a) Airline Focus and 
Specific Sources Covered. The FIP strategy for commercial aircraft 
operations is aimed at reducing total emissions from all emission 
sources under direct control of commercial airlines operating at all 
airports in each nonattainment area. The strategy is constructed so 
that each airline is responsible for its own compliance. ``Commercial 
airlines'' are defined as those air carriers operating aircraft with 
any of the following FAA operational certificates: Parts 121, 125, 127, 
129, and 135.
    Commercial airline emission sources include aircraft, aircraft 
auxiliary power units (APUs), GSE, and any other mobile sources under 
the control of airlines. For the purposes of this regulation, emission 
sources defined as ``under the control'' of a commercial airline 
include all sources owned or leased by the airline, and all sources 
whose operations are controlled under a contract agreement by the 
airline (for example, GSE servicing an airline that are owned and 
operated by a fixed-base operator under contract to the airline).\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\General aviation aircraft operated at commercial airports 
will be included in the general aviation control strategy as 
described in section III.D.4.e(2)(d). Today's proposal for public 
aircraft operated at commercial airports is described in section 
III.D.4.e.(2)(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some GSE that service aircraft are owned by fixed based operators 
(FBOs) rather than airlines. Emissions from these vehicles must be 
included in the airport bubble since they are a direct result of 
aircraft activity. EPA proposes today to allocate these GSE to specific 
airlines based on servicing provided under contract agreements, and 
requests comment on possible alternatives to such an allocation 
strategy.
    EPA proposes a target-based emission reduction program for these 
commercial aircraft emission sources. Each commercial airline will be 
required to comply with a declining emission limit, expressed in 
allowable emissions per passenger and freight handled. The proposed 
target-based program will include emission fees assessed on any airline 
that fails to meet this emission rate target. The proposed target has 
been selected so that, even with expected passenger and freight growth, 
compliance with the target by all airlines will result in total 
emissions declining at a rate and to a level equivalent to that 
required of many stationary sources in the same basin. EPA will through 
experience raise the level of the emissions fees as needed to achieve 
such aggregate emission reductions.
    As described above, EPA currently intends to establish emission 
reduction requirements for commercial aircraft that are generally 
consistent with the emission cap requirements for stationary sources in 
the FIP areas. Although not firmly decided, the current stationary 
source control strategy for the South Coast requires that VOC and 
NOX emissions be reduced by 20-45 and 30-45 percent, respectively, 
from the 1990 baseline inventory by 2005, through a series of uniform 
annual reductions of baseline emissions of each pollutant: 4-9 percent 
per year for VOC and 6-9 percent per year for NOX, both starting 
in 2001. Stationary source requirements for the 2006-2010 period have 
not been established at this time. The requirements for Ventura from 
2001-2005 are identical to that for the South Coast.
    For Sacramento, the strategy requires a VOC reduction of 20-45 
percent, with a uniform annual reduction of 4-9 percent. The timeframe 
for achieving this reduction is the same as for the South Coast and 
Ventura areas (i.e., 2001-2005). The stationary source control strategy 
for Sacramento does not require a NOX reduction since other 
actions will be adequate to achieve the area-wide NOX emissions 
level needed for attainment.
    For this proposal, the overall reduction targets are expressed as a 
range of percentages; the final rule will contain a specific percentage 
reduction target. EPA requests comment on whether the stationary source 
emission reduction targets are appropriate for use with the commercial 
aircraft control strategy.
    (b) Geographic Scope. As already described, today's proposal 
applies to all three affected California control areas: South Coast, 
Ventura, and Sacramento air basins. However, EPA requests comment on 
the desirability of removing the Ventura and Sacramento control areas 
from this commercial aircraft control strategy.
     The Sacramento air basin includes a single commercial airport. 
Aircraft emissions from this airport contributed significantly less 
than one percent of the air basins total VOC and NOX baseline 
emissions inventory for 1990. Current projections show that if 
uncontrolled, this airports emissions would consume less than one 
percent of the basins allowable 2005 inventory for VOC and NOX. 
Additionally, the SIP and FIP for Sacramento are expected to achieve 
VOC and NOX reductions adequate for attainment, not counting 
additional reductions from airports. This expectation is based on the 
best available, but still preliminary, analysis of current and future 
emissions. Further analysis may change the picture. Similarly, the 
Ventura control area has only minimal commercial aviation activity; an 
extensive emissions control program for the limited emissions resulting 
from such activity may not be desirable given the resource expenditure 
necessary for implementation. The Agency, therefore, requests comment 
on whether it is necessary to implement a commercial aviation control 
program in Sacramento and Ventura.
    (c) Control Period. EPA proposes to establish a fee-based program 
focused on controlling commercial aviation emissions only during the 
ozone season in each FIP area. Further, EPA proposes to assess fees on 
the basis of the season-long average of emissions per passenger and 
freight carried. There would be no enforceable expectation for 
emissions in a single day or month.
    This extended averaging period differs from the stationary source 
cap program in which year-round control and monthly control periods are 
proposed. Because of the complex nature of operational scheduling, 
commercial aircraft operations appear to have much less potential to 
vary significantly over the course of the ozone season in comparison to 
stationary sources. This reduces the need to be concerned about 
particular days with significantly more emissions than average that 
could adversely affect attainment. In addition, if the program is fee-
based rather than based on a specific emissions limitation, enforcement 
does not require a short control period to be practicable as it does 
for the stationary source cap program. The proposed program for 
commercial aviation is both novel in concept and stringent, and EPA 
does not wish to burden the industry with controls outside the ozone 
season if they are not essential to the air quality goals of the FIP. 
Furthermore, operational changes outside the ozone season may provide 
some opportunity to ease the compliance burden during the season.
    The annual ozone seasons for each of the three FIP areas are:

South Coast--March through October
Ventura--April through October
Sacramento--May through October

    Alternatively, EPA could establish a year-round fee program and 
apply fees separately in each month in order to even better ensure that 
emissions are controlled each day. Beyond its contribution to ozone 
attainment, year-round control of NOX emissions from commercial 
aviation may aid efforts to comply with the particulate air quality 
standard, particularly in the South Coast control area. (Ensuring 
particulate air quality is not a requirement for this FIP.) Since state 
and local regulation over commercial aviation emissions is preempted by 
the federal government, such control would have to come at the federal 
level. The Agency, therefore, requests comment on potential alternative 
compliance strategies.
    (2) Key Regulatory Elements. (a) Summary. A detailed control 
strategy is described here for the South Coast FIP area, but will apply 
for all three control areas. Any differences in detail or emission 
reduction requirements for Ventura and Sacramento will be identified 
separately.
    The control strategy for commercial aircraft proposed today relies 
on a fee system to achieve a series of annual emissions reductions from 
a baseline commercial aircraft emissions inventory. Airlines subject to 
the requirements of this program will report activity and emissions 
during the ozone season on an annual basis beginning in 1999. An 
airline's compliance with the program requirements will be determined 
for a given year by comparing an environmental performance factor, 
expressed as pounds of pollutant emitted per passenger-equivalent unit 
(PEU) as calculated in the annual report, against EPA's published 
pounds-per-PEU target for that year's ozone season. Airlines that 
exceed a particular year's pounds-per-PEU target will be required to 
pay a fee in proportion to the excess emissions. EPA is proposing 
pounds-per-PEU targets that will achieve the requisite annual emission 
reductions based on projected growth in passenger and freight activity. 
(A more complete description of the proposed PEU factor and emission 
targets is presented in section III.D.4.e.(2)(b)(2)(b).)
    In order to obtain airline compliance with these pounds-per-PEU 
targets, the Agency will observe the airlines' responses to the initial 
fee level in 2001, and will adjust the fee level to a higher or lower 
level if needed. The final FIP regulations will contain commitments to 
this effect, and will specify the specific level to which the fees will 
be adjusted or a formula for determining such level. Comments on this 
adjustment process are requested. EPA expects that the final fee 
program for this source will be consistent with the Agency's Economic 
Incentive Program rules as discussed in section III.D.5 of this NPRM.
    This commercial aircraft emission reduction program will apply to 
all commercial aircraft operators in the FIP areas, including domestic 
airlines, foreign airlines, and new entrant airlines. EPA recognizes 
the economic and social importance of accommodating new entrants and 
the expansion of existing airlines in any commercial aircraft emission 
reduction program. This control strategy attempts to accommodate these 
important concerns by not directly requiring EPA to allocate emissions 
or operational rights to individual airlines.
    The methodology for determining the environmental performance 
targets reflects projected growth in air travel within the respective 
FIP control area. As a result, new entrants simply would be required to 
achieve the appropriate environmental performance targets upon 
initiation of service. Both new entrants and expanding airlines are 
automatically accommodated by the control strategy as long as growth 
beyond predicted levels does not occur. In event that activity grows 
faster than originally forecast, EPA will revise the performance 
targets, as discussed in greater detail later in this section.
    Therefore, the Agency believes that the proposed program 
incorporates features which provide flexibility for new entrants or 
existing airlines to begin and expand environmentally responsible 
aircraft operations in the basin. Nonetheless, all airlines will face 
significant economic and technical challenges as a result of this 
program.
    (b) Pounds per PEU Scheme. The FIP strategy for commercial aircraft 
operations will center on a schedule of declining emission performance 
targets (i.e., pounds per PEU) for the combined emissions from all 
commercial airports in each control area. Separate targets will be 
established for HC and NOX emissions. These emission targets will 
yield benefits consistent with the percentage reduction from 1990 
inventory for stationary sources. Ultimately, the emissions from 
commercial aviation in the South Coast and Ventura areas will be 
reducted by 20-45 percent and 30-45 percent from 1990 VOC and NOX 
emission levels, respectively, by 2005. The goal for VOC emissions in 
the Sacramento area is 20-45 percent by 2005. As already discussed, 
there is currently no stationary source emissions cap for NOX in 
Sacramento.
    This control strategy fundamentally relies on the calculation of an 
emissions baseline as a reference point for determining future year 
emission limits during the control period. The Agency proposes to use 
currently available emissions inventory data for aircraft and aircraft-
related activities to establish the requisite emissions inventory for 
the baseline year of 1990. Once established, the seasonal emission 
limits for each year can be calculated from the baseline inventory 
established according to the annual uniform schedule of percentage 
reductions described above.
    The choice of 1990 as the baseline year is consistent with the 
Act's requirement for modeling reasonable further progress (RFP) and 
attainment of the ambient standards. However, aviation activity in 1990 
may not be representative of typical operations, because the aviation 
industry experienced significant change during this period. Several air 
carriers, notably Eastern Airlines, ceased operations or stopped 
serving airports in the South Coast and Sacramento areas. Others such 
as Southwest Airlines had only a minimal presence in these areas during 
that period, but greatly expanded operations in subsequent years.
    In addition, the Desert Shield/Desert Storm military action caused 
an increase in jet fuel prices and a rapid decline in commercial 
passenger traffic. For these reasons it may be desirable to use a two-
year average, perhaps 1989-1990, for establishing a baseline inventory 
in preference to using 1990 data alone; this could lessen the effect of 
unusual circumstances on a single year's inventory. EPA requests 
comment on the desirability of using a two-year average for 
establishing a baseline inventory. Any such multi-year average, 
however, may require an adjustment to the emission performance targets 
in order to assure consistency with the stationary source cap 
requirements and EPA's demonstration of attainment.
    Alternatively, EPA could utilize baseline reports from commercial 
airlines to establish this inventory. Given the importance of this 
baseline inventory in setting realistic emission limits and 
environmental performance targets, such industry baseline reports could 
provide information more representative of airline operations in the 
control area than generic default data currently being used EPA for 
some portions of the inventory.
    For example, EPA currently has only estimated information on GSE 
and limited primary data concerning commercial aircraft operations in 
Ventura and Sacramento. These reports could also provide data on 
certain ground access vehicles that are directly under the control of 
airlines. These sources are presently unaccounted for in today's 
proposal due to insufficient information.\75\ Therefore, baseline 
reports could provide additional detail and precision, albeit at the 
expense of an additional administrative burden for commercial airlines. 
Information that could be requested for such baseline reports is 
discussed in ``Reporting and Recordkeeping'' below. EPA requests 
comment on the desirability of requiring airlines to submit baseline 
reports, and on other possible alternative methods for establishing a 
reasonable baseline emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\See the Technical Support Document, available in the 
rulemaking docket, for further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency further proposes to modify the stationary source-related 
approach just described in order to ``lock in'' additional emission 
reductions that are expected to result from other non-FIP requirements 
such as the commercial aircraft fleet modernization that will occur in 
response to FAA noise reduction regulations. According to the Air 
Transport Association,\76\ these requirements could generate a 40 
percent reduction in VOC emissions by 2000 from 1990 levels, when the 
requirements are fully implemented. This represents the maximum period 
of effect for these requirements, however, since the affected aircraft 
would be retired eventually even in the absence of specific 
regulations. EPA estimates that the emissions reduction benefit 
resulting from noise reduction requirements declines to zero by 2010 
because of such expected retirement schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\See letter from R. Kettler, ATA to R. Wilson, EPA, dated 
December 27, 1993, available in the rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure these potential emission benefits occur, the Agency 
proposes to modify the stationary source approach for developing the 
commercial aircraft baseline inventory and seasonal emission limits as 
follows. The target for basin-wide emissions will be the lower of 
either the emissions level calculated from the percentage-reduction-
from-1990 schedule being proposed for the stationary source cap 
program, or the emissions level that is expected to result from non-FIP 
regulatory requirements such as the fleet modernization under the noise 
reduction requirements (i.e., emission improvements accompanying the 
retirement of older, dirtier aircraft). The Agency requests comment on 
this ``lock-in'' approach and potential alternatives that would ensure 
progress and attainment under the FIP.
    The two tables below present examples of the proposed ozone season 
emission inventory limits for VOC and NOX in the South Coast area. 
The emission limits in these tables are presented for illustrative 
purposes and for the purpose of facilitating public comment only. They 
do not represent the final values from which the enforceable emission 
performance targets will be derived, since EPA will continue to refine 
the baseline emissions inventory, aviation activity projections, and 
the effect of noise-driven fleet modernization based on information 
received during the comment period.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\A detailed derivation of the emission limits for all areas 
is contained in the Technical Support Document, which is available 
in the public docket.

  Preliminary VOC Emission Limits for Commercial Airlines in the South  
                             Coast Air Basin                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Range of VOC limits       Range of cumulative  
                             (tons/day)           reductions (percent)  
   Control period    ---------------------------------------------------
                          Low          High         Low          High   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................          7.3          7.3          N/A          N/A
2001................          7.1          6.7            4            9
2002................          6.8          6.0            8           18
2003................          6.5          5.4           12           27
2004................          6.2          4.7           16           36
2005................          5.9          4.0           20           45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [Note: These emission limits reflect currently available data on 
aircraft, auxiliary power units, and ground service equipment only. 
They do not include the proposed lock-in VOC reductions from the 
noise-driven fleet modernization forecast.]

  Preliminary NOX Emission Limits for Commercial Airlines in the South  
                             Coast Air Basin                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Range of NOX limits       Range of cumulative  
                             (tons/day)           reductions (percent)  
   Control period    ---------------------------------------------------
                          Low          High         Low          High   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................         13.7         13.7          N/A          N/A
2001................         12.9         12.5            6            9
2002................         12.1         11.3           12           18
2003................         11.3         10.0           18           27
2004................         10.4          8.8           24           36
2005................          9.6          7.6           30           45
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to use a constant annual reduction between 2001 and 
2005 in determining the seasonal area-wide emissions limits, since this 
straight-forward and simple approach is being proposed for the 
stationary source cap program. EPA requests comment on the appropriate 
schedule of reduction (i.e, faster or slower phase-in) for the seasonal 
emission limit even though the final (2005) emission limit would not 
change.
    EPA will establish enforceable environmental performance targets 
that will serve as the primary mechanism to achieve the annual emission 
limits for commercial aircraft operations in each FIP area. These area-
wide performance targets will be calculated for each ozone season from 
2001 through 2005 using the following formula:

Performance target (lbs/PEU)=seasonal emission limit (lbs)/seasonal 
projected activity (PEUs)

    Passenger equivalent units (PEUs) will reflect the projected number 
of passengers and the amount of cargo carried, as described below. The 
example environmental performance targets presented for illustrative 
purposes in the tables above use EPA's current PEU activity forecast, 
which assumes an annual linear growth rate of approximately 1.5 percent 
per year from 1990 through 2005 based on information from the Southern 
California Association of Governments (SCAG).
    Individual airlines will determine their compliance with these 
basin-wide performance targets by calculating their annual pounds-per-
PEU performance using the following formula:

Performance result (lbs/PEU)=actual seasonal emissions (lbs)/actual 
seasonal activity (PEUs)

    This performance will be compared against the basin-wide targets to 
determine compliance; non-compliant airlines will pay an emissions fee 
proportional to their excess emissions, as discussed in greater detail 
below.
    PEUs will reflect both the actual number of passengers carried and 
the actual tonnage of cargo transported on commercial airlines. EPA 
will establish in the final FIP a conversion factor for combining 
passenger and freight movement into a single PEU total. The airlines 
have reported using as a ``rule of thumb'' 200 pounds of payload for 
each passenger, which includes the weight of the passenger and his or 
her luggage. EPA proposes to use this conversion factor of 200 lbs/
passenger to convert cargo weight into PEUs. EPA requests comment on 
whether this is an appropriate and equitable value.
    EPA will develop a forecast of control area airline PEU activity 
for the control period (2001-2005) to develop each year's environmental 
performance targets. EPA proposes today to use currently available 
activity projections for the South Coast from the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District for this purpose. Similar existing 
projections will be used for Ventura and Sacramento, as discussed in 
the Technical Support Document.
    Certain discrepancies may arise, however, between current forecasts 
and actual activity some years in the future. If actual PEU activity is 
higher than EPA forecast, compliance with the annual pounds-per-PEU 
level could result in total emissions higher than the basin-wide 
targets. If actual activity is lower than EPA forecast, the promulgated 
pounds-per-PEU limit will be more restrictive than actually needed. For 
that reason EPA will periodically review the PEU forecast, given its 
importance in establishing the environmental performance targets.
    This review will occur approximately every three to five years at a 
minimum. EPA will revise the area-wide PEU forecast in a subsequent 
rulemaking action if the periodic review indicates that the forecast is 
significantly inaccurate. EPA also will revise the seasonal 
environmental performance pounds-per-PEU targets in the same rulemaking 
action in the event that the PEU forecast is revised. EPA also requests 
comment on alternative methods for establishing activity factors (and 
the resulting environmental performance targets) that may be 
automatically updated based on prior-year operational data.
    The two tables below present examples of the proposed seasonal 
environmental performance targets for VOC and NOX in the South 
Coast area. As with the emission limits presented earlier in this 
section, these example targets are provided for illustrative purposes 
only and do not represent the final enforceable emission performance 
targets.

 Preliminary VOC Emission Performance Targets for Commercial Airlines in
                       the South Coast Air Basin                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Range of VOC performance
                                                   targets (lbs/PEU)    
                Control period                 -------------------------
                                                    Low          High   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990..........................................        0.087        0.087
2001..........................................        0.072        0.068
2002..........................................        0.068        0.061
2003..........................................        0.064        0.053
2004..........................................        0.060        0.046
2005..........................................        0.057        0.039
2005+.........................................        0.057       0.039 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[See note on previous tables.] 

 Preliminary NOX Emission Performance Targets for Commercial Airlines in
                       the South Coast Air Basin                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Range of NOX performance
                                                   targets (lbs/PEU)    
                Control period                 -------------------------
                                                    Low         High    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990..........................................        0.162        0.162
2001..........................................        0.132        0.128
2002..........................................        0.122        0.113
2003..........................................        0.112        0.100
2004..........................................        0.102        0.086
2005..........................................        0.093        0.073
2005+.........................................        0.093       0.073 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For 2006 and beyond, EPA proposes to retain for now the same 
pounds-per-PEU limit used for 2005 in all three areas, pending 
promulgation of the additional rules envisioned under today's proposed 
strategy for 2010 attainment in the South Coast and the preparation of 
maintenance SIPs for the Ventura and Sacramento areas. Comment is 
invited on this aspect of the proposal.
    (c) Fee System. EPA will establish, and as necessary adjust, the 
level of a fee-based compliance system in consultation with the FAA to 
achieve the seasonal commercial aircraft emissions targets for each 
pollutant. Each commercial airline will be expected to meet the 
seasonal pounds-per-PEU environmental performance target as described 
above. Any airline that exceeds the target in any ozone season will pay 
an emissions fee proportional to the excess emissions. Expressed 
differently, the fee will be applied only to the incremental emissions 
which are in excess of the performance target, not to the airline 
operator's total seasonal emissions. Through an iterative process, EPA 
will set the emissions fee at a level designed to discourage such 
noncompliance.
    EPA requests comment on a triggering mechanism that would prevent 
implementation of the fee system as long as the area-wide commercial 
aircraft emission allowance target is achieved. Beginning with the 2001 
annual report, EPA could use airline annual emissions/activity reports 
to determine total actual area-wide commercial aircraft emissions. If 
this total emissions quantity did not exceed the allowance for that 
year, airlines could operate undisturbed by the FIP. If the total 
actual emissions quantity did exceed a given year's allowance, however, 
the emissions fee system would be implemented for that year and would 
remain in effect for all subsequent years.
    It is important that the fee paid by the airlines for excess 
emissions be high enough to encourage adherence to the pounds-per-PEU 
limit but not so high as to needlessly reduce industry profits or to 
drain away funds that should be spent for mitigating emissions. For the 
other fee systems discussed in this FIP, EPA proposes a base fee of 
$10,000/ton of pollutant. The following example describes the impact of 
a $10,000/ton fee on a commercial airline under the proposed control 
strategy. The 1990 emissions per PEU are 0.087 pounds of VOC per PEU 
and 0.162 pounds of NOX per PEU using current EPA data (see 
discussion above). The 2005 example environmental performance targets 
as presented in Tables D and E are 0.039 pounds of VOC per PEU and 
0.073 pounds of NOX per PEU . Assuming that there is no 
improvement in environmental performance from the current uncontrolled 
rate, a maximum fee for 2005 can be calculated as follows:

VOC Fee: (0.087 lbs/PEU-0.039 lbs/PEU) X $10,000/ton divided by 2000 
lbs/ton = $0.24/PEU for VOC
NOX Fee: (0.162 lbs/PEU-0.073 lbs/PEU) X $10,000/ton divided by 
2000 lbs/ton = $0.45/PEU for NOX

    On this basis the maximum fee would be $0.69 per PEU. This is 
equivalent to approximately $120 per landing plus takeoff, for an 
average airplane. To put this excess emissions fee in the context of 
other fees, collected from commercial aircraft operators for other 
purposes, current landing fees at LAX are $1.56/1,000 pounds of gross 
landing weight; for a typical Boeing 737 this is about $178 and for a 
Boeing 747 about $913. From another perspective, the FAA allows 
airports to apply passenger facility charges of $3 per passenger to pay 
for qualified airport improvements.
    The $10,000/ton emission fee, therefore, may be an inappropriate 
starting point for commercial aircraft, since the likely impact is so 
small, that between 2000 and 2005 upwards adjustment is very likely to 
be needed. EPA believes that a substantially higher fee may be 
necessary for commercial aircraft in order to ensure compliance with 
the seasonal environmental performance targets. On the other hand, the 
expectation of larger fees after 2001 may have an effect on its own. 
Also, there are enough fee cycles between 2001 and 2005 that a fee 
level which will produce the desired reductions by 2005 should be 
reachable by 2005 even if the fees initially are based on $10,000 per 
ton. EPA requests comment on what fee levels will achieve the objective 
of discouraging noncompliance without being excessive, and on what the 
starting level of the fees should be.
    EPA believes that fee collected under this program must be 
submitted to the United States treasury and can not be redirected for 
air pollution mitigation projects or other purposes. The Agency 
requests comment, however, whether this is true for fees collected from 
foreign flag air carriers under international aviation agreements. For 
a general discussion on the disposition of collected fees see section 
III.A.2.b.
    (d) Averaging and Trading. The Agency proposes to allow an airline 
to calculate its average seasonal environmental performance across the 
entire area in order to determine compliance with the emission rate 
target. This approach will provide airlines with the flexibility to 
shift operations within the basin to meet demand in an environmentally 
beneficial manner; an airline could move some of its operations to a 
less-congested airport to take advantage of reduced taxi times and 
resultant emissions reductions, for example. It also allows an airline 
to operate at some airports in excess of the pounds-per-PEU level and 
offset the excess at other airports where emission control may be more 
economical. EPA requests comment on the feasibility and desirability of 
determining compliance in such a manner.
    EPA also requests comment on including an emissions credit program 
as part of the control strategy proposed today. Any commercial airline 
that achieves emission reductions greater than those required could 
sell or otherwise transfer credits thus generated to other commercial 
airlines, which in turn could use the credits to comply with the pounds 
per PEU target and minimize or avoid paying emissions fees. Such a 
credit program would provide commercial aircraft operators with an 
incentive to reduce emissions to a level below that required, thus 
rewarding those airlines with the ability to operate in an efficient 
and environmentally beneficial manner. A credit program also would 
accommodate those airlines that cannot achieve their individual 
emission rate targets because of certain operating circumstances.
    Simple, direct airline-to-airline credit trades could be 
incorporated into EPA's annual reporting and fee calculation program 
fairly easily with little extra resources on EPA's part. An expanded 
credit system in which credits become a commodity that can be purchased 
and re-sold would require more monitoring and enforcement to prevent 
error and fraud. EPA would be likely to allow such a system only if a 
state or local agency took responsibility for the work of keeping it 
honest and accurate, given the expected limits on EPA resources to 
implement all aspects of the FIP.
    EPA notes that the RECLAIM credit trading program for NOX 
emissions was recently adopted in the South Coast, and is an example of 
cross-source trading of excess emission reductions relative to well 
quantified baselines and requirements for further emission reduction. 
The RECLAIM program covers certain NOX source types that were most 
amenable to emissions quantification and verification. Such a cross-
source trading system has obvious attractions in terms of achieving a 
given environmental goal, while allowing the most economically 
efficient business choices consistent with that goal.
    EPA anticipates that commercial airlines may be interested in a 
program that provides the option of purchasing emission credits to 
allow more operational flexibility. Since the RECLAIM program operates 
off a declining schedule of allowable emissions from the subject 
sources, rather than from the declining emissions caps established by 
the FIP, RECLAIM NOX credits are not necessarily surplus to the 
FIP and cannot be used by sources, including commercial airlines, to 
meet their FIP emission limits or to reduce their fee liability. Given 
EPA's concern about the adequacy of its implementation resources, EPA 
is not proposing to establish a cross-source trading program of its 
own. However, EPA welcomes comments on whether and how state or local 
agencies could help operate a credit trading system which would be in 
keeping with the FIPs control levels and which would be available to 
the airline industry.
    (e) Reporting and Recordkeeping. (i) Compliance plans. The 
stationary source cap program includes a requirement for affected 
sources to submit compliance plans that describe planned emission 
reduction measures. EPA could establish a similar requirement for 
commercial airlines as part of today's proposed control strategy. Such 
compliance plans would be submitted by airlines in advance of the 
control period and would describe in some detail the various emission 
reduction measures planned for the 2001-2005 control period. Compliance 
plans also could include information on expected activity during the 
control period, which would provide EPA with an opportunity to review 
the PEU forecast and update the environmental performance targets if 
necessary. Most importantly, compliance plans could provide an 
opportunity for the FAA to review airline emission reduction plans for 
safety considerations.
    Compliance plans would impose significant administrative burdens on 
commercial airlines, EPA, and the FAA, however. The Agency therefore 
requests comment on the desirability of requiring airlines to submit 
compliance plans, and on the information that should be provided in 
such plans should they be required. EPA does not contemplate that 
compliance plans if required would become legally binding on the 
airlines that submit them since that would impede business flexibility 
and is not essential to the effectiveness of the program. However, if 
EPA does require compliance plans, deliberate misrepresentation of an 
airlines plans may be made a violation of the FIP.
    (ii) Baseline reports. As described above, EPA requests comment on 
requiring airlines to submit baseline reports that provide emissions 
data for the baseline year of 1990, or some alternative baseline 
reporting period as discussed in section III.D.4.e.(2)(b) above. 
Baseline reports would provide EPA with additional detail and precision 
for the purpose of establishing the baseline emissions inventory, the 
seasonal emission limits, and, ultimately, the seasonal environmental 
performance targets. Any revisions to the emission limits and 
environmental performance targets would be made after notice and 
opportunity for public comment.
    One alternative for implementing a baseline reporting requirement, 
is to require commercial airline operators to report data concerning 
aircraft operations into or out of the basin for their particular 
airline in the baseline year of 1990 (or for 1989 and 1990 for the 
purpose of calculating a two-year average). Airlines would submit this 
data to EPA no later than 180 days following finalization of this rule. 
These reports could also provide information on ground access vehicles 
under the direct control of airlines for incorporation into the control 
strategy. More specifically, the baseline reports could include the 
following information to be provided by airlines:
     Aircraft type and model, engine type and model, and number 
of landing/take-off operations (LTOs).
     Taxi/idle time by engine for each flight.
     Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) operating time.
     Ground Support Equipment (GSE) population by type.
     GSE activity by fuel type, engine size, and annual use 
hours.
    EPA recognizes that detailed information may not be available in 
each of these categories for 1990. In these instances affected airlines 
could report estimated data; such estimates would be accompanied by a 
description of the estimation methodology used, including any 
supporting data. Alternatively, EPA could establish a set of default 
values for use in the absence of detailed data, as described above. The 
Agency requests comment on these and other baseline report 
alternatives.
    (iii) Annual compliance determination reports. Beginning with a 
report describing activity during the 1999 ozone season, the FIP will 
require commercial airlines to submit annual reports within 60 days of 
the close of each calendar year. These reports will include information 
on aircraft-related emissions and airline activity for the previous 
year's ozone season.
    Commercial airline operators will be required to submit annual 
reports describing regulated aircraft-related activities and emissions 
in each control area for their airline during the preceeding year's 
ozone season beginning in 1999. These annual emissions/activity reports 
will be submitted to EPA within 60 days of the close of each calendar 
year; the first report thus would be due by March 1, 2000. Initiating 
these annual reports in 1999 will provide airlines and EPA with an 
opportunity to assess data-gathering and -analysis requirements well in 
advance of the first emission targets in 2001, as well as providing 
airlines with important information on their performance needs prior to 
the first round of required reductions. Subsequent annual reports will 
be used to determine compliance with the seasonal emission targets.
    Failure to submit an annual emissions/activity report will subject 
an airline to EPA enforcement. Affected airlines will be required to 
maintain appropriate data collection equipment and procedures necessary 
to complete the annual report in a satisfactory manner. Failure to 
maintain such equipment and procedures also will subject an airline to 
EPA enforcement.
    Annual emissions/activity reports will include the following 
information for aircraft and aircraft-related operations during the 
seasonal control period:
     Flight number for each flight.
     Aircraft type and model for each flight.
     Engine type and model for each flight.
     Taxi/idle time by engine for each flight.
     Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) operating time.
     Number of passengers carried for each flight.
     Weight of non-passenger cargo for each flight.
     Ground Support Equipment (GSE) population by type.
     GSE activity by fuel type, engine size, emission control 
level, and number of hours used.
    Airlines will be required to track and report actual data for the 
above information categories. Default values will not be accepted for 
the purposes of determining compliance with the environmental 
performance target.
    Reporting airlines will be required to calculate their VOC and 
NOX emissions for the ozone season using the above data and enter 
these emissions on the report form. The Agency anticipates using 
existing EPA documents for the emission calculation methodology. 
Comments are requested on the desirability of issuing additional 
specific technical guidance concerning emissions calculations for 
aircraft and aircraft-related operations. Reporting airlines also will 
be required to calculate their total PEUs using passenger and cargo 
data, as well as their pounds/PEU emission rate for VOC and NOX, 
and enter these results on the report form.
    An airline's compliance with a seasonal environmental performance 
target will be determined by comparing actual pounds-per-PEU 
performance against the target. An airline whose actual performance 
exceeds the target will be required to submit a fee proportional to the 
resultant excess emissions, as described in ``Fee System'' above. This 
fee will be remitted along with the annual compliance determination 
report.
    An airline's annual emissions/activity report will include a 
statement signed by a corporate officer affirming the report's 
accuracy. Failure to provide accurate information in the annual 
emissions/activity report will be considered a FIP violation subject to 
EPA enforcement. Reporting airlines will be required to maintain copies 
of their annual reports for three years, including all relevant 
calculation worksheets and supporting data.
    (f) Exemptions. EPA requests comment on the desirability of 
providing exemptions from the requirements of this control program for 
certain types of commercial aircraft operations or unusual situations. 
Atypical aircraft operations beyond the control of an airline and not 
anticipated in the design of the operations data collection system, 
such as in-flight emergency situations requiring emergency landings, 
could be exempted from reporting requirements and would not count 
toward an airline's environmental performance. Also, certain small 
commercial aircraft operators might be unnecessarily burdened under 
this program relative to the emissions reductions that might be 
obtained. EPA requests comment on the desirability and feasibility of 
establishing a de minimis exemption for this control program. 
Additionally, the Agency requests comment on the desirability of 
waiving part or all of any fee incurred by individual airlines that can 
demonstrate unreasonable economic hardship or burden on interstate 
commerce. Finally, comments are solicited on appropriate procedures and 
criteria for granting exemptions to foreign flag air carriers to ensure 
compliance with international treaties, bilaterial agreements, or when 
the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the Department of State find that 
granting such an exemption is in the national interest of the United 
States.
    (3) Legal Authority and Regulatory Interactions. As noted in this 
preamble, EPA has broad authority under section 110(c) to promulgate 
regulations in a FIP when states have failed to submit a state plan or 
have submitted defective state plans. See Southland Terminal Corp. v. 
EPA, 504 F.2d 646, 669 (1st Cir. 1979). The courts have not required 
EPA to demonstrate explicit authority for promulgating specific control 
measures in FIPs. Instead, EPA may exercise its broad authority under 
section 110(c) unless such authority is expressly prohibited under the 
Act, other statutes, or the United States Constitution. EPA's general 
regulatory authority and its authority under section 110(c) include the 
ability to impose and enforce pollution fees. See 42 U.S.C. Sections 
110(a)(2)(A); 172(c)(6).
    Congress has also granted express authority to EPA to set emissions 
standards for certain sources of pollution, such as aircraft and new 
locomotive engines. See 42 U.S.C. Sections 7547, 7571 (a)(2). In 
vesting EPA with authority to promulgate aircraft emissions standards, 
Congress recognized the authority of the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) to regulate aircraft design and manage the 
navigable airspace to assure safety and efficiency. Sections 231 and 
232 of the Act establish a cooperative scheme in which EPA is required 
to consult with FAA in setting emissions standards, and FAA is charged 
with enforcing those standards. 42 U.S.C. Sections 7571-7472. The 
president may disapprove any standard after notice and an opportunity 
for a hearing, based upon a finding by the FAA that the standard would 
create a hazard to safety. Additionally, in section 233, Congress 
preempted the states from enacting or enforcing any emission standards 
for aircraft that did not conform to the federal standards. Id. Section 
7573.
    EPA's broad powers under section 110(c) provide the legal authority 
for promulgating the control strategy proposed in the FIP--an emissions 
fee system based on a declining performance target expressed in per 
passenger emissions that can be achieved through either operational or 
technological means. EPA is not exercising its authority under section 
231 to promulgate technology forcing emission standards for aircraft 
engines as the control strategy in this FIP. Nevertheless, the proposed 
control strategy maintains cooperative interaction between EPA and FAA 
and recognizes FAA's expertise in aircraft safety and navigation. EPA 
has consulted with FAA in drafting the proposed control strategy and 
will continue to consult and cooperate with FAA in finalizing and 
implementing the control strategy.
    EPA has determined that the proposed control strategy is well 
within the broad scope of powers under section 110(c) and that the 
strategy is not prohibited under any provisions in the Act. As 
explained elsewhere in this preamble, EPA has solid legal authority for 
fee systems to encourage emission reductions. Further, EPA believes 
that the proposed control strategy is not prohibited by or in direct 
conflict with other federal regulations and statutes, such as the 
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (``ADA''), the Airport Noise and 
Capacity Act of 1990 (``ANCA''), or the Federal Aviation Act, which 
establishes FAA for overseeing aircraft safety, the efficient use of 
the navigable airspace, and the national air transportation system.
    The proposed program is designed to ensure that substantial 
emission reductions are achieved by the aviation industry. However, the 
strategy neither establishes a hard and fast emissions budget or cap 
for individual commercial airline operators, nor specifies compliance 
measures. Instead, the program relies on environmental performance 
targets or emissions rate goals with fees for excess emissions. The 
approach leaves each operator with the discretion to choose the best 
compliance strategy for achieving environmental goals and satisfying 
market demands.
    A commercial airline may choose to satisfy the emission reduction 
requirements with compliance measures ranging from relatively 
straightforward options to very challenging, more difficult approaches. 
EPA's preliminary analysis suggests that the lower end of this range 
includes such measures as converting ground service equipment to 
cleaner power sources; increased use of single engine taxiing; 
implementing procedural improvements to reduce congestion and taxi/idle 
times; purchasing cleaner, current production aircraft; or possibly 
purchasing emissions credits.
    At the upper end of this range, airlines may choose to tow aircraft 
rather than taxi with onboard power; substantially improve load 
factors; pursue the production of new engine designs with low-NOX 
staged-combustion systems which are presently nearing production for 
certain applications; or develop additional clean engine technology. An 
airline which continues to have excess emissions after choosing from 
among these possible measures will pay emission fees on its activities. 
It might then choose to limit activity to reduce its total fee 
liability.
    Concerns have been raised that this strategy may require airlines 
to choose operational measures that, for safety reasons, should be left 
to the discretion of the pilot in command. For example, the FAA has 
advised that the decisions to reduce use of reverse thrust and increase 
use of single-engine taxiing should ultimately be those of the pilot.
    Beyond these choices, concerns have been raised that compliance 
with the no-fee emission reduction targets may depend on technology-
forcing aircraft engine development, and that the liability for 
noncompliance fees may directly or indirectly result in a limitation on 
activity. EPA requests comments on the likelihood that, and the point 
within the range of proposed emission reductions (e.g., 30-45 percent 
for NOX) at which, such measures as advanced engine development 
may be required. The Agency also seeks comment on the legal and policy 
implications of a strategy that has the potential to create an economic 
incentive for airlines to limit operations at airports in the FIP 
areas. EPA also requests comments on the legal and policy implications 
of the proposed strategy if, after public comment and further study the 
Agency determines that at the upper end of the emissions reduction 
range under consideration, the requirement may have the potential to 
induce airlines to choose between such options as encouraging 
implemention of aircraft operational measures that currently are left 
to pilot discretion for safety reasons on the one hand, and limiting 
the number of operations at the airport on the other. Finally, comment 
is requested on the relationship between EPA's legal authority under 
section 110(c) and section 231, should the strategy result in the 
regulated industry having as its only options, outside of activity 
limits, reliance on either technology-forcing aircraft engine advances 
to meet the emission reduction targets, or paying the proposed fees.
    Regardless of the means by which compliance is achieved, the 
proposed control strategy does not appear to mandate or indirectly 
require an accelerated fleet turnover that would potentially conflict 
with the schedule established under ANCA for reducing noise by the end 
of 1999 (See 49 U.S.C. App. Section 2157 (a)), because the first FIP 
controls would not apply until 2001 and the most stringent controls 
would not be required until 2005. The proposed control strategy also 
appears consistent with the statutory requirements and mandate for the 
FAA under the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. App. 1348.
    During the drafting of the proposed control strategy, EPA 
considered but rejected requiring the airport proprietor to implement 
and enforce regulation of the commercial airlines. EPA rejected this 
concept and chose for EPA and FAA to implement and enforce the proposed 
strategy because the proprietor has more limited authority over the 
commercial airlines and because the courts have held that there are 
limits on EPA's ability to mandate municipal entities to control the 
behavior of others by requiring specific measures. See Brown v. EPA, 
521 F.2d 827 (9th Cir. 1475), vacated on other grounds, 431 U.S. 99 
(1977).
    The proposed control strategy treats all commercial airlines 
identically, and the proposed strategy envisions compliance by 
international air carriers as well as domestic airlines. EPA believes 
that international air carriers are required to comply with all 
applicable rules and regulations, including air quality laws. 
Therefore, EPA is not proposing to treat foreign air carriers any 
differently than the domestic commercial airlines, subject to any 
supervening requirements in treaty obligations. During the comment 
period on the proposed control strategy, EPA will be contacting the 
Department of Transportation, the Department of State, and other 
federal agencies to ensure consistencies with relevant rules, 
regulations, and agreements. EPA will also explore any additional 
requirements or flexibility for the handling of fees collected from 
foreign carriers.
    (4) Ground Access Vehicles Controlled by Other FIP Elements. The 
proposed control strategy only applies to aircraft and related emission 
sources that are under the direct control of commercial air carriers. 
This is because the other major sources of emissions operating at 
airports, such as GAV and stationary sources, are being substantially 
controlled under other regulations. Emissions from significant 
stationary sources are controlled under stationary source rules 
implemented by the state and local agencies or the FIP. Emissions from 
GAV are comprehensively regulated under state rules and other FIP 
measures. Also, in conjunction with promulgating the proposed strategy, 
EPA is recommending amending provisions in the Airports and Airways 
Improvement Act (``AAIA''), 49 U.S.C. Section 2210, that limit the 
airport proprietor's ability to spend landing fee revenues on projects 
that reduce GAV emissions through promoting mass transit or eliminating 
congestion.
    (5) Issues for Specific Comment. EPA requests comment on the 
desirability of removing the Ventura and Sacramento control areas from 
this commercial aircraft control strategy.
    EPA requests comment on whether stationary source emission 
reduction targets are appropriate for use with the commercial aircraft 
control strategy.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability of using a two-year 
average for establishing a baseline inventory, although EPA notes that 
any multi-year average must represent 1990 emissions in some manner 
consistent with Clean Air Act requirements.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability and feasibility of 
modifying the basin-wide emissions target to lock in emissions 
reductions that will result from non-FIP requirements such as the 
Airport Noise and Capacity Act.
    EPA proposes today to allocate GSE operated by fixed-base operators 
to specific airlines based on servicing provided under contract 
agreements, and requests comment on possible alternatives to such an 
allocation strategy.
    EPA requests comment on potential alternatives to the ozone-season 
control period proposed today.
    EPA requests comment on the appropriate schedule of reduction for 
the seasonal emission cap even though the final (2005) emission cap 
would not change.
    EPA requests comment on a triggering mechanism that would prevent 
implementation of the fee system as long as the area-wide commercial 
aircraft emission allowance target is achieved.
    EPA requests comment on what fee levels will achieve the objective 
of discouraging noncompliance without being excessive.
    EPA requests comment on alternative methods for establishing 
activity factors that may be automatically updated based on prior-year 
operational data.
    The airlines have reported using as a ``rule of thumb'' 200 pounds 
of payload for each passenger, which includes the weight of the 
passenger and his or her luggage. EPA requests comment on whether this 
is an appropriate and equitable value.
    EPA requests comment on the possible incorporation of an emissions 
credit program as part of the control strategy proposed today, and on 
ways to involve state and local agencies in order to make more trading 
opportunities available to the airlines.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability of issuing additional 
specific technical guidance concerning emissions calculations for 
aircraft operations.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability of requiring airlines to 
submit baseline reports, and on possible alternative methods for 
establishing a reasonable baseline emissions inventory.
    EPA requests comment on the current emissions inventory methodology 
that uses airport-specific average summer day, mid-morning mixing 
heights for July and August 1990 as the basis for calculating aircraft 
climbout and approach emissions. (The amount of time spent in each of 
these operational modes depends on the height of the inversion layer.) 
Alternatively, a single default mixing height (e.g., 3000 feet above 
ground level) could be used for all aircraft operations. This could 
simplify the calculation procedure, but may not be as representative.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability of requiring airlines to 
submit compliance plans, and on the information that should be provided 
in such plans should they be required.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability of providing exemptions 
from the requirements of this control program for certain types of 
emergency or atypical commercial aircraft operations beyond the control 
of aircraft operators.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability and feasibility of 
establishing a de minimus exemption for this control program.
    The Agency requests comment on the legal and policy implications of 
a strategy that has the potential to create incentives to limit 
operations at airports in the FIP areas.
    EPA requests comment on the relationship between EPA's legal 
authority under sections 110(c) and 231 if the strategy results in the 
regulated industry having as a principal option, reliance on 
technology-forcing aircraft engine advances to meet the emission 
reduction targets.
    Persons submitting comments on these issues or other specific 
aspects of today's proposal should consider and discuss the possible 
impact of their comments on other elements of the control program, 
particularly when such comments propose alternative strategies that 
would achieve smaller or larger emission reductions from commercial 
aviation.
    (6) Aviation Working Group Issues/Concerns To gather information 
used in preparing today's action, the Agency formed a working group 
composed principally of representatives from EPA, FAA, various State 
and local regulatory authorities, airport operators, and airlines. The 
mission of the working group was to acquire emission inventory data, 
assess inventory methodologies, and identify operational and 
technological issues regarding potential control strategies.
    The proposed environmental performance target/fee control program 
represents a new and innovative strategy for aviation. EPA has 
attempted to address many of the issues and concerns raised by the 
working group members, but recognizes that significant issues and 
differences of opinion remain. In order to facilitate public comment on 
these issues, EPA has requested comment on specific topics throughout 
the description of the proposal. Nonetheless, EPA is taking an 
additional step to ensure that concerns raised by the airline industry 
are fully aired as part of this rulemaking. The industry's concerns, as 
submitted by the Airline Transport Association,\78\ are summarized as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\For more detail see the letter from R. Kettler, ATA to R. 
Wilson, EPA, dated December 27, 1993, available in the rulemaking 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Further regulation of aircraft emissions under the FIP is 
unnecessary because VOC emissions from aircraft have already been 
reduced and will continue to decrease substantially through the next 
decade. Fleet modernization due to market forces and phase out of Stage 
II aircraft will substantially decrease VOC emissions.
     Any FIP requirements for aircraft emission reductions 
would be illegal per section 110(a)(5)(C) of the Clean Air Act. It 
would also run counter to the jurisdiction of DOT to ensure a safe and 
efficient air transportation system.
     Emission reductions required by the FIP would ultimately 
require limiting the number of flights, which would have a devastating 
effect on the region's economy.
     Airlines will be subject to NOX reductions under a 
regulatory scheme being developed by the International Civil Aviation 
Organization (ICAO). This international approach is necessary to keep 
from placing U.S. airlines at a competitive disadvantage in the global 
marketplace.
     Any FIP proposal that directly or indirectly affects 
aircraft operations would unwisely and unlawfully impinge on the 
control of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over the safety 
and efficiency of airport operations. The pilot in command is the final 
authority as to the operation of the aircraft. Measures such as single 
engine taxiing, derated takeoffs, and limiting use of reverse thrust on 
landing may pose safety hazards.
     EPA has no authority to prescribe a bubble to control 
airport or airline emissions. Proposal of an airline or airport-wide 
emissions cap would require either operational changes that raise 
serious safety and efficiency concerns or a reduction in the number of 
flights. These would violate either the Federal Aviation Act, FAA 
regulations or the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.
     Airport proprietors are preempted from exerting 
operational controls with regard to aircraft and airlines.
     Use of a bubble would be unworkable, since neither EPA nor 
airport proprietors have the expertise or the resources to supervise 
and enforce restrictions on the hundreds of businesses and operations 
that are potential emission sources at an airport.
     Control of domestic aircraft emissions under the FIP would 
discriminate unfairly against U.S. air carriers. Foreign carriers, 
military and general aviation must be subject to the same controls as 
commercial domestic carriers.
     Any emissions decreases from the closure or realignment of 
military airfields must be credited to the aviation sector as a whole.
     Although the Clean Air Act requires EPA to use a 1990 
baseline for determining overall emission reduction goals for the FIP, 
EPA should allow the use of other years for particular sources. A 1987 
baseline year for aircraft would be more equitable, because individual 
airlines have been voluntarily reducing their VOC emissions since that 
date by phasing in quieter and cleaner engines.
     As an alternative to allowing an earlier baseline year, 
the rule might provide that the benefit of percentage reductions by 
those industries that have made the least pre-1990 emission reductions 
be shared with industries that made the most pre-1990 progress.
     ATA questions the authority of EPA to regulate airline 
ground service equipment (GSE) emissions.
     The airline industry maintains that EPA has unfairly 
focused on airline GSE regulation, while ignoring similar off-road 
vehicles used by other industries.
     The airline industry has provided evidence that GSE 
emissions amount to nearly 40 percent of airline-controlled emissions, 
in contrast to the substantially lower percentage estimated by EPA. 
Thus, there may be much greater opportunity for emission reductions 
from GSE than EPA has previously contemplated.
     To the extent that GSE emission regulation is permissible, 
EPA should develop a reasonable phase-in schedule for such regulations 
to allow for the development of appropriate controls and to work 
through the associated technical problems.
    The Agency requests comments on the concerns and issues raised by 
the airline industry.
    (c) Military Aviation. (1) Overview. (a) Military Air Base 
Operations. Military air bases are defined for the purpose of this 
proposal as facilities owned and operated by the Department of Defense 
with the primary mission of aircraft operation. Aircraft operation 
emissions, defined here as emissions from aircraft themselves, dominate 
total emissions at a military air base. Like commercial airports, 
ground support equipment and ground access vehicles also contribute to 
a military air base's total emissions. Mobile source-related emissions 
from these ``other base operations'' sources have never been fully 
inventoried. EPA has established a working group in conjunction with 
the Department of Defense (DOD) to compile and assess complete emission 
profiles for all air bases. The information that is currently available 
is contained in the Technical Support Document, which is available in 
the rulemaking docket for today's proposal.
    Table F lists the military installations in the control areas where 
aircraft activity has been identified, ranging from active air bases 
with intensive activity, to bases with only minimal transient 
operations. The South Coast Air Basin contains most of the 
installations. As an example of their significance in FIP areas, 
emissions from military aircraft operations in the South Coast air 
basin currently are about 20 percent of those generated by commercial 
aircraft operations, or about 0.3 percent of the total South Coast Air 
basin's 1990 baseline emissions inventory based on current inventory 
data.
    A military air base usually has specific aircraft based on-site; 
the operational characteristics for these aircraft can vary widely 
depending on the specific mission requirements for the based unit or 
units. Transient operations resulting from military aircraft based 
elsewhere can comprise a significant portion of a military air base's 
total aircraft operations, depending on specific military requirements, 
but most of these transient operations are unscheduled and difficult to 
characterize. The military aircraft fleet experiences relatively slow 
turnover; aircraft remain in service for many years, and new airframe 
designs enter the fleet at a relatively slow pace.
    The ongoing base closure and realignment process introduces an 
important element into the process of developing a control strategy for 
military aircraft operations. The Secretary of Defense and the Defense 
Base Closure and Realignment Commission have recommended a series of 
defense base closures across the nation, including the FIP areas, as 
well as a concurrent sequence of ``realignment'' actions with shifts in 
the location and intensity of military activity. The closure of several 
air bases within the control areas represents the more significant 
impact on the control strategies described here. Of the seven military 
air installations located in the South Coast area, three are scheduled 
for closure and one will be realigned. Aircraft operations at the 
realigned installation are expected to decrease. (See the table below 
for the air bases recommended for closure.) As a result of the Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, emissions from military 
aircraft will be significantly reduced by the year 2000. For example, 
emissions of VOC and NOX will decline by at least 50 percent in 
the South Coast control area as a result of air base closures, 
according to current information. (See the Technical Support Document 
for further discussion.)
    Certain bases are slated for re-use by civilian entities following 
closure; this re-use may include aircraft activity. Some of any such 
activity may represent relocation of current or future growth in 
civilian aviation from other airports in the respective air basins; 
some may be activity which would not have occurred in that basin but 
for the availability of the closed base.

Military Air Bases in California FIP Areas

Military Agency

South Coast Air Basin
Production Flight Test-Air Force Plant 42--Air Force
El Toro MCAS [closing]--Marine Corps
Los Alamitos AAF--Army National Guard
March AFB--Air Force
Norton AFB [closing]--Air Force
San Clemente Island--Navy
Tustin MCAS [closing]--Marine Corps
Sacramento Air Basin
Mather AFB [closing]--Air Force
McClellan AFB--Air Force
Ventura County
Channel Islands--Air National Guard
Point Mugu NAWS--Navy
Abbreviations
AAF--Army Air Field
AFB--Air Force Base
MCAS--Marine Corps Air Station
NAWS--Naval Air Weapons Station

    (b) Control Strategy. As with commercial operations, the EPA 
examined various options for reducing total emissions from military 
aircraft operations and other base operations. These options included: 
(1) exempting military aircraft operations from FIP requirements while 
maintaining a cap on all other mobile source emissions from other base 
operations at military air stations; (2) an absolute cap on total 
emissions (including aircraft) under the direct control of the 
Department of Defense; and (3) a target based program using an 
allowable emission rate and a fee for excess emissions above this rate, 
like that proposed for commercial airports.
    EPA proposes the first of these three options. EPA is proposing to 
exclude military aircraft operations from FIP requirements for national 
security reasons, as explained in more detail below. Applying 
restrictions on military aircraft operations will inevitably degrade 
training and combat readiness. Restrictions would impair the ability of 
the Department of Defense to perform assigned missions (including 
humanitarian and natural disaster relief, surveillance, and logistic 
support).
    The options available for reducing emissions from military aircraft 
without requiring a significant decrease in the number of aircraft 
operations are minimal. Military aircraft are designed to specific 
mission requirements including power, maneuver, lift, and load. 
Application of control technologies to existing aircraft would degrade 
characteristics inherent in military aircraft design. Arbitrary 
reductions in aircraft operations that may be required to meet the 
second or third alternative control strategies listed above may be 
inconsistent with training and operational requirements necessary for 
national security. In selecting this proposal to exempt military 
aircraft operations from the FIP requirements, EPA has considered the 
approved base closings within California which will provide significant 
reductions in current emissions from stationary, aircraft and other 
mobile sources under the direct control of the Department of Defense. 
One consequence of these closures is that the reductions in operations 
least harmful to military readiness have already been made. The 
incremental risk to readiness of further reductions in operations is 
therefore that much more.
    The DOD established an internal FIP working group in December 1992 
to examine the problems associated with potential FIP strategies, 
identify impacts to military operations and readiness, and collect data 
from military installations in the FIP areas. Several concerns have 
been identified. The principal concern is that although military 
aircraft operations contribute a very small portion of the total area-
wide emissions, they would be severely restricted within an emissions 
cap. On military air installations, the predominant source of mobile 
emissions is aircraft and aircraft support operations. Severe 
restrictions will inevitably degrade training and combat readiness 
necessary to minimize the risks associated with military aviation. An 
emission cap or reduction in training operations may impair the ability 
to perform assigned national missions (including humanitarian relief, 
surveillance and logistics support). The options available for reducing 
mobile source emissions from military air stations without requiring a 
decrease in aircraft operations are minimal.
    Another issue is the limited ability for DOD to transfer aircraft 
to military air stations outside the FIP areas. To move a specific 
aircraft type requires that the receiving installation have the 
necessary infrastructure to accommodate that particular aircraft type. 
Additionally, permanent moves of military assets and personnel are also 
not fully at the discretion of the military. Any significant base 
closure action or realignment that meets certain thresholds requires 
that the action be presented to the BRAC Commission and subsequently be 
presented to Congress.
    Based on the impact the second and third possible FIP control 
strategies (listed above) would have on military readiness, and the 
already scheduled decrease in military aircraft operations, EPA 
proposes that military aircraft be exempt from the FIP. EPA requests 
comments on excluding military aircraft from the FIP control strategy.
    The proposed FIP program will control mobile source emissions from 
other base operations under the control of DOD. These sources include 
APUs, GSE, captive vehicle fleets, privately-owned vehicles, and any 
other mobile sources operated within an air base's boundaries. The 
military bubble also will include DOD-controlled non-aircraft emissions 
sources that operate at locations other than military bases, such as 
ground equipment based at civilian airports. The bubble will be basin-
wide rather than air base-specific, given the variability introduced by 
base closure and realignment activities, as well as the need for 
operational flexibility.
    EPA proposes to impose a declining cap on total emissions for 
controlling these other base operations emissions from all air bases 
within each FIP area. This avoids the difficulty of having to allocate 
baseline emissions among multiple entities (e. g., perhaps down to 
individual air bases). This approach also takes advantage of the 
military's centralized command structure; DOD (or each branch of the 
armed forces) can mandate air base performance at a certain emissions 
level (excluding aircraft emissions) commensurate with environmental 
objectives while maintaining the flexibility to stage specific missions 
and other functions among various bases inside or outside of the basin. 
This control strategy provides individual base commanders with the 
flexibility to implement specific operational and procedural measures 
necessary to achieve the specified emissions goal, and avoids having 
EPA attempt to implement specific control measures for military 
operations. The centralized command structure means that a single 
entity is the focus of the control strategy.
    An absolute emissions cap approach does not require a projection of 
activity in future years, one of the required assumptions for a program 
based on allowable emissions per activity unit. Finally, a control 
strategy that fundamentally relies upon the environmental efficiency of 
operations, such as the emission rate-based program proposed for 
commercial aircraft, appears less desirable for military air bases 
given the inherent unpredictability of military operations.
    EPA also seeks comments on the second alternative approach, to 
establish a declining cap for an emissions bubble which includes 
military aircraft emissions and therefore requires reductions in 
aircraft emissions also. Further, comments are requested on the 
desirability of the third possible control approach, an approach that 
includes aircraft emissions but is based on a target average emission 
rate per aircraft operation with a fee for emissions above the target. 
This third approach would be similar to that being proposed today for 
commercial aviation.
    With respect to the second and third possible control approaches, 
several additional issues have been identified if military aircraft 
operations are included within the scope of a bubble program. EPA 
requests comment on the following issues.
    If emissions from aircraft are included, a fee system based on an 
emission rate target (i.e., the third approach), consistent with the 
proposed strategy for commercial airlines, or a variation of the second 
approach but with a fee for emissions in excess of the cap, may be more 
equitable and desirable than an absolute emissions cap that applies 
uniquely to military aviation. Emissions that exceed the emissions 
target would be subject to emission fees instead of an enforcement-
related fine or penalty. The emission target would apply to air 
emissions only during the ozone season in each FIP area. The method of 
determining the excess emissions and the resulting fee would be 
addressed in subsequent rulemaking.
    Another issue identified involves the method of allotting the 
emission caps or emission rate targets by the EPA. To be most 
effective, the DOD Working Group recommends that any caps on total 
emissions, targets for total emissions, or emission rate targets which 
include aircraft emissions be allocated to the individual Military 
Departments. Each Military Department will be responsible for attaining 
the target for installations under its control. This system is 
consistent with existing DOD command structure and can be readily 
implemented. Trading between Military Departments and between 
installations is proposed. Trading is applicable only to installations 
within the same FIP area.
    To reduce the potential impact on aircraft operations of an 
emissions cap or emission rate target which includes aircraft 
emissions, the DOD working group identified as essential the ability to 
trade excess emission reductions between stationary and mobile sources. 
Maximum flexibility and minimal operational impacts can be achieved by 
allowing trading between stationary and mobile sources, in addition to 
trading between all types of military installations within the same FIP 
area. In other words, major reductions or elimination of a stationary 
source may allow continued essential flight operations. EPA 
acknowledges this concern and supports such trading programs as created 
by State and local governments as discussed elsewhere in today's 
proposal.
    Of particular concern to the Navy with respect to the second and 
third options identified above is the inclusion of Naval Auxiliary 
Landing Field San Clemente Island (SCI) in the list of military air 
installations regulated by the FIP. SCI is an isolated and remote area, 
with few emissions sources, either mobile or stationary, other than 
aircraft. The impact on aircraft operations will be substantial, as 
almost the entire amount of required reductions will have to be a 
result of decreased aircraft operations. SCI is the primary training 
location for Navy pilots prior to carrier deployment. This training is 
vital and represents a significant military readiness issue. SCI is 
located 55 miles southwest of Long Beach. Meteorological data indicates 
that SCI emissions do not impact the South Coast Air Basin, and at best 
the contribution of air emissions from SCI to the South Coast air 
quality is not well defined. Consistent with EPA's request for comment 
on exempting Sacramento and Ventura areas from the FIP commercial 
airport requirements, EPA also requests comments on exempting emissions 
from on or near San Clemente Island from the FIP control strategy, if 
aircraft are ultimately included in the final rule.
    The proposed emission reduction requirements under a bubble concept 
for military air bases--regardless of whether it includes aircraft 
emissions--would be generally consistent with the emission cap 
requirements for stationary sources in the FIP areas. Although not 
firmly decided, the current stationary source control strategy for the 
South Coast requires that VOC and NOX emissions be reduced by 20-
45 and 30-45 percent, respectively, from the 1990 baseline inventory by 
2005, through a series of uniform annual reductions of baseline 
emissions of each pollutant: 4-9 percent per year for VOC and 6-9 
percent per year for NOX, both starting in 2001. Stationary source 
requirements for the 2006-2010 period have not been established at this 
time. Until modified in a future rulemaking, the 2005 cap will apply 
through 2010.
    The requirements for Ventura from 2001-2005 are identical to that 
for the South Coast. For Sacramento, the strategy requires a VOC 
reduction of 20-45 percent, with uniform annual reduction of 4-9 
percent. The timeframe for achieving this reduction is the same as for 
the South Coast and Ventura areas.
    For this proposal the overall reduction targets are expressed as a 
range of percentages; EPA anticipates establishing a specific 
percentage reduction target in the final rule. EPA requests comment on 
whether these stationary source emission reduction targets are 
appropriate for use with the military air base control strategy.
    A military air base can utilize any of a variety of emission 
reduction options, at the discretion of the Department of Defense and 
the base commander, to meet the annual emissions target. For example, 
reductions in ground equipment could be obtained through GSE 
electrification and restrictions on ground traffic within base 
boundaries. If the final rule does include emissions from military 
aircraft, a base commander may choose to restrict aircraft taxi 
procedures, perhaps by mandating specific direct routes to and from 
runways, or by towing aircraft into takeoff position; certain training 
procedures could be altered to minimize the frequency of high-emission 
operating modes within the basin mixing zone.
    (c) Geographic Scope. The control program for military air bases 
will cover the three FIP areas: South Coast, Ventura, and Sacramento 
Air Basins. The Agency requests comments on the need to control air 
base emissions in each area based on air quality effects or equity 
considerations. In particular, EPA requests comments on exempting 
emissions from on or near San Clemente Island from the FIP control 
strategy, if aircraft are ultimately included in the final rule.
    (d) Control Period. EPA proposes to control military air base 
emissions only during the ozone season in each FIP area. Further, EPA 
proposes to require compliance with the program based on the season-
long average of emissions. As already described, such operations may be 
highly variable. Although this variability tends to argue for a shorter 
compliance (e.g., a monthly period as in the stationary cap program), 
the longer period seems preferable to provide military commanders with 
the flexibility to conduct operations as necessary. EPA requests 
comment on the desirability of the seasonal compliance demonstration 
versus shorter periods.
    (2) Key Regulatory Elements. (a) Summary. EPA proposes to specify 
in the final FIP a linear declining cap on total mobile source 
emissions from military air bases in each FIP area, excluding emissions 
from aircraft themselves. This declining cap will be designed to 
achieve the emissions reduction targets for each area as described 
under ``Control Strategy.'' Military air bases will submit a baseline 
emissions report and annual compliance determination reports similar to 
those required for commercial airlines as discussed previously. 
Military air bases are defined for the purpose of this proposal as 
facilities owned and operated by the Department of Defense with a 
primary mission of aircraft operation. The Department of Defense also 
will be responsible for submitting baseline emissions reports and 
annual compliance reports for military operations that occur at 
civilian facilities in the control area.
    (b) Baseline Inventory and Emission Caps. EPA currently does not 
have sufficient data for all subject emission sources included in the 
proposed military air base control program to establish a reasonable 
baseline inventory. EPA, therefore, will require each military air base 
in the control area to calculate and report total subject emissions for 
the baseline year of 1990 within 180 days following finalization of 
this rule. Information to be included in the baseline report is 
described in ``Reporting and Recordkeeping'' below. The military bubble 
will be the sum of emission inventories from all air bases in the 
basin.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability of using an alternative 
baseline scheme, given the variability introduced by operations related 
to Desert Shield/Desert Storm during 1990. One alternative could be to 
require air bases to submit data for 1989 and 1990 so that a two-year 
average inventory can be calculated. The DOD working group recommended 
that installations have the option of identifying the baseline year, 
between the years 1989 and 1992, which resulted in the most 
representative total emissions. The DOD working group also requested a 
one time adjustment of the baseline inventory be allowed, based on 
actual inventory data, once the FIP requirements are in effect. The one 
time adjustment could help eliminate errors based on assumptions and 
estimates used in developing the baseline.
    EPA will establish in a subsequent rulemaking action a series of 
declining seasonal emissions allowances for NOX and VOC as 
described above using the modified baseline emissions inventory. Both 
the baseline inventory and the seasonal targets will be expressed as 
allowable tons of pollutant emitted on average per day during the 
control period.
    An additional concern regards the requirement for baseline 
inventories for installations that are closing. The DOD working group 
further recommended that inventories not be required for bases closing 
before 2000. Emission sources are already being phased out and there 
would be no benefit derived from funding such inventories in terms of 
helping to design emission control strategies for those bases. On the 
other hand, the estimates of emissions eliminated by base closures will 
affect the effective stringency of a declining cap program if the 
baseline for the cap was prior to closure since there will be credit 
for base closings.
    (c) Averaging and Trading. EPA proposes to determine compliance for 
military air base operations by averaging emissions across the control 
area, rather than establishing specific seasonal emission limits for 
individual air bases. Such a control strategy would provide the 
military with the flexibility to transfer operations between air bases 
as needed to meet realignment requirements or other specific mission 
needs, as long as the overall emissions reduction target is met. 
Alternatively, the Agency could establish seasonal emission allowances 
for each military air base in the control area. EPA requests comment on 
the desirability of using area-wide averaging to determine military 
compliance, and on possible alternative compliance determination 
schemes.
    The Agency also requests comment on the inclusion of military air 
base operations in any civilian emission credit trading scheme if such 
a program is established by a local government. Such an expansion could 
provide the Department of Defense with additional incentive to 
implement emission reduction measures that generate tradable credits, 
or provide a mechanism for obtaining credits from other sources to 
ensure compliance should unforeseen difficulties arise. (See the 
discussion of averaging and trading for commercial aviation for more 
detail of this topic.)
    Several of the military air installations in the FIP areas have 
already been identified for closure (Table F), and military operations 
will cease at the identified bases prior to the year 2000. These 
reductions do not even consider BRAC 95 which could result in further 
reductions. The DOD Working Group recommends that any emission 
reductions resulting from closure or realignment should be credited to 
the Military Department. These credits would then be available for 
transfer by the Military Department as part of the President's five 
point plan for community redevelopment at closing bases and/or to meet 
service Department needs within the specific FIP areas.
    (d) Annual Compliance Determination. Beginning in 1999, military 
air bases will be required to submit annual emissions reports as 
described below. The total military emissions inventory from subject 
mobile sources at all air bases in the area will be compared to the 
given year's seasonal emissions target to determine compliance with the 
FIP requirements.
    (e) Reporting and recordkeeping. (i) Compliance Plans. The 
stationary source cap program includes a requirement for affected 
sources to submit compliance plans that describe planned emission 
reduction measures. EPA could establish a similar requirement for 
military air bases as part of today's proposed control strategy. Such 
compliance plans would be submitted by Department of Defense in advance 
of the control period and would describe in some detail the various 
emission reduction measures planned for air base operations in the 
control areas.
    Compliance plans would impose a significant administrative burden 
on EPA and the Department of Defense, however. EPA therefore requests 
comment on the desirability of requiring compliance plans, and on the 
information that should be provided should they be required. EPA does 
not contemplate that these plans, if required, would legally bind the 
military, since that would impede flexibility and is not essential to 
the effectiveness of the program. However, any deliberate 
misrepresentation in the compliance plan may be made a violation of the 
FIP.
    (ii) Baseline Reports. As discussed above, EPA currently does not 
have sufficient information to establish a reasonable baseline military 
air base emissions inventory from which annual emission targets can be 
developed. EPA therefore will require military air bases to collect and 
report data concerning both aircraft operations and other air base 
operations in the baseline year of 1990, or alternative years as 
discussed in ``Baseline Inventory and Emission Caps'' above. These 
reports will be submitted to EPA no later than 180 days following 
finalization of this rule. These reports would be used by EPA to 
calculate the military's air base emissions baseline; seasonal emission 
targets will be established in a subsequent rulemaking action as a 
series of reductions from this baseline.
    These baseline reports will include, but may not be limited to, the 
following information to be provided by each military air base:
     Aircraft type and model, engine type and model, and number 
of landing/take-off operations (LTOs)
     Times in mode by engine for each flight
     Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) operating time
     Ground Support Equipment (GSE) population by type
     GSE activity by fuel type, engine size, and annual use 
hours
     All other off-highway equipment activity by fuel type, 
engine size, and annual use hours
     Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by highway certified vehicles 
(federal owned, contract personnel, privately owned, etc.) operated 
within air base boundaries
    Although EPA is not proposing to include aircraft emissions in the 
FIP program, aircraft emissions are included in the above list of 
reporting items. EPA believes that information on aircraft operations 
and emissions will allow it to better review the submitted information 
on emissions from other sources. Comment is requested on the necessity 
and usefulness of this information to EPAs implementation of the FIP 
and to local air quality planning activities.
    EPA recognizes that detailed information may not be available in 
each of these categories for 1990. In these instances military air 
bases may report estimated data; such estimates would be accompanied by 
a description of the estimation methodology used, including any 
supporting data. The Department of Defense will be required to identify 
a reporting entity for military operations at civilian airports; EPA 
also requests comment on alternative schemes for tracking and reporting 
such activity.
    (iii) Annual Compliance Determination Reports. Beginning with a 
report describing activity during 1999, the FIP will require military 
air bases to submit annual reports within 60 days of the close of each 
calendar year. These reports will include information on emissions for 
that year's ozone season, as described below. EPA will use these 
reports to determine the military's compliance with the seasonal 
emissions targets. Initiating these annual reports in 1999 will provide 
the Department of Defense and EPA with an opportunity to assess data 
gathering and analysis requirements well in advance of the first 
emissions target in 2001, as well as providing the DOD with important 
information on its performance needs prior to the first round of 
required reductions. Failure to submit annual emissions reports will be 
subject to EPA enforcement.
    Annual emissions reports will include the following information:
     Aircraft type and model for each flight during the ozone 
season
     Engine type and model for each affected flight
     Times in mode by engine for each affected flight
     Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) operating time during the ozone 
season
     Ground Support Equipment (GSE) population by type
     GSE activity by fuel type, engine size, and seasonal use 
hours
     All other off-highway equipment activity by fuel type, 
engine size, and seasonal use hours
     VMT by highway certified vehicles operating within air 
base boundaries during the ozone season
    Military air bases will be required to track and report actual data 
for the above information categories. Default values will not be 
accepted for the purposes of determining annual compliance with the 
military's emissions target. As with baseline reports, the Department 
of Defense will be required to identify a reporting entity for military 
aircraft operations at civilian airports; EPA also requests comment on 
alternative schemes for tracking and reporting such activity.
    Military air bases will be required to calculate their total 
hydrocarbon and NOX emissions for the report year's ozone season 
using the above data and enter these emissions on the report form. 
Emission calculation methodology will be taken from existing EPA-
approved documents. EPA also requests comment on the desirability of 
issuing additional specific technical guidance concerning emissions 
calculations for military aircraft operations.
    (f) Exemptions. EPA requests comment on the desirability of 
providing exemptions from the requirements of this control program for 
certain types of military air base operations. For example, emissions 
resulting from actions in response to emergencies, such as those that 
support operations of the United States forces introduced into 
hostilities, introduced into situations where involvement in 
hostilities is indicated, actions to resolve in-flight emergencies, or 
rendering emergency humanitarian or natural disaster relief should be 
exempt from reporting requirements and not count towards the military's 
environmental performance. Other actions which should also be included 
in this category are those to extinguish wildfires and immediate 
responses to the release or discharge of oil or hazardous material in 
accordance with approved Spill Prevention and Response Plans or Spill 
Contingency Plans. In addition, certain small military facilities with 
only minimal aircraft activity might be unnecessarily burdened under 
this program relative to the emissions reductions that might be 
obtained. Therefore, EPA requests comment on the desirability and 
feasibility of establishing a de minimis exemption for this control 
program.
    (3) Legal Authority. Section 118 of the Act requires all federal 
agencies, including the Department of Defense, to comply with rules and 
regulations promulgated under the Act in the same manner and to the 
same extent as non-governmental agencies. 42 U.S.C. Section 7418.
    (4) Issues for Specific Comment. EPA requests comment on the 
proposed exemption of military aircraft from FIP requirements on the 
basis of national security considerations, and on the alternative 
proposals described in this section.
    EPA requests comment on whether stationary source emission 
reduction targets are appropriate for use with a military control 
strategy.
    EPA requests comment on the manner in which non-Department of 
Defense government-operated aircraft emission sources should be 
included in this FIP control strategy. EPA requests comment on the 
desirability of exempting such sources from the requirements of the 
control program.
    EPA requests comment on potential alternatives to the seasonal 
control period proposed today.
    EPA proposes to use 1990 as the baseline year for each military air 
base to establish a baseline emissions level, but also requests comment 
on the desirability of using an alternative baseline scheme, given the 
variability introduced by operations related to Desert Shield/Desert 
Storm.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability of using area-wide 
averaging to determine military compliance, and on possible alternative 
compliance determination schemes.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability of issuing additional 
specific technical guidance concerning emissions calculations for 
military air base operations.
    EPA requests comment on alternative methods of tracking and 
reporting emissions resulting from military operations at civilian 
airports.
    EPA requests comment on providing exemptions from the requirements 
of any control program for certain types of emergency or atypical 
military operations.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability and feasibility of 
establishing a de minimis exemption for any control program.
    EPA requests comment on national preparedness and response 
flexibility versus the degree and scope of the proposed emissions 
control program.
    Persons submitting comments on these issues or other specific 
aspects of today's proposal should consider and discuss the possible 
impact of their comments on other elements of the control program, 
particularly when such comments propose alternative strategies that 
would achieve smaller or larger emission reductions from military air 
bases.
    (d) General Aviation. (1) Source Description. The general aviation 
category consists of privately-owned aircraft operated under FAA Parts 
91, 133, or 137. As such, it encompasses aircraft types with a variety 
of different engines, including piston, turboprop, and turbine. It also 
includes both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft. Most general 
aviation aircraft are owned and operated by private individuals. Other 
aircraft are owned and operated by businesses. Much of the general 
aviation fleet is old, with few significant technological improvements 
in emissions performance expected in the foreseeable future.
    General aviation aircraft operate at a variety of facilities in the 
control areas, ranging from large commercial airports to small 
privately-owned airstrips and helipads. The table below (``Civil 
Airports in FIP Areas'') lists the civil airfields in the control 
areas, based on information provided by the FAA and discussed in the 
Technical Support Document. In addition to these civil airfields, FAA 
data for 1991 lists 198 helipads in the South Coast control area, 3 
helipads in the Sacramento control area, and 12 helipads in the Ventura 
control area; this includes private helipads, medical facilities, and 
various local government facilities.

Civil Airports in FIP Areas

South Coast Air Basin

Avalon Bay
Bear Creek
Big Bear City
Billy Joe
Brackett Field
Burbank-Glen.-Pas.
Cable
Catalina
Chino
Compton
Corona Muni.
El Monte
Ernst Field
Flabob
French Valley
Fullerton Muni.
Goodyear Blimp Base
Hawthorne Muni.
Hemet-Ryan
John Wayne.
Long Beach Muni.
L. A. Internat'l
Ontario Internat'l
Pebbly Beach
Perris Valley
Pines Airpark
Redlands Muni.
Rialto Muni.
Riverside Muni.
Santa Monica Muni.
Shepherd Field
Skylark Field
Torrance Muni.
Two Harbors
Van Nuys
Whiteman Airpark

Ventura County

Camarillo
Conover Air Lodge
Oxnard/Ventura
Santa Paula.

Sacramento Air Basin

Boeckmann Ranch
Bottimore Ranch
CHP Academy
Cameron Airpark
Flying B Ranch
Flying R
Franklin Field
Holtsmans
Lauppes Strip
Lucchetti Ranch
Mosier
Natomas
Rancho Murieta
Riego Flight Strip
Rio Linda
Sacramento Executive
Sacramento Metro.
Sky Way Estates
Spezia
Sunset Skyranch
Tenco Tractor
Van Vleck
Vestal Strip
    Much less specific information is available concerning the 
emissions resulting from general aviation activity than is available 
for commercial and military aircraft operations. The FAA collects some 
information on general aviation operations at airports with FAA-
operated (or contractor-operated) control towers, but these data are 
not comprehensive, and do not capture operations occurring at non-
tower-controlled facilities. In particular, the lack of data 
specifically addressing general aviation operations by type of aircraft 
makes an accurate assessment of the emissions from this source more 
difficult.
    (2) Overall Control Strategy. Although general aviation operations 
represent a small fraction of total emissions in most FIP areas, EPA is 
proposing to include this source in the FIP control strategy along with 
commercial and military aircraft operations as part of the broad, 
comprehensive control scheme for these areas. As described below, 
developing an effective comprehensive control strategy for this source, 
and effectively administering it, is an especially challenging task due 
to the diverse aircraft types and usage, the great number of individual 
owners/operators, and the large number of airfields in each most FIP 
areas. Nonetheless, if this source were excluded from the FIP, the 
potential reductions from this category would have to be achieved from 
another source.
    Today's proposal would establish an operations fee to reduce the 
emissions from general aviation activity during the ozone season in 
each FIP area. The Agency intends that the proposed approach provide 
the same level of benefits as the emission cap requirements for 
stationary sources in each of the FIP areas. (See section 
III.D.4.e.(2)(a)(4), above, for the specific percentage reductions.) 
Comments are also requested on three alternative control schemes. EPA 
has chosen not to apply a comprehensive emission cap to this source 
because the significant data requirements and level of EPA involvement 
in such a program make that strategy impractical.
    In developing the proposed strategy, EPA notes that there appear to 
be few, if any, regulatory options for innovatively reducing emissions 
from general aviation aircraft, given the age and emissions performance 
of the general aviation fleet, and the economic status of the general 
aviation industry. Unlike many other sources, improving the emissions 
performance of these aircraft through new, industry-wide emission 
standards is problematic. Even if cleaner engines could be made 
available, the general aviation fleet is unlikely to experience 
significant introduction of cleaner alternatives, since fleet turnover 
is relatively low (sales of general aviation aircraft in fact have 
declined in the past several years).
    This is not to suggest that emission benefits are unavailable 
through the careful selection of aircraft/engine combinations or the 
possible limited introduction of new models in the future. Rather, 
there are no substantially cleaner alternatives to current technology 
engines for the vast majority of the fleet. Therefore, the strategies 
that rely on turnover to cleaner technologies are unavailable in this 
instance.
    Operational and procedural measures such as reduced-power takeoffs 
and direct routing from hardstand to runway also would be difficult to 
implement for general aviation on an area-wide basis, given the widely 
varying aircraft and facility characteristics found amongst general 
aviation operations. These measures also offer little opportunity for 
emission reduction, due to minimal congestion at most general aviation 
airports, short taxi distances, and relatively low power-range engines. 
As a result, the only available measures that would provide significant 
emission benefits appear to involve activity reductions.
    The diverse and diffuse nature of general aviation operations 
creates significant obstacles for any emission control program. General 
aviation aircraft and the facilities at which they operate are 
controlled by a large and varied group of individuals and 
organizations. General aviation operations typically occur on a highly 
variable schedule and many operations can occur at completely 
uncontrolled airports. Despite these difficulties, EPA believes that an 
emission reduction program for general aviation could be implemented. 
The specific proposed control measures and alternatives discussed below 
reflect varying degrees of direct EPA involvement and participation by 
the general aviation community, with resultant variation in the 
certainty of obtaining emissions reductions.
    The control strategy applies to general aviation aircraft operated 
at commercial airports as well as those operated at public and private 
general aviation facilities. It does not apply to civilian general 
aviation aircraft operations at military bases; these are included in 
the military control strategy described above.
    Comments are specifically requested on the need to control 
emissions from general aviation in each area based on local air quality 
concerns, given the potential difficulty and likely resource-intensive 
nature of administering an effective program.
    (3) Key Regulatory Elements. The EPA proposes an operations fee 
program to reduce emissions from general aviation activity. By 
implementing a fee system, EPA can avoid establishing direct allocation 
of landing slots for general aviation as discussed later in this 
section, thereby maintaining the flexibility that is desirable for 
general aviation operations.
    EPA specifically proposes two options for an operations fee 
program. The first option implements a takeoff fee for all general 
aviation operations in the affected areas. Conceptually, the fee would 
be high enough to limit general aviation activity without making such 
activity prohibitively expensive. The second program option also 
implements a takeoff fee for all general aviation activity in these 
areas, but would incorporate a lifetime fee exemption for engines/
aircraft meeting ``clean'' emission levels. For example, aircraft 
engines with emissions comparable to the levels originally required by 
EPA in 1973 (38 FR 19088), but subsequently withdrawn, would be deemed 
``clean'' for the purpose of this program and would receive a lifetime 
exemption from any FIP general aviation takeoff fees. Certified 
engines/aircraft would be identified by a certificate or decal.
    As with commercial aircraft, EPA proposes an initial fee based on 
$10,000 per ton of pollutant, and will commit in the final FIP to 
review the effect of this fee and adjust it upwards if necessary to 
achieve the target emission reductions. Emissions per LTO based on a 
representative fleet of general aviation aircraft are:\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\See Volume IV, Chapter 5 of EPA's Procedures for Emission 
Inventory Preparation.

VOC--0.394 pounds per LTO
NOX--0.065 pounds per LTO

    On this basis the takeoff fee can be calculated as follows:

($10,000/ton) x (0.394 lbs/LTO) divided by 2,000 lbs/ton=$1.97/LTO for 
VOC
($10,000/ton) x (0.065 lbs/LTO) divided by 2,000 lbs/ton=$0.325/LTO for 
NOX

    The total fee thus would be $2.30 per LTO. In light of this low 
dollar amount, and since EPA would plan in any case to adjust the fee 
upward to get the desired effect, the Agency requests comments on 
whether it is reasonable to depart from the $10,000 per ton level 
generally being used for all proposed fee systems in this NPRM, and 
start with a higher fee in the final rule for general aviation.
    The Agency also requests comment on differentiating the fee to 
reflect the varying pollution potential of different aircraft (e.g., 
single- versus twin-engined and piston versus turbine powered). As a 
further differentiation, EPA requests comment on a variable fee 
structure for specific airports where other emission reduction schemes 
have been implemented by the airport proprietor beyond those required 
by the FIP or other regulations. This would encourage control measures 
such as vapor recovery.
    A takeoff fee would be assessed by selling one-time takeoff 
permits. The program would be administered and ultimately enforced by 
EPA, presumably at each airport. Denial of takeoff permission is the 
most practical means of enforcement for most general aviation 
applications, given the number of individual pilots that would be 
involved in such a program. The Agency is consulting with the FAA in 
this regard, and requests comments on the legal authority for and 
practical consequences of enlisting FAA assistance in this program. At 
uncontrolled public and private airports, proprietors or owners may be 
able to refuse services such as tie-down facilities or refueling to 
noncomplying aircraft. Otherwise, EPA would have to have a presence or 
a credible prospect of enforcement against noncomplying pilots in order 
to enforce the program.
    In order to accurately track and help enforce the proposed fee 
program, EPA will require owners or operators of civil airports in the 
control areas with general aviation activity to obtain a general 
aviation operations certificate and submit seasonal aircraft activity 
reports during the ozone season. This will provide EPA with the 
information necessary to verify that general aviation emission 
reductions are occurring as intended. Military air bases with general 
aviation activity will not be subject to these requirements, since such 
activity will be included in an air base's environmental performance 
evaluation as described in section III.D.4.e.(2)(c) above.
    All civilian airports in the control areas with general aviation 
activity will be required to obtain a general aviation operation 
certificate no later than December 31, 2000. Applications for these 
certificates will be submitted to EPA by March 20, 2000 and will 
include the following information:
     Airport name
     Airport location, including latitude and longitude
     Number of general aviation operations in 1999
     Number of general aviation aircraft based at the airport
     Services provided at the airport
    This information will provide EPA with a measure of current 
activity levels, which in turn will be used to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the emission reduction program that is implemented. 
Beginning January 1, 2001, airports with general aviation activity in 
the absence of a certificate will be subject to EPA enforcement.
    Beginning with the 2001 ozone season, civil airports will be 
required to submit seasonal activity reports during the ozone season on 
general aviation activity. These reports will include the following 
information:
     Airport name as indicated on the General Aviation 
Operation Certificate
     Total number of general aviation operations for the 
reported season
     For each general aviation operation during the reported 
season, the aircraft's FAA registration number (``N'' number)
    These reports will be submitted to EPA no later than the 60 days 
following end of the ozone season, and will be used to track the 
effectiveness of the activity reduction program that is implemented. 
Airports with general aviation activity during the control period that 
fail to submit reports will be subject to EPA enforcement.
    The Agency recognizes the potentially burdensome nature of the 
above comprehensive reporting and recordkeeping scheme, and requests 
comment on the desirability and need for such a program element.
    EPA is also interested in receiving comment on the desirability of 
providing exemptions from the requirements of this control program for 
certain types of general aviation aircraft operations. General aviation 
activity at non-tower controlled facilities could be exempted from this 
program; such activity likely represents only a small fraction of total 
general aviation activity and would be difficult to control under any 
of the programs discussed today, relative to the limited emissions 
benefits likely to result from such control. In addition, atypical 
aircraft operations beyond the control of a general aviation aircraft 
operator, such as emergency operations, could be exempted from the 
requirements of this control program.
    The Agency also requests comments on three alternative concepts for 
reducing emissions from this source. Under the first alternative, EPA 
would implement a slot program for general aviation operations in the 
control areas. Such a program would require EPA to develop a baseline 
general aviation activity inventory and a series of declining activity 
targets designed to achieve emission reduction targets for each control 
area. The declining activity targets would be expressed as a number of 
allowable operations during an ozone season.
    Operation ``slots'' would be distributed to the general aviation 
community; perhaps through an annual auction. General aviation 
operations that occur during the ozone season without an approved slot 
would be subject to enforcement. The program would require registration 
with EPA for each facility where general aviation operations occur, so 
that EPA can establish and track an accurate general aviation activity 
inventory. A slot program provides a great deal of certainty that 
emission reductions are taking place, but at the expense of an 
extensive administrative burden imposed on the general aviation 
community and the government.
    Under the second alternative, EPA would establish an environmental 
surcharge on the sale of aviation fuel distributed to facilities that 
service and refuel general aviation aircraft. This surcharge would be 
set at a rate high enough to reduce general aviation activity without 
making such activity prohibitively expensive. The assumption in this 
case is that declining fuel use on the part of the general aviation 
community represents declining operations with resultant emissions 
reductions.
    Airport proprietors could be responsible for collecting this 
surcharge each time that a general aviation aircraft refuels; 
alternatively, those parties supplying aviation fuel to general 
aviation facilities could collect the surcharge upon delivery of fuel 
to the facility. In either case, the surcharge would be remitted to the 
federal government on a regular basis along with a report detailing 
fuel use during the reporting period. Fuel costs are small relative to 
the total costs of owning and operating a general aviation aircraft. As 
a result, the effect of an environmental fuel surcharge is uncertain 
and the fee may need be quite large relative to the present cost of 
fuel in order to ensure the activity reductions. Also, refueling an 
aircraft with non-conforming fuel (e.g., aviation fuel imported from 
outside the area or automotive gasoline used in certain piston-powered 
aircraft engines) would have to be made an illegal act in order to 
prevent cheating.
    Under the third and final alternative, EPA would implement a annual 
emissions registration fee for each general aviation aircraft residing 
in the FIP area. EPA would issue these certificates indicating that all 
applicable fees had been paid. As with the other programs described 
here, the FIP emissions registration fee would be set high enough to 
reduce operations. Airport proprietors or owners may be required to 
refuse services such as tie-down facilities or refueling to aircraft 
operators without the appropriate certificate. This alternative has the 
distinct disadvantage that it bluntly increases the cost of ownership 
without regard to how much any individual aircraft is used.
    (4) Issues for Specific Comment. EPA requests comment on potential 
methods for obtaining verifiable and enforceable emission reductions 
from general aviation operations other than the emission reduction 
programs described today.
    Comments are specifically requested on the need for an emissions 
control program for general aviation operations in each control area 
based on local air quality concerns.
    EPA requests comment on whether the proposed operations fee is 
appropriate given the program's objective of reducing emissions from 
general aviation activity in the control areas.
    EPA requests comment on the possibility of FAA assistance in EPA 
implementation of the proposed takeoff fee program at tower controlled 
airports.
    The Agency solicits comment on the legal and policy implications of 
a strategy that has the potential to create economic incentives for 
general aviation to limit operations at airports in the FIP areas.
    EPA requests comment on differentiating the operations fee 
structure for specific airports where other emission reduction schemes 
have been implemented by the airport proprietor.
    EPA requests comment on the need for a comprehensive reporting 
requirement for general aviation airport owners/operators.
    EPA requests comment on three alternative emission reduction 
concepts for general aviation: takeoff slot program; environmental 
surcharge on general aviation fuels; and registration fee program.
    EPA requests comment on the desirability of providing exemptions 
from the requirements of this control program for certain types of 
general aviation aircraft operations, such as operations at non-tower 
controlled facilities or atypical operations.
    Persons submitting comments on these issues or other specific 
aspects of today's proposal should consider and discuss the possible 
impact of their comments on other elements of the control program, 
particularly when such comments propose alternative strategies that 
would achieve smaller or larger emission reductions from general 
aviation.
    (e) Public Aviation. EPA requests comment on the manner in which 
public aircraft emission sources should be included in the FIP control 
strategy. Such sources range from aircraft operated by federal agencies 
such as the Coast Guard and the Forest Service to aircraft operated by 
local governments, for example police helicopters. EPA does not have 
sufficient inventory data concerning such aircraft operations to assess 
their contribution to the overall emissions inventory in the control 
area, although such emissions are likely to be limited relative to 
other aviation sources. It may be desirable to exempt these types of 
aircraft operations from a specific FIP control program, given their 
importance to the local community and the limited emissions benefits 
that likely would result from their control. EPA requests comment on 
the desirability of such an exemption.
    (3) Locomotives. (a) Introduction. Locomotives and locomotive 
engines contribute approximately 5 percent, 1 percent and 2 percent of 
the total NOX emissions in the Sacramento, Ventura and South Coast 
areas respectively. As with all emission sources, NOX emissions 
from locomotives and locomotive engines in the three California FIP 
areas must be reduced for the areas to reach attainment in the most 
equitable and cost effective manner possible. Locomotives are not 
significant sources of HC at this time.
    In 1990 Congress passed major amendments to the Clean Air Act of 
1970. New Section 213(a)(5) of the Act directs EPA to promulgate the 
first national regulation governing emissions from locomotives. EPA is 
required by statute to promulgate final national rules for the control 
of locomotive emissions by November 15, 1995. Final issuance of the 
national rule for locomotives is legally required within eight months 
of the date required for promulgation of the final rule for this FIP, 
and well in advance of the date required for compliance with the FIP 
regulations. Because of the imminence of the national rule for 
locomotives and because EPA's commitment to it is legally guaranteed, 
EPA believes it is appropriate to give credit in the FIP for the 
emissions reductions that will result from the national rule for 
locomotives. Moreover, since the locomotive rulemaking is national in 
scope, it would be inappropriate to foreshorten consideration of it 
solely to conform to the FIP schedule.
    Some special issues are present in the development of locomotive 
emission regulations. These issues include the relationships between: 
(a) Locomotive life, rebuild practices and emissions benefits, (b) the 
mode selected for freight transportation and its effects on emissions, 
(c) interstate commerce and state and national standards and (d) the 
requirement for national control and the different emission control 
requirements in different areas of the nation. Each of these problem 
areas is briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.
    The first point requiring special attention is the long life of 
locomotives and procedures used to keep the locomotive operating 
reliably throughout its life. Locomotives are typically operated by 
their original owners for millions of miles over periods of thirty 
years or more. At the end of these periods, the locomotive may be 
scrapped or sold to a smaller railroad and continue in service for many 
more years. During this total life of a locomotive, the engine and 
other components of the propulsion system undergo several rebuilds 
which restore the components to an essentially new condition. Typically 
these rebuilds occur on a five to seven year schedule. As a result of 
the long life spans of locomotives and their engines, replacement rates 
are low and it takes forty or more years for fleet turnover to occur.
    This issue can have, if not addressed, a substantial effect on 
benefits of emission controls when applied to locomotives. First, 
because of the very slow turnover rate, the effects of emissions 
standards applicable to freshly manufactured locomotives require forty 
or more years to be fully realized. At this rate, the full effects of 
emissions standards applicable to freshly manufactured locomotives\80\ 
will not be realized until midway into the twenty-first century. 
Second, because locomotives are rebuilt at several points during their 
total life, emission control regulations, if limited to a traditional 
useful life, would only be effective for a small fraction of the total 
life of a locomotive. If EPA only regulated locomotives or locomotive 
engines for a useful life, traditionally defined as miles and/or time 
operated to the first remanufacture,\81\ the bulk of emission 
reductions possible would not be realized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\A freshly manufactured locomotive is a locomotive assembled 
completely from unused constituent parts.
    \81\EPA has not as yet developed a specific definition for 
``remanufactured''. EPA expects, however that the definition of 
remanufactured to be included in the national rule will encompass 
the replacement or reconditioning of those parts or components of 
the engine or locomotive that limit or control exhaust emissions. 
The emission control performance of the replacement or reconditioned 
parts built into the locomotive or locomotive engine at 
remanufacture will be required to be such that the locomotive 
complies with the applicable standards. The parts or components that 
EPA presently expects to include in remanufacturing requirements 
include: pistons and rings, cylinder liners, cylinder head, fuel 
injectors and controls, injection pump and controls, camshaft, 
valves, charge air cooler, turbocharger, and any emission control 
components incorporated into the locomotive by the manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a national program were to use the traditional useful life 
definition, many cost effective emissions reductions would be lost. 
California regulators, EPA, and the railroad industry have recognized 
this potential loss of benefit. A federal rule which relied on 
traditional useful life practices would achieve only small reductions 
and would deprive states of a means that could be helpful in their 
attainment of the health based standards for ozone and particulate. 
However, CARB regulators have expressed concerns that a federal rule 
would not require reductions sufficient to the needs of their state.
    The second point of concern pertains to the amount of emissions 
produced from the movement of freight by different transportation 
modes. Information currently available to EPA shows that truck-based 
freight movement generates more pollutants per ton of freight hauled 
than rail-based forms of freight movement. Estimates quantifying the 
difference indicate that locomotives are on the order of three times 
cleaner than trucks on an emissions per ton moved basis. While 
stringent regulations would theoretically reduce emissions from 
locomotives, their actual effect could be to increase total emissions. 
This result is due to the substantially increased operating and 
equipment costs for the railroads caused by overly stringent control 
requirements. These increased costs would be reflected in the price of 
hauling freight and could even eliminate rail carriers from the market. 
In both of these cases customers would switch to trucks for the 
movement of their freight. Any freight normally carried by rail that is 
hauled by trucks instead of by rail will increase the overall emissions 
level, given railroads' overall efficiency benefits, ton per mile 
emissions, and productivity even at current emissions levels. The 
effects of any such shift are very undesirable in the South Coast. For 
this reason, it is essential that the current balance of rail based 
freight and truck based freight not be shifted toward increased use of 
truck based systems.
    The third point of special concern is the effect that emission 
standards for locomotives could have on interstate commerce and on 
international commerce at ports. A substantial portion of the freight 
and people moved by railroads in California is on trips beginning and/
or ending outside of the state. This fact raises two issues. The first 
is that much freight never has to enter California and would avoid the 
state if it saved money. The movement of that freight supplies jobs not 
only in the railroads, but also to tugboat operators, port operators, 
truckers and shippers in California. It also supplies revenue to the 
state. EPA is concerned that this FIP not affect California's economy 
unnecessarily.
    Another concern is the effect that a patchwork of state locomotive 
regulations across the nation will have on interstate commerce. 
Depending on the treatment of remanufactured locomotives under this FIP 
and the national rule, such a patchwork could come to exist (see 
discussion of remanufactured engines). It would be exceedingly 
difficult for railroads that must cross multiple state lines to comply 
with multiple state emission levels. If a train had to proceed through 
several states with differing emission standards, either the 
locomotive(s) would have to meet the lowest state emission standard for 
the entire trip or the railroad company would be forced to change 
locomotives at state boundaries. Facilities for such changes do not 
exist. Even if such facilities were to exist, the process of changing 
locomotives at state borders would add significantly to operational 
costs and shipping times and could also result in increased idle 
emissions. For these reasons, safety regulations regarding locomotives 
and trains have historically been national. Lack of cohesive, uniform 
national regulations for locomotives could be expected to disrupt 
interstate commerce.
    An additional complication exists in the form of the different 
promulgation deadlines required for the FIP, California's SIP, the 
national locomotive rulemaking and California's locomotive regulatory 
efforts. The FIP proposed today is not scheduled to be finalized until 
February of 1995. Meanwhile California will develop State 
Implementation Plans which must show attainment in the relevant areas 
and EPA will propose a national locomotive program. Additionally, CARB 
will submit a recommendation to the California legislature on a state 
rule for locomotives and will begin work on a regulation.
    EPA is required by statute to promulgate a final national rule for 
the control of locomotive emissions by November 15, 1995. Since passage 
of the Clean Air Act in 1990, EPA has scheduled its investigative, 
research, contracting and rulemaking efforts towards meeting this 
November 15, 1995 deadline. Because this rulemaking is the first of its 
kind for locomotives, EPA has a full schedule of technical and 
operational issues to address. Many of these issues are not fully 
resolved at this time. Therefore, in describing the effects of a 
national rulemaking on California FIP areas in terms of emission 
reductions, EPA must base its estimates on a draft of its proposed 
national rulemaking that has not been fully developed. EPA stresses 
that the proposed national rulemaking described here, for purposes of 
estimating emission reductions in the California FIP areas, is 
preliminary and may be modified in the NPRM for the national locomotive 
rulemaking that EPA expects to propose in November of 1994.
    A final additional issue exists regarding the level of emission 
reductions appropriate for California, the South Coast and the nation 
as a whole. South Coast authorities have indicated that they would like 
to see a 90 percent reduction in rail emissions in the South Coast. 
CARB has indicated that an 80 percent reduction statewide would be 
appropriate. EPA, as described below, is considering reductions on the 
order of 65 percent to 70 percent for the nation, phased in over 
several years. EPA is also proposing today substantially larger 
reductions, and a more swift implementation schedule, for the South 
Coast. Trying to fit different national, state and local needs together 
is difficult in the best of circumstances. When the potential economic 
and environmental costs of inappropriate requirements are as 
significant as they are here, it is much more difficult.
    EPA's proposed locomotive FIP regulations are described below in 
three parts. The proposed regulations for freshly manufactured 
locomotives are the same as those EPA intends to propose in November 
for the national locomotive program. For remanufactured locomotives, 
EPA is considering two options. The first is a national program for 
such engines which requires that existing locomotives meet a 
significant reduction and that locomotives complying with national 
standards meet those standards throughout their full operating lives. 
The second is a California-only program with the same requirements. 
Under that option, California could replace such a California-only 
program with more stringent requirements if it finds such requirements 
are appropriate. The final part of this proposal is a fleet averaging 
standard program for the South Coast only.
    (b) Freshly Manufactured Locomotives. This section describes EPA's 
current thinking regarding its planned November 1994 proposal for 
regulation of new locomotives and engines used in locomotives 
nationally. As described above, EPA is still analyzing data in 
preparation for that rule and hopes that it will receive additional 
useful data in response to this NPRM. At this time, EPA intends to 
propose that freshly manufactured locomotives and locomotive engines 
built between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2004, be required to 
meet a NOX emission standard no higher than 7.0 g/bhp-hr. EPA is 
carefully studying the possibility of lower standards, and is asking 
for comment on a NOX standard as low as 5.0 g/bhp-hr. Estimates of 
emission rates from in-service locomotives range from 13.5 to 12.0 g/
bhp-hr. This requirement represents approximately a 42 percent to 48 
percent reduction in NOX emissions from uncontrolled levels.
    EPA is also currently planning to propose in November 1994, a 
second tier standard. Under this standard, beginning on January 1, 
2005, freshly manufactured locomotives and locomotive engines will be 
required to meet a NOX emission standard no higher than 6.0 g/bhp-
hr. EPA is also considering standards more stringent than this number, 
to approximately 4.0 g/bhp-hr. EPA requests comment on the feasibility 
of these standards, especially on the use of diesel fuel. Again, on the 
basis of an average locomotive and an average train, this requirement 
represents a reduction of between 61 percent to 65 percent in NOX 
emissions from uncontrolled levels when fully phased in.
    EPA also intends to set standards for hydrocarbons, carbon 
monoxide, particulate and smoke emissions for freshly manufactured 
locomotives and locomotive engines. To the extent EPA regulates 
remanufactured engines, the standards for these pollutants will also 
apply to these engines. The standards that become effective in 2000 
will be set at levels that approximately equal present emission levels. 
For the standards that become effective in 2005 for freshly 
manufactured locomotives, EPA is presently considering some increase in 
the stringency of the particulate standard.
    Emission controls on freshly manufactured locomotives would achieve 
only limited emission reductions in the time frame required for 
compliance under the California FIPs without some effort to 
significantly enhance turnover. EPA's best estimate of emission 
reductions resulting from freshly manufactured locomotives is 
approximately a 5 percent to 7 percent reduction in locomotive NOX 
emissions in 2005, and a 11 percent to 14 percent reduction in 2010.
    (c) Remanufactured Locomotives. While EPA's authority to regulate 
freshly manufactured locomotives is clear from section 213(a)(5), EPA 
has not yet determined whether to regulate remanufactured engines in 
its national rule. National regulation of remanufactured locomotives 
would alleviate many of the concerns described above regarding 
interstate commerce and could potentially avoid intermodal shift. It 
would also get quicker and more lasting reductions in emissions for the 
nation than would a rule which only regulated freshly manufactured 
locomotives. However, it would be designed to achieve reductions 
appropriate for the nation and may not be as aggressive as regulations 
applied to other sources in California. EPA is therefore proposing two 
options for remanufactured engines, a national approach and a 
California only approach.
    It is important to keep in mind that there are at least two types 
of remanufactured engines. First, there are those engines built before 
the effective date of EPA's regulations on new locomotives. Most of 
these engines can be remanufactured to achieve emissions levels lower 
than they are currently meeting. Second, there are those engines built 
to comply with EPA's national regulations on new locomotives. If EPA 
does not regulate remanufacture of these engines, most of the engines 
will be unregulated after they reach their first rebuild. Depending on 
the emissions standard they are designed to meet and the technology 
used to meet it, these engines could be remanufactured to meet 
substantially more stringent levels. On the other hand, requiring them, 
after remanufacture, to continue to meet the emissions levels they were 
designed to meet would not add any cost.
    A national or state remanufactured engine emission standard could 
affect either or both groups of engines. EPA is discussing them 
together because they raise very similar legal and enforcement issues. 
Additionally, it is our understanding that CARB is considering 
regulations that will affect both groups of engines. Commenters are 
encouraged to consider the requirements and note any differences that 
need recognition in their comments. EPA also requests comment on any 
other alternative plan or plans to achieve meaningful emission 
reductions from remanufactured engines.
    (1) Option I: National Regulations. Under Option I, a national 
locomotive program would be proposed in November 1994 which would 
regulate locomotives and locomotive engines remanufactured after 
January 2000. These locomotives and locomotive engines would be 
required to comply with an emission standard such that emissions would 
not exceed approximately 8.0 g/bhp-hr, for locomotives manufactured 
prior to January 2000, or the standard the engine was originally 
certified to meet, for locomotives manufactured beginning in January 
2000. EPA expects that this option will be generally feasible for 
locomotives and locomotive engines manufactured after January 1, 1973 
and would apply until scrappage to all locomotives affected.
    According to the American Association of Railroads the usual time 
between rebuilds for Class I railroads is approximately 6 years. 
Therefore, most, if not all affected locomotives should be 
remanufactured within six years of the program being implemented, i.e. 
by January 2006. EPA's best estimate of emission reductions 
attributable to this option, including the reductions achieved from 
freshly manufactured locomotives, is approximately a 35 percent to 43 
percent reduction in 2005, and a 38 percent to 46 percent reduction in 
2010 from the unregulated baseline, depending on the assumed levels for 
today's unregulated engines.
    EPA is still considering the proper standard for remanufactured 
engines built before the implementation date of the national rule. EPA 
is considering standards as low as 6.9 g/bhp-hr, approximately the 
national standard that has been proposed for new nonroad engines above 
37 kw. The railroads have requested that EPA also consider a cap on the 
potential costs of remanufacture to meet lower emissions levels. While 
EPA is taking their recommendation under advisement, we do not 
currently intend to promulgate such a requirement. Cost cap provisions 
create definitional difficulties, and are potentially abused.
    EPA is concerned that emission rates, expressed as grams of 
emissions per brake horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr), of pre-1973 engines may 
be significantly higher than corresponding rates from newer 
locomotives. Achieving significant emission reductions from these 
engines is expected, however, to be challenging and potentially costly. 
These engines, by the year 2000, will be almost exclusively used by 
Class 2 and 3 railroads\82\ or for switching. They will therefore have 
relatively low usage and emissions rates when expressed as grams per 
year. Since the benefits from emission control could be low, expressed 
as an annual mass of emissions, and the costs of control high, the 
application of controls to these locomotives may prove to be 
inappropriate. EPA is continuing, however to evaluate the practicality 
of requiring these locomotives to be remanufactured or possibly 
requiring that these locomotives be repowered to achieve emission 
reductions.\83\ Another solution may be to move these older locomotives 
out of non-attainment areas. However, there are concerns that any 
requirement may impose economic burdens on Class 2 and 3 railroads that 
tend to operate older engines, and which may not be able to absorb the 
economic burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\Railroads are designated class 1, 2 or 3 railroads based 
upon their annual revenue. In 1992, the requirement for designation 
as a class 1 railroad was annual revenue of 251.4 million dollars, 
the requirement for a class 2 designation was annual revenue from 
20.1 to 251.3 million dollars, and railroads with annual revenue of 
20.0 million or less were designated as class 3 railroads. These 
numbers are annually adjusted for inflation.
    \83\Repowering is the complete replacement of an existing engine 
and generator, including the engine block, with a new engine and 
generator compatible with the new engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Option I would be applicable nationwide, with emission reduction 
benefits realized across the nation. EPA would be proposing this option 
under its Section 213 authority. The requirement would preempt states 
from regulating both freshly manufactured and remanufactured 
locomotives or locomotive engines. States could however still regulate 
operational practices such as idling and speed.
    (2) Option II: California Only Requirements. The second 
remanufacturing option would include the same requirements as the first 
option but would limit the requirements to locomotives operating in 
California. There would be no remanufacturing requirements for pre-2000 
locomotives or post-2000 locomotives after their initial useful life 
for the rest of the nation. This option would produce approximately the 
same percent emission reductions for California as would be provided 
for the entire nation under option I. An enforcement mechanism would be 
required to ensure that only locomotives remanufactured since the 
effective date of the program, to the California standards would be 
permitted in California.
    EPA is proposing this option by taking the narrowest reading of its 
authority under Section 213(a)(5). Under this reading, EPA may only 
regulate brand new engines and the states have authority to regulate in 
use engines. Therefore, California would have the authority to replace 
this program with a program it believes is more appropriate. 
Additionally, other states could choose to develop their own 
requirements or to adopt requirements designed for California. Each 
state could promulgate different standards for remanufactured 
locomotive engines. As described above, the result of such a scenario 
could be a disruption of interstate commerce and a corresponding shift 
to trucks and/or increase in transportation costs.
    (d) Additional Measures for the South Coast. (1) Fleet Average 
Standard Program. The reductions required for the South Coast to attain 
the air quality standards by 2010 cannot be achieved without 
significant reductions in every source of emissions. EPA estimates the 
national program for freshly manufactured locomotives would reduce 
emissions in the South Coast by approximately 5 percent to 7 percent by 
2005 and 11 percent to 14 percent by 2010. The addition of either 
option 1 or option 2 for in service locomotives would result in total 
reductions of NOX emissions in the South Coast of approximately 35 
percent to 43 percent in 2005 and 38 percent to 46 percent in 2010.\84\ 
As the total NOX reduction from all sources required in the South 
Coast is 70 percent, EPA would like to achieve percent reductions of 
this magnitude from the rail industry. These requirements call for a 
more stringent program regulating locomotive emissions. EPA's plan to 
further regulate locomotive emissions in the South Coast, hereafter 
referred to as the ``South Coast locomotive fleet average standard 
program,'' is designed to achieve reductions on this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\Actual emission reductions for the South Coast from the 
national program may be slightly lower than the national average 
because locomotives moving freight out of and into this area tend to 
be somewhat newer than the national fleet. Newer locomotives are 
generally cleaner than older locomotives; thus the emission 
reductions due to an emissions standard for a newer fleet would not 
be as large as that for an older fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is not currently proposing to require additional locomotive 
control measures for the Sacramento and Ventura FIP areas. EPA believes 
that Sacramento does not need further NOX reductions beyond the 
programs described above to meet its attainment requirements. Ventura's 
train traffic is very limited, and any additional program there would 
only achieve small benefits, with costs out of proportion to the 
benefits received. EPA determined that further reductions are necessary 
for the South Coast, due to its massive non-attainment problems, and 
the significance therefore of any source of pollution. Locomotives 
currently contribute 2 percent of South Coast NOX and that percent 
contribution would be expected to rise without further regulation, due 
to the regulation of other South Coast emission sources.
    EPA proposes and asks for comment on the following locomotive 
NOX emission reduction plan for the South Coast. All railroad 
locomotives or locomotive engines used by a railroad company in the 
South Coast area would be averaged together to achieve an average 
emission standard level. EPA proposes that NOX emission levels 
from the regulated sources must be no greater than 5.5 g/bhp-hr by 2007 
and 4.0 g/bhp-hr by 2010. Average emission levels would be calculated 
for each railroad company based upon fuel usage and engine emission 
levels. For each ton of emissions over this average, a noncompliance 
fee will be assessed based on the $10,000/ton figure used for on 
highway heavy-duty engines. EPA is interested in including other 
locomotive emission sources\85\ in the average but has very little 
information regarding use or emissions levels. Commenters are urged to 
provide this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\Additional sources may include but not be limited to the 
following items: track maintenance equipment, locomotive maintenance 
equipment, and roundhouse emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This program preserves as much flexibility as possible for railroad 
companies to meet the additional emission reductions in the South 
Coast. This flexibility will allow individual railroad companies to 
reduce emissions in the most cost effective manner possible for their 
companies. EPA believes that an averaging program will be the most cost 
effective method of reducing locomotive emissions in the South Coast.
    Starting January 1, 2007 and effective until December 31, 2009, 
each individual railroad company that operates within the South Coast 
will be required to meet on average, an emissions level of 5.5 g/bhp-
hr. Starting January 1, 2010 and in effect thereafter, each individual 
railroad company that intends to operate within the South Coast will be 
required to meet on average an emissions level of 4.0 g/bhp-hr. Average 
emissions would be calculated based on fuel usage. The g/bhp-hr level 
of a locomotive engine would be multiplied by the gallons of fuel that 
an engine consumed during a given year within the South Coast 
nonattainment area. The products of the locomotives' g/bhp-hr level and 
fuel usage would be summed for all of the engines in a railroad 
company's fleet. The resultant sum would then be divided by the total 
gallons of fuel used. The resultant g/bhp-hr average must be at or 
below 5.5 g/bhp-hr for the years 2007-2009 and below 4.0 g/bhp-hr for 
2010 and thereafter. This calculation is summarized in an equation in 
the regulations.
    EPA realizes there may be alternatives to basing the average 
calculation on fuel usage such as basing the average calculation on 
mileage or hours of operation. These two alternatives do not 
necessarily reflect emissions level well because they take improper 
account of idling. However, EPA is interested in comments regarding the 
appropriate measure.
    EPA is proposing that electrified mileage be counted as producing 
zero emissions as long as the electrical powerplants supplying the 
electricity are located outside of the South Coast. If the powerplants 
were inside South Coast, some calculation of the pollutants created 
from the production of the electricity consumed would have to be used. 
Additionally, a conversion factor to equate kilowatt hours used to 
gallons of fuel used would be necessary so appropriate credit may be 
given for electrification for purposes of calculating the emissions 
average. The Department of Energy recently proposed a rule, (Federal 
Register Vol. 59, No. 24, February 4, 1994), that specifies how to 
calculate such a conversion factor. EPA requests comment on this 
proposal.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to allow companies to pool their 
operations for measurement of the emissions average. This proposal 
could facilitate investment in electrification or alternative fuel 
usage. By combining an investing company's average emissions with that 
of another company, the electrified or alternative fuel railroad 
company could help subsidize its investment.
    EPA does not see the need for an emissions cap with this program. A 
cap may be necessary because the averaging program is based upon fuel 
used. EPA believes it unlikely that the amount of fuel used by railroad 
companies will increase in the South Coast. The trend in current engine 
design is toward increased fuel efficiency, and railroad companies 
place a high premium on saving fuel. It is in the best economic 
interests of the railroads to do so. EPA thus expects the positive 
trend in fuel efficiency to continue. The only way there could possibly 
be an increase in emissions or less emissions reductions for the rail 
sector than projected, due to increased fuel usage, would be for the 
railroad industry to experience rapid expansion. If this were to 
happen, actual net emissions in the South Coast would probably be 
positively affected because it would mean that more freight was being 
hauled by rail instead of truck. Alternatively it could be as a result 
of expansion in mass transit trains. In either case, the net emission 
impact in the South Coast would be in a positive direction. EPA 
therefore is not proposing an actual emissions cap at this time, 
however EPA requests comment on the need for including a cap on 
emissions produced from locomotive sources.
    This regulatory program is aimed exclusively at the South Coast FIP 
area. Moreover, EPA's authority to propose this program is at least 
partially derived from California's own authority. EPA therefore 
encourages California authorities to manage this program or propose a 
program that achieves similar reductions. EPA believes that California 
would be more sensitive to the specific issues and problems of 
implementing a program of this nature. If California were to agree to 
manage this program, California would handle the administration and 
enforcement of this program. In any event, California will retain the 
right to regulate operational changes in the railroad industry within 
California. This includes but is not limited to time spent idling, rail 
lubrication, and operating times, etc.
    (2) Compliance. EPA is proposing under the South Coast locomotive 
fleet average standard program that each railroad company that intends 
to operate locomotives or locomotive engines within the geographical 
confines of the South Coast should designate certain locomotives or 
locomotive engines which will operate within the South Coast. When 
these locomotives or locomotive engines operate in the South Coast, 
fuel usage for each locomotive type shall be recorded by the locomotive 
operator. Such records shall be submitted to EPA in March of each 
calendar year for the preceding year of operation and be kept for a 
period of five years. EPA will specify in its national regulation what 
test procedure and method will be used for certifying an engine at a 
particular emissions level.
    EPA proposes that each individual railroad company which owns or 
operates locomotive emission sources within the South Coast keep a 
roster of engines and locomotives that operate within the South Coast. 
This roster would include the locomotive type, the engine type and 
relevant emission characteristic data on the engine. Summary rosters 
shall be reported to the Administrator yearly, and supporting data is 
proposed to be kept for a period of 5 years thereafter. Locomotives and 
locomotive engines that are designated to operate within the South 
Coast would be marked by a permanent identifier on the engine and 
labels displayed prominently on both sides of the exterior of the 
locomotive which will identify the locomotive as a South Coast 
designated locomotive.
    EPA would reserve the right to audit any locomotive emission source 
in regard to performance and compliance, that EPA finds operating 
within the South Coast. EPA inspectors would be given rights of access 
to inspect railroad property and equipment. Any non-South Coast 
designated locomotive or locomotive engine or locomotive emission 
source that EPA finds operating in the South Coast without being 
properly identified or without proper maintenance could face instant 
fines as high as $25,000 per day of operation.
    Each company that operates locomotives is responsible for meeting 
its individual fleet average emissions standard. EPA proposes to assess 
annual noncompliance penalties for companies similar to those described 
for heavy-duty noncompliance in section 3(D)(3) of this document. Each 
company that operates one or more locomotives will have to show 
compliance each year with the fleet average emissions standard. Any 
excess emissions produced beyond the average will be assessed an annual 
noncompliance fee of $10,000 per ton of emissions produced. This 
penalty is in addition to any charged for a violation as described in 
the preceding paragraphs.
    (3) Authority. EPA is proposing this South Coast emission averaging 
standard program under its broad remedial authority under section 
110(c). No provision of section 213, section 209, or any other sections 
of the Clean Air Act, clearly prohibits EPA from exercising its section 
110(c) in the manner proposed herein.
    (4) Emission Reductions. EPA believes the average g/bhp-hr level 
for line haul locomotives and locomotive engines operated by class 1 
locomotives in California is approximately 13.5 g/bhp-hr. This estimate 
was developed from train data and locomotive emission data supplied to 
EPA by railroad companies that operate within California, and 
locomotive engine manufacturers.\86\ The railroads have however claimed 
that the average emission level of locomotives operating in California 
is 12 g/bhp-hr. While they have provided no accounting of that average 
level, and the 13.5 g/bhp-hr level was calculated from data provided by 
the railroads, EPA has used both levels in its estimates of the 
benefits of this program. The range provides for conservative estimates 
both of the current emissions impact of locomotives and the reductions 
from this program. Other locomotives, those operated by class 2 and 3 
railroads and switcher locomotives operated by class 1 railroads have 
g/bhp-hr levels higher than 13.5 g/bhp-hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\Memo from Peter Hutchins to Chester J. France. February 14, 
1994, ``Current Emission Levels and Duty-Cycles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate a minimum emission reduction, one can assume that all 
locomotives are at 12 or 13.5 g/bhp-hr. EPA's 2007 requirement that 
railroad emissions average 5.5 g/bhp-hr would therefore provide overall 
emission reductions of 54 percent to 59 percent. The 2010 requirement 
that railroad emissions average 4.0 g/bhp-hr would therefore provide 
overall emission reductions of 67 percent to 70 percent. Since the 
current overall average emissions, due to switching operations and 
class 2 and 3 operation, must be higher than 13.5 g/bhp-hr, a reduction 
in excess of 70 percent is likely.
    EPA believes the reductions necessary to meet the 5.5 g/bhp-hr 
emission average will be achievable through the use of clean diesel 
technology and operational changes. Some use of alternative fuels may 
be necessary to supplement the emission reduction achieved by clean 
diesel and operational changes or to allow significant growth. 
Electrification, under strong consideration for at least some South 
Coast lines would greatly facilitate compliance and reductions. EPA 
requests comment on what types of engines or strategies may be required 
to comply with this program.
    EPA does not anticipate that additional measures of reduction will 
be required at this time. However several options, which EPA could not 
finalize due to technological issues, but could develop later as 
provided by section 182(e)(5) of the CAA, are widespread use of 
electrification and the use of fuel cells.
    (5) Other Options. EPA requests comment on three other options 
being promoted by the South Coast, the CARB and the AAR, respectively. 
The South Coast Air Quality Management District is proposing that a 90 
percent reduction in railroad emissions in the basin be required by the 
year 2010. This proposal requires electrification of all locomotive 
operations, including switching. They have not yet determined how such 
a project could be funded. For this reason, EPA is not proposing this 
option.
    The CARB is considering an option that would require an 80 percent 
reduction in locomotive NOX emissions statewide by 2003. Emissions 
of HC and CO would be allowed to rise and emissions of particulates 
would be reduced after 2003. It appears likely that this level of 
reduction could require that all locomotives used in California operate 
on a fuel other than diesel, with natural gas being a likely candidate. 
Alternatively, electrification of a number of lines may be necessary. 
EPA is concerned about the practicality and costs associated with 
electrification, and is therefore not proposing this option.
    The AAR has proposed that linehaul locomotives be required to 
average 6 g/bhp-hr by the year 2010. This proposal could presumably 
build from national standards on new locomotives and some regulation of 
remanufactured locomotives. However, it does not affect switching and 
other non-line operations, such as loading and unloading. The effect of 
that omission has been variously estimated at from 5 to 30 percent of 
emissions depending on the geographic area. Because this program does 
not achieve sufficient reductions, EPA is not proposing this option. 
However, EPA requests comment on this and the other two options.
    (4) Marine Vessels/Ports. (a) Background and Program Description. 
Marine vessels are the largest uncontrolled source of emissions of 
NOX and SOX in California. According to a study prepared by 
Sierra Research, Inc.,\87\ marine vessels account for approximately 40 
percent of all SOX emissions and 12 percent of all NOX 
emissions from both mobile and stationary sources statewide (Sierra 
report, p. 3). While most emissions associated with marine vessels 
occur at sea, a great deal occur while the vessel is at port, during 
maneuvering and hotelling activities (hotelling refers to the time a 
vessel ``spends moored or at anchor, for such purposes as loading or 
unloading cargo or awaiting a berth''--Booz-Allen report,\88\ p. II-
16). Both at-sea and in-port emissions are of concern for ambient air 
quality in the South Coast area, since emissions from vessels at sea 
can be transported onshore by prevailing winds, and since emissions 
from vessels at port are added to those already occurring from 
stationary facilities at a port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\Regulatory Strategies for Reducing Emissions from Marine 
Vessels in California Waters, prepared for California Air Resources 
Board by Sierra Research, Inc., Report No. SR91-10-01 (October 4, 
1991).
    \88\Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions from Marine Vessels, 
Final Report, prepared for State of California--Air Resources Board, 
by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (March 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contribution of diesel marine engine emissions to local air 
quality is influenced by at least two factors. The first concerns the 
nature of the engines themselves. Large marine vessels have high 
NOX emissions because of the nature of the machinery and equipment 
used to power them. These vessels are typically powered by very large 
diesel engines that are optimized for power and fuel consumption, and 
those optimization processes (such as high temperatures) tend to boost 
NOX emissions. In addition, marine engines are usually old and 
unregulated, and generally do not have many of the combustion 
improvements that are incorporated into new on-highway engines to 
reduce particulate matter and NOX emissions.
    The second determinant is the time spent and frequency of activity 
at or near port. Analysis of 1989 data shows that about 10 percent of 
the vessels in California's ports accounted for more than 50 percent of 
the emissions from marine vessels (Sierra report, p. 9). Control 
strategies are more effective which focus on those ships that 
contribute the most to air quality problems while in port. If those 
ships can be targeted, any reduction in their emissions will have a 
large impact on air quality.
    Similarly, control strategies are more effective which target those 
ships that stop often in California. Vessels that do not frequently use 
South Coast ports do not contribute as much to local air quality 
problems. Based again on 1989 data, approximately 60 percent of the 
vessels at California's ports made merely one or two trips per year, 
each contributing only a relatively small fraction to total emissions 
(Sierra report, p. 9).
    EPA has considered several strategies to achieve reductions in ship 
emissions. One potential emission control strategy would be to require 
vessels to be outfitted with NOX and SOX control equipment. 
There are several technologies available, and these technologies are 
associated with different levels of emissions decreases, ranging from 
25 percent to 90 percent, depending on the nature, age, and condition 
of the ship's engine and equipment.\89\ For example, fuels with ultra-
low sulfur content can reduce SOX emissions by as much as 96 
percent and cause measurable NOX decreases as well (Sierra report, 
p. 25). Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) can reduce NOX 
emission by as much as 90 percent. Water/fuel emulsion technology can 
reduce NOX by approximately 25 percent (Sierra report, p. 34). 
These technologies are discussed in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\See the Sierra report, pp. 22-32 for a more complete 
discussion of these technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, many of these techniques have substantial 
drawbacks, including increased capital and operating costs. NOX 
control techniques are generally expensive and often difficult to 
retrofit on older vessels (although they can be cost-effective to 
incorporate on new engines) and may be costly to maintain.\90\ In 
addition, many NOX control technologies are also associated with a 
decrease in fuel efficiency of up to 5 percent (Sierra report, p. 71). 
Also, results depend on certain operating characteristics. For example, 
optimal SCR results depend on a steady-state operation mode. Reductions 
are less certain during maneuvering procedures when engine speed is 
constantly changing; yet, this is the kind of operation that is typical 
while a vessel is near or in-port. Controlling SOX by fuel 
composition changes may be problematic for compliance reasons. This is 
because vessels would be required to use low-sulfur fuel only when they 
are in the vicinity of the California coastline and in California 
ports. While they operate at sea, ships could use conventional fuels. 
This means that vessels can be equipped with two kinds of fuel tanks: 
one for clean fuel for use in-port, and one for ordinary fuel for use 
at sea. However, for obvious reasons, it would be hard to verify that 
vessels use low-sulfur fuel while near shore or in-port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\Retrofitting ships with aftertreatment technologies is very 
difficult because of onboard space limitations. Building upwards 
(where space is available) can raise the center of gravity. If the 
center of gravity is above the center of buoyancy, the ship will be 
destabilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of these and other potential drawbacks, EPA believes that 
it would be preferable at this point in time to avoid mandating the use 
of these control technologies by all ships when they are in California 
ports. There are at least three reasons why other solutions should be 
pursued at this time. First, as shown above, not all ships are high 
emitters. Therefore, it does not make sense to mandate special 
technologies for all ships, since this would mean imposing costly 
retrofits on some existing ships that are not high emitters. Second, 
and more importantly, not all ships spend a lot of operating time in 
California ports. It does not make sense to mandate permanent, 
expensive control technologies for ships that visit California ports 
only once or twice a year which, as noted above, is the case for 
approximately 60 percent of the vessels that use California's ports.
    Finally, the regulation of oceangoing marine vessels registered in 
the United States has been traditionally undertaken by the United 
States Coast Guard, and through international organizations such as the 
International Maritime Organization (IMO), for ships registered outside 
the United States. International trade may be significantly harmed by 
unilateral and contradictory actions taken by various countries around 
the world mandating different control methods and technologies for 
vessels engaged in international trade. EPA believes that it is 
appropriate at this time to avoid unilaterally mandating the use of 
control technologies or other methods on ships that are inconsistent 
with the technologies currently being advocated by the United States in 
the IMO.\91\ This is especially important in the South Coast region 
because approximately 80 percent of the larger marine vessels that call 
on the LA ports, for example, are registered in foreign countries. EPA 
believes that it is important to create a regime that will encourage 
all ship operators and owners to reduce their emissions of NOX and 
SOX while in California ports without creating significant 
problems for international trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\The IMO is currently developing an international agreement 
to control emissions from ships on international voyages. The IMO 
subcommittee working on this project (Bulk Chemicals Handling) was 
charged by the IMO with achieving a 30 percent worldwide reduction 
in ship NOX emissions and a 50 percent SOX reduction. The 
subcommittee is currently considering a rule for new engines only. 
The resolution of this issue will clearly have significant 
ramifications for this FIP. See Section (2)(A) Fee Categories, 
below, for additional discussion of this effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emission control strategies must also take into account economic 
realities. Ships and ports bring more than pollution to California. 
They also perform the obvious function of transporting products and raw 
materials to the area for manufacturing and production purposes, and 
they bring jobs and money. Many millions of dollars of imports and 
exports travel through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach every 
day, on their way from the Midwest to the Far East or vice versa. Any 
program for the control of emissions from ships and ports must also 
consider the effects of such a program on this trade and on the South 
Coast economy. Inappropriate treatment could move the trade out of the 
area, or even out of the country, with corresponding economic effects. 
While it is true that trade has centered in the South Coast because the 
area is well situated to accept it, having adequate facilities for 
moving and processing the products delivered, it is also true that 
emission control strategies should stress appropriate regulations which 
would balance emissions reductions with possible negative impacts on 
trade.
    For all of these reasons, EPA is proposing a flexible control 
strategy for the reduction of emissions from ships at port. This 
strategy will rely on economic incentives to encourage operators and 
owners of ships that frequently use California's South Coast ports to 
take the steps necessary to reduce their emissions. Specifically, this 
strategy involves imposing user fees for ships that use ports in the 
South Coast region. These fees will be based on the level of emissions 
of a ship using the port, among other things. EPA is proposing a three-
tier fee structure, as more thoroughly described below. Like other 
emission charges proposed today, the ship fee will be based on a price 
of $10,000 per ton of NOX emissions emitted to the atmosphere.
    In addition to encouraging ship operators and owners to install and 
use emission control systems, the program contains two other features 
that should help reduce marine vessels' contribution to California's 
pollution while ships are berthed in port and while they are operating 
at sea. First, ship operators may receive a reduction in the fees 
outlined below if they use onshore power sources instead of internally 
generated power while they are at port (this is called ``cold 
ironing''). Second, ship operators may receive a reduction in fees if 
they use a relocated Santa Barbara shipping channel. EPA is proposing 
that this shipping channel be located at least 70 miles from the shore 
to decrease the amount of marine emissions that are transported onshore 
by prevailing winds. Both of these aspects of the program are described 
in greater detail below. No fee will be assessed any shipper who uses 
the lowest emitting class of engine, cold irons and avoids the Ventura 
air basin.
    There are several advantages to this type of emission control 
program. First, it allows a ship operator or owner to make decisions 
about which control technologies to adopt, if any, based not only on 
the characteristics of a particular vessel but also based on the extent 
to which the vessel uses South Coast ports. Those ships that use South 
Coast ports more frequently will be faced with higher annual fees and 
therefore will have a greater incentive to install more efficient 
emission control devices to reduce those annual fees. Vessels that use 
these ports infrequently are not faced with the same level of annual 
fees and would therefore probably elect to pay the fee instead of 
installing more expensive emission control devices. EPA believes this 
is a fair strategy because these vessels contribute less to overall 
regional air quality problems than those vessels that use these ports 
more often. At the same time, payment of a fee by a vessel that 
infrequently uses port facilities is justified because the vessel is 
contributing to local air quality while it uses the port.
    A final advantage to this kind of emission control program is that 
the fees collected could be used to help ship owners and operators 
reduce their ships' emissions, thus advancing additional emission 
benefits. For example, the fees could be used to help ship owners and 
operators purchase and install emission reduction equipment, through 
loans or grants or other financial assistance programs. It should be 
noted, however, that the Miscellaneous Receipts Act requires EPA to 
submit any fees paid pursuant to this program to the U. S. Treasury. 
Therefore, in order to use the fees collected under such a program for 
emissions control, it is necessary for California or the South Coast to 
develop a replacement program that would supersede this proposed EPA 
program. Then, the fees would be paid to the State of California or the 
South Coast Air Quality Management District instead of to EPA, and 
those organizations could use the funds for such purposes. By adopting 
a replacement program, California or the South Coast could take steps 
to decrease any adverse economic impacts resulting from the program.
    EPA is proposing to begin instituting the port fee schedule 
described below in 2001. This date is beneficial for two reasons. 
First, EPA hopes that in the intervening seven years, the California 
and IMO efforts to regulate ship emissions and the Coast Guard effort 
to move the shipping channel will have all borne fruit. Thus, 2001 
allows enough time to respond to these changes and work out details 
about the form of this program in light of them. Second, by beginning 
to develop this program nine years before the attainment date, EPA 
allows time to adjust the fees and discounts to achieve the necessary 
emissions reductions at the least cost, as described below.
    EPA anticipates that the ships and ports fees program described in 
this preamble will achieve an approximately 30 percent NOX 
emission reduction in the South Coast. This estimate is based on the 
assumption that the 10 percent of the ships which create 50 percent of 
the emissions due to frequent visits will have on average 30 percent 
lower emissions after implementation of the program. This reduction 
will likely be achieved by ship operators and owners using newer ships 
for their California trips, by using better fuels, and by using timing 
retard technology, at least in the short run. A further 7.5 percent 
NOX reduction should be achieved through increased cold ironing. 
The remaining 7.5 percent NOX reduction will come from isolated 
use of available low emitting engines, such as turbines and SCR 
equipped ships, by the remaining 90 percent of the ships visiting the 
ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
    In response to these fees and to ongoing actions by the Coast Guard 
to protect the Monterrey Bay Sanctuary, EPA expects most ship owners or 
operators will choose shipping routes that will take them away from 
Ventura's coast. This will have the effect of reducing the transfer of 
marine emissions to the coast in that area. The user fees will have 
this effect because the vast majority of ships that currently use the 
shipping channel that takes them along the shoreline close to Ventura 
will stop or have stopped at the Ports of Long Beach or Los Angeles. 
Under the proposed emission reduction strategy, these ship owners and 
operators can reduce the user fees they will be charged at these ports 
by using a relocated shipping channel that takes them away from the 
coastline. EPA believes that the discounts associated with using the 
relocated channel will be sufficient to eliminate most of that traffic. 
In addition, the Coast Guard has undertaken a study to evaluate the 
impact of relocating California shipping channels.\92\ Such relocation 
may be necessary to reduce environmental damage to the Monterrey Bay 
Sanctuary due to ship traffic. As part of that study, the Coast Guard 
has requested comments regarding relocation of the channel near 
Ventura. EPA has recommended to the Coast Guard that the channel near 
Ventura should be moved as far as feasible from the coast. Such a 
decision by the Coast Guard will also reduce airborne marine emissions 
in Ventura.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\See 58 FR 44634, August 24, 1993, for the Coast Guard notice 
announcing this study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These emission reduction estimates were made without sufficient 
knowledge of the effects of a fee on the behavior of shippers. Shippers 
may find it easy to reschedule their ships so that only the lowest 
emitting ones are used in the South Coast. On the other hand, shippers 
may have difficulty reducing their emissions if equipment and/or 
installation services are insufficient to meet demand. EPA intends to 
monitor the fee's effects and adjust the fees and discounts as 
necessary to achieve a NOX emission reduction approximately 
similar to that required under the stationary source cap.
    The following sections describe in greater detail the components of 
this fee-based control strategy. As described in Section III.D.4.e (5), 
this program does not apply to military vessels. EPA requests comments 
on all features and calculations associated with this proposed program, 
as well as the proper application. As described above, EPA is proposing 
to apply the program to the two major South Coast ports for ocean going 
ships: the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. EPA requests comment on 
applying the program to all basin ports, all California ports, or only 
as proposed.
    (b) Control Strategies--Fee System Based on Emission Levels. (1) 
Fee Categories. The goal of this proposal is to encourage the use of 
cleaner marine engines. A number of emission control technologies for 
reducing NOX from marine diesel engines are described in the 
following section. Although the emission reduction strategies described 
in the following section each contain a range of reduction potential, 
there appears to be a number of technologies that offer the potential 
to achieve reductions of 30 percent or greater. Also, reductions of 
greater than 80 percent are possible through three options: Selective 
catalytic reduction (SCR), steam turbine engines and gas turbine 
engines. Other technologies, such as natural gas engines, may also 
achieve reductions in excess of 80 percent.
    EPA proposes to encourage the use of cleaner marine engines through 
a three-tier fee program based on emission reductions from a diesel 
engine baseline. The first tier is a 0-10 percent fee (90 percent fee 
reduction) for engines that achieve greater than or equal to 80 percent 
NOX reduction compared to typical marine diesel engines.\93\ These 
could include SCR- equipped diesel engines, steam turbine engines or 
gas turbine engines, or engines equipped with other technologies that 
can be shown to achieve such reductions. The second tier is a 50 
percent reduction from the full fee for engines that achieve greater 
than or equal to 30 percent and up to 80 percent NOX reduction 
compared to typical marine diesel engines. Such engines could include 
such technologies as injection timing retard, engine fine tuning, EGR, 
water emulsification, and selective non-catalyst reduction, or other 
technologies that can be shown to achieve such reductions. The third 
tier would be a full fee for engines that do not achieve at least a 30 
percent reduction in NOX emissions from the baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\Please review Section (4) Discount for Staying Outside the 
Region, for a description of when the 0 or 10 percent options apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This fee structure can easily be adjusted to incorporate standards 
set out by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO is 
currently developing an annex to MARPOL (Marine Pollution Convention) 
73/78 to control air pollution from ships on international voyages. 
Target emission reductions for the annex are a 30 percent reduction in 
NOX and a 50 percent reduction in SOX. As part of the 
compliance verification procedure, the IMO is currently considering 
type approval (i.e., test bed confirmation), and onboard surveys and 
re-surveys. The onboard surveys would consist of a simplified test for 
verification based on measuring NOX and O2 concentrations. 
For these surveys, the IMO is currently considering test procedures 
drafted by the International Standards Organization (ISO) for measuring 
emissions at site (ISO/DIS 8178-2: Reciprocating internal combustion 
engines--Exhaust emission measurement--Part 2: Measurement of gaseous 
and particulate emissions at site). EPA requests comments on the use of 
this test procedure to establish fee levels based on measured emission 
levels from marine engines.
    Based on information supplied by Japan as input into the IMO air 
pollution annex development, NOX emission levels showed the best 
correlation with engine speed as compared to other parameters. Slow 
speed engines generally have higher thermal efficiencies and therefore 
higher NOX than medium and high speed engines. Many delegations to 
IMO believe the data provided by Japan to be the best published 
information on emission rates for the range of marine engines. Based on 
this data, Japan has proposed that a 30 percent NOX reduction 
could be achieved by NOX limits for the IMO air pollution annex of 
the form:

NOX (g/kW-hr)=45 x n-0.2

where n is engine speed in revolutions per minute EPA proposes that the 
second tier fee level coincide with the IMO proposal. In other words, 
those engines that meet the proposed IMO standards are proposed to be 
eligible for a discounted fee (i.e., be categorized in the second tier 
fee level). To accomplish this, EPA proposes that the baseline 
emissions level, for fee calculation purposes, be of the form:

NOX (g/kW-hr)=64.3 x n-0.2

where n is engine speed in revolutions per minute for any given RPM 
range, this equation calculates an emission rate baseline. The equation 
proposed by Japan for the IMO annex thus represents a 30 percent 
reduction in emissions from this baseline. Therefore, engines which can 
achieve emission reductions of greater than or equal to 30 percent from 
this baseline (i.e., that meet the IMO proposed standard) will be 
eligible for a fee discount (a 50 percent discount for engines 
achieving 30 percent to less than 80 percent NOX reduction and a 
90 percent discount for engines achieving greater than or equal to 80 
percent reduction in NOX).
    The main caveat with this strategy is that the IMO emission 
standards are still under development. In addition to the proposal for 
NOX limits based on engine speed, another proposal under 
consideration by IMO is for NOX limits to be set based on specific 
fuel consumption of the engine. EPA requests comments on the 
appropriateness of the proposed baseline emissions equation or other 
approaches for the purposes of calculating fees.
    The full fee level is proposed to be based on the above equation to 
generate the baseline emission rate. Also, the full fee level is 
proposed to be based on a fee of $10,000/U.S. ton of NOX, which is 
consistent with other fee levels proposed in this FIP. To obtain total 
tons of NOX emitted, the number of hours of operation in the port 
area must be reported, as well as the rated power for each applicable 
engine on board. Thus, ships which enter and leave their berth 
efficiently will receive a lower fee. A load factor of 80 percent\94\ 
of rated output is assumed, which is a typical load for vessels that 
are cruising at sea. For berthing and hotelling operations, a load 
factor of 25 percent is assumed for main propulsion engines. For 
auxiliary power generators, a load factor of 50 percent is assumed. EPA 
is proposing that cruise hours are determined as the hours that an 
engine operates when the ship is between 3 and 100 miles from port; and 
maneuvering/hotelling hours are hours that an engine operates when the 
ship is less than 3 miles from port. Both the cruise time and the 
maneuvering/hotelling time are proposed to be reported for each main 
propulsion engine and auxiliary engine of each ship entering port. CARB 
has indicated that emissions from these distances may affect shore 
pollution levels. However, EPA is currently evaluating, with the 
assistance of the State Department and Coast Guard, the appropriateness 
of applying these fees to foreign flag vessels in light of 
international maritime law and international trade concerns. EPA 
requests comment on the appropriateness of the distances proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\Load factor estimates were derived from ``Inventory of Air 
Pollutant Emissions from Marine Vessels, Final Report, prepared for 
State of California--Air Resources Board, by Booz-Allen & Hamilton, 
Inc. (March 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The way the proposed fee structure would work is illustrated by the 
following example. Based on the above equation, a 10,000 kW MCR 
(maximum continuous rating), 500 RPM engine would emit NOX at a 
rate of 18.6 g/kW-hr (64.3 x (500)-0.2) at MCR. If this engine 
operated within the port area for 6 hours in cruising mode (0.8 load 
factor) and 12 hours in maneuvering and hotelling operations (0.25 load 
factor) it would be assessed a fee of about $16,000 
([18.6 x 10,000 x 0.8 x 6 x $5.00 x 1 lb/453.59 gr] + 
[18.6 x 10,000 x 0.25 x 12 x $5.00 x 1 lb/453.59 gr] = $16,000). By 
using technologies that achieve between 30 and 80 percent reduction, 
this fee would be reduced to $8,000 ($16,000 x .50). Technologies 
achieving over 80 percent reduction would be charged $1,600 
($16,000 x .10). Discounts described below will be applied on a 
percentage basis to these base fees, provided that no ship meeting the 
requirements for the 10 percent fee category, cold ironing and avoiding 
the Ventura Air Basin will be charged any fee.
    These fees would be in addition to any fee assessed by the port for 
docking or other benefits. EPA requests comments on: the 
appropriateness of this fee calculation methodology, whether or not 
other methodologies are more appropriate, and how likely the proposed 
scheme encourages the use of technologies that would achieve the 
emissions reduction objectives. Specifically, EPA requests comments on 
the appropriate load factors for engines during cruising (at sea) and 
maneuvering/hotelling operations, and on the level of discount for the 
three fee levels.
    (2) Emission Reduction Technologies. A number of technical designs/
engine modifications are known to reduce, or are technologically 
feasible for reducing, emissions of NOX from marine diesel 
engines. These technologies are presented in the table below and more 
fully discussed in the following text. Also, these technologies form 
the basis of the three-tier fee level described in the previous 
section.
    New engines can easily achieve the IMO specified reductions and 
have achieved the lowest levels shown. Retrofitting some of these 
technologies, however, can be difficult.
    Emission Reduction Strategies for Diesel Marine Engines 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 NOX    
                        Technology                            reductiona
                                                              (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injection timing retard....................................        10-30
Engine fine tuning.........................................        20-40
Exhaust gas recirculation..................................        20-50
Water emulsified fuel......................................        20-50
Selective catalytic reduction..............................          90+
Gas turbines...............................................           83
Steam turbines.............................................           87
Speed reduction............................................          45 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aReduction estimates were derived from CARB Mail-Out #91-42 and         
  information gathered by the NOX working group of the Bulk Chemical    
  Handling (BCH) Subcommittee of the International Maritime             
  Organization.                                                         

    (a) Retarded Injection Timing. A feasible and simple means of 
reducing NOX from diesel engines is by retarding injection timing. 
This method lowers the peak combustion temperature and pressure in the 
cylinder, resulting in lower levels of NOX. This strategy has been 
estimated to reduce NOX emissions by 10-30 percent. However, 
disadvantages include higher specific fuel consumption, lower power, 
harder startability, and higher levels of HC, CO, particulate matter 
and smoke emissions. To recover the lost fuel economy and performance 
or to reduce the amount of injection timing retard, additional 
technologies that improve fuel atomization have been employed. Fuel 
atomization can be improved by increasing fuel pump pressure, improving 
fuel pump advance strategies, and incorporating smaller injector nozzle 
tip holes.
    (b) Engine Fine Tuning. Engine fine tuning includes modification of 
essential engine components and could result in 20-40 percent reduction 
in NOX emissions. More specifically, engine fine tuning could 
include modifications in the injection system, charge air system, and 
combustion chamber design. Such changes on new onhighway engines have 
already achieved more than 50 percent NOX reductions. However, 
retrofitting such changes on existing engines makes equally large 
reductions for marine vessels unlikely.
    (c) Exhaust Gas Recirculation. Exhaust gas recirculation involves 
recirculating some of the exhaust gas back into the intake manifold. 
This lowers the combustion temperature and therefore can lower NOX 
emissions by as much as 20-50 percent. For marine engines, the 
applicability of EGR is complicated by the quality of the fuel. Sulfur 
and soot from combustion gases can cause increased wear of piston 
rings, valves, and other components. Therefore, EGR is more likely to 
be used with engines running on cleaner distillate fuels.
    (d) Water Emulsified Fuel. Water emulsification of the fuel is a 
technique which also lowers maximum combustion temperature, reducing 
NOX by 20-50 percent without an increase in fuel consumption. 
There are at least two ways to accomplish the emulsification during 
combustion: in the combustion chamber or in the fuel tank. Combining 
water and fuel for the first time in the chamber requires significant 
changes to the cylinder head to add an injector. Combining water with 
fuel in the tank may introduce combustion problems due to unstable 
emulsion. Also, this technique requires a significantly redesigned fuel 
handling system to overcome the potential risk of corrosion and to 
maintain power output. In any event, extra liquid storage availability 
is necessary to retain similar range.
    (e) Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). One of the most effective, 
but also most complex and expensive, means of reducing NOX from 
large diesel engines is with the use of selective catalytic reduction 
(SCR). Emission reductions in excess of 90 percent can be achieved 
using SCR. In SCR systems, a reducing agent, such as ammonia, is 
injected into the exhaust and both are channelled through a catalyst 
where NOX emissions are reduced. These systems are being 
successfully used for large stationary source applications which 
operate under constant, high load conditions.
    A number of disadvantages are apparent for the use of current 
technology SCR systems on ships. The SCR system is effective only over 
a narrow range of exhaust temperatures. The effectiveness of the system 
is decreased at reduced temperatures exhibited during engine operation 
at partial loads. Also, excess ammonia in the exhaust (referred to as 
``ammonia slip'') can occur during transient operation, where control 
of optimum ammonia injection is difficult. However, non-toxic urea can 
be used in place of toxic ammonia.
    SCR is currently being used in the South Coast region on three new 
ships built with the technology incorporated (not retrofitted). 
Retrofitting ships with this technology is problematic and raises 
significant space and cost concerns. The SCR systems are very bulky and 
require high investment, operational, and maintenance costs.
    (f) Speed Reduction. A potential operational method for reducing 
NOX is speed reduction. By reducing speed, the load requirements 
on the engine are reduced. Speed reduction cannot be applied to all 
different ship types and sizes in the same manner, and may be 
beneficial only for certain types and sizes. Also, speed reduction does 
not address emissions from auxiliary engines. In addition, many coastal 
areas already have factors that limit vessel speed; for example, amount 
of traffic, distance to the shore and port, and water depth. Since 
speed reduction will affect the amount of cargo transported within a 
specified time, additional transport capacity or travel time must be 
accounted for when calculating emission benefits from such a strategy. 
EPA requests comments on how speed reduction could be figured into the 
fee scheme.
    The technologies listed above are not intended to be an all- 
inclusive list of potential emission reduction technologies. EPA 
requests comments on other technologies that may be employed to reduce 
emission of NOX from diesel marine engines. Comments should 
address the emission reduction potential, technological feasibility, 
cost, and safety issues of additional NOX reduction methods.
    (c) Control Strategies--Discount for Using Port Facilities While 
Hotelling. As noted earlier, marine vessels account for approximately 
12 percent of all NOX emissions from both mobile and stationary 
sources in the State of California. According to the Booz-Allen & 
Hamilton study, emissions from maneuvering and hotelling activities 
make up a large portion of those emissions. That report shows that 
maneuvering and hotelling activities by commercial vessels contribute 
an average of approximately 64.9 tons of NOX to local air quality 
every day (Booz-Allen report, p. A-2). This amount is equal to an 
average of 16 percent of daily average NOX emissions from all 
fishing, harbor, and commercial vessels that use these ports. For the 
South Coast, ship berthing and other ship port operations for 
commercial vessels contribute approximately 26 tons of NOX 
emissions per day, of which 16.5 tons are attributable solely to 
hotelling operations.
    Emissions from vessels at port affect local ambient air quality in 
the same way as stationary sources, in that the vessels assume the 
characteristics of large stationary plants when they are berthed in a 
port. According to the Sierra report, ``total SOX and NOX 
emissions from marine vessels currently exceed the corresponding total 
(i.e., combined emissions) for the 100 largest SOX and NOX 
stationary sources in California'' (Sierra Report, p. 70), which 
includes all of the state's larger power plants, oil refineries, and 
cement plants. This huge contribution is in large part because the 
stationary sources are subject to emission controls while the marine 
vessels currently are not.
    A significant portion of the time a ship spends in a port is spent 
moored or at anchor, for loading or unloading purposes. In addition, 
vessels also spend time waiting for a berth. Typically, during the 
loading and unloading periods, a vessel uses its own engines to 
generate power for steam generation, auxiliary electrical power, hot 
water, and so on. This is referred to as hotelling. In this respect, 
ships act like stationary power plants while in port, contributing 
large amounts of NOX emissions to local air quality in the same 
way as stationary sources.
    There are several reasons why ships use their own power sources for 
hotelling. First, it is simpler for a ship to continue using its own 
power instead of taking the time to tap into port power facilities. 
Second, it is difficult and time-consuming to start a ship's very large 
primary and auxiliary engines once they have been shut off. Third, 
shore and vessel power characteristics and connecting hardware are 
sometimes incompatible. Because the time spent in port is relatively 
short, it often does not seem worth the trouble to spend the time 
connecting to port facilities or even ensuring that such connections 
are possible.
    To reduce these emission levels, it is necessary to encourage ship 
operators to use port power facilities instead of generating power on 
board. The proposed control strategy will accomplish this by providing 
a discount to the port fees described in the previous section for ships 
that use port power facilities.
    The amount of the discount is proposed to be equal to the average 
contribution to NOX emissions levels from commercial vessels 
attributable to hotelling. This is because cold ironing would reduce 
NOX emission by an equivalent amount. On a statewide basis, the 
Booz-Allen & Hamilton study estimates the portion of average daily 
NOX emissions attributable to hotelling of commercial vessels to 
be 7.38 percent (Booz-Allen report. p. A-2). Requiring vessels to use 
port power facilities will reduce discharges of NOX from these 
vessels by an equivalent amount. Therefore, using the Booz-Allen data, 
the amount of the discount for using port power facilities would be 
7.38 percent. If average daily contribution of NOX emissions by 
commercial vessels is limited to the South Coast, the relevant 
reduction is 24.12 percent, which would be associated with an 
equivalent discount. EPA requests comments on these discount levels and 
whether the average state or South Coast figures should be used.
    As described above, EPA proposes to consider maneuvering (berthing) 
operations in calculation of the base fee.\95\ Berthing operations must 
be powered by the ship's engine; ships cannot be powered by onshore 
power plants during those maneuvers. In addition, even if such 
emissions could be eliminated, berthing operations account for only 
about 9 percent of total NOX emissions from commercial vessels. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering additional fee discounts for 
reductions in berthing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\See Section (2)(A) Fee Categories, above, with regard to 
proposed fee calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary argument against offering a discount for using local 
onshore power facilities when at port is that using those port 
facilities simply displaces emissions from one area to another. In 
other words, although the ship is not discharging NOX and 
SOX, the power plant that is supplying the electricity is. Thus, 
hotelling will cause an increased demand for electricity from the power 
plant, which will result in an increase in electric output from that 
utility. The power plant, in turn, will increase emissions to meet that 
increased demand.
    EPA does not believe this is a concern for the South Coast region 
for at least three reasons. First, approximately half of the power 
generated in California is generated by technologies that do not 
generate harmful ground-level ozone-producing air pollutants.\96\ 
Second, the NOX emissions that are discharged by the generation of 
electricity using technologies based on petroleum products (primarily 
natural gas) are much less than those that are generated by today's 
ships for the same amount of energy.\97\ This is because onshore 
electric power plants operate at optimal steady-state conditions, are 
required to use emission control systems, and generally use cleaner 
fuel than that used in ships. Finally, the power plants from which the 
electricity would be drawn for hotelling are located far from South 
Coast population centers. This means that any increase in emissions at 
the power generation source will occur away from the South Coast area, 
in areas that have less severe, if any, air quality problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\EPA calculations, based on figures from ICF, Inc., 
``Methodology for Analyzing the Environmental and Economic Effects 
of Electric Vehicles: An Illustrative Study,'' prepared for US EPA, 
September 1991 (Draft).
    \97\See ICF., Inc. study, cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA solicits comments on whether the full discount as proposed 
above should be allowed, or if that discount should be reduced to 
account for the displaced emissions. EPA also solicits comments on how 
the discount is calculated.
    (d) Control Strategies--Discount for Staying Outside the Region. 
Emissions from marine vessels operating in the Santa Barbara Channel 
can be transported onshore by prevailing winds and can contribute to 
onshore air pollution in the South Central Coast Air Basin (which 
includes Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties). 
Particularly of concern (for FIP purposes) are the offshore NOX 
emissions that drift onshore and that can impact Ventura County's air 
quality. As discussed in section III.H. of this NPRM, ships are 
estimated to represent 15 percent of Ventura's total current NOX 
emissions. Most of the offshore sources that contribute to NOX 
emissions include: Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activity (which 
represents support crew and supply boats), exploratory drilling vessels 
and oil platforms, tugs and tankers, recreational marine, U.S. Navy and 
Coast Guard vessels, and large foreign and U.S. vessels.
    Because of the reported 1990 emission inventory from marine vessel 
activity that occurs offshore and external requests to evaluate moving 
the shipping channel lanes, EPA is proposing to offer, as part of the 
emission reduction strategy described in this proposal, incentives for 
ships to use a relocated Santa Barbara shipping channel. This relocated 
channel would take marine vessels farther from land and reduce the 
amount of emissions that are transported inland. These incentives are 
intended to reduce the impact of marine vessel emissions on ozone 
concentrations in Ventura County.
    The proposed control strategy for Ventura County targets both 
NOX and VOCs for reduction in order to attain the ozone standard. 
Because the emissions from marine vessels represent a substantial 
portion (CARB estimates show approximately 12 percent statewide) of 
total emissions of NOX, control of marine vessel emissions is 
potentially an important control strategy. EPA's proposed control 
strategy focuses primarily on the reduction of NOX emissions from 
vessels, since they are nominal contributors to VOCs in Ventura County.
    Summertime meteorological data for Ventura County indicate that 
emissions from marine vessels could be transported to Ventura County by 
prevailing air currents. This is also consistent with the 
meteorological data for the specific episode days chosen for 
photochemical modeling. The meteorological data indicates that the 
emissions from marine vessels could be transported onshore, and 
therefore have the potential to impact ozone concentration in Ventura 
County. However, the actual impact of the emissions on the ozone 
concentrations in Ventura County depends on the time the emissions 
arrive in the onshore area as well as the interaction of the marine 
vessel emissions with the emissions from other sources.
    CARB has suggested that emissions from up to 100 miles out from the 
coastline have a significant impact on ozone concentration in the 
California coastal air basins. EPA is in the process of evaluating 
CARB's data to justify this distance. EPA believes that these 
uncontrolled mobile sources have the potential to affect the air 
quality onshore. EPA further believes that the farther out from shore 
the ship's activity, presumably, the more apt those emissions are to 
disperse before reaching the coast. EPA requests comment on the effect 
of offshore activity on onshore air quality and the proper distance to 
which the channel should be moved.
    EPA believes that it has authority to offer port charge rebates for 
operational changes such as controlling speed, cold ironing or, as 
described here, moving offshore. EPA FIP authority under section 110(c) 
of the Clean Air Act allows EPA to regulate sources contributing to air 
quality degradation provided EPA is not so prohibited. While the U.S. 
has historically allowed that nations do not have sovereignty in truly 
international waters, a surcharge provision of this type is 
significantly different. It applies charges to ships while they are in 
U.S. waters, and merely discounts the charges in light of operational 
changes the ships make, at their option, within and outside U.S. 
waters. EPA is unaware of any provision of a statute or international 
agreement that would prohibit such an approach.
    In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard is directed to reconcile the need 
for safe access routes with the needs of all other reasonable uses of 
the area involved, and has the experience in the areas of vessel 
traffic management, navigation, and ship handling. Also, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been directed by the 
Department of Commerce (DOC) to identify and designate as national 
marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment and implement 
coordinated plans for the protection and management of those areas. 
Finally, marine vessels operating in or near an IMO approved TSS 
(traffic separation scheme) are subject to Rule 10 of the International 
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. EPA is working with all 
three groups to ensure that ships seeking to move further offshore can 
travel freely and safely.
    EPA is proposing two different discount strategies to encourage 
ships to move off Ventura's coast. The two methods are proposed because 
it is difficult to quantify the appropriate fee. First, EPA does not 
know the impact of any fee on shippers. Second, EPA cannot quantify the 
exact benefits of moving further from Ventura. Finally, EPA cannot 
compare effects of the discounting on emissions reductions for Los 
Angeles and Ventura. EPA requests comments on the fee most likely to 
move shippers offshore of Ventura while still maintaining an incentive 
to use low emission ships in the area. As described above, EPA will 
monitor the fee structure and change it to achieve the intended air 
quality benefits. The first option is a discount of 50 percent from the 
fee otherwise applicable to any ship (before the hotelling discount is 
applied) for ships staying 70 miles from shore and outside the Ventura 
Air Basin (under this option a 10 percent fee is applied to ships in 
the low emission category). The second option would restrict any 
discounts to those ships which avoided the Ventura Air Basin. Thus even 
a ship in the low emission category would pay the highest fee if it 
entered the Ventura Air Basin (under this option a 0 percent fee would 
be applied to ships in the low emission category). This option would 
also offer a 50 percent reduction to ships which avoided the basin. 
Under both options, any ship in the low fee category which cold ironed 
and stayed out of the Ventura Air Basin would pay no fee.
    EPA is also considering the option of requiring that shipping move 
outside of the air basin when not berthing or at port. To the extent 
that no fee structure is fully achieving its goals, such a requirement 
may be necessary. EPA requests comment on this option.
    (5) Other Non-Air Base Military Installation. EPA requests comment 
on the feasibility and desirability of implementing a similar emission 
control strategy for military bases in the FIP areas with non-aircraft 
mobile sources of emissions, such as the Navy's construction base at 
Port Hueneme (with the exception of military vessels due to national 
security concerns as described for military aircraft), which is similar 
to that proposed for military air bases. These bases could be included 
in the proposed military air base control program described in section 
III.D.4.e.(2)(c) simply by expanding the definition of covered 
facilities to include all sources operated by the Department of Defense 
in the control areas.

5. Impact of the Economic Incentive Programs Rule on Fee Programs in 
the FIP

a. Introduction
    The fee programs contained in today's proposal will be impacted by 
the rules and procedures established in EPA's Economic Incentives 
Program (EIP) Rulemaking (NPRM--58 FR 11110, February 23, 1993; NFRM 
due March 15, 1994). The EIP includes the Agency's guidance on fee 
programs and the requirements that must be met in order for them to be 
approvable as a SIP revision. It is EPA's intention that the FIP abide 
by these guidance provisions. The EIP, as applied to the FIP, requires 
that emission reductions credited to an economic incentive program be 
surplus to the reductions required by, and credited to, other 
implementation plan provisions to avoid double counting of reductions; 
quantifiable; enforceable at both the State and federal levels; 
consistent with SIP attainment and RFP demonstrations; and permanent 
within the timeframe specified by the program. These provisions address 
primarily the case of an economic incentive program in which emission 
sources are allowed to generate and trade emission reduction credits to 
show compliance with emission targets. The proposed FIP does not 
contain such a credits trading program. In addition, and directly 
relevant to the fee programs in the proposed FIP, an approvable 
emissions fee program must contain a provision that accounts for the 
uncertainties inherent in such programs, an auditing procedure, and 
reconciliation procedures; and must also contain an implementation 
schedule and administrative procedures. Each of these requirements is 
summarized below.
b. Requirements Under the EIP
    (1) Surplus. All emission reductions achieved from a fee system 
must be surplus to those already being achieved under other control 
strategies in the FIP. The primary concern of the EIP is that the fee 
system not take credit for or ``double count'' reductions that are a 
result of other strategies. It is therefore necessary to define the 
baseline for the fee program and use this baseline as a basis for 
projecting program results.
    Today's proposal clearly satisfies this requirement. The baseline 
is clearly described in section III.H.2 and EPA has made certain that 
there has been no double counting of emissions reductions.
    (2) Quantifiable. The fee programs in the FIP must describe how 
emissions and changes in emissions will be quantified. The program must 
specify the minimum required credible, workable, and replicable 
procedures for quantifying emissions, which could include emission 
factor calculations, direct monitoring of usage, and the calculation 
procedures that will be used.
    While today's proposal does not contain a comprehensive description 
of how EPA will quantify emissions changes caused by fees, the final 
FIP will.
    (3) Enforceable. A fee program must include adequate enforcement 
consequences for noncompliance with any source requirements, including 
the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements of the 
program.
    Since the proposed fee programs will be federal programs, it is not 
necessary that they be enforceable by the state, but only federally 
enforceable. At this time, EPA has not developed regulatory language 
delineating the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements 
that will be necessary for the FIP. However, EPA intends on producing 
this language when it promulgates the fee programs in the final rule 
and asks for comment on how these requirements should be structured.
    (4) Consistent With SIP Attainment and RFP Demonstrations. The EIP 
states that programs must be consistent with SIP attainment and RFP 
demonstrations. The fee programs will be consistent with the SIP 
attainment demonstration since the requirement of the FIP is to show 
attainment. The fee program will not need to be consistent with the RFP 
demonstrations as EPA is not required to comply with the RFP 
demonstrations in the FIPs.
    (5) Permanent. The EIP requires that all reductions be permanent 
within the timeframe specified by the program. The important issue for 
this requirement is the determination of the timeframe of the program. 
The fee programs will most likely have a timeframe of 1 year and 
therefore the desired effects during that period are what is important. 
Since the fees will have the result of either increased turnover or 
reduction of usage, and since these will presumably cause permanent 
reductions within the 1 year period, then the permanence requirement 
will be satisfied.
    (6) Uncertainty Provisions. The EIP requires that projected 
emissions reductions from a fee program must be adjusted to reflect the 
uncertainties inherent in these programs through the use of a ``program 
uncertainty factor.'' EPA must specify a value for this factor, between 
0 and 1, which reflects the level of uncertainty inherent in the 
program. EPA must also include a justification for this value. This 
factor must then be applied to the predicted level of emission 
reductions expected from the fee program.
    Today's proposal does not contain an estimate of an uncertainty 
factor, however, EPA fully intends to use one in the final 
promulgation. EPA is not proposing an uncertainty factor at this time 
because it feels that it does not have the best information. EPA wants 
to remain open minded about the range of possible impacts from the fee 
programs and asks for comment as to what uncertainty factors should be 
applied. It should be noted, however, that, as shown in section III.H, 
EPA's control strategies do achieve surplus emission reductions and 
therefore provide for some room should programs not perform as 
expected.
    (7) Auditing. A fee program must also contain audit procedures 
designed to evaluate program implementation and track program results. 
The auditing methods and the timing must be specified in the FIP. These 
audits are to be performed at time intervals consistent with RFP 
milestones and other emission inventory requirements, which is 
generally once every three years. Since OGC has determined that EPA 
need not satisfy the state's RFP requirements, the time interval 
requirement under a FIP is unclear. Since the EIP also specifies that 
states are free to perform audits at shorter intervals as they deem 
appropriate, EPA believes it is free to develop any auditing time 
interval it deems reasonable and appropriate.
    Today's proposal does not contain specific auditing procedures, 
however, EPA fully intends to specify specific auditing procedures for 
each fee program in the final promulgation. EPA invites comments on the 
auditing procedures that should be used for each of the fee programs.
    (8) Reconciliation Procedures. Program audit provisions for fee 
programs must also be accompanied by reconciliation procedures, 
designed to compare credited emissions with actual emissions. The 
reconciliation procedures must specify a range of appropriate actions 
or revisions to the program requirements (e.g., increase the fee) that 
will make up for any shortfall between credited and actual emissions 
revealed by the audit. Such measures must be automatically executing to 
the extent necessary to make up the shortfall, with state action 
required only to identify which of the specified actions are necessary 
to make up the shortfall. Such measures must not require a revision to 
the SIP to be effectuated once identified by the state, rather the 
measures must be built into the original EIP design (or incorporated by 
reference). As with the auditing procedures, the EIP directs states to 
perform reconciliation procedures at time intervals consistent with RFP 
milestones and other emission inventory requirements.
    The reconciliation procedures in the EIP clearly indicate that EPA 
can reconcile a fee program by increasing the fee; however this 
increase must execute automatically. This language indicates that EPA, 
for example, could propose that if it determines, through the auditing 
process, that a fee program for a given source category has not yielded 
within 10 percent of the predicted effect, it will increase the fees by 
50 percent to reconcile this shortfall.
    While EPA fully intends to include reconciliation procedures for 
each fee program in the final promulgation, this NPRM does not contain 
such procedures. EPA invites comment on the the best way to reconcile 
fee programs should the program audits show that the effect of a 
program is not what was estimated.
    (9) Implementation Schedule. A fee program in the FIP must include 
an implementation schedule. The schedule must include dates for 
notifying potentially affected sources, as early as possible, about the 
impending program, initialization and start-up procedures, submittal 
requirements from affected sources, and the reconciliation process and 
any subsequent actions required to make up for any shortfall that 
occurs.
    The implementation schedules for each fee program are contained in 
the detailed discussions of each program.
    (10) Administrative Procedures. As part of a fee program, EPA must 
establish appropriate administrative procedures. For example, a fee 
program must ensure the proper administration of the fee collection 
process. Is should be noted that the EIP contains requirements for the 
use of collected fees. These rules do not supersede the Miscellaneous 
Receipts Act and are therefore not applicable to the Federal Government 
in the FIP.
    While EPA fully intends to include administration procedures for 
each fee program in the final promulgation, this NPRM does not contain 
such procedures. EPA asks for comment as to how these procedures should 
be structured.

E. Fuels Programs

1. Reformulated Fuels
    a. Federal Reformulated Gasoline. Since the 1970s, gasoline sold in 
California generally has been subject to two sets of emission related 
standards: federal standards promulgated by EPA under the Clean Air Act 
and California standards set by CARB. Both EPA and CARB have 
established two-phase reformulated gasoline programs which affect much 
or all of California's gasoline.
    Reformulated gasoline, as prescribed by section 211(k) of the Act, 
is to improve air quality by requiring that gasoline be reformulated to 
reduce motor vehicle emissions of toxic and tropospheric ozone-forming 
compounds.
    On December 15, 1993, the EPA Administrator signed the final rule 
requiring the sale of reformulated gasoline in the 9 largest 
metropolitan areas with the worst ozone nonattainment problems in the 
U.S., as well as in a larger number of areas which have voluntarily 
chosen to participate in the program. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Area 
(which includes Ventura County) is one of the mandated areas. 
Sacramento is not among the areas currently slated to receive federal 
reformulated gasoline, but a bump-up of Sacramento to ``Severe'' will 
subject that area to the reformulated gasoline requirement, effective 
one year after reclassification. Due to California's reformulated 
gasoline program described below, we do not propose to require the sale 
of federal reformulated gasoline in Sacramento in this FIP. In Los 
Angeles, federal Phase I reformulated gasoline will reduce VOC 
emissions by 13-21 percent beginning in 1995, relative to base 
California gasoline and depending on the type of I/M program in place. 
NOX emissions will remain unchanged (no net increase over baseline 
NOX levels). Beginning in the year 2000, a more stringent federal 
Phase II VOC standard will apply and VOC emissions will be reduced by 
16 percent relative to pre-1995 California gasoline, assuming enhanced 
I/M is in place. In addition, beginning in the year 2000, EPA is 
requiring that reformulated gasoline reduce in-use NOX emissions 
by 6.8 percent, on average, again relative to pre-1995 California fuel.
    EPA's 7.8 RVP summertime standard under the federal Phase II 
volatility control program, which began in 1992, is the same as 
California's Phase I reformulated gasoline, which also began in 1992. 
The detergent requirement is also essentially equivalent to a CAA 
requirement affecting all gasoline which is required to begin in 1995, 
see section 211(l) of the CAA.
    Toxic emissions, overall, are expected to decrease during the high 
ozone season due to Phase II RVP control. Reductions in non-exhaust VOC 
emissions will account for most of this decrease.
    b. California Reformulated Gasoline (Phase II). The California 
Phase I reformulated gasoline program began in 1992 and applies to all 
gasoline sold in the state. It primarily requires that gasoline meet a 
7.8 RVP standard and contain detergents which prevent deposits from 
accumulating in fuel injectors and intake valves.
    In November 1991 CARB approved regulations for the Phase II 
reformulated gasoline program that begins on April 1, 1996. The 
California Phase II reformulated gasoline regulation established 
standards for eight gasoline characteristics, briefly summarized below. 
The 1.8 percent by weight oxygen content refers to wintertime only.

                            California Phase II Reformulated Gasoline Specifications                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Specification                           Flat limit       Average limit       Absolute cap  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RVP, psi...............................................                7.0  .................                7.0
Sulfur, ppmw...........................................                 40                 30                 80
Aromatics, vol%........................................                 25                 22                 30
Benzene, vol%..........................................                1.0                0.8                1.2
Olefins, vol%..........................................                6.0                4.0               10.0
Oxygen, wt%............................................            1.8-2.2  .................        (\1\)      
90% distillation temperature,  deg.F...................                300                290                330
50% distillation temperature,  deg.F...................                210                200                220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\2.7 maximum 1.8 minimum.                                                                                     

    Refineries may choose whether to conform to the flat limits which 
apply to all batches of gasoline when it is initially sold from the 
product facility, or to the average limits which apply to the average 
of all fuel produced by a given refinery. In the case of a refiner 
choosing averaging, the absolute cap or absolute limit also must be 
met. California is also allowing the sale of alternative fuel 
formulations which meet the emission reduction potential of a fuel 
meeting the average limits. However, even these alternative gasolines 
must still meet the cap limits described above. Gasoline meeting the 
average limits will reduce VOC and NOX emissions by 17-18 and 13-
14 percent (relative to pre-1995), respectively, according to EPA's 
complex model as revised in November 1993. Thus, California Phase II 
gasoline should provide at least as much VOC and NOX emission 
reductions as the federal Phase II standards.
    In its recent rule, EPA determined that fuel meeting California's 
Phase II standards will produce greater emission benefits than federal 
Phase I reformulated gasoline and it was therefore appropriate to 
exempt California gasoline from the enforcement procedures for the 
federal Phase I standards. Thus, there would be no attainment benefit 
to requiring federal Phase I reformulated gasoline to be sold in 
Sacramento, although emissions reductions would be achieved during the 
summer of 1995. At this time it appears from the available data that 
California's fuel achieves as much reduction as federal Phase II 
reformulated gasoline and therefore EPA is not proposing any changes to 
California's gasoline program today. If later EPA determines that 
further reductions can be achieved through use of either federal Phase 
II reformulated gasoline or some new formulation, EPA will propose 
appropriate changes to the fuel program in California as a FIP revision 
if such reductions are needed.
    c. California Reformulated Diesel Fuel. On August 21, 1990, EPA 
finalized its low-sulfur diesel rulemaking. CARB adopted their clean 
diesel fuel regulations in November 1988 and on December 26, 1991, 
enacted their clean diesel fuel program. Both the federal and CARB 
programs became effective on October 1, 1993. The two programs are 
similar, and are designed to substantially reduce sulfate particulate 
and NOX emissions, and to allow manufacturers to comply with 1994 
and newer emission standards for diesel vehicles. Important differences 
exist between California and the federal program, as outlined below.
    The EPA program only applies to diesel fuel for use in on-highway 
vehicles. Trucks, automobiles, and buses would be affected, for 
example, but construction and farm equipment would not, unless they 
chose to use the low-sulfur diesel fuel. The regulation sets a 0.05 
percent by weight sulfur limit for all on-road diesels, and requires a 
minimum cetane index of 40 or maximum 35 percent by volume aromatics 
percentage. The current maximum sulfur content in on-highway diesel 
fuel is approximately 500 ppm. Since direct measurement of aromatics is 
a somewhat complicated procedure, EPA chose to use a minimum cetane 
index as a surrogate for capping aromatics. Few refiners have had 
trouble meeting this requirement and those who cannot can sell fuel 
into the nonroad market. The price differential between high-sulfur and 
low-sulfur fuels is expected to be approximately 2 cents/gallon once 
initial distribution blips have resolved themselves.
    The California program applies to vehicular diesel fuel. 
Essentially any vehicle with wheels, including construction and farm 
equipment, is covered. The regulation establishes a 500 ppm sulfur 
limit as well as a 10 percent cap on aromatics (20 percent for small 
refiners). Diesel normally has about 30 percent aromatics. California 
and EPA believe aromatics contribute to the formation of NOX and 
particulate emissions. California includes an equivalency provision 
which allows refiners to make diesel with more than 10 percent 
aromatics if engine testing demonstrates equivalent emissions.
    Most if not all of the large California refiners are pursuing 
higher-aromatic equivalent fuels. While a few oil companies have 
received CARB certification for their equivalent fuels, only Chevron 
has gone public with its formulation at this time. One of Chevron's 
alternatives has 19 percent aromatics with 200 ppm sulfur and a cetane 
number of 59. The company estimates that it can manufacture this fuel 
at an incremental cost of 6-7 cents per gallon. This is about half the 
incremental cost to make a strict 10 percent aromatics fuel. California 
has granted temporary waivers from the requirements provided the 
refiner pays 6 cents/gallon into a trust fund. However, prices in 
California initially jumped far more than 20 cents per gallon and 
California is in the process of investigating its rule.
    EPA believes that California's rule is likely to achieve NOX 
emissions reductions which will not be achieved by the federal program. 
CARB estimates these reductions will be approximately 4-7 percent of 
diesel engine NOX. EPA therefore is not proposing any changes to 
California's diesel fuel regulations. EPA is working with California to 
help understand the reasons behind the huge price rise, supply, and 
injector/pump seal problems and will take note of any change to 
California's rule. The South Coast and Ventura have been using the low-
sulfur fuel since 1985 without any problems.
    Even if California were to relax its rule, EPA's diesel fuel 
standards still apply. However, since the FIP takes credit for the 
California rule which delivers more NOX credits than the federal 
rule, EPA may have to propose additional FIP reductions if the 
California rule were to be relaxed.

F. Severe Area Requirements for Sacramento

1. Introduction
    As discussed in section III.B.3., EPA is proposing attainment 
demonstrations for 1999 and 2005 for the Sacramento FIP. If EPA 
promulgates a 2005 attainment demonstration, the Sacramento area will 
be reclassified as a severe ozone nonattainment area and become 
responsible for meeting all applicable deadlines and requirements for 
SIP purposes, which include the requirements outlined in section 
III.B.3.e. As part of the alternative proposal for 2005, EPA will 
address the additional severe area requirements with the following.
2. Employee Commute Options Program
    a. Introduction and Statutory Requirements. In the alternative that 
EPA bumps up Sacramento to ``Severe'' and establishes a 2005 attainment 
date, EPA proposes that an Employee Commute Options (ECO) program be 
included in the FIP package. Because more people are driving than ever 
before and they are driving longer distances, the ECO provision was 
included in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 at section 
182(d)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 7511a(d)(1)(B)). Currently, increasing numbers 
of drivers and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) offset a large portion of 
the emissions reductions achieved through producing and selling 
vehicles that operate more cleanly. Without limits on increasing 
vehicle travel, the emissions caused by more vehicles being driven more 
miles under more congested conditions will outweigh the emissions 
reduced per vehicle from cleaner fuels and improved emission control 
technologies. Ultimately, this will result in an overall increase in 
motor vehicle emissions.
    Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the CAA requires State or nonattainment 
areas with ozone pollution levels defined as ``Severe'' or ``Extreme'' 
under the CAA to develop and implement an ECO program designed to 
reduce work-related vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled during 
peak commuting periods. Specifically, section 182(d)(1)(B) requires 
employers with 100 or more employees to participate in a trip reduction 
program. These employers must submit compliance plans to the state or 
governing agency two years after an ECO regulation is submitted to EPA 
for inclusion in the SIP. These employer compliance plans must 
convincingly demonstrate an increase in the average passenger occupancy 
(APO) of their employees who commute to work during the peak travel 
period by no less than 25 percent above the average vehicle occupancy 
(AVO) of the nonattainment area during the peak travel period. These 
compliance plans must also convincingly demonstrate that employers will 
meet the 25 percent increase APO target no later than four years after 
the ECO regulation is submitted to EPA.
    b. ECO program requirements and Sacramento ECO regulation 
implementation approach. The proposed ECO regulation meets the basic 
ECO program requirements:

(1) calculate an AVO for the nonattainment area or for each zone if the 
area is divided into zones;
(2) specify target APO(s) which are no less than 25 percent above the 
AVO(s);
(3) include enforcement procedures to ensure that employers develop and 
implement compliance plans; and
(4) provide an ECO program that has a process for ensuring that 
compliance plans are a ``convincing'' compliance demonstration.

    The proposed ECO regulation uses data collected from the 1991 
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) State Travel Survey 
to produce the baseline AVO for the nonattainment area and the target 
APO for the regulation. This survey estimated Sacramento regional AVO 
to be 1.11 in 1991. It is EPA's opinion that no substantial changes in 
travel patterns have taken place since that time such that there is 
reason to believe this number has changed since 1991. Consequently, a 
25 percent increase in AVO produces a regional APO target of 1.38; the 
performance target included within the ECO regulation.
    The Caltrans Statewide Travel Study attempted to estimate the 
number of persons telecommuting by asking the question, ``do you work 
at home?''. This survey question does not distinguish between those who 
work at home because they are self-employed and their business is 
located in their home and those who work away from home but participate 
in an employer-sponsored telecommuting program. EPA believes that a 
large percentage of those who work at home would be self-employed. 
Consequently, any APO target based on the Caltrans study and including 
all of these home workers as telecommuters would be inflated by some 
degree and result in a regional target APO of 1.46. EPA has chosen the 
1.38 APO target because it is comparatively a more reliable baseline 
AVO estimate.
    The third ECO program requirement concerns sufficient enforcement 
procedures. Through the provisions of the ECO regulation, EPA must be 
able to invoke penalties that are severe enough to provide an adequate 
incentive for employers to comply and no less than the expected cost of 
compliance. Section 113 of the Act provides the statutory authority for 
federal enforcement and the ability to assess penalties for violations 
under this ECO regulation. EPA may assess civil or criminal penalties 
up to $25,000 per day per violation; however, Section 113 requires EPA 
to consider the size of the business, the economic impact of the 
penalty on the business, the violator's compliance history and good 
faith efforts to comply, the duration of the violation, payment of 
penalties for previous similar violations, the economic benefit of 
noncompliance, and the seriousness of the violation in assessing a 
penalty fee.
    Finally, Section 182(d)(1)(B) requires that employer compliance 
plans ``convincingly demonstrate'' prospective compliance with the 
target APO. EPA's ECO Guidance defines four ECO regulation design 
options for eliciting compliance plans that make this convincing 
demonstration. An ECO regulation may:

(1) provide for effective plan-by-plan review of employer-selected 
measures to ensure the high quality of compliance plans and that 
unconvincing compliance plans will be rejected;
(2) contain a convincing minimum set of measures that all employers 
must implement to reach the target APO;
(3) provide that failure by the employer to meet the target APO will 
result in implementation of a regulation-specified, multi-measure 
contingency plan designed to meet the target APO; or
(4) include financial penalties and/or compliance incentives for 
employers who fail to meet the target APO that are large enough to 
provide a significant prospective incentive for the employer to design 
and implement an effective compliance plan.

An option can be used by itself or in combination with others. The 
proposed ECO regulation uses a combination of the first and the fourth 
program design options.
    In sum, the proposed ECO regulation meets the basic ECO program 
requirements. Consequently, the proposed ECO regulation may be adopted 
by a state or locality to meet the requirements of Section 
182(d)(1)(B). A general discussion of its requirements is included 
below in section (c). The detailed proposed ECO regulation is included 
in this Federal Implementation Plan NPRM at 40 CFR 52.2999.
    c. Employer and compliance plan requirements. The proposed ECO 
regulation requires the following seven actions of employers:

(1) register with EPA as an employer subject to the regulation;
(2) designate an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) at each work 
location;
(3) conduct an annual APO survey of its employees at each work location 
to determine employees' current commute patterns and report the results 
of the APO survey to the EPA;
(4) develop and submit to the EPA before March 1, 1997, 2 years from 
program inception, and in subsequent years as required by the 
regulation, trip reduction plans that describe activities to be 
implemented at the location under an ECO program;
(5) implement the ECO program described in the approved trip reduction 
plan;
(6) no later than March 1, 1999, 4 years from program inception, 
increase the average passenger occupancy (APO) at each location by not 
less than 25 percent over the average vehicle occupancy (AVO) for 
Sacramento ECO program area;
(7) maintain the target APO upon achieving it.

An employer failing to accomplish any or all of these actions would be 
in violation of the proposed ECO regulation and would be subject to 
penalties under section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
    The required components of an employer's compliance plan are as 
follows:

(1) the name of the employer, address of the work location, and name, 
title, and signature of the Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) 
at the work location;
(2) the results of the most recent APO survey and a description of the 
procedure used to conduct the APO survey;
(3) a description of the physical and transportation service 
characteristics of the work location, and demographic, work, and 
travel-related characteristics of the employee population;
(4) a description of ECO strategies currently implemented that provide 
commute alternative incentives to employees at the work location and 
additional ECO strategies the employer will implement at the work 
location;
(5) activities planned by the employer to implement the ECO program and 
a time schedule for implementation of the program; and
(6) a description of the process by which the employer will 
periodically monitor and review progress toward the APO target.

    Employer plans will be certified by a third party for completeness 
in order to reduce EPA's implementation burden. EPA will approve or 
disapprove plans. The Air Pollution Control Districts for the 
Sacramento nonattainment area will have the right of first refusal to 
certify plans of employers in their district. Should one or more APCDs 
decline the opportunity to certify employers, another organization or 
other organizations will be designated by EPA as plan certifiers.
    By March 1, 1999, all employers must submit either a maintenance 
plan describing either how the employer will maintain the target APO, 
or an update compliance plan describing what additional measures the 
employer will take to reach the APO target within one year. An 
employer's update compliance plan must discuss good faith efforts to 
achieve the target APO, provide an explanation of why the ECO 
strategies included in the last plan did not produce the target APO, 
and discuss how the update compliance plans will cause the employer to 
achieve the target within one year if the target has not been met by 
then as required.
    As part of the FIP, EPA is including a parking cash out regulation. 
Under this regulation, employers would offer employees the option of 
taking the cash value of employer paid parking as a financial incentive 
to reduce solo commuting. Where applicable, employers would be able to 
include a parking cash out incentive as part of their ECO program trip 
reduction plans.
    d. ECO rule development issues.  Because the following components 
are common to other trip reduction regulations in California or are 
discussed extensively in EPA's ECO Guidance, EPA wishes to discuss 
these issues and the agency's rationale for not incorporating them into 
the proposed ECO regulation.
    First, this proposed ECO regulation does not allow for APO 
averaging, banking or trading. Including such a component within the 
ECO regulation would add an administrative and enforcement burden 
beyond EPA's present resources and is perhaps better administered at 
the local level. Should the state or local agencies develop an ECO 
regulation with APO averaging, banking, or trading consistent with 
EPA's ECO Guidance, EPA would accept such a regulation for review and 
possible approval and incorporation into the SIP as a replacement for 
the proposed federal ECO program.
    Related to the issue of APO averaging and trading is the issue of 
consolidated compliance plans. The proposed ECO regulation requires 
employers to achieve the APO target at each work location. Again, this 
is due to EPA's administrative and enforcement resource constraints. 
Therefore, to provide this type of individual employer accountability 
for achieving the APO target, the proposed ECO regulation does not 
allow consolidated compliance plans. A single employer with multiple 
work locations or a confederation of employers with geographically 
related work locations, such as a business park, are thus not allowed 
to average their APO survey results together to achieve the target APO. 
However, the proposed ECO regulation does not preclude employers from 
forming or participating in transportation management associations or 
using complementary ridesharing and commuter matching services to 
reduce trips to their respective work locations and promote 
ridesharing, so long as they demonstrate compliance at each individual 
worksite.
    Second, this ECO proposed regulation does not divide the Sacramento 
ECO program area into subregional AVO zones or target areas for the 
purpose of achieving the target APO. Subregional AVO zones or target 
areas would allow different geographic subregions to start from 
different existing AVO baselines for the purpose of calculating the APO 
target. Thus, different subregions could have different APO targets, 
but still meet the performance requirement of Section 182(d)(1)(B), a 
25 percent increase in APO from the AVO baseline.
    AVO zones may be applicable within the Sacramento ECO program area 
if there are significant subregional differences in commute patterns, 
land use, transit availability, and baseline AVO. However, EPA has no 
information to suggest that these differences do exist. To conclusively 
assess whether or not these differences exist and develop subregional 
AVO zones would require detailed surveys of home to work commute 
patterns in the Sacramento ECO program area to supplement 1990 census 
data and the 1991 Caltrans State Travel Survey. Should California 
conduct such surveys and determine it appropriate, the State could 
include AVO zones in its ECO SIP.
    As a third and final issue, this regulation does not allow for APO 
crediting from the use of satellite work stations. Cold start emissions 
from motor vehicles are a significant proportion of motor vehicle 
emissions and will become an even larger proportion as future motor 
vehicles run cleaner. Consequently, EPA believes that satellite work 
stations are a relatively ineffective strategy for reducing vehicle 
emissions and vehicle trips unless they can reduce a significantly 
large vehicle miles traveled component of a work trip or allow an 
employee to substitute a commute mode of travel other than a motor 
vehicle. Based on its understanding of Sacramento commuting patterns, 
EPA concluded that this kind of vehicles miles traveled reduction 
through use of satellite work stations would not occur in Sacramento 
and has therefore not included credit for them in the FIP. However, 
this proposed ECO regulation does provide for telecommuting from home 
as an acceptable trip reduction strategy in employer compliance plans. 
EPA believes that telecommuting from home is a very effective trip 
reduction measure because an entire commute trip is eliminated when an 
employee works out of his or her home.
    In summary, although EPA's ECO Guidance addresses the use of 
averaging, banking, and trading of APO credits as well as using AVO 
zones, EPA does not believe these elements are appropriate for the 
proposed ECO program. APO averaging, banking, and trading would add an 
administrative and enforcement burden beyond EPA's present resources 
and is perhaps better administered at the local level. In the case of 
AVO zones, EPA has no information suggesting that significant 
subregional differences in commute patterns, land use, transit 
availability, and baseline AVO exist to justify this approach. Finally, 
while EPA may approve a local or state ECO regulation incorporating 
crediting of satellite work stations under very restrictive conditions, 
EPA has chosen not to credit satellite work stations in the proposed 
ECO regulation for the reasons stated above.
    3. RACT for 25 Ton Per Year Sources
    a. Applicable requirements. As discussed in the General Preamble 
for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
(57 FR 13521), for ``Severe'' areas, reasonable available control 
technology (RACT) must be applied to any source that emits or has the 
potential to emit 25 tons per year of VOC or NOX. If the 
Sacramento area is bumped-up from ``Serious'' (major source = 50 tons 
per year) to ``Severe'', in order to address this requirement, RACT 
regulations must be developed for sources which are caught by the more 
stringent major source definition. EPA believes that between current 
State and local regulatory requirements and today's proposed FIP 
regulations (Section III.C.), there should be few, if any, uncontrolled 
stationary sources which emit more than 25 tons per year. However, EPA 
plans to continue working with the State and local agencies to identify 
all stationary sources which have the potential to emit greater than 25 
tons per year or more of VOC and NOX and apply RACT regulations as 
needed.
4. New Source Review
    a. Background. Today's proposed rule is based on the New Source 
Review rules in the affected air pollution control districts (APCDs). 
It includes necessary revisions to those rules that will satisfy severe 
area requirements, including a major source definition of 25 tons/year 
and a 1.3:1 offset ratio requirement. The rule also incorporates EPA's 
permitting requirements (primarily those at 40 CFR 51.165), and changes 
necessitated by the 1990 CAAA. EPA is expecting to shortly publish 
proposed changes to the regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 in order to codify 
and interpret changes to nonattainment permitting requirements pursuant 
to the CAAA. As appropriate, EPA will rely on that proposal as guidance 
in taking final action on today's rule.
    If EPA's final action includes a severe-area classification for the 
Sacramento FIP areas, this rule will apply in each of the affected 
APCDs. EPA's main goal in following the structure and, where possible, 
the actual language of the existing rules is to provide a rule that is 
easy for the local APCDs to adopt and implement and familiar to 
industrial sources subject to NSR, and thus provide the least 
disruption when incorporated in the local programs. However, should the 
local APCDs fail to adopt the necessary requirements, EPA will 
implement the severe area NSR requirements through today's rule.
    EPA is specifically soliciting comment on the issue of the source 
size affected by the rule. As the rule is structured in this proposal, 
it requires permits of all sources currently required to obtain permits 
at the APCDs. EPA has several reasons for including this requirement. 
First, EPA wants to make this rule as similar to the current District 
rules as possible so that the Districts can be reasonably certain that 
adopting this rule will lead to rapid SIP approval such that EPA will 
move into an oversight rather than permit issuance mode. The current 
District rules use an accumulation structure that sums all emissions 
increases, and triggers substantive requirements based on that 
accumulation. EPA considered making the rule only apply to sources with 
a potential to emit greater than 25 tpy. However, because the 
Districts' emissions inventory is based on actual emissions rather than 
potential emissions, EPA would be unable to know clearly to which 
sources the rule applies. Second, EPA is concerned that excising those 
portions of the rules related to minor sources will lead to increased 
confusion by sources as to jurisdiction and applicable requirements. 
Third, EPA believes that not including minor sources will result in a 
rule capturing fewer emissions than the current District rules, a 
result contrary to the intent of the FIP. On the other hand, EPA is 
concerned about the effective use of its resources, and about the 
burden placed on companies constructing very small sources having to 
obtain air pollution permits from two agencies. Even so, because EPA 
has the ability to delegate today's rule to the Districts, the effects 
of dual permitting should be short lived. EPA is therefore soliciting 
comment on whether to include minor sources or not, and, if a commenter 
suggests excluding minor sources, EPA solicits comment on the most 
effective way to exclude minor sources while maintaining the structure 
of the rule.
    b. Overview of Rule Requirements. There are three sections of the 
rule that together establish the NSR requirements for the FIP areas. 
The first, 40 CFR 52.3000, describes which sources are required to 
obtain a pre-construction permit, and sets out most of the procedural 
requirements involved in permitting. The second section, 40 CFR 
52.3001, contains the substantive requirements related to New Source 
Review, including control technology determinations and offset 
requirements. The third section, 40 CFR 52.3002, describes the 
procedure EPA will use to determine the amount of creditable reductions 
available and authorize them for use as offsets.
    In general, the rule is designed to meet each of the severe area 
NSR requirements mandated by the Act, meet each applicable requirement 
for State and local NSR rules as set forth in 40 CFR 51.165, as well as 
be consistent with EPA's policies for permitting.
    The rule requires that any source\98\ owner proposing to construct 
an emitting piece of equipment obtain a permit prior to construction of 
that equipment. A permit applicant must provide EPA all information 
necessary to process the permit. Once all such information is received 
by EPA, the application is administratively complete and EPA will begin 
the process of analysis and permit preparation, and will then issue or 
deny the permit. Except for certain small sources, EPA will present a 
draft permit for public notice and provide an opportunity for comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\Source is generally defined as all emitting equipment at one 
location. This document uses the same definition as 40 CFR 51.165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The substantive requirements that may apply to construction or 
modification of certain larger emission units include: Best Available 
Control Technology (BACT), offsets, statewide compliance, and 
alternative siting analysis, and are discussed below.
    (1) Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER). LAER is required for 
any emission unit construction or modification where the potential 
emissions of that unit exceed ten pounds per day. This requirement is 
consistent with the Clean Air Act and is based on the requirements of 
the Districts' rules. The applicable Clean Air Act control technology 
requirement is Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) (CAA section 
173(a)(2)). The District rules use the term Best Available Control 
Technology, but define it to meet the LAER requirement. Therefore, as 
used in today's rule, the term ``BACT'' satisfies CAA section 
173(a)(2).
    (2) Offsets. Today's rule implements the offset requirement 
mandated by the Act for severe areas by adding a 1.3:1 offset ratio to 
the base District rule. The rule triggers the offset requirement once 
the potential to emit of the source exceeds 7,500 pounds per quarter 
(approximately 15 tons per year). Once the source exceeds the offset 
trigger, all subsequent emissions increases are required to be offset 
at this ratio.
    (3) Statewide Compliance. The owner or operator of all major new 
sources and modifications is required to demonstrate that all major 
sources under his or her ownership or control within the state are in 
compliance or on a schedule for compliance with all Clean Air Act 
requirements. This requirement has been in effect since the 1977 Clean 
Air Act amendments, and is already part of all of the District rules.
    (4) Alternative Siting Analysis. The requirement for an alternative 
siting analysis is found in section 173(a)(5) of the Clean Air Act. An 
applicant for a major new source or modification is required to perform 
an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes and 
environmental control techniques and demonstrate that the benefits of 
the source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs of 
construction of the source at that location. Today's rule implements 
the alternative siting analysis requirement at 40 CFR 52.3001 (c)(7).
    c. Existing NSR Rules. The five Districts affected by today's Rule 
are all within the same air basin and Metropolitan Statistical Area. 
While each District adopts NSR rules independently, all but one of the 
Districts' rules are similar in structure and substance. Feather River 
Air Quality Management District's rules have similar definitions and 
substantially similar requirements as the other Disticts, but differ in 
minor structural and other respects. Today's rule is similar to the 
existing rules in Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 
District, Placer Air Pollution Control District, Yolo-Solano Air 
Pollution Control District and El Dorado Air Pollution Control 
District.\99\ However, today's rule is numbered differently and is 
written to address only ozone precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\The rules related to New Source Review in each of the 
Districts are as follows: Sacramento Metroplitan AQMD Rules 201, 
202, and 204; Placer APCD Rules 501, 502, and 504; El Dorado APCD 
Rules 501, 523, and 524 (board adoption expected April 1994); Yolo-
Solano APCD Rules 501, 502, and 504; Feather River APCD Rules 4.0, 
10.1 and 10.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    None of the District NSR rules in the State Implementation Plan 
currently meet all the requirements of the 1990 CAAA. On January 15, 
1993, EPA found that Feather River AQMD, El Dorado APCD, Placer APCD, 
and Yolo-Solano APCD failed to submit NSR rules meeting certain 
requirements mandated by the CAAA. However, Feather River AQMD, Placer 
APCD, and Yolo-Solano APCD have since submitted rules for inclusion 
into the State Implementation Plan. EPA expects submittals from El 
Dorado APCD and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD in the next year. Because 
all of these rules were written to only meet the requirements for 
serious nonattainment areas, they do not meet the requirements for 
severe nonattainment areas.
d. Changes From Original APCD Rules. (1) Changes to Address Severe Area 
Requirements. In order to satisfy the provisions required by the Clean 
Air Act for severe areas, EPA has included several requirements in 
today's rule which differ from those of the current Districts' rules. 
The changes include the addition of a more stringent major source 
threshold and a more stringent offset ratio. These requirements are in 
accordance with Section 182(e) of the CAA. The minimum size threshold 
for a major source is 25 tons per year and the lowest acceptable offset 
ratio is 1.3 to 1.
    (2) Changes to Address Federal Approvability. Significant changes 
in today's rule include deletion or revision of certain sections which 
exist in the Districts' current rules, as well as the inclusion of new 
sections to address federal requirements.
    Federal new source review at 40 CFR 51.165 applies to certain 
source categories which were exempt from District new source review 
requirements. Therefore, such exemptions are excluded. Some of the 
District rules allow trading between different precursors of a 
secondary pollutant. As EPA does not currently allow trading between 
either of the ozone precursor criteria pollutants addressed in this 
rule, this rule does not, as proposed, allow such trading. In addition, 
40 CFR 52.3000 contains wording which emphasizes the federal 
enforceability of an Authority to Construct and its validity for the 
life of the source. In order to match EPA's enforcement authority over 
past violations, and to be consistent with requirements in EPA's 
Operating Permits Program (40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)), today's rule requires 
retention of records for five years.
    This rule contains certain other provisions which are not in the 
current District rules. A subsection is included in this rule to 
address the minimum offset ratio for emission reductions achieved from 
mobile sources. Furthermore, the ERC Authorization includes provisions 
to certify that ERCs are surplus at time of use, that prior shutdown 
credits are federally approvable, and that ERCs from non-permitted 
sources are surplus, permanent, enforceable, and quantifiable.
    (3) Changes to Address Federal Implementation. Some significant 
changes in the APCD rule are necessary for federal implementation. 
Today's rule excludes all references to requirements contained in state 
law. All district fee requirements are removed and are replaced with a 
provision allowing EPA to collect fees. Upon delegation of authority to 
implement and enforce any portion of this NSR rule, EPA will cease to 
collect the fees associated with that portion of this rule, and the 
delegated agency will calculate and collect fees in accordance with the 
fee rules of that agency.
    Language was added to section 52.3001 to provide the opportunity to 
request a public hearing as provided by 40 CFR 124.12. Language was 
also added to section 52.3000 to allow for petition to the 
Environmental Appeals Board for review and reconsideration within 30 
days of any final decision issued pursuant to this NSR rule, including 
decisions made by a delegated agency pursuant to this NSR rule. A 
petition for review can also be filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals as 
provided in section 307(b) of the Act.
    Because this rule is explicitly intended for preconstruction review 
for ozone precursors, it does not reference other criteria pollutants 
nor District operating permits programs.
    The ERC Authorization section of this Rule allows sources to meet 
the offset requirements of this Rule through use of the existing 
District banking system. Functions of the District Banks and District 
Priority Reserve Banks are not affected by today's Rule.
    e. Dual Permit Application and Review. Today's proposed NSR Rule 
does not replace the Districts' existing permitting programs. New or 
modified sources of ozone precursors must continue to meet the 
applicable District NSR requirements. This may result in sources of 
such pollutants having to apply for permits from both the EPA and the 
District in which the source is located.\100\ As a practical matter, 
however, because EPA has maintained the structure and requirements of 
the existing District Rules, by meeting the requirements of this 
``bumped up'' rule, the source will have also met the District NSR 
requirements. Additional preparation in the form of permit 
applications, modeling, or research on the part of the applicant would 
be minimal, if required at all. EPA has no statutory authority to 
repeal or supplant the existing State or local laws, nor would this be 
desirable since the existing District permitting programs regulate the 
emissions of pollutants not covered by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\Sources must follow this ``dual'' permitting scheme in any 
area that does not have authority to implement federally mandated 
permitting programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One difficulty EPA has encountered in proposing this ``dual 
system'' is how to operate federal emission reduction credit ``banks'' 
that meet federal requirements and still preserve the integrity of 
existing District banks. As required by the Act and set forth in 
section 40 CFR 52.3001 of this rule, new sources or modifications that 
emit ozone precursors above an established threshold must obtain 
offsets. Under current District programs, emission reduction credits 
can be certified and obtained from District banks to meet offset 
requirements. However, to be creditable for use as offsets under this 
rule, EPA must ensure that the credits in the District banks meet 
federal approvability criteria as set forth in the Emission Trading 
Policy Statement (ETPS, 51 FR 43815) and in the General Preamble to 
Title I at (57 FR 13553).
    The ERC authorization process described in today's rule would allow 
emissions reductions to be certified directly by EPA and would also 
allow sources to use ERCs which have previously been certified by a 
District rule and authorized to meet federal NSR requirements. EPA 
requests comment on today's proposal and alternative methods that would 
preserve the integrity of the District banks under the proposed 
``dual'' permitting system.
    f. Operating Permits. The permits issued by EPA under today's NSR 
rule will not expire upon issuance of a District operating permit. The 
Districts are encouraged to include the requirements contained in 
permits issued by EPA, pursuant to this rule, in their operating 
permits since sources must continue to comply with the requirements of 
these EPA issued construction permits. Districts must include 
conditions contained in permits issued pursuant to this rule in any 
operating permit issued under a program adopted pursuant to 40 CFR part 
70 or Title V of the Act, as discussed in section III.J of this 
preamble.
    g. Federal Implementation and Delegation to Local Agencies. As 
discussed below in section III.J of this preamble, if EPA reclassifies 
the ozone nonattainment areas of the Sacramento Valley Air Basin as 
``severe'', the applicable portions of the California SIP must be 
revised to meet the CAA requirements for a severe ozone nonattainment 
area and submitted to EPA on or before the date of final promulgation 
of this FIP. Until such time as EPA approves the revisions for the NSR 
portions of the applicable SIP, the NSR requirements of this FIP shall 
apply. When the revisions are approved into the SIP, EPA will withdraw 
this NSR portion of the FIP.
    EPA will encourage delegation of the final version of this NSR rule 
to the local Districts prior to SIP approvability, thus eliminating the 
need for sources to apply for permits from both the EPA and the local 
permitting agency. To do so, Districts must revise their existing NSR 
rule to meet the requirements of this federal rule, or adopt EPA's 
final NSR rule, through their existing notice and comment rulemaking 
procedures. The revised rule must then be submitted to EPA, which will 
evaluate the NSR rule for consistency with the requirements of the NSR 
portion of the Federal Implementation Plan. EPA will then delegate to 
the District, by letter, the authority to implement and enforce those 
portions of the FIP that are consistent with District requirements. 
When the revisions are ultimately approved in the SIP, EPA will 
withdraw the NSR portion of the FIP.
    Revision of the District regulations is necessary to allow the 
local agencies to use their own requirements, such as fee provisions 
and enforcement procedures, to implement the requirements of this NSR 
rule. While both SIP revisions and delegation will require revision of 
the District regulations, delegation is a much more expedient process 
than EPA approval of revisions as part of the SIP.
    5. TCMs to offset VMT increases. If bumped up to a severe 
nonattainment classification, Sacramento would also need to consider 
the requirements of Section 182(d)(1)(A). This section requires States 
containing severe ozone nonattainment areas to submit a SIP that 
identifies and adopts specific, enforceable transportation control 
measures, as necessary, to offset growth in vehicle emissions due to 
growth in vehicle miles traveled. Beyond demonstrating that these 
measures offset growth in emissions, they must be sufficient to allow 
total regional emission levels to comply with the reasonable further 
progress and attainment requirements of the Act.
    As described in the General Preamble to Title I of the CAAA, 57 FR 
13498 (April 16, 1992), the TCM offset SIPs required from areas already 
designated severe or extreme must: (1) Identify and adopt specific and 
enforceable transportation control strategies and TCMs to offset any 
growth in emissions from growth in VMT or number of vehicle trips; (2) 
identify and adopt specific and enforceable transportation control 
strategies and TCMs that attain reductions in motor vehicle emissions 
(in combination with other emission reduction requirements) as 
necessary to comply with RFP milestones; and (3) identify and adopt 
specific and enforceable transportation control strategies and TCMs 
that attain reductions in motor vehicle emissions (in combination with 
other emission reduction requirements) as necessary to demonstrate 
attainment of the NAAQS.
    As discussed in the General Preamble, EPA has interpreted the 
provision to offset any growth in VOC from VMT increases to ``require 
that sufficient measures be adopted so that projected vehicle VOC 
emissions will never be higher during the ozone season in one year than 
during the ozone season in the year before.'' Further, the attainment 
year is the last year for which this test applies. The calculation of 
VOC emissions from on road mobile sources may ``include the effects of 
Federal measures such as new motor vehicle standards, Phase II RVP 
controls, and reformulated gasoline, as well as Clean Air Act-mandated 
SIP requirements such as enhanced I/M, the fleet clean-fuel vehicle 
program, and the employer trip reduction program.''
    For Sacramento, as can be seen in the Technical Support Document, 
on-road mobile source emissions through 2005 are never projected to be 
greater in one year than the year before once the FIP control 
strategies are implemented. Therefore, there is no need for TCMs in 
Sacramento to offset emissions increases from growth in VMT.
    As for requirements (2) and (3) pertaining to TCMs for RFP and 
attainment demonstration, the FIP has addressed TCMs for Sacramento in 
the discussion of Employee Commute Options (III.F.2) and the discussion 
pertaining to fees on light duty vehicles (III.D.2.f).
    6. Reformulated fuel. a. Provision satisfied in FIP/SIP actions 
above. Reclassification of the Sacramento area to ``Severe'' would 
mandate sale of reformulated gasoline in the area, effective one year 
after reclassification. There may be no emission reduction benefits 
from applying the federal reformulated fuel requirements to Sacramento, 
however, since the California reformulated fuel program already applies 
throughout the State. If the federal reformulated fuel program achieves 
greater reductions than the California program, EPA will impose the 
federal requirement in Sacramento. If the California program is more 
stringent, EPA would consider modifications to its enforcement program 
to avoid duplication with California's program.

G. Section 182(e)(5) New Technology Measures for the South Coast

    1. Introduction.
    After application of the FIP's stationary, area, and mobile source 
rule requirements, the ozone attainment requirements for the South 
Coast demand further reductions from the same source categories in 
order to achieve cumulative reductions from 1990 baseyear emissions of 
approximately 90 percent VOC and 70 percent NOX.
    Currently, there is no technological basis to prepare full 
regulations to achieve this additional level of control. Instead, the 
additional reductions will need to come from either new technologies or 
further improvements to existing technologies, such as those discussed 
in section III.B.5.d.iii. The federal control technology projects 
described in that section are current examples of federal initiatives 
supporting the development and commercialization of low-emitting 
products and technologies, pollution prevention approaches, and new 
control techniques. In each future year, additional federal projects 
will be undertaken which should help to provide the technical, 
commercial, and regulatory basis for the emission reductions needed for 
attainment in the South Coast.
    In these circumstances, EPA believes it is appropriate to make 
federal commitments to promulgate in the future regulations based on 
the development of new technologies or control techniques, as 
authorized in section 182(e)(5) of the Act. Section III.B.5.c.4. of 
this NPRM discusses extensively this CAA section and provides the 
prerequisite demonstration that the new technology measures are not 
needed to meet the incremental reduction requirements for the period 
1990-2000.
    2. Commitment to adopt measures and schedule of emission 
reductions.
    EPA's policy for implementation of section 182(e)(5) demands a 
commitment from the responsible agencies to achieve specified 
reductions by particular dates. The Act also explicitly requires a 
commitment to adopt contingency measures no later than 3 years before 
the scheduled reductions from the new technology provisions (section 
182(e)(5)(B)). The contingency measures must be adequate, in 
combination with other controls, to achieve the periodic emission 
reduction requirements and attainment. EPA's commitments to both the 
new technology measures and the contingency measures appears at 
proposed 40 CFR 52.2951.
    a. Stationary and Area Sources. (1) Sources Subject to Cap Rules. 
EPA proposes to make section 182(e)(5) commitments to prepare rules for 
each of the control categories covered by the cap rules described above 
in section III.C.5. The commitments are identical for each stationary 
and area source category, and establish rulemaking and implementation 
schedules to achieve two additional increments of reduction beyond the 
sources' baseline emissions.
    For VOC the schedule is as follows. At the beginning of 2005, the 
declining cap rule will have required sources to reduce baseline 
emissions by between 20 and 45 percent. The first new technology rule 
will be proposed by January 1, 2004, and promulgated by January 1, 
2005, and will require a 60 percent reduction from baseline emissions 
by January 1, 2007. The second new technology rule will be proposed by 
January 1, 2006, and promulgated by January 1, 2007, and will require a 
90 percent reduction from baseline emissions by January 1, 2009.
    The schedule for NOX is similar. At the beginning of 2005, the 
SCAQMD regulations, including the NOX RECLAIM rules, will have 
achieved substantial reductions in baseline emissions. The first new 
technology rule will be proposed by January 1, 2004, and promulgated by 
January 1, 2005, and will require a 50 percent reduction from baseline 
emissions by January 1, 2007. The second new technology rule will be 
proposed by January 1, 2006, and promulgated by January 1, 2007, and 
will require a 70 percent reduction from baseline emissions by January 
1, 2009.
    (2) Consumer Products, Architectural Coatings, and Pesticides. For 
the consumer products (including aerosol paints), architectural 
coatings, and pesticides categories, including those sources subject to 
the proposed provisions of 40 CFR 52.2957, 40 CFR 2958, 40 CFR 52.2959, 
and 40 CFR 52.2960, EPA proposes to make section 182(e)(5) commitments 
to prepare new technology rules to reduce VOC emissions by a further 
increment of 80 percent, beyond the control level achieved under the 
proposed FIP statewide rules cited above.
    The schedule for rule promulgation and compliance is as follows. 
The first new technology rule will be proposed by January 1, 2004, and 
promulgated by January 1, 2005, and will require a 40 percent reduction 
from baseline (year 2003) emissions by January 1, 2007. The second new 
technology rule will be proposed by January 1, 2006, and promulgated by 
January 1, 2007, and will require an 80 percent reduction from baseline 
emissions by January 1, 2009.
    (3) Remaining Stationary and Area Sources. For remaining stationary 
and area emission sources emitting less than 4 tons per year and not 
already regulated under sections III.G.2.a.(1) or III.G.2.a.(2), EPA 
proposes to make section 182(e)(5) commitments to prepare new 
technology rules to reduce VOC emissions by 80 percent from baseline 
emission levels.
    Emission sources regulated under this section represent a large 
number of small sources which emit less than 4 tons per year and/or may 
be exempt from regulation. These sources account for an estimated 300 
tons per day of the remaining VOC emissions after application of 
currently proposed FIP regulations. These sources include but are not 
limited to gasoline service stations, livestock waste operations, 
commercial food production and preparation, printing shops, 
miscellaneous coating and solvent cleaning operations, miscellaneous 
chemical/product manufacturing, bakeries, waste disposal sites (e.g., 
landfills), publicly owned treatment works, waste burning operations, 
miscellaneous fuel combustion sources, and miscellaneous fugitive 
emission sources.
    The schedule for rule promulgation and compliance is as follows. 
The first new technology rule will be proposed by January 1, 2004, and 
promulgated by January 1, 2005, and will require a 40 percent reduction 
from baseline (year 2003) emissions by January 1, 2007. The second new 
technology rule will be proposed by January 1, 2006, and promulgated by 
January 1, 2007, and will require an 80 percent reduction from baseline 
emissions by January 1, 2009.
    b. Mobile Sources. EPA believes that the utilization of 
technological advances for mobile sources, such as those discussed 
above in section III.B.5.d.iii., will ultimately allow the South Coast 
FIP area to attain the ozone NAAQS by the CAA deadline. Were EPA 
required to achieve the standards with mobile source measures that 
relied only on the current level of technology, EPA would be forced to 
propose measures which it believes would bring about severe economic 
hardship to the South Coast.
    As indicated in the attainment demonstration discussion (section 
III.H.), ozone attainment in the South Coast requires approximately a 
90 percent reduction in VOC and a 70 percent reduction in NOX 
emissions from the 1990 baseline. Mobile source emissions will need to 
be reduced by this percentage to yield attainment. The proposed mobile 
source strategies presented in section III.D. will achieve reductions 
of 66 percent for VOC and 51 percent for NOX from the 1990 
baseline. EPA proposes to commit to achieving the remaining balance of 
24 percent VOC and 19 percent NOX reductions from future 
technologies, such as the ones discussed in section III.B.5.d.iii.
    EPA proposes to make section 182(e)(5) commitments to accomplish 
these mobile source reductions according to the following schedule. New 
technology rules will be proposed by January 1, 2001, and promulgated 
by July 1, 2002. The rules will provide for the additional 24 percent 
VOC and 19 percent NOX reductions by the year 2010. Since 
sufficient lead time to introduce any new technology will be needed, 
EPA proposes that the rules will begin implementation by January 1, 
2006. This implementation date will allow for four years of fleet 
turnover to produce the needed reductions.
    3. Commitment to adopt contingency measures.
    In this NPRM, EPA also proposes to commit to issue by January 1, 
1999, contingency measures sufficient to achieve the cumulative percent 
reduction in VOC and NOX emissions assigned to each new technology 
measure. As the Act requires, these contingency measures would go into 
effect and achieve substitute emission reductions, if the new 
technology measures are not developed or fail to achieve the specified 
reductions.

H. Attainment Demonstrations

    1. Introduction.
    An attainment demonstration is a key part of a State or Federal 
Implementation Plan: using air quality modeling, it shows that the 
proposed emission control measures are sufficient for the NAAQS to be 
attained by the applicable deadline.\101\ For ozone nonattainment areas 
classified ``Serious'', ``Severe'' or ``Extreme'', section 182(c)(2)(A) 
requires an attainment demonstration based on photochemical grid 
modeling, for which the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) is the EPA-approved 
model. (See Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51.) Under section 187(a)(7), 
SIPs for CO areas having design values above 12.7 ppm must also have an 
attainment demonstration, which EPA has generally interpreted to mean a 
UAM demonstration. As discussed previously in this NPRM, FIPs 
demonstrating attainment of the ozone NAAQS are required for 
Sacramento, South Coast, and Ventura, and a FIP carbon monoxide 
attainment demonstration is required for South Coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\For ozone and CO nonattainment areas, the Act provides that 
SIPs (and FIPs) demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as 
practicable but not later than dates that are specified for each 
classification. For example, under section 181(a), ``Serious'' ozone 
nonattainment areas must demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as 
practicable but not later than November 15, 1999. In section III.B., 
EPA reviews the potential for demonstrating attainment in each of 
the FIP areas before the deadlines set in section 181(a) for ozone 
nonattainment areas and in section 186(a) for CO nonattainment 
areas. The attainment demonstration analyses presented below in this 
section do not repeat the discussion of alternative attainment 
dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is a goal of EPA for the FIPs to match as closely as possible 
the ozone SIPs that California is developing for the November 1994 
submittal. EPA and the State are coordinating FIP and SIP modeling to 
avoid duplication of effort and divergent FIP and SIP modeling 
conclusions. Projected reduction targets had to be determined well in 
advance of this NPRM in order to choose control strategies and develop 
regulations to implement them. Because the State and EPA are continuing 
to refine the modeling, the proposed FIP attainment demonstrations are 
based on preliminary modeling results for the three areas. Rather than 
using UAM to directly simulate the air quality benefit of the control 
measures, today's proposal shows attainment by reducing total emissions 
to meet UAM-generated reduction targets. The targets were derived from 
a series of UAM simulations of generic ``across-the-board'' emission 
reductions that attain the NAAQS. This method has shortcomings 
discussed below, but is the best procedure available at this time, and 
gives results that are comparable to a full simulation. If subsequent 
analysis by the State and EPA shows that different target levels and 
control strategies are more technically appropriate, EPA intends to 
incorporate these in the final FIP notice or in subsequent FIP 
revisions.
    An additional issue for attainment demonstrations, not otherwise 
addressed in the FIP proposal, is the phenomenon of pollutant transport 
between air basins. If one area is causing nonattainment in another 
area downwind under some meteorological conditions, then additional 
controls may need to be applied in one or both areas. Ideally, a single 
large modeling domain incorporating both upwind and downwind areas 
should be used to assess pollutant transport between them. It is 
anticipated that the methods California will employ to address 
transport in the November 1994 ozone SIPs might be used in the final 
FIP. This could eventually result in revisions to the FIP, which may 
impose greater control requirements in the FIP areas than appear in 
today's proposal if there is, for example, transport from Los Angeles 
to San Diego and Ventura. The transport analysis could also result in 
additional FIP controls for areas not covered by the proposed FIPs, 
such as the San Francisco Bay Area or the San Joaquin Valley, which are 
upwind of Sacramento.
    2. Baseline inventories.
    (a) Adjustments to State's emissions inventories. California 
provided 1990 base-year annual and peak season emissions inventories 
for ozone precursors (ROG, NOX, and CO) by air basin and county 
with the emissions inventory SIP submittal of November 13, 1992. EPA 
relied heavily on the November 1992 inventory in this NPRM. Revised 
inventories for the base-year were provided by CARB on November 15, 
1993, and these have been partially incorporated in this NPRM. In some 
cases, however, EPA did not have sufficient time to fully evaluate and/
or incorporate the November 1993 data into the FIP modeling. It should 
be noted that CARB uses ROG almost interchangeably with ROC (reactive 
organic compounds), but both include ethane, which EPA exempts from the 
definition of VOC under the assumption that ethane reacts too slowly 
for significant ozone formation in the period of concern (up to several 
days). CARB compensates for the difference between ROG and VOC by 
providing EPA a listing of the fractional ethane emitted from each 
Source Classification Code (SCC). For purposes of this NPRM, EPA also 
drew on inventories prepared by local air pollution control agencies as 
discussed below.
    (b) Basis for projected emission inventories. Base-year (generally 
1990) emission inventory estimates are projected to change in future 
years. EPA projects emissions for each emission category to the 
targeted attainment year (e.g., 2010 for South Coast) based on category 
specific emission factors. These factors include, for example, housing 
starts, employment, population, gasoline sales, and sales tax revenues.
    (c) Stationary Sources.
    For stationary source categories whose facilities range in size, a 
cutpoint differentiates point and area sources. EPA guidance on 
emission inventories sets this cutpoint at 10 tpy for VOC sources, and 
100 tpy for NOX and CO.\102\ Point source emissions are calculated 
by adding estimates of individual source facilities in a category. Area 
source emissions are generally determined by subtracting point sources 
from a total estimate derived from an emission factor assumed for the 
entire category. Certain source categories are estimated by the State 
while others are estimated by the local air pollution control agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\See Guidance for Initiating Ozone/CO SIP emission 
Inventories Pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (OAQPS, 
February 13, 1991), page 22. These cutpoints are different from the 
definition of major stationary source used for the New Source Review 
of RACT regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Sacramento. For purposes of this NPRM, EPA relies largely on 
stationary source emission data provided in CARB's November 1992 
inventory submittal. This inventory includes VOC and NOX estimates 
for Sacramento, Sutter, Solano, Yolo, Placer and El Dorado counties for 
1990, 1999 and 2005. This inventory is also similar to the inventory 
used in the 15 percent plan submitted by the Sacramento APCD in 
November 1993. EPA has, however, made several adjustments to CARB's 
inventory which are discussed in the technical support document.
    The following table summarizes the estimated stationary source 
emissions used in this NPRM before applying FIP measures: 

            Sacramento Stationary Source Baseline Inventories           
                 [Tons per summer day in 1999 and 2005]                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       1999 VOC     1999 NOX     2005 VOC      2005 NOX 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel combustion.....          1.3         10.4          1.4         11.4
Waste burning.......          4.4          0.1          4.8          0.2
Architectural                                                           
 coating............         15.2  ...........         17.4  ...........
Consumer products...         14.3  ...........         16.3  ...........
Other solvent use:..                                                    
    Dry cleaning....          2.1  ...........          2.4  ...........
    Degreasing......          4.5  ...........          5.0  ...........
    Other surface                                                       
     coating........         17.8  ...........         19.6  ...........
    Asphalt paving..          2.4  ...........          2.6  ...........
    Printing........          2.3  ...........          2.5  ...........
    Industrial                                                          
     solvent use....          0.9  ...........          1.0  ...........
    Other...........          0.2  ...........          0.2  ...........
Petro process,                                                          
 storage, transfer:                                                     
    Petro marketing.          4.2          1.1          4.3          1.1
    Petro refining..          0.2          0.1          0.2          0.1
    Oil & gas                                                           
     extraction.....          5.1          0.0          5.1          0.0
    Other...........          0.2          0.0          0.2          0.1
Industrial                                                              
 processes:                                                             
    Commercial                                                          
     bakeries.......          1.3          0.0          1.4          0.0
    Other...........          4.6          0.3          5.1          0.4
Pesticide                                                               
 application........         13.1  ...........         14.2  ...........
Livestock waste.....          7.2  ...........          7.9  ...........
Misc processes......          3.1          0.0          4.3  ...........
                                                                        
                     ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.........        104.2         12.1        115.7         13.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Ventura. EPA and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control 
District are jointly funding a coordinated SIP and FIP modeling effort 
in order to maximize consistency between these parallel efforts. Thus, 
for purposes of this NPRM, EPA is using Ventura County's 1991 Air 
Quality Management Plan (1991 AQMP)\103\ as the starting point for 
estimating and projecting emissions from stationary sources in Ventura 
rather than CARB inventories. The 1991 AQMP inventory also provides the 
starting point for the 15 percent plan submitted by Ventura to EPA in 
November 1993. While the 15 percent plan incorporates a number of 
modifications to the growth factors, emission processing mapping, and 
other inputs to the 1991 AQMP inventory, EPA was not able to evaluate 
and incorporate these in time for this NPRM. In addition, the 15 
percent plan only projects emissions through 1996, and projections are 
needed through 2005 for the FIP. EPA expects, however, that the 
inventory used for the final FIP attainment demonstration will 
incorporate many of the modifications included in the 15 percent plan. 
It should be noted that CARB's inventory forms the basis of many of the 
specific source category emissions estimates in Ventura's AQMP and 15 
percent inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan, Ventura County 
Air Pollution Control District, October 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table presents the 2005 stationary source emission 
estimates before applying FIP measures. These estimates are described 
further in the technical support document:

              Ventura Stationary Source Baseline Emissions              
                     [Tons per summer day in 2005]                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        VOC       NOX   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel combustion:                                                        
  Oil & gas production..............................       0.2       1.6
  Other manufacturing & industrial..................       1.0       3.6
  Electric utilities................................        .5       3.3
  Other services and commerce.......................        .2       3.4
  Residential.......................................         0        .8
Solvent use:                                                            
  Dry cleaning......................................        .7  ........
  Degreasing........................................       4.2  ........
  Architectural coating.............................       6.8  ........
  Other surface coating.............................      10.3  ........
  Asphalt paving....................................        .5  ........
  Printing..........................................        .7  ........
  Domestic..........................................       7.5  ........
  Industrial........................................       1.6  ........
Petroleum process, storage and transfer:                                
  Oil and gas extraction............................       8.1  ........
  Petroleum refining................................        .1  ........
  Petroleum marketing...............................       1.2  ........
Industrial processes................................       0.7         0
Pesticide application...............................      13.5  ........
Solid waste landfill................................        .6  ........
Other stationary sources............................        .8        .1
                                                                        
                                                     -------------------
      Total.........................................      59.2     12.8 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) South Coast. The FIP's 1990 base-year stationary source VOC 
emission estimates rely on the 1990 inventory described in South Coast 
AQMD's 15 percent Rate-of-Progress Plan that was submitted to EPA in 
November 1993. The FIP's 1990 base-year stationary source NOX 
inventory is based on estimates described in SCAQMD's 1991 Air Quality 
Management Plan (1991 AQMP).\104\ EPA is also using the 1991 AQMP for 
projecting VOC and NOX emissions from stationary sources to the 
South Coast target attainment year of 2010. While CARB's inventory 
estimates are used for many specific source categories in the 1991 
AQMP, EPA relies on the overall SCAQMD rather than the CARB inventory 
in order to maximize consistency between the SIP and FIP. The SCAQMD is 
in the process of updating its revised 2010 inventory for inclusion in 
the 1994 AQMP, which is due for submittal to EPA in November 1994. Upon 
release of the revised 2010 inventory estimates, EPA will incorporate 
applicable changes in its 2010 FIP inventory projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\1991 Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Basin, 
July 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table represents a summary of the major categories 
and emissions in the 2010 stationary source inventory which are 
described further in the technical support document. Credit for adopted 
SIP and proposed FIP measures have not been included in this table.

            South Coast Stationary Source Baseline Emissionsa           
                      [Tons per summer day in 2010]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          VOCb     NOX  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel combustion                                                         
  Oil and gas production...............................      2.7    19.0
  Petroleum refining...................................      2.7     9.2
  Other manufacturing and industrial...................      4.2    58.0
  Electric utilities...................................      1.5    14.5
  Other services and commerce..........................      4.6    48.0
  Residential..........................................      3.7    25.4
  Other................................................      3.8    15.0
Solvent use:                                                            
  Dry cleaning.........................................     22.0       -
  Degreasing...........................................     40.7       -
  Architectural coating                                     58.4       -
  Other surface coating................................    188.4      .2
  Asphalt paving.......................................    9.6 -        
  Printing.............................................     12.5     0.1
  Consumer Products....................................    131.6       -
  Industrial...........................................     24.6       -
  Other................................................     14.8      --
Petroleum process, storage and transfer:                                
  Oil and gas extraction...............................     17.4     1.4
  Petroleum refining...................................     21.1     6.1
  Petroleum marketing..................................     53.8      .3
  Other................................................      4.0      .2
Industrial processes:                                                   
  Chemical.............................................     15.6     2.1
  Food and agricultural................................     19.8      .6
  Mineral processes....................................       .6     6.1
  Other................................................     16.5     2.5
Miscellaneous processes:                                                
  Pesticide application................................     15.6       -
  Farming operations...................................     62.4       -
  Waste disposal.......................................      2.2      .2
  Waste burning........................................      1.3     2.0
  Other................................................      3.8      .8
                                                                        
                                                        ----------------
      Totals...........................................      757    212 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aSCAQMD's draft revised 2010 inventory makes significant revisions for  
  architectural coatings (45 tpd increase); other surface coating (65   
  tpd increase); consumer product (27 tpd decrease); and farming        
  operations (23 tpd decrease). These draft revisions will not be       
  incorporated into the FIP inventory until SCAQMD finalizes its 2010   
  inventory revisions.                                                  
bVOC estimates are based on reactive organic compound estimates from    
  SCAQMD.                                                               

    d. Mobile sources.--(1) Highway vehicle emission factors. The on-
highway emission factors for California vehicles are based on CAL15a, 
which is the March 1993 release of MOBILE5a with modified model year 
emission control groupings, basic emission rates, and registration age 
mix based on EMFAC7D.
    The EMFAC model could not be used for the FIP for several reasons. 
Most importantly, an enhanced I/M program is a key part of the FIP 
proposal, and EMFAC does not allow the examination of I/M programs 
besides the one currently implemented in California. Similarly, there 
is no mechanism within EMFAC to address the enhanced in-use compliance 
program being proposed in the FIP.
    There is now an in-house EPA version of MOBILE5a for California 
based on EMFAC7F, EMFAC7D's replacement, referred to simply as CAL15. 
More detailed descriptions of CAL15a and CAL15 are provided in the 
docket. EPA currently plans to use CAL15 in subsequent analyses for the 
FIP. EPA invites comments on the merits of the various models. Based on 
these comments and any new data that may become available, EPA may make 
inventory and control effectiveness adjustments in the final FIP. Such 
technical adjustments could require or allow changes in the control 
measures.
    Vehicles certified to 49-State standards are assumed to comprise 10 
percent of the light duty VMT and 20 percent of the heavy duty VMT in 
the FIP areas. The emission factors for these vehicles were based on 
MOBILE5a runs using the same inputs as for the CAL15a runs, except the 
LEV program was excluded, since it would not apply to 49-State 
vehicles.
    It should be noted that the baseline emission calculations include 
control programs that have already been adopted. This includes the 
California LEV program, California Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline, and 
California Clean Diesel Fuel.
    (2) VMT Estimates. VMT estimates for Sacramento were derived mostly 
from an August 1993 draft of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments 
(SACOG) Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). That draft included 
only 1990 and 2015 estimates, so intermediate years of 1999 and 2005 
were estimated by linear interpolation. Also, SACOG does not currently 
include Solano County, which is partially within the FIP area. VMT for 
Solano County were calculated from the 1992 CalTrans MVSTAFF report 
using a CARB estimate of the portion of Solano County VMT in the FIP 
area. The final SACOG MTP includes specific VMT estimates for 2000 and 
2005 which are somewhat higher than the interpolated values used by 
EPA. EPA plans to use the final MTP values in analyses for the final 
FIP rulemaking.
    Ventura VMT estimates come directly from the August 1993 JHK & 
Associates report done for the Ventura County Air Pollution Control 
District. South Coast VMT are based on an August 1993 draft Southern 
California Area Governments (SCAG) analysis.
    While EPA believes these are the most appropriate VMT estimates and 
projections for the FIP, comments are invited on the merits of other 
VMT estimates.
    (3) Nonroad vehicles and engines. A full range of nonroad engines 
and vehicles are addressed in this NPRM, from small hand-held gasoline 
lawn and garden equipment to heavy duty diesel engines used in farm and 
construction work. The inventory for some of these categories is taken 
directly from CARB estimates, but for the categories listed below EPA 
either adjusted the CARB inventory with different growth rates or used 
a totally different basis for the inventory. In the first three 
categories listed (HD engines greater than 50 hp, lawn and garden 
equipment, and recreational boats) the base-year estimate comes from 
CARB. However, to be consistent with the national rulemakings for these 
categories, the growth rates are modified by EPA based on the most 
recent available population growth estimates for each area. Whereas 
CARB grew these inventories at roughly a straight line 2 percent of the 
base-year's inventory per year, EPA uses a straight line 3.4 percent 
per year for Sacramento, 3.0 percent per year for Ventura, and 1.8 
percent per year for the South Coast.
    (i) Heavy duty engines greater than 50 hp. EPA started with the 
1990 CARB inventories for diesel and gasoline farm and construction 
equipment (Mobile Equipment). As discussed in the technical support 
document, the CARB inventory was then adjusted by a factor of 0.975 to 
account for engines less than 50 hp which are estimated to represent 
2.5 percent of the emission inventory. The population growth assumption 
described above was then used to grow the heavy duty engine inventory.
    (ii) Spark ignition engines less than 25 hp (lawn and garden). EPA 
started with the 1990 CARB inventory for residential and commercial 
utility (lawn and garden) equipment. The population growth assumption 
described above was then used to grow the inventory.
    (iii) Recreational marine engines. EPA started with the 1990 CARB 
inventory for recreational gasoline and diesel boats. This was modified 
for Sacramento using new data obtained from California on boat 
registrations and navigable water area. This resulted in a greater 1990 
inventory than CARB had been using. The EPA population growth 
assumptions described above were then used to grow the inventory from 
1990. For Ventura and South Coast, the ratio of CARB's Ventura and 
South Coast tons to CARB's Sacramento tons was multiplied by the 
corrected Sacramento inventory to obtain consistent inventories for all 
three areas.
    (iv) Locomotives. Inventories developed by Booz-Allen Hamilton for 
CARB show locomotive Nox contributions per summer day in 1990 of 
approximately: Nine tons in the Sacramento area, one ton in Ventura, 
and over thirty tons in the South Coast. These contributions 
constituted approximately 5 percent, 1 percent, and 2 percent of the 
total Nox emissions for Sacramento, Ventura and South Coast 
respectively. These inventories are summarized in the following table. 
EPA refers readers to the Booz-Allen reports entitled: Locomotive 
Emissions Study and Report on Locomotive Emission Inventory: Locomotive 
Emissions by County, presented as a supplement to the Locomotive 
Emission Study. 

                   1990 NOX Inventories (Booz-Allen)                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent 
                     FIP area                        NOX tons   of total
                                                     per day   inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento.........................................       9.0          5
Ventura............................................       1.2          1
South Coast........................................      30.5         2 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Systems Applications International (SAI), under contract to EPA, 
recently completed a draft report entitled 1990 Emissions from Diesel 
Locomotives in Three California Federal Implementation Plan Areas. 
There are large differences between the emission estimates developed by 
Booz-Allen and SAI. As a result, EPA requests comment on the 
appropriate inventory and methodology for calculating inventories to 
use. Emission inventories calculated by SAI are summarized in the table 
below.

                       1990 NOX Inventories (SAI)                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent 
                     FIP area                        NOX tons   of total
                                                     per day   inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento.........................................       7.8          4
Ventura............................................        .7        0.5
South Coast........................................      14.1          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the large differences between the SAI and Booz-Allen 
estimates, EPA requests comment on the appropriate inventory and 
methodology for calculating inventories to use.
    To calculate emission reductions (in tons), due to a regulatory 
program, it is necessary to first project an unregulated baseline into 
the future. EPA used two sources to estimate baseline locomotive 
emissions without FIP controls: Information from the Booz-Allen studies 
and information from the Association of American Railroads, (AAR). 
Booz-Allen developed emission inventory estimates based on locomotive 
application for the years 2000 and 2010. These estimates are 
illustrated in the following table. 

    Booz-Allen Estimation of year 2000 and 2010 Baseline Inventories    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      2000 NOX  2010 NOX
                        Area                           (tons/    (tons/ 
                                                        day)      day)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento..........................................       8.4       7.8
Ventura.............................................       1.1       1.1
South Coast.........................................      28.5      26.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The validity of Booz-Allen's estimates depends upon the accuracy of 
its baseline emission inventory work and the soundness of its growth 
projections. EPA has concerns regarding Booz-Allen's estimates of 
growth because they are based directly on 1987 data. Several 
developments in the rail industry since 1987, however, could 
significantly affect growth projections, particularly in the South 
Coast.
    EPA therefore requests comment on two alternative methods for 
calculating growth based on national industry-wide averages. The first 
calculates growth based on historic trends in tons of freight 
originated and national locomotive fuel usage. The second estimate uses 
ton-miles and national locomotive fuel usage. Data used to construct 
these analyses came from Locomotive Facts, 1993 Edition, published by 
the Association of American Railroads. These estimates are summarized 
in the tables below. A complete description of the EPA methodology used 
to arrive at the figures used in this section is included in the EPA 
support document entitled: Baseline Locomotive Emissions for the Three 
California FIP areas. 

 EPA Estimation of Baseline Unregulated FIP Area NOX Emissions Based on 
           Historical Tons Originated Industry Data (Tons/Day)          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          1990         2000         2005         2010   
                       baseline    projection   projection    projection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento..........          9.0          9.4          9.6          9.8
Ventura.............          1.2          1.3          1.3          1.3
South Coast.........         30.5         31.9         32.6        33.3 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 EPA Estimation of Baseline Unregulated FIP Area NOX Emissions Based on 
              Historical Ton-Miles Industry Data (Tons/Day)             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          1990         2000         2005         2010   
                       baseline    projection   projection    projection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento..........          9.0         10.2         10.9         11.6
Ventura.............          1.2          1.4          1.5          1.6
South Coast.........         30.5         34.7         37.0        39.6 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (v) Aircraft and Airports.
    For purposes of this NPRM, EPA relies on CARB's inventory for 
estimates of aircraft emissions. Emissions from mobile sources at 
airports also include ground access vehicles and airport ground service 
equipment. Ground access vehicle emissions are included in the overall 
FIP area numbers for on- highway vehicles described above in section 
(d)(1). Ground service equipment emissions are included in the overall 
FIP numbers for nonroad equipment described above in section (d)(3)(i).
    The work done specifically on airport control strategies for the 
FIP proposal uses more recent inventories based on research done by EEA 
with input from the airports and the local governments in 1993, and in 
the final rule the EPA may use an updated version of this EEA 
inventory. Comments are requested on the most appropriate inventory to 
use for aircraft and airport related emissions.
    (4) Mobile baseline inventory summary. The following tables 
summarize the baseline mobile source emissions in each of the three FIP 
areas.

                 Sacramento Mobile Source VOC Emissions                 
                          [Tons per summer day]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1990  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway vehicles.............................................      121.4
Off-Road vehicles/boats......................................       11.6
Locomotives..................................................         .3
Ships........................................................         .0
Aircraft.....................................................        1.5
Mobile equipment.............................................        5.7
Lawn/garden equipment........................................        7.3
                                                                        
                                                              ----------
      Total mobile...........................................      148  
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 Sacramento Mobile Source NOX Emissions                 
                          [Tons per summer day]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1990  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway vehicles.............................................      126.3
Off-Road vehicles/boats......................................        1.5
Locomotives..................................................        8.7
Ships........................................................         .0
Aircraft.....................................................        1.7
Mobile equipment.............................................       36.8
Lawn/garden equipment........................................         .1
                                                                        
                                                              ----------
      Total mobile...........................................      175  
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   Ventura Mobile Source VOC Emission                   
                          [Tons per summer day]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1990  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway vehicles.............................................      43.9 
Off-Road vehicles/boats......................................       3.0 
Locomotives..................................................        .04
Ships........................................................        .35
Aircraft.....................................................        .58
Mobile equipment.............................................       1.4 
Lawn/garden equipment........................................       1.0 
                                                                        
                                                              ----------
      Total mobile...........................................      50.3 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   Ventura Mobile Source NOX Emissions                  
                          [Tons per summer day]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1990  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway vehicles.............................................      41.9 
Off-Road vehicles/boats......................................       2.0 
Locomotives..................................................       1.2 
Ships........................................................       8.4 
Aircraft.....................................................        .7 
Mobile equipment.............................................       8.5 
Lawn/garden equipment........................................        .05
                                                                        
                                                              ----------
      Total mobile...........................................      62.8 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 South Coast Mobile Source VOC Emissions                
                          [Tons per summer day]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1990  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway vehicles.............................................      880  
Off-Road vehicles/boats......................................       39  
Locomotives..................................................        1.5
Ships........................................................        1.4
Aircraft.....................................................       15  
Mobile equipment.............................................       55  
Lawn/garden equipment........................................       24  
                                                                        
                                                              ----------
      Total mobile...........................................    1,016  
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 South Coast Mobile Source NOX Emissions                
                          [Tons per summer day]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1990  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway vehicles.............................................      668  
Off-Road vehicles/boats......................................       11  
Locomotives..................................................       30  
Ships........................................................       32  
Aircraft.....................................................       17  
Mobile equipment.............................................      259  
Lawn/garden equipment........................................         .9
                                                                        
                                                              ----------
      Total mobile...........................................    1,017  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Air quality data and modeling analyses. The following sections 
describe the modeling analyses performed for each of the FIP areas. 
Included are brief descriptions of the pollution episodes modeled, the 
model application, and the base case simulations that resulted.
    Specific EPA requirements for modeling procedures, data, and input 
parameters appear in Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban 
Airshed Model (EPA, 7/91) and Guideline for Regulatory Application of 
the Urban Airshed Model for Areawide Carbon Monoxide (EPA, 6/92). The 
UAM model uses an inventory of pollutant emissions, together with air 
quality and meteorological data, as input to a system of algorithms 
incorporating chemistry and dispersion, in order to simulate an 
observed pollution episode. Once a ``base case'' is developed that 
meets the minimum Guideline performance criteria, projected future 
emissions are used as input to simulate air quality in the attainment 
deadline year. Attainment is demonstrated when the modeled air quality 
with emission controls in effect is below the NAAQS throughout the 
geographical modeling domain.
    For carbon monoxide, a local or ``hot-spot'' component is added to 
the UAM areawide component. UAM can simulate the accumulation of 
pollutants over several hours, from sources over a large area. By 
contrast, the CAL3QHC model is used to reflect the localized effect of 
idling motor vehicles at key congested intersections, which is not 
otherwise accounted for in UAM's typical one-mile resolution. For the 
attainment demonstration, the sum of the areawide and hot-spot 
component must be less than the NAAQS.
    A modeling attainment demonstration is subject to several 
uncertainties. The meteorological and air quality inputs have their own 
associated uncertainties, both in measurement and in 
representativeness. In addition, not all variables can be measured for 
all hours, so default and interpolated values must be used. Processes 
such as chemical reaction and advection necessarily appear in the model 
in simplified form. The selected episodes may not represent all 
conditions conducive to high pollutant levels. Finally, the projection 
of the emissions is uncertain. In spite of these sources of 
uncertainty, photochemical grid modeling is the best tool that is 
available for determining the emission reductions that are needed for 
NAAQS attainment. However, refinements in model inputs that will occur 
over the next year are likely to change the combination and stringency 
of controls deemed necessary for attainment.
    According to the EPA Guideline, control measures are to be used to 
adjust the emission inventory, which is then used as input to UAM. This 
captures the effect of the changes in spatial and temporal distribution 
of emissions. However, as of this writing the final modeling base cases 
are not ready for simulating the controls with UAM itself, since model 
inputs are undergoing revision to improve performance. Instead, for 
this FIP proposal, percent emission reduction targets were established 
using simulations of geographically and temporally uniform (``across-
the-board'') reductions. A series of these simulations are performed 
with various combinations of VOC and NOX reductions. By 
interpolation, percent reductions of emissions of both pollutants that 
result in ozone concentrations less than the NAAQS are determined. 
Similarly, for carbon monoxide various across-the-board reductions of 
CO are simulated, and then interpolated to find a target reduction that 
meets the CO NAAQS.
    Though derived from simulation of the rectangular modeling domain, 
the targets are applied to the emission totals for just the 
nonattainment area, resulting in a maximum allowable level of emissions 
for the area. Attainment is demonstrated when the emissions from all 
sources after control measures are applied is less than this maximum. 
This method does not reflect the spatial and temporal variability in 
the effect of control measures, and so give a rougher estimate of 
controls needed than full UAM modeling would. Because of the 
limitations of this methodology, further analysis by the State and EPA 
may result in some changes in the control measures required between 
today's proposal and the final notice.
    (a) Sacramento ozone. The Sacramento area was classified as a 
``Serious'' ozone nonattainment area based on a design value of .16 ppm 
recorded at the Folsom station. This was based on 1987-1989 data; the 
1990-1992 value was also .16 ppm. Exceedances of the ozone NAAQS occur 
in the Sacramento area about 15 times per year.
    In order to simulate air quality for the SIP and other planning 
needs, CARB and the Sacramento local agencies started planning the 
Sacramento Area Ozone Study (SAOS) early in 1989, with intensive data 
collection performed during the summer of 1990. This involved an 
extended network of air quality and meteorological instruments, 
including on airplanes, to measure ozone and its precursors and also 
many meteorological inputs needed for UAM. The Sacramento Modeling 
Advisory Committee (SMAC) was established for technical oversight of 
the modeling effort, and includes regulatory, industry, and 
environmental group participants. CARB and its contractor, Systems 
Applications International, Inc., prepared a modeling protocol which 
was accepted by EPA as meeting EPA Guideline modeling requirements.
    The episodes selected for modeling included days on which ozone 
maxima occurred in the Interstate 80 and Interstate 50 corridors, 
downwind of Sacramento. While the observed ozone peaks were less than 
the design value of .16, they are high enough to meet EPA guidelines 
for episode selection, especially considering the excellent database 
available for analysis. They had features typical of urban ozone 
episodes, including temperatures exceeding 100  deg.F, low winds, and a 
temperature inversion that tended to trap pollutants near the ground. 
Model performance statistics for a July 11-13, 1990 episode, while not 
outstanding, were within the performance goals set in EPA's Guideline. 
This episode's performance was judged adequate for determining emission 
reduction targets. A second episode, in August 1990, was strongly 
affected by upper air transport of pollutants into the area.
    For the FIP proposal, only the July episode is being used. At the 
time the FIP proposal had to be designed, there were unresolved 
questions about model performance for the August episode. In addition, 
this latter episode was dominated by transport of pollutants from 
outside the Sacramento area. Through an analysis of wind trajectories, 
a contractor to EPA determined that at various times transport could 
occur from the San Francisco Bay Area in the west, and also from the 
San Joaquin Valley in the south. Conclusions on what additional 
controls, if any, are needed in these upwind areas will not be 
available for some time. In order to proceed with FIP development while 
the complex transport questions are resolved, EPA elected to proceed 
using the locally-generated ozone episode. The State's additional work 
on the August episode and/or work on the SARMAP modeling project may 
indicate what, if any, additional controls are needed in Sacramento or 
its upwind areas, in time for the final FIP. Since it is possible that 
transport analyses using SARMAP for the Sacramento area will not be 
ready even by the time of the final FIP, EPA invites comment on how 
transport should be addressed.
    Using socioeconomic and VMT data from SACOG and other local 
planning agencies, an EPA contractor projected emissions to the year 
1999. A series of ``across-the-board'' UAM simulations were then 
performed to determine an emission reduction target. This work showed 
that any of the combinations in the following table would result in 
attainment. Note that these are stated in terms of reductions from 
base-year 1990 levels, so that control measures would also have to make 
up for growth between 1990 and the attainment year, whether 1999 or 
2005. 

                          Combinations of Emission Reductions for Sacramento Attainment                         
VOC............................................          71%          67%          61%          51%          40%
NOX............................................          10%          15%          20%          25%         30% 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the FIP proposal, anthropogenic emission reductions of 40 
percent VOC and 30 percent NOX were chosen as least disruptive of 
current residential, commercial, and industrial practices. Stated 
differently, for ozone attainment, 1999 or 2005 Sacramento area VOC 
emissions must be no greater than 60 percent of 1990 levels, and Nox 
emissions must be no greater than 70 percent of 1990 levels.
    An additional simulation of interest involved the elimination of 
motor vehicle emissions. This translated to an ozone peak reduction 
about 5 percent greater than would be expected from an across-the-board 
reduction by the same amount of emissions. Thus the FIP may be somewhat 
conservative in assuring attainment, since it relies heavily on motor 
vehicle emission controls. This gives further assurance that the 
attainment demonstration method used will in fact result in attainment.
    (b) Ventura ozone. Ventura County has been classified as a 
``Severe'' ozone nonattainment area. The design value for the years 
1987-1989 is based on the 0.17 ppm maximum hourly value recorded at 
Simi Valley during that period.
    The FIP attainment demonstration modeling is based on air pollution 
episodes for which intensive field data were available through the 
1984-1985 South Central Coast Cooperative Air Monitoring Project 
(SCCCAMP) field study. The SCCCAMP Exploratory Field Study consisted of 
intensive monitoring of meteorological and air quality variables over a 
geographical domain encompassing Ventura County as well as the southern 
half of Santa Barbara County. The study produced higher quality data 
than available through routine monitoring activities in the area, and 
thus provides a much more reliable basis for Urban Airshed Modeling 
(UAM) than more recent episode data. Two SCCCAMP episodes, September 5-
7, 1984, and September 16-17, 1984, were selected from the period of 
the study. Both of these episodes have ozone concentration maxima near 
the area's current ozone design value. As a result, the age of this 
data should not detract from the validity of the modeling.
    Previous analysis of the episodes was used to establish ``across-
the-board'' reduction targets of 40 percent VOC and 40 percent NOX 
from a 1987 emissions baseline in order to attain the ozone standard. 
This translates to emission targets of 57 tpd VOC and 46 tpd NOX, 
which are used as the basis of the attainment demonstration provided in 
paragraph III.H.5. of this NPRM.
    EPA plans, however, to significantly improve the attainment 
demonstration included in the final FIP notice. These improvements are 
discussed in the technical support document, and include reevaluation 
of the base-year emission estimates, modeling and attainment targets by 
the VCAPCD and its contractor, Alpine Geophysics, partially funded by 
grants from EPA. When performance of the model is considered to meet 
Guideline criteria, the model will be used to project air quality in 
the year 2005, including the effect of various SIP and FIP control 
strategies. The results of this analysis will be used to reevaluate the 
amount of VOC and NOX reductions needed from each source category 
to demonstrate attainment.
    In addition, previous analysis has indicated that pollutant 
transport occurred from the South Coast Air Basin to Ventura during the 
September 5-7 episode. EPA is supporting, through grant funds to the 
SCAQMD, a study of the impact of the transport from the South Coast Air 
Basin to Ventura County.
    (c) South Coast ozone. The South Coast Air Basin was classified as 
an ``Extreme'' ozone area, based on the design value of 0.33 ppm 
recorded at the Glendora monitoring site.
    The attainment demonstration for South Coast is based on the air 
quality modeling performed by the SCAQMD in 1991, potentially enhanced 
by the addition of several additional ozone episodes. The SCAQMD's 1991 
modeling covered three episodes (June 1985, August 1987 and June 1987). 
Based on that effort, ``across-the-board'' reductions of VOC and 
NOX of 90 percent and 70 percent respectively were determined to 
be sufficient to attain the ozone standard.
    More recently, several modifications have been made to the original 
modeling effort, including raising the height of the top of the 
modeling grid, expanding the domain to the east to encompass the entire 
non-attainment area, and lowering the level of pollutants entering the 
domain through the top boundary of the model. These changes will be 
incorporated into the 1994 SIP modeling efforts and the FIP attainment 
demonstration.
    In addition, the possibility of modeling three new episodes is 
being explored (July 13-15, 1987, September 7-9, 1987, and October 7-9, 
1992). The September 7-9, 1987 episode represents meteorological 
conditions conducive to high ozone in Orange County. The October 7-9, 
1992 episode is a weekend episode. The performance of the additional 
episodes is being evaluated and improvements are being made. However, 
the performance may not be adequate in time for the final FIP 
attainment demonstration. In case the additional episodes do not meet 
Guideline performance criteria, the final FIP attainment demonstration 
will be based on the original three episodes.
    The 1991 modeling effort, updated to include the model improvements 
as well as additional episodes, if warranted, will provide the base 
case for the final FIP attainment demonstration.
    (d) South Coast CO. The South Coast Air Basin was classified as a 
``Serious'' area for CO, based on a design value of 23.4 ppm measured 
in 1988 at the Lynwood site. More recent data (1991-1992) indicate a 
lower design value of 16.4 ppm.
    In preparing the 1992 CO SIP attainment demonstration, the SCAQMD 
selected a December 5-7, 1989 episode for modeling because this episode 
included the first and second highest 8-hour average CO concentrations 
for the years 1989-1990: 21.75 ppm and 18.3 ppm. High 8-hour CO 
concentrations often occur during periods of high emissions, low wind 
speeds, and poor vertical dispersion (e.g. a temperature inversion).
    The CO modeling for the FIP proposal is based on the April 29, 1993 
correction to the November 1992 CO SIP. The hot-spot modeling, which 
predicts high CO concentrations at intersections, was performed using 
the CAL3QHC model at four intersections. For the 2000 attainment year, 
the traffic volume used was the same as that used for 1989, based on 
the assumption that the traffic at the most heavily travelled 
intersections had reached a maximum and could not be increased.
    The results of the base case episode areawide and hot-spot modeling 
are shown in the table below. 

  Eight Hour Average Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (in ppm) at Various 
                    Intersections for the Year 1989                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Max area-     Max hot-     Combined 
           Intersection                wide         spot       result   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long Beach and Imperial Highway..         18.5          6.2         24.7
Wilshire and Veteran Avenue,                                            
 Westwood........................         10.6          8.2         18.8
Sunset and Highland, Hollywood...         13.4          8.3         21.7
La Cienega Boulevard and Century                                        
 Boulevard.......................         17.5          9.9        26.4 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emission inventory was projected to the year 2000 by the CARB 
using VMT projections provided by SCAG. The air quality for the year 
2000 was predicted, using the UAM with the projected emission inventory 
and meteorological conditions from the selected episode. The projected 
air quality, displayed in the table below, shows that the NAAQS of 9 
ppm would be attained at all sites based on the application of three 
control measures and considering the combined impact of the areawide 
and hot-spot modeling results.
    Projected Eight Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (in ppm) at 
Various Intersections for the year 2000 with the implementation of the 
CARB's LEV program, oxygenated fuels program and enhanced I/M program. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Max area-     Max hot-     Combined 
           Intersection                wide         spot       result   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long Beach and Imperial Highway..          7.6          1.0          8.6
Wilshire and Veteran Avenue,                                            
 Westwood........................          4.4          1.4          5.8
Sunset and Highland, Hollywood...          5.7          1.5          8.2
La Cienega Boulevard and Century                                        
 Boulevard.......................          7.0          1.5         8.5 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on modeling performed for the SCAQMD SIP for CO, an analysis 
of the ``across-the-board'' reductions of the overall CO emissions 
necessary to attain the NAAQS was performed, and compared to the 
emission reductions resulting from measures in the proposed FIP. A 
reduction of 45 percent of the overall CO emissions was determined to 
attain the CO standard. Baseline and projected CO emissions are shown 
in the table below.

  Baseline and Projected Future Carbon Monoxide Emissions in the South  
                         Coast Basin (Tons/Day)                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        On-road       Other                             
 Emissions scenario     mobile       mobile        Area         Total   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Base Case......         6629          417           38         7084
2000 with enhanced                                                      
 I+M/LEV............         3842          470           37         4349
2000 with enhanced                                                      
 I+M/LEV and                                                            
 oxygenated fuels...         3413          470           37         3920
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The year 2000 case emissions with Enhanced I/M, LEV and Oxygenated 
Fuels program are 3920 tons/days, a 45 percent reduction from the 1990 
base case.
    This analysis, based on ``across-the-board'' assumptions, indicates 
that the proposed measures will attain the standard by the year 2000. 
As for Sacramento and Ventura, the final FIP may be adjusted as 
appropriate to reflect further analysis by the State and EPA, if that 
analysis shows that different target levels and control strategies are 
technically more appropriate to show attainment.
    4. State and local control measures. For all three FIP areas, most 
existing State and local control measures are included in the emission 
projections used to compare to the target emission levels. However, 
since EPA uses the CALI5a motor vehicle emissions model and its own 
non-road mobile source inventory, the associated emission reductions 
may not match those assumed by California in its own projected 
inventories.
    5. Attainment demonstrations. Emission reductions projected from 
proposed FIP measures are discussed in sections 3.C through 3.G of this 
NPRM. To show attainment, the projected ton/day benefits of the FIP 
control measures are subtracted from the baseline inventories for the 
appropriate attainment year in each FIP area. The results are then 
compared to the attainment target in each area as discussed in section 
3.H.3 of this NPRM. This calculation is provided in detail in the 
technical support document.

I. Transportation Conformity

    Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act requires transportation plans, 
transportation programs, and transportation projects which are funded 
with title 23 U.S.C. or Federal Transit Act funds or approved by the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration 
(FTA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) to conform 
with the applicable implementation plan for a nonattainment area. After 
promulgation, the FIPs will be part of the applicable ozone and CO 
implementation plans for the Sacramento, Ventura, and South Coast 
nonattainment areas, and will therefore add certain criteria which must 
be satisfied before the MPOs for these areas or FHWA/FTA can find that 
a transportation plan, program, or project conforms. However, these 
additional criteria are limited, as explained below.
    The proposed FIP will not alter the Criteria and Procedures for 
Determining Transportation Conformity which EPA promulgated on November 
24, 1993 (58 FR 62188). The FIP itself will not impose any restriction 
on the selection and implementation of transportation projects which 
can be found to conform under the terms of the promulgated 
transportation conformity criteria and procedures. Furthermore, the FIP 
does not direct the expenditure of funds designated under title 23 
U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act to any specific projects or type of 
project.
    The State of California is responsible for submitting to EPA a 
conformity SIP revision by November 24, 1994, as required by 40 CFR 
51.396. The conformity SIP revision is a requirement added in the 1990 
Clean Air Act Amendments, is not mentioned in any of the settlement 
agreements, and therefore is not an obligation for EPA under the court 
orders.
    Because it establishes strategies for Sacramento and Ventura to 
attain by 2005, the FIP will establish motor vehicle emissions budgets 
for VOC and NOX for those FIP areas for the year 2005. In 
addition, the CO attainment demonstration will establish a CO budget 
for the year 2000 for the South Coast. These budgets play no role for 
the purposes of conformity until the FIP is promulgated. (This is in 
contrast to state-submitted budgets, which do play a role upon 
submission to EPA.) Conformity determinations made after the FIP is 
promulgated must use the FIP's budgets for the years indicated and any 
subsequent analysis years, until the SIP process establishes different 
budgets for subsequent years (e.g., state-submitted plan with budgets 
is approved). At a minimum, the conformity of the transportation plan 
must be redetermined using the FIP's budget within 18 months of the 
FIP's promulgation (see 40 CFR 51.400(b)(3)(iii)). The conformity of 
transportation improvement programs must be redetermined within six 
months following the adoption of a transportation plan (see 40 CFR 
51.400(c)(3)).
    There is some ambiguity in Clean Air Act section 176(c) and EPA's 
conformity rule regarding whether the proposed FIP, when final, will 
create VOC and NOX budgets for the South Coast, and if so, for 
which years. While the FIP analysis contains emissions projections for 
2000, 2005, and 2010, EPA believes that its application of Clean Air 
Act section 182(e)(5) to the FIP means that the South Coast FIP will 
not specifically allocate 2010 emission reductions between 
transportation and other sources. Furthermore, there are no specific 
emission reduction requirements that the FIP must satisfy in 2000 and 
2005. Therefore, the South Coast FIP will establish no emissions budget 
binding on the MPOs or U.S. DOT.
    The FIP will not alter the fact that the motor vehicle emissions 
budgets for 1996, which are contained in the 15 percent SIPs submitted 
by California for these three nonattainment areas (required by Clean 
Air Act section 182(b)(1)(A)), must be used for the purposes of 
conformity according to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.448. If EPA 
disapproves such a SIP or finds it incomplete, the 1996 emissions 
budget shall be used for the purposes of conformity for 12 months 
following the final disapproval or incompleteness finding, if EPA 
explicitly states that the SIP submittal would have been considered 
approvable or complete with respect to requirements for emission 
reductions if all committed measures had been submitted in enforceable 
form (see 40 CFR 51.448(a)(3) and (c)(1)(iii)). However, if there are 
other reasons for the disapproval or incompleteness finding, time 
clocks will be started after which new plans and TIPs may not be found 
to conform and existing plans and TIPs will lapse.
    Budgets contained in any future state-submitted attainment and 
post-1996 RFP plans must also be observed. Such state-submitted budgets 
may not replace budgets established by the final FIP until the state-
submitted budgets have been approved by EPA.
    Demonstrations of conformity to the FIP may use the same motor 
vehicle emissions model which EPA uses to demonstrate attainment in the 
final FIP, unless EPA announces a revision to the model. (In that case, 
a grace period for use of the latest motor vehicle emissions model 
applies, as described in 40 CFR 51.414.) The final FIP will be based on 
a VMT growth estimate which is the MPO's own growth projection at the 
time of FIP promulgation. Difficulty demonstrating consistency with the 
FIP's budget would therefore most likely be due to VMT growth which is 
higher than the MPO expected.
    The FIP does not propose any TCMs that are eligible for funding 
under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act. The Employee Commute 
Options program proposed for Sacramento might be eligible for such 
funding if it were adopted by local authorities, but EPA itself is not 
an eligible recipient.
    Therefore, determinations of conformity to the FIP will not have to 
demonstrate timely implementation of TCMs in the FIP.

J. FIP Implementation by State and Local Agencies

    Congress has determined that the primary responsibility for air 
pollution control rests with state and local governments. CAA section 
101(a)(3). Moreover, as discussed elsewhere in this NPRM, EPA lacks 
many of the authorities, instruments, and established local and 
regional organizations and trained staff to administer, on a daily 
basis, comprehensive air pollution control initiatives such as these 
FIPs, which affects hundreds of thousands of individual sources and 
activities. Massive federal intrusion would inevitably result if EPA 
were to shoulder the chief burden of enforcing the California FIP.
    Accordingly, EPA has attempted to design the FIP rules to ensure 
that, wherever possible, State and local implementation is encouraged 
and facilitated by the FIP's regulatory approach. Thus, for example, 
the FIP generally employs local California rule organization and 
terminology in the proposed stationary and area source rules, including 
the new source review permitting rules (40 CFR 52.284 through 52.289, 
and 52.304).
    1. State and local obligation to incorporate FIP requirements in 
operating permits. In Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress 
established an important new state responsibility. Title V and EPA's 
implementing regulations require state and local air pollution control 
agencies to adopt and submit for EPA approval a regulatory program for 
issuing operating permits to major stationary sources, sources covered 
by emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants pursuant to section 
112 of the Act, sources covered by any new source performance standards 
set under section 111 of the Act, and affected sources under the acid 
rain program. The operating permits must contain necessary limits and 
conditions to assure compliance with all applicable requirements of the 
Act, including all provisions of the applicable SIP and the FIP. Title 
V includes specific requirements for EPA oversight and for sanctions 
against states for failure to adopt, administer, or enforce the 
operating permit program.
    Title V establishes the following timeframes for state and EPA 
action:
    1. Program submittal by November 15, 1993;
    2. EPA approval or disapproval within one year of program 
submittal, with the possibility of interim approval for up to two 
years;
    3. EPA application of sanctions for failure to submit approvable 
programs, and establishment of a federal program by November 15, 1995, 
if a state or local program has not been approved;
    4. Source operating permit application within one year after EPA 
approval (or interim approval) of a state or local program, or after 
EPA establishment of a federal program;
    5. Issuance of all permits within three years after EPA approval of 
a state or local program or promulgation of a federal program; and
    6. Operating permit application within one year of commencement of 
operation for new sources subject to New Source Review.
    On July 21, 1992, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 70, specifying the 
minimum elements of state operating permit programs (57 FR 32250). 
EPA's promulgation makes clear the Agency's interpretation that 
approvable operating permit programs must provide that the applicable 
permit include FIP emission limitations and other FIP requirements (57 
FR 32258).
    As noted, operating permits are required for all ``major'' 
stationary sources, as well as air toxics sources subject to 
requirements under section 112 of the Act (unless exempted), and 
sources subject to any new source performance standard under section 
111.\105\ In ozone nonattainment areas, section 182 defines major 
source according to the area's classification and the source's 
potential to emit VOC or NOX: 50 tons per year in ``Serious'' 
areas, 25 tons per year in ``Severe'' areas, and 10 tons per year in 
``Extreme'' areas.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\Part 70 provides that certain nonmajor sources, including 
those subject to standards under section 111 and 112, may be 
exempted from the obligation to obtain a part 70 permit until EPA 
completes a rulemaking to determine how the program should be 
structured for nonmajor sources. Section 70.3(b)(1).
    \106\For this purpose, Title I treats VOC and NOX sources 
somewhat differently. In areas qualifying for an exemption under 
section 182(f), NOX sources with the potential to emit less 
than 100 tons per year would not be considered major sources. None 
of the three FIP areas covered in this Notice, however, qualify for 
the exemption, and thus the major sources cutoff is the same in 
these areas for NOX as for VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, each air pollution control agency in the FIP areas 
must, by virtue of Title V, incorporate and enforce all applicable FIP 
requirements in operating permits for every source with a potential to 
emit at or above the level prescribed in section 182 for the area's 
classification. Title V and EPA's operating permit regulations do not, 
however, mandate adoption of an operating permit program for nonmajor 
source categories (for example, in ``Severe'' areas, sources with a 
potential to emit less than 25 tons per year of VOC and NOX). 
Nevertheless, some nonmajor sources are subject to operating permit 
requirements because they are major sources of air toxics,\107\ and for 
these sources all applicable FIP requirements must be included in the 
permit and enforced by the air pollution control agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\Certain nonmajor sources subject to section 111 or 112 
standards may also be subject in the future to air toxics and 
operating permit requirements. New section 112 standards may apply 
to area sources (nonmajor) as well as major sources; EPA will 
determine whether operating permits are required for these sources 
when the standards are promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Full transfer of authority through delegation. EPA hopes that 
the State and local air pollution control agencies will quickly adopt 
SIP rules that are identical or comparable to the FIP rules, and which 
could be approved before the FIP regulation is scheduled for initial 
implementation. If a State or local agency adopts an essentially 
indistinguishable rule, EPA intends to delegate full implementation 
responsibilities to the agency immediately following State or local 
adoption, without opportunity for public comment, unless the delegation 
is under the authority of section 112, and not covered by a good cause 
exception. See EPA's enabling guidance for section 112(1). EPA will 
publish a notice of this delegation in the Federal Register and will 
otherwise try to ensure that affected sources are aware of that a State 
or local agency has assumed program implementation responsibilities. 
Subsequently, EPA will take normal SIP approval action on the State or 
local substitute rule, simultaneously rescinding the FIP rule in the 
jurisdiction's control area.
     As noted in the discussion above regarding the California consumer 
product rules, EPA is issuing federal rules for these categories 
because the State has so far chosen not to submit the rules for SIP 
action. Since EPA's FIP rules are essentially identical, EPA intends to 
delegate to CARB the authority to implement the program if CARB has not 
yet submitted its own rules for SIP approval, and if California adopts 
adequate authority to implement the FIP. In the event that CARB fails 
to implement its own rules or amends the State's rules so that they 
become less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal rule, EPA 
will continue to directly enforce the provisions of the FIP consumer 
product rules.
     In the future, EPA intends to promulgate in 40 CFR part 71 
provisions for delegation of certain federal operating permit program 
responsibilities to State and local agencies with adequate authority to 
administer the program but lacking EPA approval of the State or local 
program. EPA could use this procedure to grant State and local agencies 
the authority to issue operating permits prior to full EPA approval of 
the agencies' permit program.
    3. Full transfer of authority through SIP approval. A State or 
local agency may adopt a rule that is comparable to the FIP rule in 
emissions capture, but is significantly different in approach. In that 
event, immediate transfer of implementation and enforcement authority 
through delegation is inappropriate without opportunity for public 
review and comment. Instead, EPA will try to ``parallel process'' SIP 
approval and FIP rescission as the means to expedite State or local 
assumption of authority.\108\ This will minimize the time during which 
affected sources are subject to overlapping and conflicting 
obligations, and during which EPA and the State or local agencies must 
undertake redundant permitting, compliance plan review, and 
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\In parallel process SIP approval, EPA, with the consent of 
the State, proposes approval of draft rules which may not yet have 
been fully adopted and submitted by the State. Final SIP approval 
could not occur until after all procedural SIP requirements 
(including State adoption and SIP submittal) have been completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Partial transfer of authority through delegation. To the extent 
that State law allows agencies to perform certain implementation 
responsibilities for FIP rules even without State and local rule 
adoption, EPA will encourage these agencies to agree to undertake, on 
EPA's behalf, administrative and substantive roles of FIP 
implementation consistent with the agencies' authorities and 
capabilities. These roles could include: procedural and engineering 
review of permit applications and compliance plans, preparation of 
draft permit and plan approval or disapproval actions, administration 
and oversight of compliance reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
conduct of source inspections, and preparation of draft notices of 
violation. Under these circumstances, EPA would retain the 
responsibility for actual federal permit issuance, where the FIP 
requires permits, and for enforcement actions against sources violating 
FIP provisions. EPA would also maintain direct authority to terminate, 
modify, or revoke permits, as well as responsibility for disapproving 
compliance plans.
    Partial transfer of FIP implementation authorities would be 
effected through delegation by MOU between the EPA Region IX and the 
air pollution control officer or executive officer of the responsible 
agency. EPA will announce the terms of the partial delegation in a 
Federal Register notice, and will inform affected sources, with or 
without additional notice and opportunity for comment.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

     Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory actions are 
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the 
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant 
regulatory actions'' as ones that are likely to result in rules that 
may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
     Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that the proposed Federal Implementation Plans are 
``significant regulatory actions''. As such, these actions were 
submitted to OMB along with regulatory impact assessments of the 
proposed actions and salient alternatives.
    The estimated annualized control cost to meet the Ozone NAAQS is 
$150 million in the Sacramento Metro Area as well as in Ventura County 
with 2005 as the attainment date for both areas. The estimated 
annualized control cost to meet the Ozone NAAQS in the South Coast Air 
Basin is $3 to $4 billion with 2010 as the attainment date. The 
incremental cost to achieve the Carbon Monoxide NAAQS in the South 
Coast Air Basin is zero. The enhanced inspection and maintenance 
provisions to achieve the Ozone NAAQS will together with other 
acceptable state measures also accomplish the Carbon Monoxide NAAQS 
objective. The estimated cost for the enhanced inspection and 
maintenance provision was reflected in the cost to achieve the Ozone 
NAAQS for the South Coast. The attainment date for the Carbon Monoxide 
NAAQS is 2000.
    However, the environmental and economic gains from the Federal 
Implementation Plans are real and potentially large in terms of the 
human population affected as well as the amount of crop and forest 
acreage affected. Furthermore, because of the jointness of certain 
control measures, benefits will not be limited to reductions in ozone 
and carbon monoxide concentrations. Benefits will also accrue in the 
form of reductions in nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and air 
toxics concentrations.
    Scientific and data limitations preclude a quantitative and 
comprehensive assessment of benefits. Without such an assessment, the 
Agency cannot determine whether these FIPs are allocatively efficient.
    Due to the short deadlines in the court ordered schedule for this 
rulemaking, OMB did not have time to carry out its normal review under 
Executive Order 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and 1992 EPA guidelines 
require the identification of potentially adverse impacts of Federal 
regulations on small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. These proposed rules may 
adversely affect such entities. Consequently, a Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis is required and has been prepared.
    The potential impact of the proposed rules will vary among affected 
entities both large and small. In some cases, cost savings may accrue 
to affected entities. In other instances, cost increases may be 
relatively modest. In other instances, control costs may exceed 10 
percent of anticipated sales. However, due to uncertainties regarding 
source identification, the Agency cannot distinguish between small 
emission sources owned by small entities and those owned by larger 
firms. Furthermore, uncertainties in the cost and process economics 
data preclude specific findings on where averting and mitigating 
measures are warranted.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act requires that a Federal agency prepare 
an Information Collection Request to obtain OMB clearance for any 
activity that will involve collecting information from ten or more non-
Federal respondents. The proposed Federal Implementation Plans 
necessitate preparation of an Information Collection Request. The 
information requirements associated with the proposed rules include 
reporting, monitoring, and recordkeeping and will affect the private 
sector as well as local, state, and Federal authorities.
    The information collection requirements have been estimated and 
summarized in the Information Collection Request and forwarded to OMB 
for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. Until OMB approves the Information Collection Request, the 
reporting, monitoring, and/or recordkeeping aspects of these rules are 
not effective. OMB is currently reviewing the Information Collection 
Request and supporting documentation. Given the potential for changes 
in elements of the package prior to promulgation, OMB will not approve 
the Information Collection Request until that time.

D. Federalism Implications

    A federalism assessment has not been conducted under Executive 
Order 12612. However, federalism effects have been considered through 
the development of the proposed rules and will continue to be addressed 
in the period between proposal and promulgation. In particular, the 
Agency has worked closely with the local and state authorities to 
reflect their concerns in the fashioning of these rules.

Appendix I. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program

A. Light-Duty Vehicles and Trucks

1. Introduction
    As described in Section III.D.2.a and b of this preamble, VOC and 
NOX emissions from light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and trucks (LDTs) 
represented significant fractions of the total VOC and NOX 
emission inventories in the three FIP areas in 1990. Light-duty 
vehicles have remained a major source of emissions even though emission 
standards for light-duty vehicle exhaust hydrocarbon emissions have 
dropped more than 90 percent since 1970. The continuing high emissions 
derive from increases in VMT, the long life of vehicles in the 
temperate California climate and the failure of many current in-use 
vehicles to meet the standards to which they are certified when new.
    California has adopted very stringent light-duty vehicle emission 
certification standards known as the LEV program. This program will 
assure that new vehicles sold in California will have very low 
emissions. This will be accomplished through use of advanced emission 
controls and a new onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirement which is 
intended by CARB to identify for the driver and the repair technician 
whenever an emission control system has degraded sufficiently to 
increase emissions 50 percent above the certification standards.
    EPA expects the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program will 
substantially reduce emissions of cars and light-duty trucks, compared 
to the federal standards. However, despite the use of advanced 
technologies and the OBD requirements, CARB projects LEVs will exceed 
their certification standards in-use, although, for the reasons noted 
in Section III.D.1.a(2), by a much smaller margin than has occurred in 
the past. Emissions above the certification standards, referred to as 
excess emissions, will occur because some models may experience more 
in-use deterioration than expected, or because individual vehicles 
experience component failure or improper maintenance which is not 
immediately corrected by the various existing in-use compliance 
programs, including enhanced I/M. Because the magnitude of the emission 
reductions needed for attainment is so great, the adoption of further 
measures to reduce these remaining excess in-use emissions will help 
reach attainment of the ozone standard.
    EPA is therefore seeking comments on the need for and benefits of 
adopting an enhanced in-use compliance program which would provide 
extra emission reductions above and beyond the substantial reduction 
provided by the California LEV program, and cause in-use emissions to 
approach the certification standards.
    EPA believes that much of the responsibility to ensure low in-use 
emissions must rest with vehicle manufacturers, since owners, although 
they have a significant part to play cannot ensure performance that is 
not available from the hardware. Traditionally, the incentive for 
manufacturers to build emissions durability into their vehicles has 
been limited. Owners do not have the ability, nor often the interest, 
to ensure their emissions control equipment is performing properly.
    This section presents EPA's proposed enhanced in-use compliance 
program for LDVs, LDTs and certain medium-duty vehicles (MDVs). MDVs, 
as defined by CARB, have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 
6000 and 14,000 pounds. For those MDVs above 8500 pounds GVWR, CARB 
gives manufacturers the option of certifying as a specific and complete 
vehicle, or as a heavy-duty engine which can be placed in any heavy-
duty vehicle. Since MDVs certified as complete vehicles are much more 
analogous to LDVs and LDTs than heavy-duty engines, chassis-certified 
MDVs are being included here in the enhanced in-use compliance program 
for light-duty vehicles and trucks. The enhanced in-use compliance 
programs for heavy-duty engines and nonroad engines are similar in 
purpose and are presented in Sections B. and C. of this appendix below.
    The light-duty enhanced in-use compliance program attempts to 
encourage manufacturers to build additional durability into their 
emission control equipment by increasing the manufacturers 
responsibility for repairing problem vehicles identified by the 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) and recall programs. The I/M program 
is revised by shifting responsibility for repair to manufacturers if a 
significant percentage of vehicles are not performing close to 
certification levels in use. The potential responsibility shift should 
encourage manufacturers to build additional durability and improved 
repairability into their vehicles. The lower allowable I/M emission 
levels will ensure that vehicles are repaired if not performing 
satisfactorily. Also, the recall program is extended for the full 
useful life and all vehicles are tested and included provided they have 
not been obviously tampered or abused. Additionally, MDV emissions 
standards are reduced as significantly as light-duty standards have 
already been reduced.
2. New Vehicle Program
    New vehicle certification, and particularly the associated emission 
standards, play an important role in defining the types of emission 
control hardware placed on vehicles. These standards also essentially 
define the best level of emission control that can be expected from in-
use vehicles. The majority of current in-use emissions come not from 
vehicles meeting their emission standards, but from vehicles which 
exceed their standards. EPA believes that the CARB LEV program with 
enhanced I/M will substantially reduce the occurrence of vehicles which 
exceed their standards by a substantial margin. However, emission 
predictions indicate that on average vehicles will not meet their 
emission standards in use. Therefore, the focus of EPA's proposed 
enhanced in-use compliance program is on two programs, recall and I/M, 
which can provide additional incentives to vehicle manufacturers to 
build the lowest emitting vehicles possible. However, no changes to 
CARB's motor vehicle control program are necessary to implement these 
two approaches to an enhanced in-use compliance program for new LDVs, 
LDTs and MDVs.
    EPA is proposing that the enhanced in-use compliance program be 
applied to all new vehicles that are defined under California 
regulations as passenger cars, light-duty trucks, or medium-duty 
vehicles, beginning in model year 1999. This would include all on-
highway vehicles up to 14,000 pounds GVWR, with the exception of those 
MDVs which are certified as engines under both CARB's program and EPA's 
enhanced in-use compliance program described in Section B. Any of these 
vehicles offered for sale or first registered in California would need 
to comply with the enhanced in-use standards described below.
    The application of this program on a statewide basis is considered 
necessary because vehicle traffic flow into and out of the areas 
covered by the FIPs is large. Any program constrained to only the FIP 
areas would be extremely difficult to implement and enforce. EPA is 
concerned that the benefits of the enhanced in-use compliance program 
may be diminished if a large number of vehicles first registered in 
other states are brought into California. These vehicles may be less 
expensive because they would not have to meet enhanced in-use or 
California low emission vehicle standards. EPA proposes, therefore, 
very strict restrictions on importation of 49-state vehicles (Section 
d.2.h. of the Preamble).
    Because new vehicle programs such as this one are relatively slow 
in achieving their full emission reduction benefit due to the time 
required for fleet turnover, EPA solicits comments on the feasibility 
of implementing this program earlier, such as via a partial phase-in in 
model year 1998. The emissions reduction achieved by earlier 
implementation could reduce the need for increased stringency in other 
source categories.
    As described below, the proposed enhanced in-use compliance program 
concerns only non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NOX emissions, 
and does not cover CO emissions. California is projected to be in 
attainment with the NAAQS for CO by 2000 as required by the Clean Air 
Act, before the enhanced in-use compliance program would have had a 
chance to achieve any significant CO emissions reductions. In addition, 
the FIP addresses only ozone non-attainment and thus focuses only on 
ozone precursors, NMHC and NOX.
    EPA's proposed requirements for the enhanced in-use compliance 
program are presented in Sections A.(2)(a) and A.(2)(b), respectively. 
Descriptions of new recall and I/M requirements under the enhanced in-
use compliance program follow in Sections A.(3) and A.(4).
    a. New light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. California's LEV 
program greatly reduces the emissions permitted from new LDVs and LDTs. 
CARB's 100,000 mile NMOG and NOX LEV standards for LDVs and small 
LDTs are 0.09 and 0.3 gram per mile (g/mi), respectively. Higher 
numerical standards apply to Transitional LEVs (TLEVs) and lower 
numerical standards apply to Ultra LEVs (ULEVs). By model year 2000, 
CARB's fleet average NMOG standards require the average vehicle to be 
slightly below the emission standards applicable to LEVs. Assuming a 
reactivity adjustment factor of 0.98 for NMOG (that for California 
Phase II reformulated gasoline), CARB's LEV standards are 70 and 50 
percent below the Federal Tier I NMHC and NOX standards, 
respectively. By model year 2003, CARB's fleet average NMOG standard 
for LDVs and small LDTs is even more stringent, 0.062 g/mi.
    Under the enhanced in-use compliance program, EPA proposes that 
LDVs and LDTs comply with the in-use composite NMHC and NOX 
standards contained in Table AI.A-1. EPA is proposing a single 
composite NMHC recall standard (for each vehicle class) that will apply 
throughout the useful life of the vehicle. The proposed NOX 
standards for post-1998 model year LDVs and LDTs are the same as CARB's 
standards for LEVs. To afford a smoother transition to this program, 
EPA proposes that up to 25 percent of a manufacturer's 1999 model year 
LDV and LDT sales fleet may comply with ``transitional'' enhanced in-
use standards also contained in Table AI.A-1. The transitional enhanced 
in-use NOX standards are the same as CARB's NOX standards for 
TLEVs. EPA is proposing this transition, because CARB's fleet average 
NMOG standard for the 1999 model year will still allow a significant 
number of TLEVs to be sold. However, after 1999, the fleet average NMOG 
standard becomes sufficiently stringent to prohibit any significant 
number of TLEVs from being sold. Given that the great majority of 
vehicles will be meeting the NOX standards applicable, it is not 
clear why any vehicles should be able to be sold which only meet the 
significantly less stringent TLEV standards (usually a factor of two 
higher than the LEV standards).

  Proposed Certification and In-Use Standards for Post-1998 Model Year  
                             LDVs and LDTs                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX (g/mi)   
                                            Compositea -----------------
    Vehicle class          Category         NMHC. (g/     Half     Full 
                                               mi)       life     life  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDVs and LDTs (0-     Enhanced In-use....         0.20     0.20     0.30
 3750 lbs LVW).                                                         
                      Transitional.......         0.29     0.40     0.60
LDTs (3751-5750 lbs   Enhanced In-use....         0.26     0.40     0.50
 LVW).                                                                  
                      Transitional.......         0.33     0.70     0.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aExhaust NMHC emissions plus evaporative hydrocarbon emissions;         
  evaporative emissions include running loss, diurnal, hot soak         
  emissions expressed on a gram/mile basis.                             

    For NMHC, EPA is proposing a composite (exhaust plus evaporative) 
NMHC standard, as opposed to separate standards for exhaust NMHC 
emissions and the many types of evaporative-related NMHC emissions. 
This composite standard will allow greater flexibility, as well as 
reduced costs, while ensuring that the necessary in-use performance is 
attained.
    In order to determine compliance with a composite NMHC standard, it 
was necessary to develop a method for combining exhaust emissions and 
the three different components of evaporative emissions (i.e., diurnal 
and hot soak emissions (measured on a gram/test basis) and running loss 
emissions (measured on a gram/mile basis)). Resting loss emissions are 
another form of evaporative emissions. However, there is no current 
standard or separate test for resting losses because they are measured 
during the various parts of the evaporative emissions test procedure, 
particularly during the diurnal emission test, and are accounted for in 
those results.
    In support of its efforts to model in-use emissions (e.g., 
MOBILE5a), EPA has developed a methodology for combining exhaust and 
evaporative emissions into a composite emission factor. It essentially 
consists of converting those components not measured on a gram per mile 
basis to grams per mile and then summing the individual components. The 
key conversion factors are the number of trips per day (for hot soaks) 
and the number of miles driven per day (for hot soaks and diurnals). 
Estimates of these factors over the useful life of LDVs and LDTs were 
taken from MOBILE5a. Their use in converting individual NMHC emission 
levels into a single composite level or standard is shown in the 
equation below.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\``Average Trips/Day and Miles/Day in MOBILE5 for Light Duty 
Autos,'' EPA memorandum from Lois Platte to the Record, January 4, 
1994.

TP05MY94.002

    EPA has not included refueling emissions in this equation given the 
uncertainty with respect to the use of onboard vehicle controls in 
California. EPA requests comments on their exclusion and on the option 
of including refueling emissions in the composite standard should 
California vehicles be subject to the onboard refueling requirement.
    Refueling emissions would be relatively simple to include, as 
refueling emissions in terms of grams per gallon could simply be 
divided by fuel economy to obtain NMHC emissions per mile. The fuel 
economy used could either be measured over the FTP when exhaust NMHC 
and NOX were measured (an urban only fuel economy) or taken from 
the certified urban/rural composite fuel economy value for that engine 
family. Including refueling emissions in this manner would give some 
credit for high efficiency vehicles, but would still represent 
additional testing and resultant cost. Given the high level of 
refueling emissions control expected with onboard controls, EPA 
believes that including refueling emissions in the composite standard 
would not justify the cost of the additional testing.
    EPA believes that the composite NMHC standards contained in Table 
AI.A-1 are feasible, particularly given the flexibility afforded in 
trading off exhaust and evaporative emissions. For example, a vehicle 
meeting the current CARB LEV standards for exhaust NMOG emissions and 
CARB's evaporative emission standards applicable to all LDVs and LDTs 
would comply with the proposed enhanced in-use standards. The CARB LDV/
LDT standards are 0.05 gram/mile for running losses and a total of 2.0 
grams/test for diurnal and hot soak emissions combined. A vehicle 
meeting the running loss standard would contribute 0.05 g/mi or less to 
the equation presented above. The contribution of a vehicle meeting the 
2.0 grams/test emission standard would depend on the breakdown between 
diurnal and hot soak emissions. The newly revised CARB and EPA 
evaporative emissions test procedures contain a one hour hot soak test 
and a multi-day diurnal test. This requires very stringent control of 
resting loss emissions, which occur during both tests. As the 2 gram 
standard requires the almost total elimination of NMHC emissions 
through the evaporative emission control canister, EPA expects that the 
bulk of in-use emissions will be resting losses. Given that hot soak 
emissions only include a single hour of resting losses, albeit at 
somewhat elevated temperatures, EPA expects that hot soak emissions 
will be very low relative to diurnal emissions and that the bulk of the 
2 grams will be diurnal emissions. Specifically, assuming that vehicles 
meeting the 2.0 grams/test evaporative emission in-use emitted 1.9 
grams/test diurnal and 0.1 gram/test hot soak, the overall contribution 
in the above equation would be 0.082 g/mi. With running losses of 0.05 
g/mi, this represents a total non-exhaust NMHC emission of 0.132 g/mi.
    CARB's 50,000 and 100,000 mile LDV NMOG standards for LEVs are 
0.075 and 0.09 g/mi, respectively. While CARB's NMOG measurements 
include the direct measurement of aldehydes, which are undermeasured by 
1-2 percent in the measurement of NMHC by the flame ionization detector 
(FID), this is balanced by the 0.98 reactivity adjustment factor 
allowed for CARB Phase II reformulated gasoline. Thus, numerically, for 
gasoline vehicles at least, NMOG and NMHC emissions will be roughly 
equivalent. A LDV certified to CARB's LEV standards which just met its 
exhaust and non-exhaust emission standards in use would exceed the 
proposed enhanced in-use composite NMHC standards by 0.007
g/mi at 50,000 miles and 0.022 g/mi at 100,000 miles. EPA believes that 
it is extremely unlikely that a vehicle would just meet all 4 of these 
NMHC emission standards simultaneously during certification with all of 
its emission controls performing as designed. Manufacturers utilize 
significant safety margins in certification to avoid the costs of 
modifying their design and retesting. Therefore, EPA does not expect 
that emission levels in certification will have to be reduced to meet 
the enhanced in-use standards relative to those otherwise occurring. 
The feasibility of meeting these standards in use is discussed in the 
next section addressing recall standards and testing.
    As noted earlier in describing the enhanced in-use NOX 
standards, EPA is proposing to allow up to 25 percent of a 
manufacturer's 1999 model year sales to meet transitional enhanced in-
use standards. Comparing EPA's proposed transitional enhanced in-use 
standards to CARB's individual emission standards for non-exhaust NMHC 
and CARB's exhaust NMOG emission standards for TLEVs results in 
essentially the same comparison as that shown above for LEVs. EPA 
requests comments on the proposed enhanced in-use standards for LDVs 
and LDTs and on the methodology used to combine exhaust and non-exhaust 
NMHC emissions.
    Manufacturers will have to demonstrate in their application for 
certification to EPA that each of their vehicle engine families will 
comply with the enhanced in-use standards described above, as well as 
the I/M standards described in Section A.(4) below. As discussed in 
Section A.(4), the enhanced in-use I/M standards are numerically less 
stringent than those described above. Also, the I/M 240 test does not 
include cold start emissions, which form the bulk of FTP NMHC 
emissions. Thus, EPA expects that the demonstration of compliance with 
the enhanced in-use standards will focus on those standards described 
above. For the great majority of post-1998 model year California 
vehicles, this demonstration will consist of the submission of 
information already required by CARB along with the calculation of 
composite NMHC emissions using the equation presented above and a 
showing that composite NMHC and NOX emissions comply with the 
enhanced in-use standards contained in the table ``Proposed 
Certification and In-Use Standards for Post-1998 Model Year LDVs and 
LDTs.'' The application would also include such other information as 
necessary to show that the vehicle engine family will meet these 
standards under typical in-use conditions (i.e., absent obvious 
tampering or abuse) over its full useful life, which would be enforced 
through the enhanced in-use compliance recall program.
    As mentioned above, these standards apply to vehicles certified to 
operate on any fuel: Gasoline, diesel fuel or otherwise. This should 
not be a problem for hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas or propane, 
as NMHC is an appropriate measure of their organic emissions vis-a-vis 
ozone production. However, organic emissions from alcohol fueled 
vehicles are highly oxygenated and not included in NMHC. EPA proposes 
that alcohol fueled vehicles have the same numerical standards for 
organics as shown in Table AI.A-1, but in terms of organic material 
hydrocarbon equivalent (OMHCE) emissions. OMHCE consists of the mass of 
both non-oxygenated and oxygenated HCs, with the mass of oxygen 
excluded (40 CFR 86.090-2). Such standards would apply to the same 
categories of vehicles to which the current EPA OMHCE standards apply 
(40 CFR 86.090-8 through -11 and any versions of these sections which 
apply to later model year vehicles). EPA requests comments on the use 
of OMHCE standards and the categories of those vehicles (i.e., fuel 
types) to which they should apply.
    EPA also proposes to accept, for the purpose of certifying enhanced 
in-use compliance vehicles, the use of evaporative emissions and 
running losses measured using CARB's test procedure. For recall 
testing, however (see Section A.(3) below), due to lower cost, EPA 
proposes to use its own test procedures with the substitution of CARB's 
fuel specifications and ambient temperatures.
    In their certification application for the 1999 model year, 
manufacturers will also have to identify which engine families are only 
meeting the somewhat less stringent transitional enhanced in-use 
standards. Manufacturers will also have to monitor the sales of these 
models to ensure they represent no more than 25 percent of total sales. 
As mentioned earlier, manufacturers would also have to certify that 
their vehicles would meet the enhanced in-use I/M standards proposed in 
Section A.(4) below. However, as that standard is 0.20 g/mi exhaust HC 
over a test which excludes cold start emissions, EPA expects this to be 
very easy to do relative to the certification and recall FTP standards. 
Natural gas fueled vehicles will have the greatest difficulty meeting 
this I/M 240 standard relative to compliance with the enhanced in-use 
FTP standards, because of these vehicles' relatively high emissions of 
methane relative to NMHC. The enhanced in-use standards over the full 
FTP exclude methane, (i.e., are in terms of NMHC) and CARB's NMOG 
standards greatly diminish methane's importance. However, the I/M 240 
test includes methane (i.e., measures total HC). Overall, though, 
natural gas vehicles have very low levels of NMHC emissions and, given 
the warmed up nature of the I/M 240 test, are still expected to be able 
to meet this standard with little difficulty. EPA requests comments on 
how these vehicles should be addressed in conventional and enhanced in-
use compliance I/M.
    EPA also proposes that all enhanced in-use compliance vehicles 
provide easy access for I/M pressure and purge testing. Otherwise, the 
types of tests performed, the fuels used and other certification 
application details can continue to be performed in accordance with 
CARB rules.
    b. New medium-duty vehicles. CARB's MDV standards for 1995 and 
later model years apply to vehicles between 6,000 and 14,000 pounds 
GVWR, not otherwise qualifying as LDTs. However, CARB allows, at the 
manufacturer's discretion, MDVs over 8500 pounds GVWR to be certified 
as engines according to their requirements for heavy-duty engines. EPA 
proposes that all 1999 and later model vehicles certified under CARB's 
LEV program as MDVs be subject to the enhanced in-use standards for 
MDVs. Engines certified under CARB's requirements as heavy-duty engines 
would be subject to EPA's enhanced in-use compliance program for heavy-
duty engines described in Section B. below.
    The table below (``Proposed Certification and In-Use Standards for 
MDVs under the Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program'') contains the 
composite NMHC and NOX emission standards being proposed for MDVs 
under the enhanced in-use compliance program. EPA is proposing a single 
composite hydrocarbon recall standard (for each subclass of MDVs) that 
will apply throughout the useful life of a MDV. Compliance with the 
composite NMHC standard would be performed in the same manner as that 
for LDVs and LDTs, using the equation presented above in Appendix 
I.A.2.a. These standards are designed to provide generally the same 
stringency of control as the enhanced in-use standards for the heavier 
LDTs presented in the previous section.
    EPA believes that the technology being applied to heavier LDTs to 
meet the enhanced in-use standards can be applied to MDVs as well. EPA 
requests comments on the applicability of standards equivalent to the 
enhanced in-use standards for LDTs to MDVs.

        Proposed Certification and In-Use Standards for MDVs Under the Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               NOX (g/mi)       
        Test weight (lbs)a                        Category                  Compositeb -------------------------
                                                                           NMHC (g/mi)   Half life    Full life 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-3750...........................  Enhanced In-Use.......................         0.28          0.2          0.3
                                   Transitional..........................         0.35          0.4          0.6
3751-5750........................  Enhanced In-Use.......................         0.31          0.4          0.5
                                   Transitional..........................         0.40          0.7          1.0
5751-8500........................  Enhanced In-Use.......................         0.34          0.6          0.8
                                   Transitional..........................         0.45          1.1          1.5
8501-10000.......................  Enhanced In-Use.......................         0.37          0.7          0.9
                                   Transitional..........................         0.50          1.3          1.8
10001-14000......................  Enhanced In-Use.......................         0.43          1.0          1.4
                                   Transitional..........................         0.60          2.0          2.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTest weight is the average of curb weight and GVWR.                                                            
bExhaust NMHC emissions plus evaporative hydrocarbon emissions; evaporative emissions include running loss,     
  diurnal, and hot soak emissions expressed on a gram/mile basis.                                               

    As mentioned earlier, EPA is proposing to allow up to 25 percent of 
a manufacturer's 1999 model year MDV sales fleet to comply with 
``transitional'' standards that are less stringent than the enhanced 
in-use standards. The table above also contains the proposed standards 
for such ``transitional'' vehicles. The proposed composite standards 
for the transitional MDVs are roughly equivalent in stringency for MDVs 
as they are for LDTs. As with the enhanced in-use compliance LDTs, EPA 
is proposing a single composite hydrocarbon standard (for each subclass 
of MDVs) that will apply throughout the useful life of a transitional 
MDV.
    California's definition of MDVs includes trucks which EPA includes 
in its definition of LDTs (i.e., those up to 8500 pounds GVWR), as well 
as trucks EPA considers heavy-duty trucks (i.e., those between 8501 and 
14,000 pounds GVWR). In its past rulemakings establishing HC, CO and 
NOX standards for LDTs, EPA found no technological concerns that 
would limit the application of engine or catalyst technology to only 
those trucks below 6000 pounds GVWR (50 FR 10651). EPA did find 
sufficient reason to limit catalyst technology to only those heavy-duty 
trucks below 14,000 pounds GVWR, but this distinction coincides with 
CARB's split between MDVs and heavy-duty vehicles. The primary means of 
meeting CARB's LEV standards will likely be an additional catalyst 
which begins operation very quickly to reduce cold-start emissions 
(e.g., an electrically heated catalyst). EPA is unaware of any evidence 
which would limit the use of this technology to only those vehicles up 
to 6000 pounds GVWR, particularly given the fact that trucks up to 
14,000 pounds GVWR already are catalyst equipped. EPA requests comments 
on all of the proposed MDV standards, including the assumptions made 
regarding the levels of evaporative emissions from MDVs.
    As will be the case for LDVs and LDTs, manufacturers would continue 
to certify to CARB's certification MDV standards. However, here, with 
regard to MDVs, the demonstration of compliance with the enhanced in-
use standards would be more significant, given CARB's standards for 
post-1998 MDVs. Manufacturers would be still be required to submit 
information already required by CARB along with the calculation of 
composite NMHC emissions using the equation presented above and a 
showing that composite NMHC and NOX emissions comply with the 
enhanced in-use standards contained in the above table. The application 
would also include such additional information as may be necessary to 
show that the vehicle engine family will meet these standards under 
typical in-use conditions for its full useful life, which would be 
enforced through the enhanced in-use recall program. Manufacturers 
would also have to demonstrate compliance with the enhanced in-use I/M 
standards. However, again, this will be much easier than that with 
respect to the full-life certification and recall standards.
    For the 1999 model year only, manufacturers will have to designate 
those engine families certifying to the less stringent transitional 
enhanced in-use standards and monitor sales to ensure sales of these 
engine families stays at or below 25 percent of total sales. These 
standards would be applicable to all MDVs regardless of fuel type. As 
for LDVs and LDTs, all post-1998 model year MDVs will be required to 
provide easy access for I/M pressure and purge checks. Comments are 
requested on all these requirements and on the extent to which these 
requirements complement CARB's existing LEV program for MDVs.
    For flexibility, EPA is also proposing optional engine-based 
standards for diesel-powered and incomplete vehicle engines used in 
MDVs with GVWR between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds. (Under CARB's motor 
vehicle control program, such MDV engines have the option to certify to 
engine-based standards.) Manufacturers of such MDV engines may elect to 
comply with the chassis-based program discussed in this section or they 
may elect to certify to the engine-based standards described in Section 
B. of this appendix. The reader is directed to that section for more 
information on the proposed engine-based standards and other MDV/engine 
requirements under this program.
    c. Authority. As explained above in Section III.A.2.a of the 
preamble, in promulgating a FIP under section 110(c), EPA may take any 
actions that the state could take. As section 209 of the CAA provides 
that California is not preempted from adopting and implementing a motor 
vehicle emissions control program provided its program satisfies the 
criteria of section 209(b), EPA believes that it, acting on behalf of 
California in the context of a FIP, may adopt a motor vehicle program 
or supplement California's own motor vehicle program provided that 
EPA's actions would satisfy the criteria of section 209(b) for a waiver 
of federal preemption. That section provides that EPA is to grant 
California a waiver of preemption if the State determines that its 
standards ``will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public 
health and welfare as applicable federal standards.''
    Section 209(b) further provides that no waiver is to be granted if 
EPA finds that (A) the determination of the State that the standards 
are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and 
welfare as the otherwise applicable federal standards is arbitrary and 
capricious, (B) State standards are not needed to meet compelling and 
extraordinary conditions, or (C) the State standards and accompanying 
enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a). EPA has 
interpreted the consistency criterion as meaning that California motor 
vehicle standards and accompanying enforcement procedures must satisfy 
the leadtime requirements of section 202(a)--that they be 
technologically feasible within the leadtime provided, taking into 
account the cost of compliance--and not impose inconsistent 
certification test procedure requirements such that the same vehicle 
could not be used to comply with both state and federal certification 
requirements (see e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978), 40 FR 30131 (July 
18, 1975), 43 FR 1839 (January 12, 1978)).
    EPA believes that the enhanced in-use compliance program for light 
and medium-duty vehicles that would be applicable to vehicles and 
engines in California under the proposed FIP would satisfy the section 
209 waiver criteria. Thus, California could undertake the enhanced in-
use compliance program described in this appendix, and, therefore, EPA 
has authority under section 110(c) to undertake the proposed programs.
    With respect to the protectiveness of the standards, all of the 
proposed standards are at least as protective as the otherwise 
applicable federal standards (e.g., the Tier 1 NOX and NMHC 
standards in the case of light-duty vehicles and the generally 
applicable NOX and NMHC standards in the case of the vehicles and 
engines covered by the medium-duty and heavy-duty aspects of the 
enhanced in-use compliance program). Indeed, these standards are at 
least as stringent as the comparable standards that California has 
already adopted and for which waivers have already been granted.
    With respect to the need to meet compelling and extraordinary 
conditions, EPA has repeatedly found that California's air quality 
problems satisfy the need criterion of section 209(b) (see, e.g., 49 FR 
18887 and 18890 (May 3, 1984), 58 FR 4144 (January 13, 1993)). 
Moreover, the magnitude of the reductions in emissions needed to reach 
attainment in the FIP areas, including mobile source emissions 
(discussed above in Section III.H.2 of the preamble), provides ample 
evidence of the need for more stringent motor vehicle emission 
standards in California.
    Finally, with respect to the criterion of consistency with section 
202(a), EPA believes that its proposed enhanced in-use compliance 
program is consistent with both the technological feasibility and 
certification elements of that criterion. For the reasons explained 
below, EPA believes that the enhanced in-use compliance program is 
technologically feasible within the leadtime provided, taking into 
account the cost of compliance. Moreover, no aspect of the enhanced in-
use compliance program establishes any new certification test 
procedures that are inconsistent with either existing federal or 
California test procedure requirements. Consequently, EPA believes that 
its proposed enhanced in-use compliance programs satisfy this prong of 
section 209 as well.
3. Enhanced In-use Compliance Recall Program
    Historically, EPA has enforced emissions standards through an in-
use testing program commonly referred to as the ``recall'' program (39 
FR 44375, Dec. 23, 1974), as provided by section 207(c) of the CAA. 
This section requires manufacturers to take remedial actions if EPA 
finds that a ``substantial'' number of vehicles, although properly 
maintained and used, fail to conform to an applicable emissions 
standard during their useful life.
    EPA is proposing a recall program under the enhanced in-use 
compliance program that is different in several aspects compared to the 
program established pursuant to CAA section 207(c) for 49 state 
vehicles and engines. The differences and the rationale for them are 
described fully in the paragraphs below. The recall provisions 
described in this section apply to 1999 and later model year light-duty 
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles certified to the 
chassis-based standards described in the previous section. These recall 
provisions also apply to on-highway HDEs and nonroad engines, except as 
noted in the recall provisions contained in section B for HDEs and 
section C for nonroad engines below.
    EPA has based the enhanced in-use compliance recall program on its 
current recall program, where possible. Thus, aspects of the program 
not specifically discussed here will be the same as in the current 
program (see 40 CFR part 85 subpart S). For example, all test 
procedures utilized will be current Federal procedures, with the 
exception of ambient temperatures used in the evaporative emission and 
running loss testing and the fuel used in all testing. EPA will utilize 
CARB's ambient temperatures and CARB Phase II reformulated gasoline in 
recall testing.
    If CARB decides to enforce the enhanced in-use compliance recall 
program and assume responsibility for the recall program, CARB will 
likely use its own detailed recall methodologies, for which it has 
received waivers under section 209 of the CAA, with appropriate changes 
to ensure compliance with the changes described below. EPA requests 
comments on the use of current recall practices where not modified 
below, as well as the possible performance of recall testing by CARB 
using their procedures.
    The proposed enhanced in-use compliance recall program is discussed 
in detail in the following sections: (a) Recall standards (b) 
consideration of maintenance, tampering, and abuse, (c) test vehicle 
selection, (d) testing throughout the vehicles' useful life, (e) 
vehicle family selection, (f) criteria for requiring recall, (g) 
mandatory owner participation in recall repairs, (h) geographic extent 
of recall, (i) technical feasibility, and (j) alternatives.
    a. Recall standards. The key premise of the enhanced in-use 
compliance recall program is that vehicles meet their certified 
emission levels throughout their entire useful life. The standards 
which will apply under the enhanced in-use compliance recall program 
for LDVs, LDTs and MDVs will be those in the tables presented above in 
Section A.(2). Calculation of composite NMHC emissions will be 
according to the equation also presented in Appendix I.A.2.a. above.
    b. Consideration of maintenance, tampering, and abuse. For 49 state 
vehicles, CAA section 207(c) limits manufacturers' responsibility to 
those vehicles that have been ``properly maintained and used.'' 
Manufacturers are able to exclude vehicles that do not receive such 
care or cannot be proven to have received such care from the recall 
testing pool or, if they believe that such vehicles have been included, 
challenge the validity of any findings made. Due to this limitation, 
EPA generally only tests vehicles that have been maintained and used in 
strict accordance to the owner's maintenance manual. It is particularly 
difficult to find older vehicles with sufficient documentation or to 
prove ``proper care.'' The current program, therefore, provides little 
incentive to the manufacturer to design and build vehicles with durable 
emissions performance under normal or typical maintenance and use.
    As mentioned in the introduction in Section 2.d of the preamble, 
the primary goal of the enhanced in-use compliance program is to ensure 
that vehicles remain in compliance with emissions standards in use over 
their full life under normal operating conditions. If motor vehicles 
are to cease to be a major source of ozone-related emissions and 
noncompliance with the NAAQS for ozone, manufacturers must make greater 
efforts to ensure continued in-use emissions performance. Therefore, 
EPA proposes not to exclude vehicles from recall testing unless they 
have been subject to obvious abuse or tampering. Obvious abuse or 
tampering includes: (1) Less than one half the recommended level of oil 
in the engine, (2) the deliberate removal of the catalyst or 
evaporative canister, (3) the turbocharging of a naturally aspirated 
engine, and (4) damage to the engine or emission controls resulting 
from a vehicular accident. EPA is proposing to exclude such vehicles 
from recall testing because such actions can severely affect vehicle 
emissions and the manufacturer has no reasonable way of controlling or 
limiting the impact of these items on emissions. EPA requests comments 
on other specific items that would meet these criteria.
    In addition, EPA will not perform a vehicle ``tune-up'' or perform 
other emission related repairs or maintenance before testing. EPA 
believes that pre-recall maintenance would defeat the purpose of the 
enhanced in-use compliance recall program, which is to further 
encourage durable designs. Even hoses whose proper connection is 
critical to acceptable emission performance can be designed to be 
unlikely to disconnect during normal maintenance and use.
    As with current recall testing, EPA will inspect vehicles prior to 
testing to determine if obvious abuse or tampering has occurred. As is 
current EPA practice, the vehicle manufacturer can be present at time 
of vehicle procurement and testing to help ensure that vehicles are 
appropriately screened for obvious abuse and tampering problems.
    It is also important to point out, as will be discussed in more 
detail in the next section, that only vehicles which are subject to the 
new enhanced I/M program are candidates for enhanced in-use recall 
testing. Participation in this I/M program should encourage owners to 
perform reasonable maintenance and deter emission related tampering.
    Again, EPA requests comments on the types of abuse or tampering 
which would allow for the exclusion of vehicles from the recall sample. 
Commenters should provide supporting rationale and data to the extent 
practicable so that EPA may ascertain the severity, likelihood, and 
possible mitigating actions.
    c. Test vehicle selection. EPA proposes to select vehicles for 
enhanced in-use compliance recall testing from the portion of the 
vehicle family population that is subject to the enhanced I/M testing 
program described above. This would essentially limit testing to only 
vehicles that are registered in one of the three FIP areas, unless the 
State of California opts to adopt enhanced I/M procedures in other 
areas of the state. EPA is proposing to limit the sampling in this way 
because recall testing resources are limited and the vehicles 
registered in the three FIP areas are the most relevant with regard to 
air quality in these areas. Furthermore, problems that cause 
noncompliance within this subpopulation of vehicles are very likely to 
exist in the population as a whole. The reverse may not be true because 
I/M will be insuring reasonable maintenance and catching and correcting 
emissions problems. EPA believes it would be inappropriate to require a 
recall campaign due to a problem found outside of a FIP area that 
enhanced I/M would have possibly already corrected.
    EPA requests comments on the above sampling methods. EPA also 
requests comments on other alternatives, including limiting the 
sampling to vehicles subject to basic I/M as well as enhanced I/M or 
sampling from the entire state's vehicle population.
    d. Testing throughout the vehicle's useful life. EPA proposes to 
conduct recall testing throughout the useful life of the vehicles 
specified in the applicable regulations. EPA would also require any 
necessary remedial actions to be performed on all vehicles in the 
vehicle family still within their useful life. EPA believes that 
conducting recall in this manner is consistent with the intent of the 
enhanced in-use compliance program, which is to hold the manufacturers 
responsible for in-use emissions compliance over the full useful life 
period.
    EPA recognizes that vehicles are often used for periods longer than 
the useful life period specified in the applicable regulations. In 
California, over 40 percent of onroad light-duty vehicles have over 
100,000 miles on their odometers. EPA is concerned about the emissions 
of vehicles after the end of the vehicle's useful life because, 
although such vehicles will still be subject to I/M testing, 
manufacturers will be no longer responsible for ensuring that the 
vehicles remain in compliance with the in-use recall standards. 
Comments are requested on whether other in-use compliance programs such 
an enhanced OBD, which remain effective beyond the vehicle's statutory 
useful life, are feasible and may result in equal or greater emission 
reductions than the proposed enhanced in-use recall program.
    For heavy-duty engines (discussed in section B. below), which are 
rebuilt several times and are used significantly longer than the useful 
life specified by the manufacturer on a regular basis, EPA is proposing 
rebuild regulations (see section B.) for engines beyond their 
originally certified useful life. EPA requests comments on adopting 
comparable rebuild provisions for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles 
that are certified to chassis-based standards in order to ensure that 
these vehicles continue to meet in-use recall standards throughout 
their operating lives.
    e. Vehicle family selection. As with the 49 state recall program, 
EPA may select vehicle families for enhanced in-use compliance recall 
testing at its discretion. For the 49 state recall program, EPA 
examines a variety of items when choosing a vehicle family for recall 
testing including testing data from certification and production line 
audits, production volumes, and defect reports. EPA is likely to also 
examine these items for the enhanced in-use compliance recall program. 
Additionally, EPA is planning to examine enhanced I/M testing results 
for patterns of failure within exhaust engine families.
    EPA also plans to track the various technologies being used to meet 
enhanced in-use standards. If EPA believes that a technology may be 
more susceptible to in-use emissions performance deterioration, EPA may 
choose to proceed with recall testing of vehicle families using that 
particular technology. Special concerns may arise related to the use of 
a particular fuel or, more likely, related to the complexity of a 
technology and therefore its additional areas for failure.
    f. Criteria for requiring recall. EPA proposes to, at its 
discretion, require a manufacturer to recall vehicles and take remedial 
action if the average emissions of the test vehicles for any regulated 
pollutant exceed the applicable emissions standard. EPA proposes to 
retain the discretion not to order a recall if it determines that a 
recall action is not warranted. Manufacturers would be able to present 
data and reasoning to EPA for the Agency to consider in making a final 
decision on whether or not to proceed with a recall. However, EPA is 
concerned that the recall program may not be viewed as a strong 
enforcement tool if its authority is too discretionary. EPA wishes to 
make clear its intent to hold manufacturers responsible for in-use 
failures of essentially all vehicles except those that have been 
subject to obvious abuse or tampering.
    EPA also recognizes that outlier vehicles in the recall sample 
could cause an inappropriate recall. The impact of an outlier on the 
results of a recall test could be substantial because the recall test 
sample could be relatively small (about 10 vehicles). EPA would allow 
manufacturers to provide additional test data showing that a vehicle is 
unrepresentative (i.e., an outlier), and this data may then be 
considered by EPA in making a final determination.
    EPA is also concerned that vehicles representing a small percentage 
of the engine family population (e.g., 5 percent or less) could exhibit 
such relatively high emissions as to cause the average emissions of the 
entire engine family to greatly exceed the enhanced in-use standards. 
For example, if five vehicles per one hundred failed to their pre-
control levels of 7 or 8 g/mi NMHC and the remaining vehicles had zero 
emissions, the engine family would still exceed its standard by 100 
percent. EPA is concerned about the emissions impact of this engine 
family, but is also concerned about the cost, inefficiency and vehicle 
owner inconvenience of a traditional recall where 95 out of 100 
vehicles would be returned to the dealer but require no repair. While 
the enhanced I/M program will reduce the likelihood of occurrence, such 
situations may still be common. Comments are requested on alternatives 
to conventional recall in such cases. Comments on innovative onboard 
diagnostic capabilities or other screening techniques are also 
requested. One such approach is discussed in section (j).
    EPA requests comments on the recall criteria and authority 
described above for the enhanced in-use compliance recall program. EPA 
encourages any recommendations for adopting different criteria be 
supported by data and detailed rationale.
    g. Mandatory owner participation in recall repairs. Because of the 
potential large negative impact that vehicles exceeding the standards 
have on air quality, EPA believes that owners should be required to 
bring their recalled vehicles in for repairs. While EPA's 49 state 
recall program does not require owners of recalled vehicles to go to a 
dealership for needed repairs, California does require recall repairs 
to be performed (see section 2129 of title 13 of the California Code of 
Regulations) and the requirement is enforced by denying vehicle 
reregistration until the repairs have been made. (Driving unregistered 
vehicles is, of course, unlawful and prohibited.) California currently 
begins to deny reregistrations six months after the manufacturer begins 
its remedial action plan. EPA proposes that vehicles subject to the 
enhanced in-use compliance program also be subject to the same 
mandatory repair requirements as other California vehicles.
    h. Geographic extent of recall. EPA is proposing that the enhanced 
in-use compliance program apply to all vehicles sold in California for 
both enforceability and environmental reasons. EPA therefore proposes 
that any required recalls also apply to all vehicles of the affected 
engine family which have been sold throughout the state. This will also 
include vehicles from all model years that are part of the same engine 
family. Engine families consist of vehicles with the same basic 
emissions design and performance and problems with a single model 
year's vehicles should also exist on other model years' vehicles. EPA 
requests comments on the extension of recalls to all vehicles statewide 
versus only those vehicles registered in the three FIP areas.
    i. Technical feasibility. As discussed in Section A.(2) above, EPA 
does not expect manufacturers to have to reduce the low-mileage 
emissions of properly operating vehicles in order to comply with the 
proposed recall provisions. The degree that vehicle design changes are 
necessary to better ensure improved in-use emission performance under 
this program will depend on the technologies and cost tradeoffs 
manufacturers will make in response to CARB's existing LEV and OBD 
programs and the enhanced I/M program. If a manufacturer has sufficient 
confidence that its vehicles will comply with the enhanced in-use 
standards, there will obviously be no technological or cost 
implications.
    However, if a manufacturer lacks such confidence, then vehicle 
designs could be improved. In general, the durability of every aspect 
of a vehicles' current and future emission control system can always be 
improved. The primary issues are cost and the level of reliability. EPA 
expects each manufacturer to review the durability of each of its 
emission control system components and assess whether it is adequate 
given the additional financial disincentives of the emissions in-use 
compliance program which would occur should it fail. The decision would 
then be made to further improve design durability or accept the current 
durability as adequate.
    If a manufacturer decided that it needed to increase the 
probability that its vehicles would comply with the enhanced in-use 
standards under typical conditions of maintenance and use, EPA believes 
that numerous methods exist with which this can be done. For example, 
vehicular emission control can be divided into two basic components, 
efficient combustion and catalytic conversion. Efficient combustion 
relies primarily on fuel management and sufficient ignition spark, 
including its timing. Efficient catalytic conversion depends most 
heavily on fuel management and sufficient active catalytic material. 
Fuel management in turn depends heavily on the onboard computer and the 
feedback control mechanism (i.e., the oxygen sensor) and the fuel 
injector.
    EPA believes that CARB's existing fuel detergent program will help 
address manufacturers' concerns related to fuel injector, intake valve 
and combustion chamber deposits and the possible associated degradation 
of emission control performance. EPA also believes that fuel injection 
technology has reached a sufficient stage of development such that 
maintenance free operation is possible (i.e., EPA is not aware of any 
required maintenance for fuel injectors on LDVs, LDTs, or MDVs). 
Catastrophic failure of an individual injector can always occur, but 
this should be immediately identified by the OBD system. Likewise, 
recent electronic ignition systems are also maintenance free, with the 
exception of the spark plugs and possibly the ignition wires. If 
improvements were desired in these areas, gold and platinum tipped 
spark plugs could be considered. These plugs are already in limited use 
and offer the advantage of improved durability. Manufacturers have 
already utilized, to a varying degree, high voltage ignition to lessen 
the importance of wire separation, as the higher ignition voltage will 
cross a sizable gap in the wire as well as across the spark plug tip. 
Onboard computers have clearly generated a track record of proper 
operation over the life of the vehicle.
    NOX emission control as well as efficient combustion also 
depends on the proper operation of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) 
valves. The primary in-use problem with EGR valves is plugging or 
sticking due to combustion products, particularly unburned fuel which 
can solidify with prolonged heating. A manufacturer could decide to 
redesign its valves by smoothing its channels, eliminating sharp bends, 
better lubricating valve axles, etc., as well as changing the valve 
location to control temperature and deposit formation.
    The two remaining emission controls, the oxygen sensor and 
catalysts (both under body and quick light-off) are widely recognized 
as key components in maintaining proper in-use emissions performance. A 
manufacturer could decide to improve the durability of the active 
surface of the oxygen sensor or change its placement in the exhaust to 
limit deposits and thermal degradation. Likewise, more durable catalyst 
washcoats exist relative to those commonly used and the overall loading 
of catalytic material can also be increased.
    Regarding evaporative emissions, its more basic operation should 
make a manufacturer's durability assessment much easier. The key 
components besides the onboard computer are the purge valve, the vapor 
lines and the charcoal canister. The design of a durable purge valve 
should be much easier to assess and improve if necessary, relative to 
an EGR valve, given the clean nature of the vapor flowing through the 
valve. Non-metal vapor lines can be replaced with metal lines if 
necessary to provide increased confidence of leak-free operation. With 
adequate purge, charcoal canister should not fall below their in-use 
design capacity with time or usage.
    While uncertainty exists as to exactly how manufacturers will 
choose to comply with this program, the main issue appears to be one of 
further improvements in durability versus cost tradeoffs. The program 
appears to be technologically feasible. As for the costs, estimates of 
which are contained in the draft RIA supporting this FIP, EPA believes 
them to be reasonable.
    j. Alternatives. The objective of the proposed enhanced in-use 
compliance recall program is to identify and correct systemic design 
defects or lack of durability within an engine family. However, as 
discussed in section A.(f)., the proposed enhanced in-use standards 
could be exceeded if just a few percent of the vehicles within an 
engine family had high emissions, even though the rest emitted at well 
below the standard. In this situation, recalling the entire engine 
family to correct random defects which result in a few high emitters is 
inefficient, inconvenient and costly. Hopefully, the enhanced I/M 
program will identify and correct these high emitters. However, in some 
situations such as a defect in the cold start emission control system, 
the I/M program will not identify the problem. On-board diagnostics 
could identify the problem, but it does not guarantee that the owner 
will seek repair of the defect in a timely manner. This may be 
especially a concern for older vehicles where the relative cost of 
repairs compared to the value of the car is high.
    An alternative to the proposed enhanced in-use recall program 
involves the use of remote sensing to quickly identify individual 
vehicles with excess emissions. Remote sensing of emissions is now 
required by federal law in all non-attainment areas subject to enhanced 
I/M, including the three FIP areas. A potentially more effective 
approach could utilize recent advances in electronics which allow 
communication between the vehicle's on-board diagnostic system and a 
roadside transmitter. This type of communication with moving vehicles 
has been developed to substitute for toll booths on highways and 
bridges, and for collecting use-fees for heavy trucks. CARB will soon 
be demonstrating the application of this technology to on-board 
diagnostics. Under this concept, when prompted, a small transmitter on 
the vehicle would communicate the VIN and if the on-board computer has 
sensed any emission control system defects. The owners of vehicles with 
defects would be notified by mail to repair the vehicle and report to a 
smog inspection station for verification. This is the same remedy that 
will soon be required of owners whose vehicles fail a remote or 
roadside emission test in an area with enhanced I/M.
    The advantages of such a system include assuring that vehicles with 
high emissions are repaired quickly, rather than up to two years later 
at the next I/M test. This would help lower average in-use emissions 
closer to the certification standard. In addition, this approach would 
remain effective throughout the vehicle's life, an important advantage 
over the proposed enhanced in-use compliance program, since over 40 
percent of California's light-duty on-road vehicles have exceeded their 
100,000 mile useful life.
    Like the I/M 240 test, the objective of CARB's OBD program is to 
identify nearly all problems causing excess emissions. Thus, this same 
remote detection system could also lower the cost of periodic 
inspections since the inspection could be performed by driving by an 
unmanned sensor at any time. The cost of such an inspection would be 
minimal, and could quickly offset the cost of equipping new vehicles 
with an on-board transmitter.
    The major disadvantage of this approach is that the remote sensing 
technology has not been fully demonstrated. Thus, EPA cannot yet 
propose the details of a regulation which would implement such a 
requirement as part of the FIP. However, EPA is seeking comments on 
whether this approach has sufficient merit to be considered as an 
alternative or complement to the proposed enhanced in-use compliance 
program.
4. I/M-Based Recall Program
    The I/M aspect of the enhanced in-use compliance program (also 
referred to as the I/M-based recall program) proposed today applies 
only if a significant portion of vehicles do not meet the enhanced in-
use I/M standards. The enhanced I/M test equipment, test procedures, 
and other physical elements of the program will remain unchanged from 
that described in Section III.D.2.c. of this preamble or from any 
equivalent program adopted by California. All 1999 and later model year 
California LDVs, LDTs and MDVs covered by the enhanced in-use standards 
described in Section A.(2) above will be included in this program, 
regardless of fuel type. (See section III.D.2.c. of this preamble for a 
description of I/M for non-California vehicles.)
    Overall, the enhanced in-use I/M program does three things. First, 
it implements a more stringent set of I/M emission levels (hereafter 
referred to as the enhanced in-use I/M standards). Second, it creates a 
maximum fraction of any particular exhaust emission engine family which 
can fail the more stringent enhanced in-use I/M standards without 
consequence for the manufacturer (hereafter referred to as the 
liability threshold). Third, once the failure rate of the enhanced in-
use I/M standards exceeds the liability threshold, it initiates a 
selective recall and makes the vehicle manufacturer liable for the 
repairs resulting from subsequent I/M failures. As described above, the 
purpose of this program is to encourage manufacturers to place a high 
design priority on in-use vehicle performance and ease of repair in 
order to ensure that vehicles comply with their certification standards 
in-use.
    The sequence of events at a typical enhanced I/M test facility will 
be as follows. Vehicles brought for testing will be measured against 
two sets of standards: the conventional enhanced I/M standards 
described in Section III.D.2.c. of this preamble and the lower enhanced 
in-use I/M standards described below. Unless a significant portion of 
vehicles in any engine family have failed the enhanced in-use I/M 
standards, vehicle owners will only be required to repair their 
vehicles if they fail the conventional enhanced I/M standards. However, 
the number of vehicles failing the more stringent enhanced in-use I/M 
standards will be tallied. If the percentage of a specific engine 
family failing the enhanced in-use I/M standards exceeds the liability 
thresholds described below, two events occur. First, future vehicles of 
this particular engine family failing the more stringent enhanced in-
use I/M standards now must be repaired and retested. Second, the 
manufacturer, and not the vehicle owner, will be responsible for the 
repairs for vehicles still within their statutory useful life which 
have not obviously been abused or tampered with in a manner likely to 
affect emissions (i.e., an I/M-based selective recall). As described 
below, the enhanced in-use I/M standards are numerically higher than 
the enhanced in-use FTP emission levels. Thus, as long as vehicles are 
performing close to the standards to which they are certified, only the 
conventional enhanced I/M program will apply and there will be no post-
manufacturing consequence for the manufacturer of the enhanced in-use 
I/M program.
    The sections below describe the nature of the proposed enhanced in-
use I/M program including testing, enhanced in-use I/M standards, 
threshold for manufacturer liability, tracking of enhanced in-use I/M 
test results, repair responsibility, geographic coverage, and other 
administrative aspects of the program.
    a. Testing. As discussed in more detail in Section III.D.2.c. of 
this preamble, three types of I/M tests will be performed on light- and 
medium-duty vehicles. First, exhaust emissions will be measured using 
the I/M 240 test. Second, purge and pressure tests will be performed to 
establish the evaporative system's functionality and integrity. 
Finally, a visual inspection will be performed to check for missing 
canisters, catalysts, etc. which would indicate that obvious tampering 
or abuse has occurred. Vehicles with obvious tampering or abuse which 
fail the enhanced I/M 240, pressure, or purge tests will require repair 
at the owner's expense.
    EPA proposes to include post-1998 model year diesel- and 
alternative-fueled (CNG and LPG) vehicles in enhanced I/M testing, as 
well as gasoline vehicles. Evaporative system checks would be revised 
where appropriate for alternative-fueled vehicles, since some fuel 
types (e.g., diesel fuel and pressurized fuels) produce little or no 
evaporative emissions as long as their fuel tanks are not ruptured. 
Diesel-fueled vehicles are currently exempt from most I/M programs, 
because their HC emissions are inherently low and their historical 
control of NOX emissions has not depended on technologies that 
deteriorate significantly over time. Alternative-fueled vehicles have 
been exempted because of their low numbers. However, as the emission 
standards applicable to post-1998 model year vehicles will be very 
stringent regardless of fuel type, EPA is proposing that every vehicle 
be tested under the enhanced I/M program, regardless of fuel type. EPA 
requests comment on the testing of diesel- and alternative-fueled 
vehicles in the proposed enhanced in-use I/M program.
    b. Proposed enhanced in-use I/M standards. The table below 
(``Proposed Enhanced In-Use I/M Standards for LDVs and LDTs'') 
summarizes the enhanced in-use I/M standards proposed in this NPRM for 
1999 and later model year LDVs and LDTs. Passage or failure of these 
standards will be used to determine compliance with the liability 
thresholds. These standards will also be used to determine the need for 
repairs and retesting after the liability threshold has been exceeded. 

                            Proposed Enhanced In-Use I/M Standards for LDVs and LDTs                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               NOX (g/mi)       
            Vehicle class                           Category                 Exhaust   -------------------------
                                                                           THCa (g/mi)   Half life    Full life 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDVs & LDTs (0-3750 lbs LVW)........  Enhanced In-Use....................         0.20         0.30         0.45
                                      Transitional.......................         0.34         0.60         0.90
LDTs (3751-5750 lbs LVW)............  Enhanced In-Use....................         0.29         0.60         0.75
                                      Transitional.......................         0.44         1.05        1.35 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aAn evaporative system pressure/purge check will also be performed during the inspection. If the vehicle passes 
  the pressure/purge check, the evaporative emissions system is assumed to be functioning properly.             

    As mentioned above, under enhanced I/M, exhaust emissions will be 
measured over the I/M 240 test procedure, a shortened version of the 
certification test procedure. Emissions measured over the I/M 240 test 
procedure and the certification test procedure are somewhat different 
for a number of reasons. First, different vehicles with the same 
overall FTP emissions will perform differently over each segment of the 
FTP. Because only part of the certification driving cycle is used in 
the I/M 240 test, individual vehicles with the same FTP emissions may 
produce somewhat different I/M 240 emissions. Also, and most 
importantly for NMHC emissions, the absence of a cold start in the I/M 
test will tend to reduce variability and result in a lower g/mi value 
for the I/M test. Other factors contribute to greater variability 
between the full FTP       and I/M 240 testing. These factors include 
the type of driving a vehicle encountered immediately previous to the 
test, the specific fuel in its tank, and numerous other environmental 
factors which can be controlled in certification and recall testing, 
but which cannot be controlled in I/M testing, such as temperature and 
humidity. Therefore, an important objective of the enhanced in-use I/M 
standards is to provide an incentive for manufacturers to design 
vehicles which do not have significant emissions increases when 
operated under such typical in-use conditions as compared to the highly 
standardized FTP. If vehicles continue to be produced with a high 
degree of emissions sensitivity, their increased emissions under 
typical use (versus the FTP) would substantially add to the emissions 
burden caused by light- and medium-duty vehicles.
    Considering the factors just described and non-vehicle related test 
variability, the enhanced in-use I/M standards in the table above 
(``Proposed Enhanced In-Use I/M Standards for LDVs and LDTs'') are 
being proposed. EPA believes these levels represent a reasonable 
balance between granting a cushion between certification and I/M 
emissions levels, and in establishing manufacturer liability and the 
need to provide a greater incentive for the design of emission controls 
systems which maintain low emissions under variations in typical in-use 
conditions. (For example, the proposed enhanced in-use THC I/M standard 
is 0.20 g/mi, 2.2 times higher than CARB's 100,000 mile certification 
NMHC standard for LDV LEVs of 0.9 g/mi.)
    Due to the fact that the I/M 240 test only measures warmed-up 
exhaust emissions, compliance with these standards should not be any 
more technologically challenging or costly than compliance with the 
recall standards already discussed in Section A.(3) above. The only 
issue could be a vehicle's emissions variability over the IM240 test 
relative to the full FTP, as mentioned above. There is no inherent 
technical reason for exhibiting this variabiity, except a lack of 
concern that vehicles' emission controls operate fully over all types 
of normal driving and not only over the exact driving sequence embodied 
in the FTP. In fact, many if not most vehicles already exhibit similar 
control over both tests.
    The enhanced in-use I/M standards for LDTs were derived using the 
same factors and methodology described above for LDVs. As with LDVs, 
EPA is also proposing a single THC I/M standard for each subclass of 
LDTs that will apply throughout the useful life of a LDT. EPA believes 
that the technology and emissions performance of LDTs will be similar 
to that of LDVs and therefore the same factors can be used for 
establishing the enhanced in-use I/M standards for LDTs. EPA requests 
comments on the reasonableness of this assumption.
    Similar factors were used to derive the transitional enhanced in-
use I/M standards. As described in Section A.(2) above, these standards 
will apply to up to 25 percent of each manufacturer's sales of 1999 
model year vehicles. EPA requests comments on these levels, as well.
    The table below (``Proposed Enhanced In-Use I/M Standards for 
MDVs'') contains the proposed enhanced in-use I/M standards for MDVs. 
These standards will apply to all California MDVs certified to chassis-
based standards. (Those MDV engines certified to the engine-based 
standards are not subject to the enhanced in-use I/M provisions, as 
described in Section B. below.) The enhanced in-use I/M standards for 
MDVs provide essentially the same cushion between themselves and the 
enhanced in-use standards for MDVs as described above for the enhanced 
in-use I/M standards for LDVs and LDTs.

                                Proposed Enhanced In-use I/M Standards for MDVs                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               NOX (g/mi)       
        Test Weight(lbs)a                         Category                   Exhaustb  -------------------------
                                                                            NMHC(g/mi)   Half life    Full life 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-3750...........................  Enhanced In-Use.......................         0.24         0.30         0.45
                                   Transitional..........................         0.40         0.60         0.90
3751-5750........................  Enhanced In-Use.......................         0.31         0.60         0.75
                                   Transitional..........................         0.51         1.05         1.50
5751-8500........................  Enhanced In-Use.......................         0.37         0.90         1.20
                                   Transitional..........................         0.62         1.65         2.25
8501-10,000......................  Enhanced In-Use.......................         0.43         1.05         1.35
                                   Transitional..........................         0.73         1.95         2.70
10,001-14,000....................  Enhanced In-Use.......................         0.57         1.50         2.10
                                   Transitional..........................         0.95         3.00        4.20 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTest weight is the average of curb weight and GVWR.                                                            
bAn evaporative system pressure/purge check will also be performed during the inspection. If the vehicle passes 
  the pressure/purge check, the evaporative emissions system is assumed to be functioning properly.             

    Similar to the light-duty enhanced in-use I/M standards, the 
enhanced in-use compliance I/M standards for MDVs should be more easily 
met relative to the enhanced in-use MDV FTP emission standards for 
composite NMHC and NOX described in Section A.(3) above. As was 
the case for light-duty vehicles, the lack of a cold start in the IM240 
test, generally higher numerical standard levels and the fact that 
evaporative emissions are not quantitatively included together should 
more than compensate for any variability resulting from the use of the 
shorter IM240 cycle. This is particularly true given manufacturers will 
have the ability to design their vehicles for good emissions 
performance over the IM240 cycle as well as over the full FTP. EPA 
requests comments on the level of the proposed enhanced in-use I/M 
standards for LDVs, LDTs and MDVs, as well as the proposed transitional 
enhanced in-use I/M standards. EPA also requests comments on the use of 
a single enhanced in-use I/M NMHC standard and on the option of 
applying a more stringent standard for the first five years or 50,000 
miles.
    c. Threshold for manufacturers responsibility. Under enhanced I/M 
programs for conventional vehicles, owners are responsible for repairs 
of those vehicles which fail the enhanced I/M tests. EPA is proposing 
that manufacturers would become liable for repairs of a specific 
vehicle engine family (i.e., an I/M-based selective recall) if 5.0 
percent of the tested vehicles of that engine family failed the 
enhanced in-use I/M standards during the first half of the family's 
useful life or if 10.0 percent failed before the end of the family's 
full useful life. That is, if more than 5.0 percent of tested vehicles 
of any engine family/model year combination fail the enhanced in-use I/
M standards before 50,001 miles or fifth year after the production year 
(whichever comes first), then the responsibility for repair of any 
future failures of vehicles belonging to that engine family/model year 
combination will shift to the manufacturer. This percentage rises to 
10.0 percent for vehicles up to 100,000 miles or in their sixth through 
the tenth years of use.
    In staying below these thresholds, the manufacturer must consider 
the typical level of maintenance provided its vehicles in enhanced I/M 
areas. It is extremely difficult to identify the lowest level of 
maintenance short of abuse. It is also impossible to build vehicles 
such that none of the vehicles develop problems in-use. However, 
participation in the enhanced I/M programs will encourage individual 
vehicle owners to perform increased maintenance to reduce the 
likelihood of I/M failure and the subsequent burden of repair and re-
test. Thus, a lower failure rate may be reasonable to expect from 
vehicles in enhanced I/M areas. EPA believes that the 5 and 10 percent 
failure rates proposed above balance the responsibilities of the 
manufacturer to build a vehicle which performs well under typical in-
use conditions and those of the vehicle owner to properly care for the 
vehicle. EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of the two 
liability thresholds presented here. EPA also asks for comments on 
alternative liability thresholds, as well as appropriate justification 
for those alternatives.
    EPA proposes that the liability threshold for the enhanced in-use 
compliance I/M program apply separately to each affected exhaust 
emission family in each model year after 1998. Since several exhaust 
families can fall into a single evaporative family, but generally not 
vice versa, EPA believes that isolating I/M repair liability within an 
exhaust family is the most appropriate approach. In addition, EPA is 
proposing that the liability thresholds apply separately for HC and 
NOX emissions. Thus, if the number of HC emission failures 
exceeded a threshold, but the number of NOX emission failures did 
not, manufacturers would only be responsible for repairing those 
vehicles which failed the enhanced in-use I/M HC standards. A difficult 
question arises when one of the two pollutant thresholds have been 
exceeded and a vehicle fails both of the enhanced in-use I/M standards. 
EPA desires to limit manufacturer liability as much as possible to the 
repair of the problems related to that pollutant exceeding its 
threshold. However, it may not be practical to separate what repairs 
affect each pollutant and determining such a split could lead to 
frequent disagreement between manufacturer and owner. Thus, EPA 
proposes that manufacturers be responsible for performing all repairs 
to those vehicles which failed both the enhanced in-use I/M HC and 
NOX standards, but have exceeded only one (i.e, HC or NOX) 
threshold. However, EPA requests comments on requiring manufacturers to 
only be liable for repairing the vehicle in order to meet the I/M 
standard for the pollutant exceeding its threshold.
    d. Tracking of vehicle failures. Compliance with the liability 
thresholds will be determined on a model year/engine family basis 
(i.e., I/M test results will be segregated by engine family and model 
year). EPA proposes to segregate tracking by model year to prevent the 
I/M test results of more recent model year vehicles within a given 
engine family from diluting the test results of earlier model year 
vehicles. EPA requests comments on this approach.
    While EPA will receive actual I/M 240 emission results from the 
performers of enhanced I/M testing, only pass or fail results will be 
tallied against the 5 and 10 percent thresholds. A vehicle will enter 
the tracking system when it receives its first enhanced I/M test. As 
long as it passes that and any subsequent enhanced I/M test, it will be 
considered a ``pass'' vehicle. Once it fails any of the three HC 
related tests (i.e., the enhanced in-use I/M standard for exhaust HC or 
the pressure or purge tests), it will be considered an HC failure. Once 
it fails the enhanced in-use I/M NOX standard, it will be 
considered a NOX failure. If a failure occurred while the vehicle 
is within its first half life (e.g., for a LDV, 5.0 years old and 
50,001 miles or less), the failure will be included in the failure 
tally against both the 5 percent half-life and the 10 percent full-life 
thresholds. If the failure occurred while the vehicle is within its 
second half life (e.g., for a LDV, more than 5.0 years old and 50,000 
miles but no more than 10.0 years old and 100,000 miles), the failure 
will only be included in the failure tally against the 10 percent full-
life threshold. The failure rate for each model year/engine family 
combination will consist of the number of vehicles failing the enhanced 
in-use I/M HC or NOX standards divided by the number of vehicles 
which have been tested in an enhanced I/M program. The I/M test results 
would cease to be counted after individual vehicles exceeded an age of 
10 years or 100,000 miles (120,000 miles for MDVs), respectively.
    For example, if 2.0 percent of an engine family's vehicles (from a 
single model year) fail the enhanced in-use I/M standards for a given 
pollutant over its first two years (i.e., a biennial program) and an 
additional 2.0 percent (i.e., different vehicles) fail over the next 
two years, the failure rate after 4 years is 4.0 percent. Comments are 
requested on the use of only pass/fail information and the calculation 
procedure.
    Once a specific model year/engine family combination exceeded a 
liability threshold, EPA proposes that the manufacturer become liable 
for the selective recall and repair of vehicles not only from that 
model year, but for the repair of all vehicles which are part of that 
engine family. While this could significantly increase the potential 
liability faced by manufacturers, it will more equitably protect the 
consumer by treating all vehicles with essentially the same emission 
control design (and thus, performance) the same. EPA requests comments 
on this approach, as well as the option whereby manufacturers were only 
held liable for the repairs of vehicles from the specific model year 
which caused the exceedance of the enhanced in-use I/M liability 
threshold.
    If exceedance of the liability threshold appears likely, typical 
failure modes could be determined and efficient repair methods 
developed. A manufacturer could even go so far as to take preventative 
action (e.g., a voluntary recall) to reduce the number of I/M failures 
(and the triggering of the liability threshold) and avoid the negative 
publicity or market response that may otherwise result.
    EPA also proposes to exclude the I/M test results of vehicles if 
they have been obviously abused or tampered. (More discussion on what 
might constitute obvious abuse or tampering is included in Section 
A.(3) above addressing enhanced in-use compliance recall requirements.) 
EPA proposes to limit the definition of such abuse or tampering for the 
purpose of the enhanced in-use I/M program to a missing catalyst or 
evaporative canister. Tampering can be discouraged by the vehicle's 
design and performance. While EPA is aware that manufacturers cannot 
prevent all forms of less obvious tampering problems, the Agency wants 
to create incentives for manufacturers to design vehicles as tamper-
resistant as is reasonable. EPA requests comments on the appropriate 
inclusion of specific determinations of obvious abuse and tampering 
which would be practical by I/M test personnel in an enhanced I/M test, 
while maintaining the integrity and purpose of the enhanced in-use I/M 
program.
    e. Repair responsibility. Under conventional enhanced I/M, 
individual vehicle owners are responsible for repairs based on failures 
of either the enhanced I/M 240 cutpoints and the pressure/purge 
functional tests. Motorists are required to spend a maximum of $450 on 
repairs within a biennial test cycle related to the emission test 
failure before being eligible for a waiver of the requirement to 
comply.
    If the enhanced in-use I/M liability threshold is reached, EPA 
proposes that manufacturers become subject to a selective recall and be 
responsible for all subsequent vehicle repairs that are identified by 
the enhanced I/M emission test at the enhanced in-use I/M standards 
(described previously) and the purge/pressure tests. Manufacturers 
would thereafter be responsible for all vehicle repairs within that 
engine family model year until the end of the vehicle's useful life. A 
manufacturer's repair responsibility would begin after the liability 
threshold is reached, with no retroactive liability. EPA is not 
proposing reimbursement from the manufacturer to individual vehicle 
owners for repairs that occurred prior to exceeding the enhanced in-use 
I/M liability threshold.
    EPA is also concerned that some repairs to high mileage vehicles 
could cost more than the vehicle is worth. EPA is therefore proposing 
to allow a manufacturer to remedy an emissions failure by purchasing 
(or offering to purchase) the vehicle. The manufacturer could then 
remove the vehicle from service instead of making the necessary 
repairs. The actual value could be determined through a National 
Automobile Dealer's Association (NADA) publication (e.g., ``Blue Book 
value'') or via negotiation. The latter is always available, but, as 
the only option, could become quite involved and result in vastly 
different prices being paid for similar vehicles. EPA therefore 
proposes that the manufacturer be allowed to offer the average retail 
value for the vehicle in question as specified in the NADA ``Official 
Used Car Guide,'' if the manufacturers elects this option. One option 
would utilize the national ``Blue Book'' to avoid the possible effects 
of this program on ``Blue Book'' levels in California. Another option 
would be to use the ``Blue Book'' applicable in the specific FIP area. 
EPA is also concerned that the ``Blue Book'' value may not fully 
compensate an owner for the time and energy needed to find a new 
vehicle and other intangibles. EPA requests comment on other methods of 
determining values that proximate the market value of the vehicle, as 
well as the value to its owner, but provide reasonable protection for 
the manufacturer.
    Under this proposal, the vehicle owner has the option of rejecting 
the manufacturer's offer to purchase their vehicle. Instead, the owner 
could repair the vehicle at his or her own expense or sell the vehicle 
in an area not subject to enhanced I/M and the enhanced in-use 
compliance program. The manufacturer's liability to repair the vehicle 
would end after the offer to purchase the vehicle was either 
consummated or rejected in writing.
    EPA is also concerned whether the manufacturer would exercise its 
responsibility to repair the vehicle in a way which minimized 
inconvenience to the owner. EPA therefore proposes that all required 
repairs be performed in an expeditious manner and requests comments on 
specific requirements that could be used to ensure this was in fact 
done. Specifically, EPA proposes, and requests comments on, requiring 
manufacturers to provide a rental vehicle of equivalent value and 
function free of charge if the repairs required more than two days in 
total.
    f. Geographic coverage. EPA is proposing that enhanced I/M be used 
in the designated California FIP areas of Sacramento, Los Angeles, and 
Ventura. EPA is proposing to limit the geographic scope of the I/M-
based recall program to the FIP areas. EPA does not believe it would be 
appropriate to apply the I/M-based recall program to areas not having 
full enhanced I/M based on the I/M 240 test.
    However, vehicles from outside the three FIP areas do impact air 
quality in the three FIP areas. Therefore, EPA requests comment on the 
option of including the vehicles tested in qualifying enhanced I/M 240 
test programs in other nonattainment areas in California in the I/M-
based recall program. The test results from such vehicles would then 
also be used to determine compliance with the liability threshold. 
Under this option, only a state enhanced I/M program which either 
duplicates the federal program or is approved by the Administrator as 
equivalent would be allowed to participate.
    g. Data collection from test-sites. The Agency proposes that 
enhanced I/M testing facilities submit the results of all I/M tests, as 
well as engine family data from the underhood label, on all vehicles 
tested, to EPA on a monthly basis. This information will be used to 
calculate failure rates. In addition, personnel at such facilities 
would be required to retain and maintain results from I/M tests for a 
period of one year.
    h. Manufacturer notification of liability. The Agency will provide 
manufacturers with cumulative test results on their engine families on 
a monthly basis. Additionally EPA will notify vehicle manufacturers, by 
letter, within thirty days after the rate of failure meets or exceeds 
the liability threshold. Manufacturers' responsibility for repairs 
begins 30 days after EPA sends notification.
    I/M personnel will notify owners of failing vehicles, when vehicles 
are brought in for emissions testing, with whom responsibility for 
repair lies. Vehicle owners must be informed when repair responsibility 
for vehicles has been shifted to the manufacturers. EPA requests 
comment on requiring manufacturers to inform all vehicle owners, by 
letter, if the failure rate for the enhanced in-use I/M standards has 
exceeded the liability threshold. Such a letter would state that 
vehicle owner repair responsibility has ended and that the manufacturer 
is thereafter responsible for vehicle emission repairs until the 
statutory useful life ends as long as the vehicle is participating in a 
qualifying enhanced I/M program and has not been abused or tampered. 
One negative aspect of such a requirement is that it may lead vehicle 
owners to care less carefully for their vehicles, given the knowledge 
that much maintenance would now be covered by the manufacturer.
5. Fleets
    As indicated by the Clean Air Act's fleet program, Congress 
believed it appropriate to place more stringent controls on centrally 
fueled fleet vehicles due fleet operators' greater control over and 
flexibility in the fuel used by their vehicles. Likewise, EPA believes 
it appropriate to propose similar actions here to obtain necessary 
additional emission reductions.
    Consequently, in addition to meeting the requirements of the 
enhanced in-use compliance program described above, EPA proposes an 
enhanced ILEV fleet program. This program would require that a fraction 
of the post-1998 model year vehicles purchased by fleets in the South 
Coast area having 10 of more vehicles which currently are, or are 
capable of, being centrally fueled must also qualify as ILEVs. EPA 
established a special class of clean fuel vehicles called Inherently 
Low Emission Vehicles (ILEVs) in regulations concerning exemptions from 
transportation control measures for clean fuel fleet vehicles (40 CFR 
88.311-93). ILEVs are required to have no significant evaporative 
emissions even if their evaporative control systems malfunction. ILEVs 
therefore have an inherent emissions advantage over other clean fuel 
vehicles since under any realistic enforcement program, some vehicles 
will be operating with dysfunctional emission controls. Generally, 
ILEVs are alternative fueled vehicles since gasoline is a very volatile 
liquid; however, high-technology diesel or low volatility gasoline 
vehicles might also be able to comply. Enhanced ILEVs would produce all 
the emission benefits of other enhanced in-use compliance vehicles plus 
the benefits of no significant evaporative emissions in-use.
    EPA proposes that 50 percent of all LDVs, LDTs, and MDVs purchased 
in 1999 by covered fleet operators for their covered fleet meet this 
requirement and 70 percent of LDVs, LDTs, and MDVs purchased in each 
calendar year thereafter.
    EPA proposes to exempt from the enhanced ILEV fleet program the 
same types of vehicles which are exempt from the statutory Clean Fuel 
Fleet program (section 241(5) of the Clean Air Act). The definitions 
promulgated by EPA for the Clean Fuel Fleet program in 40 CFR 88.302-94 
(i.e., for ``covered fleet operator'', ``centrally fueled'', and 
``capable of being centrally fueled'', as well as several others) are 
proposed to apply to the enhanced ILEV fleet program. In addition, EPA 
proposes that the procedures laid out in the preamble for that final 
rule for determining how many vehicles are to be considered capable of 
being centrally fueled (58 FR 64684) are to be applied by fleet 
operators in the enhanced ILEV fleet program. EPA requests comment on 
whether this procedure should be converted to regulatory text and 
published in the final rule on this FIP.
    In addition, EPA is proposing an enhanced ILEV purchase credit 
program similar to the Clean Fuel Fleet credit program (40 CFR 88.304-
94). Each ILEV purchased early or in excess of a covered fleet 
operator's purchase requirement could generate one purchase credit. EPA 
would issue a qualifying covered fleet operator a credit document which 
could be held or sold. The original operator or any other covered fleet 
operator could redeem such credit documents in lieu of enhanced ILEV 
purchases.
    EPA proposes that violations of the enhanced ILEV fleet program be 
subject to civil penalties of not more than $25,000. This proposed 
penalty is identical to that applied by the Clean Air Act (section 
205(a)) to violations of the Clean Fuel Fleet program required by Part 
C of Title II.
    Since the enhanced in-use vehicle standards apply to composite 
NMHC, it is possible that enhanced ILEVs could have higher exhaust NMHC 
emissions to compensate for their inherently low evaporative emissions. 
Therefore, EPA requests comments on the likelihood of this occurring 
and on the option of establishing a numerically lower composite NMHC 
standard for ILEVs. These more stringent enhanced in-use standards for 
ILEVs are shown in the table below. EPA is not proposing to change the 
enhanced in-use NOX standards for ILEVs from those proposed for 
all enhanced in-use compliance vehicles in Section A.(2) above.

 Proposed Optional Certification and In-Use Composite NMHC Standards for
                             Enhanced ILEVs                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Compositea
             Vehicle class                    Category        NMHC(g/mi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDVs & LDTs (0-3750 lbs LVW)...........  Enhanced..........         0.10
                                         Transitional......         0.15
LDTs (3751-5750 lbs LVW)...............  Enhanced..........         0.13
                                         Transitional......         0.17
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Medium-duty vehicles (Test Weight (lbs)b)               
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-3750.................................  Enhanced..........         0.14
                                         Transitional......         0.18
3751-5750..............................  Enhanced..........         0.16
                                         Transitional......         0.20
5751-8500..............................  Enhanced..........         0.17
                                         Transitional......         0.23
8501-10,000............................  Enhanced..........         0.19
                                         Transitional......         0.25
10,001-14,000..........................  Enhanced..........         0.22
                                         Transitional......        0.30 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aExhaust NMHC emissions plus evaporative hydrocarbon emissions          
  determined according to the equation presented earlier in Appendix    
  I.A.2.a.                                                              
bTest weight is the average of curb weight and GVWR.                    

    EPA is proposing that the enhanced ILEV fleet program be applicable 
to only vehicles purchased by covered fleet operators in the South 
Coast due to the fact that even with all the additional emission 
controls being proposed today, the South Coast is still not projected 
to in compliance with the ozone NAAQS by 2010. EPA requests comment on 
extending the enhanced ILEV fleet program to the other two FIP areas. 
EPA also requests comment on whether the program should be revised to 
ensure that vehicle turnover does not become artificially low in 
response to the enhanced ILEV fleet program but rather remains at or 
near current levels.

B. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Heavy-duty Vehicles

1. Applicability
    EPA is proposing that the enhanced heavy-duty vehicle program be 
applied to all new engines used in on-highway vehicles over 14,000 
pounds GVWR, beginning in model year 1999. All such heavy-duty vehicles 
offered for sale or registered exclusively in California will need to 
comply with the enhanced vehicle standards described in the sections 
which follow. (As described in the section on 49-state vehicles, 
importation of heavy-duty vehicles not complying with the requirement 
of this program is prohibited after 1999.) Requirements that apply to 
multi-state registered vehicles are discussed later, in section B(7). 
The enhanced vehicle program would, as an option, allow manufacturers 
to certify engines for use in MDVs of GVWR between 8,500 and 14,000 
pounds to engine-based standards, similar to the approach taken in 
California's program. However, such vehicles would need to meet all of 
the requirements of the enhanced heavy-duty vehicle program described 
in the sections below.
    The application of the enhanced heavy-duty vehicle program on a 
statewide basis is considered necessary because of the large volume of 
heavy-duty vehicle traffic flow into and out of the areas covered by 
the FIP. Any program requiring usage of enhanced vehicles only in the 
FIP areas would be extremely difficult to implement and enforce. Also, 
EPA is concerned about the emissions from HDVs from other states 
operating in the FIP areas, and about the potential for an increase in 
this interstate traffic due to higher costs associated with enhanced 
HDVs. This issue is addressed in section B(6).
    As with light-duty vehicles, EPA is interested in the possibility 
of achieving earlier inventory reductions by phasing in new vehicle 
emission standards sooner. The inventory reduction achieved by earlier 
implementation could reduce the rate at which heavy-duty vehicle 
turnover would have to occur. Therefore, in addition to requesting 
comment on the program proposed below, EPA requests comment on an 
earlier phase-in, requiring a portion of the 1998 model year heavy-duty 
vehicles sold to meet the enhanced vehicle requirements.
2. Authority
    As explained above, in promulgating a FIP under section 110(c) of 
the Act, EPA may take any actions that the state could take and EPA 
believes that it, acting on behalf of California in the context of a 
FIP, may adopt a motor vehicle program or supplement California's own 
motor vehicle program provided that EPA's actions would satisfy the 
criteria of section 209(b) for a waiver of federal preemption. These 
criteria are discussed above in the context of the enhanced light-duty 
vehicle program.
    EPA believes that the enhanced heavy-duty vehicle program that 
would be applicable to vehicles and engines in California under the 
proposed FIP would satisfy the section 209 waiver criteria. Thus, 
California could undertake the enhanced vehicle program described 
below, and, therefore, EPA has authority under section 110(c) to 
undertake the proposed programs.
    With respect to the protectiveness of the standards, all of the 
proposed standards are at least as protective as the otherwise 
applicable federal standards (e.g., the generally applicable NOX 
and NMHC standards in the case of the vehicles and engines covered by 
the enhanced heavy-duty vehicle program). Indeed, these standards are 
at least as stringent as the comparable standards that California has 
already adopted and for which waivers have already been granted.
    With respect to the need to meet compelling and extraordinary 
conditions, EPA has repeatedly found that California's air quality 
problems satisfy the need criterion of section 209(b) (see, e.g., 49 FR 
18887 and 18890 (May 3, 1984), 58 FR 4144 (January 13, 1993)). 
Moreover, the magnitude of the reductions in emissions needed to reach 
attainment in the FIP areas, including mobile source emissions 
(discussed in Preamble section III.H), provides ample evidence of the 
need for more stringent motor vehicle emission standards in California.
    Finally, with respect to the criterion of consistency with section 
202(a), EPA believes that its proposed enhanced vehicle program is 
consistent with both the technological feasibility and certification 
elements of that criterion. For the reasons explained below, EPA 
believes that the various elements of the enhanced vehicle program are 
technologically feasible within the leadtime provided, taking into 
account the cost of compliance. Moreover, no aspect of the enhanced 
vehicle program establishes any new certification test procedures that 
are inconsistent with either existing federal or California test 
procedure requirements. Consequently, EPA believes that its proposed 
enhanced vehicle programs satisfy this prong of section 209 as well.
    EPA also notes that its proposed rebuild requirements for heavy-
duty vehicles and its use restrictions on heavy-duty vehicles need not 
satisfy the section 209(b) criteria since those requirements, being in-
use regulation of vehicles directed at vehicle owners, and not the 
original manufacturers, are not preempted by section 209(a). Thus, EPA 
has the authority to promulgate those requirements just as any other 
requirements not subject to preemption under section 209.
3. Emissions Standards
    a. Oxides of Nitrogen Standard. As mentioned earlier, heavy-duty 
engines are a major source of NOX emissions in the FIP areas. 
Because of this, EPA proposes to establish lower exhaust emission 
standards for heavy-duty engines in California vehicles beginning with 
the 1999 model year. The emission standard for NOX is proposed to 
be 1.5 g/bhp-hr for all heavy-duty engines used in vehicles of GVWR 
above 8,500 pounds, except those optionally certified to chassis-based 
standards as discussed in previous sections.
    The Agency is proposing this standard because this level of control 
is necessary in order to meet the FIP air quality goals and because 
this level represents a comparable reduction relative to other vehicle 
classes. As discussed further below, EPA recognizes that this standard 
presents a significant feasibility challenge for diesel engines. 
However, other fuel technologies such as natural gas and alcohol fuels 
have demonstrated the potential to achieve these stringent levels, as 
well as other engine designs. Given this, the Agency believes that the 
1.5 g/bhp-hr standard is appropriate.
    At the same time, EPA recognizes that implementing a 1.5 g/bhp-hr 
standard may present limitations that may be unacceptable for some 
unique heavy-duty vehicle applications. Therefore, the Agency is 
considering an additional, economic incentive program that allows the 
sale of higher emitting engines. The Agency solicits comments on a plan 
that would allow engines to be sold at a relaxed level of 2.5 g/bhp-hr 
NOX, if a new vehicle emissions surcharge is paid. The program 
would begin with the 1999 model year and would apply to all engines 
subject to the 1.5 g/bhp-hr standard and their associated vehicles. The 
surcharge would be assessed also for an engine bought separately to be 
installed in an existing chassis.
    The proposed surcharge, shown in the table below (``New-Vehicle 
Emission Surcharges for Heavy-Duty Vehicles'') for the different 
classes of heavy-duty vehicles and urban buses, is based on a cost of 
$10,000 per ton of increased NOX emissions at a 2.5 g/bhp-hr level 
compared to the 1.5 g/bhp-hr standard. In computing the surcharge, 
estimated lifetime emissions were discounted to the year of sale using 
a seven percent discount rate. Urban buses, as defined under existing 
EPA regulations, are treated separately for surcharge purposes because 
of their unique operating characteristics; all other buses are 
considered heavy-duty vehicles in the table below. Details of the 
individual values can be found in the docket.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\``New Vehicle/Equipment Surcharges for Heavy-Duty Onhighway 
and Nonroad Engines Under the California FIP,'' EPA Memorandum to 
the Docket from Alan Stout, February 1994.

        New-Vehicle Emission Surcharges for Heavy-Duty Vehicles         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Emissions   
                                         GVWR (pounds)      surcharge   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urban buses...........................              all          $16,000
Other heavy-duty vehicles.............     8,501-19,500                 
                                          19,501-60,000                 
                                                >60,000            1,000
                                                                   7,000
                                                                  20,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the sections addressing nonroad engines and the 
fleet averaging program, the surcharges being proposed today are all 
based on a value of $10,000 per ton of emissions reduced. The Agency 
intends this level to represent an appropriate level for valuing 
incremental NOX control in California as well as to provide a 
strong incentive for manufacturers to develop, and customers to buy, 
engines meeting the 1.5 g/bhp-hr standard rather than pay the emissions 
surcharge. At the same time, it will provide an option for those few 
applications in which complying engines are unavailable. Comments are 
requested on the appropriateness of the surcharge levels, as well as on 
the 2.5 g/bhp-hr standard proposed for engines subject to the 
surcharge. Interested readers should review the docket for further 
information regarding the surcharge value (``Technical Support--
Surcharge Evaluation'' memo from Joann Jackson-Stephens to docket dated 
March 1994).
    The projected impact of these more stringent NOX standards on 
engine technology is discussed below. The impacts are presented 
separately for each major fuel type. The Agency recognizes that this 
discussion is based on information from technology development programs 
that are, in some cases, in their very early stages. More complete 
information may exist and the Agency solicits a full range of comments 
on this issue. Any information submitted confidentially will be treated 
appropriately, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations 
requirements.
    Diesel-fueled engines. Manufacturers attempting to develop diesel-
fueled engines that comply with the 1.5 g/bhp-hr standard must consider 
a variety of areas. These include: (1) improvements in fuel injection 
systems, such as very high pressure injection, electronic unit 
injectors with minimized sac volumes, improved fuel injection nozzles, 
and significant advances in fuel injection rate shaping, (2) 
improvements in intake air management, focusing on optimized intake air 
pressurization systems such as variable geometry turbochargers or 
wastegate turbochargers and more extensive use of air-to-air 
intercooling, (3) continued progress in lubricating oil control (to 
minimize any NOX/particulate trade-offs), (4) major advances in 
exhaust gas recirculation using variable flow and variable temperature 
control mechanisms, and (5) more sophisticated, integrated electronic 
control of all engine systems.
    Advances in oxidation catalysts (e.g., additional progress in 
catalytic materials and washcoating processes) may also be needed to 
control particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines, while 
permitting further optimization of NOX emission variables. Also, 
fuels improvements such as higher cetane levels may need to be 
considered.
    While these changes will enable diesel-fueled engines to meet 
NOX emission standards significantly lower than the current 5.0 g/
bhp-hr standard, further advances may be necessary to reach 1.5 g/bhp-
hr. One technology that is being actively researched to meet this 
challenge is a catalyst designed to reduce NOX in the lean 
operating environment of the diesel engine. The current research into 
these devices has yielded NOX reductions of about 10 to 20 
percent, and researchers project that 50 percent NOX reduction 
efficiencies under transient conditions may be possible. Research in 
Japan has shown 50 to 70 percent efficiencies under steady state 
conditions with a 5 percent fuel penalty. The work done to date has 
been performed on engines that have NOX emissions higher than 
about 4.0 g/bhp-hr. It is not known if the efficiencies that have been 
reported will also apply to engines in the 2.5 g/bhp-hr range. The 
Agency also has no clear information on the fuel consumption impact, 
cost or durability of lean NOX catalysts. This technology holds 
promise for significantly reducing NOX from diesels. EPA requests 
comments on ongoing research activity related to NOX control for 
diesels and the focus of such work.
    EPA recognizes that numerous issues must be addressed before many 
of these technologies can be commercialized for diesel-fueled engines; 
such issues include durability, fuel consumption impacts, cost and 
availability of improved fuels, if they are needed. The Agency solicits 
input on these issues as well as the overall feasibility of the 1.5 g/
bhp-hr NOX standard for diesels.
    The Agency has received information that certain on-highway heavy-
duty diesel engines are using ``transient sensing algorithms'' that 
have the effect of retarding the timing during transient engine 
operating conditions and advancing the timing during certain steady 
state operating conditions.\111\ Since injection timing has a very 
significant impact on NOX emission rates, with advanced timing 
settings being associated with higher NOX, the continued use of 
these algorithms could result in engines that appear to be very low 
NOX emitters for certification purposes but would not be nearly so 
low when operated in-use. The Agency would consider such algorithms 
used to meet the 1.5 g/bhp-hr standard to be defeat devices. They would 
not be an acceptable strategy. The Agency solicits comments on 
appropriate means of discouraging use of such design approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\``Supplemental Deere & Company Comments on EPA Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking: Control of Air Pollution; Emissions of Oxides 
of Nitrogen and Smoke From New Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines 
at or above 50 Horsepower,'' July 23, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gasoline-fueled engines. Heavy-duty gasoline-fueled engines 
currently control NOX emissions to levels between 3 and 3.5 g/bhp-
hr (in response to a 5.0 g/bhp-hr standard). The Agency sees no reason 
why these engines could not meet an exhaust emissions standard of 1.5 
g/bhp-hr with the application of three-way catalysts and other 
technologies that are currently in use with light-duty vehicles and 
light-duty trucks. Improvements may be needed in the area of high 
temperature three-way catalyst materials to withstand the broader range 
of exhaust temperatures that are typical of heavy-duty gasoline-fueled 
engines. Also, careful application and integration of exhaust gas 
recirculation, port fuel injection, more sophisticated ignition systems 
and increased emphasis on optimized air management may also be needed.
    Alternative-fueled engines. A methanol-fueled heavy-duty engine is 
currently certified at 1.7 g/bhp-hr NOX and the Agency believes 
that with additional development this engine could achieve a NOX 
emission level of 1.5 g/bhp-hr. The engine is a two-stroke engine. It 
is likely that with better fuel injection systems (for example, higher 
pressure injection), better air management (such as improvements in the 
blower by-pass control system), and other such optimization advances, 
this engine could achieve 1.5 g/bhp-hr or lower. Four-stroke engines 
using methanol have not yet been developed to the same extent, but it 
is likely that these engines could also show very low emissions. 
Methanol-fueled engines used in light-duty vehicle applications have 
already demonstrated the potential for achieving very low NOX 
levels.
    Ethanol-fueled engines can also produce low emissions. A limited 
amount of work has been done to optimize engines to operate at low 
emissions on ethanol, but there is the potential for much more 
improvement. The same two-stroke engine mentioned above was certified 
on denatured ethanol (95 percent ethanol, 5 percent gasoline) at 4.2 g/
bhp-hr NOX. Whereas the injection system was calibrated for the 
higher energy density of ethanol, it was not optimized for ethanol use 
and thus there is room for significant improvement in NOX 
emissions performance. These improvements could result in achieving 
very low NOX levels. However, if gasoline is used as a denaturant 
(as it commonly is), flame temperature tends to increase and more 
NOX is produced. Thus, a different denaturant may have to be 
investigated. This same engine using a mixture of 80 percent ethanol, 
20 percent distilled water (and no denaturant) produced NOX 
emissions results of 1.4 g/bhp-hr.\112\ There are long-term injector 
durability concerns with such a fuel that would have to be resolved 
before the engine could be commercialized. Many of the issues mentioned 
above in the methanol discussion apply to ethanol use as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\This result, as well as data cited in the following 
paragraph, can be found in ``Technical Feasibility of Reducing 
NOX and Particulate Emissions From Heavy-Duty Engines--Final 
Report'', Acurex Corporation, April 30, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural gas engines using either compressed or liquified gas can 
also achieve very low emission levels. Even though the emission 
optimization of natural gas engines has been focused on only recently, 
they are already being shown to be low-emission power sources. Lean-
burn, homogeneous-charge engines operating on natural gas (including 
engines made by Cummins, Caterpillar and General Motors) are already 
achieving NOX emissions less than 2.5 g/bhp-hr. With additional 
optimization, it is projected that these engines could achieve a level 
of 1.5 g/bhp-hr. Homogeneous-charge stoichiometric engines with three-
way catalysts (including engines made by General Motors and Scania) are 
achieving emission levels lower than 1.5 g/bhp-hr NOX. However, as 
with the alcohol engines discussed above, extensive opportunities 
remain for further improvement and optimization for both of these 
engine types. As with heavy-duty gasoline engines, the natural gas 
engines operate with high exhaust gas temperatures that need to be 
accommodated to ensure three-way catalyst durability.
    EPA requests comment on the feasibility of meeting an NOX 
standard of 1.5 g/bhp-hr for all engine applications, as well as on the 
need for the surcharge-based 2.5 g/bhp-hr standard. EPA also requests 
comment on the possibility of adopting an NOX standard of 2.5 g/
bhp-hr for all California on-highway heavy-duty engines without a new 
vehicle emissions surcharge.
    The Agency also notes that in the longer term, significant 
potential exists for low NOX emissions from different engine 
designs. Other possibilities include such engines as turbines and 
stirling engines, or fuel cell based designs. While such approaches may 
eventually offer attractive means of lowering NOX emissions, EPA 
requests comment on the possibility of commercialization of any of 
these designs by 1999.
    b. Hydrocarbon standard.  Heavy-duty vehicles contribute 
hydrocarbon emissions from both exhaust and evaporative sources. To 
deal with exhaust emissions, EPA is proposing an exhaust HC standard of 
between 0.2 and 0.6 g/bhp-hr NMHC. The 0.6 g/bhp-hr level represents 
what is currently being achieved by most diesel engines. Most 1993 
model year diesel-fueled engines are certified at levels less than 0.6
g/bhp-hr total HC without aftertreatment. Also, two of the three 
natural gas engines certified by CARB emit no more than 0.6 g/bhp-hr 
NMHC. The 0.2 g/bhp-hr NMHC standard represents the current performance 
of methanol-fueled engines and diesel-fueled engines equipped with 
catalysts; for the 1994 model year, such engines have been certified at 
levels less than 0.2 g/bhp-hr total HC. On the other hand, most heavy-
duty gasoline engines are certified in the 1 g/bhp-hr range. However, 
with the application of optimized three-way feedback controlled 
catalyst systems these engines should be able to reach levels in the 
proposed range. EPA requests comments on the appropriate level for this 
standard.
    With regard to evaporative emissions, EPA is planning to extend the 
concept of inherently low-emitting vehicles (ILEVs) to the FIP enhanced 
heavy-duty vehicle control program. EPA's rulemaking for Clean Fuel 
Fleets established the ILEV concept of a vehicle that maintains low 
evaporative emissions without an active control system (58 FR 11888, 
March 1, 1993). EPA proposes to adopt an ``evaporative-free'' 
requirement for all heavy-duty vehicles over 14,000 pounds GVWR to 
avoid a trade-off of increased evaporative emissions for reduced 
NOX emissions as would likely occur with the use of gasoline 
fueled engines in this vehicle class. Engines in vehicles under 14,000 
lbs GVWR certified to the optional engine-based standards also would 
need to demonstrate evaporative-free performance. This assurance is 
needed because vehicles equipped with these engines would not be 
subject to any in-use I/M testing of the evaporative control systems. 
The in-use effectiveness of evaporative control systems consequently 
could not be assured as it would be for vehicles subject to enhanced I/
M and associated standards.
    Qualifying as an evaporative-free vehicle would require a 
demonstration that the vehicle does not have the potential for 
significant evaporative emissions when operating in high temperature 
conditions. The demonstration would have to show a maximum emission 
level of 5 grams for combined diurnal (adjusted to a nominal 20 gallon 
fuel tank volume), hot soak, running loss, and resting loss emissions, 
without an active evaporative control system. Diurnal emissions would 
be based on the engine and fuel system being exposed to ambient heating 
from 72 deg. to 96  deg.F using 9 psi RVP fuel (or the parallel 
California requirements of 65 deg. to 105  deg.F using 7 psi RVP fuel). 
Also, the evaporative-free requirement only supplements existing 
evaporative emissions testing procedures; vehicles currently subject to 
evaporative emission testing would still have to comply with all 
applicable requirements.
    For heavy-duty vehicles over 26,000 pounds GVWR, which already 
operate almost exclusively on diesel fuel, an evaporative-free 
requirement would prevent a potential market shift to fuels (such as 
gasoline) that may be able to meet the proposed NOX standards but 
have the potential of high evaporative emission levels. Further, the 
requirement would decrease the HC contribution from this class of 
engines as a whole by eliminating any current evaporative emissions. 
The heavy-duty vehicles between 14,000 and 26,000 pounds GVWR, while 
relatively small in number, do consist of about two-thirds gasoline 
vehicles. EPA recognizes that the evaporative-free requirement may 
discourage the sale of these engines, however bladders and low 
volatility fuels could be explored as means of demonstrating 
evaporative-free performance. EPA requests comments on other options 
that could provide assurances that market shifts could not occur and 
that in-use evaporative systems for the gasoline vehicles in this class 
maintain their performance in use.
    EPA specifically requests comment on an option that would establish 
a chassis-based certification option similar to that for heavy-duty 
vehicles less than 14,000 lbs. GVWR. Under this option, vehicles would 
be subject to enhanced I/M and other aspects of the enhanced light-duty 
vehicle program, including the fleets hydrocarbon standard (see the 
discussion of the fleet program under the enhanced light-duty vehicle 
portions of this appendix). Commenters supporting this alternative 
should comment on the appropriate numerical standards for 
certification, recall, and inspection-and-maintenance testing.
    c. Test requirements. Under the proposed enhanced heavy-duty 
vehicle program, certification and enforcement testing of on-highway 
heavy-duty engines and vehicles subject to the new NOX and 
hydrocarbon standards, including those medium-duty vehicles certified 
to engine-based standards, would be subject to EPA requirements. 
Exhaust emission testing would be conducted following standard Federal 
test procedures, with two exceptions. First, test fuels would be based 
on California specifications. Second, exhaust hydrocarbon measurements 
would be quantified as nonmethane hydrocarbons, or other fuel-specific 
equivalent. Assembly-line testing would be performed under EPA's 
Selective Enforcement Audit testing program as described in 40 CFR part 
86 subpart K.
    Manufacturers of engines subject to the inherently low evaporative 
emissions requirement would submit test results or an engineering 
evaluation to demonstrate that the certified vehicles have inherently 
low evaporative emissions. Test procedures are described in EPA Clean 
Fuel Fleet program regulations (58 FR 11888, March 1, 1993).
    For vehicles certified under chassis-based requirements, EPA also 
proposes to require evaporative emission testing using the Federal test 
procedure and standards. CARB adopted a new evaporative emission test 
in August 1990 and is now in the process of making improvements to its 
test procedure before requesting a waiver from Federal requirements. It 
is unclear at this point how closely aligned the two test procedures 
will be. If CARB receives a waiver, EPA will consider the 
appropriateness of allowing manufacturers to certify vehicles using 
CARB's evaporative emission test. EPA and CARB specify standards of 4 
and 2 grams per test, respectively, for vehicles between 14,000 and 
26,000 pounds GVWR. EPA proposes to retain the 2 g/test standard for 
California vehicles. The numerical emission standards proposed for 
heavy-duty vehicles apply equally to certification and recall testing.
    Other California standards and procedures would be unaffected by 
the FIP, as described above for light-duty vehicles. Applicable Federal 
or California regulations would continue to apply in all aspects of 
control programs for these emission sources, including certification, 
assembly line testing, and recall.
4. Heavy-Duty Engine Rebuild Program
    a. Introduction. Heavy-duty engines are generally operated over 
mileages far exceeding the useful life specified when the engines are 
certified. This is due to their high mileage accumulation rates, high 
replacement costs, and overall durable designs. Additionally, the 
engine life is often extended by one or more engine rebuilds. Larger 
diesel engines, for example those used in line-haul trucks and transit 
bus applications, are manufactured with replaceable cylinder liners to 
facilitate engine rebuilding. Engines with replaceable cylinder liners 
can be readily rebuilt numerous times. It is not uncommon for such 
engines used in line-haul applications to continue operating for many 
times longer than their statutory useful life. Rebuilds are typically 
performed by a variety of parties including fleet operators, small 
independent garages, the original engine manufacturer, and large 
independent assembly line operations. Additionally, there are many 
independent rebuilders of engine components.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\``Heavy-duty Engine Rebuild Practices'', EPA Draft Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Testing conducted on rebuilt engines by EPA has indicated that 
engine rebuilding is generally well done and emissions control does not 
usually suffer. However, EPA is concerned about whether this will 
continue to be the case in the future. Given the very stringent 
enhanced in-use compliance program emissions standards for HDEs being 
proposed and the new control technology which will be applied, the in-
use emissions performance of rebuilt HDEs is unclear. There may be cost 
incentives to rebuild these engines to a non-OEM configuration which 
could substantially increase emissions. Given that most of the actual 
life of some larger engines is beyond the traditional statutory useful 
life, it is important to ensure that engines continue to meet standards 
even after rebuilds. Therefore, EPA is proposing to require rebuilt 
engines to be subject to the standards proposed today for new engines.
    These requirements will apply to any 1999 and later model year 
heavy-duty vehicle subject to the enhanced standards that is registered 
in California and is equipped with an engine that has been certified to 
engine-based standards as opposed to chassis-based standards. Vehicles 
certified to chassis-based standards in these classes would be subject 
to full life I/M, similar to light-duty enhanced vehicles. Both 
requirements ensure that enhanced vehicles continue to meet applicable 
standards.
    b. Program description. EPA's primary concern is that HDEs meet 
applicable standards in use throughout their life cycle, including 
after engine rebuilding. To do this requires ensuring that, if vehicles 
are found not to comply at any time, someone is responsible for 
remedying the nonconformity. EPA proposes to require vehicle owners to 
be able to demonstrate at all times that their engine is certified to 
meet the emissions standards it originally met. If the engine is within 
its original useful life, nothing more would be required. After the end 
of the engine's original useful life, the owner would be required to 
obtain a useful life renewal certificate showing that the engine still 
met its original standards. Such a certificate must be issued by a 
party that has brought the owner's engine to a configuration that has 
been previously certified by EPA (certification requirements are 
discussed below). The certifier would specify a useful life renewal 
period on the certificate over which the certifier is responsible for 
emissions performance of the engine. Once the specified period expires, 
the vehicle owner would be required to acquire another useful life 
renewal certificate before reregistering their vehicle in California.
    The certifier would perform all actions necessary to bring the 
engine to the certified configuration before issuing a useful life 
renewal certificate. Necessary actions may range from replacement of 
selected emission control and other hardware to major engine overhaul. 
Anyone able to meet the requirements of the program may certify an 
engine configuration and issue useful life renewal certificates. EPA 
would anticipate that candidates for certifiers would most likely be 
the original engine manufacturers, parts suppliers, and engine 
rebuilders. Once a useful life renewal certificate is issued to the 
vehicle owner, the certifier assumes all of the manufacturer's 
liability for the emissions performance of the engine as described in 
the proposal for new engines.
    The marketplace, rather than EPA, should develop the most cost 
effective methods of ensuring effective emissions control for each 
engine. Engine rebuilding may not be necessary in all cases. Some 
engine manufacturers may elect to provide a longer original useful 
life. By extending the useful life, the manufacturer would allow owners 
to use their vehicles for a longer period of time without incurring the 
additional cost of an engine rebuild. The Agency believes that there 
will be significant market demand for longer useful life periods, that 
more closely match actual in-use engine rebuild practices.
    The original engine manufacturer or another party may be able to 
provide a useful life renewal certificate upon the performance of some 
specified maintenance on the vehicle. Such maintenance would include 
anything that was needed to bring the engine to a certified 
configuration and ensure emissions control for the specified useful 
life renewal period, possibly including the replacement of emissions 
control devices. There are likely to be other possible options for the 
vehicle owner that EPA has not considered.
    As previously mentioned, the vehicle owner must be in compliance 
with these requirements at all times. Enhanced engines without valid 
useful life certificates may not be registered in California. At time 
of registration, the owner would be required to show either that the 
engine was still within its original useful life or a useful life 
renewal period. The certifier would be required to provide a 
certificate to the vehicle owner (as described above) and label the 
engine, allowing such a demonstration to be made easily. The label must 
include information identifying the certificate, and the effective and 
expiration dates (mileages and/or hours as applicable) of the useful 
life renewal certificate as applied to the labeled engine. Furthermore, 
if the vehicle owner is found to be out of compliance through a 
roadside check or other means, EPA would consider the owner to be in 
violation of federal tampering provisions (see section 203(a) of the 
Clean Air Act) and the owner would be fined for every engine out of 
compliance. EPA requests comments on other ways to enhance its ability 
to enforce these owner requirements.
    EPA recognizes that lighter HDEs are not usually rebuilt because 
their operating life is comparable to that of the chassis. Also, their 
lifetime mileage is generally lower than that of larger vehicles. For 
these reasons, there may not be as much incentive for the marketplace 
to offer as many options for lighter heavy-duty vehicles. If an engine 
reaches the end of its statutory useful life and there is no way to 
renew its useful life, the owner would no longer be able to register 
the vehicle with that engine in California. Operators of heavy-duty 
engines would be expected to purchase vehicles equipped with engines 
with a useful life comparable to their needs or purchase vehicles with 
engines that are designed to be rebuilt. It should be noted that these 
requirements only apply to vehicles certified on an engine test; many 
smaller trucks would be certified on a chassis test.
    c. Certification requirements and liability. To help ensure 
continuous emissions control effectiveness, EPA proposes that anyone 
offering a useful life renewal certificate must certify the engine 
configuration that will result from the actions they will perform on 
the in-use engines. EPA also proposes to require that emissions 
durability be demonstrated for the useful life renewal period being 
provided by the certifier.
    The resultant engine configuration must be certified in the same 
manner that a new engine is certified. A full emissions test would be 
required showing that in-use HDEs, after being restored to the engine 
configuration being certified, will meet all applicable HDE in-use 
recall emissions standards to which the engine was originally 
certified. EPA proposes that the test engine be representative of 
actual in-use engines and therefore, be an engine at or beyond its 
statutory useful life. EPA recognizes that this may be burdensome for 
the certifier in the early years of the program because available 
engines will generally be at low mileages. However, EPA believes that 
it is necessary to know how high mileage engines will perform after 
being brought to the configuration being certified. EPA requests 
comments on these and any other aspect of the certification testing 
requirements. EPA is especially interested in comments on effective but 
less burdensome test engine requirements.
    In addition to the normally required engine certification 
information and data, the certification application would also be 
required to include: (1) Rationale for test engine selection, (2) a 
description of all actions necessary to bring an in-use engine to the 
configuration being certified, including a description of parts being 
replaced, (3) a description of any emissions related components not 
being replaced and rationale as to why their replacement is 
unnecessary, (4) a copy of all installation instructions and warranty, 
and (5) a copy of the engine label and useful life renewal certificate 
to be provided to the engine owner. EPA requests comments on these 
certification procedures and the items that are being required to be 
provided for certification.
    d. Recall testing. EPA is proposing to apply the enhanced recall 
program for the light-duty enhanced vehicles, described in detail in 
section A.(5) of this appendix, and heavy-duty vehicles as described in 
more detail below. At the time an engine is restored to a certified 
configuration, the certifier, for purposes of this program, becomes the 
engine manufacturer for purposes of determining responsibility for the 
in-use emissions performance of the engine. The certifier may elect to 
have outside agents conduct installations. However, EPA proposes to 
hold the certifier solely liable for any failure of an engine to meet 
the enhanced HDE in-use standards during the useful life renewal 
period. EPA would have the authority to enforce in-use standards over 
the useful life renewal period by performing recall testing on engines 
within their useful life renewal period in the same manner that EPA 
would for engines still within the original useful life. EPA requests 
comments on the above approach for assessing liability for the 
emissions performance of rebuilt engines.
    As mentioned above, EPA proposes to conduct recall testing 
throughout the operating life of engines. EPA believes that this is the 
most appropriate way to ensure that engines are meeting the enhanced 
HDE in-use standards. For recall testing after the end of the original 
useful life, EPA will group engines by the certified configuration. Any 
subsequent recall orders will hold the certifier of that engine 
configuration responsible for failure to comply with applicable 
emissions standards. Remedial actions would be solely the 
responsibility of the certifier.
    EPA recognizes that the high cost of engine testing may present an 
impediment to enforcement of these rebuild requirements through recall 
testing alone. EPA requests comments on additional methods of enforcing 
the above rebuild provisions which may or may not include actual 
emissions testing. Additionally, EPA requests comments on all aspects 
of the enhanced recall provisions.
5. Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program
    As discussed in Section III.D.2.c. of the Preamble, covering the 
enhanced       I/M program, EPA is proposing to include pre-1999 model 
year heavy-duty vehicles of GVWR 8,500-19,500 pounds in the enhanced I/
M program. Furthermore, as discussed in Section A(4) covering the 
enhanced vehicle I/M program for new light-duty vehicles, EPA is 
proposing to include new heavy-duty vehicles of GVWR 8,500-14,000 
pounds in the LDV/LDT enhanced vehicle program for 1999 and later model 
years, including I/M. EPA also requests comment on the desirability and 
feasibility of extending the enhanced I/M and enhanced vehicle I/M 
programs to other heavy-duty vehicles, particularly those in the weight 
classes up to 26,000 pounds GVWR (or any portion thereof). If this were 
done, the need to require these vehicles to be evaporative emission 
free, as discussed in Section B(3), and the need for these vehicles to 
be rebuilt, as discussed in Section B(4), could be reconsidered.
    In considering this issue, commenters should refer to the detailed 
discussion of enhanced light-duty vehicle inspection and maintenance 
program requirements which would be applicable to these heavier 
vehicles as well except as noted below. These requirements address such 
issues as geographic scope, testing, enhanced I/M threshold, 
manufacturer liability, tracking of enhanced I/M test results, 
threshold calculation, data collection, and manufacturer notification 
of liability.
    In addition, EPA would like to note several issues for which an 
enhanced      I/M program for heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds 
GVWR would differ from the light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck 
program. First, the regulatory useful life for heavy-duty vehicles is 
110,000 miles, 185,000 miles, or 290,000 miles, depending on the 
vehicle class. Therefore, in a manner similar to that described for the 
light-duty vehicle I/M program, after the threshold level was exceeded, 
the engine manufacturer would be responsible for repairing vehicles 
failing a enhanced vehicle I/M standard during the useful life period, 
or prior to engine rebuild, whichever came first. After the useful life 
period or after the engine was rebuilt, the responsibility for I/M 
repairs would depend on whether these vehicles were included in the 
enhanced vehicle rebuild program. Second, an      I/M program for 
heavy-duty trucks would require the addition of I/M testing capacity 
for these heavier vehicles. EPA requests comment on all aspects of this 
proposal and encourages commenters to suggest options that would 
facilitate the achievement of the program's objectives as well as 
implementation.
6. Recall Program
    The enhanced recall program for light-duty vehicles has already 
been described in Section A(5). The heavy-duty program will be the same 
as the light-duty program except for a change related to vehicle 
selection described below. Like the light-duty program, it is intended 
to ensure that vehicles and engines meet applicable standards 
throughout their life. Its provisions also apply to medium-duty 
vehicles that are equipped with engines certified to engine standards 
rather than being certified to the medium-duty vehicle chassis-based 
standards. Medium-duty vehicles certified to chassis-based standards 
will be subject to the light-duty recall program requirements. Rather 
than repeat the detailed provisions of the enhanced recall program for 
light-duty vehicles, the reader is referred to the light-duty 
discussion for more information. Both programs are based on the current 
recall program which interested readers should also review (39 FR 
44375, December 23, 1974).
    There is one difference between the heavy-duty and light-duty 
recall programs. For light-duty enhanced vehicles, EPA is proposing to 
draw recall test samples from only those vehicles subject to EPA's 
enhanced I/M program, generally corresponding to vehicles registered in 
the FIP areas. This would focus testing on identifying problems which 
were not being corrected by the I/M program. Because there is no I/M 
program for HDEs, this approach is not appropriate for heavy-duty. 
Therefore, EPA proposes to draw HDE recall test samples from vehicle 
families registered throughout California although the FIP areas would 
clearly be an important focus.
7. Multiple-State High-Emitting Engines
    Many trucks operating in California are engaged in interstate 
commerce. CARB data show that more than 20 percent of the mileage 
accumulated by heavy-duty vehicles in California is from trucks 
registered to operate in at least one other state.\114\ Even if new 
emission standards are adopted for California trucks, some interstate 
trucks would continue to be certified to less stringent federal 
emission standards. In that case, a significant amount of the potential 
benefit of the California standards would be lost. Given the cost 
impact expected for the California standards, there would also be an 
incentive to circumvent the intent of the standards by registering 
trucks in other states and operating them in California. EPA wants to 
avoid such a competitive disadvantage for trucking firms based in 
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\``Update on the Feasibility of Reducing Oxides of Nitrogen 
and Particulate Matter Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles,'' CARB, 
July 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To engage in commerce in multiple states, state law requires that 
trucks must be registered to operate in each state. The registration 
requirements allow each state to enforce its traffic laws and engage in 
some taxing. There are therefore three types of trucks operating in 
California: Those operating exclusively in California, those based in 
California but also operating in other states, and those based in other 
states but operating in California. Emissions control for engines 
operated exclusively in California is handled through the fleet 
averaging and importation requirements of the FIP. This section affects 
the two categories of trucks operating in other states in addition to 
California. It affects both categories equally.
    Except as described below, EPA is proposing that owners of trucks 
registered in multiple states be required to participate in the fleet 
averaging program. Only that portion of an interstate trucking fleet 
registered in California would be involved in the program, including 
the calculation and assessment of surcharges. Trucks that never enter 
California would not be included.
    EPA is concerned about the burden that the fleet averaging program 
may place on interstate trucking firms, especially if engine 
manufacturers choose to base their compliance with the proposed 
enhanced engine standards on alternative fuel technologies. The 
declining fleet average emissions requirement will eventually force 
owners of all trucks entering California to meet these standards or to 
pay increasingly stiff surcharges. Further, to the extent different 
fuels are used, interstate truckers may have difficulty finding 
adequate fuel supplies for their low-emitting trucks when they are 
traveling outside California. As a result, they may be forced to 
maintain dedicated California fleets or to comply with the program 
requirements through the payment of surcharges, with little benefit to 
FIP area air quality.
    As an alternative to requiring all interstate truck fleets to 
participate in the fleet averaging program, EPA is proposing to allow 
fleet owners, at their option, to comply with a use restriction on 
higher emitting engines. Beginning in 2001, any time a non-fleet 
averaged truck which does not meet the enhanced vehicle heavy-duty 
engine standards and has multiple-state registrations operates in the 
state, it would be allowed to make no more than one stop in either the 
South Coast, Ventura, or Sacramento FIP areas. This requirement would 
apply to all such trucks, regardless of whether or not the base of 
operation is in California. Any pickup or delivery would be considered 
a stop. Also, such trucks making a stop in one of the FIP areas would 
not be permitted to make more than a total of two stops statewide 
including any stop in a FIP area. An operator who could show that a 
trip into California will involve no driving in the South Coast, 
Ventura, or Sacramento FIP areas would be allowed to operate freely 
throughout the rest of the state. Of course, any vehicle which meets 
the enhanced heavy-duty engine standards or is part of a fleet 
complying with the averaging requirements would be able to operate 
throughout the state without restriction.
    EPA would enforce the delivery restrictions by random vehicle 
checks and inspection of driving logs. EPA could inspect papers at 
weigh stations and at pickup and delivery points. Any evidence that the 
restrictions had been violated would subject the operator to a maximum 
fine of $25,000 for every day in violation. EPA is requesting comment 
on a further penalty of revocation of the right to register in 
California if multiple violations are recorded.
    EPA also requests comment on an option under which, beginning in 
2005, only engines certified at or below the 1998 federal 4.0 g/bhp-hr 
NOX standard would be allowed in trucks with multiple-state 
registrations operating in California. This requirement would also 
apply to all trucks, notwithstanding the base of operations. Preventing 
earlier models from operating in California is intended to reduce the 
emission contribution from the interstate portion of the heavy-duty 
vehicle fleet. It would ensure that the cleanest national trucks are 
used in California.
    EPA would begin the two-stop limitation in 2001 and the clean 
multi-state truck requirement in 2005. The Agency believes that this 
would allow sufficient time for them to be implemented without overly 
disrupting trucking operations in California.
    EPA requests comment on the proposal to require trucks operating in 
multiple states to participate in the fleet averaging program (with and 
without the option of choosing usage restrictions). EPA also requests 
comment on whether or not owners of such fleets should also be required 
to have their 1999 and later model year trucks meet the enhanced 
vehicle standards, similar to requirements for in-state fleet owners. 
Comments are also requested on all aspects of the discretion to limit 
stops of higher-emitting trucks in the FIP areas, and on the 
alternative of limiting entry of older high-emitting trucks into the 
state.
8. Alternative Fuel Availability
    As discussed earlier, the proposed enhanced heavy-duty vehicle 
standards will present significant feasibility challenges for diesel-
fueled and gasoline-fueled heavy-duty vehicles. At this time compliance 
with the standards is more certain through use of alternative-fueled 
vehicles. As described above, such fuels could include methanol, 
ethanol, compressed or liquified natural gas and possibly others. These 
fuels are not widely available for vehicle use at this time. Thus, to 
the extent that fuels other than diesel and gasoline are chosen for 
compliance, the availability of fuel for these vehicles could be of 
concern. California regulators have also faced this concern during 
development of the LEV program and have addressed it through 
regulation, as described below.
    California's existing fuel availability rules require major fuel 
suppliers to provide alternative fuels at a minimum number of their 
retail outlets. The minimum number of fuel outlets for each alternative 
fuel depends on the number of in-use vehicles requiring that fuel 
(20,000 is the current minimum trigger for fuel availability) and on 
how many years the fuel has been required under the fuel availability 
program. For 1994-96, the requirements apply only within the SCAQMD, 
while for 1997 and beyond, they apply throughout the entire state. For 
example, the first year an alternative fuel is designated a required 
clean fuel (i.e., the number of vehicles on the road requiring that 
fuel exceeds 20,000), at least a total of 90 fuel outlets must provide 
the fuel. In the second year, the minimum number would increase to 200. 
The required number of retail outlets could be greater if more than 
20,000 vehicles required that alternative fuel. These outlets would be 
allocated to each of the major fuel producers in the region according 
to the amount of motor vehicle fuel they supplied. The fuel outlets 
would have to be geographically dispersed throughout the applicable 
region.
    It is uncertain at this time how many enhanced heavy-duty engines 
will be alternative-fueled since technologies which will meet the 
standards are still being developed. Most of the heavy- duty vehicles 
are found in fleets, where fuel availability is easier to control. 
Therefore, California's fuel availability requirements appear to be 
sufficient. Therefore, EPA is not proposing any additional alternative 
fuel availability requirements. However, EPA requests comments on this 
issue and what, if any, additional actions may be appropriate to insure 
fuel availability.
9. Fleet Averaging Program
    The enhanced program for heavy-duty vehicles will reduce emissions 
as planned only if people continue to purchase new vehicles and retire 
old ones at past rates. If people keep their old trucks longer than 
they have in the past or buy used vehicles from out of state, the 
emissions reductions would be substantially less. Because these 
reductions are critical for achieving attainment, EPA needs to ensure 
that vehicle turnover continues to occur at historical rates.
    EPA is proposing to ensure that turnover is maintained by 
implementing a declining fleet average NOX emissions program. 
Under the proposed fleet average program, if a fleet's turnover rate 
falls behind the historical California fleet average turnover rate for 
heavy-duty vehicles, then an emissions surcharge will be assessed on 
the additional NOX emissions caused by the higher emitting 
engines. The fleet average NOX emissions level allowed is reduced 
each registration cycle to reflect the appropriate turnover rates.
    A fleet owner would determine the total NOX emissions from his 
or her fleet by adding up the annual amount of NOX emitted by each 
vehicle in the fleet and computing an average value for their heavy-
duty vehicles between 19,500 and 33,000 pounds GVWR and their heavy-
duty vehicles above 33,000 pounds GVWR. These average values would then 
be compared to the fleet average standards for those classes in that 
calendar year. If the actual emission rate exceeded the standard, an 
emissions surcharge would be applied to the excess amount.
    The table below shows the calculation of the fleet average emission 
rates for the two classes of heavy-duty vehicles covered by the 
program. Besides the two vehicle classes, entries are provided for 
model year groupings which have different applicable NOX emission 
standards. The factors represent annual emissions of NOX in tons 
for a vehicle in any given category. Adding each column and dividing by 
the number of vehicles in that class will yield the fleet's average 
per-vehicle NOX emissions for the fleet owner's heavy-duty 
vehicles. 

          Calculation of Heavy-duty Vehicle Fleet NOX Emissions         
                                 [tons]                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Emissions from                    
                                       HDVs 19,501-      Emissions from 
       Model year grouping           33,000 lbs GVWR    HDVs >33,000 lbs
                                                             GVWR       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999+.............................         a# x 0.071           # x 0.28
1998..............................           # x 0.19           # x 0.74
1991-97...........................           # x 0.24           # x 0.93
1988-90...........................           # x 0.28           # x 1.12
1984-87...........................           # x 0.24           # x 0.95
pre-1984..........................           # x 0.51           # x 1.99
                                                                        
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total actual emissions........                                      
                                                                        
                                   -------------------------------------
Average per vehicle emissionsb....                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a``#'' represents the number of vehicles in the given fleet for the     
  specific model year/vehicle type grouping.                            
bAverage per vehicle emissions equals the total actual emissions for a  
  vehicle category divided by the total number of vehicles of that      
  category in the given fleet.                                          

    The table below lists the average NOX emissions allowed for 
each calendar year. These numbers are derived from the expected model 
year makeup of the California fleet as older vehicles are retired and 
replaced with enhanced heavy-duty vehicles.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\``Calculation of Average Emission Rates for Heavy-duty 
Onhighway and Nonroad Fleet Averaging Programs,'' EPA memo from 
Chris Lieske to Joanne Goldhand, February 1994.

 Average NOX Emissions Allowed for Heavy-duty Vehicles By Calendar Year 
                                 [Tons]                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                33,000  
                                              19,500-33,000   pounds and
                Calendar year                  pounds GVWR     greater  
                                                                GVWR    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000........................................          0.28          1.1 
2001........................................          0.26          1.02
2002........................................          0.24          0.94
2003........................................          0.22          0.87
2004........................................          0.20          0.80
2005........................................          0.19          0.74
2006........................................          0.17          0.68
2007........................................          0.16          0.62
2008........................................          0.15          0.57
2009........................................          0.13          0.52
2010........................................          0.13          0.49
2011........................................          0.12          0.47
2012........................................          0.11          0.45
2013........................................          0.11          0.43
2014........................................          0.10          0.41
2015........................................          0.098         0.39
2016........................................          0.093         0.37
2017........................................          0.089         0.35
2018........................................          0.086         0.34
2019........................................          0.083         0.33
2020........................................          0.080         0.31
2021........................................          0.077         0.30
2022........................................          0.075         0.29
2023........................................          0.072         0.29
2024 and later..............................          0.071         0.28 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compliance with the fleet average standard would be determined by 
comparing the values in the second table with those calculated in the 
first. If the actual values are below the standard, no emission 
surcharge is due. If either of the actual values exceed the standard 
for that year, a surcharge would be due based on the difference. It 
would be determined by multiplying the difference by the number of 
vehicles affected (in the specific vehicle category) and then by the 
surcharge rate of $10,000 per ton. It is important to note that so long 
as a fleet continues to replace vehicles at historical rates, no 
surcharge would be required.
    In order to assure the maximum flexibility, EPA is also proposing 
to allow individual fleets to join together into larger fleets for 
determining compliance with the fleet standard. This provision should 
accommodate those fleets which may turn over slower or more quickly 
than the average, notwithstanding any effects of the enhanced vehicle 
program. Additionally, it could benefit very small fleets, such as 
independently owned trucks. The flexibility to join together should 
ease the impact of the steady reduction in the fleet average emissions 
allowed on any fleets with special compliance problems.
    The annual emission rates developed in the above two tables are 
based on diesel engine values, even though the program applies to all 
heavy-duty vehicles above 19,500 pounds GVWR. This is consistent with 
the fact that diesels make up the dominant fraction of the affected 
fleets. It also could serve to encourage turnover of gasoline fueled 
engines faster than they otherwise would. This is because, even though 
they are generally less expensive than diesel engines, they would 
provide the same credit in the fleet average as turning over a diesel 
engine. Given the high evaporative emissions from gasoline engines, 
this is a desirable result. Comments are invited on this approach.
    It should also be noted that the declining fleet average standards 
described above are proposed to apply only to heavy-duty vehicles above 
19,500 pounds. Lighter HDVs are not included because EPA is proposing 
to include these vehicles in its enhanced PI/M program. Because this 
group has a large number of gasoline fueled vehicles (which would 
particularly benefit from an I/M program) and a large number of small 
fleets (which would find the declining fleet average program 
particularly burdensome), the Agency believes this to be the best 
approach for these vehicles. Exclusion of LHDVs from the averaging 
program would not affect the role of 1999 and later LHDV engines in the 
other enhanced heavy-duty vehicle requirements already described. 
Comments are invited on the alternative of including LHDVs in the 
declining fleet average program.
    As discussed earlier, EPA is considering allowing enhanced HDVs to 
be equipped with engines certified to a 2.5 g/bhp-hr standard rather 
than a 1.5 g/bhp-hr standard as long as an appropriate new vehicle 
surcharge is paid by the purchaser. Because the surcharge is based on 
the excess NOX emitted over the entire life of the vehicle, EPA 
believes that it would be appropriate to count these vehicles in the 
fleet average as emitting at P1.5 g/bhp-hr rather than 2.5 g/bhp-hr. 
Otherwise, the fleet owner would be required to pay twice for the same 
incremental emissions.
    As described more fully below in the nonroad fleet averaging 
program, EPA is concerned that engine and truck dealers may be 
significantly hurt if fleet owners prebuy 4.0 g/bhp-hr NOX engines 
to reduce the need for purchases of 1.5 g/bhp-hr NOX engines in 
the initial years of the program. Dealers are generally local, unlike 
all manufacturers and some fleet owners. They therefore may have 
trouble surviving more than a year of slow movement in the California 
market. Therefore, EPA is requesting comment on a manufacturer sales 
mandate for heavy-duty onhighway similar to that for nonroad engines. 
Interested readers should review section C.(7)(b) of this appendix for 
more information.
    EPA requests comments on all aspects of the heavy-duty declining 
fleet average proposal.
10. Fleets
    As described in the enhanced light-duty vehicle section (A(6)), EPA 
is proposing a revised Clean Fuel Fleet program in the South Coast and 
requesting comment on expanding it into the other two FIP areas. As 
described in the Clean Air Act Title II, Part C and in EPA's Clean Fuel 
Fleet program regulations (see 58 FR 32474, June 10, 1993 and 58 FR 
64679, December 9, 1993) the national Clean Fuel Fleet program would 
require certain centrally fueled fleets to make a certain percentage of 
their new vehicle purchases clean fuel vehicles. The CAA HD fleet 
program applies to fleets up to 26,000 pounds GVWR and requires that 50 
percent of all purchased be Clean Fuel Vehicles.
    As described in the light-duty enhanced vehicle program, EPA is 
proposing to require that the affected fleets purchase ILEVs which meet 
a composite NMHC standard set to reflect their low evaporative emission 
potential, rather than merely clean fuel vehicles. This requirement 
ensures that the fleet program will achieve significant hydrocarbon 
reductions beyond what is required by the general enhanced vehicle 
program. The application of this program is straightforward for most 
vehicles up to 14,000 lbs. GVWR. On the other hand, for vehicles 
certified to engine based standards (all vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR 
and some under that threshold), an ILEV requirement is already in place 
and therefore no composite is necessary. EPA therefore is proposing to 
apply the fleet program only to vehicles certified to a chassis-based 
standard, currently to vehicles up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. If EPA extends 
the chassis-based certification option to vehicles between 14,000 and 
26,000 lbs. GVWR, the fleet program will extend to these vehicles as 
well.
11. General Enforcement
    It would be a violation of federal law for any engine manufacturers 
or owners to fail to comply with the specific requirements and 
prohibitions described above. In addition, under the enhanced heavy-
duty vehicle program, it would be a violation of federal law for the 
California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or any other department 
of the State of California (or any political subdivision thereof) to 
register any vehicle subject to any requirement for which a valid 
certificate of compliance or waiver (either paper-based or electronic) 
has not been presented. Any person providing fraudulent certification 
or otherwise aiding or abetting in the violation of this section, would 
also be violating federal law.
    That is, it is a violation to permit registration or facilitate 
reregistration of a model year 1999 or later engine for which there is 
not in force a valid certificate of conformity from EPA (either for the 
engine or for the rebuild). Further it is a violation to register any 
model year 1998 or previous vehicle or engine after 2001 without EPA 
confirmation that the appropriate fleet average fee, if any, has been 
paid. Violations could result in civil penalties under federal law of 
up to $25,000 per violation. Each instance of unlawful registration 
would be considered a separate offense.

C. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Nonroad Engines Over 37 kw

1. Applicability
    EPA intends the enhanced in-use compliance program for nonroad 
engines to apply to most nonroad engines at or above 37 kw, with the 
exceptions described above. This means that the Agency is adding two 
categories of nonroad engines not covered under the nationwide federal 
rulemaking. The first category is spark-ignition engines for all 
categories except recreational marine engines. The second is high speed 
Diesel marine engines which are at or above 37 kw; these engines are 
not included in other FIP regulations.
     The enhanced nonroad engine program is proposed to include both CI 
and SI engines. EPA is concerned that applying more stringent emission 
standards only to CI engines would create an incentive to replace 
diesel (CI) engines with gasoline (SI) engines, because if left 
unregulated these engines could have a cost advantage. This shift would 
increase emissions because the unregulated gasoline engines would have 
higher exhaust levels and significantly higher evaporative emissions 
than diesel engines. EPA is therefore proposing exhaust emission 
regulations for both CI and SI engines (i.e., all engine types in the 
size range described) and adding a requirement to prevent evaporative 
emission increases. This strategy should level the playing field from 
an emissions perspective and avoid introducing an inappropriate 
encouragement to shift to gasoline and higher HC emissions.
    The enhanced nonroad engine program is also proposed to include CI 
marine engines over 37 kw which have rated speeds at maximum torque of 
over 1200 revolutions per minute. These engines are generally used in 
non-oceangoing commercial vessels; oceangoing ships are dealt with in 
other portions of this FIP.
    The Agency notes that the proposal would include generators at or 
above 37 kw used on oil platforms, if they fit the mobility 
requirements defining nonroad engines in EPA's nationwide rule. If not, 
they are regulated as part of the platform under EPA's Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) rules if they are permanently placed at the OCS 
site.
    The provisions of this section apply only to engines sold for use 
in the FIP areas (although, as discussed later, EPA is considering 
options extending beyond the FIP areas). Nonroad engines are 
significantly less mobile than onhighway engines. Thus EPA has tailored 
its program to apply only to engines in the FIP areas. Any equipment 
with an applicable engine sold for use in a FIP area will be required 
to have a prominent exterior sticker showing that it meets the 
standards and other provisions of this program. A fleet averaging 
program, similar to that for on-highway, will also be applied to 
engines used in the FIP area to ensure continued turnover to cleaner 
engines. The enforcement of these two requirements is discussed further 
in the nonroad fleets section below.
    EPA proposes that after the inception of the nonroad engine program 
described in this Appendix, only engines complying with the provisions 
of this program may be imported for use into the FIP areas. Use of 
older engines, not previously used in the areas, is prohibited. 
Additionally, use of new engines which do not comply with the program 
is also prohibited.
2. Authority
    EPA is proposing this enhanced in-use compliance program for 
nonroad engines using its broad remedial authority under section 
110(c). Section 213 of the Clean Air Act provides EPA with specific 
authority to regulate nonroad engines. Moreover, no provision of 
section 213, or any other section of the Clean Air Act, prohibits EPA 
from exercising its section 110(c) authority in the manner proposed 
herein. EPA's data indicate that the engines regulated herein, nonroad 
engines at or above 37 kw including SI engines and diesel marine 
engines with speeds greater than 1200 RPM, contribute to ozone 
pollution in the FIP areas.
3. Emissions Standards
    a. Oxides of Nitrogen Standard. Parallel to the onhighway 
requirements, EPA proposes that 1999 and later model year nonroad 
engines for use in the Ventura and South Coast nonattainment areas must 
meet a NOX standard of 1.5 g/bhp-hr. For Sacramento, EPA proposes 
a 2.5 g/bhp-hr standard, reflecting a somewhat lesser need for control 
in that area, but is considering a 1.5 g/bhp-hr standard for reasons 
discussed below. EPA requests comment on these proposed standards and 
their areas of application.
    As with onhighway engines, EPA is also considering an option to 
allow use of engines emitting up to 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOX in the South 
Coast or Ventura areas, subject to an emissions surcharge which would 
be paid at the time of equipment purchase. This option is intended to 
cover unique applications where the 1.5 g/bhp-hr standard might present 
unacceptable limitations. The surcharge, shown in the table below for 
applicable nonroad categories, is based on a cost of $10,000 per ton of 
increased NOX emissions over the life of the engine. The 
calculations are based on usage data supplied by manufacturers, as 
presented in EPA's ``Draft Regulatory Support Document for Control of 
NOX and Smoke Emissions from Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines 
Greater than or Equal to 50 Horsepower'' (April 1993). EPA assumed that 
each category of engines would be operated at its average annual rate 
(hours per year) for sixteen years. Lifetime emissions are discounted 
at a seven percent annual rate.
    In computing the emissions surcharges, the Agency combined 
equipment types with similar surcharges into 7 different groups and 
assigned a surcharge value to each based on information from 
manufacturers. EPA is proposing that manufacturers of nonroad equipment 
containing an engine of over 37 kw must classify each type of equipment 
into one of these categories. Any equipment fitting possibly into two 
categories will be presumed to fit into the higher surcharge category 
unless further information is provided. Details of the individual 
values can be found in the docket.\116\ EPA requests comment on the 
categories listed in the table below, especially whether any engine 
applications may be missing from the list, or whether the categories 
need further definition to distinguish between similar applications. 
EPA also requests comment on the possible need to further divide 
categories, perhaps by engine size, to avoid inappropriate fees for 
some engines. Any comments should reflect the need to keep the set of 
surcharges simple enough to maintain a manageable program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\``New Vehicle/Equipment Surcharges for Heavy-Duty Onhighway 
and Nonroad Engines Under the California FIP,'' EPA memo to the 
Docket from Alan Stout, February 1994.

                                Surcharges for Higher-Polluting Nonroad Engines                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Average    Load factor    Lifetime   Surcharge
     Class                      Equipment types                  rated HP     (percent)    use (hrs)            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...............  Wood splitters..............................           58           50        1,296           
                  Sprayers....................................           92           50        1,408       $400
                  Swathers....................................           82           62        1,600           
II..............  Other agricultural equipment................           57           51        5,280           
                  Combines....................................          152           70        1,984      1,000
                  Chippers/stump grinders.....................           99           37        6,992           
                  Balers......................................           98           58        4,928           
III.............  Tractors/loaders/backhoes...................           71           38       11,200           
                  Concrete/industrial saws....................           56           73        7,792           
                  Forklifts...................................           83           30       13,600           
                  Rough terrain forklifts.....................           84           35       13,968           
                  Other matl. handling equip..................          111           59        6,496      3,000
                  Paving equipment............................           99           53        8,112           
                  Agricultural tractors.......................           98           70        6,576           
                  Concrete pavers.............................           77           56       13,024           
                  Asphalt pavers..............................           77           56       13,024           
IV..............  Rollers.....................................           99           59       10,912           
                  Other general indstrl equip.................          107           51       12,992           
                  Other construction equipment................          161           62        8,000      5,000
                  Aircraft support equipment..................          137           51       11,712           
                  Cranes......................................          194           43       11,216           
                  Bore/drill rigs.............................          209           75        6,224           
V...............  Graders.....................................          147           54       14,784           
                  Crawler tractors............................          134           57       16,336           
                  Sweepers/scrubbers..........................           97           68       19,904           
                  Crushing/process equipment..................          127           78       13,440           
                  Skidders....................................          131           49       22,368     10,000
                  Terminal tractors...........................           96           82       19,200           
                  Excavators..................................          143           59       19,040           
                  Off-highway tractors........................          214           65       13,744           
                  Rubber-tired loaders........................          175           54       22,368           
VI..............  Feller/bunchers.............................          183           71       17,760           
                  Rubber-tired dozers.........................          356           59       13,088     20,000
                  Scrapers....................................          290           60       22,160           
VII.............  Off-highway trucks..........................          658           25       52,668     60,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the feasibility of the enhanced nonroad engine 
standards, the reader is referred to the discussion of the onhighway 
standards feasibility question. EPA believes that the technological 
approaches expected to be used for onhighway engines will also find 
application for nonroad engines. More specifically, diesel engine 
manufacturers make engines for both onhighway and nonroad applications 
and some individual engine families have been used for both. The Agency 
therefore projects that the diesel engine developments applied to 
onhighway engines will also need to be applied to nonroad engines. 
Although at this time there are very few gasoline or alternative fuel 
(mainly LPG) engines in these categories, such engines may find it 
easier to meet the nonroad NOX standards than the onhighway 
standards because of the steady-state nature of the in-use test. 
(Gasoline may have difficulty with the evaporative hydrocarbon 
requirements described below.) Optimization of these engines may be 
less complex because transient fuel/air mixture control is less of a 
concern. Alternative fuel related technology and longer-term engine 
changes described for onhighway engines are also candidates for use in 
the nonroad market.
    EPA is aware that packaging concerns can be an issue for nonroad 
equipment, as they are for onhighway vehicles. Many manufacturers of 
nonroad equipment will have to make changes to their equipment designs 
if the profile of the engine is altered substantially or there are 
other, new, requirements such as fuel system changes. Moreover, there 
are also differences in use between nonroad and onhighway engines which 
lead to different load requirements. EPA believes that the four-year 
lead time provided in the FIP will be sufficient for such issues to be 
resolved but requests comment from equipment manufacturers on unique 
packaging and use issues for nonroad equipment.
    b. Hydrocarbon standard. EPA proposes to set the exhaust NMHC 
standard at 1.2 g/bhp-hr, the current onhighway heavy-duty diesel 
engine standard. If EPA, in the national rule for CI nonroad engines at 
or above 37 kw, finalizes a different standard for these engines, EPA 
will consider that standard for FIP engines as well. Additionally, 
since these engines are a small but significant contributor to HC 
inventories in the areas, EPA requests comment on lower HC standards 
such as those described in the proposal for onhighway heavy-duty 
vehicles (section B.(3)(b) of this appendix).
    Once again paralleling the onhighway heavy-duty vehicle provisions, 
EPA proposes to require nonroad equipment using engines over 37 kw to 
have inherently low evaporative emissions. Qualifying as low 
evaporative would require a demonstration that the equipment does not 
have the potential for significant evaporative emissions when operating 
in high temperature conditions. The demonstration (via testing or 
engineering analysis) would be based on a maximum emission level of 5 
grams for combined diurnal (adjusted to a nominal 20 gallon fuel tank 
volume), hot soak, running loss, and resting loss emissions, without an 
evaporative control system. Diurnal emissions would be based on the 
engine and fuel system being exposed to ambient heating from 72 deg. to 
96 deg. F with a 40 percent fill of 9 psi RVP fuel, or the parallel 
California requirements of 65 deg. to 105 deg. F using 7 psi RVP fuel 
(if gasoline is used). EPA would have the option of testing to confirm 
the results. This requirement will ensure that evaporative emissions 
remain low in use, which is especially important given there is no 
inspection and maintenance program for these engines.
    EPA data show most heavy-duty nonroad applications at or above 37 
kw use diesel fuel or liquefied petroleum gas (propane). Engines 
operating on these fuels are likely to be able to comply with the low 
evaporative requirement without modification. The low evaporative 
requirement, therefore, would affect the small portion of the nonroad 
fleet operating on gasoline and would prevent other changes in the 
makeup of the existing fleet that could increase the potential for 
evaporative emissions. In applications where gasoline-fueled engines 
are used, new engines in this size range would have to be redesigned to 
operate low evaporative. Very low volatility gasoline could be 
investigated as an option to use of diesel or other fuels.
    EPA seeks comment on other options that could provide assurance 
that hydrocarbon emissions would not increase from these engines and 
that a shift to high volatility gasoline engines would not occur. 
Commenters should review the treatment of light-duty vehicles under the 
enhanced in-use compliance program (section A. of this appendix).
    c. Test requirements. EPA is proposing to conduct certification and 
enforcement testing of nonroad heavy-duty engines regulated under this 
program using the federal nonroad procedures for NOX and 
hydrocarbon emission measurement expected to be finalized by May 30, 
1994, except that test fuels would be based on applicable California 
specifications. The eight mode steady state duty-cycle and other test 
procedures that will be finalized in the national rule for CI engines 
are proposed here to apply to both compression-ignition and spark-
ignition engines, regardless of fuel type. Exhaust hydrocarbon 
measurements would be quantified as nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC), or 
other fuel specific equivalents. Assembly-line testing would be 
performed under EPA's Selective Enforcement Audit testing program as 
described in 40 CFR part 89 subpart F.
    Since the test procedure being proposed today is a steady-state 
procedure, it may not result in control designs for nonroad engines 
that produce the degree of in-use emissions reductions expected. For 
example, spark-ignition engines can exhibit very different emissions 
characteristics on different test cycles, such as cycles with transient 
operating conditions. The Agency is also concerned that the 8-mode test 
may be inadequate for verifying the compliance of CI engines with the 
NMHC and NOX standards proposed here, as discussed in the May 17, 
1993 nationwide nonroad proposal.
    Because of these concerns, the Agency will monitor engines produced 
and certified very carefully to be assured that engines do, in fact, 
yield proportional in-use emissions reductions. The Agency will also 
remain alert to the possible use of defeat devices or design approaches 
that result in non-proportional emissions reductions under operating 
conditions that are outside the test procedure operating conditions.
    Additionally, the Agency is engaged in a program to characterize 
the in-use operation of nonroad engines. This program will allow EPA to 
develop representative duty cycles, evaluate the emissions impact of 
those cycles and determine which cycle will best ensure engine designs 
that will yield the expected level of in-use control. The Agency may 
change the duty cycle used to test nonroad engines in a subsequent 
rulemaking if the Agency determines that such a change is needed to 
assure that projected emission reductions actually occur in use.
    Manufacturers of engines subject to the inherently low evaporative 
emissions requirement would submit test results or an engineering 
evaluation to demonstrate that the certified vehicles have inherently 
low evaporative emissions. Test procedures are described in EPA Clean 
Fuel Fleet program regulations (58 FR 11888, March 1, 1993).
    The standards and procedures proposed for enhanced nonroad heavy-
duty engines would apply equally to certification and vehicle recall 
testing. EPA requests comment on these test procedures, especially on 
the use of the steady-state test for spark ignition engines.
4. Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) Program
    As mentioned earlier, EPA is not proposing I/M requirements for 
nonroad engines. Developing a new I/M program for the diverse set of 
applications involved would be a very difficult and complex undertaking 
and would present significant testing and administrative burdens. 
However, an in-use testing program (such as I/M) would allow EPA to 
reconsider the need to require nonroad engines to be low evaporative 
and the need for the nonroad engine rebuild requirements. EPA therefore 
requests comment on the feasibility and desirability of adopting an I/M 
program for heavy-duty nonroad engines covered under the enhanced in-
use compliance program. The I/M program could apply to any or all 
nonroad engines over 50 hp sold for use in California's designated FIP 
areas. The reader is referred to the light-duty vehicle I/M discussion 
(section A.(4) of this appendix) for a detailed discussion of such 
enhanced vehicle requirements as geographic scope, testing, enhanced I/
M threshold, manufacturer liability, tracking of enhanced I/M test 
results, threshold calculation, data collection, and manufacturer 
notification of liability.
    Commenters recommending a nonroad I/M program should comment on the 
proper I/M test for heavy-duty nonroad engines and whether the 
capabilities for such tests would be needed at every facility. They 
should also comment on what the specifications for such a facility 
would be and whether any such facility could handle all types of 
nonroad equipment. An I/M program for nonroad engines would apply for 
the full operating life of the engine.
5. Nonroad Engine Rebuild Requirements
    As with onhighway engines, nonroad engines are used for periods of 
time greatly exceeding the proposed useful life for nonroad engines (10 
years, or 8000 hours, whichever comes first). For this reason, EPA 
proposes to apply the full rebuild program described for onhighway 
heavy-duty vehicles (section B.(4) of this appendix) to enhanced 
nonroad engines. As with onhighway engines, nonroad engines will not be 
subject to an I/M program and EPA is concerned about the possible 
adverse effect of engine rebuilding on the emissions from engines 
certified to the enhanced nonroad engine standards. If these engines 
are rebuilt improperly, they may have very high emissions which could 
outweigh many of the emissions benefits of the FIP programs.
    EPA requests comments on all aspects of this proposal, especially 
on any aspects of the onhighway heavy-duty engine rebuild program which 
are inappropriate for nonroad engines.
6. Recall Program
    EPA proposes to conduct all aspects of the enhanced nonroad engine 
recall program in the same manner as the enhanced onhighway recall 
program, as highlighted below. Interested readers should review the 
light-duty vehicle recall provisions (section A.(5) of this appendix) 
and the heavy-duty vehicle recall provisions (section B.(6) of this 
appendix) for additional details regarding this program.
    Nonroad engines will be recall tested using certification test 
procedures and fuels discussed above in section C.(3)(c). As for the 
other enhanced vehicle programs, EPA proposes to test nonroad engines 
unless they have been subject to obvious abuse or tampering. If there 
are particular usage characteristics that could contribute to in-use 
emissions failures, manufacturers must consider them in the design of 
their products. For example, nonroad engines are likely to be used in 
environmental conditions that may include rough terrain, high levels of 
dust, and exposure to water. EPA would not consider exposure to such 
conditions grounds for excluding engines from the recall test sample. 
The Agency believes that addressing these challenges is appropriate and 
necessary to provide assurance that applicable emissions standards 
continue to be met in actual use throughout the life of the engine.
    In connection with the engine rebuilding requirements described 
above, EPA also proposes to conduct recall testing throughout the 
operating life of engines. EPA believes that this is the most 
appropriate way to ensure that engines are meeting the enhanced nonroad 
engine standards in use. For recall testing after the end of the 
original useful life, EPA will group engines by the certified 
configuration. Any subsequent recall orders will hold the certifier of 
that engine configuration responsible for failure to comply with 
applicable emissions standards. Remedial actions would be solely the 
responsibility of the certifier.
    EPA requests comments on all aspects of the enhanced in-use 
compliance recall program for nonroad engines, including the recall 
provisions that have been proposed for onhighway heavy- duty vehicles 
and light-duty vehicles.
7. Fleet Averaging Program
    Like the heavy-duty onhighway program, the enhanced in-use 
compliance program for nonroad equipment will reduce emissions as 
projected only if new equipment is purchased and old equipment is 
retired at historical rates. Additionally, the use requirements which 
apply in the FIP areas must be obeyed to be effective. If old equipment 
is kept longer than in the past, the emissions reductions could be 
substantially less. These reductions are critical for achieving 
attainment; therefore, EPA is proposing fleet average and sticker 
programs to ensure traditional turnover rates and usage patterns 
continue. Due to the inherent complexities of such a program, among 
other things, EPA is also considering and requesting comment on a 
statewide nonroad program with sales requirements. Details of this 
alternative program are provided at the end of this fleet averaging 
section.
    Just as with heavy-duty onhighway engines, EPA is proposing to 
ensure that turnover is maintained by implementing a declining fleet 
average NOX emissions program. Under the proposed fleet average 
program, if a fleet's turnover rate falls behind the historic average 
turnover rate for nonroad equipment, then an emissions surcharge will 
be assessed on the additional NOX emissions caused by the higher 
emitting engines. The fleet average NOX emissions level allowed is 
reduced each calendar year to reflect the appropriate turnover rates.
    Owners of any nonroad equipment (hereafter fleet owners) would 
determine the total NOX emissions from their equipment by adding 
up the annual amount of NOX emitted by each piece of equipment. 
The annual amount of NOX emitted by a piece of equipment is 
determined by reference to its expected emissions based on the 
equipment class and model year, as delineated in the table below. An 
average would be computed by dividing by the number of pieces of 
equipment. These averages would then be compared to the average which 
would occur if normal turnover was maintained (see the table below). 
EPA is proposing to determine the emissions levels and averages 
required using the same seven classes of nonroad equipment described 
above in section C.(3)(a). These classes are based on total emissions 
from equipment and were developed to ensure that any tradeoff between 
equipment due to averaging which occurs is emissions neutral. The 
target average emissions level would be reduced each calendar year. If 
the actual emission rate exceeded the fleet average standard in any 
year, an emissions surcharge would be applied to the excess amount of 
emissions for that year. As with the heavy-duty onhighway engine 
program the surcharge is based on $10,000 per ton of NOX 
emissions.
    The table below shows how to calculate the fleet average emission 
rates for the first two classes of nonroad equipment. (The reader is 
directed to the regulations or the docket for similar information for 
the remaining classes of nonroad equipment.) For each equipment class, 
annual emission levels are provided for model year groups which have 
different applicable NOX emission standards. The numbers represent 
annual emissions of NOX in tons for equipment in each category and 
must be multiplied by the number of engines in that category in a fleet 
to get total emissions. Adding each column and dividing by the total 
number of engines in each class will yield the fleet's average per-
engine NOX emissions for that category. 

 Calculation of Fleet NOX Emissions for the First Two Classes of Nonroad
                                 Engines                                
                                 [tons]                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Emissions from     Emissions from 
       Model year grouping           class I nonroad    class II nonroad
                                         engines            engines     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999+.............................        a# x 0.0062          # x 0.027
1998..............................          # x 0.028           # x 0.12
pre-1998..........................          # x 0.037           # x 0.17
                                                                        
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total actual emissions b......                                      
                                   -------------------------------------
Fleet average emissions per                                             
 nonroad enginec..................                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a``#'' represents the number of nonroad engines in the given fleet for  
  the specific model year/equipment class grouping.                     
bMultiply the number of affected nonroad engines in the given fleet for 
  the specific model year/equipment class grouping by the listed        
  emissions rate and sum down.                                          
cFleet average emissions per nonroad engine equals the total actual     
  emissions for an equipment class divided by the total number of       
  affected nonroad engines for that equipment class in the given fleet. 

    The numbers in the table above (and the similar numbers contained 
in the regulations for the other classes of nonroad equipment) reflect 
usage patterns for nonroad engines as described in EPA's draft 
Regulatory Support Document for the national nonroad rule. They reflect 
typical annual hours of use and load for each equipment type and 
applicable emissions standards. Further information regarding the 
calculation of these estimates is available in the Docket for this 
FIP.\117\ EPA did not incorporate any seasonal adjustment for nonroad 
equipment that may only be used in the non-ozone season. EPA invites 
comment on whether there are any types of equipment affected that are 
used in FIP areas only under conditions that preclude ozone violations 
(for example, snow grooming equipment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\``Calculation of Average Emission Rates for Heavy-Duty 
Onhighway and Nonroad Fleet Averaging Programs,'' EPA memo from 
Chris Lieske to Joanne Goldhand, February 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The table below (``Average NOX Emissions Allowed by Calendar 
Year for Class I Nonroad Engines'') lists the allowable average 
NOX emissions for the first class of nonroad equipment during each 
calendar year for the South Coast and Ventura. The charts for 
Sacramento (which reflect turnover to 2.5 g/bhp-hr engines rather than 
to 1.5 g/bhp-hr engines) and those for the other classes of equipment 
are included in the regulations and are calculated in the same manner. 
These numbers are derived from the same average activity levels, load 
factors (as an average percent of rated horsepower), and uncontrolled 
emission levels described above. In addition, historical fleet turnover 
rates are incorporated in the fleet averages. Once the average actual 
emissions is determined for a fleet, it would be compared to the number 
in this chart corresponding to the appropriate class and year. That 
number represents the average that would occur if normal turnover of 
nonroad engines was maintained. These estimates are based on average 50 
percent survival rates calculated for the EPA Nonroad Study and the 
documents associated with the national nonroad program NPRM benefits 
analysis.\118\ Further information regarding the calculation of these 
numbers may be found in the Docket for this FIP. EPA invites comment on 
the use of these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\``Calculation of Average Emission Rates for Heavy-Duty 
Onhighway and Nonroad Fleet Averaging Programs,'' EPA memo from 
Chris Lieske to Joanne Goldhand, February 1994.

   Average NOX Emissions Allowed By Calendar Year For Class I Nonroad   
                                 Engines                                
                                 [tons]                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Calendar year                           Class I   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.....................................................         0.035 
2001.....................................................         0.033 
2002.....................................................         0.031 
2003.....................................................         0.029 
2004.....................................................         0.027 
2005.....................................................         0.026 
2006.....................................................         0.024 
2007.....................................................         0.022 
2008.....................................................         0.021 
2009.....................................................         0.019 
2010.....................................................         0.017 
2011.....................................................         0.016 
2012.....................................................         0.015 
2013.....................................................         0.014 
2014.....................................................         0.013 
2015.....................................................         0.012 
2016.....................................................         0.011 
2017.....................................................         0.010 
2018.....................................................         0.0093
2019.....................................................         0.0088
2020.....................................................         0.0082
2021.....................................................         0.0078
2022.....................................................         0.0074
2023.....................................................         0.0070
2024.....................................................         0.0068
2025.....................................................         0.0065
2026.....................................................         0.0064
2027.....................................................         0.0063
2028 and later...........................................         0.0062 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compliance with the fleet average standard would be determined by 
comparing the values in the second table with those calculated using 
the first. If the actual values are below the standard for that year, 
no emission surcharge is due. If the emissions level for any class of 
nonroad engines exceeds the standard for that year, a surcharge would 
be due based on the difference. The surcharge would be determined by 
multiplying the difference by the number of pieces of equipment in the 
class for the fleet and then by the surcharge rate of $10,000 per ton. 
It is important to note that so long as a fleet continues to replace 
equipment at historical rates, no surcharge would be charged.
    In most other ways the declining average NOX program for 
nonroad engines is similar to that for onhighway engines. They will 
both begin in 2000. In order to provide flexibility, EPA is proposing 
to allow individual fleets to join together into larger fleets for 
determining compliance with the fleet standard. (Because of the 
different NOX standards for the Sacramento nonattainment area, 
individual fleets in Sacramento may only join with other fleets in 
Sacramento. Likewise, individual fleets in the South Coast Air Basin 
and Ventura County may only join together with fleets in the South 
Coast Air Basin and Ventura County.) This provision should accommodate 
those fleets which may turn over slower or more quickly than the 
average, notwithstanding any effects of the enhanced vehicle program. 
Additionally, it could benefit very small fleets. The flexibility to 
join together should ease the impact of the steady reduction in the 
fleet average emissions allowed on any fleets with special compliance 
problems. However, EPA is not proposing to allow averaging between 
different nonroad equipment classes because, due to the very different 
uses, there are few benefits to outweigh the complications an averaging 
scheme could create.
    For the purpose of calculating surcharges, EPA will assume that all 
engines certifying at or below 1.5 g/bhp-hr NOX have emission 
factors of 1.5 g/bhp-hr and that all engines certifying above 1.5 g/
bhp-hr NOX but at or below 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOX have emission 
factors of 2.5 g/bhp-hr. However, if EPA permits use of engines 
certified at or below 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOX in the South Coast or 
Ventura after payment of a lifetime emissions surcharge, as described 
above in section C.(3)(a), such engines will be treated as if they were 
1.5 g/bhp-hr engines for the purpose of in-use fleet average emissions 
calculations.
    a. Administration of the fleet average nonroad program. The fleet 
average requirement would be enforced through a program very similar to 
annual registration for onhighway vehicles. Nonroad registration is 
proposed to occur every January beginning in 1999. At that time, owners 
would bring documents representing their equipment to EPA along with a 
preliminary calculation of the surcharge due, if any. EPA would issue 
stickers for the equipment in the fleet as well as a certification that 
the fleet complies for that year.
    Each piece of equipment that falls under the provisions of this 
section would be required to have an EPA sticker prominently displayed 
on it to be used or stored (except under certain conditions) in the FIP 
areas. EPA's regulations describe the size and color of the sticker and 
its placement. Individual stickers would be issued for each engine 
document (as described below) that has been reviewed by EPA. The engine 
documents would be designed to be marked each year in such a way that a 
fleet owner would be unable to use the same document to obtain two 
stickers. Documents would also show the name of the equipment owner, 
and only EPA could reissue documents when ownership is transferred. 
This system would be set up to limit the potential market for stolen 
documentation.
    The documentation required must include the serial number of the 
engine, the equipment type, the horsepower rating, and the certified 
emission standard. For equipment produced after the effective date of 
this FIP, EPA proposes to require manufacturers to supply the 
documentation to purchasers just as do vehicle manufacturers. In the 
case of existing equipment, documentation would be created by EPA based 
on sworn statements by the owner. The documentation must also include 
the useful life renewal certificates as described in the rebuild 
program (for 1999 and later model year nonroad engines that are beyond 
their original useful life period) and proof that any necessary repairs 
have been performed by an authorized party for any nonroad engine 
subject to a recall action. Owners would be required to have documented 
all engines in their fleet by or during the first year of registration 
cycle in January 1999. Only those pre-1999 nonroad engines shown in a 
California fleet in that first year may be re-registered to be used in 
the FIP areas at any time after 1999. EPA retains the right to conduct 
physical inspections of the engines or deputize local government 
agencies to do so.
    As with onhighway registration programs, stickers will be applied 
by owners since the equipment could not be brought into the surcharge 
office. To prevent cheating through the placement of stickers on 
improper equipment, stickers would be serially numbered and the sticker 
number recorded on the engine document and on a separate card with all 
fleet engine serial numbers which would be given to the owner. Stickers 
would also describe the engine type and serial number. EPA proposes 
that it or its deputies be able to inspect any site where affected 
engines are used or stored in the FIP areas and require surrender of 
such documentation.
    EPA is proposing a system based on paper documents. However, a 
computerized registration data system, similar to the types of 
registration systems used for onhighway vehicles is possible. Such a 
system has the potential to minimize transaction problems, assist in 
title transfers, and reduce problems associated with sole reliance on 
physical documents. It would also require more resources. EPA is open 
to working with the California Department of Motor Vehicles to develop 
such a system and invites comments on its benefits and feasibility.
    This sticker system will apply only to engines operated in the FIP 
areas. However, the system is proposed to be accessible statewide to 
accommodate leasing companies which own a significant portion of the 
nonroad equipment used in the state. New nonroad equipment not meeting 
the enhanced in-use compliance program requirements will be allowed to 
be sold even in the FIP areas to accommodate distributors and such 
leasing companies. EPA plans to monitor sales and will target audits on 
any FIP area purchaser of significant numbers of non-FIP area 
equipment. EPA is proposing to require use of only stickered equipment 
in FIP areas year round. Such a program eases enforcement and is 
necessary, at least in Los Angeles, to prevent ozone exceedances. 
Nonstickered equipment will be allowed only if it is being transported 
through, or out of, the FIP area (and remains in a loaded condition 
while in the FIP area) or is being stored on an equipment leasing or 
distributor's lot for later use outside the FIP area. Such lots should 
not be on or adjacent to any job site in the FIP area.
    EPA will have the authority to enter premises to inspect equipment, 
stickers, and other documentation. The unauthorized presence or 
operation of equipment without an appropriate sticker, the application 
of a sticker to any engine except the one for which it was designated, 
the use of false documents to obtain an EPA sticker, or the 
falsification of any documentation required under this section is 
strictly prohibited and will be punishable by fines of up to $25,000.
    b. Optional state-wide program. EPA is concerned that the FIP areas 
may be too small to create sufficient market incentive for equipment 
manufacturers to develop and offer for sale equipment meeting the 
proposed standards and that therefore, little equipment would be 
provided meeting the requirements of this program. EPA is further 
concerned that even if there are such engines, that the availability of 
more traditional equipment in areas adjacent to the FIP areas will 
create incentives for people to attempt to avoid the fleet average 
requirements. Finally, EPA is concerned that FIP residents may choose 
to comply with the first years of the fleet average requirements by 
purchasing extra nationally-regulated engines right before the start of 
the program. While such a strategy does not impact air quality, 
provided full compliance occurs, it could be extremely destabilizing 
for the equipment dealers and could put the viability of dealers' 
businesses at risk.
    To address these concerns, EPA is requesting comment on various 
revisions to the enhanced in-use compliance program for nonroad 
engines. First, as described in the standards discussion (section 
C.(3)), the Agency is requesting comment on a 1.5 g/bhp-hr NOX 
standard for all three FIP areas. This revision would eliminate any 
problems that a Sacramento-only standard would create for 
manufacturers. Unfortunately, it would not address most of the other 
concerns.
    Another option is to apply the enhanced nonroad emission standards 
statewide (including the 1.5 g/bhp-hr NOX standard, the exhaust 
NMHC standard and the low evaporative requirements described in section 
C.(3)). Under this approach, only equipment certified to the enhanced 
nonroad engine standards would be available in California beginning in 
1999. The statewide requirement expands the market available for engine 
and equipment manufacturers and should provide them sufficient 
incentive to offer all types of nonroad equipment. Further, in a 
statewide program, the size of the state and the location of the FIP 
areas should counteract any incentive to cheat by using higher emitting 
equipment available in neighboring areas.
    Unfortunately, statewide application will not eliminate the 
possibility of significant pre-FIP purchasing and corresponding lack of 
purchasing in the early years of the program and the destabilizing 
effect on the economy both could have. EPA is therefore asking for 
comment on a requirement that engine manufacturers sell a similar 
fraction of their engines in the state in the FIP years as they did on 
average for the three years preceding the FIP. Fractional requirements 
would be converted into numerical requirements to facilitate averaging 
and trading among engine types and manufacturers. No banking would be 
allowed, since banking would create the destabilizing problems the 
program was designed to avoid. Trading and averaging permitted would be 
modeled on the current averaging, and trading program for heavy-duty 
on-highway engines (55 FR 30584, July 26, 1990). EPA is proposing to 
apply this requirement to engine manufacturers, rather than equipment 
manufacturers, because the equipment manufacturers cannot control the 
emissions level of their equipment without the cooperation of the 
engine manufacturers.
    EPA is also considering a more flexible sales requirement to ensure 
that natural economic fluctuations do not affect compliance. Such a 
program would require that in the first year of the program 
manufacturers sell at least eighty percent of the number of engines 
they sold in the previous year. In the following several years the 
sales requirement could be reduced to seventy, sixty and fifty percent 
of the sales in the 1998 model year. Finally, once the transition to 
FIP engines was complete and market fluctuations were unlikely, the 
sales requirement could be dropped entirely.
    Either form of the option would diminish somewhat the importance of 
the requirements for registration, fleet average determination, 
stickers and other enforcement programs directed towards the equipment 
user. Presumably, if manufacturers are selling the new equipment at 
historical rates, it is getting used and is replacing the old equipment 
at historical rates. EPA would consider, therefore, if it adopted a 
strict sales requirement, dropping the fleet average program and 
sticker enforcement. The Agency almost certainly would need to maintain 
a nonroad registration program as a check on the efficacy of the sales 
requirement. If the requirements proved to be ineffective in 
maintaining historical turnover, then EPA would have to implement a 
fleet average requirement in order to ensure the attainment targets 
were met.
    While EPA acknowledges that sales requirements can force 
manufacturers to offer discounts and otherwise subsidize their engines, 
they are in a better position to accommodate the impacts of the program 
than fleets or dealers. Manufacturers sell throughout the nation and 
can recover costs by spreading small cost increases across a larger 
market than can fleets or dealers. On the other hand, lack of business 
in one area for a few years could put many dealers, which operate in 
much smaller areas, out of business. It is important to note that so 
long as the turnover rates stay at historical levels through the 
implementation of the FIP, both programs would be transparent to the 
regulated parties.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 14, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 52 and 81 of title 
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. 40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended by adding a new subpart 
GGG consisting of Secs. 52.2950 through 52.3002 and Appendices A and B, 
to read as follows:

Subpart GGG--California Federal Implementation Plans

Sec.
52.2950  General FIP provisions.
52.2951  New technology measures applicable to VOC and NOX.
52.2952  Stationary and area source caps (Sacramento).
52.2953  Stationary and area source caps (Ventura).
52.2954  Stationary and area source caps (South Coast).
52.2955  Stationary and area source NOX cap rules (Ventura).
52.2956  Stationary and area source NOX cap rules (South Coast) 
[Reserved].
52.2957  Consumer product rules.
52.2958  Aerosol coating products.
52.2959  Architectural coatings.
52.2960  Pesticides.
52.2961  Stationary and area source rules.
52.2962  Enhanced in-use compliance program for light- and medium-
duty vehicles.
52.2963  Enhanced inspection/maintenance program.
52.2964  Importation of vehicles into California.
52.2965  Requirements for engines past their useful life.
52.2966  Enhanced in--use compliance heavy-duty engine and vehicle 
program.
52.2967-52.2968  [Reserved]
52.2969  Nonroad vehicles and engines, on-highway motorcycles.
52.2970  Civil aircraft operations.
52.2971  Locomotives.
52.2972  Military aircraft operations.
52.2973  Ships and ports.
52.2974  [Reserved]
52.2975  Enhanced in-use compliance program for nonroad engines over 
37 kW.
52.2976-52.2998  [Reserved]
52.2999  Employee commute options program rule (Sacramento).
52.3000  General permit requirements (Sacramento).
52.3001  New source review (Sacramento).
52.3002  Emissions reduction credit authorization (Sacramento).

Appendix A to Subpart GGG of Part 52--Counties, Partial Counties, and 
Zip Codes for Partial Counties Included in the I/M Program

Appendix B to Subpart GGG of Part 52--Start-up and Final IM 240 
Cutpoints for Light- and Heavy-duty Vehicles for the California FIP

Subpart GGG--California Federal Implementation Plans


Sec. 52.2950  General FIP provisions.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following 
definitions shall apply.
    Administrator means the Administrator of EPA or his or her 
authorized representative.
    Capture efficiency means the weight per unit time of VOC entering a 
capture system and delivered to a control device divided by the weight 
per unit time of total VOC generated by a source of VOC, expressed as a 
percentage.
    Capture system means all equipment (including, but not limited to, 
hoods ducts, fans, booths, ovens, dryers, etc.) that contains, 
collects, and transports an air pollutant to a control device.
    Clean Air Act means 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
    Control device means equipment (such as an incinerator or carbon 
adsorber) used to reduce, by destruction or removal, the amount of air 
pollutant(s) in an air stream prior to discharge to the ambient air.
    Control efficiency means the product of the capture efficiency 
times the destruction or removal efficiency of a control system, 
expressed as a percentage.
    Control system means a combination of one or more capture system(s) 
and control device(s) working in concert to reduce discharges of 
pollutants to the ambient air.
    Destruction or removal efficiency means the amount of VOC destroyed 
or removed by a control device expressed as a percentage of the total 
amount of VOC entering the device.
    EPA means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 
Reports submitted to EPA shall be addressed care of U.S. EPA, Region IX 
(A-1), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    Exempt compounds means any of the following compounds: methane; 
ethane; chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22); trifluoromethane (HFC-23); 
dichlorotrifluoroethane (HCFC-123); tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a); 
dichlorofluoroethane (HCFC-141b); chlorodifluoroethane (HCFC-142b); 2-
chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafluoroethane (HFC-
125); methylene chloride; 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform); 
trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113); dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12); 
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11); dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114); 
chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115); 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134); 
1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a); 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a); or 
perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes: Cyclic, 
branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes; Cyclic, branched, 
or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations; Cyclic, 
branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no 
unsaturations; or Sulfur-containing perfluorocarbons with no 
unsaturations and with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine.
    Facility means all of the pollutant-emitting activities that are 
located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties and are under 
the control of the same person (or persons under common control).
    Grams of VOC per liter of coating, less water and less exempt 
compounds means the weight of VOC per combined volume of VOC and 
coating solids and can be calculated by the following equation:

TP05MY94.003

Where: Ws=weight of volatile compounds in grams;
Ww=weight of water in grams;
Wes=weight of exempt compounds in grams;
Vm=volume of material in liters;
Vw=volume of water in liters; and
Ves=volume of exempt compounds in liters.
    Person means any firm, business establishment, association, 
partnership, corporation or individual, whether acting as principal, 
agent, employee, or other capacity including any governmental entity or 
charitable organization.
    Rate per calendar year means the amount applied between 12 a.m. 
January 1 and 11:59 p.m. December 31.
    Rate per day means the amount applied between 12 a.m. and 11:59 
p.m. on the same calendar day.
    Transfer efficiency means the ratio of the weight of coating solids 
deposited on an object to the total weight of coating solids used in a 
coating application step, expressed as a percentage.
    Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any compound of carbon, 
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic 
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in 
atmospheric photochemical reactions other than those defined as exempt 
compounds. These exempt compounds have been determined to have 
negligible photochemical reactivity. For purposes of determining 
compliance with emission limits, VOC will be measured by test methods 
given in this section. Where such a method also measures compounds with 
negligible photochemical reactivity, an owner or operator may exclude 
these negligibly reactive compounds when determining compliance with an 
emission standard. However, the U.S. EPA may require such owner or 
operator, as a precondition to excluding these compounds for purposes 
of determining compliance, to provide monitoring methods and monitoring 
results demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the U.S. EPA, the amount 
of negligibly reactive compounds in the source's emissions.


Sec. 52.2951  New technology measures applicable to VOC and NOX.

    (a) The applicable area of control is the South Coast Air Basin 
Nonattainment Area for ozone, as defined in 40 CFR 81.305. For purposes 
of this regulation, the definitions of Sec. 52.2950 shall apply.
    (b) Stationary and area source VOC cap categories to be controlled. 
For the purpose of this paragraph, the following categories of VOC 
emissions sources shall constitute the control categories. The 
categories are further defined in Sec. 52.2954. Facilities which emit 
greater than or equal to 4 tons per year of VOCs from any of the 
following processes or combination of these processes are affected:
    (1) Industrial and commercial solvents and coatings;1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\In the alternative, rules may apply to any manufacturer, or 
consortium of manufacturers, of industrial solvents or industrial/
commercial coatings for sale or use within the State of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) VOC emissions associated with the manufacturing of products;
    (3) Disposal of materials containing VOCs;
    (4) Commercial food preparation and/or baking; and
    (5) Petroleum and natural gas extraction, processing, and storage.
    (c) Promulgation schedule and VOC reduction requirements for 
stationary and area sources. EPA commits to publish rules to control 
VOC emissions from the sources described in paragraph (b) of this 
section according to the following schedule: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Promulgation  Effective    Percent  
             Proposal                                         reduction 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/1/2004..........................     1/1/2005    1/1/2007  2007-2008--
                                                                     60%
1/1/2006..........................     1/1/2007    1/1/2009   2009--90% 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The percent reduction requirement is a cumulative percent reduction 
from the baseline VOC emissions as defined in Sec. 52.2954.
    (d) Stationary and area source NOX categories to be 
controlled. For the purpose of this paragraph, the following categories 
of NOX emissions sources shall constitute the control categories. 
The categories are further defined in Sec. 52.2955. Facilities which 
emit greater than or equal to 4 tons per year of NOX from any of 
the following processes or combination of these processes are affected:
    (1) Boilers, heaters, furnaces, ovens, dryers, incinerators, test 
cells, and any solid, liquid or gaseous fueled equipment with a maximum 
rated capacity:
    (i) Greater than or equal to 40 but less than 500 million Btu per 
hour and an annual heat input greater than 90 billion Btu per year;
    (ii) 500 million Btu per hour or more irrespective of annual heat 
input;
    (2) Any internal combustion engine with rated brake horsepower 
(bhp) greater than or equal to 50 bhp, regardless of operating time;
    (3) Any gas turbine rated greater than or equal to 0.2 megawatts 
excluding any emergency standby equipment or peaking unit;
    (4) Any petroleum refinery fluid catalytic cracking unit;
    (5) Any petroleum refinery tail gas unit;
    (6) Any kiln or calciner with a rated process weight greater than 
or equal to 10 tons per hour;
    (7) Any equipment burning or incinerating solid fuels or materials;
    (8) Any sulfuric acid production unit;
    (9) Any existing equipment using NOX CEMS or that is required 
to install CEMS under State or local regulation to be implemented as of 
[Insert date of publication of the final rule];
    (10) Any NOX source elected by the Facility Permit holder or 
required by the State or local agency to be monitored with a CEMS;
    (11) Any NOX source for which NOX emissions reported to 
the State or local agency were equal to or greater than 4 tons per year 
for the calendar year 1990.
    (e) Promulgation schedule and NOX reduction requirements for 
stationary and area sources. EPA commits to publish rules to control 
NOX emissions from the sources described in paragraph (d) of this 
section according to the following schedule:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Promulgation  Effective    Percent  
             Proposal                                         reduction 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/1/2004..........................     1/1/2005    1/1/2007  2007-2008--
                                                                     50%
1/1/2006..........................     1/1/2007    1/1/2009   2009--70% 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The percent reduction requirement is a cumulative percent reduction 
from the baseline NOX emissions as defined in Sec. 52.2955.
    (f) Consumer products, aerosol paints, architectural coatings, and 
pesticides. For the purposes of this paragraph, the definitions of 
subject source categories in Secs. 52.2957, 52.2958, 52.2959, and 
52.2960 apply.
    (g) Promulgation schedule and VOC reduction requirements for 
consumer products, aerosol paints, architectural coatings, and 
pesticides. EPA commits to publish rules to control VOC emissions from 
the sources described in paragraph (c) of this section according to the 
following schedule: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Promulgation  Effective    Percent  
             Proposal                                         reduction 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/1/2004..........................     1/1/2005    1/1/2007  2007-2008--
                                                                     50%
1/1/2006..........................     1/1/2007    1/1/2009   2009--80% 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The percent reduction requirement is a cumulative percent reduction 
from year 2003 baseline VOC emissions.
    (h) Remaining stationary and area sources of VOC and NOX. For 
purposes of this paragraph, subject sources include all stationary and 
area sources exempt from the provisions of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), 
and (e) of this section. Subject sources include but are not limited to 
gasoline service stations, livestock waste operations, commercial food 
production and preparation, printing shops, miscellaneous coating and 
solvent cleaning operations, miscellaneous chemical/product 
manufacturing, bakeries, waste disposal sites, publicly owned treatment 
works, waste burning operations, miscellaneous fuel combustion sources, 
and miscellaneous fugitive emission sources.
    (i) Promulgation schedule and reduction requirements for stationary 
and area sources of VOC and NOX. EPA commits to publish rules to 
control VOC and NOX emissions from the sources described in 
paragraph (h) of this section according to the following schedule: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Promulgation  Effective    Percent  
             Proposal                                         reduction 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/1/2004..........................     1/1/2005    1/1/2007  2007-2008--
                                                                     50%
1/1/2006..........................     1/1/2007    1/1/2009   2009--80% 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The percent reduction requirement is a cumulative percent reduction 
from year 2003 baseline VOC emissions and from year 2003 baseline 
NOX emissions.
    (j) Mobile source VOC and NOX source categories. For purposes 
of this paragraph, subject sources comprise all onroad and nonroad 
vehicles and engines.
    (k) Promulgation schedule and VOC and NOX reduction 
requirements for mobile sources. EPA commits to publish rules to 
control VOC and NOX emissions from the sources described in 
paragraph (j) of this section according to the following schedule: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Promulgation  Effective    Percent  
             Proposal                                         reduction 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/1/2001..........................     1/1/2002    1/1/2006    2006--24%
                                                                VOC--19%
                                                                    NOX 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The percent reduction requirement is a further reduction from year 1990 
baseline VOC and NOX emissions, beyond all mobile source 
reductions required or credited in the California FIP as of [Insert 
date of publication of the final rule].
    (l) Contingency Measures. EPA commits to publish contingency 
measures by 1/1/1999 to achieve the cumulative percent reduction in VOC 
and NOX emissions from the sources described in paragraphs (b), 
(d), (f), (h), and (j) of this section, on the schedule set forth in 
paragraphs (c), (e), (g), (i), and (k) of this section, if the new 
technology measures are not developed or fail to achieve the emissions 
reductions specified in paragraphs (c), (e), (g), (i), and (k) of this 
section.


Sec. 52.2952  Stationary and area source caps (Sacramento).2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\EPA intends to issue a supplemental document in the Federal 
Register which addresses portions of proposed Sec. 52.2952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) General Provisions.
    (1) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to 
all stationary emission sources located in the ``control area'' as 
defined as the Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment area in 40 CFR 
81.305, and all other persons identified in subsequent applicability 
paragraphs in this section.
    (2) Compliance dates. Unless otherwise specified in this section, 
compliance with all requirements of this section is required as of 
[Insert date of publication of the final rule]. This paragraph (a)(2) 
shall not operate to provide additional time for compliance under 
section 113(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C 7413(d), for sources subject to 
compliance as of [Insert date of publication of the final rule].
    (3) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following 
definitions apply. All terms not defined herein shall have the meaning 
given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Actual emissions means the actual quantity of VOC emissions from an 
emissions source during a particular time period.
    Actual emissions rate means the actual quantity of VOC emissions 
from an emissions source per unit of actual production or throughput.
    Agency means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    Air contaminant means any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any 
odor, or any form of energy, that is capable of being released into the 
atmosphere from an emission source.
    Air pollution means the presence in the atmosphere of one or more 
air contaminants in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics 
and duration as to be injurious to human, plant, or animal life, to 
health, or to property, or to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment 
of life or property.
    Air pollution control equipment means any equipment or facility of 
a type intended to eliminate, prevent, reduce or control the emission 
of specified air contaminants to the atmosphere.
    Allowable emissions rate means the most stringent of the applicable 
standards in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61; the applicable implementation 
plan; or a federally enforceable permit.
    Baseline emissions means the emissions calculated using 1990 
emission inventory data in the affected FIP areas and adjusted for 
emission reductions projected to occur by the implementation year of 
the FIP cap program in the affected FIP area. The baseline shall be 
denominated in pounds per year of FIP cap pollutant (e.g., pounds of 
VOC per year) and monthly caps shall be prorated based on this data.
    Coating applicator means any equipment or device including but not 
limited to cloth, rollers, brushes, spray guns, or dip tanks used to 
apply a coating.
    Day means a period of consecutive 24 hours beginning at 12 a.m. 
(midnight) local time, or beginning at a time consistent with a 
facility's operating schedule.
    Emission rate means the total mass of VOCs released or discharged 
from an emissions source into the atmosphere per unit of production or 
throughput (e.g., pound VOC/gallon of coating solids).
    Emission source or source means any building, structure, facility, 
property, equipment, device, container, or any combination thereof, at, 
from, or by reason which VOC is emitted or discharged into the 
atmosphere.
    Facility means all of the pollutant-emitting activities which 
belong to the same industrial grouping, are located on one or more 
contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under the control of the 
same person (or persons under common control), except the activities of 
any vessel. Pollutant-emitting activities shall be considered as part 
of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the same ``Major 
Group'' (i.e., which have the same two-digit code) as described in the 
``Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987'' (National Technical 
Information Service order No. PB 87-10012).
    Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions that are 
enforceable by the Administrator including those requirements contained 
in permits issued pursuant to 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, except those 
terms or conditions designated as not federally enforceable; those 
requirements developed pursuant to 40 CFR parts 60 and 61; requirements 
within any applicable implementation plan; and any permit requirements 
established pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved 
pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, and 40 CFR 51.166.
    Incinerator means a combustion apparatus in which solid, semi-
solid, liquid, or gaseous combustible wastes are ignited and burned and 
from which the solid and gaseous residues contain little or no 
combustible material.
    Monitor means to measure and record.
    Organic compound means a chemical compound of carbon, excluding 
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides, 
carbonates, and ammonium carbonate.
    Organic vapor means the gaseous phase of an organic compound or a 
mixture of organic compounds present in the atmosphere.
    Owner or operator means any person who owns, operates, leases, 
controls, or supervises an emissions source or air pollution control 
equipment.
    Person means any individual, corporation, copartnership, firm, 
company, partnership, joint stock company, trust, association, State, 
municipality, political subdivision, or any other legal entity, or 
their legal representative, agent, or assigns.
    Process means any stationary emission source other than a fuel 
combustion emission source or an incinerator.
    Source means emission source.
    Standard conditions means a temperature of 20  deg.C (68  deg.F) 
and a pressure of 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg).
    Stationary emission source and Stationary source mean an emission 
source which is not self-propelled.
    (4) Test Methods and Procedures.
    (i) Coatings, Inks, and Fountain Solutions. The following test 
methods and procedures shall be used to determine the VOC content of as 
applied coatings, inks, and fountain solutions to determine compliance 
with the limitations set forth in this section.
    (A) Sampling. Samples collected for analyses shall be one-liter 
taken into a one-liter container at a location and time such that the 
sample will be representative of the coating as applied (i.e., the 
sample shall include any dilution solvent or other VOC added during the 
manufacturing process). The container must be tightly sealed 
immediately after the sample is taken. Any solvent or other VOC added 
after the sample is taken must be measured and accounted for in the 
calculations in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(C) of this section. For multiple 
package coatings, separate samples of each component shall be obtained. 
A mixed sample shall not be obtained as it will cure in the container. 
Sampling procedures shall follow the guidelines presented in:
    (1) ASTM D3925-81 (1985) Standard Practice for Sampling Liquid 
Paints and Related Pigment Coating. This practice is incorporated by 
reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) ASTM E300 Standard Practice for Sampling Industrial Chemicals. 
This practice is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (B) Analyses. The applicable analytical methods specified below 
shall be used to determine the composition of coatings, inks, or 
fountain solutions as applied.
    (1) Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A shall be used to 
determine the VOC content and density of coatings.
    (2) Method 24A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall be used to 
determine the VOC content and density of publication rotogravure 
printing inks and related coatings.
    (3) The following ASTM methods and practices are the analytical 
procedures for determining VOC:
    (i) ASTM D1475-85: Standard Test Method for Density of Paint, 
Varnish, Lacquer and Related Products. This test method is incorporated 
by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) ASTM D2369-87: Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of a 
Coating. This test method is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) 
of this section. The following minor modifications should be used for 
multicomponent coatings. All components of the coating are to be 
weighed in the proper proportion into the analysis container and mixed 
together just prior to analysis and the mixture is allowed to stand for 
at least one hour but no more than 24 hours prior to being oven dried 
at 110 degrees celsius for one hour.
    (iii) ASTM D3792-86: Standard Test Method for Water Content of 
Water-Reducible Paints by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph. 
This test method is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (iv) ASTM D4017-81 (1987): Standard Test Method for Water Content 
in Paints and Paint Materials by the Karl Fischer Method. This test 
method is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (v) ASTM D4457-85: Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Dichloromethane and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in Paints and Coatings by 
Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph. (The procedure delineated 
above can be used to develop protocols for any compounds specifically 
exempted from the definition of VOC.) This test method is incorporated 
by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (vi) ASTM D2697-86: Standard Test Method for Volume Non-volatile 
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings. This test method is incorporated 
by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (vii) ASTM E180-85: Standard Practice for Determining the Precision 
Data of ASTM Methods for Analysis and Testing of Industrial Chemicals. 
This practice is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (4) Use of an adaptation to any of the analytical methods specified 
in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(B)(1), (2), and (3) of this section may be 
approved by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis. An owner or 
operator must submit sufficient documentation for the Administrator to 
find that the analytical methods specified in paragraphs 
(a)(4)(i)(B)(1), (2), and (3) of this section will yield inaccurate 
results and that the proposed adaptation is appropriate.
    (C) Calculations. Calculations for determining the VOC content, 
water content, and the content of any compounds which are specifically 
exempted from the definition of VOC of coatings, inks, and fountain 
solutions as applied shall follow the guidance provided in the 
following documents.
    (1) ``A Guide for Surface Coating Calculation'' EPA-340/1-86-016 
(which is available from the National Technical Information Services, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (2) ``Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic 
Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink and Other Coatings'' (revised June 
1986) EPA-450/3-84-019 (which is available from the National Technical 
Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 
22161)
    (3) ``A Guide for Graphic Arts Calculations'' August 1988 EPA-340/
1-88-003 (which is available from the National Technical Information 
Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (ii) Automobile or Light-Duty Truck Test Protocol. The protocol for 
testing, including determining the transfer efficiency, of coating 
applicators at topcoat coating operations at an automobile assembly 
facility shall follow the procedure in: ``Protocol for Determining the 
Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Topcoat Operations'' December 1988 EPA-450/3-88-018 (which 
is available from the National Technical Information Services, 5285 
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161).
    (iii) Capture System Efficiency Test Protocols.
    (A) Applicability. The requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B) of 
this section shall apply to all VOC emitting processes employing a 
capture system except those cases noted below.
    (1) If a source installs a permanent total enclosure (PTE) that 
meets U.S.EPA specifications, and which directs all VOC to a control 
device, then the source is exempted from the requirements described in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B) of this section. The U.S.EPA specifications to 
determine whether a structure is considered a PTE are given in 
Procedure T of appendix B of 40 CFR 52.742. In this instance, the 
capture efficiency is assumed to be 100 percent and the source is still 
required to measure control efficiency using appropriate test methods 
as specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of this section.
    (2) If a source uses a control device designed to collect and 
recover VOC (e.g., carbon adsorber), an explicit measurement of capture 
efficiency is not necessary provided that the conditions given below 
are met. The overall control of the system can be determined by 
directly comparing the input liquid VOC to the recovered liquid VOC. 
The general procedure for use in this situation is given in Sec. 60.433 
of this chapter, with the following additional restrictions:
    (i) The source must be able to equate solvent usage with solvent 
recovery on a 24-hour (daily) basis, rather than a 30-day weighted 
average, within 72 hours following the 24-hour period. In addition, one 
of the following two criteria must be met:
    (ii) The solvent recovery system (i.e., capture and control system) 
must be dedicated to a single process, or
    (iii) If the solvent recovery system controls multiple processes, 
then the source must be able to demonstrate that the overall control 
(i.e., the total recovered solvent VOC divided by the sum of liquid VOC 
input to all processes venting to the control system) meets or exceeds 
the most stringent standard applicable for any process venting to the 
control system.
    (3) The following facilities are exempted from the requirements 
described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) of this section:
    (i) Automobile-related assembly facilities subject to the 
``Automobile or Light-Duty Truck Test Protocol'' described in paragraph 
(a)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) Heatset-web-offset lithographic printing units as defined in 
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
    (B) Specific Requirements. The capture efficiency of a process 
shall be measured using one of the four protocols given below. Any 
error margin associated with a test protocol may not be incorporated 
into the results of a capture efficiency test. If these techniques are 
not suitable for a particular process, then the source must present an 
alternative capture efficiency protocol and obtain approval for it by 
the Administrator as a SIP or FIP revision.
    (1) Gas/gas method using temporary total enclosure (TTE). The U.S. 
EPA specifications to determine whether a temporary enclosure is 
considered a TTE are given in Procedure T of appendix B of 40 CFR 
52.741. The capture efficiency equation to be used for this protocol 
is:

CE = Gw/(Gw + Fw)
where
CE = capture efficiency, decimal fraction
Gw = mass of VOC captured and delivered to control device using a 
TTE
Fw = mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from a TTE Procedure G.2 
contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain Gw. 
Procedure F.1 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain Fw.

    (2) Liquid/gas method using TTE. The U.S. EPA specifications to 
determine whether a temporary enclosure is considered a TTE are given 
in Procedure T of appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741. The capture efficiency 
equation to be used for this protocol is:

CE = (L-Fw)/L
where
CE = capture efficiency, decimal fraction
L = mass of liquid VOC input to process
Fw = mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from a TTE Procedure L 
contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain L. Procedure 
F.1 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain Fw.

    (3) Gas/gas method using the building or room (building or room 
enclosure) in which the affected source is located as the enclosure and 
in which ``F'' and ``G'' are measured while operating only the affected 
facility. All fans and blowers in the building or room must be operated 
as they would under normal production. The capture efficiency equation 
to be used for this protocol is:

CE = G/(G + FB)
where
CE = capture efficiency, decimal fraction
G = mass of VOC captured and delivered to control device
FB = mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from building enclosure

Procedure G.2 contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to 
obtain G. Procedure F.2 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to 
obtain FB.
    (4) Liquid/gas method using the building or room (building or room 
enclosure) in which the affected source is located as the enclosure and 
in which ``F'' and ``L'' are measured while operating only the affected 
facility. All fans and blowers in the building or room must be operated 
as they would under normal production. The capture efficiency equation 
to be used for this protocol is:
CE = (L-FB)/L
where
CE = capture efficiency, decimal fraction
L = mass of liquid VOC input to process
FB = mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from building enclosure

    Procedure L contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to 
obtain L. Procedure F.2 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to 
obtain FB.
    (C) Recordkeeping and Reporting.
    (1) All affected facilities must maintain a copy of the capture 
efficiency protocol submitted to EPA on file. All results of the 
appropriate test methods and capture efficiency protocols must be 
reported to EPA within sixty (60) days of the test date. A copy of the 
results must be kept on file with the source for a period of five (5) 
years.
    (2) If any changes are made to capture equipment, then affected 
facilities must notify EPA of these changes and a new test may be 
required by EPA.
    (3) All affected facilities must notify the Administrator 30 days 
prior to performing any capture efficiency test. At that time, the 
source must notify the Administrator which capture efficiency protocol 
will be used.
    (4) All affected facilities utilizing a PTE must demonstrate that 
this enclosure meets the requirement given in Procedure T in appendix B 
of 40 CFR 52.741 at all times.
    (5) All affected facilities utilizing a TTE must demonstrate that 
their TTE meets the requirements given in Procedure T in appendix B of 
40 CFR 52.741 for a TTE during testing of their control device. The 
source must also provide documentation that the quality assurance 
criteria for a TTE have been achieved.
    (iv) Control Device Efficiency Testing and Monitoring.
    (A) Control Efficiency Test. The control device efficiency shall be 
determined by simultaneously measuring the inlet and outlet gas phase 
VOC concentrations and gas volumetric flow rates in accordance with the 
gas phase test methods specified in paragraph (a)(4)(vi) of this 
section.
    (B) Continuous Monitoring. Any owner or operator that uses an 
afterburner or carbon adsorber to comply with any requirement of this 
section shall use continuous monitoring equipment which is installed, 
calibrated, maintained, and operated according to vendor specifications 
and which meets EPA-approved performance specifications at all times 
when the afterburner or carbon adsorber is in use. The continuous 
monitoring equipment must automatically monitor and record the 
following parameters:
    (1) Combustion chamber temperature of each afterburner.
    (2) Temperature rise across each catalytic afterburner bed or VOC 
concentration exhaust.
    (3) The VOC concentration of each carbon adsorption bed exhaust.
    (C) Recordkeeping and Reporting.
    (1) All affected facilities must maintain a copy of all control 
efficiency test protocols for a period of five (5) years. All control 
test results must be reported to EPA within sixty (60) days of the test 
date. A copy of the results must be kept on file with the source for a 
period of five (5) years.
    (2) All affected facilities must maintain copies of all required 
continuous monitoring records for a period of five (5) years.
    (3) If any changes are made to control equipment, affected 
facilities must notify EPA of these changes and a new control 
efficiency test may be required by EPA.
    (4) All affected facilities must notify the Administrator 30 days 
prior to performing any control efficiency test. At that time, the 
source must notify the Administrator which test methods will be used.
    (v) Overall Efficiency.
    (A) The overall efficiency of each emission control system shall be 
determined as the product of the capture system efficiency and the 
control device efficiency or by the liquid/liquid test protocol as 
specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section for each 
solvent recovery system.
    (B) The overall efficiency of the capture system and control device 
used to control VOC emissions from a paper, fabric, film, can, coil, or 
miscellaneous metal parts and products coating line, as determined by 
the test methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(iii), 
(a)(4)(iv), and (a)(4)(v)(A) of this section, shall be no less than the 
equivalent overall efficiency which shall be calculated by the 
following equation:

E = ([VOCa-VOC1]/VOCa) x 100

where:
E = Equivalent overall efficiency of the capture system and control 
device as a percentage,
VOCa = Actual VOC content of a coating, or the daily-weighted 
average VOC content of two or more coatings (if more than one coating 
is used), as applied to the subject coating line as determined by the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) 
of this section in units of kg VOC/l (lb VOC/gal) of coating solids as 
applied, and
VOC1 = The VOC emission limit specified in units of kg VOC/liter 
(lb VOC/gal) of coating solids as applied.

    (vi) Volatile Organic Compound Gas Phase Source Test Methods. The 
methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, delineated below shall be used 
to determine control device efficiencies.
    (A) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 18, 25, 25A, or 25B, as 
appropriate to the conditions at the site, shall be used to determine 
VOC concentration. Method selection shall be based on consideration of 
the diversity of organic species present and their total concentration 
and on consideration of the potential presence of interfering gases. 
Except as indicated in paragraphs (a)(4)(vi)(A) (1) and (2) of this 
section, the test shall consist of three separate runs, each lasting a 
minimum of 60 min., unless the Administrator determines that process 
variables dictate shorter sampling times.
    (1) When the method is to be used to determine the efficiency of a 
fixed-bed carbon adsorption system with a common exhaust stack for all 
the individual adsorber vessels, the test shall consist of three 
separate runs, each coinciding with one or more complete sequences 
through the adsorption cycles of all the individual adsorber vessels.
    (2) When the method is to be used to determine the efficiency of a 
carbon adsorption system with individual exhaust stacks for each 
adsorber vessel, each adsorber vessel shall be tested individually. The 
test for each adsorber vessel shall consist of three separate runs. 
Each run shall coincide with one or more complete adsorption cycles.
    (B) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 1 or 1A shall be used for 
sample and velocity traverses.
    (C) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D shall be 
used for velocity and volumetric flow rates.
    (D) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 3, 3A or 3B shall be used 
for gas analysis.
    (E) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 4 shall be used for stack 
gas moisture.
    (F) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D; 3, 3A, or 
3B; and 4 shall be performed, as applicable, at least twice during each 
test run.
    (G) Use of an adaptation to any of the test methods specified in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(vi) (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F) of this section 
may be approved by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis. An owner 
or operator must submit sufficient documentation for the Administrator 
to find that the test methods specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(vi) (A), 
(B), (C), (D), (E), and (F) of this section will yield inaccurate 
results and that the proposed adaptation is appropriate.
    (vii) Leak Detection Methods for Volatile Organic Compounds. Owners 
or operators required by the various subparts of this regulation to 
carry out a leak detection monitoring program shall comply with the 
following requirements:
    (A) Leak Detection Monitoring.
    (1) Monitoring shall comply with 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 
21.
    (2) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 21.
    (3) The instrument shall be calibrated before use on each day of 
its use by the methods specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 
21.
    (4) Calibration gases shall be:
    (i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in air), and
    (ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a concentration of 
approximately, but no less than, 10,000 ppm methane or n-hexane.
    (5) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential 
leak interfaces as close to the interface as possible as described in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 21.
    (B) When equipment is tested for compliance with no detectable 
emissions as required, the test shall comply with the following 
requirements:
    (1) The requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)(vii)(A)(1) through 
(vii)(A)(5) of this section shall apply.
    (2) The background level shall be determined as set forth in 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, Method 21.
    (C) Leak detection tests shall be performed consistent with:
    (1) ``APTI Course SI 417 Controlling Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Leaking Process Equipment'' EPA-450/2-82-015 (which is 
available from the National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port 
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (2) ``Portable Instrument User's Manual for Monitoring VOC 
Sources'' EPA-340/1-86-015 (which is available from the National 
Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 
Virginia, 22161)
    (3) ``Protocols for Generating Unit-Specific Emission Estimates for 
Equipment Leaks of VOC and VHAP'' EPA-450/3-88-010 (which is available 
from the National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (4) ``Petroleum Refinery Enforcement Manual'' EPA-340/1-80-008 
(which is available from the National Technical Information Services, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161)
    (viii) Bulk Gasoline Delivery System Test Protocol.
    (A) The method for determining the emissions of gasoline from a 
vapor recovery system are delineated in 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, 
Sec. 60.503.
    (B) Other tests shall be performed consistent with:
    (1) ``Inspection Manual for Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 
from Gasoline Marketing Operations: appendix D'' EPA-340/1-80-012 
(which is available from the National Technical Information Services, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161).
    (2) ``Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading 
Terminals: appendix A'', EPA-450/2-77-026 (which is available from the 
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, Virginia 22161).
    (ix) Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic Liquids.
    (A) If the VOL consists of only a single compound, the vapor 
pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by 
reference as specified in paragraph (c) of this section or the vapor 
pressure may be obtained from a published source such as: Boublik, T., 
V. Fried and E. Hala, ``The Vapor Pressure of Pure Substances,'' 
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York (1973), Perry's Chemical 
Engineer's Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1984), CRC Handbook of 
Chemistry and Physics, Chemical Rubber Publishing Company (1986-87), 
and Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, John A. Dean, editor, McGraw-Hill 
Book Company (1985).
    (B) If the VOL is a mixture, the vapor pressure shall be determined 
by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by reference as specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section) or by the following equation:

TP05MY94.004

where:
Pvol=Total vapor pressure of the mixture,
n=Number of components in the mixture,
i=Subscript denoting an individual component,
Pi=Vapor pressure of a component determined in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(4)(ix)(A) of this section, and Xi = Mole fraction of 
the component in the total mixture.

    (x) Vapor Pressure of Organic Material or Solvent.
    (A) If the organic material or solvent consists of only a single 
compound, the vapor pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-
86 (incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this section) or the 
vapor pressure may be obtained from a published source such as: 
Boublik, T., V. Fried and E. Hala, ``The Vapor Pressure of Pure 
Substances,'' Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York (1973), 
Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1984), 
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Chemical Rubber Publishing 
Company (1986-87), and Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, John A. Dean, 
editor, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1985).
    (B) If the organic material or solvent is in a mixture made up of 
both organic material compounds and compounds which are not organic 
material, the vapor pressure shall be determined by the following 
equation:

TP05MY94.005

where:
Pom=Total vapor pressure of the portion of the mixture which is 
composed of organic material,
n=Number of organic material components in the mixture,
i=Subscript denoting an individual component,
Pi=Vapor pressure of an organic material component determined in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(x)(A) of this section, and
Xi=Mole fraction of the organic material component of the total 
mixture.

    (C) If the organic material or solvent is in a mixture made up of 
only organic material compounds, the vapor pressure shall be determined 
by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of 
this section) or by the above equation.
    (xi) Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic Compounds.
    (A) If the VOC consists of only a single compound, the vapor 
pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by 
reference in paragraph (c) of this section) or the vapor pressure may 
be obtained from a published source such as: Boublik, T., V. Fried and 
E. Hala, ``The Vapor Pressure of Pure Substances,'' Elsevier Scientific 
Publishing Co., New York (1973), Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 
McGraw-Hill Book Company (1984), CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 
Chemical Rubber Publishing Company (1986-87), and Lange's Handbook of 
Chemistry, John A. Dean, editor, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1985).
    (B) If the VOC is in a mixture made up of both VOC compounds and 
compounds which are not VOC, the vapor pressure shall be determined by 
the following equation:

TP05MY94.006

where:
Pvoc=Total vapor pressure of the portion of the mixture which is 
composed of VOC,
n=Number of VOC components in the mixture,
i=Subscript denoting an individual component,
Pi=Vapor pressure of a VOC component determined in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(4)(xi)(A) of this section, and
Xi=Mole fraction of the VOC component of the total mixture.

    (C) If the VOC is in a mixture made up of only VOC compounds, the 
vapor pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-86 
(incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this section) or by the 
above equation.
    (xii) Baseline Emissions. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section, baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for 
each emissions source in accordance with one of the procedures 
specified below:
    (A) If daily emissions records which are consistent with the 
emission inventory data submitted by the State for the control area on 
November 15, 1992 are available for the calendar years 1989 and 1990, 
baseline emissions shall be based on the median value of daily 
emissions recorded for the two-year period.
    (B) If daily emissions records are not available for the calendar 
years 1989 and 1990 or are inconsistent with the emission inventory 
data submitted by the State for the control area on November 15, 1992 
or were not submitted, baseline emissions shall be based on the average 
daily emissions value calculated for the two-year period. The average 
daily emissions value shall be calculated by dividing emissions for the 
two-year period by the operating or usage time for the two-year period. 
If solvent or coating usage data are not available, emissions 
associated with solvent or coating usage may be estimated from 
purchase-order records. The operating or usage time for the two-year 
period shall be based on one of the criteria specified as follows:
    (1) The number of days specified in a federally enforceable permit 
if the emissions source operated under the conditions of a federally 
enforceable permit which restricted operating times during the two-year 
period,
    (2) The average number of days that the emissions source was 
operated or used over the two-year period if documentation is available 
to support the number, or
    (3) 730 days if documentation of the number of days that the 
emissions source was operated or used over the two-year period is not 
available.
    (xiii) Implementation Year Monthly Baseline Emissions. Baseline 
emissions as defined in paragraph (a)(4)(xii) of this section shall be 
adjusted prior to the implementation year (2001) of the FIP cap program 
in the control area as follows:
    (A) The reductions that are projected to occur as a result of both 
SIP and FIP measures between 1990 and 2001 shall be subtracted from the 
baseline emissions. This value shall be defined as the reduced daily 
baseline emissions and is denoted in pounds of VOC/day.
    (B) The reduced daily baseline emissions shall be annualized by 
multiplying the daily value by 365. This value shall be defined as the 
reduced annual baseline emissions and is denoted in pounds of VOC/year.
    (C) The reduced annual baseline emissions shall be converted into a 
monthly value by dividing by 12. This value shall be defined as the 
implementation year monthly baseline.
    (5) Enforcement.
    (i) All sources and facilities subject to provisions of 
Sec. 52.2952 shall be subject to unannounced inspections by 
representatives of the USEPA pursuant to section 114 of the Clean Air 
Act.
    (ii) Documentation maintained by all sources, facilities, and 
persons subject to this section must be sufficient to demonstrate 
compliance with all requirements of this section and must be provided 
to representatives of USEPA upon request.
    (iii) Failure to comply with any provision of this section is a 
violation of the applicable implementation plan for purposes of section 
113 of the Clean Air Act.
    (iv) Each 50 pounds of emissions in excess of a facility's monthly 
cap shall be a separate violation for federal enforcement purposes.
    (b) Stationary and Area Source Control Measures.
    (1) Industrial and Commercial Solvents/Coatings.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Adhesives means any substance or mixture of substances intended to 
serve as a joining compound.
    Aerospace component means the fabricated part, assembly of parts, 
or completed unit of any aircraft or space vehicle.
    Aerospace component coating facility means a facility that includes 
one or more aerospace component coating unit(s).
    Aerospace component coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating or reinforcing material 
is applied on or impregnated into an aerospace component.
    Aircraft means any machine designed to travel through the air above 
ground without leaving the earth's atmosphere, whether heavier or 
lighter than air, including airplanes, balloons, dirigibles, 
helicopters, and missiles.
    Automobile means a motor vehicle capable of carrying no more than 
12 passengers.
    Can means any cylindrical, single walled container that is 
manufactured from metal sheets thinner than 29 gauge (0.0141 in.); with 
or without a top, cover, spout, or handles; into which solid or liquid 
materials are packaged.
    Can coating facility means a facility that includes one or more can 
coating unit(s).
    Can coating unit means a coating unit in which any protective, 
decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the surface of cans 
or can components.
    Coating means a material applied onto or impregnated into a 
substrate for protective, decorative, or functional purposes. Such 
materials include, but are not limited to, paints, varnishes, sealants, 
adhesives, thinners, diluents, inks, maskants, and/or temporary 
protective coatings.
    Coating applicator means any equipment or device, including but not 
limited to cloth, rollers, brushes, spray guns, and dip tanks, used to 
apply a coating onto or into a substrate.
    Coating unit means a series of one or more coating applicators and 
any associated drying areas and/or oven wherein a coating is applied, 
dried, and/or cured. A coating unit ends at the point where the coating 
is dried or cured, or prior to any subsequent application of a 
different coating. It is not necessary to have an oven or a flashoff 
area in order to be included in this definition.
    Coil means any continuous metal sheet or strip with thickness of 
0.15 mm (0.006 in.) or more that is packaged in a roll or coil.
    Coil coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
coil coating unit(s).
    Coil coating unit means a coating unit in which any protective, 
decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the surface of flat 
metal sheets, strips, rolls, or coils for industrial or commercial use.
    Cold cleaning means the batch process of cleaning and removing 
soils from surfaces by spraying, brushing, flushing, or immersion while 
maintaining the organic solvent below its boiling point. Wipe cleaning 
is not included in this definition.
    Conveyorized degreasing means the continuous process of cleaning 
and removing soils from surfaces using either cold or vaporized 
solvents.
    Degreaser means any equipment or system used in solvent cleaning.
    Degreasing facility means a facility that includes one or more cold 
cleaning, open-top vapor degreasing, and/or conveyorized degreasing 
processes.
    Dry cleaning facility means a facility engaged in the cleaning of 
fabrics using an essentially nonaqueous solvent by means of one or more 
solvent washes, extraction of excess solvent by spinning, and drying by 
tumbling in an airstream. The facility includes, but is not limited to, 
washers, dryers, filter and purification systems, waste disposal 
systems, holding tanks, pumps, and attendant piping and valves.
    Fabric coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
fabric coating unit(s).
    Fabric coating unit means a web coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating or reinforcing material 
is applied on, saturated into, or impregnated into a textile fabric. A 
fabric printing unit is not considered a fabric coating unit.
    Film coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
film coating unit(s).
    Film coating unit means a coating unit in which any protective, 
decorative, or functional coating is applied on, saturated into, or 
impregnated into any film substrate; other than paper, fabric, or 
vinyl; including but not limited to typewriter ribbons, photographic 
film, plastic film, magnetic tape, and metal foil.
    Flatwood product means panels made of wood materials including; but 
not limited to; plywood, particle board, and hardboard.
    Flatwood product coating facility means a facility that includes 
one or more flatwood product coating unit(s).
    Flatwood product coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied on or 
impregnated into a flatwood product.
    Flexographic printing means the application of words, designs, and 
pictures to a substrate by means of a roll printing technique in which 
the pattern to be applied is raised above the printing roll and the 
image carrier is made of elastomeric materials.
    Flexographic printing press means a printing press in which each 
roll printer uses a roll with raised areas for applying an image such 
as words, designs, or pictures to a substrate. The image carrier on the 
roll is made of rubber or other elastomeric material.
    Fountain solution means the solution which is applied to the 
lithographic printing plate to maintain hydrophilic properties of the 
nonimage areas.
    Graphic arts coating facility means a facility that includes one or 
more graphic arts coating units.
    Graphic arts coating unit means any packaging rotogravure printing, 
publication rotogravure printing, flexographic printing, lithographic 
printing, letterpress printing, laminating, or screen printing unit or 
any paper, fabric, or film coating unit operated in conjunction with a 
printing unit.
    Group I vehicles and equipment means large-sized trucks, buses, and 
mobile equipment.
    Group II vehicles means passenger cars, small-sized trucks and 
vans, medium-sized trucks and vans, and motorcycles.
    Heatset means a class of web-offset lithography which requires a 
heated dryer to solidify the printing inks.
    Heatset-web-offset lithographic printing unit means a lithographic 
printing unit in which a blanket cylinder is used to transfer ink from 
a plate cylinder to a substrate continuously fed from a roll or an 
extension process and an oven is used to solidify the printing inks.
    Heavy off-highway vehicle products means heavy construction, 
mining, farming, or material handling equipment; heavy industrial 
engines; diesel-electric locomotives and associated power generation 
equipment; and the components of such equipment or engines.
    Heavy off-highway vehicle products coating facility means a 
facility that includes one or more heavy off-highway vehicle products 
coating unit(s).
    Heavy off-highway vehicle products coating unit means a coating 
unit in which any protective, decorative, or functional coating is 
applied onto the surface of heavy off-highway vehicle products.
    Highway means a way or place of whatever nature, publicly 
maintained and open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel. 
Highway includes street.
    Industrial or commercial solvent use facility means any industrial 
or commercial facility that uses solvents which contain VOCs or 
substances that contain solvents which contain VOCs. Industrial and 
commercial solvent use facilities include, but are not limited to, 
perchloroethylene dry cleaning, petroleum dry cleaning, metal cleaning, 
degreasing, aerospace component coating, motor vehicle and mobile 
equipment assembly line coating, motor vehicle and mobile equipment 
refinishing, can coating, coil coating, fabric coating, film coating, 
flatwood product coating, graphic arts coating, large appliance 
coating, magnet wire coating, marine vessel coating, metal and wood 
furniture coating, miscellaneous metal parts and products coating, 
paper coating, and plastic parts coating facilities. Substances that 
contain solvents include, but are not limited to, coatings, inks, 
fountain solutions, adhesives, thinners, and clean-up solvents.
    Ink means a coating used in printing, impressing, or transferring 
an image onto a substrate.
    Laminating unit means a printing unit in which an adhesive is used 
to form two or more layers of material into a single, multiple-layer 
sheet.
    Large appliance means the component metal parts (including, but not 
limited to, doors, cases, lids, panels, and interior support parts) of 
residential and commercial washers, dryers, ranges, refrigerators, 
freezers, water heaters, dish washers, trash compactors, air 
conditioners, and other similar products under SIC Code 363.
    Large appliance coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more large appliance coating unit(s).
    Large appliance coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the 
surface of component metal parts of large appliances.
    Letterpress printing unit means a printing unit in which the image 
area is raised relative to the nonimage area on the roll printer and 
the ink is transferred to the paper directly from the image surface.
    Light-duty truck means any motor vehicle rated at 3864 kg (8500 lb) 
gross vehicle weight or less, designed mainly to transport property.
    Lithographic printing unit means a printing unit in which the image 
and nonimage areas are on the same plane of the roll printer.
    Magnet wire coating facility means a facility that includes one or 
more magnet coating unit(s).
    Magnet wire coating unit means a coating unit in which electrically 
insulating varnish or enamel is applied onto the surface of wire to be 
used in electrical machinery.
    Marine vessel means a ship or boat used to travel on, or a 
submarine used to travel through, the sea.
    Marine vessel coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more marine vessel coating unit(s).
    Marine vessel coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied on the 
fabricated part, assembly of parts, or completed unit of any marine 
vessel.
    Metal furniture means any furniture piece made of metal or any 
metal part which is or will be assembled with other metal, wood, 
fabric, plastic, or glass parts to form a furniture piece including, 
but not limited to, tables, chairs, waste baskets, beds, desks, 
lockers, benches, shelving, file cabinets, lamps, and room dividers. 
This definition shall not apply to any coating unit coating 
miscellaneous metal parts or products.
    Metal furniture coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more metal furniture coating unit(s).
    Metal furniture coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the 
surface of metal furniture.
    Miscellaneous metal part or product means any metal part or metal 
product, even if attached to or combined with a nonmetal part or 
product.
    Miscellaneous metal parts or products coating facility means a 
facility that includes one or more miscellaneous metal parts or 
products coating unit(s).
    Miscellaneous metal parts or products coating unit means a coating 
unit in which any protective, decorative, or functional coating is 
applied onto the surface of miscellaneous metal parts or products.
    Mobile equipment means self-propelled equipment which is physically 
capable of being driven on a highway. Mobile equipment includes: 
Automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, vans, construction equipment (e.g., 
mobile cranes, bulldozers, concrete mixers), farming equipment (e.g., 
wheel tractors, pesticide sprayers), and miscellaneous equipment (e.g., 
street cleaners, golf carts, and hauling equipment used inside and 
around airports, docks, depots, and industrial and commercial plants).
    Motor vehicle means a vehicle which is self-propelled and 
physically capable of being driven on a highway.
    Motor vehicle or mobile equipment assembly line coating facility 
means a facility where parts are manufactured or finished for eventual 
inclusion into finished motor vehicles or mobile equipment ready for 
sale to motor vehicle or mobile equipment dealers. This definition does 
not include customizers, body shops, and/or other auto refinishing 
facilities.
    Motor vehicle or mobile equipment refinishing facility means a 
facility where all or any part of used motor vehicles or mobile 
equipment is refinished, or customized, by the application of paint. 
This definition includes motor vehicles or mobile equipment dealerships 
who purchase new motor vehicle or mobile equipment from Original 
Equipment Manufacturers. This definition does not include motor vehicle 
or mobile equipment assembly line coating facilities.
    Motorcycle means any motor vehicle other than a tractor having a 
seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not 
more than three wheels in contact with the ground and weighing less 
than 1,500 lbs, except that four wheels may be in contact with the 
ground when two of the wheels are a functional part of a sidecar.
    Offset means a blanket cylinder that is used to transfer ink from a 
plate cylinder to the substance to be printed.
    Open-top vapor degreasing means the batch process of cleaning and 
removing soils from surfaces by condensing hot solvent vapor on the 
colder metal parts.
    Oven means a chamber within which heat is used for one or more of 
the following purposes: To dry, bake, cure, or polymerize a coating or 
ink.
    Packaging rotogravure printing means rotogravure printing upon 
paper, paper board, metal foil, plastic film, and other substrates 
which are, in subsequent operations, formed into packaging products or 
labels for articles to be sold.
    Packaging rotogravure printing press means a rotogravure printing 
press in which surface coatings are applied to paper, paperboard, metal 
foil, plastic film, or other substrates which are to be used to produce 
containers, packaging products, or labels for articles.
    Paper coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
paper coating unit(s).
    Paper coating unit means a web coating unit where coating is 
applied to paper. Printing presses are not considered paper coating 
units. Products produced on a paper coating unit include, but are not 
limited to, adhesive tapes and labels, book covers, post cards, office 
copier paper, drafting paper, and pressure sensitive tapes. Paper 
coating units include, but are not limited to, application by 
impregnation or saturation or by the use of roll, knife, or rotogravure 
coating.
    Printing unit means an operation consisting of a series of one or 
more roll printers and any associated roll coaters, drying areas, and/
or ovens wherein one or more surface coatings are applied, dried, and/
or cured. It is not necessary for an operation to have an oven, or 
flashoff area, or drying area to be included in this definition.
    Publication rotogravure printing unit means a rotogravure printing 
unit in which surface coatings are applied to paper which is 
subsequently formed into books, magazines, catalogues, brochures, 
directories, newspaper supplements, or other types of printed material.
    Refinish means to restore or replace coatings on Group I vehicles 
(large-sized trucks, buses, and mobile equipment) and Group II vehicles 
(passenger cars, small-sized trucks and vans, medium-sized trucks and 
vans, and motorcycles) and equipment, or their parts and components, 
except Original Equipment Manufacturer coatings applied at motor 
vehicle or mobile equipment assembly line coating facilities.
    Roll coater means an apparatus in which a uniform layer of coating 
material is applied by means of a roll or rolls across the entire width 
of a moving substrate which is fed from an unwinding roll.
    Roll printer means an apparatus in which a surface coating is 
applied by means of a roll or rolls with only partial coverage across 
the width of a moving substrate which is fed from an unwinding roll. 
The partial coverage results in the formation of words, designs, or 
pictures on the substrate.
    Rotogravure printing means the application of words, designs, and 
pictures to a substrate using a gravure cylinder by means of a roll 
printing technique in which the pattern to be applied is recessed 
relative to the nonimage area.
    Rotogravure printing unit means a printing unit in which each roll 
printer uses a roll with recessed areas for applying an image to a 
substrate.
    Screen printing unit means a printing unit in which the printing 
ink passes through a web or a fabric to which a refined form of stencil 
has been applied. The stencil openings determine the form and 
dimensions of the imprint.
    Solvent means a substance that is liquid at standard conditions 
that is used to dissolve or dilute another substance; this term 
includes, but is not limited to, organic materials used as dissolvers, 
viscosity reducers, degreasing agents, or cleaning agents.
    Solvent cleaning means the process of cleaning soils from surfaces 
by cold cleaning, open-top vapor degreasing, or conveyorized 
degreasing.
    Space vehicle means any vehicle designed to travel beyond the 
earth's atmosphere.
    Street means a public road in a town or city.
    Substrate means the surface to which a coating is applied on, 
saturated into, or impregnated into.
    Vinyl coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
vinyl coating unit(s).
    Vinyl coating unit means a web coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating or printing ink is 
applied onto a continuous web of vinyl-coated fabric or vinyl sheets.
    Web means an automatic system which supplies substrate from a 
continuous roll or an extrusion process.
    Wood furniture means room furnishings including cabinets (kitchen, 
bath, and vanity), tables, chairs, beds, sofas, shutters, art objects, 
wood paneling, wood flooring, and any other coated furnishings made of 
wood, wood composition, or fabricated wood materials.
    Wood furniture coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more wood furniture coating unit(s).
    Wood furniture coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied onto wood 
furniture.
    (ii) Applicability.
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1 (iii)(A) and (B), (iv)(A), 
(v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner or 
operator of any degreasing facility or any motor vehicle or mobile 
equipment refinishing facility located in the control area as defined 
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (B) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) (iii)(A) and (B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of an industrial or commercial solvent use facility located 
in the applicable area specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this 
section at which actual emissions of VOC are greater than or equal to 
6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day.
    (C) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) (iv)(B), (v)(B), and 
(vi)(B) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of an 
industrial or commercial solvent use facility located in the applicable 
area specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section at which 
actual emissions of VOC from all emissions sources are always less than 
6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day. If actual emissions of VOC from a 
facility which is exempt from the limitations of paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section ever exceed 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any 
one day on or after January 1, 2000, the facility will lose its exempt 
status, and the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5), (b)(1)(iv)(A), (b)(1)(v)(A), 
and (b)(1)(vi)(A) of this section beginning January 1 of the calendar 
year following the date of the exceedance.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to Title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to Title 
V.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to:
    (1) the test methods and procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, and
    (2) data and engineering calculations approved by EPA 
documenting process modifications that were made to reduce VOC 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph, as described 
under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section, shall limit 
actual monthly emissions of VOC from the subject facility to the level 
calculated by the following equations:

TP05MY94.007

where4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\The range 0.04 to 0.09 reflects the 4% to 9% cumulative 
annual rate of emission reductions currently under consideration. In 
the first year, emissions would be reduced by 4% to 9% off of 
baseline levels; in the second year, emissions would be reduced by 
8% to 18% off of baseline levels, and so on until the minimum 20% 
VOC reduction is made. As discussed in the preamble to the 
regulations this range of annual reductions is based on EPA's 
preliminary rate of reduction analysis and may change as the 
analysis continues prior to final promulgation of this FIP. In 
addition, EPA plans to review this value every three years after 
final rule promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility. 

TP05MY94.008

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.009

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

TP05MY94.010

where
R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.011

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

    (iv) Reporting.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or (B) of this 
section, shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar 
year, beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this 
section for the previous calendar year. This certification shall 
include:
    (1) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section, and
    (2) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section because of paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section shall comply 
with the following:
    (1) By January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall certify to the 
Administrator that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. This 
certification shall include:
    (i) A declaration that the facility is exempt from the limitations 
of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section; and
    (ii) Calculations which demonstrate that total baseline VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility are and will 
remain less than 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day. Baseline emissions 
shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) (i) and (ii) of this section.
    (2) On and after January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall 
notify the Administrator of any record showing that actual emissions of 
VOC from the facility exceeded 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day by 
sending a copy of such record to the Administrator within 30 calendar 
days after the exceedance occurs.
    (v) Recordkeeping.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this 
section shall collect and record all information necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section for each emissions 
source and maintain the information at the facility for a period of 
five (5) years. The information shall be collected and recorded each 
day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate that 
actual emissions of VOC from all emissions sources are less than 6.8 kg 
(15 lbs) during each day and maintain the information at the facility 
for a period of five (5) years. The information shall be collected and 
recorded each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending 
with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring.
    (A) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (B) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility which is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section to demonstrate that the facility is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (2) VOC Emissions Associated with the Manufacturing of Products.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Facility which manufactures products containing VOCs means any 
facility where VOCs are emitted from processes which are used to 
manufacture or fabricate products. These products include, but are not 
limited to, the products specified in paragraphs (1) through (7) of 
this definition. This definition does not include facilities which are 
subject to any of the requirements of paragraph (b)(1), (b)(4), or 
(b)(5) of this section.
    (1) Industrial and agricultural organic chemicals and gases. 
Industrial organic chemicals include, but are not limited to, gum and 
wood chemicals, cyclic organic crudes and intermediates, organic dyes 
and pigments, and the chemicals listed in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix A. 
Agricultural organic chemicals include, but are not limited to, 
pesticides, livestock dips, soil conditioners, and fertilizers.
    (2) Plastic materials, synthetic resins, synthetic rubber, 
elastomizers, and cellulosic and manmade fibers.
    (3) Drugs which include, but are not limited to, medicinal 
chemicals and botanical products, pharmaceutical preparations, in vitro 
and in vivo diagnostic substances, and biological products.
    (4) Soaps; detergents; cleaning, polishing, and sanitizing 
preparations; surface active agents, finishing agents, sulfonated oils, 
and assistants; and perfumes and cosmetics.
    (5) Food additives and sweeteners.
    (6) Paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels, inks, primers, paint 
removers, thinners, stains, shellacs, cleaners, putty, coatings, 
adhesives, fillers, sealants, explosives, and carbon black.
    (7) Fabricated rubber and miscellaneous plastics products 
including, but not limited to, tires and inner tubes; rubber and 
plastics footware, hose, belting, gasket, packing, and sealing devices; 
and molded, extruded, and lathe-cut mechanical rubber goods.
    Manufacture means to produce or combine any ingredients contained 
in any product.
    Manufacturing process means a process or a series of processes used 
to convert raw materials, feed stocks, subassemblies, or other 
components into a product which will be sold, offered for sale, 
supplied, or distributed or will be used as a component in a subsequent 
manufacturing process. This definition includes the storage and 
handling of organic compounds or gases which are used in a 
manufacturing process and the handling of organic compounds or gases 
used to clean-up a manufacturing process.
    (ii) Applicability.
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) (iii)(A), (iii)(B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of a facility which manufactures products containing VOCs 
located in the control area as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section at which total VOC emissions are greater than or equal to 4.5 
kg (10 lbs) during any one day.
    (B) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) (iv)(B), (v)(B), and 
(vi)(B) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of a 
facility which manufactures products containing VOCs located in the 
applicable area specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section at 
which total VOC emissions from all emissions sources are always less 
than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. If uncontrolled VOC emissions 
from a facility which is exempt from the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section ever exceed 4.5 kg (10 
lbs) during any one day on or after January 1, 2000, the facility will 
lose its exempt status, and the owner or operator shall comply with the 
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) (iii)(B), (iv)(A), (v)(A), and 
(vi)(A) of this section beginning January 1 of the calendar year 
following the date of the exceedance.
    (iii) Specific Provisions. 
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's title V (of the 
Clean Air Act) operating permit. For sources not subject to title V, 
sources shall submit all information which would be required for 
sources subject to title V.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to: (1) the test methods and procedures specified in 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and
    (2) data and engineering calculations approved by EPA 
documenting process modifications that were made to reduce VOC 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph, as described 
under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, shall limit total VOC 
emissions from the subject facility to the level calculated by the 
following equations:

TP05MY94.012

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.013

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)
where
R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.014

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.015

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.016

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.
(iv) Reporting. 
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, 
shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar year, 
beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this section for 
the previous calendar year. This certification shall include:
    (1) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (2) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, 
shall comply with the following:
    (1) By January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall certify to the 
Administrator that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. This 
certification shall include:
    (i) A declaration that the facility is exempt from the limitations 
of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as 
described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section; and
    (ii) Calculations which demonstrate that total baseline VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility are and will 
remain less than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. Baseline emissions 
shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A) (1) and (2) of this section.
    (2) On and after January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall 
notify the Administrator of any record showing that total VOC emissions 
from the facility exceeded 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day by 
sending a copy of such record to the Administrator within 30 calendar 
days after the exceedance occurs.
    (v) Recordkeeping. 
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate 
compliance with the limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through 
(5) of this section for each emissions source and maintain the 
information at the facility for a period of five (5) years. The 
information shall be collected and recorded each day of each calendar 
year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate that 
total VOC emissions from all emissions sources are less than 4.5 kg (10 
lbs) during each day and maintain the information at the facility for a 
period of three years. The information shall be collected and recorded 
each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring. 
    (A) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as described under 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of section to demonstrate compliance with the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (B) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility which is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) to perform tests using the applicable test 
methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section to 
demonstrate that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section.
    (3) Disposal of Materials Containing Volatile Organic Compounds. 
    (i) Definitions. 
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Biodegradable waste means any organic waste that can be broken down 
into its basic elements by microorganisms.
    Biodegradable waste disposal facility means any facility which is 
operated as a business or owned by a state or municipality and is used 
to treat, store, or dispose of biodegradable waste or to reclaim or 
recycle organic compounds or gases from biodegradable wastes.
    Organic waste disposal facility means any facility which is 
operated as a business or owned by a state or municipality and is used 
to treat, store, or dispose of organic wastes that contain VOCs or to 
reclaim or recycle organic compounds or gases from organic wastes that 
contain VOCs. Such facilities include, but are not limited to, 
biodegradable waste disposal facilities (e.g., landfills); publicly 
owned treatment works; hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities; and sewage sludge, solid waste, and hazardous waste 
incinerators.
    Publicly owned treatment work (POTW) means any device or system 
which is owned by a state or municipality and is used to treat 
(including recycling and reclamation) municipal sewage or industrial 
liquid waste.
    (ii) Applicability. The requirements of paragraphs (b)(3) (iii), 
(iv), (v), and (vi) of this section shall apply to any owner or 
operator of any organic waste disposal facility located in the control 
area as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to title V.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to: (1) the test methods and procedures specified in 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and (2) data and engineering 
calculations approved by EPA documenting process modifications that 
were made to reduce VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph because of 
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section shall limit total VOC emissions 
from the subject facility to the level calculated by the following 
equations:

TP05MY94.017

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.018

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.019

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.020

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for 
each emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.021

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

    (iv) Reporting. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section, as described under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar 
year, beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this 
section for the previous calendar year. This certification shall 
include:
    (A) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (B) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (v) Recordkeeping. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section, as described under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section, shall collect and record all information necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section for each emissions 
source and maintain the information at the facility for a period of 
five (5) years. The information shall be collected and recorded each 
day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring. The Administrator may require, at any 
time, any owner or operator of a facility subject to the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as described 
under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (4) Commercial Food Preparation and/or Baking.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Brandy-making facility means a facility that distills wine, the 
refuse of a wine press, or any other fermented fruit juices to produce 
alcoholic liquors.
    Charcoal means any substance obtained by charring wood or any other 
organic matter by a process of smothered combustion to exclude air.
    Commercial baking facility means a facility that bakes bread, 
biscuits, rolls, pies, cakes, cookies, or other similar products.
    Commercial charbroiling facility means a facility that broils any 
type of food over a charcoal or gas-fired broiler.
    Food preparation facility means any commercial baking, commercial 
charbroiling, wine- or brandy-making, fruit and vegetable preservation, 
grain mill production, vegetable oil production, or malt beverage 
production facility. This definition includes restaurants involved in 
activities described in the previous sentence.
    Fruit and vegetable preservation facility means a facility that 
preserves food by, but not limited to, canning, curing, pickling, 
salting, smoking, cooking, or freezing.
    Grain mill production facility means a facility that grinds any 
grain including, but not limited to, wheat, rice, corn, or rye into 
flour or meal.
    Malt beverage production facility means a facility engaged in 
malting, fermentation, aging, or packaging of barley or any other grain 
for the purpose of producing an alcoholic beverage.
    Vegetable oil production facility means a facility that extracts 
oil from any vegetable seed.
    Wine- or brandy-making facility means a facility that ferments 
juices from grapes or any other fruit for the purpose of producing 
alcoholic beverages.
    (ii) Applicability.
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(4) (iii)(A) and (iii)(B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of a commercial food preparation facility located in the 
control area as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section at which 
VOC emissions are greater than or equal to 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any 
one day.
    (B) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(4) (iv)(B), (v)(B), and 
(vi)(B) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of a 
commercial food preparation facility located in the applicable area 
specified in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section at which total 
uncontrolled VOC emissions from all emissions sources are always less 
than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. If VOC emissions from a 
facility which is exempt from the limitations of paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section ever exceed 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any 
one day on or after January 1, 2000, the facility will lose its exempt 
status, and the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (b)(4) (iii)(B), (iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this 
section beginning January 1 of the calendar year following the date of 
the exceedance.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A) (3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to Title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to Title 
V.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to:
    (1) the test methods and procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, and
    (2) data and engineering calculations approved by EPA 
documenting process modifications that were made to reduce VOC 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph, as described 
under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section shall limit total VOC 
emissions from the subject facility to the level calculated by the 
following equations: 

TP05MY94.022

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility. 

TP05MY94.023

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility. 

TP05MY94.024

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility. 

TP05MY94.025

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.
    (iv) Reporting. 
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section 
shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar year, 
beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this section for 
the previous calendar year. This certification shall include:
    (1) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (2) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B)(1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section 
shall comply with the following:
    (1) By January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall certify to the 
Administrator that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B)(1) through (5) of this section. This 
certification shall include:
    (i) A declaration that the facility is exempt from the limitations 
of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B)(1) through (5) of this section, as 
described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section; and
    (ii) Calculations which demonstrate that total baseline VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility are and will 
remain less than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. Baseline emissions 
shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) (1) and (2) of this section.
    (2) On and after January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall 
notify the Administrator of any record showing that total VOC emissions 
from the facility exceeded 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day by 
sending a copy of such record to the Administrator within 30 calendar 
days after the exceedance occurs.
    (v) Recordkeeping.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate 
compliance with the limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section for each emissions source and maintain the 
information at the facility for a period of five (5) years. The 
information shall be collected and recorded each day of each calendar 
year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate that 
total VOC emissions from all emissions sources are less than 4.5 kg (10 
lbs) during each day and maintain the information at the facility for a 
period of five (5) years. The information shall be collected and 
recorded each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending 
with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring. 
    (A) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as described under 
paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (B) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility which is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section to demonstrate that the facility is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (5) Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, Processing, and Storage.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(5) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(5) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Crude oil means a naturally occurring mixture which consists of 
hydrocarbons and sulfur, nitrogen, or oxygen derivatives of 
hydrocarbons and which is a liquid at standard conditions.
    Extraction facility means any facility where drilling and servicing 
equipment, flow lines, separators, gathering lines, and auxiliary 
nontransportation related equipment are used to extract petroleum or 
natural gas from a well.
    Gasoline means any petroleum distillate which is used as a motor 
fuel.
    Petroleum means the crude oil removed from the earth and the oils 
derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
    Processing facility means any facility where petroleum or natural 
gas is used as a feedstock to produce gasoline, kerosene, distillate 
fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other related products.
    Storage facility means any extraction facility, processing 
facility, bulk gasoline plant, bulk gasoline terminal, or any petroleum 
storage facility which distributes petroleum, natural gas, or gasoline 
to retail outlet and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities. This 
definition does not apply to retail gasoline service stations.
    (ii) Applicability. The requirements of paragraphs (b)(5) (iii), 
(iv), (v), and (vi) of this section shall apply to any owner or 
operator of any petroleum or natural gas extraction, processing, or 
storage facility located in the control area as defined in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to Title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to Title 
V.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to:
    (1) the test methods and procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, and
    (2) data and engineering calculations approved by EPA 
documenting process modifications that were made to reduce VOC 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph (b)(5) because of 
paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section shall limit total VOC emissions 
from the subject facility to the level calculated by the following 
equations:

TP05MY94.027

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.028

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.029

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.030

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

TP05MY94.031

where
R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

    (iv) Reporting. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section, as described under paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this 
section shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar 
year, beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this 
section for the previous calendar year. This certification shall 
include:
    (A) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (B) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (v) Recordkeeping. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section because of paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section shall 
collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate compliance 
with the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section for each emissions source and maintain the information at 
the facility for a period of five (5) years. The information shall be 
collected and recorded each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 
and ending with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring. The Administrator may require, at any 
time, any owner or operator of a facility subject to the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (c) Incorporated by Reference. The materials listed below are 
incorporated by reference. The incorporation by reference was approved 
by the Director of the Office of Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.\9\ These materials are incorporated as 
they exist on the date of approval, and a notice of any change in these 
materials will be published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\Incorporation by reference is pending approval by the Office 
of Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) ASTM D3925-81 (1985) Standard Practice for Sampling Liquid 
Paints and Related Pigment Coating.
    (2) ASTM E300 Standard Practice for Sampling Industrial Chemicals.
    (3) ASTM D1475-85: Standard Test Method for Density of Paint, 
Varnish, Lacquer and Related Products.
    (4) ASTM D2369-87: Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of a 
Coating.
    (5) ASTM D3792-86: Standard Test Method for Water Content of Water-
Reducible Paints by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph.
    (6) ASTM D4017-81 (1987): Standard Test Method for Water Content in 
Paints and Paint Materials by the Karl Fischer Method.
    (7) ASTM D4457-85: Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Dichloromethane and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in Paints and Coatings by 
Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph.
    (8) ASTM D2697-86: Standard Test Method for Volume Non-volatile 
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.
    (9) ASTM E180-85: Standard Practice for Determining the Precision 
Data of ASTM Methods for Analysis and Testing of Industrial Chemicals.
    (10) ASTM Method D2879-86: Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure-
Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of 
Liquids by Isoteniscope.


Sec. 52.2953  Stationary and area source caps (Ventura).10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\0EPA intends to issue a supplemental document in the Federal 
Register which addresses portions of proposed Sec. 52.2953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) General Provisions.
    (1) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to 
all stationary emission sources located in the ``control area'' as 
defined as the Ventura ozone nonattainment area in 40 CFR 81.305, and 
all other persons identified in subsequent applicability paragraphs in 
this section.
    (2) Compliance dates. Unless otherwise specified in this section, 
compliance with all requirements of this section is required as of 
[Insert date of publication of the final rule]. This paragraph shall 
not operate to provide additional time for compliance under Section 
113(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C 7413(d), for sources subject to compliance 
as of [Insert date of publication of the final rule].
    (3) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following 
definitions apply. All terms not defined herein shall have the meaning 
given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Actual emissions means the actual quantity of VOC emissions from an 
emissions source during a particular time period.
    Actual emissions rate means the actual quantity of VOC emissions 
from an emissions source per unit of production or throughput.
    Agency means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    Air contaminant means any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any 
odor, or any form of energy, that is capable of being released into the 
atmosphere from an emission source.
    Air pollution means the presence in the atmosphere of one or more 
air contaminants in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics 
and duration as to be injurious to human, plant, or animal life, to 
health, or to property, or to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment 
of life or property.
    Air pollution control equipment means any equipment or facility of 
a type intended to eliminate, prevent, reduce or control the emission 
of specified air contaminants to the atmosphere.
    Allowable emissions rate means the most stringent of the applicable 
standards in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61; the applicable implementation 
plan; or a federally enforceable permit.
    Baseline emissions means the emissions calculated using 1990 
emission inventory data in the affected FIP areas and adjusted for 
emission reductions projected to occur by the implementation year of 
the FIP cap program in the affected FIP area. The baseline shall be 
denominated in pounds per year of FIP cap pollutant (e.g., pounds of 
VOC per year) and monthly caps shall be prorated based on this data.
    Coating applicator means any equipment or device including but not 
limited to cloth, rollers, brushes, spray guns, or dip tanks used to 
apply a coating.
    Day means a period of consecutive 24 hours beginning at 12 a.m. 
(midnight) local time, or beginning at a time consistent with a 
facility's operating schedule.
    Emission rate means the total mass of VOCs released or discharged 
from an emissions source into the atmosphere per unit of production or 
throughput (e.g., pound VOC/gallon of coating solids).
    Emission source or source means any building, structure, facility, 
property, equipment, device, container, or any combination thereof, at, 
from, or by reason which VOC is emitted or discharged into the 
atmosphere.
    Facility means all of the pollutant-emitting activities which 
belong to the same industrial grouping, are located on one or more 
contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under the control of the 
same person (or persons under common control), except the activities of 
any vessel. Pollutant-emitting activities shall be considered as part 
of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the same ``Major 
Group'' (i.e., which have the same two-digit code) as described in the 
``Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987'' (National Technical 
Information Service order No. PB 87-10012).
    Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions that are 
enforceable by the Administrator including those requirements contained 
in permits issued pursuant to 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, except those 
terms or conditions designated as not federally enforceable; those 
requirements developed pursuant to 40 CFR parts 60 and 61; requirements 
within any applicable implementation plan; and any permit requirements 
established pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved 
pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, and 40 CFR 51.166.
    Incinerator means a combustion apparatus in which solid, semi-
solid, liquid, or gaseous combustible wastes are ignited and burned and 
from which the solid and gaseous residues contain little or no 
combustible material.
    Monitor means to measure and record.
    Organic compound means a chemical compound of carbon, excluding 
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides, 
carbonates, and ammonium carbonate.
    Organic vapor means the gaseous phase of an organic compound or a 
mixture of organic compounds present in the atmosphere.
    Owner or operator means any person who owns, operates, leases, 
controls, or supervises an emissions source or air pollution control 
equipment.
    Person means any individual, corporation, copartnership, firm, 
company, partnership, joint stock company, trust, association, State, 
municipality, political subdivision, or any other legal entity, or 
their legal representative, agent, or assigns.
    Process means any stationary emission source other than a fuel 
combustion emission source or an incinerator.
    Source means emission source.
    Standard conditions means a temperature of 20 deg.C (68 deg.F) and 
a pressure of 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg).
    Stationary emission source and Stationary source mean an emission 
source which is not self-propelled.
    (4) Test Methods and Procedures.
    (i) Coatings, Inks, and Fountain Solutions. The following test 
methods and procedures shall be used to determine the VOC content of as 
applied coatings, inks, and fountain solutions to determine compliance 
with the limitations set forth in this section.
    (A) Sampling. Samples collected for analyses shall be one-liter 
taken into a one-liter container at a location and time such that the 
sample will be representative of the coating as applied (i.e., the 
sample shall include any dilution solvent or other VOC added during the 
manufacturing process). The container must be tightly sealed 
immediately after the sample is taken. Any solvent or other VOC added 
after the sample is taken must be measured and accounted for in the 
calculations in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(C) of this section. For multiple 
package coatings, separate samples of each component shall be obtained. 
A mixed sample shall not be obtained as it will cure in the container. 
Sampling procedures shall follow the guidelines presented in:
    (1) ASTM D3925-81 (1985) Standard Practice for Sampling Liquid 
Paints and Related Pigment Coating. This practice is incorporated by 
reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) ASTM E300 Standard Practice for Sampling Industrial Chemicals. 
This practice is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (B) Analyses. The applicable analytical methods specified below 
shall be used to determine the composition of coatings, inks, or 
fountain solutions as applied.
    (1) Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A shall be used to 
determine the VOC content and density of coatings.
    (2) Method 24A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall be used to 
determine the VOC content and density of publication rotogravure 
printing inks and related coatings.
    (3) The following ASTM methods and practices are the analytical 
procedures for determining VOC:
    (i) ASTM D1475-85: Standard Test Method for Density of Paint, 
Varnish, Lacquer and Related Products. This test method is incorporated 
by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) ASTM D2369-87: Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of a 
Coating. This test method is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) 
of this section. The following minor modifications should be used for 
multicomponent coatings. All components of the coating are to be 
weighed in the proper proportion into the analysis container and mixed 
together just prior to analysis and the mixture is allowed to stand for 
at least one hour but no more than 24 hours prior to being oven dried 
at 110 degrees celsius for one hour.
    (iii) ASTM D3792-86: Standard Test Method for Water Content of 
Water-Reducible Paints by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph. 
This test method is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (iv) ASTM D4017-81 (1987): Standard Test Method for Water Content 
in Paints and Paint Materials by the Karl Fischer Method. This test 
method is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (v) ASTM D4457-85: Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Dichloromethane and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in Paints and Coatings by 
Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph. (The procedure delineated 
above can be used to develop protocols for any compounds specifically 
exempted from the definition of VOC.) This test method is incorporated 
by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (vi) ASTM D2697-86: Standard Test Method for Volume Non-volatile 
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings. This test method is incorporated 
by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (vii) ASTM E180-85: Standard Practice for Determining the Precision 
Data of ASTM Methods for Analysis and Testing of Industrial Chemicals. 
This practice is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (4) Use of an adaptation to any of the analytical methods specified 
in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(B) (1), (2), and (3) of this section may be 
approved by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis. An owner or 
operator must submit sufficient documentation for the Administrator to 
find that the analytical methods specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(B) 
(1), (2), and (3) of this section will yield inaccurate results and 
that the proposed adaptation is appropriate.
    (C) Calculations. Calculations for determining the VOC content, 
water content, and the content of any compounds which are specifically 
exempted from the definition of VOC of coatings, inks, and fountain 
solutions as applied shall follow the guidance provided in the 
following documents.
    (1) ``A Guide for Surface Coating Calculation'' EPA-340/1-86-016 
(which is available from the National Technical Information Services, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (2) ``Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic 
Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink and Other Coatings'' (revised June 
1986) EPA-450/3-84-019 (which is available from the National Technical 
Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 
22161)
    (3) ``A Guide for Graphic Arts Calculations'' August 1988 EPA-340/
1-88-003 (which is available from the National Technical Information 
Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (ii) Automobile or Light-Duty Truck Test Protocol. The protocol for 
testing, including determining the transfer efficiency, of coating 
applicators at topcoat coating operations at an automobile assembly 
facility shall follow the procedure in: ``Protocol for Determining the 
Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Topcoat Operations'' December 1988 EPA-450/3-88-018 (which 
is available from the National Technical Information Services, 5285 
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161).
    (iii) Capture System Efficiency Test Protocols.
    (A) Applicability. The requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B) of 
this section shall apply to all VOC emitting processes employing a 
capture system except those cases noted below.
    (1) If a source installs a permanent total enclosure (PTE) that 
meets U.S.EPA specifications, and which directs all VOC to a control 
device, then the source is exempted from the requirements described in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B) of this section. The U.S.EPA specifications to 
determine whether a structure is considered a PTE are given in 
Procedure T of appendix B of 40 CFR 52.742. In this instance, the 
capture efficiency is assumed to be 100 percent and the source is still 
required to measure control efficiency using appropriate test methods 
as specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of this section.
    (2) If a source uses a control device designed to collect and 
recover VOC (e.g., carbon adsorber), an explicit measurement of capture 
efficiency is not necessary provided that the conditions given below 
are met. The overall control of the system can be determined by 
directly comparing the input liquid VOC to the recovered liquid VOC. 
The general procedure for use in this situation is given in Sec. 60.433 
of this chapter, with the following additional restrictions:
    (i) The source must be able to equate solvent usage with solvent 
recovery on a 24-hour (daily) basis, rather than a 30-day weighted 
average, within 72 hours following the 24-hour period. In addition, one 
of the following two criteria must be met:
    (ii) The solvent recovery system (i.e., capture and control system) 
must be dedicated to a single process, or
    (iii) If the solvent recovery system controls multiple processes, 
then the source must be able to demonstrate that the overall control 
(i.e., the total recovered solvent VOC divided by the sum of liquid VOC 
input to all processes venting to the control system) meets or exceeds 
the most stringent standard applicable for any process venting to the 
control system.
    (3) The following facilities are exempted from the requirements 
described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) of this section:
    (i) Automobile-related assembly facilities subject to the 
``Automobile or Light-Duty Truck Test Protocol'' described in paragraph 
(a)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) Heatset-web-offset lithographic printing units as defined in 
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
    (B) Specific Requirements. The capture efficiency of a process 
shall be measured using one of the four protocols given below. Any 
error margin associated with a test protocol may not be incorporated 
into the results of a capture efficiency test. If these techniques are 
not suitable for a particular process, then the source must present an 
alternative capture efficiency protocol and obtain approval for it by 
the Administrator as a SIP or FIP revision.
    (1) Gas/gas method using temporary total enclosure (TTE). The U.S. 
EPA specifications to determine whether a temporary enclosure is 
considered a TTE are given in Procedure T of appendix B of 40 CFR 
52.741. The capture efficiency equation to be used for this protocol 
is:

CE=Gw/(Gw+Fw)
where
CE=capture efficiency, decimal fraction
Gw=mass of VOC captured and delivered to control device using a 
TTE
Fw=mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from a TTE Procedure G.2 
contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain Gw. 
Procedure F.1 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain Fw.
    (2) Liquid/gas method using TTE. The U.S. EPA specifications to 
determine whether a temporary enclosure is considered a TTE are given 
in Procedure T of appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741. The capture efficiency 
equation to be used for this protocol is:

CE=(L-Fw)/L
where
CE=capture efficiency, decimal fraction
L=mass of liquid VOC input to process
Fw=mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from a TTE Procedure L 
contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain L. Procedure 
F.1 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain Fw.
    (3) Gas/gas method using the building or room (building or room 
enclosure) in which the affected source is located as the enclosure and 
in which ``F'' and ``G'' are measured while operating only the affected 
facility. All fans and blowers in the building or room must be operated 
as they would under normal production. The capture efficiency equation 
to be used for this protocol is:

CE=G/(G+FB)

where
CE=capture efficiency, decimal fraction
G=mass of VOC captured and delivered to control device
FB=mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from building enclosure
Procedure G.2 contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to 
obtain G. Procedure F.2 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to 
obtain FB.
    (4) Liquid/gas method using the building or room (building or room 
enclosure) in which the affected source is located as the enclosure and 
in which ``F'' and ``L'' are measured while operating only the affected 
facility. All fans and blowers in the building or room must be operated 
as they would under normal production. The capture efficiency equation 
to be used for this protocol is:

CE=(L-FB)/L
where
CE=capture efficiency, decimal fraction
L=mass of liquid VOC input to process
FB=mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from building enclosure
Procedure L contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain 
L. Procedure F.2 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain 
FB.
    (C) Recordkeeping and Reporting.
    (1) All affected facilities must maintain a copy of the capture 
efficiency protocol submitted to EPA on file. All results of the 
appropriate test methods and capture efficiency protocols must be 
reported to EPA within sixty (60) days of the test date. A copy of the 
results must be kept on file with the source for a period of five (5) 
years.
    (2) If any changes are made to capture equipment, then affected 
facilities must notify EPA of these changes and a new test may be 
required by EPA.
    (3) All affected facilities must notify the Administrator 30 days 
prior to performing any capture efficiency test. At that time, the 
source must notify the Administrator which capture efficiency protocol 
will be used.
    (4) All affected facilities utilizing a PTE must demonstrate that 
this enclosure meets the requirement given in Procedure T in appendix B 
of 40 CFR 52.741 at all times.
    (5) All affected facilities utilizing a TTE must demonstrate that 
their TTE meets the requirements given in Procedure T in appendix B of 
40 CFR 52.741 for a TTE during testing of their control device. The 
source must also provide documentation that the quality assurance 
criteria for a TTE have been achieved.
    (iv) Control Device Efficiency Testing and Monitoring.
    (A) Control Efficiency Test. The control device efficiency shall be 
determined by simultaneously measuring the inlet and outlet gas phase 
VOC concentrations and gas volumetric flow rates in accordance with the 
gas phase test methods specified in paragraph (a)(4)(vi) of this 
section.
    (B) Continuous Monitoring. Any owner or operator that uses an 
afterburner or carbon adsorber to comply with any requirement of this 
section shall use continuous monitoring equipment which is installed, 
calibrated, maintained, and operated according to vendor specifications 
and which meets EPA-approved performance specifications at all times 
when the afterburner or carbon adsorber is in use. The continuous 
monitoring equipment must automatically monitor and record the 
following parameters:
    (1) Combustion chamber temperature of each afterburner.
    (2) Temperature rise across each catalytic afterburner bed or VOC 
concentration exhaust.
    (3) The VOC concentration of each carbon adsorption bed exhaust.
    (C) Recordkeeping and Reporting.
    (1) All affected facilities must maintain a copy of all control 
efficiency test protocols for a period of five (5) years. All control 
test results must be reported to EPA within sixty (60) days of the test 
date. A copy of the results must be kept on file with the source for a 
period of five (5) years.
    (2) All affected facilities must maintain copies of all required 
continuous monitoring records for a period of five (5) years.
    (3) If any changes are made to control equipment, affected 
facilities must notify EPA of these changes and a new control 
efficiency test may be required by EPA.
    (4) All affected facilities must notify the Administrator 30 days 
prior to performing any control efficiency test. At that time, the 
source must notify the Administrator which test methods will be used.
    (v) Overall Efficiency.
    (A) The overall efficiency of each emission control system shall be 
determined as the product of the capture system efficiency and the 
control device efficiency or by the liquid/liquid test protocol as 
specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section for each 
solvent recovery system.
    (B) The overall efficiency of the capture system and control device 
used to control VOC emissions from a paper, fabric, film, can, coil, or 
miscellaneous metal parts and products coating line, as determined by 
the test methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(iii), 
(a)(4)(iv), and (a)(4)(v)(A) of this section, shall be no less than the 
equivalent overall efficiency which shall be calculated by the 
following equation:

E = ([VOCa--VOC1]/VOCa)  x  100

where:
E=Equivalent overall efficiency of the capture system and control 
device as a percentage,
VOCa = Actual VOC content of a coating, or the daily-weighted 
average VOC content of two or more coatings (if more than one coating 
is used), as applied to the subject coating line as determined by the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) 
of this section in units of kg VOC/l (lb VOC/gal) of coating solids as 
applied, and
VOC1=The VOC emission limit specified in units of kg VOC/liter (lb 
VOC/gal) of coating solids as applied.

    (vi) Volatile Organic Compound Gas Phase Source Test Methods. The 
methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, delineated below shall be used 
to determine control device efficiencies.
    (A) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 18, 25, 25A, or 25B, as 
appropriate to the conditions at the site, shall be used to determine 
VOC concentration. Method selection shall be based on consideration of 
the diversity of organic species present and their total concentration 
and on consideration of the potential presence of interfering gases. 
Except as indicated in paragraphs (a)(4)(vi)(A) (1) and (2) of this 
section, the test shall consist of three separate runs, each lasting a 
minimum of 60 min., unless the Administrator determines that process 
variables dictate shorter sampling times.
    (1) When the method is to be used to determine the efficiency of a 
fixed-bed carbon adsorption system with a common exhaust stack for all 
the individual adsorber vessels, the test shall consist of three 
separate runs, each coinciding with one or more complete sequences 
through the adsorption cycles of all the individual adsorber vessels.
    (2) When the method is to be used to determine the efficiency of a 
carbon adsorption system with individual exhaust stacks for each 
adsorber vessel, each adsorber vessel shall be tested individually. The 
test for each adsorber vessel shall consist of three separate runs. 
Each run shall coincide with one or more complete adsorption cycles.
    (B) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 1 or 1A shall be used for 
sample and velocity traverses.
    (C) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D shall be 
used for velocity and volumetric flow rates.
    (D) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 3, 3A, or 3B shall be used 
for gas analysis.
    (E) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 4 shall be used for stack 
gas moisture.
    (F) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3, 3A, 3B, 
or 4 shall be performed, as applicable, at least twice during each test 
run.
    (G) Use of an adaptation to any of the test methods specified in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(vi) (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F) of this section 
may be approved by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis. An owner 
or operator must submit sufficient documentation for the Administrator 
to find that the test methods specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(vi) (A), 
(B), (C), (D), (E), and (F) of this section will yield inaccurate 
results and that the proposed adaptation is appropriate.
    (vii) Leak Detection Methods for Volatile Organic Compounds. Owners 
or operators required by the various subparts of this regulation to 
carry out a leak detection monitoring program shall comply with the 
following requirements:
    (A) Leak Detection Monitoring.
    (1) Monitoring shall comply with 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 
21.
    (2) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 21.
    (3) The instrument shall be calibrated before use on each day of 
its use by the methods specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 
21.
    (4) Calibration gases shall be:
    (i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in air), and
    (ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a concentration of 
approximately, but no less than, 10,000 ppm methane or n-hexane.
    (5) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential 
leak interfaces as close to the interface as possible as described in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 21.
    (B) When equipment is tested for compliance with no detectable 
emissions as required, the test shall comply with the following 
requirements:
    (1) The requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)(vii)(A) (1) through (5) 
of this section shall apply.
    (2) The background level shall be determined as set forth in 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, Method 21.
    (C) Leak detection tests shall be performed consistent with:
    (1) ``APTI Course SI 417 Controlling Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Leaking Process Equipment'' EPA-450/2-82-015 (which is 
available from the National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port 
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161).
    (2) ``Portable Instrument User's Manual for Monitoring VOC 
Sources'' EPA-340/1-86-015 (which is available from the National 
Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 
Virginia 22161).
    (3) ``Protocols for Generating Unit-Specific Emission Estimates for 
Equipment Leaks of VOC and VHAP'' EPA-450/3-88-010 (which is available 
from the National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, Virginia 22161).
    (4) ``Petroleum Refinery Enforcement Manual'' EPA-340/1-80-008 
(which is available from the National Technical Information Services, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161).
    (viii) Bulk Gasoline Delivery System Test Protocol.
    (A) The method for determining the emissions of gasoline from a 
vapor recovery system are delineated in 40 CFR 60.503.
    (B) Other tests shall be performed consistent with:
    (1) ``Inspection Manual for Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 
from Gasoline Marketing Operations: appendix D'' EPA-340/1-80-012 
(which is available from the National Technical Information Services, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161).
    (2) ``Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading 
Terminals: appendix A'', EPA-450/2-77-026 (which is available from the 
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (ix) Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic Liquids.
    (A) If the VOL consists of only a single compound, the vapor 
pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by 
reference as specified in paragraph (c) of this section or the vapor 
pressure may be obtained from a published source such as: Boublik, T., 
V. Fried and E. Hala, ``The Vapor Pressure of Pure Substances,'' 
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York (1973), Perry's Chemical 
Engineer's Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1984), CRC Handbook of 
Chemistry and Physics, Chemical Rubber Publishing Company (1986-87), 
and Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, John A. Dean, editor, McGraw-Hill 
Book Company (1985).
    (B) If the VOL is a mixture, the vapor pressure shall be determined 
by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by reference as specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section) or by the following equation: 

TP05MY94.032

where:
Pvol=Total vapor pressure of the mixture,
n=Number of components in the mixture,
i=Subscript denoting an individual component,
Pi=Vapor pressure of a component determined in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(4)(ix)(A) of this section, and Xi=Mole fraction of 
the component in the total mixture.
    (x) Vapor Pressure of Organic Material or Solvent.
    (A) If the organic material or solvent consists of only a single 
compound, the vapor pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-
86 (incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this section) or the 
vapor pressure may be obtained from a published source such as: 
Boublik, T., V. Fried and E. Hala, ``The Vapor Pressure of Pure 
Substances,'' Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York (1973), 
Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1984), 
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Chemical Rubber Publishing 
Company (1986-87), and Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, John A. Dean, 
editor, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1985).
    (B) If the organic material or solvent is in a mixture made up of 
both organic material compounds and compounds which are not organic 
material, the vapor pressure shall be determined by the following 
equation: 

TP05MY94.033

where:
Pom=Total vapor pressure of the portion of the mixture which is 
composed of organic material,
n=Number of organic material components in the mixture,
i=Subscript denoting an individual component,
Pi=Vapor pressure of an organic material component determined in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(x)(A) of this section, and
Xi=Mole fraction of the organic material component of the total 
mixture.

    (C) If the organic material or solvent is in a mixture made up of 
only organic material compounds, the vapor pressure shall be determined 
by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of 
this section) or by the above equation.
    (xi) Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic Compounds.
    (A) If the VOC consists of only a single compound, the vapor 
pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by 
reference in paragraph (c) of this section) or the vapor pressure may 
be obtained from a published source such as: Boublik, T., V. Fried and 
E. Hala, ``The Vapor Pressure of Pure Substances,'' Elsevier Scientific 
Publishing Co., New York (1973), Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 
McGraw-Hill Book Company (1984), CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 
Chemical Rubber Publishing Company (1986-87), and Lange's Handbook of 
Chemistry, John A. Dean, editor, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1985).
    (B) If the VOC is in a mixture made up of both VOC compounds and 
compounds which are not VOC, the vapor pressure shall be determined by 
the following equation:

TP05MY94.034

where:
Pvoc=Total vapor pressure of the portion of the mixture which is 
composed of VOC,
n=Number of VOC components in the mixture,
i=Subscript denoting an individual component,
Pi=Vapor pressure of a VOC component determined in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(4)(xi)(A) of this section, and
Xi=Mole fraction of the VOC component of the total mixture.

    (C) If the VOC is in a mixture made up of only VOC compounds, the 
vapor pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-86 
(incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this section) or by the 
above equation.
    (xii) Baseline Emissions. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section, baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for 
each emissions source in accordance with one of the procedures 
specified below:
    (A) If daily emissions records which are consistent with the 
emission inventory data submitted by the State for the control area on 
November 15, 1992 are available for the calendar years 1989 and 1990, 
baseline emissions shall be based on the median value of daily 
emissions recorded for the two-year period.
    (B) If daily emissions records are not available for the calendar 
years 1989 and 1990 or are inconsistent with the emission inventory 
data submitted by the State for the control area on November 15, 1992 
or were not submitted, baseline emissions shall be based on the average 
daily emissions value calculated for the two-year period. The average 
daily emissions value shall be calculated by dividing emissions for the 
two-year period by the operating or usage time for the two-year period. 
If solvent or coating usage data are not available, emissions 
associated with solvent or coating usage may be estimated from 
purchase-order records. The operating or usage time for the two-year 
period shall be based on one of the criteria specified as follows:
    (1) The number of days specified in a federally enforceable permit 
if the emissions source operated under the conditions of a federally 
enforceable permit which restricted operating times during the two-year 
period,
    (2) The average number of days that the emissions source was 
operated or used over the two-year period if documentation is available 
to support the number, or
    (3) 730 days if documentation of the number of days that the 
emissions source was operated or used over the two-year period is not 
available.
    (xiii) Implementation Year Monthly Baseline Emissions. Baseline 
emissions as defined in paragraph (a)(4)(xii) of this section shall be 
adjusted prior to the implementation year (2001) of the FIP cap program 
in the control area as follows:
    (A) The reductions that are projected to occur as a result of both 
SIP and FIP measures between 1990 and 2001 shall be subtracted from the 
baseline emissions. This value shall be defined as the reduced daily 
baseline emissions and is denoted in pounds of VOC/day.
    (B) The reduced daily baseline emissions shall be annualized by 
multiplying the daily value by 365. This value shall be defined as the 
reduced annual baseline emissions and is denoted in pounds of VOC/year.
    (C) The reduced annual baseline emissions shall be converted into a 
monthly value by dividing by 12. This value shall be defined as the 
implementation year monthly baseline.
    (5) Enforcement.
    (i) All sources and facilities subject to provisions of 
Sec. 52.2952 shall be subject to unannounced inspections by 
representatives of the USEPA pursuant to section 114 of the Clean Air 
Act.
    (ii) Documentation maintained by all sources, facilities, and 
persons subject to this section must be sufficient to demonstrate 
compliance with all requirements of this section and must be provided 
to representatives of USEPA upon request.
    (iii) Failure to comply with any provision of this section is a 
violation of the applicable implementation plan for purposes of section 
113 of the Clean Air Act.
    (iv) Each 50 pounds of emissions in excess of a facility's monthly 
cap shall be a separate violation for federal enforcement purposes.
    (b) Stationary and Area Source Control Measures.
    (1) Industrial and Commercial Solvents/Coatings.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Adhesives means any substance or mixture of substances intended to 
serve as a joining compound.
    Aerospace component means the fabricated part, assembly of parts, 
or completed unit of any aircraft or space vehicle.
    Aerospace component coating facility means a facility that includes 
one or more aerospace component coating unit(s).
    Aerospace component coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating or reinforcing material 
is applied on or impregnated into an aerospace component.
    Aircraft means any machine designed to travel through the air above 
ground without leaving the earth's atmosphere, whether heavier or 
lighter than air, including airplanes, balloons, dirigibles, 
helicopters, and missiles.
    Automobile means a motor vehicle capable of carrying no more than 
12 passengers.
    Can means any cylindrical, single walled container that is 
manufactured from metal sheets thinner than 29 gauge (0.0141 in.); with 
or without a top, cover, spout, or handles; into which solid or liquid 
materials are packaged.
    Can coating facility means a facility that includes one or more can 
coating unit(s).
    Can coating unit means a coating unit in which any protective, 
decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the surface of cans 
or can components.
    Coating means a material applied onto or impregnated into a 
substrate for protective, decorative, or functional purposes. Such 
materials include, but are not limited to, paints, varnishes, sealants, 
adhesives, thinners, diluents, inks, maskants, and/or temporary 
protective coatings.
    Coating applicator means any equipment or device, including but not 
limited to cloth, rollers, brushes, spray guns, and dip tanks, used to 
apply a coating onto or into a substrate.
    Coating unit means a series of one or more coating applicators and 
any associated drying areas and/or oven wherein a coating is applied, 
dried, and/or cured. A coating unit ends at the point where the coating 
is dried or cured, or prior to any subsequent application of a 
different coating. It is not necessary to have an oven or a flashoff 
area in order to be included in this definition.
    Coil means any continuous metal sheet or strip with thickness of 
0.15 mm (0.006 in.) or more that is packaged in a roll or coil.
    Coil coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
coil coating unit(s).
    Coil coating unit means a coating unit in which any protective, 
decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the surface of flat 
metal sheets, strips, rolls, or coils for industrial or commercial use.
    Cold cleaning means the batch process of cleaning and removing 
soils from surfaces by spraying, brushing, flushing, or immersion while 
maintaining the organic solvent below its boiling point. Wipe cleaning 
is not included in this definition.
    Conveyorized degreasing means the continuous process of cleaning 
and removing soils from surfaces using either cold or vaporized 
solvents.
    Degreaser means any equipment or system used in solvent cleaning.
    Degreasing facility means a facility that includes one or more cold 
cleaning, open-top vapor degreasing, and/or conveyorized degreasing 
processes.
    Dry cleaning facility means a facility engaged in the cleaning of 
fabrics using an essentially nonaqueous solvent by means of one or more 
solvent washes, extraction of excess solvent by spinning, and drying by 
tumbling in an airstream. The facility includes, but is not limited to, 
washers, dryers, filter and purification systems, waste disposal 
systems, holding tanks, pumps, and attendant piping and valves.
    Fabric coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
fabric coating unit(s).
    Fabric coating unit means a web coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating or reinforcing material 
is applied on, saturated into, or impregnated into a textile fabric. A 
fabric printing unit is not considered a fabric coating unit.
    Film coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
film coating unit(s).
    Film coating unit means a coating unit in which any protective, 
decorative, or functional coating is applied on, saturated into, or 
impregnated into any film substrate; other than paper, fabric, or 
vinyl; including but not limited to typewriter ribbons, photographic 
film, plastic film, magnetic tape, and metal foil.
    Flatwood product means panels made of wood materials including; but 
not limited to; plywood, particle board, and hardboard.
    Flatwood product coating facility means a facility that includes 
one or more flatwood product coating unit(s).
    Flatwood product coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied on or 
impregnated into a flatwood product.
    Flexographic printing means the application of words, designs, and 
pictures to a substrate by means of a roll printing technique in which 
the pattern to be applied is raised above the printing roll and the 
image carrier is made of elastomeric materials.
    Flexographic printing press means a printing press in which each 
roll printer uses a roll with raised areas for applying an image such 
as words, designs, or pictures to a substrate. The image carrier on the 
roll is made of rubber or other elastomeric material.
    Fountain solution means the solution which is applied to the 
lithographic printing plate to maintain hydrophilic properties of the 
nonimage areas.
    Graphic arts coating facility means a facility that includes one or 
more graphic arts coating units.
    Graphic arts coating unit means any packaging rotogravure printing, 
publication rotogravure printing, flexographic printing, lithographic 
printing, letterpress printing, laminating, or screen printing unit or 
any paper, fabric, or film coating unit operated in conjunction with a 
printing unit.
    Group I vehicles and equipment means large-sized trucks, buses, and 
mobile equipment.
    Group II vehicles means passenger cars, small-sized trucks and 
vans, medium-sized trucks and vans, and motorcycles.
    Heatset means a class of web-offset lithography which requires a 
heated dryer to solidify the printing inks.
    Heatset-web-offset lithographic printing unit means a lithographic 
printing unit in which a blanket cylinder is used to transfer ink from 
a plate cylinder to a substrate continuously fed from a roll or an 
extension process and an oven is used to solidify the printing inks.
    Heavy off-highway vehicle products means heavy construction, 
mining, farming, or material handling equipment; heavy industrial 
engines; diesel-electric locomotives and associated power generation 
equipment; and the components of such equipment or engines.
    Heavy off-highway vehicle products coating facility means a 
facility that includes one or more heavy off-highway vehicle products 
coating unit(s).
    Heavy off-highway vehicle products coating unit means a coating 
unit in which any protective, decorative, or functional coating is 
applied onto the surface of heavy off-highway vehicle products.
    Highway means a way or place of whatever nature, publicly 
maintained and open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel. 
Highway includes street.
    Industrial or commercial solvent use facility means any industrial 
or commercial facility that uses solvents which contain VOCs or 
substances that contain solvents which contain VOCs. Industrial and 
commercial solvent use facilities include, but are not limited to, 
perchloroethylene dry cleaning, petroleum dry cleaning, metal cleaning, 
degreasing, aerospace component coating, motor vehicle and mobile 
equipment assembly line coating, motor vehicle and mobile equipment 
refinishing, can coating, coil coating, fabric coating, film coating, 
flatwood product coating, graphic arts coating, large appliance 
coating, magnet wire coating, marine vessel coating, metal and wood 
furniture coating, miscellaneous metal parts and products coating, 
paper coating, and plastic parts coating facilities. Substances that 
contain solvents include, but are not limited to, coatings, inks, 
fountain solutions, adhesives, thinners, and clean-up solvents.
    Ink means a coating used in printing, impressing, or transferring 
an image onto a substrate.
    Laminating unit means a printing unit in which an adhesive is used 
to form two or more layers of material into a single, multiple-layer 
sheet.
    Large appliance means the component metal parts (including, but not 
limited to, doors, cases, lids, panels, and interior support parts) of 
residential and commercial washers, dryers, ranges, refrigerators, 
freezers, water heaters, dish washers, trash compactors, air 
conditioners, and other similar products under SIC Code 363.
    Large appliance coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more large appliance coating unit(s).
    Large appliance coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the 
surface of component metal parts of large appliances.
    Letterpress printing unit means a printing unit in which the image 
area is raised relative to the nonimage area on the roll printer and 
the ink is transferred to the paper directly from the image surface.
    Light-duty truck means any motor vehicle rated at 3864 kg (8500 lb) 
gross vehicle weight or less, designed mainly to transport property.
    Lithographic printing unit means a printing unit in which the image 
and nonimage areas are on the same plane of the roll printer.
    Magnet wire coating facility means a facility that includes one or 
more magnet coating unit(s).
    Magnet wire coating unit means a coating unit in which electrically 
insulating varnish or enamel is applied onto the surface of wire to be 
used in electrical machinery.
    Marine vessel means a ship or boat used to travel on, or a 
submarine used to travel through, the sea.
    Marine vessel coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more marine vessel coating unit(s).
    Marine vessel coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied on the 
fabricated part, assembly of parts, or completed unit of any marine 
vessel.
    Metal furniture means any furniture piece made of metal or any 
metal part which is or will be assembled with other metal, wood, 
fabric, plastic, or glass parts to form a furniture piece including, 
but not limited to, tables, chairs, waste baskets, beds, desks, 
lockers, benches, shelving, file cabinets, lamps, and room dividers. 
This definition shall not apply to any coating unit coating 
miscellaneous metal parts or products.
    Metal furniture coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more metal furniture coating unit(s).
    Metal furniture coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the 
surface of metal furniture.
    Miscellaneous metal part or product means any metal part or metal 
product, even if attached to or combined with a nonmetal part or 
product.
    Miscellaneous metal parts or products coating facility means a 
facility that includes one or more miscellaneous metal parts or 
products coating unit(s).
    Miscellaneous metal parts or products coating unit means a coating 
unit in which any protective, decorative, or functional coating is 
applied onto the surface of miscellaneous metal parts or products.
    Mobile equipment means self-propelled equipment which is physically 
capable of being driven on a highway. Mobile equipment includes: 
automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, vans, construction equipment (e.g., 
mobile cranes, bulldozers, concrete mixers), farming equipment (e.g., 
wheel tractors, pesticide sprayers), and miscellaneous equipment (e.g., 
street cleaners, golf carts, and hauling equipment used inside and 
around airports, docks, depots, and industrial and commercial plants).
    Motor vehicle means a vehicle which is self-propelled and 
physically capable of being driven on a highway.
    Motor vehicle or mobile equipment assembly line coating facility 
means a facility where parts are manufactured or finished for eventual 
inclusion into finished motor vehicles or mobile equipment ready for 
sale to motor vehicle or mobile equipment dealers. This definition does 
not include customizers, body shops, and/or other auto refinishing 
facilities.
    Motor vehicle or mobile equipment refinishing facility means a 
facility where all or any part of used motor vehicles or mobile 
equipment is refinished, or customized, by the application of paint. 
This definition includes motor vehicles or mobile equipment dealerships 
who purchase new motor vehicle or mobile equipment from Original 
Equipment Manufacturers. This definition does not include motor vehicle 
or mobile equipment assembly line coating facilities.
    Motorcycle means any motor vehicle other than a tractor having a 
seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not 
more than three wheels in contact with the ground and weighing less 
than 1,500 lbs, except that four wheels may be in contact with the 
ground when two of the wheels are a functional part of a sidecar.
    Offset means a blanket cylinder that is used to transfer ink from a 
plate cylinder to the substance to be printed.
    Open-top vapor degreasing means the batch process of cleaning and 
removing soils from surfaces by condensing hot solvent vapor on the 
colder metal parts.
    Oven means a chamber within which heat is used for one or more of 
the following purposes: to dry, bake, cure, or polymerize a coating or 
ink.
    Packaging rotogravure printing means rotogravure printing upon 
paper, paper board, metal foil, plastic film, and other substrates 
which are, in subsequent operations, formed into packaging products or 
labels for articles to be sold.
    Packaging rotogravure printing press means a rotogravure printing 
press in which surface coatings are applied to paper, paperboard, metal 
foil, plastic film, or other substrates which are to be used to produce 
containers, packaging products, or labels for articles.
    Paper coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
paper coating unit(s).
    Paper coating unit means a web coating unit where coating is 
applied to paper. Printing presses are not considered paper coating 
units. Products produced on a paper coating unit include, but are not 
limited to, adhesive tapes and labels, book covers, post cards, office 
copier paper, drafting paper, and pressure sensitive tapes. Paper 
coating units include, but are not limited to, application by 
impregnation or saturation or by the use of roll, knife, or rotogravure 
coating.
    Printing unit means an operation consisting of a series of one or 
more roll printers and any associated roll coaters, drying areas, and/
or ovens wherein one or more surface coatings are applied, dried, and/
or cured. It is not necessary for an operation to have an oven, or 
flashoff area, or drying area to be included in this definition.
    Publication rotogravure printing unit means a rotogravure printing 
unit in which surface coatings are applied to paper which is 
subsequently formed into books, magazines, catalogues, brochures, 
directories, newspaper supplements, or other types of printed material.
    Refinish means to restore or replace coatings on Group I vehicles 
(large-sized trucks, buses, and mobile equipment) and Group II vehicles 
(passenger cars, small-sized trucks and vans, medium-sized trucks and 
vans, and motorcycles) and equipment, or their parts and components, 
except Original Equipment Manufacturer coatings applied at motor 
vehicle or mobile equipment assembly line coating facilities.
    Roll coater means an apparatus in which a uniform layer of coating 
material is applied by means of a roll or rolls across the entire width 
of a moving substrate which is fed from an unwinding roll.
    Roll printer means an apparatus in which a surface coating is 
applied by means of a roll or rolls with only partial coverage across 
the width of a moving substrate which is fed from an unwinding roll. 
The partial coverage results in the formation of words, designs, or 
pictures on the substrate.
    Rotogravure printing means the application of words, designs, and 
pictures to a substrate using a gravure cylinder by means of a roll 
printing technique in which the pattern to be applied is recessed 
relative to the nonimage area.
    Rotogravure printing unit means a printing unit in which each roll 
printer uses a roll with recessed areas for applying an image to a 
substrate.
    Screen printing unit means a printing unit in which the printing 
ink passes through a web or a fabric to which a refined form of stencil 
has been applied. The stencil openings determine the form and 
dimensions of the imprint.
    Solvent means a substance that is liquid at standard conditions 
that is used to dissolve or dilute another substance; this term 
includes, but is not limited to, organic materials used as dissolvers, 
viscosity reducers, degreasing agents, or cleaning agents.
    Solvent cleaning means the process of cleaning soils from surfaces 
by cold cleaning, open-top vapor degreasing, or conveyorized 
degreasing.
    Space vehicle means any vehicle designed to travel beyond the 
earth's atmosphere.
    Street means a public road in a town or city.
    Substrate means the surface to which a coating is applied on, 
saturated into, or impregnated into.
    Vinyl coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
vinyl coating unit(s).
    Vinyl coating unit means a web coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating or printing ink is 
applied onto a continuous web of vinyl-coated fabric or vinyl sheets.
    Web means an automatic system which supplies substrate from a 
continuous roll or an extrusion process.
    Wood furniture means room furnishings including cabinets (kitchen, 
bath, and vanity), tables, chairs, beds, sofas, shutters, art objects, 
wood paneling, wood flooring, and any other coated furnishings made of 
wood, wood composition, or fabricated wood materials.
    Wood furniture coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more wood furniture coating unit(s).
    Wood furniture coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied onto wood 
furniture.
    (ii) Applicability.
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) (A) and (B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of any degreasing facility or any motor vehicle or mobile 
equipment refinishing facility located in the control area as defined 
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (B) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) (A) and (B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of an industrial or commercial solvent use facility located 
in the applicable area specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this 
section at which actual emissions of VOC are greater than or equal to 
6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day.
    (C) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(iv)(B), (v)(B), and 
(vi)(B) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of an 
industrial or commercial solvent use facility located in the applicable 
area specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section at which 
actual emissions of VOC from all emissions sources are always less than 
6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day. If actual emissions of VOC from a 
facility which is exempt from the limitations of paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section ever exceed 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any 
one day on or after January 1, 2000, the facility will lose its exempt 
status, and the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5), (b)(1)(iv)(A), (b)(1)(v)(A), 
and (b)(1)(vi)(A) of this section beginning January 1 of the calendar 
year following the date of the exceedance.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to title 
V.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\1This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to:
    (1) the test methods and procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, and
    (2) data and engineering calculations approved by EPA 
documenting process modifications that were made to reduce VOC 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph, as described 
under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section, shall limit 
actual monthly emissions of VOC from the subject facility to the level 
calculated by the following equations: 

TP05MY94.035

where12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\2The range 0.04 to 0.09 reflects the 4% to 9% cumulative 
annual rate of emission reductions currently under consideration. In 
the first year, emissions would be reduced by 4% to 9% off of 
baseline levels; in the second year, emissions would be reduced by 
8% to 18% off of baseline levels, and so on until the minimum 20% 
VOC reduction is made. As discussed in the preamble to the 
regulations this range of annual reductions is based on EPA's 
preliminary rate of reduction analysis and may change as the 
analysis continues prior to final promulgation of this FIP. In 
addition, EPA plans to review this value every three years after 
final rule promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility. 

TP05MY94.036

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility. 

TP05MY94.037

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility. 

TP05MY94.038

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility. 

TP05MY94.039

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.
    (iv) Reporting.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this 
section, shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar 
year, beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this 
section for the previous calendar year. This certification shall 
include:
    (1) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section, and
    (2) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section because of paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section shall comply 
with the following:
    (1) By January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall certify to the 
Administrator that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. This 
certification shall include:
    (i) A declaration that the facility is exempt from the limitations 
of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section; and
    (ii) Calculations which demonstrate that total baseline VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility are and will 
remain less than 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day. Baseline emissions 
shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (2) (i) and (ii) of this section.
    (2) On and after January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall 
notify the Administrator of any record showing that actual emissions of 
VOC from the facility exceeded 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day by 
sending a copy of such record to the Administrator within 30 calendar 
days after the exceedance occurs.
    (v) Recordkeeping.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) or (B) of this 
section shall collect and record all information necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section for each emissions 
source and maintain the information at the facility for a period of 
five (5) years. The information shall be collected and recorded each 
day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate that 
actual emissions of VOC from all emissions sources are less than 6.8 kg 
(15 lbs) during each day and maintain the information at the facility 
for a period of five (5) years. The information shall be collected and 
recorded each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending 
with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring.
    (A) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (B) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility which is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section to demonstrate that the facility is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (2) VOC Emissions Associated with the Manufacturing of Products.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Facility which manufactures products containing VOCs means any 
facility where VOCs are emitted from processes which are used to 
manufacture or fabricate products. These products include, but are not 
limited to, the products specified in paragraphs (1) through (7) of 
this definition. This definition does not include facilities which are 
subject to any of the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(4), or 
(b)(5) of this section.
    (1) Industrial and agricultural organic chemicals and gases. 
Industrial organic chemicals include, but are not limited to, gum and 
wood chemicals, cyclic organic crudes and intermediates, organic dyes 
and pigments, and the chemicals listed in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix A. 
Agricultural organic chemicals include, but are not limited to, 
pesticides, livestock dips, soil conditioners, and fertilizers.
    (2) Plastic materials, synthetic resins, synthetic rubber, 
elastomizers, and cellulosic and manmade fibers.
    (3) Drugs which include, but are not limited to, medicinal 
chemicals and botanical products, pharmaceutical preparations, in vitro 
and in vivo diagnostic substances, and biological products.
    (4) Soaps; detergents; cleaning, polishing, and sanitizing 
preparations; surface active agents, finishing agents, sulfonated oils, 
and assistants; and perfumes and cosmetics.
    (5) Food additives and sweeteners.
    (6) Paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels, inks, primers, paint 
removers, thinners, stains, shellacs, cleaners, putty, coatings, 
adhesives, fillers, sealants, explosives, and carbon black.
    (7) Fabricated rubber and miscellaneous plastics products 
including, but not limited to, tires and inner tubes; rubber and 
plastics footware, hose, belting, gasket, packing, and sealing devices; 
and molded, extruded, and lathe-cut mechanical rubber goods.
    Manufacture means to produce or combine any ingredients contained 
in any product.
    Manufacturing process means a process or a series of processes used 
to convert raw materials, feed stocks, subassemblies, or other 
components into a product which will be sold, offered for sale, 
supplied, or distributed or will be used as a component in a subsequent 
manufacturing process. This definition includes the storage and 
handling of organic compounds or gases which are used in a 
manufacturing process and the handling of organic compounds or gases 
used to clean-up a manufacturing process.
    (ii) Applicability.
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) (iii)(A), (iii)(B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of a facility which manufactures products containing VOCs 
located in the control area as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section at which total VOC emissions are greater than or equal to 4.5 
kg (10 lbs) during any one day.
    (B) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) (iv)(B), (v)(B), and 
(vi)(B) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of a 
facility which manufactures products containing VOCs located in the 
applicable area specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section at 
which total VOC emissions from all emissions sources are always less 
than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. If uncontrolled VOC emissions 
from a facility which is exempt from the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section ever exceed 4.5 kg (10 
lbs) during any one day on or after January 1, 2000, the facility will 
lose its exempt status, and the owner or operator shall comply with the 
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) (iii)(B), (iv)(A), (v)(A), and 
(vi)(A) of this section beginning January 1 of the calendar year 
following the date of the exceedance.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V (of the 
Clean Air Act) operating permit. For sources not subject to Title V, 
sources shall submit all information which would be required for 
sources subject to Title V.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to:
    (1) the test methods and procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, and
    (2) data and engineering calculations approved by EPA 
documenting process modifications that were made to reduce VOC 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph, as described 
under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, shall limit total VOC 
emissions from the subject facility to the level calculated by the 
following equations:

TP05MY94.040

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.041

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.042

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.043

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)


TP05MY94.044

where
R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

    (iv) Reporting.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, 
shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar year, 
beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this section for 
the previous calendar year. This certification shall include:
    (1) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (2) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, 
shall comply with the following:
    (1) By January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall certify to the 
Administrator that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. This 
certification shall include:
    (i) A declaration that the facility is exempt from the limitations 
of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as 
described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section; and
    (ii) Calculations which demonstrate that total baseline VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility are and will 
remain less than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. Baseline emissions 
shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A) (1) and (2) of this section.
    (2) On and after January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall 
notify the Administrator of any record showing that total VOC emissions 
from the facility exceeded 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day by 
sending a copy of such record to the Administrator within 30 calendar 
days after the exceedance occurs.
    (v) Recordkeeping.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate 
compliance with the limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through 
(5) of this section for each emissions source and maintain the 
information at the facility for a period of five (5) years. The 
information shall be collected and recorded each day of each calendar 
year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate that 
total VOC emissions from all emissions sources are less than 4.5 kg (10 
lbs) during each day and maintain the information at the facility for a 
period of three years. The information shall be collected and recorded 
each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring.
    (A) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as described under 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of section to demonstrate compliance with the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (B) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility which is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) to perform tests using the applicable test 
methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section to 
demonstrate that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section.
    (3) Disposal of Materials Containing Volatile Organic Compounds.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Biodegradable waste means any organic waste that can be broken down 
into its basic elements by microorganisms.
    Biodegradable waste disposal facility means any facility which is 
operated as a business or owned by a state or municipality and is used 
to treat, store, or dispose of biodegradable waste or to reclaim or 
recycle organic compounds or gases from biodegradable wastes.
    Organic waste disposal facility means any facility which is 
operated as a business or owned by a state or municipality and is used 
to treat, store, or dispose of organic wastes that contain VOCs or to 
reclaim or recycle organic compounds or gases from organic wastes that 
contain VOCs. Such facilities include, but are not limited to, 
biodegradable waste disposal facilities (e.g., landfills); publicly 
owned treatment works; hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities; and sewage sludge, solid waste, and hazardous waste 
incinerators.
    Publicly owned treatment work (POTW) means any device or system 
which is owned by a state or municipality and is used to treat 
(including recycling and reclamation) municipal sewage or industrial 
liquid waste.
    (ii) Applicability. The requirements of paragraphs (b)(3) (iii), 
(iv), (v), and (vi) of this section shall apply to any owner or 
operator of any organic waste disposal facility located in the control 
area as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to Title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to Title 
V.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\4This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to:
    (1) the test methods and procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, and
    (2) data and engineering calculations approved by EPA 
documenting process modifications that were made to reduce VOC 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph because of 
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section shall limit total VOC emissions 
from the subject facility to the level calculated by the following 
equations:

TP05MY94.045

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.046

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where
R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.047

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where
R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.


TP05MY94.048

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month, Ro=Baseline VOC 
emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each emissions source at 
the facility. Baseline emissions shall be calculated in accordance with 
the requirements specified in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)


TP05MY94.049

where
R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

    (iv) Reporting. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section, as described under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar 
year, beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this 
section for the previous calendar year. This certification shall 
include:
    (A) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (B) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (v) Recordkeeping. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section, as described under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section, shall collect and record all information necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section for each emissions 
source and maintain the information at the facility for a period of 
five (5) years. The information shall be collected and recorded each 
day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring. The Administrator may require, at any 
time, any owner or operator of a facility subject to the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as described 
under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (4) Commercial Food Preparation and/or Baking.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Brandy-making facility means a facility that distills wine, the 
refuse of a wine press, or any other fermented fruit juices to produce 
alcoholic liquors.
    Charcoal means any substance obtained by charring wood or any other 
organic matter by a process of smothered combustion to exclude air.
    Commercial baking facility means a facility that bakes bread, 
biscuits, rolls, pies, cakes, cookies, or other similar products.
    Commercial charbroiling facility means a facility that broils any 
type of food over a charcoal or gas-fired broiler.
    Food preparation facility means any commercial baking, commercial 
charbroiling, wine- or brandy-making, fruit and vegetable preservation, 
grain mill production, vegetable oil production, or malt beverage 
production facility. This definition includes restaurants involved in 
activities described in the previous sentence.
    Fruit and vegetable preservation facility means a facility that 
preserves food by, but not limited to, canning, curing, pickling, 
salting, smoking, cooking, or freezing.
    Grain mill production facility means a facility that grinds any 
grain including, but not limited to, wheat, rice, corn, or rye into 
flour or meal.
    Malt beverage production facility means a facility engaged in 
malting, fermentation, aging, or packaging of barley or any other grain 
for the purpose of producing an alcoholic beverage.
    Vegetable oil production facility means a facility that extracts 
oil from any vegetable seed.
    Wine- or brandy-making facility means a facility that ferments 
juices from grapes or any other fruit for the purpose of producing 
alcoholic beverages.
    (ii) Applicability.
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(4) (iii)(A), (iii)(B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of a commercial food preparation facility located in the 
control area as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section at which 
VOC emissions are greater than or equal to 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any 
one day.
    (B) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(4) (iv)(B), (v)(B), and 
(vi)(B) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of a 
commercial food preparation facility located in the applicable area 
specified in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section at which total 
uncontrolled VOC emissions from all emissions sources are always less 
than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. If VOC emissions from a 
facility which is exempt from the limitations of paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section ever exceed 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any 
one day on or after January 1, 2000, the facility will lose its exempt 
status, and the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (b)(4) (iii)(B), (iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this 
section beginning January 1 of the calendar year following the date of 
the exceedance.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to Title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to Title 
V.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\5This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to:
    (1) the test methods and procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, and
    (2) data and engineering calculations approved by EPA 
documenting process modifications that were made to reduce VOC 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph, as described 
under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section shall limit total VOC 
emissions from the subject facility to the level calculated by the 
following equations:

TP05MY94.050

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.051

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.052

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.053

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.054

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.
    (iv) Reporting.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section 
shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar year, 
beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this section for 
the previous calendar year. This certification shall include:
    (1) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (2) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section 
shall comply with the following:
    (1) By January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall certify to the 
Administrator that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. This 
certification shall include:
    (i) A declaration that the facility is exempt from the limitations 
of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as 
described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section; and
    (ii) Calculations which demonstrate that total baseline VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility are and will 
remain less than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. Baseline emissions 
shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) (1) and (2) of this section.
    (2) On and after January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall 
notify the Administrator of any record showing that total VOC emissions 
from the facility exceeded 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day by 
sending a copy of such record to the Administrator within 30 calendar 
days after the exceedance occurs.
    (v) Recordkeeping.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate 
compliance with the limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section for each emissions source and maintain the 
information at the facility for a period of five (5) years. The 
information shall be collected and recorded each day of each calendar 
year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate that 
total VOC emissions from all emissions sources are less than 4.5 kg (10 
lbs) during each day and maintain the information at the facility for a 
period of five (5) years. The information shall be collected and 
recorded each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending 
with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring.
    (A) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as described under 
paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (B) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility which is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section to demonstrate that the facility is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (5) Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, Processing, and Storage.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(5) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(5) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Crude oil means a naturally occurring mixture which consists of 
hydrocarbons and sulfur, nitrogen, or oxygen derivatives of 
hydrocarbons and which is a liquid at standard conditions.
    Extraction facility means any facility where drilling and servicing 
equipment, flow lines, separators, gathering lines, and auxiliary 
nontransportation related equipment are used to extract petroleum or 
natural gas from a well.
    Gasoline means any petroleum distillate which is used as a motor 
fuel.
    Petroleum means the crude oil removed from the earth and the oils 
derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
    Processing facility means any facility where petroleum or natural 
gas is used as a feedstock to produce gasoline, kerosene, distillate 
fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other related products.
    Storage facility means any extraction facility, processing 
facility, bulk gasoline plant, bulk gasoline terminal, or any petroleum 
storage facility which distributes petroleum, natural gas, or gasoline 
to retail outlet and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities. This 
definition does not apply to retail gasoline service stations.
    (ii) Applicability. The requirements of paragraphs (b)(5) (iii), 
(iv), (v), and (vi) of this section shall apply to any owner or 
operator of any petroleum or natural gas extraction, processing, or 
storage facility located in the control area as defined in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to Title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to Title 
V.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\6This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to: (1) The test methods and procedures specified in 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and (2) data and engineering 
calculations approved by EPA documenting process modifications that 
were made to reduce VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph because of 
paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section shall limit total VOC emissions 
from the subject facility to the level calculated by the following 
equations:

TP05MY94.055

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

    R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility 
for the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.056

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.057

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.058

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.059

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

    (iv) Reporting. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section, as described under paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this 
section shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar 
year, beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this 
section for the previous calendar year. This certification shall 
include:
    (A) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (B) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (v) Recordkeeping. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section because of paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section shall 
collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate compliance 
with the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section for each emissions source and maintain the information at 
the facility for a period of five (5) years. The information shall be 
collected and recorded each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 
and ending with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring. The Administrator may require, at any 
time, any owner or operator of a facility subject to the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (c) Incorporated by Reference. The materials listed below are 
incorporated by reference. The incorporation by reference was approved 
by the Director of the Office of Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.\17\ These materials are incorporated 
as they exist on the date of approval, and a notice of any change in 
these materials will be published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\Incorporation by reference is pending approval by the Office 
of Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) ASTM D3925-81 (1985) Standard Practice for Sampling Liquid 
Paints and Related Pigment Coating.
    (2) ASTM E300 Standard Practice for Sampling Industrial Chemicals.
    (3) ASTM D1475-85: Standard Test Method for Density of Paint, 
Varnish, Lacquer and Related Products.
    (4) ASTM D2369-87: Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of a 
Coating.
    (5) ASTM D3792-86: Standard Test Method for Water Content of Water-
Reducible Paints by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph.
    (6) ASTM D4017-81 (1987): Standard Test Method for Water Content in 
Paints and Paint Materials by the Karl Fischer Method.
    (7) ASTM D4457-85: Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Dichloromethane and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in Paints and Coatings by 
Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph.
    (8) ASTM D2697-86: Standard Test Method for Volume Non-volatile 
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.
    (9) ASTM E180-85: Standard Practice for Determining the Precision 
Data of ASTM Methods for Analysis and Testing of Industrial Chemicals.
    (10) ASTM Method D2879-86: Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure-
Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of 
Liquids by Isoteniscope.


Sec. 52.2954  Stationary and area source caps (South Coast).18

    (a) General Provisions. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\EPA intends to issue a supplemental document in the Federal 
Register which addresses portions of proposed Sec. 52.2954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to 
all stationary emission sources located in the ``control area'' as 
defined as the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin ozone nonattainment 
area in 40 CFR 81.305, and all other persons identified in subsequent 
applicability paragraphs in this section.
    (2) Compliance dates. Unless otherwise specified in this section, 
compliance with all requirements of this section is required as of 
[Insert date of publication of the final rule]. This paragraph (a)(2) 
shall not operate to provide additional time for compliance under 
Section 113(d) of the Act, 42 U.S.C 7413(d), for sources subject to 
compliance as of [Insert date of publication of the final rule].
    (3) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following 
definitions apply. All terms not defined herein shall have the meaning 
given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Actual emissions means the actual quantity of VOC emissions from an 
emissions source during a particular time period.
    Actual emissions rate means the actual quantity of VOC emissions 
from an emissions source per unit of actual production or throughput.
    Agency means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    Air contaminant means any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any 
odor, or any form of energy, that is capable of being released into the 
atmosphere from an emission source.
    Air pollution means the presence in the atmosphere of one or more 
air contaminants in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics 
and duration as to be injurious to human, plant, or animal life, to 
health, or to property, or to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment 
of life or property.
    Air pollution control equipment means any equipment or facility of 
a type intended to eliminate, prevent, reduce or control the emission 
of specified air contaminants to the atmosphere.
    Allowable emissions rate means the most stringent of the applicable 
standards in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61; the applicable implementation 
plan; or a federally enforceable permit.
    Baseline emissions means the emissions calculated using 1990 
emission inventory data in the affected FIP areas and adjusted for 
emission reductions projected to occur by the implementation year of 
the FIP cap program in the affected FIP area. The baseline shall be 
denominated in pounds per year of FIP cap pollutant (e.g., pounds of 
VOC per year) and monthly caps shall be prorated based on this data.
    Coating applicator means any equipment or device including but not 
limited to cloth, rollers, brushes, spray guns, or dip tanks used to 
apply a coating.
    Day means a period of consecutive 24 hours beginning at 12 a.m. 
(midnight) local time, or beginning at a time consistent with a 
facility's operating schedule.
    Emission rate means the total mass of VOCs released or discharged 
from an emissions source into the atmosphere per unit of production or 
throughput (e.g., pound VOC/gallon of coating solids).
    Emission source or source means any building, structure, facility, 
property, equipment, device, container, or any combination thereof, at, 
from, or by reason which VOC is emitted or discharged into the 
atmosphere.
    Facility means all of the pollutant-emitting activities which 
belong to the same industrial grouping, are located on one or more 
contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under the control of the 
same person (or persons under common control), except the activities of 
any vessel. Pollutant-emitting activities shall be considered as part 
of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the same ``Major 
Group'' (i.e., which have the same two-digit code) as described in the 
``Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987'' (National Technical 
Information Service order No. PB 87-10012).
    Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions that are 
enforceable by the Administrator including those requirements contained 
in permits issued pursuant to 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, except those 
terms or conditions designated as not federally enforceable; those 
requirements developed pursuant to 40 CFR parts 60 and 61; requirements 
within any applicable implementation plan; and any permit requirements 
established pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved 
pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, and 40 CFR 51.166.
    Incinerator means a combustion apparatus in which solid, semi-
solid, liquid, or gaseous combustible wastes are ignited and burned and 
from which the solid and gaseous residues contain little or no 
combustible material.
    Monitor means to measure and record.
    Organic compound means a chemical compound of carbon, excluding 
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides, 
carbonates, and ammonium carbonate.
    Organic vapor means the gaseous phase of an organic compound or a 
mixture of organic compounds present in the atmosphere.
    Owner or operator means any person who owns, operates, leases, 
controls, or supervises an emissions source or air pollution control 
equipment.
    Person means any individual, corporation, copartnership, firm, 
company, partnership, joint stock company, trust, association, State, 
municipality, political subdivision, or any other legal entity, or 
their legal representative, agent, or assigns.
    Process means any stationary emission source other than a fuel 
combustion emission source or an incinerator.
    Source means emission source.
    Standard conditions means a temperature of 20 deg.C (68 deg.F) and 
a pressure of 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg).
    Stationary emission source and Stationary source mean an emission 
source which is not self-propelled.
    (4) Test Methods and Procedures.
    (i) Coatings, Inks, and Fountain Solutions. The following test 
methods and procedures shall be used to determine the VOC content of as 
applied coatings, inks, and fountain solutions to determine compliance 
with the limitations set forth in this section.
    (A) Sampling. Samples collected for analyses shall be one-liter 
taken into a one-liter container at a location and time such that the 
sample will be representative of the coating as applied (i.e., the 
sample shall include any dilution solvent or other VOC added during the 
manufacturing process). The container must be tightly sealed 
immediately after the sample is taken. Any solvent or other VOC added 
after the sample is taken must be measured and accounted for in the 
calculations in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(C) of this section. For multiple 
package coatings, separate samples of each component shall be obtained. 
A mixed sample shall not be obtained as it will cure in the container. 
Sampling procedures shall follow the guidelines presented in:
    (1) ASTM D3925-81 (1985) Standard Practice for Sampling Liquid 
Paints and Related Pigment Coating. This practice is incorporated by 
reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) ASTM E300 Standard Practice for Sampling Industrial Chemicals. 
This practice is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (B) Analyses. The applicable analytical methods specified below 
shall be used to determine the composition of coatings, inks, or 
fountain solutions as applied.
    (1) Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A shall be used to 
determine the VOC content and density of coatings.
    (2) Method 24A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall be used to 
determine the VOC content and density of publication rotogravure 
printing inks and related coatings.
    (3) The following ASTM methods and practices are the analytical 
procedures for determining VOC:
    (i) ASTM D1475-85: Standard Test Method for Density of Paint, 
Varnish, Lacquer and Related Products. This test method is incorporated 
by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) ASTM D2369-87: Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of a 
Coating. This test method is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) 
of this section. The following minor modifications should be used for 
multicomponent coatings. All components of the coating are to be 
weighed in the proper proportion into the analysis container and mixed 
together just prior to analysis and the mixture is allowed to stand for 
at least one hour but no more than 24 hours prior to being oven dried 
at 110 degrees celsius for one hour.
    (iii) ASTM D3792-86: Standard Test Method for Water Content of 
Water-Reducible Paints by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph. 
This test method is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (iv) ASTM D4017-81 (1987): Standard Test Method for Water Content 
in Paints and Paint Materials by the Karl Fischer Method. This test 
method is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (v) ASTM D4457-85: Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Dichloromethane and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in Paints and Coatings by 
Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph. (The procedure delineated 
above can be used to develop protocols for any compounds specifically 
exempted from the definition of VOC.) This test method is incorporated 
by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (vi) ASTM D2697-86: Standard Test Method for Volume Non-volatile 
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings. This test method is incorporated 
by reference in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (vii) ASTM E180-85: Standard Practice for Determining the Precision 
Data of ASTM Methods for Analysis and Testing of Industrial Chemicals. 
This practice is incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (4) Use of an adaptation to any of the analytical methods specified 
in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(B) (1), (2), and (3) of this section may be 
approved by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis. An owner or 
operator must submit sufficient documentation for the Administrator to 
find that the analytical methods specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(B) 
(1), (2), and (3) of this section will yield inaccurate results and 
that the proposed adaptation is appropriate.
    (C) Calculations. Calculations for determining the VOC content, 
water content, and the content of any compounds which are specifically 
exempted from the definition of VOC of coatings, inks, and fountain 
solutions as applied shall follow the guidance provided in the 
following documents.
    (1) ``A Guide for Surface Coating Calculation'' EPA-340/1-86-016 
(which is available from the National Technical Information Services, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (2) ``Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic 
Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink and Other Coatings'' (revised June 
1986) EPA-450/3-84-019 (which is available from the National Technical 
Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 
22161)
    (3) ``A Guide for Graphic Arts Calculations'' August 1988 EPA-340/
1-88-003 (which is available from the National Technical Information 
Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (ii) Automobile or Light-Duty Truck Test Protocol. The protocol for 
testing, including determining the transfer efficiency, of coating 
applicators at topcoat coating operations at an automobile assembly 
facility shall follow the procedure in: ``Protocol for Determining the 
Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Topcoat Operations'' December 1988 EPA-450/3-88-018 (which 
is available from the National Technical Information Services, 5285 
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161).
    (iii) Capture System Efficiency Test Protocols.
    (A) Applicability. The requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B) of 
this section shall apply to all VOC emitting processes employing a 
capture system except those cases noted below.
    (1) If a source installs a permanent total enclosure (PTE) that 
meets USEPA specifications, and which directs all VOC to a control 
device, then the source is exempted from the requirements described in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B) of this section. The USEPA specifications to 
determine whether a structure is considered a PTE are given in 
Procedure T of appendix B of 40 CFR 52.742. In this instance, the 
capture efficiency is assumed to be 100 percent and the source is still 
required to measure control efficiency using appropriate test methods 
as specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of this section.
    (2) If a source uses a control device designed to collect and 
recover VOC (e.g., carbon adsorber), an explicit measurement of capture 
efficiency is not necessary provided that the conditions given below 
are met. The overall control of the system can be determined by 
directly comparing the input liquid VOC to the recovered liquid VOC. 
The general procedure for use in this situation is given in Sec. 60.433 
of this chapter, with the following additional restrictions:
    (i) The source must be able to equate solvent usage with solvent 
recovery on a 24-hour (daily) basis, rather than a 30-day weighted 
average, within 72 hours following the 24-hour period. In addition, one 
of the following two criteria must be met:
    (ii) The solvent recovery system (i.e., capture and control system) 
must be dedicated to a single process, or
    (iii) If the solvent recovery system controls multiple processes, 
then the source must be able to demonstrate that the overall control 
(i.e., the total recovered solvent VOC divided by the sum of liquid VOC 
input to all processes venting to the control system) meets or exceeds 
the most stringent standard applicable for any process venting to the 
control system.
    (3) The following facilities are exempted from the requirements 
described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) of this section:
    (i) Automobile-related assembly facilities subject to the 
``Automobile or Light-Duty Truck Test Protocol'' described in paragraph 
(a)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) Heatset-web-offset lithographic printing units as defined in 
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
    (B) Specific Requirements. The capture efficiency of a process 
shall be measured using one of the four protocols given below. Any 
error margin associated with a test protocol may not be incorporated 
into the results of a capture efficiency test. If these techniques are 
not suitable for a particular process, then the source must present an 
alternative capture efficiency protocol and obtain approval for it by 
the Administrator as a SIP or FIP revision.
    (1) Gas/gas method using temporary total enclosure (TTE). The USEPA 
specifications to determine whether a temporary enclosure is considered 
a TTE are given in Procedure T of appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741. The 
capture efficiency equation to be used for this protocol is:

CE=Gw/(Gw+Fw)

where

CE=capture efficiency, decimal fraction
Gw=mass of VOC captured and delivered to control device using a 
TTE
Fw=mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from a TTE Procedure G.2 
contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain Gw. 
Procedure F.1 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 in used to obtain Fw.

    (2) Liquid/gas method using TTE. The USEPA specifications to 
determine whether a temporary enclosure is considered a TTE are given 
in Procedure T of appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741. The capture efficiency 
equation to be used for this protocol is:

CE=(L-Fw)/L

where

CE=capture efficiency, decimal fraction
L=mass of liquid VOC input to process
Fw=mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from a TTE Procedure L 
contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain L. Procedure 
F.1 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain Fw.

    (3) Gas/gas method using the building or room (building or room 
enclosure) in which the affected source is located as the enclosure and 
in which ``F'' and ``G'' are measured while operating only the affected 
facility. All fans and blowers in the building or room must be operated 
as they would under normal production. The capture efficiency equation 
to be used for this protocol is:

CE=G/(G+FB

where

    CE=capture efficiency, decimal fraction
    G=mass of VOC captured and delivered to control device
    FB=mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from building enclosure

Procedure G.2 contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to 
obtain G. Procedure F.2 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to 
obtain FB.
    (4) Liquid/gas method using the building or room (building or room 
enclosure) in which the affected source is located as the enclosure and 
in which ``F'' and ``L'' are measured while operating only the affected 
facility. All fans and blowers in the building or room must be operated 
as they would under normal production. The capture efficiency equation 
to be used for this protocol is:

CE=(L-FB)/L

where

CE=capture efficiency, decimal fraction
L=mass of liquid VOC input to process
FB=mass of fugitive VOC that escapes from building enclosure

Procedure L contained in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain 
L. Procedure F.2 in appendix B of 40 CFR 52.741 is used to obtain 
FB.
    (C) Recordkeeping and Reporting.
    (1) All affected facilities must maintain a copy of the capture 
efficiency protocol submitted to EPA on file. All results of the 
appropriate test methods and capture efficiency protocols must be 
reported to EPA within sixty (60) days of the test date. A copy of the 
results must be kept on file with the source for a period of five (5) 
years.
    (2) If any changes are made to capture equipment, then affected 
facilities must notify EPA of these changes and a new test may be 
required by EPA.
    (3) All affected facilities must notify the Administrator 30 days 
prior to performing any capture efficiency test. At that time, the 
source must notify the Administrator which capture efficiency protocol 
will be used.
    (4) All affected facilities utilizing a PTE must demonstrate that 
this enclosure meets the requirement given in Procedure T in appendix B 
of 40 CFR 52.741 at all times.
    (5) All affected facilities utilizing a TTE must demonstrate that 
their TTE meets the requirements given in Procedure T in appendix B of 
40 CFR 52.741 for a TTE during testing of their control device. The 
source must also provide documentation that the quality assurance 
criteria for a TTE have been achieved.
    (iv) Control Device Efficiency Testing and Monitoring.
    (A) Control Efficiency Test. The control device efficiency shall be 
determined by simultaneously measuring the inlet and outlet gas phase 
VOC concentrations and gas volumetric flow rates in accordance with the 
gas phase test methods specified in paragraph (a)(4)(vi) of this 
section.
    (B) Continuous Monitoring. Any owner or operator that uses an 
afterburner or carbon adsorber to comply with any requirement of this 
section shall use continuous monitoring equipment which is installed, 
calibrated, maintained, and operated according to vendor specifications 
and which meets EPA-approved performance specifications at all times 
when the afterburner or carbon adsorber is in use. The continuous 
monitoring equipment must automatically monitor and record the 
following parameters:
    (1) Combustion chamber temperature of each afterburner.
    (2) Temperature rise across each catalytic afterburner bed or VOC 
concentration exhaust.
    (3) The VOC concentration of each carbon adsorption bed exhaust.
    (C) Recordkeeping and Reporting.
    (1) All affected facilities must maintain a copy of all control 
efficiency test protocols for a period of five (5) years. All control 
test results must be reported to EPA within sixty (60) days of the test 
date. A copy of the results must be kept on file with the source for a 
period of five (5) years.
    (2) All affected facilities must maintain copies of all required 
continuous monitoring records for a period of five (5) years.
    (3) If any changes are made to control equipment, affected 
facilities must notify EPA of these changes and a new control 
efficiency test may be required by EPA.
    (4) All affected facilities must notify the Administrator 30 days 
prior to performing any control efficiency test. At that time, the 
source must notify the Administrator which test methods will be used.
    (v) Overall Efficiency.
    (A) The overall efficiency of each emission control system shall be 
determined as the product of the capture system efficiency and the 
control device efficiency or by the liquid/liquid test protocol as 
specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section for each 
solvent recovery system.
    (B) The overall efficiency of the capture system and control device 
used to control VOC emissions from a paper, fabric, film, can, coil, or 
miscellaneous metal parts and products coating line, as determined by 
the test methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(iii), 
(a)(4)(iv), and (a)(4)(v)(A) of this section, shall be no less than the 
equivalent overall efficiency which shall be calculated by the 
following equation:

E=([VOCa-VOC1]/VOCa) x 100

where:

E=Equivalent overall efficiency of the capture system and control 
device as a percentage,
VOCa=Actual VOC content of a coating, or the daily-weighted 
average VOC content of two or more coatings (if more than one coating 
is used), as applied to the subject coating line as determined by the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) 
of this section in units of kg VOC/l (lb VOC/gal) of coating solids as 
applied, and
    VOC1=The VOC emission limit specified in units of kg VOC/liter 
(lb VOC/gal) of coating solids as applied.

    (vi) Volatile Organic Compound Gas Phase Source Test Methods. The 
methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, delineated below shall be used 
to determine control device efficiencies.
    (A) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 18, 25, 25A, or 25B, as 
appropriate to the conditions at the site, shall be used to determine 
VOC concentration. Method selection shall be based on consideration of 
the diversity of organic species present and their total concentration 
and on consideration of the potential presence of interfering gases. 
Except as indicated in paragraphs (a)(4)(vi)(A) (1) and (2) of this 
section, the test shall consist of three separate runs, each lasting a 
minimum of 60 min., unless the Administrator determines that process 
variables dictate shorter sampling times.
    (1) When the method is to be used to determine the efficiency of a 
fixed-bed carbon adsorption system with a common exhaust stack for all 
the individual adsorber vessels, the test shall consist of three 
separate runs, each coinciding with one or more complete sequences 
through the adsorption cycles of all the individual adsorber vessels.
    (2) When the method is to be used to determine the efficiency of a 
carbon adsorption system with individual exhaust stacks for each 
adsorber vessel, each adsorber vessel shall be tested individually. The 
test for each adsorber vessel shall consist of three separate runs. 
Each run shall coincide with one or more complete adsorption cycles.
    (B) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 1 or 1A shall be used for 
sample and velocity traverses.
    (C) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D shall be 
used for velocity and volumetric flow rates.
    (D) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 3, 3A or 3B shall be used 
for gas analysis.
    (E) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 4 shall be used for stack 
gas moisture.
    (F) 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D; 3, 3A, or 
3B; and 4 shall be performed, as applicable, at least twice during each 
test run.
    (G) Use of an adaptation to any of the test methods specified in 
paragraphs (a)(4)(vi) (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F) of this section 
may be approved by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis. An owner 
or operator must submit sufficient documentation for the Administrator 
to find that the test methods specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(vi) (A), 
(B), (C), (D), (E), and (F) of this section will yield inaccurate 
results and that the proposed adaptation is appropriate.
    (vii) Leak Detection Methods for Volatile Organic Compounds. Owners 
or operators required by the various subparts of this regulation to 
carry out a leak detection monitoring program shall comply with the 
following requirements:
    (A) Leak Detection Monitoring.
    (1) Monitoring shall comply with 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 
21.
    (2) The detection instrument shall meet the performance criteria of 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 21.
    (3) The instrument shall be calibrated before use on each day of 
its use by the methods specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 
21.
    (4) Calibration gases shall be:
    (i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in air), and
    (ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a concentration of 
approximately, but no less than, 10,000 ppm methane or n-hexane.
    (5) The instrument probe shall be traversed around all potential 
leak interfaces as close to the interface as possible as described in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 21.
    (B) When equipment is tested for compliance with no detectable 
emissions as required, the test shall comply with the following 
requirements:
    (1) The requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)(vii)(A)(1) through 
(vii)(A)(5) of this section shall apply.
    (2) The background level shall be determined as set forth in 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, Method 21.
    (C) Leak detection tests shall be performed consistent with:
    (1) ``APTI Course SI 417 Controlling Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Leaking Process Equipment'' EPA-450/2-82-015 (which is 
available from the National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port 
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (2) ``Portable Instrument User's Manual for Monitoring VOC 
Sources'' EPA-340/1-86-015 (which is available from the National 
Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 
Virginia, 22161)
    (3) ``Protocols for Generating Unit-Specific Emission Estimates for 
Equipment Leaks of VOC and VHAP'' EPA-450/3-88-010 (which is available 
from the National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (4) ``Petroleum Refinery Enforcement Manual'' EPA-340/1-80-008 
(which is available from the National Technical Information Services, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (viii) Bulk Gasoline Delivery System Test Protocol. (A) The method 
for determining the emissions of gasoline from a vapor recovery system 
are delineated in 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, Sec. 60.503.
    (B) Other tests shall be performed consistent with:
    (1) ``Inspection Manual for Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 
from Gasoline Marketing Operations: appendix D'' EPA-340/1-80-012 
(which is available from the National Technical Information Services, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161).
    (2) ``Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading 
Terminals: appendix A'', EPA-450/2-77-026 (which is available from the 
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, Virginia, 22161)
    (ix) Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic Liquids.
    (A) If the VOL consists of only a single compound, the vapor 
pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by 
reference as specified in paragraph (c) of this section or the vapor 
pressure may be obtained from a published source such as: Boublik, T., 
V. Fried and E. Hala, ``The Vapor Pressure of Pure Substances,'' 
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York (1973), Perry's Chemical 
Engineer's Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1984), CRC Handbook of 
Chemistry and Physics, Chemical Rubber Publishing Company (1986-87), 
and Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, John A. Dean, editor, McGraw-Hill 
Book Company (1985).
    (B) If the VOL is a mixture, the vapor pressure shall be determined 
by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by reference as specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section) or by the following equation:

TP05MY94.060

where:
    Pvol = Total vapor pressure of the mixture,
    n = Number of components in the mixture,
    i = Subscript denoting an individual component,
    Pi = Vapor pressure of a component determined in accordance 
with paragraph (a)(4)(ix)(A) of this section, and Xi = Mole fraction of 
the component in the total mixture.

    (x) Vapor Pressure of Organic Material or Solvent.
    (A) If the organic material or solvent consists of only a single 
compound, the vapor pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-
86 (incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this section) or the 
vapor pressure may be obtained from a published source such as: 
Boublik, T., V. Fried and E. Hala, ``The Vapor Pressure of Pure 
Substances,'' Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York (1973), 
Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1984), 
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Chemical Rubber Publishing 
Company (1986-87), and Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, John A. Dean, 
editor, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1985).
    (B) If the organic material or solvent is in a mixture made up of 
both organic material compounds and compounds which are not organic 
material, the vapor pressure shall be determined by the following 
equation:

TP05MY94.061

where:
    Pom = Total vapor pressure of the portion of the mixture which 
is composed of organic material,
    n = Number of organic material components in the mixture,
    i = Subscript denoting an individual component,
    Pi = Vapor pressure of an organic material component 
determined in accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(x)(A) of this section, 
and
    Xi = Mole fraction of the organic material component of the 
total mixture.
    (C) If the organic material or solvent is in a mixture made up of 
only organic material compounds, the vapor pressure shall be determined 
by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of 
this section) or by the above equation.
    (xi) Vapor Pressure of Volatile Organic Compounds.
    (A) If the VOC consists of only a single compound, the vapor 
pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-86 (incorporated by 
reference in paragraph (c) of this section) or the vapor pressure may 
be obtained from a published source such as: Boublik, T., V. Fried and 
E. Hala, ``The Vapor Pressure of Pure Substances,'' Elsevier Scientific 
Publishing Co., New York (1973), Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 
McGraw-Hill Book Company (1984), CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 
Chemical Rubber Publishing Company (1986-87), and Lange's Handbook of 
Chemistry, John A. Dean, editor, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1985).
    (B) If the VOC is in a mixture made up of both VOC compounds and 
compounds which are not VOC, the vapor pressure shall be determined by 
the following equation:

TP05MY94.062

where:

Pvoc = Total vapor pressure of the portion of the mixture which is 
composed of VOC,
n = Number of VOC components in the mixture,
i = Subscript denoting an individual component,
Pi = Vapor pressure of a VOC component determined in accordance 
with paragraph (a)(4)(xi)(A) of this section, and
Xi = Mole fraction of the VOC component of the total mixture.

    (C) If the VOC is in a mixture made up of only VOC compounds, the 
vapor pressure shall be determined by ASTM Method D2879-86 
(incorporated by reference in paragraph (c) of this section) or by the 
above equation.
    (xii) Baseline Emissions. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section, baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for 
each emissions source in accordance with one of the procedures 
specified below:
    (A) If daily emissions records which are consistent with the 
emission inventory data submitted by the State for the control area on 
November 15, 1992 are available for the calendar years 1989 and 1990, 
baseline emissions shall be based on the median value of daily 
emissions recorded for the two-year period.
    (B) If daily emissions records are not available for the calendar 
years 1989 and 1990 or are inconsistent with the emission inventory 
data submitted by the State for the control area on November 15, 1992 
or were not submitted, baseline emissions shall be based on the average 
daily emissions value calculated for the two-year period. The average 
daily emissions value shall be calculated by dividing emissions for the 
two-year period by the operating or usage time for the two-year period. 
If solvent or coating usage data are not available, emissions 
associated with solvent or coating usage may be estimated from 
purchase-order records. The operating or usage time for the two-year 
period shall be based on one of the criteria specified as follows:
    (1) The number of days specified in a federally enforceable permit 
if the emissions source operated under the conditions of a federally 
enforceable permit which restricted operating times during the two-year 
period,
    (2) The average number of days that the emissions source was 
operated or used over the two-year period if documentation is available 
to support the number, or
    (3) 730 days if documentation of the number of days that the 
emissions source was operated or used over the two-year period is not 
available.
    (xiii) Implementation Year Monthly Baseline Emissions. Baseline 
emissions as defined in paragraph (a)(4)(xii) of this section shall be 
adjusted prior to the implementation year (2001) of the FIP cap program 
in the control area as follows:
    (A) The reductions that are projected to occur as a result of both 
SIP and FIP measures between 1990 and 2001 shall be subtracted from the 
baseline emissions. This value shall be defined as the reduced daily 
baseline emissions and is denoted in pounds of VOC/day.
    (B) The reduced daily baseline emissions shall be annualized by 
multiplying the daily value by 365. This value shall be defined as the 
reduced annual baseline emissions and is denoted in pounds of VOC/year.
    (C) The reduced annual baseline emissions shall be converted into a 
monthly value by dividing by 12. This value shall be defined as the 
implementation year monthly baseline.
    (5) Enforcement.
    (i) All sources and facilities subject to provisions of 
Sec. 52.2952 shall be subject to unannounced inspections by 
representatives of the USEPA pursuant to section 114 of the Clean Air 
Act.
    (ii) Documentation maintained by all sources, facilities, and 
persons subject to this section must be sufficient to demonstrate 
compliance with all requirements of this section and must be provided 
to representatives of USEPA upon request.
    (iii) Failure to comply with any provision of this section is a 
violation of the applicable implementation plan for purposes of section 
113 of the Clean Air Act.
    (iv) Each 50 pounds of emissions in excess of a facility's monthly 
cap shall be a separate violation for federal enforcement purposes.
    (b) Stationary and Area Source Control Measures.
    (1) Industrial and Commercial Solvents/Coatings.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Adhesives means any substance or mixture of substances intended to 
serve as a joining compound.
    Aerospace component means the fabricated part, assembly of parts, 
or completed unit of any aircraft or space vehicle.
    Aerospace component coating facility means a facility that includes 
one or more aerospace component coating unit(s).
    Aerospace component coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating or reinforcing material 
is applied on or impregnated into an aerospace component.
    Aircraft means any machine designed to travel through the air above 
ground without leaving the earth's atmosphere, whether heavier or 
lighter than air, including airplanes, balloons, dirigibles, 
helicopters, and missiles.
    Automobile means a motor vehicle capable of carrying no more than 
12 passengers.
    Can means any cylindrical, single walled container that is 
manufactured from metal sheets thinner than 29 gauge (0.0141 in.); with 
or without a top, cover, spout, or handles; into which solid or liquid 
materials are packaged.
    Can coating facility means a facility that includes one or more can 
coating unit(s).
    Can coating unit means a coating unit in which any protective, 
decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the surface of cans 
or can components.
    Coating means a material applied onto or impregnated into a 
substrate for protective, decorative, or functional purposes. Such 
materials include, but are not limited to, paints, varnishes, sealants, 
adhesives, thinners, diluents, inks, maskants, and/or temporary 
protective coatings.
    Coating applicator means any equipment or device, including but not 
limited to cloth, rollers, brushes, spray guns, and dip tanks, used to 
apply a coating onto or into a substrate.
    Coating unit means a series of one or more coating applicators and 
any associated drying areas and/or oven wherein a coating is applied, 
dried, and/or cured. A coating unit ends at the point where the coating 
is dried or cured, or prior to any subsequent application of a 
different coating. It is not necessary to have an oven or a flashoff 
area in order to be included in this definition.
    Coil means any continuous metal sheet or strip with thickness of 
0.15 mm (0.006 in.) or more that is packaged in a roll or coil.
    Coil coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
coil coating unit(s).
    Coil coating unit means a coating unit in which any protective, 
decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the surface of flat 
metal sheets, strips, rolls, or coils for industrial or commercial use.
    Cold cleaning means the batch process of cleaning and removing 
soils from surfaces by spraying, brushing, flushing, or immersion while 
maintaining the organic solvent below its boiling point. Wipe cleaning 
is not included in this definition.
    Conveyorized degreasing means the continuous process of cleaning 
and removing soils from surfaces using either cold or vaporized 
solvents.
    Degreaser means any equipment or system used in solvent cleaning.
    Degreasing facility means a facility that includes one or more cold 
cleaning, open-top vapor degreasing, and/or conveyorized degreasing 
processes.
    Dry cleaning facility means a facility engaged in the cleaning of 
fabrics using an essentially nonaqueous solvent by means of one or more 
solvent washes, extraction of excess solvent by spinning, and drying by 
tumbling in an airstream. The facility includes, but is not limited to, 
washers, dryers, filter and purification systems, waste disposal 
systems, holding tanks, pumps, and attendant piping and valves.
    Fabric coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
fabric coating unit(s).
    Fabric coating unit means a web coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating or reinforcing material 
is applied on, saturated into, or impregnated into a textile fabric. A 
fabric printing unit is not considered a fabric coating unit.
    Film coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
film coating unit(s).
    Film coating unit means a coating unit in which any protective, 
decorative, or functional coating is applied on, saturated into, or 
impregnated into any film substrate; other than paper, fabric, or 
vinyl; including but not limited to typewriter ribbons, photographic 
film, plastic film, magnetic tape, and metal foil.
    Flatwood product means panels made of wood materials including; but 
not limited to; plywood, particle board, and hardboard.
    Flatwood product coating facility means a facility that includes 
one or more flatwood product coating unit(s).
    Flatwood product coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied on or 
impregnated into a flatwood product.
    Flexographic printing means the application of words, designs, and 
pictures to a substrate by means of a roll printing technique in which 
the pattern to be applied is raised above the printing roll and the 
image carrier is made of elastomeric materials.
    Flexographic printing press means a printing press in which each 
roll printer uses a roll with raised areas for applying an image such 
as words, designs, or pictures to a substrate. The image carrier on the 
roll is made of rubber or other elastomeric material.
    Fountain solution means the solution which is applied to the 
lithographic printing plate to maintain hydrophilic properties of the 
nonimage areas.
    Graphic arts coating facility means a facility that includes one or 
more graphic arts coating units.
    Graphic arts coating unit means any packaging rotogravure printing, 
publication rotogravure printing, flexographic printing, lithographic 
printing, letterpress printing, laminating, or screen printing unit or 
any paper, fabric, or film coating unit operated in conjunction with a 
printing unit.
    Group I vehicles and equipment means large-sized trucks, buses, and 
mobile equipment.
    Group II vehicles means passenger cars, small-sized trucks and 
vans, medium-sized trucks and vans, and motorcycles.
    Heatset means a class of web-offset lithography which requires a 
heated dryer to solidify the printing inks.
    Heatset-web-offset lithographic printing unit means a lithographic 
printing unit in which a blanket cylinder is used to transfer ink from 
a plate cylinder to a substrate continuously fed from a roll or an 
extension process and an oven is used to solidify the printing inks.
    Heavy off-highway vehicle products means heavy construction, 
mining, farming, or material handling equipment; heavy industrial 
engines; diesel-electric locomotives and associated power generation 
equipment; and the components of such equipment or engines.
    Heavy off-highway vehicle products coating facility means a 
facility that includes one or more heavy off-highway vehicle products 
coating unit(s).
    Heavy off-highway vehicle products coating unit means a coating 
unit in which any protective, decorative, or functional coating is 
applied onto the surface of heavy off-highway vehicle products.
    Highway means a way or place of whatever nature, publicly 
maintained and open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel. 
Highway includes street.
    Industrial or commercial solvent use facility means any industrial 
or commercial facility that uses solvents which contain VOCs or 
substances that contain solvents which contain VOCs. Industrial and 
commercial solvent use facilities include, but are not limited to, 
perchloroethylene dry cleaning, petroleum dry cleaning, metal cleaning, 
degreasing, aerospace component coating, motor vehicle and mobile 
equipment assembly line coating, motor vehicle and mobile equipment 
refinishing, can coating, coil coating, fabric coating, film coating, 
flatwood product coating, graphic arts coating, large appliance 
coating, magnet wire coating, marine vessel coating, metal and wood 
furniture coating, miscellaneous metal parts and products coating, 
paper coating, and plastic parts coating facilities. Substances that 
contain solvents include, but are not limited to, coatings, inks, 
fountain solutions, adhesives, thinners, and clean-up solvents.
    Ink means a coating used in printing, impressing, or transferring 
an image onto a substrate.
    Laminating unit means a printing unit in which an adhesive is used 
to form two or more layers of material into a single, multiple-layer 
sheet.
    Large appliance means the component metal parts (including, but not 
limited to, doors, cases, lids, panels, and interior support parts) of 
residential and commercial washers, dryers, ranges, refrigerators, 
freezers, water heaters, dish washers, trash compactors, air 
conditioners, and other similar products under SIC Code 363.
    Large appliance coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more large appliance coating unit(s).
    Large appliance coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the 
surface of component metal parts of large appliances.
    Letterpress printing unit means a printing unit in which the image 
area is raised relative to the nonimage area on the roll printer and 
the ink is transferred to the paper directly from the image surface.
    Light-duty truck means any motor vehicle rated at 3864 kg (8500 lb) 
gross vehicle weight or less, designed mainly to transport property.
    Lithographic printing unit means a printing unit in which the image 
and nonimage areas are on the same plane of the roll printer.
    Magnet wire coating facility means a facility that includes one or 
more magnet coating unit(s).
    Magnet wire coating unit means a coating unit in which electrically 
insulating varnish or enamel is applied onto the surface of wire to be 
used in electrical machinery.
    Marine vessel means a ship or boat used to travel on, or a 
submarine used to travel through, the sea.
    Marine vessel coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more marine vessel coating unit(s).
    Marine vessel coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied on the 
fabricated part, assembly of parts, or completed unit of any marine 
vessel.
    Metal furniture means any furniture piece made of metal or any 
metal part which is or will be assembled with other metal, wood, 
fabric, plastic, or glass parts to form a furniture piece including, 
but not limited to, tables, chairs, waste baskets, beds, desks, 
lockers, benches, shelving, file cabinets, lamps, and room dividers. 
This definition shall not apply to any coating unit coating 
miscellaneous metal parts or products.
    Metal furniture coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more metal furniture coating unit(s).
    Metal furniture coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied onto the 
surface of metal furniture.
    Miscellaneous metal part or product means any metal part or metal 
product, even if attached to or combined with a nonmetal part or 
product.
    Miscellaneous metal parts or products coating facility means a 
facility that includes one or more miscellaneous metal parts or 
products coating unit(s).
    Miscellaneous metal parts or products coating unit means a coating 
unit in which any protective, decorative, or functional coating is 
applied onto the surface of miscellaneous metal parts or products.
    Mobile equipment means self-propelled equipment which is physically 
capable of being driven on a highway. Mobile equipment includes: 
automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, vans, construction equipment (e.g., 
mobile cranes, bulldozers, concrete mixers), farming equipment (e.g., 
wheel tractors, pesticide sprayers), and miscellaneous equipment (e.g., 
street cleaners, golf carts, and hauling equipment used inside and 
around airports, docks, depots, and industrial and commercial plants).
    Motor vehicle means a vehicle which is self-propelled and 
physically capable of being driven on a highway.
    Motor vehicle or mobile equipment assembly line coating facility 
means a facility where parts are manufactured or finished for eventual 
inclusion into finished motor vehicles or mobile equipment ready for 
sale to motor vehicle or mobile equipment dealers. This definition does 
not include customizers, body shops, and/or other auto refinishing 
facilities.
    Motor vehicle or mobile equipment refinishing facility means a 
facility where all or any part of used motor vehicles or mobile 
equipment is refinished, or customized, by the application of paint. 
This definition includes motor vehicles or mobile equipment dealerships 
who purchase new motor vehicle or mobile equipment from Original 
Equipment Manufacturers. This definition does not include motor vehicle 
or mobile equipment assembly line coating facilities.
    Motorcycle means any motor vehicle other than a tractor having a 
seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not 
more than three wheels in contact with the ground and weighing less 
than 1,500 lbs, except that four wheels may be in contact with the 
ground when two of the wheels are a functional part of a sidecar.
    Offset means a blanket cylinder that is used to transfer ink from a 
plate cylinder to the substance to be printed.
    Open-top vapor degreasing means the batch process of cleaning and 
removing soils from surfaces by condensing hot solvent vapor on the 
colder metal parts.
    Oven means a chamber within which heat is used for one or more of 
the following purposes: To dry, bake, cure, or polymerize a coating or 
ink.
    Packaging rotogravure printing means rotogravure printing upon 
paper, paper board, metal foil, plastic film, and other substrates 
which are, in subsequent operations, formed into packaging products or 
labels for articles to be sold.
    Packaging rotogravure printing press means a rotogravure printing 
press in which surface coatings are applied to paper, paperboard, metal 
foil, plastic film, or other substrates which are to be used to produce 
containers, packaging products, or labels for articles.
    Paper coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
paper coating unit(s).
    Paper coating unit means a web coating unit where coating is 
applied to paper. Printing presses are not considered paper coating 
units. Products produced on a paper coating unit include, but are not 
limited to, adhesive tapes and labels, book covers, post cards, office 
copier paper, drafting paper, and pressure sensitive tapes. Paper 
coating units include, but are not limited to, application by 
impregnation or saturation or by the use of roll, knife, or rotogravure 
coating.
    Printing unit means an operation consisting of a series of one or 
more roll printers and any associated roll coaters, drying areas, and/
or ovens wherein one or more surface coatings are applied, dried, and/
or cured. It is not necessary for an operation to have an oven, or 
flashoff area, or drying area to be included in this definition.
    Publication rotogravure printing unit means a rotogravure printing 
unit in which surface coatings are applied to paper which is 
subsequently formed into books, magazines, catalogues, brochures, 
directories, newspaper supplements, or other types of printed material.
    Refinish means to restore or replace coatings on Group I vehicles 
(large-sized trucks, buses, and mobile equipment) and Group II vehicles 
(passenger cars, small-sized trucks and vans, medium-sized trucks and 
vans, and motorcycles) and equipment, or their parts and components, 
except Original Equipment Manufacturer coatings applied at motor 
vehicle or mobile equipment assembly line coating facilities.
    Roll coater means an apparatus in which a uniform layer of coating 
material is applied by means of a roll or rolls across the entire width 
of a moving substrate which is fed from an unwinding roll.
    Roll printer means an apparatus in which a surface coating is 
applied by means of a roll or rolls with only partial coverage across 
the width of a moving substrate which is fed from an unwinding roll. 
The partial coverage results in the formation of words, designs, or 
pictures on the substrate.
    Rotogravure printing means the application of words, designs, and 
pictures to a substrate using a gravure cylinder by means of a roll 
printing technique in which the pattern to be applied is recessed 
relative to the nonimage area.
    Rotogravure printing unit means a printing unit in which each roll 
printer uses a roll with recessed areas for applying an image to a 
substrate.
    Screen printing unit means a printing unit in which the printing 
ink passes through a web or a fabric to which a refined form of stencil 
has been applied. The stencil openings determine the form and 
dimensions of the imprint.
    Solvent means a substance that is liquid at standard conditions 
that is used to dissolve or dilute another substance; this term 
includes, but is not limited to, organic materials used as dissolvers, 
viscosity reducers, degreasing agents, or cleaning agents.
    Solvent cleaning means the process of cleaning soils from surfaces 
by cold cleaning, open-top vapor degreasing, or conveyorized 
degreasing.
    Space vehicle means any vehicle designed to travel beyond the 
earth's atmosphere.
    Street means a public road in a town or city.
    Substrate means the surface to which a coating is applied on, 
saturated into, or impregnated into.
    Vinyl coating facility means a facility that includes one or more 
vinyl coating unit(s).
    Vinyl coating unit means a web coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating or printing ink is 
applied onto a continuous web of vinyl-coated fabric or vinyl sheets.
    Web means an automatic system which supplies substrate from a 
continuous roll or an extrusion process.
    Wood furniture means room furnishings including cabinets (kitchen, 
bath, and vanity), tables, chairs, beds, sofas, shutters, art objects, 
wood paneling, wood flooring, and any other coated furnishings made of 
wood, wood composition, or fabricated wood materials.
    Wood furniture coating facility means a facility that includes one 
or more wood furniture coating unit(s).
    Wood furniture coating unit means a coating unit in which any 
protective, decorative, or functional coating is applied onto wood 
furniture.
    (ii) Applicability.
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) (A) and (B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of any degreasing facility or any motor vehicle or mobile 
equipment refinishing facility located in the control area as defined 
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (B) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) (A) and (B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of an industrial or commercial solvent use facility located 
in the applicable area specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this 
section at which actual emissions of VOC are greater than or equal to 
6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day.
    (C) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) (iv)(B), (v)(B), and 
(vi)(B) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of an 
industrial or commercial solvent use facility located in the applicable 
area specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section at which 
actual emissions of VOC from all emissions sources are always less than 
6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day. If actual emissions of VOC from a 
facility which is exempt from the limitations of paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section ever exceed 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any 
one day on or after January 1, 2000, the facility will lose its exempt 
status, and the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5), (b)(1)(iv)(A), (b)(1)(v)(A), 
and (b)(1)(vi)(A) of this section beginning January 1 of the calendar 
year following the date of the exceedance.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to Title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to Title 
V.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\9This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to:
    (1) The test methods and procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, and
    (2) data and engineering calculations approved by EPA 
documenting process modifications that were made to reduce VOC 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph, as described 
under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section, shall limit 
actual monthly emissions of VOC from the subject facility to the level 
calculated by the following equations:

TP05MY94.063

where20

    \2\0The range 0.04 to 0.09 reflects the 4% to 9% cumulative 
annual rate of emission reductions currently under consideration. In 
the first year, emissions would be reduced by 4% to 9% off of 
baseline levels; in the second year, emissions would be reduced by 
8% to 18% off of baseline levels, and so on until the minimum 20% 
VOC reduction is made. As discussed in the preamble to the 
regulations this range of annual reductions is based on EPA's 
preliminary rate of reduction analysis and may change as the 
analysis continues prior to final promulgation of this FIP. In 
addition, EPA plans to review this value every three years after 
final rule promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility 
for the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
    Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for 
each emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
    i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
    n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.064

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

    R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility 
for the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
    Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for 
each emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
    i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
    n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.065

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

    R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility 
for the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
    Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for 
each emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
    i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
    n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.066

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

    R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility 
for the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
    Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for 
each emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
    i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
    n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.067

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

    R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility 
for the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
    Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for 
each emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
    i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
    n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.
    (iv) Reporting.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this 
section, shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar 
year, beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this 
section for the previous calendar year. This certification shall 
include:
    (1) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section, and
    (2) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section because of paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section shall comply 
with the following:
    (1) By January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall certify to the 
Administrator that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. This 
certification shall include:
    (i) A declaration that the facility is exempt from the limitations 
of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section; and
    (ii) Calculations which demonstrate that total baseline VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility are and will 
remain less than 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day. Baseline emissions 
shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) (i) and (ii) of this section.
    (2) On and after January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall 
notify the Administrator of any record showing that actual emissions of 
VOC from the facility exceeded 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day by 
sending a copy of such record to the Administrator within 30 calendar 
days after the exceedance occurs.
    (v) Recordkeeping.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this 
section shall collect and record all information necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section for each emissions 
source and maintain the information at the facility for a period of 
five (5) years. The information shall be collected and recorded each 
day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate that 
actual emissions of VOC from all emissions sources are less than 6.8 kg 
(15 lbs) during each day and maintain the information at the facility 
for a period of five (5) years. The information shall be collected and 
recorded each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending 
with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring.
    (A) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (B) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility which is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section to demonstrate that the facility is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (2) VOC Emissions Associated with the Manufacturing of Products.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Facility which manufactures products containing VOCs means any 
facility where VOCs are emitted from processes which are used to 
manufacture or fabricate products. These products include, but are not 
limited to, the products specified in paragraphs (1) through (7) of 
this definition. This definition does not include facilities which are 
subject to any of the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(4), or 
(b)(5) of this section.
    (1) Industrial and agricultural organic chemicals and gases. 
Industrial organic chemicals include, but are not limited to, gum and 
wood chemicals, cyclic organic crudes and intermediates, organic dyes 
and pigments, and the chemicals listed in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix A. 
Agricultural organic chemicals include, but are not limited to, 
pesticides, livestock dips, soil conditioners, and fertilizers.
    (2) Plastic materials, synthetic resins, synthetic rubber, 
elastomizers, and cellulosic and manmade fibers.
    (3) Drugs which include, but are not limited to, medicinal 
chemicals and botanical products, pharmaceutical preparations, in vitro 
and in vivo diagnostic substances, and biological products.
    (4) Soaps; detergents; cleaning, polishing, and sanitizing 
preparations; surface active agents, finishing agents, sulfonated oils, 
and assistants; and perfumes and cosmetics.
    (5) Food additives and sweeteners.
    (6) Paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels, inks, primers, paint 
removers, thinners, stains, shellacs, cleaners, putty, coatings, 
adhesives, fillers, sealants, explosives, and carbon black.
    (7) Fabricated rubber and miscellaneous plastics products 
including, but not limited to, tires and inner tubes; rubber and 
plastics footware, hose, belting, gasket, packing, and sealing devices; 
and molded, extruded, and lathe-cut mechanical rubber goods.
    Manufacture means to produce or combine any ingredients contained 
in any product.
    Manufacturing process means a process or a series of processes used 
to convert raw materials, feed stocks, subassemblies, or other 
components into a product which will be sold, offered for sale, 
supplied, or distributed or will be used as a component in a subsequent 
manufacturing process. This definition includes the storage and 
handling of organic compounds or gases which are used in a 
manufacturing process and the handling of organic compounds or gases 
used to clean-up a manufacturing process.
    (ii) Applicability.
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A), (iii)(B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of a facility which manufactures products containing VOCs 
located in the control area as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section at which total VOC emissions are greater than or equal to 4.5 
kg (10 lbs) during any one day.
    (B) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)(B), (v)(B), and 
(vi)(B) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of a 
facility which manufactures products containing VOCs located in the 
applicable area specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section at 
which total VOC emissions from all emissions sources are always less 
than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. If uncontrolled VOC emissions 
from a facility which is exempt from the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section ever exceed 4.5 kg (10 
lbs) during any one day on or after January 1, 2000, the facility will 
lose its exempt status, and the owner or operator shall comply with the 
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B), (iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) 
of this section beginning January 1 of the calendar year following the 
date of the exceedance.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(xii) and (a)(4)(xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V (of the 
Clean Air Act) operating permit. For sources not subject to Title V, 
sources shall submit all information which would be required for 
sources subject to Title V.21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\1This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to:
    (1) the test methods and procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, and
    (2) data and engineering calculations approved by EPA 
documenting process modifications that were made to reduce VOC 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph, as described 
under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, shall limit total VOC 
emissions from the subject facility to the level calculated by the 
following equations:

TP05MY94.068

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where
R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.069

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.070

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.071

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility. 

TP05MY94.072

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where
R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.
    (iv) Reporting.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, 
shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar year, 
beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this section for 
the previous calendar year. This certification shall include:
    (1) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (2) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, 
shall comply with the following:
    (1) By January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall certify to the 
Administrator that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. This 
certification shall include:
    (i) A declaration that the facility is exempt from the limitations 
of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as 
described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section; and
    (ii) Calculations which demonstrate that total baseline VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility are and will 
remain less than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. Baseline emissions 
shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A) (1) and (2) of this section.
    (2) On and after January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall 
notify the Administrator of any record showing that total VOC emissions 
from the facility exceeded 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day by 
sending a copy of such record to the Administrator within 30 calendar 
days after the exceedance occurs.
    (v) Recordkeeping.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate 
compliance with the limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through 
(5) of this section for each emissions source and maintain the 
information at the facility for a period of five (5) years. The 
information shall be collected and recorded each day of each calendar 
year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate that 
total VOC emissions from all emissions sources are less than 4.5 kg (10 
lbs) during each day and maintain the information at the facility for a 
period of three years. The information shall be collected and recorded 
each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring.
    (A) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as described under 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of section to demonstrate compliance with the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (B) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility which is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section to demonstrate that the facility is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (3) Disposal of Materials Containing Volatile Organic Compounds.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Biodegradable waste means any organic waste that can be broken down 
into its basic elements by microorganisms.
    Biodegradable waste disposal facility means any facility which is 
operated as a business or owned by a state or municipality and is used 
to treat, store, or dispose of biodegradable waste or to reclaim or 
recycle organic compounds or gases from biodegradable wastes.
    Organic waste disposal facility means any facility which is 
operated as a business or owned by a state or municipality and is used 
to treat, store, or dispose of organic wastes that contain VOCs or to 
reclaim or recycle organic compounds or gases from organic wastes that 
contain VOCs. Such facilities include, but are not limited to, 
biodegradable waste disposal facilities (e.g., landfills); publicly 
owned treatment works; hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities; and sewage sludge, solid waste, and hazardous waste 
incinerators.
    Publicly owned treatment work (POTW) means any device or system 
which is owned by a state or municipality and is used to treat 
(including recycling and reclamation) municipal sewage or industrial 
liquid waste.
    (ii) Applicability. The requirements of paragraphs (b)(3) (iii), 
(iv), (v), and (vi) of this section shall apply to any owner or 
operator of any organic waste disposal facility located in the control 
area as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4) (xii) and (xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to Title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to Title 
V.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\2This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to:
    (1) the test methods and procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, and
    (2) data and engineering calculations approved by EPA 
documenting process modifications that were made to reduce VOC 
emissions. 

TP05MY94.073

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where
R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.074

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)
where

R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.075

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.076

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section.)

where

R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.077

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

    (iv) Reporting. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section, as described under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar 
year, beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this 
section for the previous calendar year. This certification shall 
include:
    (A) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (B) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (v) Recordkeeping. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section, as described under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section, shall collect and record all information necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section for each emissions 
source and maintain the information at the facility for a period of 
five (5) years. The information shall be collected and recorded each 
day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring. The Administrator may require, at any 
time, any owner or operator of a facility subject to the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as described 
under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (4) Commercial Food Preparation and/or Baking.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Brandy-making facility means a facility that distills wine, the 
refuse of a wine press, or any other fermented fruit juices to produce 
alcoholic liquors.
    Charcoal means any substance obtained by charring wood or any other 
organic matter by a process of smothered combustion to exclude air.
    Commercial baking facility means a facility that bakes bread, 
biscuits, rolls, pies, cakes, cookies, or other similar products.
    Commercial charbroiling facility means a facility that broils any 
type of food over a charcoal or gas-fired broiler.
    Food preparation facility means any commercial baking, commercial 
charbroiling, wine- or brandy-making, fruit and vegetable preservation, 
grain mill production, vegetable oil production, or malt beverage 
production facility. This definition includes restaurants involved in 
activities described in the previous sentence.
    Fruit and vegetable preservation facility means a facility that 
preserves food by, but not limited to, canning, curing, pickling, 
salting, smoking, cooking, or freezing.
    Grain mill production facility means a facility that grinds any 
grain including, but not limited to, wheat, rice, corn, or rye into 
flour or meal.
    Malt beverage production facility means a facility engaged in 
malting, fermentation, aging, or packaging of barley or any other grain 
for the purpose of producing an alcoholic beverage.
    Vegetable oil production facility means a facility that extracts 
oil from any vegetable seed.
    Wine- or brandy-making facility means a facility that ferments 
juices from grapes or any other fruit for the purpose of producing 
alcoholic beverages.
    (ii) Applicability.
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(4) (iii)(A) and (iii)(B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of a commercial food preparation facility located in the 
control area as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section at which 
VOC emissions are greater than or equal to 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any 
one day.
    (B) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(4)(iv)(B), (v)(B), and 
(vi)(B) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of a 
commercial food preparation facility located in the applicable area 
specified in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section at which total 
uncontrolled VOC emissions from all emissions sources are always less 
than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. If VOC emissions from a 
facility which is exempt from the limitations of paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section ever exceed 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any 
one day on or after January 1, 2000, the facility will lose its exempt 
status, and the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B), (iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section 
beginning January 1 of the calendar year following the date of the 
exceedance.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(xii) and (xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to Title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to Title 
V.23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\3This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to: (1) the test methods and procedures specified in 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and (2) data and engineering 
calculations approved by EPA documenting process modifications that 
were made to reduce VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph, as described 
under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section shall limit total VOC 
emissions from the subject facility to the level calculated by the 
following equations:

TP05MY94.078

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.079

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.080

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where

R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.081

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where
R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

TP05MY94.082

where

R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

    (iv) Reporting. 
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section 
shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar year, 
beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this section for 
the previous calendar year. This certification shall include:
    (1) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (2) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section 
shall comply with the following:
    (1) By January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall certify to the 
Administrator that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. This 
certification shall include:
    (i) A declaration that the facility is exempt from the limitations 
of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as 
described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section; and
    (ii) Calculations which demonstrate that total baseline VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility are and will 
remain less than 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day. Baseline emissions 
shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) (1) and (2) of this section.
    (2) On and after January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall 
notify the Administrator of any record showing that total VOC emissions 
from the facility exceeded 4.5 kg (10 lbs) during any one day by 
sending a copy of such record to the Administrator within 30 calendar 
days after the exceedance occurs.
    (v) Recordkeeping.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate 
compliance with the limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section for each emissions source and maintain the 
information at the facility for a period of five (5) years. The 
information shall be collected and recorded each day of each calendar 
year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section, 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate that 
total VOC emissions from all emissions sources are less than 4.5 kg (10 
lbs) during each day and maintain the information at the facility for a 
period of five (5) years. The information shall be collected and 
recorded each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending 
with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring.
    (A) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section, as described under 
paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (B) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility which is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section to demonstrate that the facility is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (5) Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, Processing, and Storage.
    (i) Definitions.
    (A) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(5) of this section, the 
general definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (B) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(5) of this section, the 
following definitions also apply:
    Crude oil means a naturally occurring mixture which consists of 
hydrocarbons and sulfur, nitrogen, or oxygen derivatives of 
hydrocarbons and which is a liquid at standard conditions.
    Extraction facility means any facility where drilling and servicing 
equipment, flow lines, separators, gathering lines, and auxiliary 
nontransportation related equipment are used to extract petroleum or 
natural gas from a well.
    Gasoline means any petroleum distillate which is used as a motor 
fuel.
    Petroleum means the crude oil removed from the earth and the oils 
derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
    Processing facility means any facility where petroleum or natural 
gas is used as a feedstock to produce gasoline, kerosene, distillate 
fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other related products.
    Storage facility means any extraction facility, processing 
facility, bulk gasoline plant, bulk gasoline terminal, or any petroleum 
storage facility which distributes petroleum, natural gas, or gasoline 
to retail outlet and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities. This 
definition does not apply to retail gasoline service stations.
    (ii) Applicability. The requirements of paragraphs (b)(5) (iii), 
(iv), (v), and (vi) of this section shall apply to any owner or 
operator of any petroleum or natural gas extraction, processing, or 
storage facility located in the control area as defined in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to the FIP VOC 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a VOC emissions reduction compliance plan to the 
Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for the 
years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline VOC emissions shall be calculated for each facility. 
Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of VOC 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility including 
emissions associated with the use of architectural coatings and clean-
up solvents. Baseline emissions shall be calculated as specified in 
paragraph (a)(4) (xii) and (xiii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit VOC 
emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level required 
in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. Methods 
may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual VOC emissions for each emissions source 
through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to Title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to Title 
V.24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\4This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the VOC 
emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to:
    (1) the test methods and procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, and (2) data and engineering calculations 
approved by EPA documenting process modifications that were made to 
reduce VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph because of 
paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section shall limit total VOC emissions 
from the subject facility to the level calculated by the following 
equations:

TP05MY94.083

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where

R2001=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.084

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where

R2002=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.085

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

    where

R2003=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.086

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where

R2004=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)


TP05MY94.087

where

R2005=Allowable VOC for all emissions sources at the facility for 
the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline VOC emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for each 
emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

    (iv) Reporting. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section, as described under paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this 
section shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar 
year, beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this 
section for the previous calendar year. This certification shall 
include:
    (A) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section; and
    (B) Documentation of methods used to achieve the VOC emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (v) Recordkeeping. Each owner or operator of a facility which is 
subject to the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) 
of this section because of paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section shall 
collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate compliance 
with the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section for each emissions source and maintain the information at 
the facility for a period of five (5) years. The information shall be 
collected and recorded each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 
and ending with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring. The Administrator may require, at any 
time, any owner or operator of a facility subject to the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment specified in 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(B) of this section to demonstrate compliance with 
the limitations of paragraphs (b)(5)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (c) Incorporated by Reference. The materials listed below are 
incorporated by reference. The incorporation by reference was approved 
by the Director of the Office of Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.25 These materials are 
incorporated as they exist on the date of approval, and a notice of any 
change in these materials will be published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\5Incorporation by reference is pending approval by the Office 
of Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) ASTM D3925-81 (1985) Standard Practice for Sampling Liquid 
Paints and Related Pigment Coating.
    (2) ASTM E300 Standard Practice for Sampling Industrial Chemicals.
    (3) ASTM D1475-85: Standard Test Method for Density of Paint, 
Varnish, Lacquer and Related Products.
    (4) ASTM D2369-87: Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of a 
Coating.
    (5) ASTM D3792-86: Standard Test Method for Water Content of Water-
Reducible Paints by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph.
    (6) ASTM D4017-81 (1987): Standard Test Method for Water Content in 
Paints and Paint Materials by the Karl Fischer Method.
    (7) ASTM D4457-85: Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Dichloromethane and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane in Paints and Coatings by 
Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph.
    (8) ASTM D2697-86: Standard Test Method for Volume Non-volatile 
Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.
    (9) ASTM E180-85: Standard Practice for Determining the Precision 
Data of ASTM Methods for Analysis and Testing of Industrial Chemicals.
    (10) ASTM Method D2879-86: Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure-
Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of 
Liquids by Isoteniscope.


Sec. 52.2955  Stationary and area source NOX cap rules 
(Ventura).26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\6EPA intends to issue a supplemental document in the Federal 
Register which addresses portions of proposed Sec. 52.2955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) General Provisions.
    (1) Applicability. The provisions of Sec. 52.2955 shall apply to 
all stationary emission sources located in the ``control area'' as 
defined as the Ventura County ozone nonattainment area in 40 CFR 
81.305, and all other persons identified in subsequent applicability 
paragraphs in Sec. 52.2955(b).
    (2) Compliance dates. Compliance with all requirements of this 
section is required upon promulgation unless otherwise indicated by 
compliance dates contained in specific paragraphs in this section. This 
paragraph (a)(2) shall not operate to provide additional time for 
compliance under section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act, for sources 
subject to compliance upon promulgation.
    (3) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following 
definitions apply. All terms not defined herein shall have the meaning 
given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Actual emissions means the actual quantity of NOX emissions 
from an emissions source during a particular time period. ``Actual 
emissions rate'' means the actual quantity of NOX emissions from 
an emissions source per unit of actual production or throughput.
    Agency means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    Air contaminant means any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any 
odor, or any form of energy, that is capable of being released into the 
atmosphere from an emission source.
    Air pollution means the presence in the atmosphere of one or more 
air contaminants in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics 
and duration as to be injurious to human, plant, or animal life, to 
health, or to property, or to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment 
of life or property.
    Air pollution control equipment means any equipment or facility of 
a type intended to eliminate, prevent, reduce or control the emission 
of specified air contaminants to the atmosphere.
    Allowable emissions rate means the most stringent of the applicable 
standards in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61; the applicable implementation 
plan; or a federally enforceable permit.
    Annual emissions report is a report which takes inventory of all 
pollutant emissions at a facility during a calendar year, submitted by 
the Facility to the EPA, within 30 days of the close of each year.
    Baseline emissions means the emissions calculated using 1990 
emission inventory data in the affected FIP areas and adjusted for 
emission reductions projected to occur by the implementation year of 
the FIP cap program in the affected FIP area. The baseline shall be 
denominated in pounds per year of FIP cap pollutant (e.g., pounds of 
NOX per year) and monthly caps shall be prorated based on this 
data.
    Cement kiln is a device for the calcining and clinkering of 
limestone, clay and other raw materials, and recycle dust in the dry-
process manufacture of cement.
    Clinker is a mass of fused material produced in a cement kiln from 
which the finished cement is manufactured by milling and grinding.
    Combustion equipment is any equipment that burns fuel, including 
but not limited to natural gas or fuel oil in order to operate. 
Combustion equipment includes, but is not limited to, boilers, 
turbines, heaters, engines, kilns, furnaces, ovens, dryers, flares, and 
afterburners.
    Continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) means any system of 
equipment that continuously measures all parameters necessary to 
directly determine mass emissions of a pollutant, and which meets all 
performance standards for CEMS set forth in this regulation.
    Continuously measure means to measure at least once every 15 
minutes except during periods of routine maintenance and calibration, 
or as otherwise specified in this regulation.
    Daily means occurring once between 12 midnight and 24 hours later 
at midnight.
    Day means a period of consecutive 24 hours beginning at 12:00 a.m. 
(midnight) local time, or beginning at a time consistent with a 
facility's operating schedule.
    Direct monitoring device is a device that measures the emissions of 
NOX and all other variables as specified in this regulation.
    Electric utility is all facilities which generate power and are 
owned or operated by any one of the following: Southern California 
Edison or any of its successors.
    Emission rate means the total mass of NOX released or 
discharged from an emissions source into the atmosphere per unit of 
production, throughput, or heat input (e.g., pounds NOX/mmBtu).
    Emission source or source means any building, structure, facility, 
property, equipment, device, container, or any combination thereof, at, 
from, or by reason which NOX is emitted or discharged into the 
atmosphere.
    Facility means all of the pollutant-emitting activities which 
belong to the same industrial grouping, are located on one or more 
contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under the control of the 
same person (or persons under common control), except the activities of 
any marine vessel. Pollutant-emitting activities shall be considered as 
part of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the same ``Major 
Group'' (i.e., which have the same two-digit code) as described in the 
``Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987'' (incorporated by 
reference as specified in paragraph (b) of this section).
    Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions that are 
enforceable by the Administrator including those requirements contained 
in permits issued pursuant to 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, except those 
terms or conditions designated as not federally enforceable; those 
requirements developed pursuant to 40 CFR parts 60 and 61; requirements 
within any applicable implementation plan; and any permit requirements 
established pursuant to Sec. 52.21 or under regulations approved 
pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, and 40 CFR 51.166.
    Gaseous fuels include, but are not limited to, any natural, 
process, synthetic, landfill, sewage digester or waste gases with a 
gross heating value of 300 Btu per cubic foot or higher, at standard 
conditions.
    Incinerator means a combustion apparatus in which solid, semi-
solid, liquid, or gaseous combustible wastes are ignited and burned and 
from which the solid and gaseous residues contain little or no 
combustible material.
    Monitor means to measure and record.
    Natural gas is a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons, with at least 80 
percent methane (by volume), and of pipeline quality, such as the gas 
sold or distributed by any utility company regulated by the California 
Public Utilities Commission.
    NOX emissions means the sum of nitric oxides and nitrogen 
dioxides emitted, calculated as nitrogen dioxide.
    Non-cap program pollutants are those pollutants other than NOX 
and VOC.
    Owner or operator means any person who owns, operates, leases, 
controls, or supervises an emissions source or air pollution control 
equipment.
    Person means any individual, corporation, copartnership, firm, 
company, partnership, joint stock company, trust, association, State, 
municipality, political subdivision, or any other legal entity, or 
their legal representative, agent, or assigns.
    Process means any stationary emission source.
    Quarter is a three-month period from January 1 to March 31, April 1 
to June 30, July 1 to September 30, or October 1 to December 31, 
inclusive.
    Rated brake horsepower (bhp) is the maximum rating specified by the 
manufacturer and listed on the nameplate.
    Rental equipment is equipment which is rented or leased for 
operation by someone other than the owner of the equipment.
    Research operations are those operations the sole purpose of which 
is to permit investigation of experimental research to advance the 
state of knowledge or state-of-the-art technology.
    Source means emission source.
    Standard conditions means a temperature of 20  deg.C (68  deg.F) 
and a pressure of 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg).
    Standard industrial code (SIC) is the classification number 
assigned to a facility based on its primary economic activity as 
specified in the ``Standard Industrial Classification Manual,'' 
published by the Office of Management and Budget, dated 1987.
    Stationary emission source and Stationary source mean an emission 
source which is not self-propelled.
    Throughput means a measure of activity including, but not limited 
to: weight of glass pulled for a glass melting furnace, weight of 
clinker for cement kilns, amount of nitric acid used in metal stripping 
processes, amount of nitric acid manufactured for nitric acid 
manufacturing processes, weight of aluminum produced for aluminum 
production and/or fuel usage for all other sources as reported.
    (4) Test Methods and Procedures.
    (i) Emissions monitoring and testing. Major sources as defined 
under the CAA shall install CEMS that meet the quality assurance and 
quality control requirements of appendix A of the Enhanced Monitoring 
Program.27 The test methods and procedures found in 
Sec. 52.2961(m), (n), (o), (u), and (v) apply to all NOX emission 
sources defined in paragraph (b) of this section. EPA-approved 
calculational methods shall be used in conjunction with the appropriate 
test methods found in Sec. 52.2961 to determine mass emissions if 
conversion from a rate-based emissions result to a mass-based emissions 
result is necessary. [See additional discussion in section 
III.C.5.a.(5)(c) of the Supplementary Information section.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\7Proposed rule published in the Federal Register of October 
22, 1993 (58 FR 54648).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Baseline Emissions. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section, baseline NOX emissions shall be calculated 
for each emissions source in accordance with one of the procedures 
specified below:
    (A) If daily emissions records which are consistent with the 
emission inventory data submitted by the State for the control area on 
November 15, 1992 are available for the calendar years 1989 and 1990, 
baseline emissions shall be based on the median value of daily 
emissions recorded for the two-year period.
    (B) If daily emissions records are not available for the calendar 
years 1989 and 1990 or are inconsistent with the emission inventory 
data submitted by the State for the control area on November 15, 1992 
or were not submitted, baseline emissions shall be based on the average 
daily emissions value calculated for the two-year period. The average 
daily emissions value shall be calculated by dividing emissions for the 
two-year period by the operating or usage time for the two-year period. 
If emissions data are not available, emissions associated with fuel 
usage may be estimated from purchase records. The operating or usage 
time for the two-year period shall be based on one of the criteria 
specified as follows:
    (1) The number of days specified in a federally enforceable permit 
if the emissions source operated under the conditions of a federally 
enforceable permit which restricted operating times during the two-year 
period,
    (2) The average number of days that the emissions source was 
operated or used over the two-year period if documentation is available 
to support the number, or
    (3) 730 days if documentation of the number of days that the 
emissions source was operated or used over the two-year period is not 
available.
    (iii) Implementation Year Monthly Baseline Emissions. Baseline 
emissions as defined in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section shall be 
adjusted prior to the implementation year (2001) of the FIP cap program 
in the control area as follows:
    (A) The reductions that are projected to occur as a result of both 
SIP and FIP measures between 1990 and 2001 shall be subtracted from the 
baseline emissions. This value shall be defined as the reduced daily 
baseline emissions and is denoted in pounds of NOX/day.
    (B) The reduced daily baseline emissions shall be annualized by 
multiplying the daily value by 365. This value shall be defined as the 
reduced annual baseline emissions and is denoted in pounds of NOX/
year.
    (C) The reduced annual baseline emissions shall be converted into a 
monthly value by dividing by 12. This value shall be defined as the 
implementation year monthly baseline.
    (5) Enforcement.
    (i) Inspections. All sources and facilities subject to provisions 
of this section shall be subject to unannounced inspections by 
representatives of the USEPA pursuant to section 114 of the Clean Air 
Act.
    (ii) Information requests. Documentation maintained by all sources, 
facilities, and persons subject to this section must be sufficient to 
demonstrate compliance with all requirements of this section and must 
be provided to representatives of USEPA in response to information 
requests pursuant to section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
    (iii) Failure to comply with any provision of this section is a 
violation of the applicable implementation plan for purposes of section 
113 of the Clean Air Act.
    (iv) Each 50 pounds of emissions in excess of a facility's monthly 
cap shall be a separate violation for federal enforcement purposes.
    (b) Stationary and area source control measures.
    (1) NOX emission sources.
    (i) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the general 
definitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section apply.
    (ii) Applicability.
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (iii)(A), (iii)(B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of any of the following equipment at a facility located in 
the control area as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
    (1) Any boiler, furnace, oven, dryer, heater, incinerator, test 
cell and any solid, liquid or gaseous fueled equipment with a maximum 
rated capacity greater than or equal to 2 million Btu per hour;
    (2) Any internal combustion engine with rated brake horsepower 
(bhp) greater than or equal to 50 bhp, regardless of operating time;
    (3) Any gas turbine rated greater than or equal to 0.2 megawatts 
excluding any emergency standby equipment or peaking unit;
    (4) Any petroleum refinery fluid catalytic cracking unit;
    (5) Any petroleum refinery tail gas unit;
    (6) Any kiln or calciner;
    (7) Any equipment burning or incinerating solid fuels or materials;
    (8) Any sulfuric acid production unit;
    (9) Any portable combustion and process equipment;
    (10) Any emergency standby equipment or peaking unit;
    (11) Any NOX source for which NOX emissions reported to 
the State or local agency were equal to or greater than 2 tons per year 
for the calendar year 1990.
    (B) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (iii)(A), (iii)(B), 
(iv)(A), (v)(A), and (vi)(A) of this section shall apply to any owner 
or operator of a NOX source or combinations of sources, as 
described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section at a facility 
located in the applicable area specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of 
this section at which actual emissions of NOX are greater than or 
equal to 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day.
    (C) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) (iv)(B), (v)(B), and 
(vi)(B) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of a 
NOX source or combinations of sources, as described in paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section at a facility located in the applicable 
area specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section at which 
actual emissions of NOX from all emissions sources are always less 
than 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day. If actual emissions of 
NOX from a facility which is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section ever exceed 6.8 kg (15 lbs) 
during any one day on or after January 1, 2000, the facility will lose 
its exempt status, and the owner or operator shall comply with the 
requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B), (b)(1)(iv)(A), (b)(1)(v)(A), 
and (b)(1)(vi)(A) of this section beginning January 1 of the calendar 
year following the date of the exceedance.
    (iii) Specific Provisions.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a source subject to FIP NOX 
emissions cap program as defined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall submit a NOX emissions reduction compliance plan to 
the Administrator by January 1, 1999. The plan shall be prepared for 
the years 2001 through 2005 and shall include all of the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Each owner or operator shall submit a revised plan to the Administrator 
within 30 calendar days of receipt of comments from the Administrator. 
Each owner or operator shall comply at all times with the provisions of 
the most recent plan approved by the Administrator.
    (1) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the owner or 
operator of the facility, and of each person responsible for preparing 
the information required under paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) Baseline NOX emissions shall be calculated for each 
facility. Baseline emissions for each facility shall equal the sum of 
NOX emissions from all emissions sources at the facility. Baseline 
emissions shall be calculated as specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and 
(a)(4)(iii) of this section.
    (3) Methods to be employed by the owner or operator to limit 
NOX emissions from emissions sources to within the emissions level 
required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. 
Methods may include but are not limited to:
    (i) Installation of capture systems and control devices;
    (ii) Modifications to increase the efficiency of existing capture 
systems and/or control devices;
    (iii) Process modifications and/or substitutions; and
    (iv) Reduction in operating schedules for one or more emissions 
sources at the facility. For those facilities choosing to comply 
through use of reduced operating schedules, operating schedules for 
baseline emissions levels and for emissions levels starting January 1, 
2001, continuing for a period not less than 5 years.
    (4) Projections of annual NOX emissions for each emissions 
source through the year 2005 after application of the reduction methods 
described in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section.
    (5) For all sources subject to the FIP cap reduction requirements, 
all information required as part of the facility's Title V operating 
permit. For sources not subject to Title V, sources shall submit all 
information which would be required for sources subject to Title 
V.28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\8This information shall include, for example, test or 
demonstration methods used to demonstrate achievement of the 
NOX emissions reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) 
(1) through (5) of this section. The methods may include but are not 
limited to: (1) the test methods and procedures specified in 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and (2) data and engineering 
calculations approved by EPA documenting process modifications that 
were made to reduce NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Beginning January 1, 2001, each owner or operator of a facility 
which is subject to the limitations of this paragraph, as described 
under paragraph (b)(1) (ii)(A) or (ii)(B) of this section, shall limit 
actual monthly emissions of NOX from the subject facility to the 
level calculated by the following equations:

TP05MY94.088

where29

    \2\9The range 0.06 to 0.09 reflects the 6% to 9% cumulative 
annual rate of emission reductions currently under consideration. In 
the first year, emissions would be reduced by 6% to 9% off of 
baseline levels; in the second year, emissions would be reduced by 
12% to 18% off of baseline levels, and so on until the minimum 30% 
NOX reduction is made. As discussed in the preamble to the 
regulations this range of annual reductions is based on EPA's 
preliminary rate of reduction analysis and may change as the 
analysis continues prior to final promulgation of this FIP. In 
addition, EPA plans to review this value every three years after 
final rule promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R2001=Allowable NOX for all emissions sources at the facility 
for the year 2001 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline NOX emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for 
each emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.


TP05MY94.089

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where

R2002=Allowable NOX for all emissions sources at the facility 
for the year 2002 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline NOX emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for 
each emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.090

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where

R2003=Allowable NOX for all emissions sources at the facility 
for the year 2003 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline NOX emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for 
each emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.091

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)
where
R2004=Allowable NOX for all emissions sources at the facility 
for the year 2004 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline NOX emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for 
each emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.

TP05MY94.092

(See footnote to paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)(1) of this section)

where

R2005=Allowable NOX for all emissions sources at the facility 
for the year 2005 in units of kg (lbs) per month,
Ro=Baseline NOX emissions in units of kg (lbs) per month for 
each emissions source at the facility. Baseline emissions shall be 
calculated in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(A)(2) of this section.
i=Subscript denoting a specific emissions source, and
n=Total number of emissions sources at the facility.


    (iv) Reporting.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this 
section, shall submit to the Administrator by March 1 of each calendar 
year, beginning in 2002, a certification of compliance with this 
section for the previous calendar year. This certification shall 
include:
    (1) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section, and
    (2) Documentation of methods used to achieve the NOX emissions 
reductions required in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section because of paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section shall comply 
with the following:
    (1) By January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall certify to the 
Administrator that the facility is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section. This 
certification shall include:
    (i) A declaration that the facility is exempt from the limitations 
of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section, and
    (ii) Calculations which demonstrate that total baseline NOX 
emissions from all emissions sources at the facility are and will 
remain less than 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day. Baseline emissions 
shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) (1) and (2) of this section.
    (2) On and after January 1, 2000, the owner or operator shall 
notify the Administrator of any record showing that actual emissions of 
NOX from the facility exceeded 6.8 kg (15 lbs) during any one day 
by sending a copy of such record to the Administrator within 30 
calendar days after the exceedance occurs.
    (v) Recordkeeping.
    (A) Each owner or operator of a facility which is subject to the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraphs (b)(1) (ii)(A) or (ii)(B) of 
this section shall collect and record all information necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section for each emissions 
source and maintain the information at the facility for a period of 
five (5) years. The information shall be collected and recorded each 
day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 and ending with 2005.
    (B) Each owner or operator of a facility which is exempt from the 
limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this 
section, as described under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section 
shall collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate that 
actual emissions of NOX from all emissions sources are less than 
6.8 kg (15 lbs) during each day and maintain the information at the 
facility for a period of five (5) years. The information shall be 
collected and recorded each day of each calendar year beginning in 2001 
and ending with 2005.
    (vi) Testing and Monitoring.
    (A) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to the limitations of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) through (5) of this section because of paragraphs 
(b)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section to perform tests using the 
applicable test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section and/or to install monitoring equipment to demonstrate 
compliance with the limitations of paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B) (1) 
through (5) of this section.
    (B) The Administrator may require, at any time, any owner or 
operator of a facility which is exempt from the limitations of 
paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section because of paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section to perform tests using the applicable 
test methods and procedures specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this 
section to demonstrate that the facility is exempt from the limitations 
of paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.


Sec. 52.2956   Stationary and area source NOX cap rules (South 
Coast) [Reserved].


Sec. 52.2957   Consumer product rules.

    (a) Consumer products.
    (1) Applicability. The requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(a)(9) of this section shall apply to any person who sells, supplies, 
offers for sale, or manufactures consumer products for use in 
California.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(a)(9) of this section, the following definitions shall apply. All 
terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given them in 
Sec. 52.2950.
    Aerosol cooking spray means any aerosol product designed either to 
reduce sticking on cooking and baking surfaces or to be applied on 
food, or both.
    Aerosol product means a pressurized spray system that dispenses 
product ingredients by means of a propellant or mechanically induced 
force. Aerosol Product does not include pump sprays.
    Agricultural use means the use of any pesticide or method or device 
for the control of pests in connection with the commercial production, 
storage or processing of any animal or plant crop. Agricultural Use 
does not include the sale or use of pesticides in properly labeled 
packages or containers which are intended for: Home use; Use in 
structural pest control; or Industrial or Institutional use. For the 
purposes of this definition only: Home use means use in a household or 
its immediate environment. Structural pest control means a use 
requiring a license under Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 8500), 
Division 3, of the Business and Professions Code. Industrial use means 
use for or in a manufacturing, mining, or chemical process or use in 
the operation of factories, processing plants, and similar sites. 
Institutional use means use within the confines of, or on property 
necessary for the operation of buildings such as hospitals, schools, 
libraries, auditoriums, and office complexes.
    Air freshener means any consumer product including, but not limited 
to, sprays, wicks, powders, and crystals, designed for the purpose of 
masking odors, or freshening, cleaning, scenting, or deodorizing the 
air. Air Freshener includes dual/purpose air freshener/disinfectant 
products. Air Freshener does not include products that are used on the 
human body, or products that function primarily as cleaning products as 
indicated on a product label or advertisement.
    All other carbon-containing compounds means all other compounds 
which contain at least one carbon atom and are not a Table B or a LVP 
compound.
    All other forms means all consumer product forms for which no form-
specific VOC standard is specified. Unless specified otherwise by the 
applicable VOC standard, all other forms include, but are not limited 
to, solids, liquids, wicks, powders, crystals, and cloth or paper wipes 
(towelettes).
    Architectural coating means a coating applied to stationary 
structures and their appurtenances, to mobile homes, to pavements, or 
to curbs.
    ASTM means the American Society for Testing and Materials.
    Automotive brake cleaner means a cleaning product designed to 
remove oil, grease, brake fluid, brake pad material or dirt from motor 
vehicle brake mechanisms.
    Automotive windshield washer fluid means any liquid designed for 
use in a motor vehicle windshield washer fluid system either as an 
anti-freeze or for the purpose of cleaning, washing, or wetting the 
windshield(s). Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid does not include any 
fluid which is placed in a new motor vehicle at the time the vehicle is 
manufactured.
    Bathroom and tile cleaner means a product designed to clean tile or 
surfaces in bathrooms. Bathroom and Tile Cleaner does not include 
products specifically designed to clean toilet bowls or toilet tanks.
    California sales means the sales (net pounds of product, less 
packaging and container, per year) in California for either the 
calendar year immediately prior to the year that the registration is 
due or, if that data is not available, any consecutive 12 month period 
commencing no earlier than 2 years prior to the due date of the 
registration. If direct sales data for California is not available, 
sales may be estimated by prorating national or regional sales data by 
population.
    Carburetor-choke cleaner means a product designed to remove dirt 
and other contaminants from a carburetor. Carburetor-Choke Cleaner does 
not include products designed to be introduced directly into the fuel 
lines or fuel storage tank prior to introduction into the carburetor.
    Charcoal lighter material means any combustible material designed 
to be applied on, incorporated in, added to, or used with charcoal to 
enhance ignition. Charcoal Lighter Material does not include any of the 
following: electrical starters and probes; metallic cylinders using 
paper tinder; natural gas; and propane.
    Colorant means any pigment or coloring material used in a consumer 
product for an aesthetic effect, or to dramatize an ingredient.
    Construction and panel adhesive means any one-component household 
adhesive having gap filling capabilities, and which distributes stress 
uniformily throughout the bonded area resulting in a reduction or 
elimination of mechanical fasteners. These materials are applied from 
\1/10\ gallon or 11 fluid ounce caulking cartridges.
    Consumer means any person who seeks, purchases, or acquires any 
consumer product for personal, family, household, or institutional use. 
Persons acquiring a consumer product for resale are not consumers for 
that product.
    Consumer product means a chemically formulated product used by 
household and institutional consumers including, but not limited to, 
detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; 
personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; 
sanitizers; and automotive specialty products but do not include paint, 
furniture coatings, or architectural coatings.
    Contact adhesive means any household adhesive that: is nitrile-
based, or contains polychlorobutadiene (neoprene, chloroprene, 
bayprene), or latex; when applied to two substrates forms an 
instantaneous, non-repositionable bond; when dried to touch, exhibits a 
minimum 30 minute bonding range; and bonds only to itself without the 
need for reactivation by solvents or heat.
    Container/packaging means the part or parts of the consumer or 
institutional product which serve only to contain, enclose, 
incorporate, deliver, dispense, wrap or store the chemically formulated 
substance or mixture of substances which is solely responsible for 
accomplishing the purposes for which the product was designed or 
intended. Container/Packaging includes any article onto or into which 
the principal display panel and other accompanying literature or 
graphics are incorporated, etched, printed or attached.
    Crawling bug insecticide means any insecticide product that is 
designed for use against ants, cockroaches, or other household crawling 
arthropods, including, but not limited to, mites, silverfish or 
spiders. Crawling Bug Insecticide does not include products designed to 
be used exclusively on humans or animals.
    Device means any instrument or contrivance (other than a firearm) 
which is designed for trapping, destroying, repelling, or mitigating 
any pest or any other form of plant or animal life (other than man and 
other than bacteria, virus, or other microorganism on or in living man 
or other living animals); but not including equipment used for the 
application of pesticides when sold separately therefrom.
    Disinfectant means any product intended to destroy or irreversibly 
inactivate infectious or other undesirable bacteria, pathogenic fungi, 
or viruses on surfaces or inanimate objects and whose label is 
registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act (FIFRA) 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Disinfectant does not include any of 
the following: products designed solely for use on human or animals; 
products designed for agricultural use; products designed solely for 
use in swimming pools, therapeutic tubs, or hot tubs; products which, 
as indicated on the principal display panel or label, are designed 
primarily for use as bathroom and tile cleaners, glass cleaners, 
general purpose cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners, or metal polishes.
    Distributor means any person to whom a consumer product is sold or 
supplied for the purposes of resale or distribution in commerce, except 
that manufacturers, retailers, and consumers are not distributors.
    Double phase aerosol air freshener means an aerosol air freshener 
with the liquid contents in two or more distinct phases that requires 
the product container be shaken before use to mix the phases, producing 
an emulsion.
    Dual purpose air freshener/disinfectant means an aerosol product 
that is represented on the product container for use as both a 
disinfectant and an air freshener, or is so represented on any sticker, 
label, packaging, or literature attached to the product container.
    Dusting aid means a product designed to assist in removing dust and 
other soils from floors and other surfaces without leaving a wax or 
silicone based coating. Dusting Aid does not include products which 
consist entirely of compressed gases for use in electronic or other 
specialty areas.
    Engine degreaser means a cleaning product designed to remove 
grease, grime, oil and other contaminants from the external surfaces of 
engines and other mechanical parts.
    Exempt compounds means any of the following compounds: methane; 
chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22); trifluoromethane (HFC-23); 
dichlorotrifluoroethane (HCFC-123); tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a); 
dichlorofluoroethane (HCFC-141b); chlorodifluoroethane (HCFC-142b); 2-
chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafluoroethane (HFC-
125); methylene chloride; 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform); 
trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113); dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12); 
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11); dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114); 
chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115); 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134); 
1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a); 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a); or 
perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes: Cyclic, 
branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes; Cyclic, branched, 
or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations; Cyclic, 
branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no 
unsaturations; or Sulfur-containing perfluorocarbons with no 
unsaturations and with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine.
    Existing product means any formulation of the same product category 
and form sold, supplied, manufactured, or offered for sale in 
California prior to the effective date of this article or any 
subsequently introduced identical formulation.
    Fabric protectant means a product designed to be applied to fabric 
substrates to protect the surface from soiling from dirt and other 
impurities or to reduce absorption of water into the fabric's fibers. 
Fabric Protectant does not include silicone-based products whose 
function is to provide water repellency, or products designed for use 
solely on fabrics which are labeled ``for dry clean only'' and sold in 
containers of 10 fluid ounces or less.
    Flea and tick insecticide means any insecticide product that is 
designed for use against fleas, ticks, their larvae, or their eggs. 
Flea and Tick Insecticide does not include products that are designed 
to be used exclusively on humans or animals and their bedding.
    Flexible flooring material means asphalt, cork, linoleum, no-wax, 
rubber, seamless vinyl and vinyl composite flooring.
    Floor polish or wax means a wax, polish, or any other product 
designed to polish, protect, or enhance floor surfaces by leaving a 
protective coating that is designed to be periodically replenished. 
Floor Polish or Wax does not include spray buff products, products 
designed solely for the purpose of cleaning floors, floor finish 
strippers, products designed for unfinished wood floors, and coatings 
subject to architectural coatings regulations.
    Flying bug insecticide means any insecticide product that is 
designed for use against flying insects or other flying arthropods, 
including but not limited to flies, mosquitoes, moths, or gnats. Flying 
Bug Insecticide does not include wasp and hornet insecticide, or 
products that are designed to be used exclusively on humans or animals.
    Fragrance means a substance or complex mixture of aroma chemicals, 
natural essential oils, and other functional components with a combined 
vapor pressure not in excess of 2 mm of Hg at 20 C, the sole purpose of 
which is to impart an odor or scent, or to counteract a malodor.
    Furniture maintenance product means a wax, polish, conditioner, or 
any other product designed for the purpose of polishing, protecting or 
enhancing finished wood surfaces other than floors. Furniture 
Maintenance Product does not include dusting aids, products designed 
solely for the purpose of cleaning, and products designed to leave a 
permanent finish such as stains, sanding sealers and lacquers.
    Furniture coating means any paint designed for application to room 
furnishings including, but not limited to, cabinets (kitchen, bath and 
vanity), tables, chairs, beds, and sofas.
    Gel means a colloid in which the disperse phase has combined with 
the continuous phase to produce a semisolid material, such as jelly.
    General purpose adhesive means any non-aerosol household adhesive 
designed for use on a variety of substrates. General Purpose Adhesive 
does not include contact adhesives or construction and panel adhesives.
    General purpose cleaner means a product designed for general all-
purpose cleaning, in contrast to cleaning products designed to clean 
specific substrates in certain situations. General Purpose Cleaner 
includes products designed for general floor cleaning, kitchen or 
countertop cleaning, and cleaners designed to be used on a variety of 
hard surfaces.
    Glass cleaner means a cleaning product designed primarily for 
cleaning surfaces made of glass. Glass cleaner does not include 
products designed solely for the purpose of cleaning optical materials 
used in eyeglasses, photographic equipment, scientific equipment and 
photocopying machines.
    Hair mousse means a hairstyling foam designed to facilitate styling 
of a coiffure and provide limited holding power.
    Hair styling gel means a high viscosity, often gelatinous, product 
that contains a resin and is designed for the application to hair to 
aid in styling and sculpting of the hair coiffure.
    Hairspray means a consumer product designed primarily for the 
purpose of dispensing droplets of a resin on and into a hair coiffure 
which will impart sufficient rigidity to the coiffure to establish or 
retain the style for a period of time.
    Household adhesive means any household product that is used to bond 
one surface to another by attachment. Household Adhesive does not 
include products used on humans and animals, adhesive tape, contact 
paper, wallpaper, shelf liners, or any other product with an adhesive 
incorporated onto or in an inert substrate. Household Adhesive also 
does not include units of product, less packaging, which weigh more 
than one pound or consist of more than 16 fluid ounces.
    Household product means any consumer product that is primarily 
designed to be used inside or outside of living quarters or residences 
that are occupied or intended for occupation by individuals, including 
the immediate surroundings.
    Household sealants and caulking compounds means any product 
designed to fill in cracks, close or secure an object, or to prevent 
seepage of moisture or air.
    Insect repellent means a pesticide product that is designed to be 
applied on human skin, hair or attire worn on humans in order to 
prevent contact with or repel biting insects or arthropods.
    Insecticide means a pesticide product that is designed for use 
against insects or other arthropods, but excluding products that are: 
for agricultural use; for a use which requires a structural pest 
control license under Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 8500) of the 
Business and Professions Code; or restricted materials that require a 
permit for use and possession.
    Insecticide fogger means any insecticide product designed to 
release all or most of its content, as a fog or mist, into indoor areas 
during a single application.
    Institutional product or industrial and institutional (I&I) Product 
means a consumer product that is designed for use in the maintenance or 
operation of an establishment that: manufactures, transports, or sells 
goods or commodities, or provides services for profit; or is engaged in 
the nonprofit promotion of a particular public, educational, or 
charitable cause. Establishments include, but are not limited to, 
government agencies, factories, schools, hospitals, sanitariums, 
prisons, restaurants, hotels, stores, automobile service and parts 
centers, health clubs, theaters, or transportation companies. 
Institutional Product does not include household products and products 
that are incorporated into or used exclusively in the manufacture or 
construction of the goods or commodities at the site of the 
establishment.
    Label means any written, printed, or graphic matter affixed to, 
applied to, attached to, blown into, formed, molded into, embossed on, 
or appearing upon any consumer product or consumer product package, for 
purposes of branding, identifying, or giving information with respect 
to the product or to the contents of the package.
    Laundry prewash means a product that is designed for application to 
a fabric prior to laundering and that supplements and contributes to 
the effectiveness of laundry detergents and/or provides specialized 
performance.
    Laundry starch product means a product that is designed for 
application to a fabric, either during or after laundering, to impart 
and prolong a crisp, fresh look and may also act to help ease ironing 
of the fabric. Laundry Starch Product includes, but is not limited to, 
fabric finish, sizing, and starch.
    Lawn and garden insecticide means an insecticide product designed 
primarily to be used in household lawn and garden areas to protect 
plants from insects or other arthropods.
    Liquid means a substance or mixture of substances which is capable 
of a visually detectable flow as determined under ASTM D-4359-90. 
Liquid does not include powders or other materials that are composed 
entirely of solid particles.
    LVP compound means any compound which contains at least one carbon 
atom and has either of the following: a vapor pressure less than 0.1 mm 
Hg at 20 C; or more than 12 carbon atoms, if the vapor pressure is 
unknown.
    Manufacturer means any person who imports, manufactures, assembles, 
produces, packages, repackages, or relabels a consumer product.
    Nail polish means any clear or colored coating designed for 
application to the fingernails or toenails and including but not 
limited to, lacquers, enamels, acrylics, base coats and top coats.
    Nail polish remover means a product designed to remove nail polish 
and coatings from fingernails or toenails.
    Non-carbon containing compound means any compound which does not 
contain any carbon atoms.
    Nonresilient flooring means flooring of a mineral content which is 
not flexible. Nonresilient Flooring includes terrazzo, marble, slate, 
granite, brick, stone, ceramic tile and concrete.
    Oven cleaner means any cleaning product designed to clean and to 
remove dried food deposits from oven walls.
    Paint means any pigmented liquid, liquefiable, or mastic 
composition designed for application to a substrate in a thin layer 
which is converted to an opaque solid film after application and is 
used for protection, decoration or identification, or to serve some 
functional purpose such as the filling or concealing of surface 
irregularities or the modification of light and heat radiation 
characteristics.
    Paint stripper means any product designed to strip or remove paint 
from a substrate without markedly affecting the substrate itself.
    Person means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, 
State, municipality, political subdivision of a state; any agency, 
department, or instrumentality of the United States; and any officer, 
agent, or employee thereof.
    Personal fragrance product means any product which is applied to 
the human body or clothing for the primary purpose of adding a scent or 
masking a malodor, including cologne, perfume, aftershave, and toilet 
water. Personal Fragrance Product does not include: products 
exclusively for human axillae; medicated products designed primarily to 
alleviate fungal or bacterial growth on feet or other areas of the 
body; mouthwashes, breath fresheners and deodorizers; lotions, 
moisturizers, powders or other skin care products used primarily to 
alleviate skin conditions such as dryness and irritations; products 
designed exclusively for use on human genitalia; soaps, shampoos, and 
products primarily used to clean the human body; and fragrance products 
designed to be used exclusively on non-human animals.
    Percent-by-weight means the total weight of VOC except those VOCs 
exempted under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, expressed as a 
percentage of the total net weight of the product exclusive of the 
container or package as calculated according to the following equation:

TP05MY94.093

where,

A=net weight of unit (excluding container and packaging);
B=weight of VOCs, as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, per 
unit; and
C=weight of VOCs, exempted under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, per 
unit.

    Pesticide means and includes any substance or mixture of substances 
labeled, designed, or intended for use in preventing, destroying, 
repelling or mitigating any pest, or any substance or mixture of 
substances labeled, designed, or intended for use as a defoliant, 
desiccant, or plant regulator, provided that the term pesticide will 
not include any substance, mixture of substances, or device which the 
Environmental Protection Agency does not consider to be a pesticide.
    Principal display panel or panels means that part, or those parts 
of a label that are so designed as to most likely be displayed, 
presented, shown or examined under normal and customary conditions of 
display or purchase. Whenever a principal display panel appears more 
than once, all requirements pertaining to the principal display panel 
shall pertain to all such principal display panels.
    Product brand name means the name of the product exactly as it 
appears on the principal display panel of the product.
    Product category means the applicable category which best describes 
the product as listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Product Form 
for the purpose of complying with paragraph (a)(7) of this section 
only, means the applicable form which most accurately describes the 
product's dispensing form as follows: A=Aerosol Product; S=Solid; 
P=Pump Spray; L=Liquid; G=Gel; O=Other.
    Propellent means a liquefied or compressed gas that is used in 
whole or in part, such as a cosolvent, to expel a liquid or any other 
material from the same self-pressurized container or from a separate 
container.
    Pump spray means a packaging system in which the product 
ingredients within the container are not under pressure and in which 
the product is expelled only while a pumping action is applied to a 
button, trigger or other actuator.
    Responsible party means the company, firm or establishment which is 
listed on the product's label. If the label lists two companies, firms 
or establishments, the responsible party is the party which the product 
was manufactured for or distributed by, as noted on the label.
    Restricted materials means pesticides established as restricted 
materials under Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6400.
    Retail outlet means any establishment at which consumer products 
are sold, supplied, or offered for sale directly to consumers.
    Retailer means any person who sells, supplies, or offers consumer 
products for sale directly to consumers.
    Shaving cream means an aerosol product which dispenses a foam 
lather intended to be used with a blade or cartridge razor, or other 
wet-shaving system, in the removal of facial or other bodily hair.
    Single phase aerosol air freshener means an aerosol air freshener 
with the liquid contents in a single homogeneous phase and which does 
not require that the product container be shaken before use.
    Solid means a substance or mixture of substances which, either 
whole or subdivided (such as the particles comprising a powder), is not 
capable of visually detectable flow as determined under ASTM D-4359-90.
    Spray buff product means a product designed to restore a worn floor 
finish in conjunction with a floor buffing machine and special pad.
    Table B compound means any carbon-containing compound listed as an 
exception to the definition of VOC in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    Type A propellent means a compressed gas such as CO2, N2, 
N2O, or compressed air which is used as a propellent, and is 
either incorporated with the product or contained in a separate chamber 
within the product's packaging.
    Type B propellent means any halocarbon which is used as a 
propellent including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
    Type C propellent means any propellent which is not a Type A or 
Type B propellent, including propane, isobutane, n-butane, and dimethyl 
ether (also known as dimethyl oxide).
    Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any compound of carbon, 
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic 
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in 
atmospheric photochemical reactions other than those defined as exempt 
compounds. These exempt compounds have been determined to have 
negligible photochemical reactivity. For purposes of determining 
compliance with emission limits, VOC will be measured by test methods 
given in this section. Where such a method also measures compounds with 
negligible photochemical reactivity, an owner or operator may exclude 
these negligibly reactive compounds when determining compliance with an 
emission standard. However, the U.S. EPA may require such owner or 
operator, as a precondition to excluding these compounds for purposes 
of determining compliance, to provide monitoring methods and monitoring 
results demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the U.S. EPA, the amount 
of negligibly reactive compounds in the source's emissions.
    Usage directions means the text or graphics on the product's 
principal display panel, label, or accompanying literature which 
describes to the end user how and in what quantity the product is to be 
used.
    Wasp and hornet insecticide means any insecticide product that is 
designed for use against wasps, hornets, yellow jackets or bees by 
allowing the user to spray a high volume directed stream or burst from 
a safe distance at the intended pest or its hiding place.
    Wax means a material or synthetic thermoplastic substance generally 
of high molecular weight hydrocarbons or high molecular weight esters 
of fatty acids or alcohols, except glycerol and high polymers 
(plastics). Wax includes, but is not limited to, substances derived 
from the secretions of plants and animals such as carnuba wax and 
beeswax, substances of a mineral origin such as ozocerite and paraffin, 
and synthetic polymers such as polyethylene.
    Wood floor wax means wax-based products for use solely on wood 
floors.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraphs (a) (4), (5), and (7) of this 
section, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture 
for sale in California any consumer product which, at the time of sale 
or manufacture, contains volatile organic compounds in excess of the 
limits specified in the following Table of Standards after the 
specified effective dates.

                           Table of Standards                           
             [Percent Volatile Organic Compounds by Weight]             
                                                                        
                                                        Effective dates 
                   Product category                    -----------------
                                                        1/1/96    1/1/97
Aerosol Cooking Sprays................................       18         
Air Fresheners:                                                         
  Single Phase Aerosols...............................       30         
  Double Phase Aerosols...............................       30         
  Liquid/Pump Sprays..................................       18         
  Solids/Gels.........................................  .......        3
  Dual Purpose Air Freshener/Disinfectant Aerosols....       60         
Automotive Brake Cleaners.............................  .......       50
Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids:                                    
  Type A Areasa.......................................       35         
  All Other Areas.....................................       10         
Carburetor-Choke Cleaners.............................       75         
 Charcoal Lighter Material (see paragraph (a)(3)(viii)                  
                   of this section)                                     
Dusting Aids:                                                           
  Aerosol.............................................       35       25
  All Other Forms.....................................        7         
Engine Degreasers.....................................       50         
Fabric Protectants....................................       75       60
Floor Polishes/Waxes:                                                   
  Products for Flexible Flooring Materials............        7         
  Products for Nonresilient Flooring..................       10         
  Wood Floor Wax......................................       90         
Furniture Maintenance Products Aerosols...............       25         
  All Other Forms except Solid or Paste Forms.........        7         
General Purpose Cleaners..............................       10         
Glass Cleaners Aerosols...............................       12         
  All other forms.....................................        6         
Hairsprays............................................       80       55
                                                                  (1/98)
Hair Mousses..........................................       16         
Hair Styling Gels.....................................        6         
Household Adhesives:                                                    
  Aerosols............................................       75       25
  Contact.............................................       80         
  Construction and Panel..............................       40         
  General Purpose.....................................       10         
Insecticides:                                                           
  Crawling Bug........................................       40       20
                                                                  (1/98)
  Flea and Tick.......................................       25         
  Flying Bug..........................................       35         
  Foggers.............................................       45         
  Lawn and Garden.....................................       20         
Laundry Prewash:                                                        
  Aerosols/Solids.....................................       22         
  All Other Forms.....................................        5         
Laundry Starch Products...............................        5         
Nail Polish Removers..................................       75         
Oven Cleaners:                                                          
  Aerosols/Pump Sprays................................        8         
  Liquids.............................................        5         
Personal Fragrance Products Products with 20% or less                   
 fragrance............................................       80       75
                                                                  (1/99)
  Products with more than 20% fragrance...............       70       65
                                                                  (1/99)
Insect Repellents:                                                      
  Aerosols............................................       65         
Shaving Creams........................................        5         
aType A Areas include only the following: Del Norte, Shasta and Trinity 
  Counties; the Great Basin Valley, Lake Tahoe, Mountain Counties, and  
  the Northeast Plateau Air Basins, as defined in title 17, California  
  Code of Regulations, Sections 60105, 60108, 60111, and 60113.         

    (ii) For consumer products for which the label, packaging, or 
accompanying literature specifically states that the product should be 
diluted prior to use, the limits specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 
this section shall apply to the product only after the minimum 
recommended dilution has taken place. For purposes of this paragraph, 
minimum recommended dilution shall not include recommendations for 
incidental use of a concentrated product to deal with limited special 
applications such as hard-to-remove soils or stains.
    (iii) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 
section, a consumer product manufactured prior to each of the effective 
dates specified for that product in the Table of Standards may be sold, 
supplied, or offered for sale for up to eighteen months after each of 
the specified effective dates. This paragraph does not apply to any 
consumer product which does not display on the product container or 
package the date on which the product was manufactured, or a code 
indicating such date.
    (iv) For those consumer products that are registered under the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. 
Section 136 et seq.), the effective date of the VOC standards specified 
in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section is one year after the date 
specified in the Table of Standards. For those consumer products that 
are registered under FIFRA, the eighteen month period provided in 
paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section shall also begin one year after 
the date specified in the Table of Standards.
    (v) Effective January 1, 1993, for any consumer product for which 
standards are specified under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, no 
person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture for sale in 
California any consumer product which contains any of the following 
ozone-depleting compounds: CFC-11 (trichlorofluoromethane), CFC-12 
(dichlorodifluoromethane), CFC-113 (1,1,1-trichloro-2,2,2- 
trifluoroethane), CFC-114 (1-chloro-1,1-difluoro-2-chloro-2,2- 
difluoroethane), CFC-115 (chloropentafluoroethane), halon 1211 
(bromochlorodifluoromethane), halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane), halon 
2402 (dibromotetrafluoroethane), HCFC-22 (chlorodifluoromethane), HCFC-
123 (2,2-dichloro-1,1,1- trifluoroethane), HCFC-124 (2-chloro-1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane), HCFC-141b (1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane), HCFC-142b 
(1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane), 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and carbon 
tetrachloride.
    (vi) The requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section shall 
not apply to any existing product formulation that complies with the 
Table of Standards which is sold, supplied, offered for sale in 
California prior to the effective date of this article, or any product 
formulation that is sold, supplied, or offered for sale in California 
prior to the effective date of this article that is reformulated to 
meet the Table of Standards, as long as the ozone depleting compound 
content of the reformulated product does not increase.
    (vii) The requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section shall 
not apply to any ozone depleting compounds that may be present as 
impurities in a consumer product in an amount equal to or less than 
0.01% by weight of the product.
    (viii) After January 1, 1996, no person shall sell, supply, or 
offer for sale charcoal lighter material unless the applicant 
demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that the VOC emissions 
from the ignition of charcoal with the charcoal lighter material are 
less than or equal to 0.020 pound of VOC per start, using the 
procedures specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District 
Rule 1174 Ignition Method Compliance Certification Protocol, dated 
February 27, 1991 (``SCAQMD Rule 1174 Testing Protocol'').
    (4) Exemptions.
    (i) This article shall not apply to any consumer product 
manufactured in California for shipment and use outside of California.
    (ii) The provisions of this article shall not apply to a 
manufacturer or distributor who sells, supplies, or offers for sale in 
California a consumer product that does not comply with the VOC 
standards specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(viii) of this 
section, as long as the manufacturer or distributor can demonstrate 
both that the consumer product is intended for shipment and use outside 
of California, and that the manufacturer or distributor has taken 
reasonable prudent precautions to assure that the consumer product is 
not distributed to California. This paragraph does not apply to 
consumer products that are sold, supplied, or offered for sale by any 
person to retail outlets in California.
    (iii) The requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section shall 
not apply to fragrances up to a combined level of 2 percent by weight 
contained in any consumer product.
    (iv) The requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section shall 
not apply to any VOC which:
    (A) Has a vapor pressure of less than 0.1 mm Hg at 20 degrees 
Centigrade, or
    (B) Consists of more than 12 carbon atoms, if the vapor pressure is 
unknown.
    (v) The requirements of paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section shall 
not apply to consumer products registered under the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. 136 et 
seq.)
    (vi) The requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section shall 
not apply to air fresheners that are comprised entirely of fragrance, 
less compounds not defined as VOCs under paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section or exempted under paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of this section.
    (vii) The requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section shall 
not apply to air fresheners and insecticides containing at least 98% 
paradichlorobenzene.
    (viii) The requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section 
shall not apply to:
    (A) Existing personal fragrance products or personal fragrance 
products in development on or before April 1, 1992, provided that both:
    (1) The registration data specified in paragraph (a)(7) of this 
section is submitted for every such product by the date specified in 
paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section, or prior to July 1, 1993, 
whichever date occurs later, and
    (2) Such product is sold in California prior to January 1, 1994. 
For the purposes of this subsection, a product in development means:
    (i) A product which a fragrance materials manufacturer is designing 
at the request of a personal fragrance product manufacturer, or
    (ii) A product which is the subject of a written marketing profile 
or other documentation authorizing the creation and marketing of the 
product.
    (B) Personal fragrance products in development may be registered to 
qualify for this exemption under hypothetical trade names or 
pseudonyms, provided that the actual trade name is supplied to the 
Administrator within 30 days of marketing such products, or January 1, 
1994, whichever occurs first.
    (ix) The requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section shall 
not apply to adhesives sold in containers of 1 fluid ounce or less.
    (x) The requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section shall 
not apply to any VOC which is a fragrance in a personal fragrance 
product.
    (xi) The requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section shall 
not apply to bait station insecticides. For the purpose of this 
paragraph, bait station insecticides are containers enclosing an 
insecticidal bait that is not more than 0.5 ounce by weight, where the 
bait is designed to be ingested by insects and is composed of solid 
material feeding stimulants with less than 5 percent active 
ingredients.
    (xii) The January 1, 1999 VOC limits specified in paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) of this section for personal fragrance products shall not 
apply to such products which have been sold in California prior to 
January 1, 1999.
    (5) Innovative Products.
    (i) The Administrator shall exempt a consumer product from the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section if a manufacturer 
demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that, due to some 
characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery systems or 
other factors, the use of the product will result in less VOC emissions 
as compared to:
    (A) The VOC emissions from a representative consumer product which 
complies with the VOC standards specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 
this section, or
    (B) The calculated VOC emissions from a noncomplying representative 
product, if the product had been reformulated to comply with the VOC 
standards specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section. VOC 
emissions shall be calculated using the following equation:

ER = ENC  x  VOCSTD  VOCNC

Where:
ER=the VOC emissions from the noncomplying representative product, 
had it been reformulated.
ENC=the VOC emissions from the noncomplying representative product 
in its current formulation.
VOCSTD=the VOC standard specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 
section.
VOCNC=the VOC content of the noncomplying product in its current 
formulation.

If a manufacturer demonstrates that this equation yields inaccurate 
results due to some characteristic of the product formulation or other 
factors, an alternative method which accurately calculates emissions 
may be used upon approval of the Administrator.
    (ii) For the purposes of this section, representative consumer 
product means a consumer product which meets all of the following 
criteria:
    (A) The representative product shall be subject to the same VOC 
limit in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section as the innovative product.
    (B) The representative product shall be of the same product form as 
the innovative product, unless the innovative product uses a new form 
which does not exist in the product category at the time the 
application is made.
    (C) The representative product shall have at least similar efficacy 
as other consumer products in the same product category based on tests 
generally accepted for that product category by the consumer products 
industry.
    (iii) A manufacturer shall apply in writing to the Administrator 
for any exemption claimed under paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section. 
The application shall include the supporting documentation that 
demonstrates the emissions from the innovative product, including the 
actual physical test methods used to generate the data and, if 
necessary, the consumer testing undertaken to document product usage. 
In addition, the applicant must provide any information necessary to 
enable the Administrator to establish enforceable conditions for 
granting the exemption including the VOC content for the innovative 
product and test methods for determining the VOC content.
    (iv) Within 30 days of receipt of the exemption application the 
Administrator shall determine whether an application is complete.
    (v) Within 90 days after an application has been deemed complete, 
the Administrator shall determine whether, under what conditions, and 
to what extent, an exemption from the requirements of paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) of this section will be permitted. The applicant and the 
Administrator may mutually agree to a longer time period for reaching a 
decision, and additional supporting documentation may be submitted by 
the applicant before a decision has been reached. The Administrator 
shall notify the applicant of the decision in writing and specify such 
terms and conditions that are necessary to insure that emissions from 
the product will meet the emissions reductions specified in paragraph 
(a)(5)(i) of this section, and that such emissions reductions can be 
enforced.
    (vi) In granting an exemption for a product the Administrator shall 
establish conditions that are enforceable. These conditions shall 
include the VOC content of the innovative product, dispensing rates, 
application rates and any other parameters determined by the 
Administrator to be necessary. The Administrator shall also specify the 
test methods for determining conformance to the conditions established. 
The test methods shall include criteria for reproducibility, accuracy, 
sampling and laboratory procedures.
    (vii) For any product for which an exemption has been granted 
pursuant to this section, the manufacturer shall notify the 
Administrator in writing within 30 days of any change in the product 
formulation or recommended product usage directions, and shall also 
notify the Administrator within 30 days if the manufacturer learns of 
any information which would alter the emissions estimates submitted to 
the Administrator in support of the exemption application.
    (viii) If VOC standards are lowered for a product category through 
any subsequent rulemaking, all innovative product exemptions granted 
for products in the product category, except as provided in this 
paragraph, shall have no force and effect as of the effective date of 
the modified VOC standard. This paragraph shall not apply to those 
innovative products which have VOC emissions less than the appropriate 
lowered VOC standard and for which a written notification of the 
product's emissions status versus the lowered VOC standard has been 
submitted to and approved by the Administrator at least 60 days before 
the effective date of such standard.
    (ix) If the Administrator believes that a consumer product for 
which an exemption has been granted no longer meets the criteria for an 
innovative product specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, 
the Administrator may modify or revoke the exemption as necessary to 
assure that the product will meet these criteria.
    (6) Administrative Requirements.
    (i) Most Restrictive Limit. Notwithstanding the definition of 
product category in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, if anywhere on 
the principal display panel of any consumer product, any representation 
is made that the product may be used as, or is suitable for use as a 
consumer product for which a lower VOC standard is specified in 
paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, then the lowest VOC standard shall 
apply. This requirement does not apply to general purpose cleaners.
    (ii) Code-Dating. Each manufacturer of a consumer product subject 
to paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(viii) of this section shall clearly 
display on each consumer product container or package, the day, month, 
and year on which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating 
such date. This date or code shall be displayed on each consumer 
product container or package no later than twelve months prior to the 
effective date of the applicable standard specified in paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) of this section. The requirements of this provision shall not 
apply to personal fragrance products of 2 milliliters or less, which 
are offered to consumers free of charge for the purpose of sampling the 
product.
    (iii) If a manufacturer uses a code indicating the date of 
manufacture, for any consumer product subject to paragraph (a)(3)(i) or 
(a)(3)(viii) of this section an explanation of the code must be filed 
with the Administrator no later than twelve months prior to the 
effective date of the applicable standard specified in paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) of this section.
    (7) Registration.
    (i) No later than 90 days after the effective date of this 
paragraph, all responsible parties for the following household and I&I 
products must register products that are sold in California during the 
calendar year prior to the year the registration is due: products for 
which a VOC standard is specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 
section; products approved as an innovative product under paragraph 
(a)(5) of this section; and products claiming exemptions under 
paragraphs (a)(4)(vi), (a)(4)(vii), (a)(4)(viii) of this section. All 
registrations shall include the following information:
    (A) The name of the responsible party and the party's address, 
telephone number, and designated contact person;
    (B) Any claim of confidentiality made pursuant to 40 CFR part 2, 
subpart B;
    (C) The product brand name for each consumer product subject to 
registration and upon request by the Administrator, the product label;
    (D) The product category to which the consumer product belongs;
    (E) The applicable product form(s) listed separately;
    (F) An identification of each product brand name and form as a 
Household Product, I&I Product, or both;
    (G) Separate California sales in pounds per year, to the nearest 
pound, and the method used to calculate California sales for each 
product form;
    (H) For registrations submitted by two companies, an identification 
of the company which is submitting relevant data separate from that 
submitted by the responsible party. All registration information from 
both companies shall be submitted by the date specified in paragraph 
(a)(7)(i) of this section;
    (I) For each product brand name and form, the net percent by weight 
of the total product, less container and packaging, comprised of the 
following, rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a percent (0.1%):
    (1) Total Table B compounds,
    (2) Total LVP compounds that are not fragrances,
    (3) Total all other carbon-containing compounds that are not 
fragrances,
    (4) Total all non-carbon-containing compounds,
    (5) Total fragrance,
    (6) For products containing greater than two percent by weight 
fragrance, but excluding personal fragrance products:
    (i) The percent of fragrance that are LVP compounds, and
    (ii) The percent of fragrance that are all other carbon-containing 
compounds,
    (7) For ``personal fragrance products'', the density of the 
fragrance, and
    (8) Total Paradichlorobenzene.
    (J) For each product brand name and form, the identity, including 
the specific chemical name and associated Chemical Abstract Services 
(CAS) number, of the following:
    (1) Each Table B Compound,
    (2) Each LVP Compound that is not a fragrance.
    (K) If applicable, the weight percent comprised of propellent for 
each product;
    (L) if applicable, an identification of the type of propellent 
(Type A, Type B, Type C, or a blend of the different types);
    (ii) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a)(7)(i)(J) of 
this section, the responsible party shall report or shall arrange to 
have reported to the Administrator the net percent by weight of each 
ozone-depleting compound which is listed in paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this 
section and contained in a product subject to registration under 
paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section in any amount greater than 0.1 
percent by weight.
    (iii) Upon 90 days written notice, the Administrator may also 
require any manufacturer to supply all or part of the registration data 
listed in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section for any consumer product 
or products that the Administrator may specify.
    (8) Test Methods.
    (i) Testing to determine compliance with the requirements of this 
article, shall be performed using one or more of the following 
analytical methods which are incorporated by reference herein:
    (A) Method 24-24A, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A;
    (B) Method 18, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A;
    (C) Method 1400, NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Volume 1, 
February 1984;
    (D) Environmental Protection Agency Method 8240 ``GC/MS Method for 
Volatile Organics,'' September 1986;
    (E) Alternative methods which are shown to accurately determine the 
concentration of VOCs in a subject product or its emissions may be used 
upon approval of the Administrator.
    (ii) Testing to determine compliance with the requirements of this 
article may also be demonstrated through calculation of the volatile 
organic compound content from records of the amounts of constituents 
used to make the product. Compliance determination based on these 
records may not be used unless the manufacturer of a consumer product 
keeps accurate records for each day of production of the amount and 
chemical composition of the individual product constituents. These 
records must be kept for at least three years.
    (iii) Testing to determine whether a product is a liquid or solid 
shall be performed using ASTM D4359-90 (May 25, 1990), which is 
incorporated by reference herein.
    (iv) Testing to determine compliance with the certification 
requirements for charcoal lighter material shall be performed using the 
procedures specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District 
Rule 1174 Ignition Method Compliance Certification Protocol (February 
28, 1991), which is incorporated by reference herein.
    (v) Testing to determine distillation points of petroleum 
distillate-based charcoal lighter materials shall be performed using 
ASTM D86-90 (Sept. 28, 1990), which is incorporated by reference 
herein.
    (vi) Testing to determine the percent by weight of fragrance in 
personal fragrance products shall be performed according to the 
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Official Method of 
Analysis No. 932.11, 1990, ``Essential Oil in Flavor Extracts and 
Toilet Preparations, Babcock Method'' (AOAC Official Methods of 
Analysis, 15th Edition, 1990), which is incorporated by reference 
herein.
    (9) Severability. Each part of this article shall be deemed 
severable, and in the event that any part of this article is held to be 
invalid, the remainder of this article shall continue in full force and 
effect.
    (b) Antiperspirants and deodorants.
    (1) Applicability. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section 
shall apply to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or 
manufactures antiperspirants or deodorants in the state of California.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) 
of this section, the following definitions shall apply. All terms not 
defined herein shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Administrator means the Adminstrator of the USEPA or that person's 
designee.
    Aerosol product means a pressurized spray system that dispenses 
antiperspirant or deodorant ingredients.
    Antiperspirant means any product including, but not limited to, 
aerosols, roll-ons, sticks, pumps, pads, creams, and squeeze-bottles, 
that is intended by the manufacturer to be used to reduce perspiration 
in the human axilla by at least 20 percent in at least 50 percent of a 
target population.
    Colorant means any substance or mixture of substances, the primary 
purpose of which is to color or modify the color of something else.
    Deodorant means any product including, but not limited to, 
aerosols, roll-ons, sticks, pumps, pads, creams, and squeeze-bottles, 
that is intended by the manufacturer to be used to minimize odor in the 
human axilla by retarding the growth of bacteria which cause the 
decomposition of perspiration.
    Exempt compounds means any of the following compounds: methane; 
chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22); trifluoromethane (HFC-23); 
dichlorotrifluoroethane (HCFC-123); tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a); 
dichlorofluoroethane (HCFC-141b); chlorodifluoroethane (HCFC-142b); 2-
chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafluoroethane (HFC-
125); methylene chloride; 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform); 
trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113); dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12); 
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11); dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114); 
chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115); 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134); 
1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a); 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a); or 
perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes: Cyclic, 
branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes; Cyclic, branched, 
or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations; Cyclic, 
branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no 
unsaturations; or Sulfur-containing perfluorocarbons with no 
unsaturations and with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine.
    Existing product means any antiperspirant or deodorant formulation 
which was sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in 
California prior to January 1, 1996, or any identical antiperspirant or 
deodorant formulation which is sold, supplied, offered for sale, or 
manufactured in California by any person after January 1, 1996.
    Fragrance means any substance or mixture of substances, the primary 
purpose of which is to impart an odor or scent.
    High volatility organic compound (HVOC) means any organic compound 
that exerts a vapor pressure greater than 80 millimeters of Mercury (mm 
Hg) when measured at 20 C.
    Manufacturer means any person or business entity that produces an 
antiperspirant or deodorant for sale in California.
    Medium volatility organic compound (MVOC) means any organic 
compound that exerts a vapor pressure greater than 2 mm Hg and less 
than or equal to 80 mm Hg when measured at 20 C.
    Non-aerosol product means any antiperspirant or deodorant that is 
not dispensed by a pressurized spray system.
    Roll-on product means any antiperspirant or deodorant that 
dispenses active ingredients by rolling a wetted ball or wetted 
cylinder on the affected area.
    Stick product means any antiperspirant or deodorant that contains 
active ingredients in a solid matrix form, and that dispenses the 
active ingredients by frictional action on the affected area.
    Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any compound of carbon, 
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic 
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in 
atmospheric photochemical reactions other than those defined as exempt 
compounds. These exempt compounds have been determined to have 
negligible photochemical reactivity. For purposes of determining 
compliance with emission limits, VOC will be measured by test methods 
given in this section. Where such a method also measures compounds with 
negligible photochemical reactivity, an owner or operator may exclude 
these negligibly reactive compounds when determining compliance with an 
emission standard. However, the U.S. EPA may require such owner or 
operator, as a precondition to excluding these compounds for purposes 
of determining compliance, to provide monitoring methods and monitoring 
results demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the U.S. EPA, the amount 
of negligibly reactive compounds in the source's emissions.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, no 
person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture in California 
any antiperspirant or deodorant which, at the time of sale or 
manufacture, contains volatile organic compounds in excess of the 
limits specified in the following Table of Standards, after the 
specified effective date. 

                           Table of Standards                           
             [Percent volatile organic compounds by weight]             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Effective date        
                                         -------------------------------
              Product form                    2/15/95         1/1/99    
                                         -------------------------------
                                           HVOCa   MVOCb   HVOC    MVOC 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosol product:                                                        
  Antiperspirant........................      60      20       0      10
  Deodorant.............................      20      20       0      10
Non-aerosol product.....................       0       0       0      0 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aHigh volatility organic compounds, i.e., any organic compound that     
  exerts a vapor pressure greater than 80 mm Hg when measured at 20 C.  
bMedium volatility organic compounds, i.e., any organic compound that   
  exerts a vapor pressure greater than 2 mm Hg and less than or equal to
  80 mm Hg when measured at 20 C.                                       

    (ii) No existing product may be reformulated to increase either the 
product's total VOC content or total ethanol content. An existing 
product may be reformulated to reduce the product's total ethanol 
content or total VOC content, as long as the reformulation does not 
increase the product's total HVOC content.
    (iii) No person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture 
in California any antiperspirant or deodorant which contains any of the 
following ozone-depleting compounds: CFC-11 (trichlorofluoromethane), 
CFC-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane), CFC-113 (1,1,1-trichloro-2,2,2-
trifluoroethane), CFC-114 (1-chloro-1,1- difluoro-2-chloro-2,2-
difluoroethane), CFC-115 (chloropentafluoroethane), halon 1211 
(bromochlorodifluoromethane), halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane), halon 
2404 (dibromotetrafluoroethane), HCFC-22 (chlorodifluoromethane), HCFC-
123 (2,2-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane), HCFC-124 (2-chloro- 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane), HCFC-141b (1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane), HCFC-142b 
(1-chloro 1,1-difluoroethane), 1,1,1- trichloroethane, and carbon 
tetrachloride.
    (4) Exemptions.
    (i) This article shall not apply to any person who manufactures 
antiperspirants or deodorants in California for shipment and use 
outside of California.
    (ii) The requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section shall 
not apply to fragrances and colorants up to a combined level of 2 
percent by weight contained in any antiperspirant or deodorant.
    (iii) The requirements of paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of 
this section shall not apply to those volatile organic compounds that 
contain more than 10 carbon atoms per molecule and for which the vapor 
pressure is unknown, or that have a vapor pressure of 2 mm Hg or less 
at 20 C.
    (iv) The medium volatility organic compound (MVOC) content 
standards specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, shall not 
apply to ethanol contained in existing products.
    (5) Innovative Products.
    (i) The Administrator shall exempt a consumer product from the 
requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii) of this section if a 
manufacturer demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that, due to 
some characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery 
systems or other factors, the use of the product will result in less 
VOC emissions as compared to:
    (A) the VOC emissions from a representative consumer product which 
complies with the VOC Standards specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and 
(b)(3)(ii) of this section, or
    (B) the calculated VOC emissions from a noncomplying representative 
product, if the product had been reformulated to comply with the VOC 
standards specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of this 
section. VOC emissions shall be calculated using the following 
equation:

ER=ENC x VOCSTDVOCNC

Where:

ER=The VOC emissions from the noncomplying representative product, 
had it been reformulated.
ENC=The VOC emissions from the noncomplying representative product 
in its current formulation.
VOCSTD=The VOC standard specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section.
VOCNC=The VOC content of the noncomplying product in its current 
formulation.

    If a manufacturer demonstrates that this equation yields inaccurate 
results due to some characteristic of the product formulation or other 
factors, an alternative method which accurately calculates emissions 
may be used upon approval of the Administrator.
    (ii) For the purposes of this section, representative consumer 
product means a consumer product which meets all of the following 
criteria:
    (A) The representative product shall be subject to the same VOC 
limit in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of this section as the 
innovative product,
    (B) The representative product shall be of the same product form as 
the innovative product, unless the innovative product uses a new form 
which does not exist in the product category at the time the 
application is made.
    (C) The representative product shall have at least similar efficacy 
as other consumer products in the same product category based on tests 
generally accepted for that product category by the consumer products 
industry.
    (iii) A manufacturer shall apply in writing to the Administrator 
for any exemption claimed under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. 
The application shall include the supporting documentation that 
demonstrates the emissions from the innovative product, including the 
actual physical test methods used to generate the data and, if 
necessary, the consumer testing undertaken to document product usage. 
In addition, the applicant must provide any information necessary to 
enable the Administrator to establish enforceable conditions for 
granting the exemption including the VOC content for the innovative 
product and test methods for determining the VOC content.
    (iv) Within 30 days of receipt of the exemption application the 
Administrator shall determine whether an application is complete.
    (v) Within 90 days after an application has been deemed complete, 
the Administrator shall determine whether, under what conditions, and 
to what extent, an exemption from the requirements of paragraphs 
(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii) of this section will be permitted. The 
applicant and the Administrator may mutually agree to a longer time 
period for reaching a decision, and additional supporting documentation 
may be submitted by the applicant before a decision has been reached. 
The Administrator shall notify the applicant of the decision in writing 
and specify such terms and conditions that are necessary to insure that 
emissions from the product will meet the emissions reductions specified 
in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section, and that such emissions 
reductions can be enforced.
    (vi) In granting an exemption for a product the Administrator shall 
establish conditions that are enforceable. These conditions shall 
include the VOC content of the innovative product, dispensing rates, 
application rates and any other parameters determined by the 
Administrator to be necessary. The Administrator shall also specify the 
test methods for determining conformance to the conditions established. 
The test methods shall include criteria for reproducibility, accuracy, 
and sampling and laboratory procedures.
    (vii) For any product for which an exemption has been granted 
pursuant to this section, the manufacturer shall notify the 
Administrator in writing within 30 days of any change in the product 
formulation or recommended product usage directions, and shall also 
notify the Administrator within 30 days if the manufacturer learns of 
any information which would alter the emissions estimates submitted to 
the Administrator in support of the exemption application.
    (viii) If VOC standards are lowered for a product category through 
any subsequent rulemaking, all innovative product exemptions granted 
for products in the product category, except as provided in this 
paragraph, shall have no force and effect as of the effective date of 
the modified VOC standard. This paragraph shall not apply to those 
innovative products which have VOC emissions less than the appropriate 
lowered VOC standard and for which a written notification of the 
product's emissions status versus the lowered VOC standard has been 
submitted to and approved by the Administrator at least 60 days before 
the effective date of such standard.
    (ix) If the Administrator believes that a consumer product for 
which an exemption has been granted no longer meets the criteria for an 
innovative product specified in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section, 
the Administrator may modify or revoke the exemption as necessary to 
assure that the product will meet these criteria.
    (6) Administrative Requirements. No later than three months after 
the effective date of this section, each manufacturer of an 
antiperspirant or deodorant subject to this article shall clearly 
display on each container of antiperspirant or deodorant, the date on 
which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating such date. If 
a manufacturer uses a code indicating the date of manufacture, an 
explanation of the code must be filed with the Administrator in advance 
of the code's use by the manufacturer.
    (7) Test Methods.
    (i) Testing to determine the volatile organic compound content of 
an antiperspirant or deodorant, or to determine compliance with the 
requirements of this article, shall be performed using one or more of 
the following methods which are incorporated by reference herein:
    (A) Method 24-24A, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A;
    (B) Method 18, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A;
    (C) Method 1400, NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Volume 1, 
February 1984; or
    (D) Environmental Protection Agency Method 8240 ``GC/MS Method for 
Volatile Organics,'' September 1986.
    (E) Alternative methods which are shown to accurately determine the 
concentration of VOCs in a subject product or its emissions may be used 
upon written approval by the Administrator.
    (ii) Testing to determine compliance with the requirements of this 
article may also be demonstrated through calculation of the volatile 
organic compound content from records of the amounts of constituents 
used to make the product. Compliance determination based on these 
records may not be used unless the manufacturer of a consumer product 
keeps accurate records for each day of production of the amount and 
chemical composition of the individual product constituents. These 
records must be kept for at least five years. In the event of a 
conflict between EPA and a manufacturer over the results of compliance 
testing, EPA's results shall be used as the determinant result.


Sec. 52.2958  Aerosol coating products.

    (a) Applicability. The provisions of paragraphs (a) through (f) of 
this section shall apply to any person who sells, supplies, offers for 
sale, applies, or manufactures aerosol coating products for use in the 
state of California.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following 
definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein shall have the 
meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Adhesive means a product used to bond one surface to another.
    Aerosol coating product means a pressurized coating product 
containing pigments or resins that dispenses product ingredients by 
means of a propellant, and is packaged in a disposable can for hand-
held application, or for use in specialized equipment for ground 
traffic/marking applications.
    Anti-static spray means a product used to prevent or inhibit the 
accumulation of static electricity.
    Art fixative or sealant means a clear coating, including art 
varnish, workable art fixative, and ceramic coating, which is designed 
and labeled exclusively for application to paintings, pencil, chalk, or 
pastel drawings, ceramic art pieces, or other closely related art uses, 
in order to provide a final protective coating or to fix preliminary 
stages of artwork while providing a workable surface for subsequent 
revisions.
    ASTM means the American Society for Testing and Materials.
    Auto body primer means a heavily pigmented automotive primer or 
primer surfacer coating labeled exclusively as such and applied 
directly to an uncoated vehicle body substrate or on top of a precoat 
for the purposes of corrosion resistance and building a repair area to 
a condition in which, after drying, it can be sanded to a smooth 
surface.
    Automotive bumper and trim products means products, including 
adhesion promoters and chip sealants, formulated and labeled 
exclusively as such which are used to repair and refinish automotive 
bumpers and plastic trim parts.
    Automotive underbody coating means a flexible coating which 
contains asphalt or rubber and is labeled exclusively for use on the 
underbody of motor vehicles to resist rust, abrasion and vibration, and 
to deaden sound.
    Aviation or marine zinc primer means a zinc chromate or zinc oxide 
coating labeled exclusively as such and formulated to meet federal 
specification TT-P-1757.
    Aviation propeller coating means a coating formulated and labeled 
exclusively as such which provides abrasion resistance and corrosion 
protection for aircraft propellers.
    Belt dressing means a product applied on auto fan belts, water pump 
belting, power transmission belting, and industrial and farm machinery 
belting to prevent slipping, and to extend belt life.
    Clear coating means a coating which is colorless, containing 
binders but no pigment, except flatting agents, and which is formulated 
to form a transparent or translucent solid film.
    Coating solids means the nonvolatile portion of an aerosol coating 
product, consisting of the film forming ingredients, including pigments 
and resins.
    Commercial use means the use of aerosol coating products in the 
production of goods, or the providing of services for profit, including 
touch-up and repair.
    Corrosion resistant brass, bronze, or copper coating means a clear 
coating formulated and labeled exclusively as such to prevent tarnish 
and corrosion of uncoated brass, bronze, or copper metal surfaces.
    Distributor means any person to whom an aerosol coating product is 
sold or supplied for the purposes of resale or distribution in 
commerce, except that manufacturers, retailers, and consumers are not 
distributors.
    Dye means a product containing no resins which is used to color a 
surface or object without building a film.
    Electrical coating means a coating labeled exclusively as such, 
which is used exclusively to coat electrical components such as wire 
windings on electric motors to provide insulation and protection from 
corrosion.
    Enamel means a coating which cures by chemical cross-linking of its 
base resin. Enamels can be readily distinguished from lacquers because 
enamels are not resoluble in their original solvent.
    Exact match finish, automotive means a topcoat which meets all of 
the following criteria: the product is designed and labeled exclusively 
to exactly match the color of an original, factory-applied automotive 
coating during the touch-up of automobile finishes; the product is 
labeled with the manufacturer's name for which they were formulated; 
and the product is labeled with either the original equipment 
manufacturer's (O.E.M.) color code number; the color name; or other 
designation identifying the specific O.E.M. color to the purchaser.
    Exact match finish, engine paint means a coating which meets all of 
the following criteria: the product is designed and labeled exclusively 
to exactly match the color of an original, factory-applied engine 
paint; the product is labeled with the manufacturer's name for which 
they were formulated; and the product is labeled with either the 
original equipment manufacturer's (O.E.M.) color code number, the color 
name, or other designation identifying the specific O.E.M. color to the 
purchaser.
    Exact match finish, industrial means a coating which meets all of 
the following criteria: the product is designed and labeled exclusively 
to exactly match the color of an original, factory-applied industrial 
coating during the touch-up of manufactured products; the product is 
labeled with the manufacturer's name for which they were formulated; 
and the product is labeled with either the original equipment 
manufacturer's (O.E.M.) color code number; the color name; or other 
designation identifying the specific O.E.M. color to the purchaser.
    Executive officer means the Executive Officer of the Air Resources 
Board, or his or her delegate.
    Exempt compounds means any of the following compounds: methane; 
chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22); trifluoromethane (HFC-23); 
dichlorotrifluoroethane (HCFC-123); tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a); 
dichlorofluoroethane (HCFC-141b); chlorodifluoroethane (HCFC-142b); 2-
chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafluoroethane (HFC-
125); methylene chloride; 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform); 
trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113); dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12); 
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11); dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114); 
chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115); 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134); 
1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a); 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a); or 
perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes: Cyclic, 
branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes; Cyclic, branched, 
or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations; Cyclic, 
branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no 
unsaturations; or Sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with no 
unsaturations and with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine.
    Flat paint products means a coating which, when fully dry, 
registers gloss less than or equal to 15 on an 85 gloss meter, or less 
than or equal to 5 on a 60 gloss meter, or which is labeled as a flat 
coating.
    Flatting agent means a compound added to a coating to reduce the 
gloss of the coating without adding color to the coating.
    Floral spray means a coating labeled exclusively as such, which is 
sprayed on fresh flowers for the purposes of coloring, preserving or 
protecting their appearance.
    Fluorescent coating means a coating labeled as such which converts 
absorbed incident light energy into emitted light of a different hue.
    Glass coating means a coating labeled exclusively as such, which is 
applied to glass to tint or darken the color of the glass while 
retaining transparency.
    Ground traffic/marking coating means a coating labeled exclusively 
as such, which is formulated for and applied to dirt, gravel, grass, 
concrete, asphalt, warehouse floors, or parking lots. Such coatings 
must be in a container equipped with a valve and sprayhead designed to 
direct the spray toward the surface when the can is held in an inverted 
vertical position.
    High temperature coating means a coating labeled exclusively as 
such, which is formulated for and applied to substrates which will, in 
normal use, be subjected to temperatures in excess of 400  deg.F.
    Hobby/model/craft coating means a coating which is designed and 
labeled exclusively for hobby applications and is sold in aerosol 
containers of 6 ounces or less.
    Ink means a fluid or viscous substance used in the printing 
industry to produce letters, symbols or illustrations, but not to coat 
an entire surface.
    Lacquer means a thermoplastic film-forming material dissolved in 
organic solvent, which dries primarily by solvent evaporation, and 
hence is resoluble in its original solvent.
    Layout fluid (or toolmaker's ink) means a coating labeled 
exclusively as such, which is sprayed on metal, glass or plastic, to 
provide a glare-free surface on which to scribe designs, patterns or 
engineering guide lines prior to shaping the piece.
    Lubricant means a substance such as oil, petroleum distillates, 
grease, graphite, silicone, lithium, etc. that is used to reduce 
friction, heat, or wear when applied between surfaces.
    Manufacturer means any person who imports, manufactures, assembles, 
produces, packages, repackages, or relabels a consumer product.
    Marine spar varnish means a coating labeled exclusively as such 
which provides a protective sealant for marine wood products.
    Maskant means a coating applied directly to a component to protect 
surface areas when chemical milling, anodizing, aging, bonding, plating 
etching, or performing other chemical operations on the surface of the 
component.
    Metallic coating means a topcoat which contains at least 1 percent 
elemental metallic pigment and is labeled as ``metallic''.
    Mold release means a coating applied to molds to prevent products 
from sticking to the surfaces of the mold.
    Multi-component kits means aerosol spray paint systems which 
require the application of more than one component (e.g. foundation 
coat and top coat), where both components are sold together in one 
package.
    Non-flat paint product means a coating which, when fully dry, 
registers a gloss greater than 15 on an 85 gloss meter or greater then 
five on a 60 gloss meter.
    Percent VOC by weight means the ratio of the weight of VOC to the 
total weight of the product contents expressed as follows: Percent VOC 
By Weight=(Wvoc/Wtotal) x 100, where: for products not 
containing water and exempt compounds, Wvoc=the weight of VOC; for 
products containing water or exempt compounds Wvoc=the weight of 
VOC, less water and exempt compounds as defined in paragraph (b) of 
this section; and Wtotal=the total weight of the product contents.
    Photograph coating means a coating formulated and labeled 
exclusively as such, applied to finished photographs to allow 
corrective retouching, protection of the image, changes in gloss level, 
or to cover fingerprints.
    Pleasure craft means privately owned vessels used for noncommercial 
purposes.
    Pleasure craft finish primer/surfacer/undercoat means any coating 
labeled exclusively as such which is formulated to be applied prior to 
the application of a pleasure craft topcoat for the purpose of 
corrosion resistance, adhesion of the topcoat and which promotes a 
uniform surface by filling in surface imperfections.
    Pleasure craft topcoat means any coating labeled exclusively as 
such which is formulated to be applied to a pleasure craft as a final 
coat above the waterline and below the waterline when stored out of 
water.
    Primer means a coating formulated and labeled as such to be applied 
to a surface to provide a bond between that surface and subsequent 
coats.
    Propellant means a liquefied or compressed gas that is used in 
whole or in part, such as a cosolvent, to expel a liquid or any other 
material from the same self-pressurized container or from a separate 
container.
    Retailer means any person who sells, supplies, or offers aerosol 
coating products for sale directly to consumers.
    Rust converter means a product designed and labeled exclusively to 
convert rust to an inert material and which contains a minimum acid 
content of 0.5 percent by weight, a maximum resin content of 0.5 
percent by weight, and contains no pigments.
    Shellac sealer means a clear or pigmented coating formulated solely 
with the resinous secretion of the lac beetle (Laccifer lacca), thinned 
with alcohol, and formulated to dry by evaporation without a chemical 
reaction.
    Slip-resistant coating means a coating labeled exclusively as such 
which is formulated with synthetic grit, and used as a safety coating.
    Spatter coating/multicolor coating means a coating labeled 
exclusively as such wherein spots, globules, or spatters of contrasting 
colors appear on or within the surface of a contrasting or similar 
background.
    Stain means a coating which is formulated to change the color of a 
surface but not conceal the surface.
    Vinyl/fabric/polycarbonate coating means a coating labeled 
exclusively as such, which is used to coat vinyl, fabric, or 
polycarbonate substrates.
    Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any compound of carbon, 
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic 
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in 
atmospheric photochemical reactions other than those defined as exempt 
compounds. These exempt compounds have been determined to have 
negligible photochemical reactivity. For purposes of determining 
compliance with emission limits, VOC will be measured by test methods 
given in this section. Where such a method also measures compounds with 
negligible photochemical reactivity, an owner or operator may exclude 
these negligibly reactive compounds when determining compliance with an 
emission standard. However, the U.S. EPA may require such owner or 
operator, as a precondition to excluding these compounds for purposes 
of determining compliance, to provide monitoring methods and monitoring 
results demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the U.S. EPA, the amount 
of negligibly reactive compounds in the source's emissions.
    Webbing/veiling coating means a coating labeled exclusively as 
such, which is formulated to give a stranded to spider webbed 
appearance when applied.
    Weld-through primer means a coating formulated and labeled 
exclusively as such which provides a bridging or conducting effect to 
provide corrosion protection following welding.
    Wood stain means a coating which is formulated to change the color 
of a wood surface but not conceal the surface.
    Wood touch-up/repair/restoration means a coating formulated and 
labeled exclusively as such which provides an exact color or sheen 
match on finished wood products.
    (c) Standards.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (g) of this section, 
no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, apply, or manufacture for 
sale in California, any aerosol coating product which, at the time of 
sale, use, or manufacture, contains volatile organic compounds in 
excess of the limits specified in the following Table of Standards 
after the specified effective dates.

                           Table of Standards                           
              Percent Volatile Organic Compounds by Weight              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Aerosol coating category               01/01/96    12/31/99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Coatings:                                                       
  Clear Coating...................................         67         40
  Flat Paint Products.............................         60         30
  Fluorescent Coatings............................         75         45
  Metallic Coatings...............................         80         50
  Non-Flat Paint Products.........................         65         30
  Primer..........................................         60         30
Speciality Coatings:                                                    
  Art Fixative or Sealant.........................         95         70
  Auto Body Primer................................         80         50
  Automotive Bumper and Trim Products.............         95         75
  Aviation Propeller Coating......................         84         75
  Aviation/Marine Zinc Primer.....................         80         70
  Corrosion Resistant Brass, Bronze, or Copper                          
   Coatings.......................................         92         70
  Pleasure Craft Topcoat..........................         80         55
Exact Match Finish:                                                     
  Engine enamel...................................         80         60
  Automotive......................................         88         60
  Industrial......................................         88         60
Floral Spray......................................         95         85
Glass Coating.....................................         95         80
Ground Traffic Marking Coating....................         66         40
High Temperature Coating..........................         80         55
Hobby/Model/Craft Coating:                                              
  Enamel..........................................         80         70
  Lacquer.........................................         88         70
  Clear or Metallic...............................         95         75
Marine Spar Varnish...............................         92         70
Photograph Coating................................         95         70
Pleasure Craft Finish Primer Surfacer or                                
 Undercoater......................................         75         55
Shellac Sealer:                                                         
  Clear...........................................         88         70
  Pigmented.......................................         75         60
Slip-Resistant Coating............................         85         70
Spatter Coating...................................         80         60
Vinyl/Fabric/Polycarbonate........................         95         70
Webbing/Veil Coating..............................         95         70
Weld-Through Primer...............................         75         60
Wood Stain........................................         95         75
Wood Touch-Up, Repair or Restoration..............         95         95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, an aerosol coating product manufactured prior to each of the 
effective dates specified for that product in the Table of Standards 
may be sold, supplied, offered for sale, or applied for up to eighteen 
months after each of the specified effective dates. Paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section does not apply to any product which:
    (i) Is subject to the provisions of Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District Rule 8-49 and is sold, supplied, offered for sale, or applied 
within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; or
    (ii) Does not display on the product container or package the date 
on which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating such date.
    (3) After [Insert date of publication of the final rule], for any 
aerosol coating product for which standards are specified under 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, no person shall sell, supply, offer 
for sale, apply, or manufacture for sale in California any aerosol 
coating product which contains methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, 
or an ozone depleting substance identified by EPA.30 The 
requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to any existing product 
formulation that complies with the Table of Standards which was sold, 
supplied, or offered for sale in California prior to January 1, 1993, 
or any product formulation that was sold, supplied, or offered for sale 
in California prior to January 1, 1993, that is reformulated to meet 
the Table of Standards, as long as the content of methylene chloride, 
perchloroethylene, or ozone depleting substances as identified in this 
paragraph in the reformulated product does not increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\0See 40 CFR part 81, subpart A, appendixes A and B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section shall not 
apply to any aerosol coating product containing methylene chloride, 
perchloroethylene, or an ozone depleting substance as identified in 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section that are present as impurities in a 
combined amount equal to or less than 0.01% by weight of the product.
    (5) No person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, apply, or 
manufacture for sale in California:
    (i) Any multi-component kit as defined in paragraph (b) of this 
section, unless the total VOC emitted from the use of that multi-
component kit does not exceed the VOC which would be allowed from a 
single-component product in the same product category listed in the 
Table of Standards; or
    (ii) Any aerosol coating product assembled by adding bulk paint to 
aerosol containers of propellant and solvent, unless such products 
comply with the standards specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section.
    (6) Any manufacturer of an aerosol coating product subject to this 
article shall submit the following information by March 31, 1998 to 
EPA:
    (i) The information required under paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) (A) 
through (G) and (e)(c)(3) of this section for the 1997 calendar year;
    (ii) The information required under paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) (A) 
through (D), (e)(3)(ii) (F) and (G), and (e)(3)(iii) of this section 
for the products marketed after January 1, 1998; and
    (iii) A written report describing the research and development 
efforts undertaken to achieve the December 31, 1999 VOC limits.
    (d) Exemptions.
    (1) This article shall not apply to aerosol lubricants, mold 
releases, automotive underbody coating, electrical coatings, cleaners, 
belt dressings, anti-static sprays, layout fluids and removers, 
adhesives, maskants, rust converters, dyes or inks.
    (2) This article shall not apply to any aerosol coating product 
manufactured in California for shipment and use outside of California.
    (3) The provisions of this article shall not apply to a 
manufacturer or distributor who sells, supplies, or offers for sale in 
California an aerosol coating product that does not comply with the VOC 
standards specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, as long as the 
manufacturer or distributor can demonstrate both that the aerosol 
coating product is intended for shipment and use outside of California, 
and that the manufacturer or distributor has taken reasonable prudent 
precautions to assure that the aerosol coating product is not 
distributed to California. This paragraph (3) does not apply to aerosol 
coating products that are sold, supplied, or offered for sale by any 
person to retail outlets in California.
    (4) The requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of this section prohibiting 
the application of aerosol coating products containing volatile organic 
compounds in excess of the limits specified in the Table of Standards 
shall not apply to any noncommercial application of aerosol coating 
products purchased prior to June 30, 1996.
    (e) Administrative requirements.
    (1) Most restrictive limit. If anywhere on the container of any 
aerosol coating product listed in the Table of Standards, or on any 
sticker or label affixed thereto, or in any sales or advertising 
literature, any representation is made that the product may be used as, 
or is suitable for use as a product for which a lower VOC standard is 
specified, then the lowest applicable VOC standard shall apply. 
However, notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, if an 
aerosol coating product is subject to both a general coating limit and 
a specialty coating limit, as listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, and the product meets all the criteria of the applicable 
specialty coating category as specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section, then the specialty coating limit shall take precedence over 
the general coating limit.
    (2) Labeling Requirements. Each manufacturer of an aerosol coating 
product subject to paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall clearly 
display the following information on each product manufactured 90 days 
or more after the effective date of this article:
    (i) The maximum VOC content of the product as specified in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, expressed as a percentage by weight;
    (ii) The aerosol coating category as defined in paragraph (b) of 
this section, or an abbreviation of the coating category; and
    (iii) The day, month, and year on which the product was 
manufactured, or a code indicating such date. If a manufacturer uses a 
code indicating the date of manufacture or an abbreviation of the 
coating category as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, on any 
aerosol coating product subject to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an 
explanation of the code or abbreviation must be filed with USEPA prior 
to the use of the code or abbreviation. The VOC content displayed may 
be calculated using product formulation data, or may be determined 
using the test method specified in paragraph (f) of this section. For 
cases where a new product subject to paragraph (c)(1) of this section 
is sold, supplied, or offered for sale more than 90 days after the 
effective date of this article, the labeling requirements specified in 
paragraph (e)(2) of this section shall immediately apply.
    (3) Reporting Requirements.
    (i) Any manufacturer of an aerosol coating product subject to this 
section which is sold, supplied, or offered for sale in California must 
supply the USEPA with the following information within 90 days: the 
company name, mail address, contact person, and the telephone number of 
the contact person. The manufacturer must also notify the USEPA within 
90 days of any change in the information supplied to the USEPA pursuant 
to this paragraph.
    (ii) Upon 90 days written notice, each manufacturer subject to this 
section shall submit to the USEPA a written report with all or part of 
the following information for each product they manufacture under their 
name or another company's name:
    (A) The brand name of the product;
    (B) Upon request, a copy of the product label;
    (C) The owner of the trademark or brand names;
    (D) The product category as defined in paragraph (b) of this 
section;
    (E) The annual California sales in pounds per year and the method 
used to calculate California annual sales;
    (F) The percent by weight VOC, water, solids, propellant, and any 
compounds exempt from the definition of VOC as specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section;
    (G) An identification of each product brand name as a ``household'' 
or ``industrial'' product; and
    (H) Any other information necessary to determine the emissions from 
aerosol coating products.
    (iii) The information requested in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this 
section may be supplied as an average for a group of aerosol coating 
products within the same coating category when either of the following 
conditions are met:
    (A) The products do not vary in VOC content by more than two 
percent (by weight), and the coatings are based on the same resin type; 
or
    (B) The products are color variations of the same product (even if 
the coatings vary by more than 2 percent in VOC content).
    (f) Test Methods.
    (1) The VOC content of aerosol coating products subject to the 
provisions of this section shall be determined by the procedures set 
forth in ASTM D 5200-92, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Weight Percent Volatile Content of Solvent-Borne Paints in Aerosol 
Cans, May 15, 1992, and, for water-containing aerosol coating products, 
by ASTM D 5325-92, Standard Test Method for Determination of Weight 
Percent Volatile Content of Water-Borne Aerosol Paints, November 15, 
1992.
    (2) Compounds exempt from the definition of VOC shall be analyzed 
according to the test methods listed below:
    (i) The content of dichloromethane (methylene chloride) and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane shall be determined by ASTM D 4457-85.
    (ii) The following classes of compounds will be analyzed as exempt 
compounds only if manufacturers specify which individual compounds are 
used in the product formulations and identify the test methods, which, 
prior to such analysis, have been approved by the USEPA, and can be 
used to quantify the amounts of each exempt compound: cyclic, branched, 
or linear completely fluorinated alkanes; cyclic, branched, or linear, 
completely fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations; cyclic, branched, 
or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no 
unsaturations; and sulfur-containing perfluorocarbons with no 
unsaturations and with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine.
    (3) The metal content of metallic aerosol coating products shall be 
determined by South Coast Air Quality Management District Test Method 
311 (SCAQMD Laboratory Methods of Analysis for Enforcement Samples 
manual), June 1, 1991.
    (4) Specular gloss of flat and nonflat coatings shall be determined 
by ASTM Method D 523-89, March 31, 1989.


Sec. 52.2959  Architectural coatings.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to any person who supplies, 
sells, offers for sale, applies, solicits the application of, or 
manufactures for use any architectural coating used in California.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following 
definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein shall have the 
meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Antenna coatings are coatings applied to equipment and associated 
structural appurtenances which are used to receive or transmit 
electromagnetic signals.
    Anti-fouling coatings are coatings registered with USEPA, Office of 
Pesticide Programs and which are applied to the underwater portion of a 
structure to prevent or reduce the attachment of biological organisms.
    Appurtenances are accessories to an architectural structure, 
including, but not limited to: hand railings, cabinets, bathroom and 
kitchen fixtures, fences, rain-gutters and down-spouts, window screens, 
lamp-posts, (heating and air conditioning) equipment, other mechanical 
equipment, large fixed stationary tools and concrete forms.
    Architectural coatings are any coatings applied to stationary 
structures and their appurtenances, to mobile homes, to pavements, or 
to curbs.
    Below-ground wood preservatives are coatings formulated to protect 
below-ground wood from decay or insect attack and registered with 
USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Bituminous coatings materials are black or brownish coating 
materials, soluble in carbon disulfide, consisting mainly of 
hydrocarbons and which are obtained from natural deposits, or as 
residues from the distillation of crude petroleum oils, or of low 
grades of coal.
    Bond breakers are coatings applied between layers of concrete to 
prevent the freshly poured top layer of concrete from bonding to the 
substrate over which it is poured.
    Clear wood finishes are clear and semi-transparent coatings, 
including lacquers and varnishes, applied to wood substrates to provide 
a transparent or translucent solid film.
    Colorants are solutions of dyes or suspensions of pigments.
    Concrete-curing compounds are coatings applied to freshly poured 
concrete to retard the evaporation of water.
    Dry-fog coatings are coatings which are formulated only for spray 
application so that when sprayed, overspray droplets dry before falling 
on floors and other surfaces.
    Fire retardant coatings are coatings which have a flame spread 
index of less than 25 when tested in accordance with ASTM Designation 
E-84-87, ``Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of 
Building Material,'' after application to Douglas fir according to the 
manufacturer's recommendations.
    Flat coatings are coatings which register gloss less than 15 on an 
85 deg. meter or less than five on a 60 deg. meter, or which is labeled 
as a flat coating.
    Form-release compounds are coatings applied to a concrete form to 
prevent the freshly poured concrete from bonding to the form. The form 
may consist of wood, metal, or some material other than concrete.
    Grams of VOC per liter of coating, less water and less exempt 
compounds is the weight of VOC per combined volume of VOC and coating 
solids and can be calculated by the following equation:

TP05MY94.118

Grams of VOC per Liter of Coating Less Water and Less Exempt
Where: Ws=weight of volatile compounds in grams
    Ww=weight of water in grams
    Wes=weight of exempt compounds in grams
    Vm=volume of material in liters
    Vw=volume of water in liters
    Ves=volume of exempt compounds in liters

    Graphic arts coatings (Sign Paints) are coatings formulated for and 
hand-applied by artists using brush or roller techniques to indoor and 
outdoor signs (excluding structural components) and murals, including 
lettering enamels, poster colors, copy blockers, and bulletin enamels.
    High-temperature industrial maintenance coatings are industrial 
maintenance coatings formulated for and applied to substrates exposed 
continuously or intermittently to temperatures above 400 degrees 
Fahrenheit.
    Impact immersion coatings are an industrial maintenance, vinyl 
chloride based multicoat system formulated and recommended for 
application to submerged surfaces of locks, dams and other steel 
structures subjected to frequent severe abrasion.
    Industrial maintenance anti-graffiti coatings are two-component 
clear industrial maintenance coatings formulated for and applied to 
exterior walls and murals to resist repeated scrubbing and exposure to 
harsh solvents.
    Industrial maintenance coatings are high performance coatings 
formulated for and applied to substrates in industrial, commercial, or 
institutional situations that are exposed to one or more of the 
following extreme environmental conditions:
    (1) immersion in water, wastewater, or chemical solutions (aqueous 
and non-aqueous solutions), or chronic exposure of interior surfaces to 
moisture condensation;
    (2) acute or chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic or acidic 
agents, or to chemicals, chemical fumes, chemical mixtures, or 
solutions;
    (3) repeated exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 degrees 
Fahrenheit;
    (4) repeated heavy abrasion, including mechanical wear and repeated 
scrubbing with industrial solvents, cleaners, or scouring agents; or
    (5) exterior exposure of metal structures. Industrial maintenance 
coatings are not for residential use or for use in areas of industrial, 
commercial, or institutional facilities such as office space and 
meeting rooms.
    Lacquers are clear wood finishes, including clear lacquer sanding 
sealers, formulated with nitrocellulose or synthetic resins to dry by 
evaporation without chemical reaction.
    Low-solids stain means a wood stain containing 1 pound or less of 
solids per gallon of material.
    Magnesite cement coatings are coatings formulated for and applied 
to magnesite cement decking to protect the magnesite cement substrate 
from erosion by water.
    Mastic coatings are coatings formulated to cover holes and minor 
cracks and to conceal surface irregularities, and applied in a 
thickness of at least 10 mils (dry, single coat).
    Metallic pigmented coatings are coatings containing at least 0.4 
pound of elemental metallic pigment per gallon (50 grams/liter of 
coating as applied) or non-bituminous coatings which are formulated 
with metalic pigment.
    Multi-colored coatings are coatings which exhibit more than one 
color when applied and which are packaged in a single container and 
applied in a single coat.
    Non-flat coatings are coatings which register gloss of 15 or 
greater on an 85 deg. meter or five or greater on a 60 deg. meter, and 
which are identified on the label as a gloss, semigloss, or eggshell 
enamel coating.
    Non-flat high gloss coatings are coatings which register gloss of 
70 or greater on a 60 deg. meter, and which are identified on the label 
as a high gloss enamel coating.
    NOS means not otherwise specified.
    Nuclear power plant coatings are industrial maintenance coatings 
formulated and certified by the US Department of Energy for application 
to Level 1 containment structures at nuclear power facilities.
    Opaque stains are all stains that are not classified as 
semitransparent stains.
    Opaque wood preservatives are all wood preservatives not classified 
as clear or semitransparent wood preservatives or as below-ground wood 
preservatives.
    Pre-treatment wash primers are coatings which contain a minimum of 
\1/2\ percent acid by weight, applied directly to bare metal surfaces 
to provide necessary surface etching.
    Primers are coatings applied to a surface to provide a firm bond 
between the substrate and subsequent coats.
    Residential use is use in areas where people reside or lodge 
including, but not limited to single and multiple family dwellings, 
condominiums, mobile homes, apartment complexes, motels, and hotels.
    Roof coatings are coatings formulated for application to exterior 
roofs and for the primary purpose of preventing penetration of the 
substrate by water, or reflecting heat and reflecting ultraviolet 
radiation. Metallic pigmented roof coatings which qualify as metallic 
pigmented coatings shall not be considered to be in this category, but 
shall be considered to be in the metallic pigmented coatings category.
    Sanding sealers are clear wood coatings formulated for and applied 
to bare wood for sanding and to seal the wood for subsequent 
application of varnish. To be considered a sanding sealer a coating 
must be clearly labelled as such.
    Sealers are coatings applied to substrates to prevent subsequent 
coatings from being absorbed by the substrate, or to prevent harm to 
subsequent coatings by materials in the substrate.
    Semitransparent stains are coatings which are formulated to change 
the color of a surface but not conceal the surface.
    Semitransparent wood preservative are wood preservative stains 
formulated to protect exposed wood from decay or insect attack by the 
addition of a wood preservative registered with the USEPA, Office of 
Pesticide Programs, and which change the color of a surface but do not 
conceal the surface, including clear wood preservatives.
    Shellacs are clear or pigmented coatings formulated solely with the 
resinous secretions of the lac beetle (laccifer lacca), thinned with 
alcohol, and formulated to dry by evaporation without a chemical 
reaction.
    Solicit is to require for use or to specify, by written or oral 
contract.
    Solventborne means a coating that contains only organic solvents. 
If water is present, the coating must contain less than or equal to 
five percent water by weight in its volatile fraction.
    Specialty primers, sealers, and undercoaters means primers, 
sealers, and undercoaters used only to perform one of the following 
functions: repair fire, smoke or water damage; neutralize odor; block 
strains; block efflorescence; condition chalky surfaces; or coat 
accoustical materials without affecting their accoustical abilities.
    Swimming pool coatings are coatings specifically formulated to coat 
the interior of swimming pools and to resist swimming pool chemicals.
    Swimming pool repair coatings are chlorinated rubber based coatings 
used for the repair and maintenance of swimming pools over existing 
chlorinated rubber based coatings.
    Tint base is an architectural coating to which colorants are added.
    Traffic coatings are coatings formulated for and applied to public 
streets, highways, and other surfaces including, but not limited to 
curbs, berms, driveways, and parking lots.
    Undercoaters are coatings formulated and applied to substrates to 
provide a smooth surface for subsequent coats.
    Varnishes are clear wood finishes formulated with various resins to 
dry by chemical reaction on exposure to air.
    Waterborne coating means a coating that contains more than five 
percent water by weight in its volatile fraction.
    Waterproofing sealers are colorless coatings which are formulated 
for the sole purpose of preventing penetration of porous substrates by 
water and which do not alter surface appearance or texture.
    (c) Requirements.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4) and 
(c)(5) of this section, no person shall manufacture, supply, sell, 
offer for sale, blend, repackage, apply, or solicit the application for 
use within California any architectural coating which contains more 
than 250 grams of volatile organic compounds per liter of coating 
(excluding water and exempt solvents, and any colorant added to tint 
bases).
    (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4) and (c)(5) of 
this section, no person shall manufacture, supply, sell, offer for 
sale, blend, repackage, apply, or solicit the application for use 
within California any architectural coating listed in the Table of 
Standards which contains volatile organic compounds (less water and 
exempt solvents, and excluding any colorant added to tint bases) in 
excess of the corresponding limit and date specified in the table.

                      VOC Limit Table of Standards                      
        [Grams of VOC Per Liter less Water And Exempt Compounds]        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Effective dateJanuary
                                                             1          
                Coating category                 -----------------------
                                                   1996    2000    2003 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bond Breakers...................................     350                
Clear Wood Finishes:                                                    
  Varnish.......................................     350  ......     250
  Sanding Sealers...............................     350                
  Lacquer Sanding Sealers.......................     500     350        
  Lacquer.......................................     650     350        
Concrete-Curing.................................     350     250        
Dry-Fog Coatings................................     400  ......     250
Fire Retardant Coatings:                                                
  Clear.........................................     350                
  Pigmented.....................................     350                
Flats...........................................     250     150      50
Form Release Compounds..........................     250                
Graphic Arts Coatings...........................     500     425        
Industrial Maintenance Coatings:                                        
  NOS...........................................     340  ......     275
  Anti-Graffiti.................................     340     275        
  High Temperature..............................     550     420        
  Nuclear Power Plant...........................     380     340        
  Impact Immersion..............................     420     340        
  Antenna.......................................     420     340        
  Anti-fouling..................................     400     340        
Magnesite Cement................................     600     500        
Mastic Coatings.................................     300                
Metallic Pigmented..............................     500     450     340
Multi-Color Coatings............................     420                
Non-Flats NOS...................................     250  ......     150
Non-Flats-High Gloss............................     250                
Pretreat Wash Primers...........................     780     420        
Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters..............     350  ......     150
Specialty Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters....     350                
Roof Coatings...................................     250                
Traffic Paints..................................     150     125      50
Shellac:                                                                
  Clear.........................................     650     600        
  Pigmented.....................................     550     500        
Stains and Wood Preservatives:                                          
  Semi-Transparent..............................     350                
  Opaque........................................     250     200     150
  Clear.........................................     350                
  Below-Ground Wood.............................     350                
  Low-solids....................................     120                
Swimming Pool Coatings..........................     340                
Swimming Pool Repair and Maintenance Coatings...     650     340        
Waterproof Sealers..............................    400                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) If anywhere on the container of any coating listed in the Table 
of Standards, on any sticker or label affixed thereto, or in any sales 
or advertising literature, any representation is made that the coating 
may be used as, or is suitable for use as a coating for which a lower 
VOC standard is specified in the Table of Standards or in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, then the lowest VOC standard shall apply. This 
requirement does not apply to the representation of the following 
coatings in the manner specified:
    (i) High-temperature industrial maintenance coatings, which may be 
represented as metallic pigmented coatings for use consistent with the 
definition of high temperature industrial maintenance coatings;
    (ii) Metallic pigmented coatings, which may be recommended for use 
as primers, sealers, undercoaters, roof coatings, or industrial 
maintenance coatings; and
    (iii) Shellacs.
    (4) Sale or application of a coating manufactured prior to the 
effective date of the corresponding standard in the Table of Standards, 
and not complying with that standard, shall not constitute a violation 
of paragraph (c)(2) of this section until eighteen months after the 
effective date of the standard.
    (5) Sale or application of a coating in a container of one quart 
capacity or less shall not constitute a violation of paragraph (c)(1) 
or (c)(2) of this section until January 1, 2003.
    (6) All VOC-containing materials shall be stored in closed 
containers when not in use. In use includes, but is not limited to: 
being accessed, filled, emptied, or repaired.
    (d) Administrative Requirements.
    (1) Containers for all coatings subject to this section shall 
display the date of manufacture of the contents or a code indicating 
the date of manufacture. The manufacturers of such coatings shall file 
with the EPA an explanation of each code.
    (2) Containers for all coatings subject to the requirements of this 
section shall carry a statement of the manufacturer's recommendation 
regarding thinning of the coating. This recommendation shall not apply 
to the thinning of architectural coatings with water. The 
recommendation shall specify that the coating, is to be employed 
without thinning or diluting under normal environmental and application 
conditions, unless any thinning recommended on the label for normal 
environmental and application conditions does not cause a coating to 
exceed its applicable standard.
    (3) Each container of any coating subject to this section shall 
display the maximum VOC content of the coating, as applied, and after 
any thinning as recommended by the manufacturer. VOC content shall also 
be displayed as grams of VOC per liter of coating (less water and 
exempt solvent, and excluding any colorant added to tint bases). VOC 
content displayed may be calculated using product formulation data, or 
may be determined using the test method in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
    (4) The labels of all industrial maintenance coatings shall include 
the statement ``Not for Residential Use,'' or ``Not for Residential Use 
in California,'' prominently displayed.
    (e) Test Method. The VOC content of a coating subject to the 
provisions of this section shall be determined using the following 
procedures:
    (1) Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall be used in the 
determination of volatile matter content, water content, and density, 
volume solids, and weight solids of paint, varnish, lacquer or related 
surface coatings.
    (2) To determine the volatile matter content, water content, and 
density, volume solids, and weight solids of paint, varnish, lacquer or 
related surface coatings which are multi-component coatings, the 
following procedures shall be used in addition to Method 24 of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A:
    (i) The components shall be mixed in a storage container in 
proportions the same as those in the coating, as applied. The mixing 
shall be accomplished by weighing the components in the proper 
proportion into a container which is closed between additions and 
during mixing. About 100 ml of coating shall be prepared in a container 
just large enough to hold the mixture prior to withdrawing a sample.
    (ii) A sample shall be withdrawn from the mixed coating, and then 
transferred to a dish where the sample shall stand for at least 1 hour, 
but no more than 24 hours prior to being oven dried at 100 deg. C for 1 
hour.
    (3) The measurement of exempt solvents shall be determined using 
ASTM Test Method 4457-85 (re-approved 1992).
    (4) Calculation of volatile organic compound content of coatings 
less water and exempt solvents shall be performed in accordance with 
ASTM Test Method D 3960-92.
    (f) Exemptions.
    (1) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
    (i) Until January 1, 2003, architectural coatings in containers 
having capacities of one quart; or
    (ii) Architectural coatings sold in California for shipment outside 
of the state or for shipment to other manufacturers for repackaging; or
    (iii) Emulsion type bituminous pavement sealers.
    (2) Coatings subject to the requirements of the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act are exempt from the 
labeling requirements listed under paragraph (d) of this section.


Sec. 52.2960  Pesticides.

    (a) Applicability.
    (1) The requirements of this section shall apply to all persons 
located inside or outside of the affected area who produce agricultural 
and/or structural pesticides that are registered in the State of 
California.
    (2) The requirements of this section shall apply to all persons who 
distribute and/or store agricultural and/or structural pesticides 
within the affected area, unless such person can demonstrate both that 
the pesticide is intended only for shipment and use outside of the 
affected area, and that the person has taken reasonable prudent 
precautions to assure that the pesticide is not distributed within the 
affected area. Activities which shall not qualify as such reasonable 
prudent precaution include but are not limited to:
    (i) Distribution to a retail distributor within the affected area; 
or
    (ii) Failure to clearly identify pesticides as not for sale or use 
within California.
    (3) The requirements of this section shall apply to all persons who 
apply agricultural and/or structural pesticides within the affected 
area.
    (4) For the purposes of this section, the affected area is the 
State of California. For the purposes of this section, unless otherwise 
specified, the effective date is April 1, 1995.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following 
definitions will apply. All terms not defined herein shall have the 
meaning given them in the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q) or the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 
136 et seq.
    Agricultural pesticide means a pesticide intended for:
    (1) Use in the commercial production, transportation or storage of 
agricultural commodities, including but not limited to food, feed and 
fiber crops, farm animals, forest and timber commodities, ornamentals, 
flowers and turf;
    (2) Use in, on or around agricultural premises or buildings, 
including but not limited to barns, silos, animal enclosures, 
greenhouses and similar agricultural structures; or
    (3) Use on terrestrial, aquatic or forestry sites not directly 
related to the production of agricultural commodities, including but 
not limited to rights-of-way, golf courses, parks, mosquito control 
use, farm ponds, pasture and rangeland. A pesticide is not an 
agricultural pesticide if it is intended solely for: residential, 
institutional, industrial or structural pest control; consumer or 
personal use, including use on pets; non-commercial production of 
agricultural commodities (e.g., home gardens); or research or 
experimental pest control.
    Applicator means any person who uses or supervises the use of any 
pesticide.
    Distributor means any person who distributes, sells, offers for 
sale, holds for distribution, holds for sale, holds for shipment, 
ships, delivers for shipment, releases for shipment, or receives and 
(having so received) delivers or offers to deliver. The term does not 
include the holding or application of registered pesticides or use 
dilutions thereof by any applicator who provides a service of 
controlling pests without delivering any unapplied pesticide to any 
person so served. The term ``distribute'' means to distribute, sell, 
offer for sale, hold for distribution, hold for sale, hold for 
shipment, ship, deliver for shipment, release for shipment, or receive 
and (having so received) deliver or offer to deliver any pesticide. 
This includes persons who distribute pesticides to applicators or to 
other dealers or distributors.
    EPA means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 
Reports submitted to EPA shall be addressed in care of U.S. EPA, Region 
IX (A-1-1), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    Exempt compounds means any of the following compounds: methane; 
ethane; 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform); 
trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113); methylene chloride; 
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11); dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12); 
chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22); trifluoromethane (HFC-23); 
dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114); chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115); 
dichlorotrifluoroethane (HCFC-123); tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a); 
dichlorofluoroethane (HCFC-141b); chlorodifluoroethane (HCFC-142b); 2-
chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafluoroethane (HFC-
125); 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134); 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-
143a); 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a); and perfluorocarbon compounds 
which fall into these classes-- cyclic, branched, or linear, completely 
fluorinated alkanes; cyclic, branched, or linear, completely 
fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations; cyclic, branched, or linear, 
completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no unsaturations; or 
sulfur-containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and with 
sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine.
    Person means any firm, business establishment, association, 
partnership, corporation or individual, whether acting as principal, 
agent, employee, or other capacity including any governmental entity or 
charitable organization.
    Pesticide means any substance or mixture of substances intended for 
preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest; and any 
substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant 
regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.
    Producer means the person who manufacturers, prepares, compounds, 
propagates, or processes any pesticide or active ingredient used in 
producing a pesticide. The term ``produce'' means to manufacture, 
prepare, compound, propagate, or process any pesticide or active 
ingredient used in producing a pesticide. The dilution by individuals 
of formulated pesticides for their own use and according to the 
directions on registered labels shall not itself result in such 
individuals being included in the definition of ``producer'' for the 
purposes of this section.
    Registered, with respect to a pesticide product, means that the 
product has been approved for sale and distribution within the State of 
California pursuant to the California Food and Agricultural Code 
(Division 7, Chapter 2, Article 4, Sec. 12811).
    Structural pesticide means a pesticide intended for use in the 
protection of structures, buildings or building materials, including 
but not limited to fumigants, termiticides, and wood preservatives.
    Volatile organic vompound (VOC) means any compound of carbon 
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic 
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in 
atmospheric photochemical reactions other than those defined as exempt 
compounds. These exempt compounds have been determined to have 
negligible photochemical reactivity. For purposes of determining 
compliance with this section, VOC will be measured by test methods 
given in this section.
    (c) Specific provisions.
    (1) Required submission of data.
    (i) By June 1, 1996 or 120 (one hundred and twenty) days after the 
effective date of this section, whichever is later, all persons who 
produce agricultural and/or structural pesticides that are registered 
in California must submit reports in accordance with paragraph (d) of 
this section that identify the VOC content of each pesticide. The VOC 
content will be determined according to the methodology provided in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (ii) If EPA determines that a report does not affirmatively 
demonstrate compliance with the methodology in paragraph (f) of this 
section, EPA may assign the pesticide a VOC content value equal to the 
highest VOC content reported for any pesticide.
    (2) Establish VOC limit. Upon compilation of the data received 
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, EPA will determine a 
pesticide VOC limit based on the following criteria:
    (i) EPA will establish a base-year inventory for each registered 
pesticide. This inventory will be based on the amount of each pesticide 
used in the affected area. These amounts will be based on data from the 
1990 pesticide use report (PUR) and the inerts database, which are both 
maintained by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), 
unless EPA determines that another year or years of PUR data or other 
information provides a more appropriate basis for the inventory.
    (ii) EPA will rank all registered pesticides according to their VOC 
content as determined by the data submitted pursuant to paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section. The pesticide with the largest VOC content will 
be ranked ``1''.
    (iii) EPA will multiply the VOC contents (as determined by 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section) by the inventory (as determined in 
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section) to determine ``individual base-
year VOC emissions'' for each individual pesticide.
    (iv) EPA will add the individual base-year VOC emissions for all 
pesticides to determine the ``total base-year VOC emissions'' from all 
pesticides combined.
    (v) Starting with the pesticide or pesticides ranked ``1'' 
according to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, EPA will add the 
individual base-year VOC emissions for pesticides ranked 2, 3, 4 * * * 
etc, until the sum equals forty to seventy percent (40%-70%)\31\ of the 
total base-year VOC emissions. The VOC content of the last pesticide 
needed to achieve 40%-70% of the total base-year VOC emissions becomes 
the ``VOC limit.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\As discussed further in the preamble to the proposed 
regulations, the range of 40% to 70% reflects the target range of 
20%-45% reductions in emissions from pesticide application. This 
range was selected for consistency with the VOC cap rules proposed 
as 40 CFR 52.2952 through 52.2954. Based on planned modeling and 
inventory analysis and comments received during the comment period, 
EPA hopes to select a specific reduction target from within this 
range for use in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vi) EPA will promulgate the VOC limit with a summary of the 
assumptions and results from paragraphs (c)(2) (i) through (v) of this 
section.
    (3) Restrictions on pesticides.
    (i) On and after 1 (one) year after EPA publishes the VOC limit, 
all persons are prohibited from distribution within the affected area 
of pesticides with VOC contents in excess of the VOC limit.
    (ii) On and after 2 (two) years after EPA publishes the VOC limit, 
all persons are prohibited from application and/or storage within the 
affected area of pesticides with VOC contents in excess of the VOC 
limit.
    (4) Revisions to the VOC limit.
    (i) EPA may, at any time, require producer(s) to reanalyze their 
pesticides according to the methodology described in paragraph (f) of 
this section and to submit the new data according to paragraph (d) of 
this section.
    (ii) EPA may, at any time, revise the VOC limit consistent with the 
methodology described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and based on 
information submitted pursuant to paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section 
or elsewhere.
    (d) Reporting.
    (1) Producers. Reports submitted pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 
and (c)(4)(i) of this section must include:
    (i) Name, address, name of contact person, and telephone number of 
producer.
    (ii) Name and description of pesticide product, including a copy of 
the pesticide product label.
    (iii) Name, address and telephone number of the laboratory 
performing analysis; name of analyst; and date and time of analysis.
    (iv) All raw data collected during analysis performed pursuant to 
paragraph (f) of this section. If, for example, TGA analysis is 
performed as described in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, all 
thermograms produced must be submitted, as well as justification for 
rejecting any unacceptable thermogram.
    (v) Summary and results of analysis performed pursuant to paragraph 
(f) of this section. If, for example, TGA analysis is performed, the 
summary of analysis shall include uncorrected weight percent VOC 
content (i.e., kg VOC per kg pesticide), weight percent water content, 
weight percent exempt solvents content, and weight percent VOC content 
corrected for water and exempt solvents, as applied.
    (vi) Certification signed and dated by a responsible official of 
the producer stating the following:

    I certify under penalty of law that this document and all 
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in 
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel 
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my 
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those 
persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the 
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 
true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant 
penalties for submitting false information, including the 
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

    (2) Distributors. Any person who distributes pesticides within the 
affected area must report the following information to EPA:
    (i) Distributor notification. The distributor notification shall 
include the name, address, and telephone number of the distributor, and 
the name of a responsible official of the distributor. The report shall 
be postmarked not later than the date the VOC limit becomes effective 
(see paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section) or 30 days after the 
distributor first begins distribution of pesticides, whichever is 
later.
    (ii) Annual report. The annual report shall specify the type and 
amount of each pesticide sold, shipped, or otherwise distributed in the 
affected area. The annual report shall be submitted by January 30 of 
each year for the preceding year's data beginning with the year in 
which the effective date specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this 
section occurs.
    (3) Applicators. All applicators within the affected areas shall 
submit a copy of all PURs to EPA at the same time the PUR is submitted 
to DPR once the effective date specified in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of 
this section occurs.
    (e) Recordkeeping. All producers, distributors, and applicators 
must maintain all information necessary to demonstrate compliance with 
this section for a period of five (5) years. This information includes, 
but is not limited to, copies of all reports required in paragraph (d) 
of this section, and any technical support to those reports. Copies of 
this information must be provided to EPA upon request.
    (f) Test methods.
    (1) For the purposes of this section, the VOC content in pesticides 
shall be determined by the methods described in paragraphs (f)(1) (i) 
or (ii) of this section or by methods as stringent in accuracy, 
reliability, reproducibility, and frequency and approved by EPA.
    (i) Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA). The ``American Standard Test 
Method (ASTM) for Compositional Analysis by Thermogravimetry'' (ASTM E-
1131-86) as modified in EPA's alternative control technology document 
(ACT) for pesticides (``Alternative Control Technology Document; 
Control of VOC Emissions from the Application of Agricultural 
Pesticides,'' EPA-453/R-92-011, March 1993, appendix C); or
    (ii) Volatile Organics in Pesticides (VOP). The purge and trap 
procedure as described in EPA's ACT (EPA-453/R-92-011, appendix C).
    (2) The exempt compound content of a pesticide may be determined by 
the statement of formulation required pursuant to FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 
136a(c)(1)(E)).
    (3) Pesticides that are diluted with VOC-containing material (e.g., 
gasoline, xylene, toluene, and other solvents), at any point before 
application, are to be tested diluted with said material at the average 
dilution used during application. Pesticides that are diluted with non-
VOC-containing materials (e.g., water) are to be tested as sold rather 
than as applied.


Sec. 52.2961  Stationary and area source rules.

    (a) Solvent Cleaning Operations.
    (1) Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this section is to 
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from solvent 
cleaning operations, and from the storage and disposal of materials 
used in solvent cleaning operations. This section applies to any 
facility located in the affected area that uses VOC-containing 
materials in the production, repair, maintenance, or servicing of 
parts, products, tools, machinery, equipment, or general work areas, or 
that stores and/or disposes of VOC-containing materials used in solvent 
cleaning operations. For the purposes of this section, the affected 
area includes the Ventura County Area for ozone and the Sacramento 
Metro Area for ozone as described in 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Aerosol product means a hand-held, nonrefillable container which 
expels pressurized product ingredients by means of a propellant-induced 
force.
    Application line means that portion of a motor vehicle assembly 
production line which applies surface and other coatings to motor 
vehicle bodies, hoods, fenders, cargo boxes, doors, and grill opening 
panels.
    Appurtenances means accessories to an architectural structure, 
including, but not limited to: hand railings, cabinets, bathroom and 
kitchen fixtures, fences, rain-gutters and down-spouts, window screens, 
lamp-posts, heating and air conditioning equipment, other mechanical 
equipment, and large fixed stationary tools and concrete forms.
    Architectural coatings means any coatings applied to stationary 
structures and their appurtenances, to mobile homes, to pavements, or 
to curbs.
    Closed container means a container that encloses greater than 90% 
of the liquid surface area, except when depositing and removing objects 
to be cleaned or for maintenance and repair to the container itself.
    Cured coatings, cured inks, and cured adhesives means coatings, 
inks, and adhesives which are dry to the touch.
    Electronic components means circuit card assemblies, printed wire 
assemblies, printing wiring boards, soldered joints, ground wires, bus 
bars, and other electrical fixtures, except for the actual cabinet in 
which the components are housed.
    Flexographic printing means a printing method utilizing flexible 
rubber or other elastomeric plate which employs rapid-drying liquid 
inks.
    Grams of VOC per liter of material means the weight of VOC per 
volume of material and can be calculated by the following equation:

TP05MY94.094

Where:
Ws=weight of volatile compounds in grams;
Ww=weight of water in grams;
Wes=weight of exempt compounds in grams; and
Vm=volume of material in liters.

    Graphic arts means all screen, gravure, letterpress, flexographic, 
and lithographic printing processes.
    Gravure printing means an intaglio process in which the ink is 
carried in minute etched or engraved wells on a roll or cylinder. The 
excess ink is removed from the surface by a doctor blade.
    Institutions mean, but are not limited to, schools, hospitals, 
sanitariums, prisons, health clubs, and theaters.
    Janitorial cleaning means the cleaning of building or facility 
components, such as the floor, ceiling, walls, windows, doors, stairs, 
bathrooms, etc.
    Letterpress printing means the method in which the image area is 
raised relative to the nonimage area and the ink is transferred to the 
paper directly from the image surface.
    Lithographic printing means a plane-o-graphic method in which the 
image and nonimage areas are on the same plane.
    Liquid leak means a visible liquid solvent leak from a container at 
a rate of more than three drops per minute, or a visible liquid mist.
    Maintenance cleaning means a solvent cleaning operation carried out 
to keep parts, products, tools, machinery, equipment, or general work 
areas in clean and good operational condition.
    Manufacturing process means the process of making goods or articles 
by hand or by machinery.
    Medical equipment means equipment used by physicians to cure 
diseases or conditions requiring surgical procedures that are implanted 
in the body or used during invasive medical procedures. Medical 
equipment includes, but is not limited to, heart valves, catheters, 
oxygenenators, pressure monitors, pharmaceutical and dental equipment.
    Non-absorbent containers mean containers made of nonporous material 
which do not allow the migration of the liquid solvent through them.
    Non-atomized solvent flow means the use of a solvent to remove 
uncured adhesives, uncured inks, uncured coatings, and contaminants 
from an article in the form of a liquid stream without atomization.
    Non-leaking containers mean containers without liquid leaks.
    Printing means any operation that imparts color, design, alphabet, 
or numerals on a substrate.
    Remote reservoir cold cleaner means a cleaning device in which 
liquid solvent is pumped from a solvent container to a sink-like work 
area and the solvent from the sink-like area drains into an enclosed 
solvent container while parts are being cleaned.
    Repair cleaning means a solvent cleaning operation carried out 
during a repair process.
    Repair process means the process of returning a damaged object or 
an object not operating properly to good condition.
    Screen printing means a process in which the printing ink passes 
through a web or a fabric to which a refined form of stencil has been 
applied. The stencil openings determine the form and dimensions of the 
imprint.
    Solvent means a VOC-containing liquid used to perform solvent 
cleaning operations.
    Solvent cleaning operation means the removal of loosely held 
uncured adhesives, uncured inks, uncured coatings, and contaminants 
which include, but are not limited to, dirt, soil, and grease from 
parts, products, tools, machinery, equipment, and general work areas. 
Each distinct method of cleaning in a cleaning process which consists 
of a series of cleaning methods shall constitute a separate solvent 
cleaning operation.
    Solvent container means that part of a cleaning device that holds 
the solvent.
    Solvent flushing means the use of a solvent to remove uncured 
adhesives, uncured inks, uncured coatings, or contaminants from the 
internal surfaces and passages of the equipment by flushing solvent 
through the equipment.
    Stripping means the removal of cured coatings, cured inks, and 
cured adhesives.
    Surface preparation means the removal of contaminants such as dust, 
soil, oil, grease, etc., prior to coating, adhesive, or ink 
applications.
    Ultraviolet inks mean inks which dry by polymerization reaction 
induced by ultraviolet energy.
    VOC composite partial pressure means the following:

PPc=A/B

Where:

TP05MY94.095

and:

Wi=weight of the ``i''th VOC compound, in grams;
Ww=weight of water, in grams;
We=weight of exempt compound, in grams;
MWi=molecular weight of the ``i''th VOC compound, in g/(g-mole);
MWw=molecular weight of water, in g/(g-mole);
MWe=molecular weight of exempt compound, in g/(g-mole);
PPc=VOC composite partial pressure at 20 C, in mm Hg; and
VPi=vapor pressure of the ``i''th VOC compound at 20 C, in mm Hg.

    Wipe cleaning means the method of cleaning a surface by physically 
rubbing it with a material such as a rag, paper, or a cotton swab 
moistened with a solvent.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) Solvent requirements. On and after January 1, 1996, a person 
shall not use a solvent to perform solvent cleaning operations, 
including the use of cleaning devices or methods, unless the solvent 
complies with the applicable requirements set forth below.
    (A) Substrate cleaning during manufacturing processes, and surface 
preparation for coating, adhesive, or ink applications. The solvents 
used on substrates for cleaning during the manufacturing process or for 
surface preparation prior to coating, adhesive, or ink applications 
shall have a VOC content of 70 grams or less of VOC per liter of 
material.
    (B) Repair and maintenance cleaning. The solvents used for repair 
or maintenance cleaning shall have a VOC content of 900 grams or less 
of VOC per liter of material and a VOC composite partial pressure of 20 
mm Hg or less at 20  deg.C (68  deg.F).
    (C) Cleaning of coatings and adhesives application equipment. The 
solvents used for cleaning coatings or adhesives application equipment 
shall have a VOC content of 950 grams or less of VOC per liter of 
material and a VOC composite partial pressure of 35 mm Hg or less at 20 
 deg.C (68  deg.F).
    (D) Cleaning of polyester resin application equipment. The solvents 
used for cleaning polyester resin application equipment shall comply 
with one of the limits specified below:
    (1) The solvent shall have a VOC content of 200 grams or less of 
VOC per liter of material; or
    (2) The solvent shall have a VOC content of 1,100 grams or less of 
VOC per liter of material and a VOC composite partial pressure of 1.0 
mm Hg or less at 20  deg.C (68  deg.F).
    (E) Cleaning of ink application equipment. The solvents used for 
cleaning of ink application equipment in graphic arts shall meet the 
limits specified below.
    (1) The solvents used in screen printing shall have a VOC content 
of 1,070 grams or less of VOC per liter of material and a VOC composite 
partial pressure of 5 mm Hg or less at 20  deg.C (68  deg.F).
    (2) The solvents used in lithographic and letterpress printing not 
subject to provisions of paragraph (a)(3)(i)(E)(4) of this section 
shall have a VOC content of 800 grams or less of VOC per liter of 
material and a VOC composite partial pressure of 25 mm Hg or less at 20 
 deg.C (68  deg.F).
    (3) The solvents used in gravure printing, flexographic printing, 
and printing operations not subject to provisions of paragraphs 
(a)(3)(i)(E)(1), (2), or (4) of this section shall have a VOC content 
of 100 grams or less of VOC per liter of material and a VOC composite 
partial pressure of 3 mm Hg at 20  deg.C (68  deg.F).
    (4) The solvents used to remove ultraviolet inks from application 
equipment in graphic arts printing operations, except screen printing, 
shall have a VOC content of 800 grams or less of VOC per liter of 
material and a VOC composite partial pressure of 33 mm Hg or less at 20 
 deg.C (68  deg.F).
    (F) Cleaning of electronic components and medical equipment. The 
solvents used for manufacturing or maintenance cleaning of electronic 
components or medical equipment shall have a VOC content of 900 grams 
or less of VOC per liter of material and a VOC composite partial 
pressure of 33 mm Hg or less at 20  deg.C (68  deg.F).
    (ii) Cleaning devices and methods requirements. On and after 
January 1, 1996, a person shall not perform solvent cleaning operations 
unless one of the following cleaning devices or methods is used:
    (A) Wipe cleaning;
    (B) Spray bottles or closed containers from which solvents are 
applied without a propellant-induced force;
    (C) Cleaning equipment using solvent within a closed container, 
except when depositing and removing objects to be cleaned, or for 
maintenance and repair to the cleaning equipment itself. This includes 
but is not limited to:
    (1) Any cleaning device or mechanism which has been determined by 
EPA to result in equivalent or lower emissions; or
    (2) Any remote reservoir cold cleaner used pursuant to the 
provisions of paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section;
    (D) Non-atomized solvent flow method where the cleaning solvent is 
collected in a closed container; or
    (E) Solvent flushing method where the cleaning solvent is 
discharged into a container. The discharged solvent from the equipment 
must be collected into containers without atomizing into the open air. 
The solvent may be flushed through the system by air or hydraulic 
pressure, or by pumping.
    (iii) Remote reservoir cold cleaners. On and after January 1, 1996, 
any person owning or operating a remote reservoir cold cleaner shall 
comply with all of the following requirements:
    (A) Prevent solvent vapors from escaping from the solvent container 
by using such devices as a cover or a valve when the remote reservoir 
is not being used, cleaned, or repaired;
    (B) Direct solvent flow in a manner that will prevent liquid 
solvent from splashing outside of the remote reservoir cold cleaner;
    (C) Not degrease porous or absorbent materials, such as cloth, 
leather, wood, or rope; and
    (D) Use only solvent containers free of all liquid leaks. Auxiliary 
equipment, such as pumps, pipelines, or flanges, shall not have any 
liquid leaks, visible tears, or cracks. Any liquid leak, visible tear, 
or crack detected shall be repaired within one calendar day, or the 
leaking section of the remote reservoir cold cleaner shall be drained 
of all solvent and shut down until it is replaced or repaired.
    (iv) Storage and disposal.
    (A) All VOC-containing solvents shall be stored in non-absorbent, 
non-leaking containers which shall be kept closed at all times except 
when filling or emptying.
    (B) All waste solvent and waste solvent residues shall be disposed 
of by at least one of the following methods:
    (1) Disposal through a commercial reclamation service;
    (2) Disposal at a facility that is federally or state licensed to 
treat, store or dispose of such waste; or
    (3) Disposal by recycling in conformance with Sec. 25143.2 of the 
California Health and Safety Code.
    (v) Emission control system. In lieu of complying with the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(i), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(3)(v)(A) of this 
section, a person may comply by using an emission control system in 
association with the solvent cleaning operation regulated by this 
section provided:
    (A) The emission control system maintains a capture efficiency of 
at least 90%, by weight, of the emissions generated by the solvent 
cleaning operation and a destruction or removal efficiency of at least 
95% by weight; or
    (B) The emission control system maintains a capture efficiency of 
at least 90%, by weight, of the emissions generated by the solvent 
cleaning operation and the output of the control system is less than 50 
parts per million (ppm) calculated as carbon with no dilution; or
    (C) The emission control system meets the requirements of an 
applicable source-specific section of the Federal or federally approved 
State Implementation Plan.
    (vi) General prohibitions.
    (A) On and after January 1, 1996, a person shall not atomize any 
solvent into open air.
    (B) On and after January 1, 1996, a person shall not specify or 
require any person to use solvent or equipment subject to the 
provisions of this section that do not meet the requirements of this 
section.
    (4) Exemptions.
    (i) The following solvent cleaning operations are not subject to 
any provision of paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (A) Cleaning performed in batch-loaded cold cleaners, open-top 
vapor degreasers, conveyorized degreasers, or film cleaning machines 
which are regulated under an equivalent (i.e., equally stringent) 
source-specific section contained in the Federal or federally approved 
State Implementation Plan.
    (B) Cleaning operations performed at solvent dry cleaners and 
perchloroethylene dry cleaning systems which are regulated under an 
equivalent (i.e., equally stringent) source-specific section contained 
in the Federal or federally approved State Implementation Plan.
    (C) Cleaning operations performed at semiconductor manufacturing 
facilities which are regulated under an equivalent (i.e., equally 
stringent) source-specific section contained in the Federal or 
federally approved State Implementation Plan.
    (D) Cleaning operations performed at aerospace assembly and 
component manufacturing facilities which are regulated under an 
equivalent (i.e., equally stringent) source-specific section contained 
in the Federal or federally approved State Implementation Plan, except 
coating application equipment cleaning, and storage and disposal of 
VOC-containing materials used in solvent cleaning operations.
    (E) Cleaning operations performed at remote reservoir cold cleaners 
which are regulated under an equivalent (i.e., equally stringent) 
source-specific section contained in the Federal or federally approved 
State Implementation Plan.
    (F) Janitorial cleaning.
    (G) Stripping of cured coatings, cured adhesives, and cured inks.
    (H) Cleaning operations using solvents with a water content of 98% 
or more by weight.
    (I) Cleaning operations using solvents for clean up of polyester 
resin application equipment provided they do not exceed 4 gallons a 
day.
    (ii) Wipe cleaning is not subject to the provisions of paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) of this section when carried out for any of the following 
applications.
    (A) Cleaning of solar cells, laser hardware, and high-precision 
optics.
    (B) Cleaning for conducting performance laboratory tests on 
coatings, adhesives, or inks; research and development programs; and 
laboratory tests in quality assurance laboratories.
    (C) Cleaning of polycarbonate plastics.
    (iii) Internal cleaning of the tips of automated spray equipment 
systems, except for robotic systems, and cleaning with spray bottles or 
containers described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, are 
not subject to the provisions of paragraph (a)(3)(vi)(A) of this 
section.
    (iv) Cleaning with aerosol products shall not be subject to the 
provisions of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(v)(A) of this section if 
160 fluid ounces or less per day per facility of aerosol products are 
used.
    (v) Cleaning of cotton swabs to remove cottonseed oil before 
cleaning of high-precision optics shall not be subject to paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) of this section.
    (vi) A facility which uses non-compliant solvents in quantities 
less than 1 gallon a week shall not be subject to paragraphs 
(a)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section for those solvents.
    (vii) Maintenance cleaning conducted at institutions and 
residential dwellings shall not be subject to paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B) of 
this section.
    (5) Reporting and Recordkeeping.
    (i) Records shall be maintained pursuant to paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of 
this section for all applications subject to this section, including 
those exempted under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, except for 
cleaning operations performed with a solvent which has a water content 
of 98% or more, by weight, or a VOC composite partial pressure of 0.1 
mm Hg or less at 20  deg.C (68  deg.F).
    (ii) Any source within the affected area that uses greater than 20 
gallons per year of VOC-containing materials used in solvent cleaning 
operations shall comply with the following requirements:
    (A) Maintain a current file of each VOC-containing material in use 
and in storage for solvent cleaning operations. The file shall provide 
all of the data necessary to evaluate compliance and shall include, but 
not be limited to, the following information, as applicable:
    (1) A data sheet or material list giving material name, 
manufacturer identification and material application;
    (2) Any thinners or other components used and the mix ratio; and
    (3) The VOC content limit or vapor pressure limit from paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section and the actual VOC content, as applied, or vapor 
pressure of the solvent used for cleaning operations.
    (B) Maintain records of the monthly volume of each solvent used.
    (C) When compliance is achieved through the use of add-on control 
equipment pursuant to paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section, maintain 
records on a daily basis of key operating parameters for the emission 
control equipment, including, but not limited to:
    (1) Hours of operation;
    (2) Routine and nonroutine maintenance;
    (3) All information needed to demonstrate continuous compliance 
with paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section, such as temperatures, 
pressures, and flowrates; and
    (4) Maintain records of the daily volume of each VOC-containing 
solvent subject to abatement by add-on control equipment.
    (D) Maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with 
paragraph (a)(3)(iv)(B) of this section including, but not limited to:
    (1) Date;
    (2) Source of waste (e.g., ``waste solvent from cold cleaner'');
    (3) Description of waste (e.g., ``rags in two 55 gallon drums with 
5-10% liquid'');
    (4) Amount of solvent in waste shipment; and
    (5) Destination of each shipment of waste solvent and/or waste 
solvent residues off-site.
    (E) All records shall be maintained for at least five years and 
shall be provided to EPA upon request.
    (6) Test Methods. For the purpose of this section, the following 
test methods shall be used. VOC emissions or other parameters 
determined to exceed any limits established by this section through the 
use of any of the following test methods shall constitute a violation 
of the section.
    (i) The VOC content of materials subject to the provisions of this 
section shall be determined by EPA Method 24 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A).
    (ii) The efficiency of the collection device of the emissions 
control system, as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(v)(A) of this section, 
shall be determined by the EPA method described at 
Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iii).
    (iii) The efficiency of the control device of the emission control 
system, as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(v)(B) of this section, shall 
be determined by the EPA method described at Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iv). The 
VOC content measured and calculated as carbon in the control device 
exhaust gases shall be determined by EPA Method 25 or 25A (40 CFR part 
60, appendix A).
    (iv) The identity of components in solvents shall be determined by 
EPA Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    (v) Vapor pressure of a VOC shall be determined by ASTM Method 
D2879-86 or may be obtained from a published source such as: Boublik, 
T., V. Fried and E. Hala, ``The Vapor Pressure of Pure Substances,'' 
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York (1973); Perry's Chemical 
Engineer's Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1984); CRC Handbook of 
Chemistry and Physics, Chemical Rubber Publishing Company (1986-87); 
and Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, John A. Dean, editor, McGraw-Hill 
Book Company (1985).
    (b) Wood Products Coatings.
    (1) Applicability. This section applies to all persons applying 
coating, inks, stains, and/or strippers in wood product coating 
operations for the purpose of manufacture of wood products, including 
furniture and other coated objects made of solid wood and/or wood 
composition, and/or simulated wood material. This section shall not 
apply to residential noncommercial operations. For the purposes of this 
section, the affected area is the Sacramento Metro Area for ozone and 
the Ventura County Area for ozone as described in Sec. 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Aerosol-spray coating means a coating which is sold in a hand-held, 
pressurized, non-refillable container of sixteen ounces or less and 
which is expelled from the container in a finely divided spray when a 
valve on the container is depressed.
    Binders means non-volatile polymeric organic materials (resins) 
which form the surface film in coating applications.
    Clean topcoat means a final coating which contains binders, but not 
opaque pigments, and is specifically formulated to form a transparent 
or translucent solid protective film.
    Coating means a material which is applied to a surface and which 
forms a film in order to beautify and/or protect such surface.
    Dip coat means to dip an object into a vat of coating material and 
drain off any excess coating.
    Electrostatic application means charging of atomized paint droplets 
for deposition by electrostatic attraction.
    Filler means a preparation used to fill in cracks, grains, etc., of 
wood before applying a coating.
    Flow coat means to coat an object by flowing a stream of coating 
over an object and draining off any excess coating.
    Grams of VOC per liter of material means the weight of VOC per 
volume of material and can be calculated by the following equation:

TP05MY94.096

Where:
Ws=weight of volatile compounds in grams
Ww=weight of water in grams
Wes=weight of exempt compounds in grams
Vm= volume of material in liters

    High-solids stains means stains containing more than 1 pound of 
solids per gallon, by weight, and can include wiping stains, glazes, 
and opaque stains.
    High-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray means to spray a coating by 
means of a gun that operates between 0.1 and 10.0 pounds per square 
inch gauge (psig) air pressure.
    Ink means a fluid that contains dyes and/or colorants and is used 
to make markings, but not to protect surfaces.
    Low-solids stains means stains containing 1 pound of solids per 
gallon, or less, by weight.
    Mold-seal coating means the initial coating applied to a new mold 
or repaired mold to provide a smooth surface which, when coated with a 
mold release coating, prevents products from sticking to the mold.
    Multi-colored coating means a coating which exhibits more than one 
color when applied, and which is packaged in a single container and 
applied in a single coat.
    Pigmented coatings means opaque coatings which contain binders and 
colored pigments which are formulated to hide the wood surface, either 
as an undercoat or topcoat.
    Rate per calendar year means the amount applied between 12 a.m. 
January 1 and 11:59 p.m. December 31.
    Rate per day means the amount applied between 12 a.m. and 11:59 
p.m. on the same calendar day.
    Repair coating means a coating used to recoat portions of a product 
which has sustained mechanical damage to the coating following normal 
painting operations.
    Roll coater means a series of mechanical rollers that forms a thin 
coating film on the surface of the roller, which is applied to a 
substrate by moving the substrate underneath the roller.
    Sealer means a coating, containing binders, which seals the wood 
prior to application of the subsequent coatings.
    Simulated wood materials means materials, such as plastic, glass, 
metal, etc., that are made to give a wood-like appearance or are 
processed like a wood product.
    Stencil coating means an ink or a pigmented coating which is rolled 
or brushed onto a template or stamp in order to add identifying letters 
and/or numbers to wood products.
    Stripper means a liquid used to remove cured coatings, cured inks, 
and/or cured adhesives.
    Toner means a wash coat which contains binders and dyes or pigments 
to add tint to a coated surface.
    Touch-up coating means a coating used to cover minor coating 
imperfections appearing after the main coating operation.
    Wash coat means a coating that contains no more than 1.0 pound of 
solids per gallon, by weight, which is used to seal wood surfaces, 
prevent undesired staining, and control penetration.
    Wood product coating application operations means a combination of 
coating application steps which may include use of spray guns, flash-
off areas, spray booths, ovens, conveyors, and/or other equipment 
operated for the purpose of applying coating materials.
    Wood products means those surface-coated room furnishings which 
include cabinets (kitchen, bath, and vanity), tables, chairs, beds, 
sofas, shutters, art objects, and any other coated objects made of 
solid wood, and/or wood composition, and/or made of simulated wood 
material used in combination with solid wood or wood composition.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) VOC Content of Coatings and Strippers.
    (A) A person or facility shall not apply any coating to a wood 
product which has a VOC content, including any VOC-containing material 
added to the original coating supplied by the manufacturer, which 
exceeds the applicable limit specified below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      VOC limits--Grams per liter of material less water
                                   and less exempt compounds            
                     ---------------------------------------------------
       Coating          On and after 1/1/96       On and after 7/1/96   
                     ---------------------------------------------------
                         (g/L)       (lb/gal)      (g/L)       (lb/gal) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear topcoats......          275        (2.3)          275        (2.3)
Filler..............          500        (4.2)          275        (2.3)
High-solid stains:                                                      
    Non-glaze.......          700        (5.8)          240        (2.0)
    Glaze...........          700        (5.8)          240        (2.0)
Inks................          500        (4.2)          500        (4.2)
Mold-seal coating...          750        (6.3)          750        (6.3)
Multi-colored                                                           
 coating............          275        (2.3)          275        (2.3)
Pigmented coating...          275        (2.3)          275        (2.3)
Sealer..............          550        (4.6)          240        (2.0)
Strippers...........          350        (2.9)          350        (2.9)
Low-solids stains,                                                      
 toner, or washcoat.          480        (4.0)          120       (1.0) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Emission control system. A person or facility may comply with 
the provisions of paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section by using an 
emission control system, provided that this system maintains a control 
efficiency (capture efficiency times destruction or removal efficiency) 
of the VOC emissions of at least 85 (eighty-five) percent by weight.
    (ii) Transfer Efficiency. A person or facility shall not apply a 
coating subject to this section except by means of the following 
application methods:
    (A) Electrostatic spray application;
    (B) Flow coat application;
    (C) Dip coat application;
    (D) Hand application methods;
    (E) High-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray application; or
    (F) Other coating application methods that are demonstrated to have 
a transfer efficiency at least equal to HVLP in the application, and 
which are used in such a manner that parameters under which they were 
tested are permanent features of the method. Such coating application 
methods shall be approved in writing by EPA.
    (iii) Solvent cleaning operations; storage and disposal of VOC-
containing materials. Cleanup solvents used for surface preparation, 
equipment cleanup, and thinning operations, including storage and 
disposal of VOC-containing materials, shall be subject to the 
provisions and requirements of Sec. 52.2961(a), Solvent cleaning 
operations.
    (iv) Prohibition of specifications. A person shall not specify the 
use in the affected area of any coating to be applied to any wood 
products subject to the provisions of this section that does not meet 
the limits and requirements of this section.
    The requirements of this paragraph shall apply to all written or 
oral contracts.
    (4) Exemptions.
    (i) The provisions of paragraphs (b)(3) (i) and (ii) of this 
section shall not apply to:
    (A) Aerosol-spray coatings for touch up and repair; or
    (B) Facilities that use less than 1 gallon per day of coating 
subject to this section.
    (ii) The provisions of this section shall not apply to coating 
operations for the purpose of manufacturing a finished wood panel 
intended for attachment to the inside walls of buildings, including, 
but not limited to, homes and office buildings, mobile homes, trailers, 
prefabricated buildings and similar structures, boats, and ships; or a 
finished exterior wood siding intended for use in construction.
    (5) Reporting and Recordkeeping. Any source within the affected 
area that uses greater than 1 gallon of wood product coating materials 
(coatings, inks, fillers, stains, strippers, toners, washcoats, or 
solvents) per day shall comply with the following requirements:
    (i) Maintain a current file of each wood product coating material 
in use and storage. This file shall provide all of the data necessary 
to evaluate compliance and shall include, but not be limited to, the 
following information, as applicable:
    (A) A data sheet or material list giving material name, 
manufacturer identification, and material application;
    (B) Any catalysts, reducers, or other components used and the mix 
ratio; and
    (C) The VOC content limit from paragraph (b)(3) of this section and 
the actual VOC content, as applied, or vapor pressure of the wood 
product coating material.
    (ii) Maintain records of the monthly volume (e.g., gallons) of each 
wood product coating material.
    (iii) Control equipment records. Any person using an emission 
control system as a means of complying with this section shall maintain 
daily records of key system operating and maintenance procedures which 
will demonstrate continuous operation and compliance of the emission 
control device during periods of emission producing activities. Key 
system operating parameters are those necessary to ensure compliance 
with the requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B) of this section such as 
temperatures, pressures, and flowrates.
    (iv) All records shall be maintained for at least five years and 
shall be made available to EPA upon request.
    (6) Test Methods.
    (i) Determination of VOC content.
    (A) The VOC content of coatings and strippers shall be determined 
by using EPA Method 24 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    (B) The exempt compound content of coatings and strippers shall be 
determined by ASTM Method D-4457-85, which is limited to the 
measurement of dichloromethane and 1,1,1- trichloroethane only.
    (C) The VOC content of emissions shall be determined by EPA Method 
18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    (ii) Equipment test methods.
    (A) Capture efficiency. The efficiency of the collection device of 
the emission control system, as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B) of 
this section, shall be determined by the EPA method described at 
Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iii).
    (B) Destruction or removal efficiency. The efficiency of the 
control device of the emission control system, as specified in 
paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B) of this section, shall be determined by the EPA 
method described at Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iv). The VOC content measured and 
calculated as carbon in the control device exhaust gases shall be 
determined by EPA Method 25 or Method 25A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    (C) Transfer efficiency. The transfer efficiency for other coating 
application methods, as defined in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(6) of this 
section, shall be determined in accordance with South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD) method ``Spray Equipment Transfer 
Efficiency Test Procedure for Equipment User, May 24, 1989.'' This 
transfer efficiency (TE) test method is approved only for the limited 
purpose of comparing alternative application technologies under 
controlled conditions. The results of these tests are not transferable 
to a production setting. The test method is not acceptable for 
determining TE to establish VOC emission reduction credits to allow the 
use of higher VOC coatings, or to establish VOC credits for trading or 
offset purposes.
    (c) Automotive refinishing operations.
    (1) Applicability. This section applies to all coating operations 
of Group I vehicles and Group II vehicles and equipment, as described 
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, or their existing parts and 
components, for the purpose of on-site refinishing and modification 
except Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) coatings applied at 
manufacturing plants. Facilities with coating operations considered 
within the scope of this section include: autobody repair/paint shops, 
production autobody paint shops, new car dealer repair/paint shops, 
fleet operator repair/paint shops, custom-made car fabrication 
facilities, and truck body-builders. For the purposes of this section, 
the affected area is the Sacramento Metro Area for ozone as described 
in 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (c) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Acrylic enamel means an enamel coating derived from an acrylic 
polymer containing hydroxyl functionality.
    Adhesion promoter means a coating applied over both an existing 
non-sanded topcoat and the coated area immediately adjacent to the non-
sanded topcoat, to promote the adhesion of a subsequent topcoat. No 
topcoat, primer, primer sealer, or primer surfacer shall be classified 
as an adhesion promoter.
    Alkyd enamel means an enamel coating derived from any of several 
different synthetic resins made by heating together a polybasic acid, 
such as phthalic or maleic acid, and a polyhydric alcohol, such as 
glycerin or a glycol.
    Anti-glare safety coating means a coating formulated to eliminate 
glare for safety purposes on interior surfaces of a vehicle and which 
shows a reflectance of 25 or less on a 60 deg. gloss meter.
    Basecoat means a pigmented topcoat which is the first topcoat 
applied as part of a multistage topcoat system.
    Basecoat/clearcoat topcoat system means a topcoat system composed 
of a basecoat portion and a clearcoat portion. The VOC content of a 
basecoat/clearcoat topcoat system shall be calculated according to the 
following formula:

TP05MY94.097

Where:
VOCms=the composite VOC content, less water and less exempt 
compounds to be used for compliance determination under the multistage 
topcoat system coating category.
VOCbc=the VOC content, less water and less exempt compounds as 
applied, of any given basecoat.
2 VOCcc=two times the VOC content, less water and less exempt 
compounds as applied, of any given clearcoat.
    Bright metal trim repair coating means a coating applied directly 
to chrome-plated metal surfaces for the purpose of appearance.
    Bus means any motor vehicle having a manufacturer's gross vehicle 
weight of more than 8,600 pounds, which is designed primarily for the 
transportation of persons and has a design capacity of over 12 persons.
    Clearcoat means a topcoat which contains no pigments or only 
transparent pigments and which is the final topcoat applied as a part 
of a multistage topcoat system.
    Coating means a material which is applied to a surface and which 
forms a film in order to beautify and/or protect such surface.
    Elastomeric materials mean coatings which are specifically 
formulated and applied over coated or uncoated flexible plastic 
substrates for the purpose of adhesion.
    Electrostatic application means charging of atomized paint droplets 
for deposition by electrostatic attraction.
    Enamel means a coating that cures by chemical cross-linking of its 
base resin. Enamels can be readily distinguished from lacquers because 
enamels are not resoluble in their original solvent.
    Extreme-performance topcoat means a topcoat used on the surface of 
Group II vehicles and mobile equipment, and which qualifies under the 
provisions of paragraph (c)(6)(vii) of this section.
    General topcoat means any type of topcoat except extreme-
performance topcoat, metallic topcoat, and any topcoat applied as part 
of a multistage topcoat system.
    Grams of VOC per liter of material means the weight of VOC per 
volume of material and can be calculated by the following equation:

TP05MY94.098

Where:
Ws=weight of volatile compounds in grams;
Ww=weight of water in grams;
Wes=weight of exempt compounds in grams; and
Vm=volume of material in liters.

    Group I vehicles mean passenger cars, small-sized trucks and vans, 
medium-sized trucks and vans, motor homes, and motorcycles.
    Group II vehicles and equipment mean large-sized trucks, buses, 
street and mobile equipment.
    High-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray means equipment used to 
spray a coating by means of a gun that operates between 0.1 and 10 
pounds per square inch gauge (psig) air pressure.
    Highway means a way or place of whatever nature, publicly 
maintained and open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel. 
Highway includes street.
    Impact-resistant coating means any coating applied to a rocker 
panel for the purpose of chip resistance to road debris.
    Lacquer means a coating which dries primarily by solvent 
evaporation and, hence, is resoluble in its original solvent.
    Metallic/iridescent topcoat means a topcoat which contains 
iridescent particles, composed of either metal as metallic particles or 
silicon as mica particles, in excess of 5 g/L (0.042 lb/gal) as 
applied, where such particles are visible in the dried film.
    Midcoat means a semi-transparent topcoat which is the middle 
topcoat applied as part of a three-stage topcoat system.
    Mobile equipment means self-propelled equipment which is physically 
capable of being driven on a highway. Mobile equipment includes, but is 
not limited to, the following: truck bodies, truck trailers, utility 
bodies, camper shells, and miscellaneous hauling equipment.
    Motor home means any motor vehicle originally designed, or 
permanently altered, and equipped for human habitation as defined in 
Section 362 of the California Vehicle Code.
    Motor vehicle means a vehicle which is self-propelled and which is 
physically capable of being driven on a highway.
    Motorcycle means any motor vehicle other than a tractor having a 
seat or saddle for the use of the rider, which is designed to travel on 
not more than three wheels in contact with the ground and weighs less 
than 1,500 pounds. Four wheels may be in contact with the ground when 
two of the wheels are a functional part of a sidecar.
    Multistage topcoat system means any basecoat/clearcoat topcoat 
system or any three-stage topcoat system, manufactured as a system, and 
used as specified by the manufacturer.
    Passenger car means any motor vehicle designed primarily for 
transportation of persons and having a design capacity of 12 persons or 
less.
    Polyurethane enamel means an enamel coating derived from a 
thermosetting polymer produced by the condensation reaction of a 
polyisocyanate and an hydroxyl-containing material.
    Precoat coating means a coating applied to bare metal primarily to 
deactivate the metal surface for corrosion resistance to a subsequent 
water-base primer.
    Pretreatment coating means a coating which contains no more than 12 
percent solids, by weight, and at least \1/2\-percent acid, by weight, 
which is used to provide surface etching and is applied directly to 
bare metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion.
    Primer means a coating applied for purposes of corrosion resistance 
or adhesion of subsequent coatings.
    Primer sealer means a coating applied prior to the application of a 
topcoat for the purpose of color uniformity, or to promote the ability 
of an underlying coating to resist penetration by the topcoat.
    Primer surfacer means a coating applied for the purpose of 
corrosion resistance or adhesion, and which promotes a uniform surface 
by filling in surface imperfections.
    Rocker panel means the panel area of a motor vehicle which is no 
more than 10 inches from the bottom of a door, quarter panel, or 
fender.
    Rubberized asphaltic underbody coating means a coating applied to 
wheel wells, the inside of door panels or fenders, the underside of a 
trunk or hood, or the underside of the motor vehicle itself for the 
purpose of sound deadening or protection.
    Specialty coating means any of the following coatings: adhesion 
promoters, uniform finish blenders, elastomeric materials, anti-glare 
safety coatings, impact-resistant coatings, rubberized asphaltic 
underbody coatings, water hold-out coatings, weld-thru coatings, and 
bright metal trim repair coatings.
    Spot repairs mean repairs to motor vehicles in which the damaged 
area to be repaired is limited to only a portion of any given panel so 
that an entire panel need not be repaired.
    Stencil coating means an ink or a pigmented coating which is rolled 
or brushed onto a template or a stamp in order to add identifying 
letters, symbols, and/or numbers to motor vehicles, mobile equipment, 
or their parts and components.
    Three-stage topcoat system means a topcoat system composed of a 
basecoat portion, a midcoat portion and a transparent clearcoat 
portion. The VOC content of a three-stage topcoat system shall be 
calculated according to the following formula:

TP05MY94.099

Where:
VOCms=the composite VOC content, less water and less exempt compounds 
to be used for compliance determination under the multistage topcoat 
system coating category.
VOCbc=the VOC content, less water and less exempt compounds as applied, 
of any given basecoat.
VOVmc=the VOC content, less water and less exempt compounds as applied, 
of any given midcoat.
2 VOCcc=two times the VOC content, less water and less exempt compounds 
as applied, of any given clearcoat.
    Topcoat means a coating applied over any coating, for the purpose 
of appearance, identification, or protection.
    Touch-up coating means a coating applied by brush or non-refillable 
aerosol can to cover minor surface damage and dispensed in containers 
of no more than 8 ounces.
    Truck means a motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily 
for the transportation of property.
    (1) Large-sized truck means a truck having a manufacturer's gross 
vehicle weight rating of more than 8,600 pounds.
    (2) Medium-sized truck means a truck having a manufacturer's gross 
vehicle weight of 6,001 to 8,600 pounds.
    (3) Small-sized truck means any motor vehicle having a 
manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating at 6,000 pounds or less and 
which is designed primarily for the purposes of transportation of 
property or is a derivative of such vehicle, or is available with 
special features enabling on-street or off-highway operation and use.
    Uniform finish blenders mean coatings which are applied in spot 
repairs for the purpose of blending a paint overspray area of a 
repaired topcoat to match the appearance of an adjacent existing 
topcoat.
    Van means a closed truck for carrying property or persons.
    (1) Medium-sized van means a van having a manufacturer's gross 
vehicle weight rating of 6,001 to 8,600 pounds.
    (2) Small-sized van means a van having a manufacturer's gross 
vehicle weight rating at 6,000 pounds or less and which is designed 
primarily for purposes of transportation of property and/or persons.
    Vehicle means a device by which any person or property may be 
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved 
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or 
tracks.
    Water hold-out coating means a coating applied to the interior 
cavity areas of doors, quarterpanels, and rocker panels for the purpose 
of corrosion resistance to prolonged water exposure.
    Weld-thru coating means a coating applied to metal immediately 
prior to welding to provide corrosion resistance.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) VOC content of coatings. On and after January 1, 1996, a person 
shall not apply a coating to Group I vehicles and Group II vehicles and 
equipment, or their existing parts and components, which has a VOC 
content which exceeds the limits contained in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) (A) 
and (B) of this section. Compliance with the VOC limits shall be based 
on VOC content, including any VOC material added to the original 
coating supplied by the manufacturer, less water and exempt solvent, as 
applied to the vehicle, mobile equipment, or parts and components.
    (A) Group I vehicles. A person who refinishes Group I vehicles, or 
their existing parts or components, or replacement parts or components, 
shall not apply a coating which has a VOC content in excess of the 
limits in the table of group 1 vehicle VOC limits. 

                   Table of Group I Vehicle VOC Limits                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Coating      
 VOC limits--Grams per liter of coating, less water  -------------------
                and exempt compounds                    g/L      lb/gal 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment........................................       780       6.5
Precoat.............................................       250       2.1
Primer/primer surfacer..............................       250       2.1
Primer sealer.......................................       340       2.8
Topcoats............................................       420       3.5
  Acrylic enamel....................................       420       3.5
  Alkyd enamel......................................       420       3.5
  Polyurethane enamel...............................       420       3.5
  Lacquer...........................................       420       3.5
  General...........................................       420       3.5
  Metallic/iridescent...............................       420       3.5
  Multistage system.................................       420       3.5
Specialty Coating...................................       840       7.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Group II vehicles and equipment. A person who refinishes Group 
II vehicles and equipment, or their existing parts or components, or 
replacement parts or components, shall not apply a coating which has a 
VOC content in excess of the limits in the table of group II vehicle 
VOC limits. 

                  Table of Group II Vehicle VOC Limits                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Coating      
 VOC limits--grams per liter of coating, less water  -------------------
                and exempt compounds                    g/L      lb/gal 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment........................................       780       6.5
Precoat.............................................       250       2.1
Pretreatment........................................       780       6.5
Primer/Primer Surfacer/Primer Sealer................       250       2.1
Topcoats............................................       340       2.8
  General...........................................       340       2.8
  Metallic/Iridescent...............................      a340      a2.8
  Multistage........................................      a340      a2.8
  Extreme-Performance...............................       340       2.8
Specialty Coating...................................       840      7.0 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aMetallic topcoat and multistage topcoat system VOC content limits do   
  not apply to spot repairs of Group II vehicles and mobile equipment.  
  The use of metallic topcoats and multistage topcoat systems in spot   
  repairs on Group II vehicles and mobile equipment shall be subject to 
  the VOC content limits of paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this section.     

    (ii) Specialty coatings. Use of all specialty coatings at a 
facility, as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, shall not 
exceed 5.0% of all coatings applied, by volume, on a daily basis.
    (iii) Transfer efficiency.
    (A) A person shall not apply coatings subject to the provisions of 
this section except by the use of one of the following methods:
    (1) Electrostatic application;
    (2) High-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray;
    (3) Flow coat;
    (4) Roll coat;
    (5) Dip coat;
    (6) Hand application methods; or
    (7) Other coating application methods that are demonstrated to have 
transfer efficiency at least equal to HVLP spray equipment in the 
application, and which are used in such a manner that the parameters 
under which they were tested are permanent features of the method. Such 
coating application methods shall be approved in writing by EPA.
    (B) A person shall not apply coatings by any of the methods listed 
in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) of this section unless the coating is 
applied with properly operating equipment and operated according to 
procedures recommended by the manufacturer.
    (iv) Cleanup solvent use. Solvents used for surface preparation, 
equipment cleanup, and thinning operations, including storage and 
disposal of VOC-containing materials, shall be subject to the 
provisions and requirements of Sec. 52.2961(a).
    (v) Emission control system. A person may comply with the 
provisions of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section by using an emission 
control system, provided that this system maintains a control 
efficiency (capture efficiency times destruction or removal efficiency) 
of the VOC emissions of at least 85 (eighty-five) percent by weight.
    (vi) Prohibition of specifications.
    (A) A person shall not solicit from, or require any other person to 
use in the affected area, any VOC-containing material subject to the 
provisions of this section which, when applied as supplied or thinned 
or reduced according to the manufacturer's recommendation for 
application, does not meet the limits and requirements of this section. 
The prohibition against soliciting, or requiring the use of VOC-
containing materials shall not apply with respect to solicitations from 
or requirements of persons operating pursuant to an approved emission 
control system, as provided for in paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this section.
    (B) The requirements of this paragraph shall apply to all written 
or oral agreements executed and entered into.
    (4) Exemptions.
    (i) The provisions of paragraphs (c)(3) (i) and (iii) of this 
section shall not apply to:
    (A) Touch-up coatings; or
    (B) Stencil coatings.
    (ii) The exemptions described in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) (A) and (B) 
of this section shall not apply to aerosol container applications.
    (5) Recordkeeping requirements. Any person subject to this section 
shall comply with the following requirements:
    (i) The person shall maintain and have available during an 
inspection the listed category of each of the coatings and the type of 
vehicle or equipment to which each coating was applied.
    (ii) The person shall maintain and have available during an 
inspection a current list of coatings in use which provides all of the 
coating data necessary to evaluate compliance, including the following 
information, as applicable:
    (A) Coating, catalyst, additives, and reducer used;
    (B) Mix ratio of components used; and
    (C) VOC content of coating as applied.
    (iii) The person shall maintain records on a daily basis, including 
the following information:
    (A) Coating and mix ratio of components in the coating used; and
    (B) Quantity of each coating applied.
    (iv) Any person using an emission control system as a means of 
complying with this section shall maintain daily records of key system 
operating and maintenance procedures which will demonstrate continuous 
operation and compliance of the emission control device during periods 
of emission-producing activities. Key system operating parameters are 
those necessary to ensure compliance with VOC content of coating 
requirements such as temperatures, pressures, and flowrates.
    (v) All records shall be retained at the facility for at least five 
years and shall be provided to EPA upon request.
    (6) Test methods. For the purposes of this section, the following 
test methods shall be used:
    (i) VOC content.
    (A) The VOC content of coatings shall be determined by EPA Method 
24 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A);
    (B) The VOC content of emissions shall be determined by EPA Method 
18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A); and
    (C) The exempt compound content of coatings shall be determined by 
ASTM Test Method D-4457-85.
    (ii) Determination of iridescent particles in metallic/iridescent 
topcoat. The metal and silicon content of metallic/iridescent topcoat 
shall be determined by SCAQMD Method 26
    (SCAQMD ``Laboratory Method of Analysis for Enforcement Samples'' 
manual).
    (iii) Acid content in pretreatment coatings. The acid content of 
pretreatment coatings shall be determined by ASTM Test Method D-1613-85 
(modified).
    (iv) Determination of efficiency of emission control systems.
    (A) Capture efficiency. The efficiency of the collection device of 
the emission control system, as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(v) of 
this section, shall be determined by the EPA method described at 
Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iii).
    (B) Destruction or removal efficiency. The efficiency of the 
control device, as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this section, 
shall be determined by the EPA method described at 
Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iv). The VOC content measured and calculated as 
carbon in the control device exhaust gases shall be determined by EPA 
Method 25 or 25A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    (v) Reflectance of anti-glare safety coatings. The reflectance of 
anti-glare safety coatings shall be measured by ASTM Test Method D-523.
    (vi) Transfer efficiency. The transfer efficiency for alternative 
coating application methods, as defined in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A)(7) 
of this section, shall be determined in accordance with the South Coast 
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) test method for determining 
transfer efficiency entitled, ``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency 
(TE) Test Procedure for Equipment User, May 24, 1989.'' This transfer 
efficiency method is approved for the limited purpose of comparing 
alternative application technologies under controlled conditions. The 
results of these tests are not transferable to a production setting. 
The test method is not acceptable for determining transfer efficiency 
to establish VOC emission reduction credits to allow the use of higher 
VOC coatings, or to establish VOC credits for trading or offset 
purposes.
    (vii) Qualification and petition for classification as an extreme-
performance topcoat.
    (A) Extreme-performance topcoat qualification. A topcoat is an 
extreme-performance topcoat if it is to be applied on Group II vehicles 
and equipment and will be repeatedly exposed to any of the following:
    (1) Heavy abrasion, including mechanical wear and repeated 
scrubbing with industrial-grade detergents, cleaners, solvents, or 
abrasive scouring agents;
    (2) Temperatures in excess of 250 F;
    (3) Corrosive, caustic, or acidic agents, chemicals, chemical 
fumes, chemical mixtures or solutions; or
    (4) Other similar environmental conditions as determined by EPA.
    (B) Extreme-performance coating petition. Any person seeking to use 
an extreme-performance coating in any coating operation which is 
subject to the provisions of this section shall comply with the 
following requirements:
    (1) A petition shall be submitted to EPA stating the performance 
requirements, volume of coating, and VOC level which is attainable.
    (2) If EPA grants written approval, such petition will be repeated 
on an annual basis.
    (3) If EPA grants written approval, such approval shall contain 
volume and VOC limit conditions.
    (4) Records shall be maintained as in paragraph (c)(5) of this 
section.
    (d) Adhesives and sealants.
    (1) Applicability. This section applies to any person who supplies, 
sells, offers for sale, or uses adhesives, sealants, or adhesive 
primers in the affected area. This section does not apply to household 
adhesives which are subject to consumer products regulations in the 
California Code of Regulations (Title 17, Division 3, Subchapter 8.5--
Consumer Products, Secs. 94507-94517). For the purpose of this section, 
the affected area refers to the Sacramento Metro Area for ozone as 
described at 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (d) of this section, 
the following definitions apply. All terms not defined herein shall 
have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    ABS adhesive means any substance that is intended for welding 
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic pipe.
    Adhesive means any substance that is used to bond one surface to 
another surface by attachment.
    Adhesive primer means a coating that is intended by the 
manufacturer to be applied to a substrate, prior to the application of 
an adhesive, to provide a bonding surface.
    Aerosol adhesive means a mixture of rubber, resins, and liquid and 
gaseous solvents and propellants packaged in a disposable container for 
hand-held application.
    Aerospace component means the fabricated part, assembly of parts, 
or completed unit of any aircraft or space vehicle excluding tires.
    Aircraft means any machine designed to travel through the air 
without leaving the earth's atmosphere, whether heavier or lighter than 
air, including airplanes, balloons, dirigibles, helicopters, and 
missiles.
    Automotive glass primer means any adhesive primer that is intended 
by the manufacturer to be applied to automotive glass prior to 
installation with an adhesive/sealant. This primer improves adhesion to 
the pinch weld and blocks ultraviolet light.
    Ceramic tile installation means the installation of ceramic tile 
products using an adhesive formulated for that purpose.
    Computer diskette manufacturing means the process where the fold-
over flaps are glued to the body of a vinyl jacket.
    Contact adhesive means any adhesive that is intended by the 
manufacturer to adhere to itself instantaneously upon contact. This 
adhesive is applied to both adherents and, when dry, develops a bond 
when the adherents are brought together without sustained pressure. For 
the purpose of this section, products that qualify as a contact 
adhesive using the above definition, and that are labelled exclusively 
for only one of the following applications, shall not be required to 
meet the VOC limit for ``Contact adhesives'' in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) 
of this section.
    (1) Single-ply roofing material installation;
    (2) Bonding of immersible products; or
    (3) Bonding of flexible vinyl to flexible vinyl.
    Cove base installation means the installation of cove base (or wall 
base), which is generally made of vinyl or rubber, on a wall or 
vertical surface at floor level using an adhesive formulated for that 
purpose.
    Dry wall and panel installation means the installation of gypsum 
dry wall to studs or solid surfaces using an adhesive formulated for 
that purpose.
    Fiberglass means fine filaments of glass.
    Flexible vinyl means nonrigid polyvinyl chloride plastic with at 
least 5%, by weight, of plasticizer content. A plasticizer is a 
material, such as a high boiling-point organic solvent, that is 
incorporated into an adhesive to increase its flexibility, workability, 
or distensibility, and may be determined using ASTM Method E260-73 or 
from product formulation data.
    Floor covering installation means the installation of wood 
flooring, indoor carpet, outdoor carpet, resilient tile, cove base, or 
artificial grass, using an adhesive formulated for that purpose. 
Ceramic tile is excluded from this category.
    Foam means a rigid or spongy cellular mass with gas bubbles 
dispersed throughout.
    Grams of VOC per liter of material means the weight of VOC per 
volume of material and can be calculated by the following equation:

TP05MY94.100

Where:
Ws=weight of volatile compounds, in grams;
Ww=weight of water, in grams;
We=weight of exempt compounds, in grams; and
Vm=volume of material, in liters.

    Household adhesive means any adhesive subject to the consumer 
products regulations in Title 17, Division 3, Subchapter 8.5, 
Secs. 94507-94517, of the California Code of Regulations.
    Multipurpose architectural adhesive means any adhesive that is 
intended by the manufacturer to be applied for the installation, 
manufacture, or repair of various construction materials to bond 
architectural structures or appurtenances, including but not limited to 
drywall, subfloor, panel deck and lumber, seams, fiberglass reinforced 
plastic, ceiling tile and acoustical tile. Adhesives used to bond 
uninstalled cabinets, counters and other architectural appurtenances 
are subject to this adhesive category.
    Nonmembrane roof installation/maintenance means any product that is 
intended for the installation or repair of roofs and that is not 
intended for the installation of prefabricated single-ply flexible 
roofing membrane. This category includes plastic or asphalt roof 
cement, asphalt roof coatings, or cold application cement.
    Organic compound means a chemical compound of carbon excluding 
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or 
carbonates, and ammonium carbonate.
    Panel installation means the installation of plywood, pre-decorated 
hardboard (or tileboard), fiberglass, reinforced plastic, and similar 
pre-decorated or non-decorated panels to studs or solid surfaces using 
an adhesive formulated for that purpose.
    Percent VOC by weight means the ratio of the weight of the VOC to 
the weight of the material, expressed as a percentage of VOC by weight. 
The percent VOC by weight can be calculated as follows:

TP05MY94.101

Where:
Wv=weight of VOCs in grams; and
W=weight of material in grams.

    Plastic cement welding means the use of adhesives made of resins 
and solvents which are formulated to dissolve the surfaces of plastic 
to form a bond between mating surfaces.
    Plastic foam means a foam constructed of plastics.
    Plastics means various synthetic materials chemically formed by the 
polymerization of organic (carbon-based) substances.
    Porous material means a substance which has tiny openings, often 
microscopic, in which fluids may be absorbed or discharged. Such 
materials include but are not limited to paper and corrugated 
paperboard.
    Propellant means a fluid under pressure which expels the contents 
of a container when a valve is opened.
    PVC/CPVC welding adhesive means any adhesive intended by the 
manufacturer to weld polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or chlorinated polyvinyl 
chloride (CPVC) plastic pipe.
    Rubber flooring installation means the installation of flooring 
material in which both the back and top surfaces are made of synthetic 
rubber, and may not be in sheet or tile form.
    Sealant products mean any material with adhesive properties that is 
formulated to be used primarily to fill, seal, waterproof, or 
weatherproof gaps or joints between two surfaces. Sealant products 
include sealant, primers, and caulks.
    Single-ply roof membrane installation/repair means the installing 
or fixing, mending and/or repairing of a single-ply membrane. 
Installation includes, as a minimum, attaching the edge of the membrane 
to the edge of the roof and flashings to vents, pipes, and ducts that 
protrude through the roof. Repair includes gluing the edges of the 
tears together, attaching a patch over a hole, and applying flashings 
to vents, pipes or ducts installed through the membrane.
    Structural glazing means the use of an adhesive/sealant to adhere 
glass, ceramic, metal, stone, or composite panels to exterior building 
frames.
    Subfloor installation means the installation of subflooring 
material, typically plywood, over floor joists. Subflooring is covered 
by a finished surface material.
    Thin metal laminating means a process of bonding multiple layers of 
metal to metal or metal to plastic in the production of electronic or 
magnetic components in which the thickness of the bond line(s) is less 
than .025 mils.
    Tire repair means the expanding of a hole, tear, fissure, or 
blemish in a tire casing by grinding or grouping, applying adhesive, 
and filling the hole or crevice with rubber.
    VCT means vinyl composition tile.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) VOC limits. On and after the dates specified below, a person 
shall not apply adhesives, adhesive bonding primers, adhesive primers, 
or sealants which have a VOC content (grams of VOC per liter of 
adhesive, less water and exempt compounds) in excess of the following 
limits. The sales prohibition in paragraph (d)(3)(v) of this section 
shall apply to the following adhesives, adhesive bonding primers, 
adhesive primers, or sealants except where exempted as indicated in 
paragraphs (d)(3)(v)(C)-(E) of this section. 

                           Table of VOC Limits                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Grams VOC/liter adhesive, less                                        
   water and exempt compounds         1/1/96       1/1/97      1/1/98   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhesives products:                                                     
    Contact adhesives............          200                          
    Floor covering, except                                              
     ceramic tile installation...          150                          
    Ceramic tile installation....          150          130             
    Rubber floor installation....          150                          
    VCT and asphalt tile                                                
     installation................          150                          
    Multipurpose architectural                                          
     adhesive....................          200                          
    Cove base installation.......          200          150             
    PVC and CPVC welding.........          850          480             
    ABS welding..................          850          480             
    Other plastic cement welding.          650          480             
    Computer diskette                                                   
     manufacturing...............          850  ...........          550
    Nonmembrane roof installation/                                      
     maintenance.................          300                          
    Single-ply roof membrane                                            
     repair/installation.........          650          250             
    Structural glazing...........          100                          
    Other adhesive products......          250                          
Sealants:                                                               
    Architectural and roadways...          250                          
    Single-ply roof membrane                                            
     material....................          450                          
    Nonmembrane roof installation/                                      
     maintenance.................          300                          
    Other sealants...............          420                          
Primers:                                                                
    Plastic cement welding primer          850          480             
    Adhesive primer..............          250                          
    Single-ply roof membrane                                            
     primer......................          650          250             
    Automotive-glass adhesive                                           
     primer......................          700                          
Adhesives application onto                                              
 substrate:                                                             
    Wood.........................           30                          
    Metal........................           30                          
    Porous material (except wood)          150          120             
    Plastic foam.................          120                          
    Fiberglass...................          200                          
    Flexible vinyl to flexible                                          
     vinyl.......................          660          250             
    Flexible vinyl to other                                             
     substrate...................          250                          
      Other substrates...........         250                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an adhesive is used to bond dissimilar substrates together, 
except for bonding flexible vinyl to any other substrate, the 
applicable substrate category with the highest VOC content shall be the 
limit for that operation. Where more than one limit from the table of 
VOC limits could apply to a product or application, the first three 
groups of limits (adhesive products, sealants, and primers) shall be 
applicable rather than the fourth group of limits (adhesives 
application onto substrate).
    (ii) Aerosol spray products. A person shall not use any adhesive 
aerosol spray unless the VOC content, including the propellant, does 
not exceed 25 percent by weight.
    (iii) Cleanup solvents. Solvents used for surface preparation, 
equipment cleanup, and thinning operations, including storage and 
disposal of VOC-containing materials, shall be subject to the 
provisions and requirements of Sec. 52.2961(a).
    (iv) Emission control system. A person may comply with the 
provisions of paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section by using an emission 
control system, provided that this system maintains a control 
efficiency (capture efficiency times destruction or removal efficiency) 
of the VOC emissions of at least 85 (eighty- five) percent by weight.
    (v) Prohibition of sales.
    (A) Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(3)(v)(C) through (E) is 
this section, no person shall supply, sell, or offer for sale any non-
complying adhesive, sealant, or adhesive primer which, at the time of 
sale, is defined under a product category in the table of VOC limits of 
this section after the specified effective dates. This provision only 
applies to products that are supplied to or sold within the affected 
area.
    (B) Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(3)(v)(C) or (E) of this 
section, no person shall supply, sell, or offer for sale, any adhesive 
aerosol which, at the time of sale, exceed the VOC limits listed in 
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section after the specified effective 
dates.
    (C) The sales prohibition in paragraphs (d)(3)(v) (A) and (B) of 
this section shall not apply to any supplier or seller of any adhesive, 
sealant, or adhesive primer as follows:
    (1) Any adhesive shipped outside of the affected area for use 
outside of the affected area.
    (2) The sale of adhesives to a person controlling the emissions 
from use of those adhesives by using an emission control system 
pursuant to paragraph
    (d)(3)(iv) of this section.
    (D) The sales prohibition in paragraphs (d)(3)(v) (A) and (B) of 
this section shall not apply to the sale of any adhesive, sealant, or 
adhesive primer, except plastic cement welding adhesives or primers, if 
the product is sold in any container(s) having a capacity of 16 ounces 
or less (net volume) or 1 pound or less (net weight). The total weight 
or volume of two or more containers packaged together must be less than 
1 pound (16 ounces) to qualify for this exemption.
    (E) The sales prohibitions in paragraphs (d)(3)(v) (A) and (B) of 
this section shall not apply to any manufacture of any adhesive, 
sealant, or primer if the manufacturer has provided an accurate 
compliance statement and if:
    (1) The product was not sold directly to a user or a sales outlet 
located in the affected area, or
    (2) The product was sold to an independent distributor that is not 
a subsidiary, or under the direct control of, the manufacturer.
    (vi) Compliance statement requirement. The manufacturer of any 
adhesive, sealant, or adhesive primer subject to this determination 
shall include a designation of maximum VOC content as supplied, 
including adhesive components, expressed in grams per liter of adhesive 
(or pounds per gallon) excluding water and exempt compounds (percent by 
weight for adhesive aerosols) from the appropriate test method, on 
labels or data sheets. This designation shall include recommendations 
regarding thinning, reducing, or mixing with any other VOC-containing 
material. This statement shall include the maximum VOC on an as-applied 
basis when used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
    (vii) Prohibition of specification. No person shall solicit, 
require for use, or specify the application of any adhesive, primer, or 
sealant if such use or application results in a violation of the 
provisions of this section. This prohibition shall apply to all written 
or oral contracts.
    (4) Exemptions.
    (i) The provisions of paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section 
shall not apply to the following:
    (A) Adhesives used in tire repair, provided the label on the 
adhesive used states:

For Tire Repair Only

    (B) Assembly and manufacturing of undersea-based weapon systems.
    (C) Testing and evaluation of adhesive or sealant products in any 
research and development, quality assurance, or analytical 
laboratories, provided that:
    (1) A record is kept of:
    (i) The date when the adhesives, sealants, or adhesive primers are 
used, and the type of applications(s); and
    (ii) The amount of adhesives, sealants, and adhesive primers used 
and the VOC content of such products; and
    (iii) The amount of solvents used and the VOC content of such 
solvents.
    (2) Such records shall be retained in accordance with the 
provisions of paragraph (d)(5) of this section.
    (D) Solvent welding operations used in the manufacturing of medical 
devices.
    (E) Plaque laminating operations where adhesives are used to bond a 
clear, polyester acetate laminate to wood with lamination equipment 
installed prior to July 1, 1992. Any person seeking to claim this 
exemption shall notify EPA in writing that a complying adhesive is not 
available.
    (F) Manufacturing operations of the following products: diving 
suits, rubber bladders, inflatable boats, life preservers, or other 
products designed for immersion in water or fuels. The adhesive 
products used by these operations must be labelled:

For the Bonding of Immersible Products Only

    (ii) The provision of this section shall not apply to aerospace 
components.
    (iii) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any 
adhesive or sealant that contains less than 20 g/L of VOC per liter of 
adhesive or sealant, less water and less exempt compounds, as applied.
    (iv) Paragraph (d)(5) of this section shall not apply to facilities 
with a combined use of adhesives, sealants, adhesive primers, and 
solvents used in a total volume of less than 20 gallons on a calendar 
year basis. Any facility claiming this exemption must have information 
available, such as purchase orders, that will allow for the 
verification of facility usage.
    (v) Until January 1, 1997, the provisions of paragraphs (d)(3)(i) 
and (ii) of this section shall not apply to any facility using 3 
gallons per day or less of adhesive used exclusively for thin metal 
laminating operations, provided that the adhesive contains less than 
600 grams of VOC per liter of adhesive, less water and less exempt 
compounds, as applied.
    (5) Reporting and Recordkeeping. Any source within the affected 
area that uses greater than 20 gallons of adhesive and/or sealant 
product per year subject to paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(A)-(C) of this section 
shall comply with the following requirements:
    (i) Maintain a current file of each adhesive, sealant, adhesive 
primer, and solvent in use and in storage. The file shall provide all 
of the data necessary to evaluate compliance and shall include, but not 
be limited to, the following information, as applicable:
    (A) A data sheet or material list giving material name, 
manufacturer identification, and material application;
    (B) Any catalysts, reducers, or other components used and the mix 
ratio; and
    (C) The VOC content limit or vapor pressure limit from paragraph 
(d)(3) of this section and the actual VOC content, as applied, or vapor 
pressure of the adhesive, sealant, primer, or solvent.
    (ii) Maintain records of the monthly volume of each adhesive, 
sealant, primer, or solvent used.
    (iii) Any person using an emission control system as a means of 
complying with this section shall maintain daily records of key system 
operating and maintenance procedures which will demonstrate continuous 
operation and compliance of the emission control device during periods 
of emission-producing activities. Key system operating parameters are 
those necessary to ensure compliance with VOC content of coating 
requirements such as temperatures, pressures, and flowrates.
    (iv) All records shall be maintained for at least five years and 
shall be available for inspection and provided to EPA upon request.
    (6) Test Methods. For the purpose of this section, the following 
test methods shall be used:
    (i) VOC content.
    (A) The VOC content of aerosol adhesives and sealants shall be 
determined by EPA Method 24 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A);
    (B) The VOC content of aerosol adhesives or aerosol adhesive 
primers shall be determined using South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (SCAQMD) Test Method 305 for Aerosol Coatings;
    (C) The VOC content of emissions shall be determined by EPA Method 
18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A); and
    (E) The exempt compound content of coatings shall be determined by 
ASTM Test Method D-4457-85.
    (ii) Determination of collection efficiency of emission control 
systems.
    (A) Capture efficiency. The efficiency of the collection device of 
an emission control system, as specified in paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of 
this section, shall be determined by the EPA method described at 
Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iii).
    (B) Destruction or removal efficiency. The efficiency of the 
control device, as specified in paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of this section, 
shall be determined by the EPA method described at 
Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iv). The VOC content measured and calculated as 
carbon in the control device exhaust gases shall be determined by EPA 
Method 25 or 25A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    (iii) The active and passive solvent losses from spray gun cleaning 
systems shall be determined using SCAQMD's ``General Test Method for 
Determining Solvent Losses from Spray Gun Cleaning Systems,'' dated 
October 3, 1989. The test solvent for this determination shall be any 
lacquer thinner with a minimum vapor pressure of 105 mm of Hg at 20 
deg.C, and the minimum test temperature shall be 15 deg.C.
    (iv) The test method used to determine plasticizer content and 
flexible vinyls shall be ASTM Method E260-73, ``General Gas 
Chromatography Procedures.''
    (e) Can and Coil Coating Operations.
    (1) Applicability. This section shall apply to all metal container, 
metal closure, and metal coil coating operations within the affected 
area except as specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section. For the 
purposes of this section, the affected area is the Sacramento Metro 
Area for ozone as described at 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (e) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Closure means any component which is used to close or seal a filled 
can, jar, or bottle.
    Coating applicator means an apparatus used to apply a surface 
coating.
    Coating line means an operation or process for applying, drying, or 
baking and/or curing surface coating, together with associated 
equipment, including a coating applicator, flash-off area, and oven.
    Coil means any flat metal sheet or strip that is rolled or wound in 
concentric rings.
    Container means any metal can, drum, pail, or tube.
    Drum means any cylindrical metal shipping container larger than 12 
gallons capacity but no larger than 110 gallons capacity.
    End sealing compound means a compound which is coated onto can ends 
and which functions as a gasket when the end is assembled onto the can.
    Exterior base coating means a coating applied to the exterior of a 
can body, end, or flat sheet to provide protection to the metal or to 
provide background for any lithographic or printing operations.
    Exterior end coating means a coating applied to the exterior end of 
a can to provide protection to the metal.
    Food/beverage can means a metal container in which food or 
beverages intended for human or animal consumption are packaged.
    Hand application method means the application of coating by 
manually held, non-automatic equipment. Such equipment includes paint 
brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, and sponge.
    High-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray means a coating application 
system which is designed to be operated at air and fluid supply 
pressures to the gun of between 0.1 and 10.0 pounds per square inch 
gauge (psig).
    Ink means any coating used in any operation that imparts color, 
design, alphabet, or numerals on an exterior surface of a metal 
container, metal closure, or metal coil.
    Interior base coating means a coating applied to the interior of a 
can body, end, or flat sheet to provide a protective lining between the 
product and the can.
    Interior body spray means a coating sprayed on the interior of the 
can body to provide a protective film between the product and the can.
    Metal container, metal closure, and metal coil coating means any 
coating containing organic materials and applied by spray, roller, or 
other means to the inside and/or outside surfaces of metal cans, drums, 
pails, lids, closures, or to the surface of flat metal sheets, strips, 
rolls, or coils for further industrial or commercial use.
    Necker lubricant means any fluid or solid lubricant applied to a 
can forming tool to reduce friction while reducing the can diameter to 
form a neck.
    Overvarnish means a coating applied directly over a design coating 
to reduce the coefficient of friction, to provide gloss, and to protect 
the finish against abrasion and corrosion.
    Pail means any cylindrical metal shipping container of from 1-
gallon to 12-gallon capacity and constructed of 29 gauge or heavier 
material.
    Solvent cleaning operation means the removal of loosely held 
uncured adhesives, uncured inks, uncured coatings, and contaminants 
which include, but are not limited to, dirt, soil, and grease from 
parts, products, tools, machinery, equipment, and general work areas. 
Each distinct method of cleaning in a cleaning process which consists 
of a series of cleaning methods shall constitute a separate solvent 
cleaning operation.
    Three-piece can side seam spray means a coating sprayed on the 
exterior and/or interior of a welded, cemented, or soldered seam to 
protect the exposed metal.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) VOC limits. On and after January 1, 1996, a person shall not 
use or apply any coating on any coating line of the type designated 
below which contains any volatile organic compound in excess of the 
following limits: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       VOC limits--Grams
                                                         per liter of   
                                                         coating, less  
                      Coating                          water and exempt 
                                                          compounds     
                                                     -------------------
                                                         g/L     lb/gal 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can coating lines:                                                      
  Three-piece can sheet basecoat (exterior and                          
   interior and overvarnish)........................       180       1.5
  Two-piece can exterior basecoat and overvarnish...       250       2.1
  Inks..............................................       300       2.5
  Can interior body spray:                                              
    Two-piece can...................................       420       3.5
    Three-piece can.................................       310       2.6
  Three-piece can side seam spray...................       660       5.5
  End sealing compound:                                                 
    Food/beverage cans..............................       440       3.7
    Non-food cans...................................         0         0
  Drums, pails, and lids--                                              
    New:                                                                
      Exterior......................................       340       2.8
      Interior......................................       420       3.5
    Reconditioned:                                                      
      Exterior......................................       420       3.5
      Interior......................................       510       4.2
  Necker Lubricants.................................       100       0.8
Coil coating........................................       200       1.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Emission control system. Owners and/or operators may comply 
with paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section by using an emission control 
system, provided that the VOC emissions from such operations and/or 
materials are reduced in accordance with the following provisions:
    (A) The control device shall maintain a destruction or removal 
efficiency of the emissions from an emission collection system of at 
least 95 (ninety-five) percent, by weight; and
    (B) The emission collection system which collects and transports 
emissions to the air pollution control device(s) shall maintain a 
capture efficiency of at least 90 (ninety) percent, by weight, of the 
emissions generated by the sources of emissions.
    (iii) Transfer Efficiency. A person or facility shall not coat 
unless the coating is applied with properly operating equipment 
according to operating procedures specified by the equipment 
manufacturer or EPA, and by the use of one of the following application 
methods:
    (A) Electrostatic application;
    (B) Flow coat;
    (C) Roll coat;
    (D) Dip coat;
    (E) High-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray;
    (F) Hand application methods; or
    (G) Other coating application methods that are demonstrated to have 
a transfer efficiency at least equal to HVLP spray equipment in the 
application, and which are used in such a manner that the parameters 
under which they were tested are permanent features of the method. Such 
coating application methods shall be approved in writing by EPA.
    (iv) Cleanup Solvent Use. Solvents used for surface preparation, 
equipment cleanup, and thinning operations, including storage and 
disposal of VOC-containing materials, shall be subject to the 
provisions and requirements of Sec. 52.2961(a), solvent cleaning 
operations.
    (v) Prohibition of sale. A person shall not sell or offer for sale 
for use in the affected area any coating which contains VOCs in excess 
of the limits specified in this section for any application governed by 
this section unless the label on the product or the data sheets for the 
product clearly bear the warning that the coating shall not be used 
unless compliance with this section can be achieved.
    (vi) Prohibition of specification. 
    (A) A person shall not solicit or require any other person to use, 
in the affected area, any coating or combination of coatings to be 
applied to any metal container, metal closure, or metal coil subject to 
the provisions of this section that does not meet the limits and 
requirements of this section.
    (B) The requirements of paragraph (e)(3)(vi)(A) of this section 
shall apply to all written or oral agreements executed, entered into, 
or renewed.
    (4) Exemptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
the spray coating of 1 gallon per day or less of coatings at a single 
facility.
    (5) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Any person subject to 
this section shall comply with the following requirements:
    (i) Maintain and have available during an inspection, the listed 
category of each of the coatings and the type of metal container, metal 
closure, and/or metal coil to which each coating was applied.
    (ii) Maintain and have available during an inspection, a current 
list of coatings in use which provides all of the coating data 
necessary to evaluate compliance, including the following information, 
as applicable:
    (A) Coating, catalyst, additives, and reducer used;
    (B) Mix ratio of components used; and
    (C) VOC content of coating as applied.
    (iii) Maintain records on a daily basis including the following 
information:
    (A) Coating and mix ratio of components in the coating used; and
    (B) Quantity of each coating applied.
    (iv) Control equipment records. Any person using an emission 
control system as a means of complying with this section shall maintain 
daily records of key system operating and maintenance procedures which 
will demonstrate continuous operation and compliance of the emission 
control device during periods of emission producing activities. Key 
system operating parameters are those necessary to ensure compliance 
with paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section such as temperatures, 
pressures, and flowrates.
    (v) All records shall be retained at the facility for at least five 
years and shall be made available to EPA upon request.
    (6) Test methods. For the purpose of this section, the following 
test methods shall be used:
    (i) VOC content.
    (A) The VOC content of coatings subject to the provisions of this 
section shall be determined by EPA Method 24 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A).
    (B) The VOC content of emissions shall be determined by EPA Method 
18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    (C) The exempt compound content shall be determined by ASTM Test 
Method D-4457-85.
    (ii) Determination of efficiency of emission control systems.
    (A) The efficiency of the collection device of the emission control 
system as specified in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B) of this section shall be 
determined by the EPA method described at Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iii).
    (B) The efficiency of the control device, as specified in paragraph 
(e)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, shall be determined by the EPA method 
described at Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iv). The VOC content measured and 
calculated as carbon in the control device exhaust gases shall be 
determined by EPA Method 25 or 25A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    (iii) Transfer Efficiency. The transfer efficiency for other 
coating application methods as defined in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(G) of 
this section, shall be determined in accordance with the South Coast 
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) test method for determining 
transfer efficiency entitled ``Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test 
Procedure for Equipment User, May 24, 1989.'' This transfer efficiency 
method is approved for the limited purpose of comparing alternative 
application technologies under controlled conditions. The results of 
these tests are not transferable to a production setting. The test 
method is not acceptable for determining transfer efficiency to 
establish VOC emission reduction credits to allow the use of higher VOC 
coatings, or to establish VOC credits for trading or offset purposes.
    (f) Commercial bakeries.
    (1) Applicability. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(4) of this 
section, this section is applicable to bakery ovens which bake yeast-
leavened products. For the purposes of this section, the affected area 
is the Sacramento Metro Area for ozone as described at 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (f) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Bakery oven means a convection oven which bakes yeast-leavened 
products, including but not limited to breads, buns, and rolls.
    Fermentation time means the elapsed time between adding yeast to 
dough or sponge and placing the dough or sponge into an oven, expressed 
in hours.
    Yeast percentage means the pounds of yeast added to a hundred 
pounds of total flour in the recipe.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) On and after January 1, 1997, no person shall operate a bakery 
oven subject to this section, unless VOC emissions are controlled using 
an air pollution control system which:
    (A) Has been installed in accordance with an Authority to Construct 
issued by the applicable local air pollution control district or air 
quality management district; and
    (B) Includes an emission collection system(s) which ducts the 
exhaust gases from all stacks and/or vents on all ovens to a VOC 
emission control device(s). Such ducting shall be maintained so as to 
be free of visible holes, breaks, openings or separations between 
adjoining components from which fugitive VOCs would be emitted to the 
atmosphere; and
    (C) Has one or more VOC emission control devices, each with a 
destruction or removal efficiency of at least 95 percent by weight.
    (ii) For an oven which commences construction on or after January 
1, 1995, owners and operators shall be in compliance with paragraph 
(f)(3)(i) of this section by the date of commencement of oven 
operation.
    (4) Exemptions.
    (i) The provisions of this section shall not apply to bakery ovens 
which are located at a facility where the combined rated heat input 
capacity of all ovens is less than 2 million British Thermal Units 
(BTUs) per hour.
    (ii) The provisions of this section shall not apply to ovens used 
exclusively for the baking of products leavened chemically without 
yeast.
    (iii) The provisions of paragraph (f)(3) of this section shall not 
apply to bakery ovens which are located at a facility where the 
uncontrolled actual emissions of VOCs from all ovens combined is less 
than 6.5 tons per year.
    (5) Reporting and Recordkeeping. A person operating a bakery oven 
subject to this section shall maintain records in accordance with the 
following:
    (i) Maintain current records necessary to determine emissions for 
each oven including, but not limited to, type of each yeast-leavened 
baked product, yeast percentage for each product, and fermentation time 
for each product;
    (ii) Maintain monthly records of production rates, by weight, of 
finished baked product for each yeast-leavened product; and
    (iii) For control equipment subject to paragraph (f)(3) of this 
section, maintain daily records of key system operating and maintenance 
procedures which will demonstrate continuous operation and compliance 
of the emission control device during periods of emission producing 
activities. Key system operating parameters are those necessary to 
ensure compliance with paragraphs (f)(3) (i) and (ii) of this section 
such as temperature, pressure, and flow rates.
These records shall be maintained on site for at least five years and 
shall be made available to EPA upon request.
    (6) Test Methods.
    (i) For the purposes of this section, VOC emission factors for each 
yeast-leavened bakery product shall be determined in accordance with 
the table of bakery emission factors in this section. Annual emission 
rates shall be calculated by using those emission factors and the 
annual production rate for each yeast-leavened finished bakery product. 
Alternatively, VOC emission factors for any yeast-leavened bakery 
product may be determined by the method(s) specified in paragraph 
(f)(6)(ii) of this section, together with exhaust flow rates and oven 
throughput.
    (ii) Measurement of VOC emission control device efficiency subject 
to paragraph (f)(3)(i)(C) of this section shall be conducted in 
accordance with the EPA method described at Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iv). The 
VOC content measured and calculated as carbon in the control device 
exhaust gases shall be determined by EPA Method 25 or 25A (40 CFR part 
60, appendix A).

                                        Table of Bakery Emission Factors                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Yta         Emission factorb          Yta         Emission factorb          Yta         Emission factorb 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0..............          0.8488               11.0             5.2947               21.0             9.7405   
1.5..............          1.0711               11.5             5.5170               21.5             9.9628   
2.0..............          1.2934               12.0             5.7393               22.0            10.1851   
2.5..............          1.5157               12.5             5.9616               22.5            10.4074   
3.0..............          1.7380               13.0             6.1839               23.0            10.6297   
3.5..............          1.9603               13.5             6.4061               23.5            10.8520   
4.0..............          2.1826               14.0             6.6284               24.0            11.0743   
4.5..............          2.4049               14.5             6.8507               24.5            11.2966   
5.0..............          2.6272               15.0             7.0730               25.0            11.5189   
5.5..............          2.8495               15.5             7.2953               25.5            11.7412   
6.0..............          3.0718               16.0             7.5176               26.0            11.9635   
6.5..............          3.2941               16.5             7.7399               26.5            12.1857   
7.0..............          3.5163               17.0             7.9622               27.0            12.4080   
7.5..............          3.7386               17.5             8.1845               27.5            12.6303   
8.0..............          3.9609               18.0             8.4068               28.0            12.8526   
8.5..............          4.1832               18.5             8.6291               28.5            13.0749   
9.0..............          4.4055               19.0             8.8514               29.0            13.2972   
9.5..............          4.6278               19.5             9.0737               29.5            13.5195   
10.0.............          4.8501               20.0             9.2959               30.0            13.7418   
10.5.............          5.0724               20.5            9.5182                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aYt=(Yeast Percentage)  x  (Fermentation Time)                                                                  
If yeast is added in two steps:                                                                                 
Yt=(percentage of initial yeast addition)  x  (time from initial yeast addition to placement in oven)           
+(percentage of second yeast addition)  x  (time from second yeast addition to placement in oven)               
bbEmission Factor=pounds of VOC per ton of finished baked product.                                              

    (g) Municipal solid waste landfills.
    (1) Applicability. This section shall apply to all municipal solid 
waste (MSW) landfills with a maximum design capacity of greater than 
111,000 tons of solid waste, although facilities that have received 
less than 500,000 tons of decomposable solid waste during their 
operational lifetime are only subject to the requirements of paragraph 
(g)(5)(i) of this section. The refuse density shall be assumed to be 
1,300 pounds per cubic yard and the decomposable fraction shall be 
assumed to be 70% by weight unless other site-specific factors are 
submitted to and approved by EPA. For the purposes of this section, the 
affected area refers to the Sacramento Metro Area for ozone as 
described at 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (g) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Active landfill means any MSW landfill which received waste at any 
time during the past six months.
    Baseline condition means there are no leaks existing at:
    (1) Any location on the surface of the landfill covered by final 
cover;
    (2) Any location on the surface of the landfill which has been 
covered by intermediate cover for over 6 months; and
    (3) Any location along the gas transfer path of the gas collection 
system.
    Control device means any device that disposes of the collected gas 
by one or more of the following means: combustion, gas treatment and 
subsequent sale, sale and processing off site, or other equivalent 
methods.
    Decomposable solid waste means any material which is not non-
decomposable inert solid waste.
    Design capacity means the maximum amount of waste a landfill can 
accept, as specified in the construction permit issued by the county or 
State agency responsible for regulating the landfill.
    Destruction/treatment efficiency means a measure of the ability of 
the control device to combust, transform, or otherwise prevent the 
emissions to the atmosphere of non-methane organic compounds in 
landfill gas, expressed as a percentage.
    Energy recovery equipment means any equipment that uses landfill 
gas to produce useful energy.
    Excavation means any movement of landfill cover that triggers 
notification requirements of any government agency.
    Final cover means cover material that is applied on areas where 
additional cells are not to be constructed and, therefore, must be 
highly resistant to erosion.
    Gas collection system means a series of collectors and associated 
piping and equipment which provides a gas transfer path to the control 
device.
    Gas transfer path means the piping, pumps, and other equipment used 
to transfer evolved landfill gas from the point of gas evolution 
through the control device.
    Household waste means any solid waste (including garbage, trash, 
and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived from households (including 
single and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger 
stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day-use 
recreation areas).
    Industrial solid waste means solid waste generated by manufacturing 
or industrial processes, that is not a hazardous waste regulated under 
subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 
6901-6992k). Such waste may include, but is not limited to, the 
following manufacturing processes: electric power generation; 
fertilizer/agricultural chemicals; food and related products/by-
products; inorganic chemicals; iron and steel manufacturing; leather 
and leather products; nonferrous metals manufacturing/foundries; 
organic chemicals; plastics and resins manufacturing; pulp and paper 
industry; rubber and miscellaneous plastic products; stone, glass, 
clay, and concrete products; textile manufacturing; transportation 
equipment; and water treatment. This term does not include mining waste 
or oil and gas waste.
    Intermediate cover means cover material that is applied on areas 
where additional cells are not to be constructed for extended periods 
of time and, therefore, must resist erosion for a longer period of time 
than daily cover.
    Landfill means an area of land or an excavation in which wastes are 
placed for permanent disposal, and which is not a land application 
unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile.
    Landfill gas means any gas derived through a natural process 
through the decomposition of organic waste deposited in a landfill or 
from the evolution of volatile organic species in the waste.
    Leak means any point where the concentration of total organic 
compounds measured as methane exceeds 1000 ppm by volume except non-
repeatable momentary readings.
    Leak free means the absence of the evidence of ``leaks.''
    Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill means an entire disposal 
facility in a contiguous geographical space where household waste is 
placed in or on land. An MSW landfill may also receive commercial 
waste, sludges, and industrial solid waste. Portions of an MSW landfill 
may be separated by access roads. An MSW landfill may be publicly or 
privately owned.
    Non-decomposable inert solid waste means materials which do not 
degrade biologically to form landfill gas. Examples include, but are 
not limited to: earth, rock, concrete, clay products, inert tailings, 
plaster board, glass, inert slag, asbestos, and demolition materials 
containing less than 10% by volume wood and metals.
    Non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) means any compound in a 
gaseous state at standard temperature and pressure which contains at 
least one atom of carbon except: methane, carbon monoxide, carbon 
dioxide, metallic carbides, carbonates, and carbonic acid, as measured 
according to paragraph (g)(6) of this section.
    Non-repeatable, momentary readings means indications of the 
presence of organic gases using a detector meeting the apparatus 
requirements of EPA Method 21 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) which 
persist for less than 5 seconds and do not recur when the sampling 
probe is placed in the same location for at least twice the response 
time of the instrument.
    Owner means the fee owner of a solid waste disposal site and the 
person who through lease, or other arrangement with the fee owner is 
responsible for complying with all applicable federal, state and local 
requirements for landfill gas emissions, provided that upon the 
expiration of such person's responsibility for landfill gas emissions 
under such lease or other arrangement the fee owner shall be deemed the 
owner. Where specific requirements of this section apply to equipment 
at the MSW landfill that is owned or operated by a second party other 
than the fee owner, the second party shall be deemed the owner for the 
purpose of such section requirements as they relate to such equipment.
    Perimeter means the outer boundary of the MSW landfill property.
    Quarter means the months that define a ``quarter.'' These are: 
January, February and March (1st quarter ends on March 31); April, May 
and June (2nd quarter ends on June 30); July, August and September (3rd 
quarter ends on September 30); and October, November and December (4th 
quarter ends on December 31).
    Sludge means any solid, semi-solid, or liquid waste generated from 
a municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plant, 
water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility 
exclusive of the treated effluent from a wastewater treatment plant.
    Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste 
treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control 
facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-
solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, 
commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community 
activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in 
domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return 
flows or industrial discharges that are point sources subject to permit 
requirements under 33 U.S.C. 1342, or sources of special nuclear, or 
by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)
    (3) Standards.
    (i) Gas collection system.
    (A) The owner shall install and operate a gas collection system 
which prevents overdraw that can cause fires or damage to the 
collection system while collecting, in each quarter, at least 90% of 
the target volume established for that quarter.
    (B) The owner shall use the procedures in paragraph (g)(6)(i) of 
this section to establish baseline conditions. The owner may re-
establish baseline conditions using the procedures in paragraph 
(g)(6)(i) of this section at any time. Each time that baseline 
conditions are achieved, the owner shall measure and record:
    (1) The baseline gas collection flowrate, in standard cubic feet 
per minute (SCFM) for the entire landfill; and
    (2) The baseline oxygen concentration in the collected landfill gas 
stream at the inlet to the control device before adding combustion air.
    The owner shall notify EPA at least five days prior to each 
establishment of baseline conditions so that EPA personnel may be on 
site to confirm that baseline conditions exist.
    (C) The owner shall measure and record the oxygen concentration at 
the inlet to the control device on at least four days each week. Each 
sampling run shall last at least twice the response time of the 
analyzer. Each sampling run shall establish the oxygen concentration 
for all preceding hours retroactive to the hour of the previous 
measurement.
    (D) The owner shall monitor the total gas collection flowrate for 
the landfill at least once every 15 minutes and keep records at least 
once per hour. A chart recorder may be used for this purpose.
    (E) Within two weeks after the end of each quarter the owner shall 
determine the overall effectiveness of the gas collection system for 
the past quarter. To make such a determination, the owner shall meet 
the following requirements.
    (1) The owner shall establish a quarterly target for the volume of 
landfill gas to be collected. The target volume shall be the time-
weighted average of all baseline collection flowrates (SCFM) 
established pursuant to paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B) of this section during 
the quarter, multiplied by the number of minutes in the quarter. The 
volume is calculated as follows:
    Quarterly target volume= 

TP05MY94.102

    or simply, 

TP05MY94.103

    (2) Each hourly flowrate record during which the measured oxygen 
concentration (established in paragraph (g)(3)(i)(C) of this section) 
exceeds the current baseline oxygen concentration (established in 
paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B)(2) of this section) by a measured value greater 
than 2% oxygen, shall be corrected using the following equation: 

TP05MY94.104

    (3) The owner shall use this corrected flowrate data to calculate 
the total volume of gas collected for the quarter.
    (F) If the volume of gas collected in any quarter is less than 90% 
of the target volume established for that quarter, the owner shall be 
in violation of this section and shall re-establish baseline conditions 
pursuant to paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B) of this section within the first two 
weeks of the following quarter.
    (G) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (g)(3)(i)(F) of 
this section, the owner of any active landfill shall re-establish 
baseline conditions pursuant to paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B) of this section 
at least once every six months.
    (H) The owner shall install and operate a gas collection system 
that effectively captures the gas that is generated within the 
landfill. The collection system shall:
    (1) Be designed to handle the maximum expected gas flowrate over 
the lifetime of the gas control or treatment system equipment from the 
entire area of the landfill that warrants control. For the purposes of 
calculating the maximum expected gas generation flowrate from the 
landfill to determine compliance, the following equation shall be used: 


TP05MY94.105

where

Qm=maximum expected gas generation flow rate, m3/yr;
Lo=refuse methane generation potential, m3/Mg refuse;
R=average annual acceptance rate, Mg/yr;
k=methane generation rate constant, yr-1; and
t=age of the landfill plus the gas mover equipment life or active life 
of the landfill, whichever is less, in years.

A value of 230 m3/Mg shall be used for Lo. A value of 0.02 
year-1 shall be used for k. A value of 15 years shall be used for 
gas mover equipment life. The active life of the landfill is the age of 
the landfill plus the estimated number of years until closure.
    (2) Collect gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the 
landfill in which refuse has been placed for a period of two years or 
more. For the purposes of calculating the area of influence of the gas 
collection system to determine compliance, the owner shall use the EPA 
method.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\Proposed rule published in the Federal Register of May 30, 
1991 (56 FR 24511).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Collect gas at a sufficient extraction rate. For the purpose of 
demonstrating whether the gas collection system flowrate is sufficient 
to determine compliance, the owner shall measure gauge pressure in the 
gas collection header. If a positive pressure exists, the gas 
collection system flowrate shall be increased until a negative pressure 
is measured. If the gauge pressure at a wellhead is positive, the valve 
shall be opened to restore negative pressure. If negative pressure 
cannot be achieved, an additional well shall be added.
    (I) The owner shall:
    (1) Maintain, monitor, operate, and improve as necessary the gas 
collection system and landfill cover to prevent leaks from:
    (i) All locations on the surface of the landfill covered by final 
cover;
    (ii) All locations on the surface of the landfill which have been 
covered by intermediate cover for over six months; and
    (iii) All locations along the gas transfer path of the gas 
collection system.

When a leak is identified, it shall be conspicuously tagged with a 
marker which displays the date of identification. The marker shall not 
be removed until the leak is repaired. (Markers placed by EPA personnel 
may be removed only by EPA personnel, except as necessary during the 
repair of leaks.) Within 15 calendar days of identification, each leak 
shall be repaired to a leak-free state unless such repair requires 
excavation. Where repair requires excavation, the owner shall submit an 
excavation plan for approval by EPA which shows that repairs will be 
made promptly and which specifies the expected date of completion. The 
owner is in violation of this section if the leak is not repaired 
within 15 calendar days of identification, or if an excavation plan is 
not submitted to EPA within 15 calendar days after the date of 
identification.
    (2) Repair leaks to a leak-free state using at least one of the 
following methods:
    (i) Increasing the collection rate of existing wells.
    (ii) Repairing the landfill cover.
    (iii) Installing additional collection wells.
    (iv) Repairing the gas transfer path.
    (J) Whenever previously buried waste is brought to the surface 
during installation or preparation of wells, trenches, piping, or other 
equipment, or when solid waste is to be excavated and moved, the owner 
shall cover the excavated waste using fresh soil, plastic sheeting, 
vapor retarding foam, or other California Integrated Waste Management 
Board approved ``Alternate Daily Cover,'' by the end of the working day 
or as necessary to prevent a public nuisance.
    (ii) Control equipment. All landfill gases collected pursuant to 
this section shall be processed using control devices that meet the 
following requirements:
    (A) All control devices shall meet either of the following 
requirements:
    (1) Have a non-methane organic compound (NMOC) destruction/
treatment efficiency of at least 98% by weight; or
    (2) Reduce the NMOC concentration at the outlet of the control 
device to 30 ppm measured as methane and corrected to 3% oxygen.
    (B) Open flares used as control devices shall be designed and 
operated in accordance with Sec. 60.18.
    (C) The owner shall demonstrate that each control device meets the 
requirements of this section using the source testing procedures in 
paragraphs (g)(6) (iv) and (vi) of this section. Source testing shall 
be performed when the device begins operation. Flares shall be source 
tested to demonstrate continuing compliance every two years thereafter. 
All other control devices shall be source tested annually to 
demonstrate continuing compliance.
    (iii) Violations. Failure to comply with any provision of this 
section shall constitute a violation of the section.
    (iv) Compliance schedule.
    (A) The owner of any MSW landfill subject to the requirements of 
this section shall demonstrate compliance with this section no later 
than July 1, 1997.
    (4) Exemptions.
    (i) This section shall not apply to sites that have received only 
hazardous waste.
    (ii) The provisions of paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this section shall 
not apply to control devices for which a construction permit was issued 
by the applicable air pollution control district or air quality 
management district before March 1, 1995, provided that the control 
device has a NMOC destruction/treatment efficiency of at least 90% by 
weight or reduces the NMOC concentration at the outlet of the control 
device to 30 ppm or less measured as methane corrected to 3% oxygen, 
and annual source testing for NOX, CO and NMOC is performed 
simultaneously using the procedures in paragraphs (g)(6)(iv) and (vi) 
of this section.
    (5) Reporting and Recordkeeping. The following reporting 
requirements shall each apply independently:
    (i) Each owner of an MSW landfill having a maximum design capacity 
greater than 100,000 megagrams (Mg) (111,000 tons) shall submit an 
initial design capacity report to EPA.
    (A) The initial design capacity report shall contain the following 
information:
    (1) A map or plot of the landfill, providing the size and location 
of the landfill, and identifying all areas where refuse may be 
landfilled according to the provisions of the state or county permit;
    (2) The maximum design capacity of the landfill. Where the maximum 
design capacity is specified in the state or county construction or 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit, a copy of the 
permit specifying the maximum design capacity may be submitted. If the 
maximum design capacity of the landfill is not specified in the permit, 
the maximum design capacity must be calculated using good engineering 
principles. The calculations must be provided, along with such 
parameters as depth of refuse, refuse acceptance rate, and compaction 
practices. The state, county, or EPA may request other reasonable 
information as may be necessary to verify the maximum design capacity 
of the landfill.
    (B) An amended design capacity report must be submitted to EPA 
providing notification of any increase in the size of the landfill, 
whether the increase results from an increase in the permitted area or 
depth of the landfill, a change in the operating procedures, or any 
other means which results in an increase in the maximum design capacity 
of the landfill. The amended design capacity report must be submitted 
within 90 days of the issuance of an amended construction or operating 
permit, or the actual use of additional land, or the change in 
operating procedures which will result in an increase in maximum design 
capacity, whichever comes first.
    (ii) Each owner who installs a gas collection system and/or control 
system described in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, shall perform an 
initial performance test as described in Sec. 60.8. The initial 
performance test report shall include, but not be limited to, the 
following:
    (A) A diagram of the collection system showing vertical extraction 
well spacing, including the locations of any areas excluded from 
collection and the proposed sites for the future addition of wells;
    (B) The documentation of the presence of asbestos for each area 
from which collection wells have been excluded based on the presence of 
asbestos;
    (C) The sum of the gas generation rates for all areas from which 
collection wells have been excluded based on the presence of 
nondegradable materials and the calculations of the gas generation rate 
for each excluded area; and
    (D) The provisions for increasing gas mover capacity with increased 
gas generation rate, if the present gas mover is inadequate to move the 
maximum flowrate expected over the life of the landfill.
    (iii) Each owner of a controlled landfill shall, within 48 hours, 
report to EPA by telephone any malfunction, shutdown, or other event 
causing a reduction in the gas collection rate.
    (iv) If any portion of the gas collection system is shut down which 
results in a gas collection flowrate of less than 80% of the target 
volume for longer than 24 hours due to scheduled or unscheduled 
maintenance activities, equipment breakdown, or any other reason, the 
owner shall notify EPA by telephone within 48 hours of the detection of 
such shutdown. A written follow-up report shall be forwarded to EPA 
within 15 calendar days describing the duration and reason for the shut 
down.
    (v) Each owner of a controlled landfill shall submit a closure 
report to EPA. For the purposes of this section, closure means that 
refuse is no longer being placed in the landfill, and that no 
additional wastes will be placed into the landfill without filing a 
notification of modification. EPA may request such additional 
information as may be reasonably necessary to verify that permanent 
closure has taken place.
    (vi) Each owner of a controlled landfill shall submit an equipment 
removal report to EPA prior to removal or cessation of operation of the 
control equipment.
    (A) The equipment removal report shall contain the following items:
    (1) A copy of the closure report submitted in accordance with 
paragraph (g)(5)(v) of this section;
    (2) A copy of the initial performance test report demonstrating 
that the 15-year minimum control period has expired; and
    (3) Dated copies of the three successive NMOC emission rate reports 
demonstrating that the landfill is no longer emitting above the level 
of the standard.
    (B) EPA may request such additional information as may be 
reasonably necessary to verify that all of the conditions for removal 
have been met.
    (vii) The following records shall be maintained in written form at 
the MSW landfill for a period of five years from the date of each entry 
and shall be made available to EPA upon request:
    (A) Records of the gas collection flowrate, in SCFM, and the oxygen 
concentration, for each time that baseline conditions are established.
    (B) Records of continuous measurements (at least hourly records or 
a chart record) of the total gas collection flowrate, in SCFM, 
including notes describing the reasons for down-time.
    (C) Records of the oxygen concentration measured at the inlet to 
the control device before adding combustion air (readings on at least 
four days per week).
    (D) Records of all surface monitoring including the date, time, 
weather conditions, areas sampled, calibration records, and test 
results. Test results shall include the approximate location of each 
detected leak, the date of detection, the date of correction, and the 
repair method used.
    (E) A map indicating the location of areas with intermediate cover 
and areas with final cover. The map shall indicate the date of cover 
placement for each area with intermediate cover.
    (F) All records of perimeter well testing.
    (G) Where an owner subject to the provisions of this paragraph 
seeks to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (g)(3)(i)(H) of this 
section:
    (1) The calculated maximum expected gas generation flowrate using 
the method described in paragraph (g)(3)(i)(H)(1) of this section.
    (2) The calculated area of influence of the extraction wells.
    (3) Gauge pressure in the gas collection header at the point where 
each well is connected to the gas collection header pipe.
    (H) Where an owner subject to the provisions of this paragraph 
seeks to demonstrate compliance through use of an enclosed combustion 
device:
    (1) The average combustion temperature measured every 15 minutes 
and averaged over the same time period of the performance testing.
    (2) The percent reduction of NMOC achieved by the control device.
    (I) Where an owner subject to the provisions of this paragraph 
seeks to demonstrate compliance through use of a boiler:
    (1) A description of the location at which the process vent stream 
is introduced into the boiler or process heater;
    (2) The average combustion temperature of the boiler or process 
heater with a design heat input capacity of less than 44 MW (150 
million Btu/hr) measured at least every 15 minutes and averaged over 
the same time period of the performance testing.
    (J) Where an owner subject to the provisions of this paragraph 
seeks to demonstrate compliance through use of an open flare, the flare 
type (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or nonassisted), all visible 
emission readings, heat content determination, flowrate measurements, 
and exit velocity determinations made during the performance test, 
continuous records of the flare pilot flame monitoring, and records of 
all periods of operations during which the pilot flame is absent.
    (K) Source test reports showing the NMOC destruction/treatment 
efficiency and emissions in units of pounds per million BTU of heat 
input for the control device.
    (viii) Operation and maintenance plan. The owner shall prepare and 
adhere to an operation and maintenance plan. The plan shall be revised 
at least once every six months to reflect operating experience and 
changing site conditions. The plan shall be submitted to EPA upon 
request. This plan shall at a minimum contain:
    (A) An engineering evaluation of the expected landfill gas 
generation rate, and design specifications for the gas collection 
system. Data concerning waste type, volume, tonnage and age shall be 
included if available.
    (B) A map showing the location, spacing and depths of collection 
wells and/or trenches, and the direction of flow through the header 
system to the control device.
    (C) A map indicating areas of steep slopes and any other safety 
hazards to personnel performing the surface emissions testing.
    (D) Sampling and analysis methods to be used by the owner to meet 
the requirements of this section.
    (E) Specific techniques to ensure that overdraw is minimized. These 
may include a schedule for periodic temperature measurements at 
wellheads and a schedule for periodic gas sampling including gas 
analysis methods.
    (F) A schedule detailing inspection and maintenance intervals 
including dates and durations of expected system shutdowns.
    (G) Written justification for less than continuous operation of the 
gas collection system.
    (H) Operating procedures including system start-up, balancing, 
optimization, and shutdown.
    (I) Qualifications and training requirements for on-site personnel.
    (J) Safety precautions, protective clothing and equipment 
requirements, and emergency procedures.
    (6) Test Methods.
    (i) The following procedures shall be used to establish baseline 
conditions pursuant to paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B) of this section:
    (A) The gas collection rate and landfill surface integrity shall be 
evaluated and brought to baseline conditions by testing for leaks and 
repairing all such leaks using the repair methods listed in paragraph 
(g)(3)(i)(H)(1) of this section. Surface leak testing shall be 
performed using an instrument which meets the apparatus specifications 
of EPA Method 21 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). The instrument shall be 
calibrated before and after each test using zero air and an approximate 
500 ppm methane standard calibration gas in accordance with the 
instrument manufacturer's recommendations.
    (B) Surface leak testing shall be performed by holding the detector 
probe 2 inches from the landfill surface while walking a pattern of 
parallel paths not more than 50 feet apart over all surface areas 
specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i)(H)(1) of this section. Cracks, holes, 
and other breaches in the surface as well as areas where buried waste 
interfaces with undisturbed, native soil shall also be evaluated. The 
owner is not required to monitor surfaces on steep slopes and other 
areas posing a hazard to testing personnel; however, leaks identified 
in such areas are not exempt from the provisions of paragraph 
(g)(3)(i)(H) of this section.
    (C) Surface leak testing shall be performed only when the average 
wind speed is less than 5 miles per hour and instantaneous wind speed 
is less than 10 miles per hour, unless EPA approves alternate wind 
speed limits based on demonstrated recurrent site-specific conditions. 
Average wind speed shall be determined on a 10 minute average using an 
on-site anemometer with a continuous recorder. Surface testing shall 
not be conducted when the surface is wet or when there has been rain 
during the preceding 72 hours. Surface testing of landfill surfaces 
that are normally wet (i.e., a golf course) may be performed when the 
surface is wet. EPA personnel may randomly identify leaks without 
regard to the above wind speed and surface condition requirements.
    (D) EPA Method 21 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used to 
determine leaks along the gas transfer path.
    (ii) EPA Method 2D (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used for 
the flowrate measurements required by paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(B)(1) and 
(g)(3)(i)(D) of this section.
    (iii) EPA Method 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) shall be used for 
the oxygen concentration measurements required by paragraphs 
(g)(3)(i)(B)(2) and (g)(3)(i)(C) of this section.
    (iv) The non-methane organic compound destruction/treatment 
efficiency of a control device shall be determined using the following 
equation:

TP05MY94.106

where:
NMOCout = the measured concentration as methane of non-methane 
organic compounds in the exhaust, and
NMOCin = the measured concentration as methane of non-methane 
organic compounds in the landfill gas entering the control device.

    (A) NMOCin and NMOCout shall be determined using EPA 
Method 25 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) sampling and analysis procedures 
modified to delete the condensate trap from the sampling train. Grab 
samples of landfill gas at the inlet to the control device, and exhaust 
from the control device shall be collected simultaneously and at a 
constant rate over a period of at least 10 minutes in identical clean 
Tedlar\33\ bags (or equivalent). Each sample volume shall be 
sufficient to perform two NMOC analyses and to measure the sample's 
oxygen content. The oxygen concentration shall be measured at both the 
inlet to the control device and the exhaust from the control device and 
in each grab sample using EPA Method 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). 
Corresponding oxygen concentrations (grab samples and sampling port 
readings) must agree to within 1% oxygen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\Mention of trade names or specific products does not 
constitute endorsement by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) The inlet flow shall be determined using:
    (1) EPA Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A); or
    (2) The continuous flow measuring system installed pursuant to 
paragraph (g)(3)(i)(D) of this section. The continuous flow measuring 
system shall be used if the entire flow it measures is directed to the 
control device being tested.
    (C) The exhaust flow shall be determined during the collection of 
grab samples using EPA's design standard for flares, as described in 
Sec. 60.18.
    (v) NMOC emissions from the control device shall be determined 
using the following equation:

Qe = Fe  x  NMOCout  x  3.69  x  10-8

where:
Qe = NMOC emissions from the control device, in pounds per hour,
Fe = Exhaust flow in standard cubic feet per hour at the actual 
(measured) oxygen concentration, from paragraph (g)(6)(iv)(C) of this 
section,
NMOCout = NMOC concentration in exhaust in ppm, from paragraph 
(g)(6)(iv)(A) of this section, and
3.69  x  10-8 assumes a molecular weight of 14.2 for NMOC as 
carbon, and 385 cubic feet per pound-mole.

    (vi) NOX and CO emissions from a control device in pounds per 
million BTU shall be determined using:
    (A) EPA Method 7E (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for NOX.
    (B) EPA Method 10 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for CO.
    (C) ASTM D1826-77 for the gross (higher) calorific value (GCV) of 
landfill gas.
    (D) EPA Method 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for Oxygen 
Concentration.
    (E) The calculations contained in Sec. 60.45(f)(5) and 
Sec. 60.46b(f).
    (h) Emissions from Livestock Waste.
    (1) Applicability. On or after January 1, 1998, any owner or 
operator of a dairy cattle operation shall comply with the requirements 
of paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(6) of this section. For the purposes 
of this paragraph, the affected areas include the Sacramento Metro 
Area, the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area, and the Ventura 
County Area as described for ozone in 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (h) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Covered lagoon means a holding pond with a floating impermeable 
cover that effectively captures volatile organic compound and methane 
emissions, recovers them through a collection device and uses the 
methane for on-farm heating or cooling, electricity generation, or 
other end use technology.
    Dairy cattle mean cows and calves managed as a dairy cattle 
operation.
    Dairy cattle operation means any facility managing greater than 400 
cows for the purpose of producing milk or milk products.
    Digester means an enclosed non-pressurized vessel in which influent 
is managed to maximize the generation of methane for utilization in on-
farm heating or cooling or electricity generation.
    End use technology means the equipment powered by recovered methane 
gas and its use. Examples of end use technologies are internal 
combustion engines for generating electricity, boiler and space heaters 
to produce heat for various operations, and gas-fired chillers to be 
used for refrigeration.
    Influent means manure-containing liquid from the feed apron and 
milk parlor areas of a dairy cattle operation, which flows to a covered 
lagoon or digester.
    Livestock waste means livestock excrement including liquid wastes, 
fecal material, and decomposing manure.
    Recovery system means a covered lagoon or digester.
    Stockpile is manure that is temporarily stored at a designated 
location prior to shipment for handling at another on-site or off-site 
location.
    (3) Specific Provisions.
    (i) Dairy cattle operations shall install a recovery system, such 
as a covered lagoon or digester, to collect and recover livestock waste 
influent.
    (A) A minimum of 55 percent of all livestock waste shall be 
collected and processed in the recovery system. If a minimum of 55 
percent as described above can not be achieved, subject facilities 
shall identify alternative methods which will achieve an equivalent 
level of reduction. Facilities shall be subject to the 55 percent 
requirement until such time as the alternative methods are submitted 
and approved in writing by the USEPA.
    (B) The recovery system shall achieve a minimum 80% control 
efficiency. Demonstration of control efficiency shall be performed in 
accordance with the methods specified in paragraph (h)(6) of this 
section.
    (C) The recovery system shall be maintained and operated in a 
manner which is consistent with manufacturer specifications and which 
consistently achieves the control efficiency stated in paragraph 
(h)(3)(i)(B) of this section.
    (ii) Manured areas shall be managed to minimize the pooling or 
accumulation of liquids and shall be sloped 2 to 4 percent to allow 
drainage of excess moisture. Any facility wastewater and precipitation 
on or drainage through manure areas shall meet the requirements 
specified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 3, 
Chapter (Discharges of Waste to Land), ``Article 6. Confined Animal 
Facilities.''
    (iii) Livestock waste not processed under paragraph (h)(3)(i) of 
this section and which is placed in a manure storage area or stockpile 
shall be maintained in long, narrow windrows, no higher than 6 feet. 
The windrows shall be turned every 5 days during the first 30 days of 
storage and shall be removed from the dairy cattle facility at least 3 
times per year or applied to a disposal field or crop lands at least 3 
times per year.
    (4) Reporting.
    (i) Each owner or operator of a facility that is subject to the 
provisions of paragraph (h)(3) of this section shall submit for 
approval to the EPA by January 1, 1998 information necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of paragraph (h)(3) of this 
section by January 1, 1999. This information shall include, at a 
minimum:
    (A) The type of recovery system to be used at the facility;
    (B) The type and capacity of the end use technology;
    (C) The type of instrumentation and/or techniques to be used for 
measuring the following parameters:
    (1) Volume flow rate of gas produced by the recovery system 
measured in cubic feet per minute;
    (2) Hours of operation of the recovery system;
    (3) Hours of operation of the end use technology;
    (4) Productivity of the end use technology measured in British 
Thermal Units (BTU), kilowatt-hours (kWh), etc.; and
    (5) Determination of control efficiency.
    (ii) Beginning in 2000, each owner or operator of a facility that 
is subject to the provisions of paragraph (h)(3) of this section shall 
submit to the EPA on or before January 1 of each calendar year, a 
certification of compliance with paragraph (h)(3) of this section for 
the previous calendar year. The certification shall include, at a 
minimum, the following information:
    (A) The maximum number of cows and calves managed on the facility 
during the preceding calendar year;
    (B) Certification of compliance with the provisions of paragraph 
(h)(3) of this section.
    (5) Recordkeeping.
    (i) Each owner or operator of a dairy cattle operation shall keep 
records that demonstrate compliance with paragraph (h)(3) of this 
section, and shall make these records available to the EPA upon 
request. At a minimum, these records shall provide the following 
information:
    (A) Date of removal of stockpiled manure as specified by paragraph 
(h)(3)(iii) of this section;
    (B) Values recorded for each parameter specified in paragraph 
(h)(4)(i)(C) of this section.
    (6) Test Methods.
    (i) Measurements of destruction or removal efficiency shall be 
determined in accordance with EPA Method 25 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A) or by an alternative method approved in writing by EPA.
    (ii) Measurement of capture efficiency shall be determined in 
accordance with the EPA method\34\ or by an alternative method approved 
in writing by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\40 CFR 52.741(a)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Fugitive Emissions from Gas Processing Plants, Refineries, Bulk 
Plants, Bulk Terminals, and Chemical Plants.
    (1) Applicability. The requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) through 
(7) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of a refinery, 
bulk plant, bulk terminal, chemical plant, or gas processing plant. For 
the purposes of this section, the affected areas include the Sacramento 
Metro Area, the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area, and the Ventura 
County Area as described for ozone in 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) 
of this section, the following definitions shall apply. All terms not 
defined herein shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Background means a reading expressed as methane on a portable 
hydrocarbon detection instrument which is taken at least three meters 
upwind from any component to be inspected and which is not influenced 
by any specific emission point.
    Bulk plant means any distributing facility which receives organic 
liquid; stores it in stationary tanks; and which loads it into tank 
trucks for delivery to other bulk plants, service stations or other 
distribution points.
    Bulk terminal means any primary distributing plant which receives 
organic liquid; stores it in stationary tanks; loads it into 
transportable containers, excluding marine vessels, for delivery to 
bulk plants, service stations, or other distribution points.
    Chemical plant means any facility engaged in producing organic or 
inorganic chemicals, and/or manufacturing chemical products by chemical 
processes. Any facility or operation that has 28 as the first two 
digits in its four digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 
as defined in the SIC Manual is included.
    Closed-vent system means any system that is not open to the 
atmosphere and is composed of piping, connections and, if necessary, 
flow-inducing devices that transport gases or vapors from a piece or 
pieces of equipment to a vapor recovery or disposal system.
    Commercial natural gas means processed natural gas containing less 
than 10% VOC by weight.
    Component means any valve, fitting, pump, compressor, pressure 
relief device, diaphragm, hatch, sight-glass, open-ended line, or 
meter.
    Compressor means any device used to compress gases and/or vapors.
    Control valve means a device that is used to regulate fluid 
pressure or volume in a process unit that, upon actuation, releases VOC 
from the process stream. Control valves which are actuated with non-
process stream compressed air are excluded from this definition.
    Critical component means any component that if shut down would 
require the shutdown of the associated process unit.
    Fitting means a component used to attach or connect pipes, piping 
details, and other equipment, such as, vessels, heat exchangers, and 
condensers. These components include but are not limited to flanges, 
threaded connections, and other connectors.
    Gas processing plant means any facility engaged in the separation 
of liquids from field gas and/or fractionation of the liquids into 
gaseous products, such as ethane, propane, butane, and natural 
gasoline. Excluded from the definition are compressor stations, 
dehydration units, sweetening units, field treatment, underground 
storage facilities, liquefied natural gas units, and field gas 
gathering systems unless these facilities are located at a natural gas 
processing plant.
    Hatch means any covered opening system that provides access to a 
tank or container, usually through the top deck.
    Inaccessible component means any component located over fifteen 
feet above ground when access is required from the ground; or any 
component located over six feet away from a platform when access is 
required from the platform.
    Leak means a major gas leak, major liquid leak, minor gas leak, or 
minor liquid leak.
    Leak minimization means reducing a leak to the lowest achievable 
level using best modern practices including tightening, adjusting, or 
adding sealing material and without shutting down the process which the 
component serves.
    Leak repair means any corrective action taken for the purposes of 
reducing a component leak to the lowest achievable level below the 
applicable standard using best modern practices.
    Major component means any 4-inch or larger valve, any 5-horse-power 
(5-hp) or larger pump, any compressor, and any 4-inch or larger 
pressure relief device.
    Major gas leak for any component except pressure relief devices 
means the detection of total gaseous organic compounds in excess of 
10,000 ppmv as methane above background as measured according to the 
test procedures in paragraph (i)(7)(i) of this section. A major gas 
leak for a pressure relief device means the detection of total gaseous 
organic compounds in excess of 200 ppmv as methane above background as 
measured according to the test procedures in paragraph (i)(7)(i) of 
this section.
    Major liquid leak means a visible mist or cloud or a continuous 
flow of liquid.
    Minor component means any component that is not a major component.
    Minor gas leak for any component means the detection of total 
gaseous organic compounds in excess of 500 ppmv (for valves and 
connectors) and 1,000 ppmv (for other components unless otherwise 
specified) but not more than 10,000 ppmv as methane above background as 
measured according to the test procedures in paragraph (i)(7)(i) of 
this section.
    Minor liquid leak is any liquid leak which is not a major liquid 
leak and drips at a rate of more than three drops per minute.
    Owner or operator means any person who owns, operates, leases, 
controls, or supervises an emissions source or air pollution control 
equipment.
    Person means any individual, corporation, copartnership, firm, 
company, partnership, joint stock company, trust, association, State, 
municipality, political subdivision, or any other legal entity, or 
their legal representative, agent, or assigns.
    Pipeline transfer station means a facility that handles the storage 
or transfer, or both, of petroleum products or crude petroleum in 
pipelines.
    Platform means any raised, permanent, horizontal surface that 
provides access to components.
    Pressure relief device means a pressure relief valve or a rupture 
disc.
    Pressure relief valve (PRV) means any valve that is automatically 
actuated by upstream static pressure, and used for safety or emergency 
purposes.
    Pump means any device used to transport fluids by the addition of 
mechanical energy.
    Refinery means a facility that processes petroleum, as defined in 
the Standard Industrial Classification Manual as Industry Number 2911, 
Petroleum Refining.
    Rupture disc means a diaphragm held between flanges for the purpose 
of isolating a volatile organic compound from the atmosphere or from a 
downstream pressure relief valve.
    Unmanned facility means a remote facility which has no permanent 
sited personnel and is greater than five miles from the nearest manned 
facility.
    Unsafe-to-monitor component means a component installed at a 
location that would prevent its safe inspection or repair as defined by 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards or in 
provisions for worker safety found in 29 CFR 1910.
    Vacuum service or In vacuum service means that the equipment in VOC 
service is operating at an internal pressure that is at least 5 kPa 
(0.73 in. Hg) below ambient pressure.
    Valve means a device that regulates or isolates the fluid flow in a 
pipe, tube, or conduit by means of an external actuator.
    Vapor control system means any system that is not open to the 
atmosphere and is composed of piping, connections and, if necessary, 
flow-inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from a piece or 
pieces of equipment to a vapor recovery or disposal system.
    Visual inspection means performing a survey to indentify signs of 
leaking liquid, visible mist, or audible leaks.
    (3) Specific provisions. Each owner or operator of a gas processing 
plant, bulk plant, bulk terminal, refinery, or chemical plant shall be 
in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and 
(i)(3)(ii) of this section by January 1, 1996.
    (i) Identification requirements. Components in VOC service shall 
meet the following identification requirements:
    (A) All major and critical components shall be physically 
identified clearly and visibly for inspection, repair, replacement, and 
recordkeeping purposes.
    (B) All major, critical, inaccessible, and unsafe-to-monitor 
components shall be clearly identified in Piping and Instrumentation 
(P&I) flow diagrams for inspection, repair, replacement, and 
recordkeeping purposes.
    (C) All minor components shall be individually identified and/or 
grouped together functionally for identification in P&I flow diagrams 
for inspection, repair, replacement, and recordkeeping purposes.
    (D) The EPA shall be notified of any changes in the identification 
of a major component within thirty days.
    (ii) Inspection and maintenance (I&M) program. Any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to this section shall implement an I&M 
program that meets the requirements of paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A) through 
(i)(3)(ii)(C) of this section.
    (A) Inspection requirements. The I&M program will be conducted with 
the following inspection requirements.
    (1) All pump seals, compressor seals, and pressure relief valves 
(PRVs) shall be visually inspected for leaks once during every 
operating shift. Any vapor leak which is identified during the visual 
inspection of components under paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A)(1) of this 
section shall be measured to quantify emission concentrations according 
to the test method specified in paragraph (i)(7)(i) of this section.
    (2) All components, except as provided in paragraphs 
(i)(3)(ii)(A)(3), (4) and (5) of this section, shall be inspected 
quarterly according to the method prescribed in paragraph (i)(7)(i) of 
this section. The time between inspections shall not exceed 110 
consecutive days.
    (3) The components specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A)(3)(i) and 
(i)(3)(ii)(A)(3)(ii) of this section shall be subject to other than 
quarterly inspection requirements.
    (i) All inaccessible components shall be inspected annually 
according to the method prescribed in paragraph (i)(7)(i) of this 
section. The time between inspections shall not exceed 13 consecutive 
months.
    (ii) All fittings, including threaded connections and flanges, 
shall be inspected for leaks according to the method prescribed in 
paragraph (i)(7)(i) of this section immediately after being placed into 
service and semi-annually, not to exceed 195 consecutive days between 
inspections, thereafter.
    (4) Unsafe-to-monitor components shall be inspected in accordance 
with an inspection plan approved by the EPA.
    (5) PRVs shall be inspected according to the method prescribed in 
paragraph (i)(7)(i) of this section within three calendar days after 
every pressure relief event.
    (6) The inspection frequency for all components except pump seals, 
compressor seals, and PRVs may be changed to annually, not to exceed 13 
consecutive months between inspections, provided that all of the 
following conditions are met:
    (i) All components at the facility have been successfully operated 
and maintained for a period of twelve consecutive months with no leaks 
exceeding the thresholds listed in the table of leak thresholds in this 
section.
    (ii) The requirements specified in paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(A)(6)(i) of 
this section are substantiated by documentation and written approval 
obtained from the EPA.
    (7) Any annual inspection frequency approved in paragraph 
(i)(3)(ii)(A)(6)(ii) of this section, shall revert to the inspection 
frequencies specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A)(2) and (3) of this 
section, should liquid leaks or major gas leaks exceed 0.5 percent of 
the total components inspected per inspection period.
    (8) A brightly colored, weather-proof tag shall be affixed to all 
leaking components showing the date of leak detection and the 
hydrocarbon concentration determined according to the method prescribed 
in paragraph (i)(7)(i) of this section.
    (B) Repair and maintenance requirements. The I&M program shall be 
conducted in accordance with the following repair and maintenance 
requirements:
    (1) All component leaks shall be immediately minimized following 
detection.
    (2) All leaks from noncritical components shall be successfully 
repaired or replaced within the time period following detection of the 
leak, as specified in the table of repair periods in this section.
    (3) For leaks from critical and unsafe-to-monitor components, the 
leaking component shall be replaced with Best Available Control 
Technology (BACT) equipment as determined by EPA within one year or 
during the next process turnaround, whichever occurs first.
    (i) The percentage of valves in service and awaiting repair or 
replacement at any time shall not exceed the values below: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percentage
                       Effective date                         of leaking
                                                                valves  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1, 1996.............................................           2
January 1, 1997.............................................           1
January 1, 1999.............................................        0.5 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The percentage of pump and compressor seals in service and 
awaiting repair or replacement at any time shall not exceed the values 
below: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percentage
                                                              of leaking
                      Effective date                          pumps and 
                                                             compressors
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1, 1996............................................          10 
January 1, 1999............................................          1  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Any repaired or replaced component shall be re-inspected in 
accordance with the method prescribed in paragraph (i)(7) of this 
section by the owner or operator within 30 days of the repair or 
replacement.
    (5) A component or parts thereof which incur five repair actions 
for a major gas or liquid leak within a continuous twelve month period 
shall be replaced with BACT equipment as determined by EPA.
    (C) Leak control requirements. The owner or operator of any 
facility subject to this section shall comply with the following leak 
control requirements. The requirements of paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(C) (1) 
and (2) of this section shall not apply to components being repaired or 
replaced within the specified repair or replacement period, as given in 
the table of repair periods in this section or paragraph 
(i)(3)(ii)(B)(3) of this section, if the requirements for leak 
minimization under paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section have been 
met.
    (1) Any liquid leak detected during an inspection by EPA shall 
constitute a violation of this section.
    (2) Any leak detected during an inspection by EPA, within any 
continuous 24-hour period, and numbering in excess of the leak 
thresholds for that component listed in the table of leak thresholds in 
this section, shall constitute a violation of this section.
    (3) Any open-ended line or valve found to be leaking shall be 
sealed with a second valve, blind flange, cap, plug, or a second closed 
valve except during operations requiring process fluid flow through the 
open-ended line or valve.
    (4) Hatches shall be closed at all times except during sampling, 
addition of process material, or attended maintenance operations.
    (5) Effective twelve months after the adoption of this section, 
control valves shall be replaced or retrofitted so that a major leak 
shall not occur during valve actuation or at any other time.
    (6) Effective twelve months after the adoption of this section, any 
component leak that is vented through a stack or other confined air 
stream shall be transported in a closed-vent system with a collection 
efficiency of at least 95% to a VOC control device with a control 
efficiency of at least 95%. The determination of control efficiency 
shall be made in accordance with the test method specified in paragraph 
(i)(7)(iv) of this section.
    (4) Exemptions. The provisions of paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (ii) of 
this section shall not apply to the following components:
    (i) Pressure relief valves, pump seals, and compressor seals that 
are equipped with a closed-vent system with a VOC collection efficiency 
of at least 95% that transports the VOC emissions to a vapor control 
system with a VOC control efficiency of at least 95%. The determination 
of control efficiency shall be made in accordance with the test method 
specified in paragraph (i)(7)(iv) of this section.
    (ii) The following cases, where the person seeking the exemption 
shall supply proof of the applicable criteria to the satisfaction of 
the EPA:
    (A) Components buried below ground.
    (B) Components, except those at gas processing plants, exclusively 
handling fluids with a VOC concentration of 10 percent by weight or 
less, as determined by the test method specified in paragraph 
(i)(7)(ii) of this section; or components exclusively handling fluids, 
if the weight percent evaporated is 10 percent or less at 150 degrees 
Celsius, as determined by the test method specified in paragraph 
(i)(7)(iii) of this section.
    (iii) One-half inch and smaller stainless steel tube fittings which 
have been demonstrated to the EPA to be leak-free based on an initial 
inspection in accordance with paragraph (i)(7)(i) of this section.
    (iv) Components in vacuum service.
    (5) Reporting. Any owner or operator of a facility subject to this 
section shall comply with the following reporting requirements.
    (i) A compliance plan shall be prepared and submitted to the EPA by 
July 1, 1995. The plan shall include the following information:
    (A) Component identification methodology to meet the requirements 
of paragraphs (i)(3)(i)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (B) An inspection schedule for all unsafe-to-monitor components 
pursuant to paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(A)(4) of this section.
    (C) A description of all components meeting the exemption 
requirements of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (ii) An annual certification of compliance shall be submitted to 
the EPA on or before January 1, 1996, and annually thereafter. The 
certification of compliance shall include:
    (A) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of this section.
    (B) A summary of any changes that have been made to component 
identification in the original compliance plan.
    (6) Recordkeeping.
    (i) Each facility operator shall maintain an inspection log 
containing, at a minimum, the following:
    (A) Name, location, type of components, and description of any unit 
where leaking components are found.
    (B) Date of leak detection, emission level (ppmv) of leak, and 
method of leak detection.
    (C) Date of leak repair and description of repair action.
    (D) Date and emission level of re-check after leak is repaired.
    (E) Identification of leaks from critical components that cannot be 
repaired until the next process turnaround.
    (F) If applicable, the API gravity of petroleum process fluids.
    (G) The VOC content of leaking process fluids or gases.
    (H) Total number of components inspected, and total number and 
percentage of leaking components found by component type.
    (ii) Records of leaks detected by a quarterly or annual operator 
inspection and each subsequent repair and reinspection shall be 
submitted to the EPA upon request.
    (iii) All records of operator inspection and repair shall be 
maintained at the facility for the previous two year period and be made 
available at the time of inspection by the EPA or immediately upon EPA 
request.
    (7) Test Methods.
    (i) Measurements of total gaseous organic compounds in leak 
concentrations shall be conducted according to EPA Reference Method 21. 
The analyzer shall be calibrated with methane.
    (ii) The VOC content of fluids shall be determined using procedures 
that conform to ASTM Methods E 168, E 169, or E 260 or any other 
procedure that conforms to the above ASTM methods and is approved by 
the EPA in writing.
    (iii) Determination of the evaporated compounds of liquids shall be 
performed in accordance with ASTM Method D 86-82.
    (iv) Determination of the control efficiency of any VOC control 
equipment shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, Method 25 or 25A, or South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (SCAQMD) Test Method 25.1, which is available from EPA.
    (v) Determination of the API gravity of crude oil shall be 
performed in accordance with ASTM Method D 287. 

                        Table of Leak Thresholds                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Maximum No. of leaks   
                                              --------------------------
                                                 200 or                 
               Component type                     less     More than 200
                                               components    components 
                                                inspected    inspected  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valves.......................................           1  0.5% of the  
                                                            number      
                                                            inspected.  
Pump seals...................................           2  1% of the    
                                                            number      
                                                            inspected.  
Compressors..................................           1  1            
Pressure Relief Valves.......................           1  1            
Other Components.............................           1  1            
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table of Repair Periods                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Time  
                        Type of leak                             period 
                                                                (days)a 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Gas Leak...............................................         14
Major Gas Leak...............................................          5
Major Gas Leak over 50,000 ppmv..............................         b1
Major Liquid Leak............................................         b1
Minor Liquid Leak............................................        b2 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aDay means a 24 hour period from the time of leak detection.            
bUnless prohibited by state safety standards or 29 CFR part 1910.       

    (j) Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing.
    (1) Applicability. The requirements of paragraphs (j)(1) through 
(j)(7) of this section shall apply to any owner or operator of a 
gasoline dispensing facility. For the purposes of this paragraph, the 
affected areas include the Sacramento Metro Area, the Los Angeles-South 
Coast Air Basin Area, and the Ventura County Area as described for 
ozone in 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (j) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Alteration(s) and/or repair(s) of a gasoline storage and/or 
dispensing facility is any of the following: the replacement of one or 
more existing storage tank(s); the removal or addition of storage 
tank(s) or dispensing nozzle(s), piping or any other component; the 
replacement of storage tanks, dispensing nozzle(s), piping or any other 
component with different characteristics from those of the existing or 
original equipment; or any excavation (exposure to view by digging) of 
an existing gasoline storage tank and/or the underground liquid piping 
from the storage tank(s) to the gasoline dispenser(s).
    Balance system is a Phase II (Stage II) vapor recovery system that 
operates on the principle of vapor displacement.
    CARB certified vapor recovery system is any Phase I or Phase II 
vapor recovery system which has been certified by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) pursuant to section 41954 of the California 
Health and Safety Code as capable of recovering or processing displaced 
gasoline vapors to an efficiency of ninety-five (95) percent or 
greater. For the purpose of this section, the term certified shall 
refer to CARB certification.
    CARB executive orders(s) is the procedure, pursuant to Sections 
39600, 39601, and 41954 of the California Health and Safety Code and 
Title 17 Section 94001 of the California Code of Regulations, used by 
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to approve the certification, 
modification of a certification, or recertification of vapor recovery 
systems and/or related equipment. Copies of CARB Executive Orders can 
be obtained from CARB, Compliance Division, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, 
CA, 95812.
    Gasoline is any petroleum distillate and/or mixture of petroleum 
distillates and oxygenates used as a fuel in spark ignition engines and 
having a Reid vapor pressure of four pounds per square inch or greater.
    Gasoline storage and dispensing facility means an aggregate of one 
or more stationary storage tanks, any of which is subject to the 
provisions of paragraphs (j)(3) through (j)(7) of this section, 
together with dispensers and control equipment required by the section.
    Hold-open latch is a certified device which is an integral part of 
the dispensing nozzle and is manufactured specifically for the purpose 
of dispensing gasoline without requiring the consumer's constant 
physical contact with the nozzle during fueling operations.
    Insertion interlock is any certified mechanism which is an integral 
part of a bellows-equipped dispensing nozzle which prohibits the 
dispensing of fuel unless the bellows is compressed.
    Liquid removal device is a device designed specifically to remove 
liquid from the vapor return portion of a coaxial hose.
    Liquid tight means a liquid leak rate not exceeding three drops per 
minute.
    Motor vehicle is any self-propelled vehicle registered or which 
requires registration for use on the highway.
    Owner/operator is any person who owns, leases, operates, controls 
or supervises the operation of a gasoline dispensing facility.
    Phase I or Stage I is gasoline vapor recovery during the transfer 
of gasoline into or out of stationary tanks at a gasoline dispensing 
facility.
    Phase II or Stage II is gasoline vapor recovery during motor 
vehicle or utility equipment fueling operations from stationary tanks 
at gasoline dispensing facilities.
    Rebuilt equipment is any component of a vapor recovery system that 
has undergone repair or replacement of any or all of its internal 
parts.
    Reid vapor pressure means the absolute vapor pressure of volatile 
crude oil and volatile non-viscus petroleum liquids, except liquified 
petroleum gases, as determined by ASTM D323-89.
    Submerged fill tube is any fill tube, the discharge opening of 
which is entirely submerged, when the liquid level above the bottom of 
the tank is: 15.2 cm (6 inches), for tanks filled from the top, except 
for flat bottom tanks where the liquid level above the bottom is 7.6 cm 
(3 in.); or 45.7 cm (18 inches) for tanks filled from the side.
    Top off is the attempt to dispense gasoline to a motor vehicle or 
utility equipment fuel tank after the dispensing nozzle primary shutoff 
mechanism has engaged. The filling of those class of vehicle tanks 
which, because of the configuration of the fill pipe, cause premature 
activation of the primary shutoff, shall not be considered topping off.
    Vacuum assist system is any Phase II vapor recovery system that 
utilizes a pump, blower, or other vacuum-producing device. Vacuum 
assist systems may also incorporate an incinerator to process any 
excess vapors generated by the collection system.
    Vapor tight means the detection of less than 10,000 ppm hydrocarbon 
concentration, as determined by 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 21, 
using an appropriate analyzer calibrated with methane.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) Gasoline Transfer Into Stationary Storage Tanks (Phase I). An 
owner/operator shall not transfer, permit the transfer or provide 
equipment for the transfer of gasoline into from any tank truck, 
trailer or railroad car into any stationary storage tank with a 
capacity of 950 liters (251 gallons) or more unless all of the 
following conditions are met:
    (A) Such tank is equipped with a permanent submerged fill tube.
    (B) Such tank is equipped with a CARB certified vapor recovery 
system at, or above 95 percent control efficiency, which is maintained 
and operated according to the manufacturers specifications.
    (C) All vapor return lines are connected between the tank truck, 
trailer or railroad tank car, and the stationary storage tank and all 
associated hoses, fittings, and couplings are maintained in a vapor 
tight condition.
    (D) The hatch on any tank truck, trailer, or railroad tank car 
shall not be opened for more than three minutes for each visual 
inspection, provided that:
    (1) Transfer or pumping has been stopped for at least 3 minutes 
prior to opening; and
    (2) The hatch is closed before transfer or pumping is resumed.
    (E) Underground tank lines are gravity drained, and above-ground 
tanks are equipped with dry breaks such that upon line disconnect the 
liquid leak rate does not exceed 3 drops per minute.
    (F) As of [Insert date of publication of the final rule], an owner/
operator shall not install a coaxial Phase I vapor recovery system at a 
gasoline dispensing facility unless the Phase I system was certified 
after January 1, 1994. In addition, an owner/operator shall not install 
a Phase I vapor recovery system unless that system incorporates 
certified poppetted drybreaks or spring-loaded vapor check valves on 
the vapor return coupler of the system.
    (G) As of one year after [Insert date of publication of the final 
rule], all open vent pipes on stationary tanks at gasoline dispensing 
facilities shall be equipped with a pressure-vacuum relief valve. 
Unless otherwise specified in the applicable CARB executive order, 
pressure relief shall be set at 3 inches water column and vacuum relief 
shall be set at 8 inches water column. For the purposes of this 
paragraph (j), vent pipes of gasoline storage tanks may be manifolded 
to a single valve when the storage tanks are manifolded according to 
the applicable CARB executive order.
    (H) As of [Insert date of publication of the final rule], any time 
a gasoline storage tank or associated piping is replaced or installed 
this spill box must be equiped with an intregal vapor-tight drain valve 
to return spilled gasoline to the storage tank.
    (I) Equipment subject to this paragraph (j) is operated and 
maintained, according to all of the following requirements:
    (1) All fill tubes are equipped with vapor-tight covers, including 
gaskets;
    (2) All dry breaks are equipped with vapor-tight seals and dust 
covers;
    (3) Fixed or Spring-Loaded coaxial fill tubes are operated so that 
there is no obstruction of vapor passage from the storage tank back to 
the tank truck, trailer, or railroad tank car;
    (4) The fill tube assembly, including fill tube, fittings and 
gaskets, is maintained to prevent vapor leakage from any portion of the 
vapor recovery system;
    (5) All storage tank vapor return lines without dry breaks are 
equipped with vapor-tight covers, including gaskets.
    (ii) Gasoline Transfer Into Vehicle Fuel Tanks (Phase II). An 
owner/operator shall not transfer, or permit the transfer, or provide 
equipment for the transfer of gasoline from a stationary storage tank 
into any motor vehicle fuel tank of greater than 19 liters (5 gallons) 
capacity unless all of the following conditions are met:
    (A) The dispensing unit used to transfer the gasoline from the 
stationary storage tank to the motor vehicle fuel tank is equipped with 
a CARB certified vapor recovery system.
    (B) The vapor recovery system and associated components are 
operated and maintained in a vapor-tight and liquid-tight manner in 
accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and the applicable 
CARB certification.
    (C) As of [Insert date of publication of the final rule], an owner/
operator shall not install any balance system vapor recovery nozzle 
unless a vapor check valve is located in the nozzle. In addition, a 
balance system shall not be operated with more than one check valve per 
nozzle and hose assembly.
    (D) As of one year after [Insert date of publication of the final 
rule], the nominal inside diameter of the connection between the riser 
and dispenser cabinet shall not be less than 0.75 inches. If flexible 
tubing is used for this connection, the material shall be listed for 
use with gasoline and shall be capable of maintaining electrical 
continuity between the riser and dispenser.
    (E) As of one year after [Insert date of publication of the final 
rule], an owner/operator shall not sell, offer for sale, or install a 
bellows-equipped vapor recovery nozzle unless it is equipped with a 
certified insertion interlock mechanism.
    (F) As of one year after [Insert date of publication of the final 
rule], an owner/operator shall not install or operate a vapor recovery 
nozzle unless it is equipped with a coaxial hose.
    (G) As of one year after [Insert date of publication of the final 
rule], all liquid removal devices required by CARB executive orders 
shall be maintained to achieve a minimum liquid removal rate of five 
milliliters per gallon transferred. This standard shall apply at 
dispensing rates exceeding five gallons per minute, unless a higher 
removal rate is specified by the Executive Order.
    (H) As of [Insert date of publication of the final rule], any 
gasoline storage or dispensing facility that commences alterations or 
repairs shall comply with the equipment standards of paragraphs 
(j)(3)(ii) (C) through (G) of this section.
    (I) Equipment subject to this section shall be operated and 
maintained with none of the following defects:
    (1) Absence or disconnection of any component required to be used 
in the CARB executive order(s) that certified the system.
    (2) A vapor hose which is crimped or flattened such that the vapor 
passage is blocked, or the pressure drop through the vapor hose exceeds 
by a factor of two or more the requirements in the system certified in 
the CARB Executive Order(s) applicable to the system.
    (3) A nozzle boot which is torn in one or more of the following 
manner:
    (i) Triangular-shaped or similar tear \1/2\ inch or more to a side, 
or hole \1/2\ inch or more in diameter or,
    (ii) Slit 1 inch or more in length.
    (4) Faceplate or flexible cone which is damaged in the following 
manner:
    (i) For balance nozzles and for nozzles for aspirator and educator 
assist type systems, damage shall be such that the capability to 
achieve a seal with a fill pipe interface is affected for \1/4\ of the 
circumference of the faceplate (accumulated).
    (ii) For nozzles for vacuum assist-type systems, more than \1/4\ of 
the flexible cone missing.
    (5) Nozzle shutoff mechanisms which malfunction in any manner.
    (6) Vapor return lines, including such components as swivels, anti-
recirculation valves and underground piping, which malfunction or are 
blocked, or restricted such that pressure drop through the lines 
exceeds by factor of two or more requirements specified in the CARB 
Executive Order(s) that certified the system.
    (7) Vapor processing unit which is inoperative.
    (8) Vacuum producing device which is inoperative.
    (9) Pressure/vacuum relief valves, vapor check valves, or dry 
breaks which are inoperative.
    (10) Any equipment defect which is identified in an Executive Order 
certifying a system pursuant to the Certification Procedures 
incorporated in Section 94001 of Title 17, California Code of 
Regulations, as substantially impairing the effectiveness of the system 
in reducing air contaminants.
    (11) All nozzles affected by the above defects are to be considered 
defective.
    (iii) Additional Requirements.
    (A) An owner/operator shall not offer for sale, sell, or install 
any new or rebuilt vapor recovery equipment unless the components and 
the parts are clearly identified or marked by the certified 
manufacturing company and/or the certified rebuilding company.
    (B) An owner/operator shall not perform or permit the ``pump-out'' 
(bulk transfer) of gasoline from a storage tank subject to paragraph 
(j)(3)(i) of this section; unless such bulk transfer is performed using 
a vapor collection and transfer system capable of returning the 
displaced vapors to the stationary storage tank or unless the storage 
tank will be removed or filled with water for testing.
    (C) An owner/operator shall not store, or allow the storage of, 
gasoline in any stationary storage tank with a capacity of 950 liters 
(251 gallons) or more unless such tank is equipped with a Phase I vapor 
recovery system.
    (D) An owner/operator of any gasoline dispensing facility shall 
conspicuously post the following signs in the immediate gasoline 
dispensing area.
    (1) ``NOZZLE'' operating instructions;
    (2) Appropriate District toll-free telephone number; and
    (3) A warning sign stating:

Toxic Risk--For Your Own Protection Do Not Breathe Fumes. Do Not Top 
Tanks

    (E) All required signs shall conform to all of the following:
    (1) For decal signs:
    (i) Each sign shall be located adjacent to the dispenser price 
indicator (per gallon) on each side next to the driveway it serves; and
    (ii) Sign shall be readable from a distance of 3 feet or more.
    (2) All other signs:
    (i) For pump toppers, one double-back sign per island;
    (ii) For permanent (non-decal) signs, two single-sided or one 
double-sided sign(s) per two (2) dispensers.
    (iii) All signs shall be readable from a distance of 6 feet or 
more.
    (F) A dispenser that is never used to fuel motor vehicles shall 
have a sign posted on it restricting its use for vehicles.
    (G) Gasoline shall not be stored in open container(s) of any size 
or handled in any other manner (spillage, spraying, etc.) that permit 
gasoline or gasoline vapors to enter the atmosphere, contaminate the 
ground, or the sewer.
    (H) The failure of an owner/operator to meet any requirements of 
paragraphs (j)(3) (i), (ii), or (iii) of this section shall constitute 
a violation. Such equipment determined to be in violation shall be 
tagged ``Out-of-Order.''
    (I) Except during repair activity, the ``Out-of-Order'' tag 
specified in paragraph (j)(3)(iii)(H) of this section shall not be 
removed and the tagged equipment shall not be used, permitted to be 
used, or provided for use unless all of the following conditions are 
satisfied:
    (1) The tagged equipment has been repaired, replaced, or adjusted, 
as necessary;
    (2) The District, Office of Operations, has been notified of the 
repairs by completing and signing the form supplied by the District;
    (3) The tagged equipment has been reinspected and/or authorized for 
use by the District.
    (4) Exemptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
the transfer of gasoline into or from any stationary tank if its 
monthly throughput is used exclusively for the fueling of implements of 
husbandry, such as vehicles defined in Division 16 (Section 36000 et 
seq.) of the California Vehicle Code, provided such a tank is equipped 
with a submerged fill tube and its storage capacity is less than or 
equal to 550 gallons (2,082 liters).
    (5) Compliance Schedule.
    (i) The owner/operator of a new facility subject to this section 
shall comply with the provisions of this section at the time gasoline 
receiving and/or dispensing is initiated.
    (ii) The owner/operator of any altered and/or repaired facility, 
who was previously exempted from Phase I or Phase II vapor control 
requirements shall comply with the provisions of this section at the 
time gasoline receiving and/or dispensing is initiated after completion 
of the alteration and/or repair.
    (iii) The owner/operator of any other existing facility, who was 
previously exempt from Phase I or Phase II vapor control requirements, 
and who has not earlier been required to come into compliance, shall 
achieve compliance by January 1, 1996.
    (6) Testing.
    (i) For new or altered gasoline storage or dispensing facilities, 
once the system is in operational condition and ready for use, testing 
to verify the proper installation and function of the entire system 
(both infrastructure plumbing and aboveground equipment) shall be 
conducted. Tests of Phase II systems at gasoline dispensing stations 
shall be conducted in accordance with the following test procedures as 
found in appendix J of the EPA document, ``Technical Guidance--Stage II 
Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions a 
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,'' Vol. II (EPA-450/3-91-022b), November 
1991:
    (A) Bay Area Source Test Procedure ST-30, Leak Test Procedure, or 
San Diego Test Procedure TP-91-1, Pressure Decay/Leak Test Procedure. 
In addition, CARB Test Procedure TP-201.3 may be used.
    (B) Bay Area Source Test Procedure ST-27, Dynamic Back Pressure, or 
San Diego Test Procedure TP-91-2, Pressure Drop vs Flow/liquid Blockage 
Test Procedure. In addition, CARB Test Procedure TP-201.2 may be used; 
and
    (C) Bay Area Source Test Procedure ST-37, Liquid Removal Devices.
    (ii) In addition to the above tests, Phase I efficiency testing 
will be done in accordance with CARB TP-201.1.
    (iii) Testing may be done by the facility or by a testing company 
provided that the testing meets the minimum criteria established by 
CARB for such tests.
    (iv) Reverification of the function of the Phase I or Phase II 
vapor recovery system shall be performed as shown below or upon 
alteration or repair of any gasoline storage or dispensing facility. 
Functional tests may also be performed upon request by EPA or the local 
Air Pollution Control District. Where multiple tests are specified, a 
leak or blockage found by any method constitutes a violation of this 
section.
    (A) A static pressure leak test using ST-30, TP-91-2 or CARB TP-
201.3 shall be performed at least once per calendar year or upon 
alteration or repair of facilities equipped with a vacuum-assist Phase 
II system.
    (B) A static pressure leak test using ST-30, TP-91-2 or CARB TP-
201.3 shall be performed at least once every two years or upon 
alteration or repair of facilities equipped with a balanced Phase II 
system.
    (C) A liquid blockage test using ST-27, TP-91-2, or CARB TP-201.2 
shall be performed at least every five years.
    (v) For existing gasoline storage and dispensing facilities, if the 
facility has not been verified for functional Phase I or Phase II vapor 
recovery systems within the last four years before the date of 
promulgation of this section, then functional tests shall be performed 
at the facility within one year of the date of promulgation of this 
section. Facilities which have been tested within four years and have 
the test results documented, shall perform the reverification tests 
within five years from the date of the tests. All other existing 
facilities shall be tested within one year of the date of promulgation 
of this section. Reverification of static pressure integrity shall be 
performed within one year after promulgation of this section for 
vacuum-assist systems or two years after promulgation or after the last 
test, whichever is earliest, for balanced systems.
    (7) Recordkeeping. All permits or licenses to operate the facility 
or to operate a specific system at the facility shall be current at all 
times. The records required in paragraphs (j)(7) (i) through (iv) of 
this section shall be maintained at each facility for a minimum of five 
years, and should be made available to EPA and local enforcement 
personnel upon request.
    (i) Verification that the vapor recovery system meets or exceeds 
the requirements of the tests specified in paragraphs (j)(6) (i), (ii), 
and (iv) of this section shall be maintained. The test results shall be 
dated and shall contain names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the 
parties responsible for the system installation and/or testing.
    (ii) All maintenance conducted on any part of the vapor recovery 
system shall be logged on a maintenance record maintained in 
chronological order showing dates, description of any equipment 
replaced with its location, and a description of the system problem 
which resulted in repairs. The log shall also indicate the time period 
and duration of each malfunction of the system.
    (iii) A file of all inspection reports issued by inspecting 
agencies shall be maintained in chronological order.
    (iv) A chronologically organized file of all compliance records 
issued by regulating agencies shall be maintained separately from the 
inspection reports.
    (k) Emissions from Waste Burning.
    (1) Applicability. On or after January 1, 1996, any person 
conducting agricultural burning or open burning shall comply with the 
requirements of paragraphs (k) (4) and (5) of this section. For the 
purposes of this section, the affected areas include the Sacramento 
Metro Area, the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area, and the Ventura 
County Area as described for ozone in 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (k) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Agricultural burning means open outdoor fires used in the following 
operations: agricultural operations; forest management; range 
improvement; improvement of land for wildlife and game habitat; disease 
or pest prevention; operation or maintenance of a system for the 
delivery of water used in any agricultural operation, forest 
management, range improvement, land improvement for wildlife and game 
habitat, and disease or pest prevention operation; wildland vegetation 
management.
    Agricultural operations means the production of materials produced 
wholly from operations in the growing and harvesting of crops or 
raising of fowl or animals for the primary purpose of making a profit, 
of providing a livelihood, or of conducting agricultural research or 
instruction by an educational institution. In connection with open 
burning of materials produced from agricultural operations are the 
burning of grass and weeds in or adjacent to fields in cultivation or 
being prepared for cultivation, and the burning of materials not 
produced wholly from agricultural operations, but which are intimately 
related to the growing or harvesting of crops and which are used in the 
field (e.g., trays for drying raisins, date palm protection paper, and 
fertilizer and pesticide sacks or containers where the sacks or 
containers are emptied in the field.)
    Designated agency means any agency designated by the State Air 
Resources Board as having authority to issue agricultural burning 
permits. The U.S. Forest Service, the California Department of 
Forestry, local air districts, local fire control agencies are 
designated for their respective jurisdictions.
    Forest management burning means the use of open fires, as part of a 
forest management practice, to remove forest debris or for forest 
management practices which include timber operations, silvicultural 
practices or forest protection practices.
    Local air district means any of the following districts: El Dorado 
County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Feather River Air Quality 
Management District (AQMD), Placer County APCD, Sacramento Metropolitan 
AQMD, South Coast AQMD, Ventura County APCD, Yolo-Solano APCD.
    No-burn day means a day on which agricultural burning and open 
burning are prohibited by the EPA, State Air Resources Board, or local 
air district due to a predicted exceedence of the State ambient air 
quality standard (0.09 ppm) for ozone.
    Open burning means planned open burning of trash, leaves, and 
refuse from all activities except agricultural operations, forest 
management, range improvement, improvement of land for wildlife and 
game habitat, disease or pest prevention, operation or maintenance of a 
system for the delivery of water used in any agricultural operation, 
forest management, range improvement, land improvement for wildlife and 
game habitat, and disease or pest prevention operation, and wildland 
vegetation management where the products of combustion are not directed 
through a flue.
    Permissive-burn day means a day on which agricultural burning and 
open burning are allowed by the EPA, State Air Resources Board, or 
local air district.
    Range improvement burning means the use of open fires to remove 
vegetation for a wildlife, game or livestock habitat or for the initial 
establishment of an agricultural practice on previously uncultivated 
land.
    Silvicultural practices means establish, development, care and 
reproduction of stands of timber.
    Timber operations means cutting or removal of timber or other 
forest vegetation.
    Waste burning means agricultural burning, range management burning, 
forest management burning, and open burning.
    Wildland vegetation management burning means the use of prescribed 
burning conducted by a public agency, or through a cooperative 
agreement or contract involving a public agency, to burn land 
predominantly covered with chaparral, trees, grass, or standing brush.
    (3) No-burn day determination. A no-burn day may be declared by the 
USEPA, State Air Resources Board, or local air district if an 
exceedence of the State ambient air quality standard for ozone (0.09 
ppm) is predicted. The following conditions will be evaluated each day 
for predicting the ozone level for the following day.
    (i) Current hourly ozone level, in ppm, measured in the portion of 
the local air district that falls within the boundaries of the 
Sacramento FIP area;
    (ii) Predicted meteorology including wind speed, and mixing height; 
and
    (iii) Forecast temperature.
    (4) Permitting. Agricultural burning is prohibited unless a valid 
burn permit is obtained from the appropriate designated agency.
    (5) Restrictions.
    (i) Agricultural burning shall be prohibited on a no-burn day.
    (ii) Open burning shall be prohibited on a no-burn day.
    (6) Exemptions. [Reserved].
    (l) Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Natural Gas-fired Water 
Heaters.
    (1) Applicability. For the purposes of paragraph (l) of this 
section, the affected area includes the Sacramento Metro Area as 
described for ozone in 40 CFR 81.305. The requirements of paragraphs 
(l)(1) through (6) of this section shall apply to any person who 
manufactures, offers for sale, sells, or installs any natural gas-fired 
water heater with a rated heat input capacity less than 75,000 British 
thermal units per hour (Btu/hr).
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (l) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    British thermal unit (Btu) means the amount of heat required to 
raise the temperature of one pound of water from 59 deg.F to 60 deg.F 
at one atmosphere.
    Heat input means the actual amount of heat released by natural gas 
burned in a water heater.
    Heat output means the product obtained by multiplying the recovery 
efficiency, as defined by Title 20, California Administrative Code, 
Chapter 2, Subchapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1603 and 1607, by the 
heating value of the natural gas furnished to the water heater.
    Natural gas means a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons containing at 
least 80 percent methane by volume as determined according to American 
Standard Test Method (ASTM) D1945-64.
    Rated heat input capacity means the heat input capacity specified 
on the nameplate of the combustion unit. If the combustion unit has 
been altered or modified such that its maximum heat input is different 
than the heat input capacity specified on the nameplate, the new 
maximum heat input shall be considered as the rated heat input 
capacity.
    Water heater means a device that heats water at a thermostatically-
controlled temperature for delivery on demand.
    (3) Standards. After May 31, 1995, no person shall manufacturer, 
offer for sale, sell, or install any natural gas-fired water heater 
with NOX emissions in excess of 40 nanograms calculated as weight 
equivalent NOX per joule (ng/j) [93 pounds per billion Btu (93 lb/
109 Btu)] of heat output.
    (4) Exemptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
    (i) Water heaters with a rated heat input of 75,000 Btu/hr or 
greater.
    (ii) Water heaters used in recreational vehicles.
    (iii) Water heaters used exclusively to heat swimming pools and hot 
tubs.
    (5) Reporting and Recordkeeping.
    (i) Compliance Report. A manufacturer shall submit to the 
Administrator a Compliance Report which demonstrates that each water 
heater model complies with the section. A manufacturer shall submit a 
new Compliance Report for any water heater model whose design is 
changed in any manner which may alter NOX emissions. Compliance 
Reports, for either new models or altered models, shall be submitted to 
the Administrator at least 30 days before the water heater model is 
offered for sale, sold, or installed in the control area. The 
Compliance Report shall contain the following information:
    (A) General Information.
    (1) Name and address of manufacturer;
    (2) Brand name and model;
    (3) Model number as it appears on the rating plate of each water 
heater; and
    (4) Description of each water heater model being certified.
    (B) Test Report.
    (1) All compliance test procedures and results for each water 
heater model; and
    (2) All calculations for determining compliance of each water 
heater model.
    (C) Compliance Statement. A signed and dated statement attesting to 
the accuracy of all statements and information in the Compliance 
Report.
    (ii) Labeling. A manufacturer shall display the model number of the 
water heater on the shipping carton and rating plate of each water 
heater unit.
    (iii) Recordkeeping. A manufacturer shall keep Compliance Reports, 
test reports, and compliance statements for as long as the water heater 
model is offered for sale, sold, or installed in the control area, or 
for five calendar years, whichever is longer.
    (6) Test Methods. The manufacturer shall have each water heater 
model tested in accordance with the following procedures:
    (i) Each water heater model tested shall be operated in accordance 
with Section 2.4 of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
Z21.10.1-1975 at normal test pressure, input rates, and with a 5-foot 
exhaust stack installed during the NOX emissions tests, and
    (ii) The measurement of NOX emissions shall be conducted in 
accordance with the EPA Reference Methods or Submethods described in 
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, or other methods as approved in writing 
by the Administrator.
    (iii) The following procedure shall be used to calculate the 
NOX emissions rate in ng/j (lb/109 Btu) of heat output:

TP05MY94.107

Where:

N=Nanograms of NOX expressed as weight equivalent NO2 emitted 
per joule of heat output, ng/j (lb/109 Btu)
Cf=Carbon number of fuel, dimensionless
P=NOX concentration in flue gas, parts per million by volume
F=Volume of fuel burned, cubic feet at 30 inches of mercury (Hg) and 
60 deg.F
Ho=Heat output, Btu
C=Concentration of CO2 measured in flue gas, percent

The definitions of and the measurement procedures for the above 
parameters are described in the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District's Rule 1121 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Compliance Testing for 
Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters and Small Boilers. A manufacturer that 
has certified a water heater model to demonstrate compliance with a 
State or local agency rule that meets the requirements of this section, 
may submit the test results to EPA in lieu of conducting duplicative 
certification tests.
    (m) Emissions of oxides of nitrogen from stationary reciprocating 
internal combustion engines.
    (1) Applicability. For the purposes of this paragraph, the affected 
area includes the Sacramento Metro Area as described for ozone in 40 
CFR 81.305.
    (i) Any owner or operator of a stationary internal combustion 
engine rated at equal to or greater than 50 brake horsepower shall 
comply with the applicable requirements of paragraphs (m)(1) through 
(m)(7) of this section.
    (ii) Any owner or operator of a stationary internal combustion 
engine that claims an exemption from the standards of paragraph (m)(3) 
of this section because of the exemption criteria specified in 
paragraph (m)(4)(ii) of this section shall comply with the monitoring 
requirements of paragraph (m)(6)(ii)(C) of this section.
    (iii) Any owner or operator of a diesel stationary internal 
combustion engine that claims an exemption from the standards of 
paragraph (m)(3) of this section because of the exemption criteria 
specified in paragraph (m)(4)(viii) of this section shall comply with 
the monitoring and reporting requirements of paragraph (m)(4)(viii) of 
this section.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraphs (m)(1) through 
(m)(7) of this section, the following definitions shall apply. All 
terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given them in 
Sec. 52.2950.
    Diesel engine means a compression ignited two or four-stroke engine 
in which liquid fuel injected into the combustion chamber ignites when 
the air charge has been compressed to a temperature sufficiently high 
for auto-ignition.
    Emergency standby engine means an internal combustion engine used 
only when normal power line or natural gas service fails, or for the 
emergency pumping of water for either fire protection or flood relief. 
An emergency standby engine may not be operated to supplement a primary 
power source when the load capacity or rating of the primary power 
source has been either reached or exceeded.
    Engine rating means the output of an engine as determined by the 
engine manufacturer and listed on the nameplate of the unit, regardless 
of any derating.
    Higher heating value (HHV) means the total heat liberated per mass 
of fuel burned (Btu per pound), when fuel and dry air at standard 
conditions undergo complete combustion and all resultant products are 
brought to their standard states at standard conditions. If 
certification of the HHV is not provided by the third party fuel 
supplier, it shall be determined by one of the following test methods: 
ASTM D2015-85 for solid fuels; ASTM D240-87 or ASTM D2382-88 for liquid 
hydrocarbon fuels; or ASTM D1826-88 or ASTM D1945-81 in conjunction 
with ASTM D3588-89 for gaseous fuels.
    Lean-burn engine means any two or four-stroke spark-ignited engine 
that is not a rich-burn engine.
    Maintenance operation means the use of an emergency standby engine 
and fuel system during testing, repair and routine maintenance to 
verify its readiness for emergency standby use.
    Output means the shaft work output from an engine plus the energy 
reclaimed by any useful heat recovery system.
    Peak load means the maximum instantaneous operating load.
    Permitted capacity factor means the annual permitted fuel use 
divided by the manufacturers specified maximum fuel consumption times 
8,760 hours per year.
    Rich-burn engine means a two or four-stroke spark-ignited engine 
where the manufacturers original recommended operating air/fuel ratio 
divided by the stoichiometric air/fuel ratio is less than or equal to 
1.1.
    Shutdown means the period of time a unit is cooled from its normal 
operating temperature to cold or ambient temperature.
    Startup means the period of time a unit is heated from cold or 
ambient temperature to its normal operating temperature as specified by 
the manufacturer.
    Stationary internal combustion engine means any internal combustion 
engine of the reciprocating type that is either attached to a 
foundation at a facility or is portable equipment operated at a 
specific facility for more than 90 days in any 12-month period.
    Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio means the air/fuel ratio where all 
fuel and all oxygen in the air/fuel mixture will be consumed.
    Unit means any diesel, lean-burn, or rich-burn stationary internal 
combustion engine as defined in this paragraph.
    Waste gas means the fuel gas produced at either waste-water/sewage 
treatment facilities or landfills containing no more than 25 percent by 
volume supplemental gas.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) No owner or operator of a unit subject to the standards of this 
paragraph shall operate the unit unless the owner or operator complies 
with the requirements of paragraphs (m)(3)(i)(A), (B), (C), or (D) of 
this section. Any owner or operator that chooses to comply with this 
paragraph by means of paragraph (m)(3)(i) (C) or (D) of this section 
shall also comply with the requirements of paragraphs (m)(3)(ii) and 
(iii) of this section.
    (A) Replace the unit with an electric motor in accordance with the 
applicable compliance schedule specified in paragraph (m)(5) of this 
section.
    (B) Decrease the annual operating time of the unit to less than 200 
hours per calendar year in accordance with the operating time phase-
down schedule specified in paragraph (m)(5)(v) of this section. Any 
owner or operator that chooses to comply with this paragraph shall 
comply with the monitoring requirements of paragraph (m)(6)(ii)(C) of 
this section.
    (C) No owner or operator of a stationary internal combustion engine 
shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases that contain 
NOX in excess of the following applicable limit expressed as 
NO2 corrected to 15 percent parts per million by volume (ppmv) 
stack gas O2 on a dry basis averaged over a period of 15 
consecutive minutes:
    (1) Rich-burn, general: 25 ppmv.
    (2) Lean-burn, general: 45 ppmv.
    (3) Diesel: 80 ppmv.
    (4) Rich-burn, waste gas: 50 ppmv.
    (5) Lean-burn, waste gas: 125 ppmv.
    (6) Each emission limit expressed in paragraphs (m)(3)(i)(C)(1) 
through (5) of this section may be multiplied by X, where X equals the 
engine efficiency (E) divided by a reference efficiency of 30 percent. 
Engine efficiency (E) shall be determined using one of the methods 
specified in paragraph (m)(3)(i)(C)(6)(i) or (ii) of this section, 
whichever provides a higher value. However, engine efficiency (E) shall 
not be less than 30 percent. An engine with an efficiency lower than 30 
percent shall be assigned an efficiency of 30 percent.

TP05MY94.108

where energy input is determined by a fuel measuring device accurate to 
5 percent and is based on the HHV of the fuel. Percent 
efficiency (E) shall be averaged over 15 consecutive minutes and 
measured at peak load for the applicable engine.

TP05MY94.109

where

LHV=the lower heating value of the fuel; and
HHV=the higher heating value of the fuel

    (D) In lieu of complying with the NOX emission limit in 
paragraph (m)(3)(i)(C)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, an owner or 
operator shall achieve the applicable percent reduction of the NOX 
concentration in the uncontrolled exhaust gas stream specified below. A 
controlled ppmv NOX limit shall be established in accordance with 
the requirements of paragraph (m)(7) of this section for the purpose of 
demonstrating compliance with the applicable percent reduction.
    (1) Rich-burn, general: 96 percent.
    (2) Lean-burn, general: 94 percent.
    (3) Diesel: 90 percent.
    (ii) Standards for carbon monoxide (CO). Any owner or operator of a 
stationary internal combustion engine subject to the requirements of 
paragraph (m)(3)(i)(C) or (D) of this section shall establish a 
controlled ppmv CO emission limit that represents good operating and 
combustion practices. No owner or operator shall cause to be discharged 
into the atmosphere any gases that contain CO in excess of the lowest 
of one of the following limits:
    (A) 120 percent of the CO ppmv level established by an initial 
compliance test in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (m)(7) 
of this section; or
    (B) 4,500 ppmv.

The owner or operator shall subsequently comply with the limit once it 
is established. The ppmv CO emissions shall be corrected to 15 percent 
volume stack gas O2 on a dry basis averaged over a period of 15 
consecutive minutes.
    (iii) Standards for volatile organic compounds (VOC). Any owner or 
operator of a stationary internal combustion engine subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (m)(3)(i) (C) or (D) of this section shall 
establish a controlled ppmv VOC emission limit. No owner or operator 
shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases that contain 
VOC in excess of the lowest of one of the following limits:
    (A) 120 percent of the VOC ppmv level established by an initial 
compliance test in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (m)(7) 
of this section; or
    (B) 350 ppmv.
    The owner or operator shall subsequently comply with the limit once 
it is established. The ppmv VOC emissions shall be corrected to 15 
percent volume stack gas O2 on a dry basis averaged over a period 
of 15 consecutive minutes.
    (4) Exemptions. The requirements of paragraphs (m) (3), (5), (6), 
and (7) of this section shall not apply to the following, unless 
otherwise specified:
    (i) Engines rated at less than 50 brake horsepower.
    (ii) Engines operated at less than 200 hours per calendar year. 
Owners or operators that claim an exemption from the standards of 
paragraph (m)(3) of this section by means of this paragraph shall 
comply with the monitoring requirements of paragraph (m)(6)(ii)(C) of 
this section.
    (iii) Emergency standby engines operated during either an emergency 
or maintenance operation. Maintenance operation shall be limited to 50 
hours per calendar year.
    (iv) Engines used in a laboratory for the sole purpose of 
conducting research or teaching.
    (v) Engines used directly and exclusively for agricultural 
operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or 
animals.
    (vi) Engine test stands used for evaluating engine performance.
    (vii) Diesel engines used to power cranes necessary for emergency 
evacuation or safety of personnel.
    (viii) Diesel engines rated at less than 125 brake horsepower and 
operated at less than 200,000 horsepower-hours per calendar year.
    (A) To demonstrate that a unit is operated less than 200,000 
horsepower-hours in a calendar year, the owner or operator shall 
install, operate, and maintain in calibration equipment that 
continuously monitors and records elapsed time of operation. For each 
year, the owner or operator shall also keep an operating log of start 
and stop times, type and quantity of fuel used, and cumulative annual 
hours and horsepower-hours of operation for each unit. Each operating 
log shall be maintained at the plant at which the unit is located for a 
period of five years. The operating log shall be made available to the 
Administrator upon request.
    (B) The owner or operator of any unit that claims an exemption from 
the requirements of paragraph (m)(3) of this section under paragraph 
(m)(4)(viii)(A) of this section shall notify the Administrator within 7 
days if the unit is ever operated equal to or greater than 200,000 
horsepower-hours in a calendar year. If the unit is ever operated equal 
to or greater than 200,000 horsepower-hours in a calendar year, the 
exemption shall be permanently withdrawn and the owner or operator 
shall be subject to the compliance schedule in paragraph (m)(5)(iv) of 
this section and the applicable requirements of paragraphs (m) (3), 
(6), and (7) of this section. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent 
EPA from bringing enforcement action for violation of paragraph (m)(3) 
of this section or for failure to demonstrate compliance with this 
paragraph (m)(3) of this section.
    (5) Compliance schedule.
    (i) Any owner or operator of a unit in existence prior to the date 
of adoption of this section that does not need to retrofit the unit, 
install new control equipment, or decrease annual operating hours to 
comply with the requirements of paragraph (m)(3) of this section shall 
demonstrate compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this 
section by May 15, 1995.
    (ii) Any owner or operator of a unit in existence prior to the date 
of adoption of this section that must retrofit the unit to comply with 
the requirements of paragraphs (m)(3)(i) (A), (C) or (D), (m)(3)(ii), 
and (m)(3)(iii) of this section, shall demonstrate compliance in 
accordance with the applicable schedule specified in paragraph 
(m)(5)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) Any owner or operator that chooses to convert the unit to 
electric power shall demonstrate compliance with all of the applicable 
requirements of this section by May 15, 1999. Any owner or operator of 
a unit to which this paragraph is applicable shall meet the following 
increments of progress:
    (1) By January 1, 1997, apply for all authority-to-construct 
permits required by the local Air Pollution Control District for 
conversion of the unit to electric power, and
    (2) By January 1, 1999, commence conversion of the unit to electric 
power, as approved by the local Air Pollution Control District, to 
demonstrate compliance by May 15, 1999.
    (B) Any owner or operator that chooses to retrofit the unit with 
combustion controls or install new control equipment shall demonstrate 
compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this section by 
May 15, 1997. Any owner or operator of a unit to which this paragraph 
is applicable shall meet the following increments of progress:
    (1) By January 1, 1996, apply for all authority-to-construct 
permits required by the local Air Pollution Control District for all 
retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, and
    (2) By January 1, 1997, commence construction of all retrofits and/
or additions of new control equipment, as approved by the local Air 
Pollution Control District, to demonstrate compliance by May 15, 1997.
    (iii) Any owner or operator of a new unit that is constructed on 
and after the date of adoption of this section shall apply for, and 
receive approval of, all authority-to- construct permits required by 
the local Air Pollution Control District prior to beginning 
construction of the unit. The owner or operator shall demonstrate that 
the unit will be operated in compliance with all of the applicable 
requirements of this section within 60 days after the date of the 
initial startup of the unit.
    (iv) On and after the date of adoption of this section, any owner 
or operator of a diesel engine that claims an exempt from the 
requirements of paragraph (m)(3) of this section which operates the 
unit equal to or greater than 200,000 brake horsepower hours in a 
calendar year shall demonstrate compliance in accordance with the 
applicable schedule specified in paragraph (m)(5)(iv) (A) or (B) of 
this section.
    (A) Any owner or operator that chooses to retrofit the unit with 
combustion controls or install new control equipment shall meet the 
following increments of progress:
    (1) Within 2 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 200,000 brake horsepower hours in a calendar year, 
apply for all authority-to-construct permits required by the local Air 
Pollution Control District for all retrofits and/or additions of new 
control equipment, and
    (2) Within 6 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 200,000 brake horsepower hours in a calendar year, 
commence construction of all retrofits and/or additions of new control 
equipment, as approved by the local Air Pollution Control District, to 
demonstrate compliance within 12 months after the day that the unit is 
operated equal to or greater than 200,000 brake horsepower hours in a 
calendar year.
    (B) Any owner or operator that chooses to convert the unit to 
electric power shall meet the following increments of progress:
    (1) Within 4 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 200,000 brake horsepower hours in a calendar year, 
apply for all authority-to-construct permits required by the local Air 
Pollution Control District for conversion of the unit to electric 
power, and
    (2) Within 18 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 200,000 brake horsepower hours in a calendar year, 
commence conversion of the unit to electric power, as approved by the 
local Air Pollution Control District, to demonstrate compliance within 
24 months after the day that the unit is operated equal to or greater 
than 200,000 brake horsepower hours in a calendar year.
    (v) Any owner or operator of a unit in existence prior to the date 
of adoption of this section that chooses to comply with the 
requirements of paragraph (m)(3) of this section by means of paragraph 
(m)(3)(i)(B) of this section shall comply with the following increments 
of progress:
    (A) From May 15, 1996 through May 14, 1997, no owner or operator 
shall operate a unit in excess of 4,380 hours. The owner or operator 
shall demonstrate that the unit is operated less than or equal to 4,380 
hours in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (m)(6)(ii)(C) of 
this section.
    (B) From May 15, 1997 through May 14, 1998, no owner or operator 
shall operate a unit in excess of 1,800 hours. The owner or operator 
shall demonstrate that the unit is operated less than or equal to 1,800 
hours in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (m)(6)(ii)(C) of 
this section.
    (C) From May 15, 1998 through May 14, 1999, no owner or operator 
shall operate a unit in excess of 900 hours. The owner or operator 
shall demonstrate that the unit is operated less than or equal to 900 
hours in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (m)(6)(ii)(C) of 
this section.
    (D) On and after May 15, 1999, no owner or operator shall operate a 
unit equal to or greater than 200 hours per calendar year. The owner or 
operator shall demonstrate that the unit is operated less than 200 
hours in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (m)(6)(ii)(C) of 
this section.
    (6) Reporting, monitoring, and recordkeeping.
    (i) Reporting requirements. Any owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (m)(3) of this section shall comply with the 
applicable notification requirements of Sec. 60.7, and shall also 
comply with the following requirements:
    (A) By May 15, 1995, submit to the Administrator the identification 
number and type of each unit subject to the section, the name and 
address of the plant where the unit is located, and the name and 
telephone number of the person responsible for demonstrating compliance 
with the section. For each unit identified, the following information 
shall be submitted to the Administrator:
    (1) The rated brake horsepower and combustion method (i.e., rich-
burn, lean-burn, or diesel) of the engine; type of gaseous and/or 
liquid fuel(s) that will be burned in the unit; purpose for which the 
unit is used; hours of operation and fuel consumption (cubic feet of 
gas or gallons of liquid) for each type of fuel for the previous one 
year period; brake horsepower hours for the previous one year period; 
and manufacturer, model designation, and age of the unit.
    (2) A selection of the standard(s) in paragraph (m)(3) of this 
section with which the unit will comply.
    (3) For owners or operators complying by means of paragraph 
(m)(3)(i) (C) or (D) of this section, a description of the NOX 
control system that will be installed on the engine (if any), including 
type (e.g., selective or nonselective catalytic reduction, ``clean-
burn'' combustion, etc.) and manufacturer, as well as a description of 
any ancillary equipment related to the control of emissions (e.g., 
automatic air/fuel ratio controller, fuel valves, etc.).
    (B) Any owner or operator subject to the compliance schedule 
specified in paragraph (m)(5) (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section 
shall notify the Administrator in writing of the following:
    (1) The date construction is commenced on retrofits and/or 
additions of new control equipment to the unit.
    (2) The anticipated date of initial startup of the unit after 
completing retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment to the 
unit.
    (3) The actual date of initial startup of the unit after completing 
retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment to the unit.
    (C) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (m)(5) 
of this section, submit to the Administrator certification that the 
unit is in compliance with the applicable standards in paragraph (m)(3) 
of this section. Any owner or operator complying by means of paragraphs 
(m)(3)(i) (C) or (D), (3)(ii), and (3)(iii) of this section shall 
demonstrate compliance by submitting to the Administrator and the local 
Air Pollution Control District the results of an initial compliance 
test performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of 
paragraph (m)(7) of this section. The owner or operator shall provide 
the Administrator at least 30 days prior notice of the compliance test 
to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an observer 
present. As a part of the certification, the owner or operator shall 
submit to the Administrator and the local Air Pollution Control 
District a written report of the results of the compliance test.
    (D) Engine operator inspection plan. By the applicable compliance 
date specified in paragraph (m)(5) of this section, any owner or 
operator of a unit rated at equal to or greater than 50 brake 
horsepower and less than 300 brake horsepower that chooses to comply 
with the requirements of paragraph (m)(3) of this section by means of 
paragraphs (m)(3)(i) (C) or (D), (3)(ii), and (3)(iii) of this section 
shall submit an Engine Operator Inspection Plan to the Administrator 
and the local Air Pollution Control District. The owner or operator may 
request a change to the plan at any time. On and after the applicable 
compliance date specified in paragraph (m)(5) of this section, the plan 
shall be updated and submitted to the Administrator and the local Air 
Pollution Control District prior to commencing any change in operation. 
The Plan shall include the following for each engine:
    (1) The manufacturer, model number, rated brake horsepower, 
combustion method (i.e., rich-burn, lean-burn, or diesel), and company 
identification number and the location of the engine.
    (2) A description of the NOX control system installed on the 
engine (if any), including type (e.g., selective or nonselective 
catalytic reduction, ``clean-burn'' combustion, etc.) and manufacturer, 
as well as a description of any ancillary equipment related to the 
control of emissions (e.g., automatic air/fuel ratio controller, fuel 
valves, etc.).
    (3) Establish engine operating parameters (e.g., timing, manifold 
vacuum pressure, valve set points, etc.) using the results of the 
initial compliance test required under paragraph (m)(6)(i)(C) of this 
section. In addition, the plan shall establish engine exhaust oxygen 
concentrations in accordance with the test data.
    (4) A specific emission inspection procedure to assure that the 
engine is operated in continual compliance with the requirements of 
this section. The procedure shall include an inspection schedule 
requiring that inspections be conducted every calendar quarter or after 
every 2,000 hours of engine operation. In no event shall the frequency 
of inspection be less than once per calendar year.
    (5) The plan shall require that a portable NOX analyzer be 
used to take readings during any quarter in which source tests are not 
performed. The instrument readings for each parameter in the inspection 
plan, a description of the corrective actions taken, a determination of 
whether or not the engine is in compliance, and the name of the person 
recording the measurement shall be recorded in the inspection log.
    (6) Each preventative or corrective maintenance procedure or 
practice that will be used to maintain the engine and NOX control 
system in continual compliance with the provisions of this section.
    (ii) Monitoring requirements.
    (A) Any owner or operator of a unit rated at equal to or greater 
than 300 brake horsepower that chooses to comply with the requirements 
of paragraph (m)(3) of this section by means of paragraph (m)(3)(i) (C) 
or (D) and paragraph (m)(3)(ii) of this section shall comply with the 
following requirements:
    (1) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (m)(5) 
of this section, install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a continuous 
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) in accordance with the applicable 
requirements of Appendices B and F of 40 CFR part 60 to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the requirements of paragraph (m)(3) (i) and 
(ii) of this section. The CEMS shall be installed and operational 
before conducting the initial compliance test required under paragraph 
(m)(6)(i)(C) and paragraph (m)(7) of this section. The owner or 
operator shall submit to the Administrator documentation that the CEMS 
is in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
    (2) Each owner or operator shall submit an excess emissions and 
monitoring systems performance report, in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec. 60.7(c) and Sec. 60.13, to the Administrator 
within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter.
    (B) Any owner or operator of a unit rated at equal to or greater 
than 50 brake horsepower and less than 300 brake horsepower that 
chooses to comply with the requirements of paragraph (m)(3) of this 
section by means of either paragraph (m)(3)(i) (C) or (D), and 
paragraphs (m)(3)(ii) and (m)(3)(iii) of this section, shall comply 
with the following requirements:
    (1) Complete an emission test at least once every 24 months in 
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (m)(7) of this section. 
If the results of an emission test indicate that a unit is in violation 
of the applicable NOX, CO, and/or VOC emission standards specified 
in paragraphs (m)(3)(i)(C), (m)(3)(i)(D), (m)(3)(ii), and (m)(3)(iii) 
of this section, the owner or operator shall make any adjustments to 
the operating parameters of the unit and/or associated control 
equipment necessary to bring the unit into compliance as demonstrated 
through an emission test. If it is necessary to adjust the operating 
parameters of the unit and/or associated control equipment that are 
different from those specified in the Engine Operator Inspection Plan 
to bring the unit into compliance, the owner or operator shall revise 
the Engine Operator Inspection Plan to reflect the changes made to the 
operating parameters, and shall submit the revisions to the 
Administrator and the local Air Pollution Control District. Nothing in 
this paragraph shall prevent EPA from bringing an enforcement action 
for violation of the applicable emission standards in paragraphs 
(m)(3)(i)(C), (m)(3)(i)(D), (m)(3)(ii), and (m)(3)(iii) of this section 
or for failure to demonstrate compliance with this paragraph.
    (2) By the applicable compliance date in paragraph (m)(5) of this 
section, each IC Engine subject to this part shall either install, 
calibrate, operate and maintain a CEMS for NOX in accordance with 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or shall have an engine 
parameter monitoring scheme developed which shall be capable of 
continuously predicting the NOX emission concentration. By the 
applicable compliance date such parameter monitoring scheme shall be 
demonstrated to meet a 20% relative accuracy for predicting the 15 
minute concentration of NOX in the exhaust. This relative accuracy 
evaluation should be conducted in accordance with the techniques of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix B and shall compare the predicted 15 minute 
NOX concentration through a continuous parameter monitoring model 
to the NOX emissions measured by a Method 7E stack test. The 
parameter monitoring scheme shall continually meet the 20% relative 
accuracy requirement and at a minimum the parameter monitoring scheme 
shall be reevaluated for the relative accuracy during each biannual 
test required by paragraph (m)(6)(ii)(B)(1) of this section.
    (C) Any owner or operator of a unit rated at equal to or greater 
than 50 brake horsepower that chooses to comply with the requirements 
of paragraph (m)(3) of this section by means of paragraph (m)(3)(i)(B) 
of this section, and any owner or operator that claims an exemption 
from the standards of paragraph (m)(3) of this section by means of 
paragraph (m)(4)(ii) of this section, shall install, operate, and 
maintain in calibration equipment that continuously monitors and 
records elapsed time of operation to demonstrate compliance with the 
compliance schedule specified in paragraph (m)(5)(v) of this section. 
For each year, the owner or operator shall keep an operating log of 
start and stop times, type and quantity of fuel used, and cumulative 
annual hours of operation and brake horsepower hours for each unit. 
Each operating log shall be maintained at the plant at which the unit 
is located for a period of five years. The operating log shall be made 
available to the Administrator upon request.
    (iii) Recordkeeping requirements. Any owner or operator of a unit 
subject to this section shall maintain all records necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the section for a period of five calendar 
years at the plant at which the subject unit is located. The records 
shall be made available to the Administrator upon request. The owner or 
operator shall maintain records of the following information for each 
day the unit is operated:
    (A) Identification and location of each engine subject to the 
requirements of this section.
    (B) Calendar date of record.
    (C) The number of hours the unit is operated during each day 
including startup, shutdown, and breakdown periods and the type and 
duration of maintenance and repairs.
    (D) Date and results of each emission inspection.
    (E) A summary of any emissions corrective maintenance taken.
    (F) Any additional information required in the Engine Operator 
Inspection Plan.
    (G) The results of all compliance tests.
    (H) If a unit is equipped with a CEMS:
    (1) Identification of time periods during which NOX and CO 
standards are exceeded, the reason for the exceedance, and action taken 
to correct the exceedance and to prevent similar future exceedances.
    (2) Identification of the time periods for which operating 
conditions and pollutant data were not obtained including reasons for 
not obtaining sufficient data and a description of corrective actions 
taken.
    (7) Test Methods. Any owner or operator that is required to perform 
a compliance test to demonstrate compliance with the standards 
specified in paragraphs (m)(3)(i) (C) or (D), (m)(3)(ii), and 
(m)(3)(iii) of this section shall comply with the requirements of 
Sec. 60.8 (c), (d), and (e). The test shall be performed and data 
reduced and reported as follows:
    (i) Each emission test shall be conducted while the unit is 
operated at maximum operating capacity and operating under 
representative operating conditions.
    (ii) Each emission test shall be conducted in accordance with the 
appropriate test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Except for the 
modifications in this paragraph (m) and unless otherwise approved by 
the Administrator, NOX shall be measured in accordance with Method 
7E, CO shall be measured in accordance with Method 10, and the diluent 
shall be measured using Method 3A. Reactive organic compounds shall be 
measured in accordance with Method 25 or 25A, referenced to methane. If 
Method 25A is used, Method 18 shall be used to determine methane 
content. Testing shall be conducted for four 15 minute testing periods. 
Compliance shall be evaluated for each 15 minute period. Data recorded 
during testing to determine the 15 minute average shall either be 
continuously integrated by the testing instrument and data recorder, or 
recorded manually at 30 second intervals during each 15 minute test 
period. Zero and calibration checks shall be conducted after each 15 
minute test period.
    (iii) Any owner or operator that chooses to comply with the 
requirements of paragraph (m)(3) of this section by means of paragraph 
(m)(3)(i)(D) of this section shall calculate the applicable percent 
NOX emission reduction using the pre- and post-controlled ppmv 
NOX concentration. After demonstrating the applicable percent 
reduction by means of a post-controlled emissions test, the post-
controlled NOX concentration shall be used to establish the outlet 
ppmv NOX emission limit for determining subsequent compliance. The 
outlet ppmv NOX emission limit established for determining 
subsequent compliance shall be documented in the applicable 
certification report required under paragraph (m)(6)(i)(C) of this 
section.
    (iv) The ppmv CO and VOC emission limits required by paragraphs 
(m)(3) (ii) and (iii) of this section, respectively, shall be 
established during the initial compliance test for NOX emissions. 
The CO and VOC emission limits established for determining subsequent 
compliance shall be documented in the applicable certification report 
required under paragraph (m)(6)(i)(C) of this section.
    (n) Biomass boilers or steam generators.
    (1) Applicability. Any owner or operator of a biomass boiler or 
steam generator with a rated heat input capacity equal to or greater 
than 5 million British thermal units per hour (mmBtu/hr) and an annual 
heat input equal to or greater than 9 billion British thermal units per 
year (109 Btu/yr) shall comply with the applicable requirements of 
paragraphs (n) (1) through (7) of this section. For the purposes of 
this paragraph, the affected area includes the Sacramento Metro Area as 
described for ozone in 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraphs (n)(1) through 
(n)(7) of this section, the following definitions shall apply. All 
terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given them in 
Sec. 52.2950.
    Annual heat input means the actual amount of heat released by fuels 
burned in a unit during a 12 calendar month rolling period, based on 
the fuel's higher heating value. The annual heat input shall be 
calculated as the sum of the previous 12 monthly fuel use rates 
multiplied by the fuel's higher heating value.
    Biomass means any solid organic material used as a fuel source for 
boilers or steam generators including, but not limited to, wood, almond 
shells, or agricultural waste.
    Biomass boiler or steam generator means any combustion equipment 
used in any institutional, commercial, or industrial operation that is 
designed to burn biomass to produce steam, heat water and/or other 
fluids, and/or generate electricity. A biomass boiler or steam 
generator does not include any waste heat recovery boiler that is used 
to recover sensible heat from the exhaust of a combustion turbine or 
any unfired waste heat recovery boiler that is used to recover sensible 
heat from the exhaust of any combustion equipment.
    British thermal unit (Btu) means the amount of heat required to 
raise the temperature of one pound of water from 59 deg.F to 60 deg.F 
at one atmosphere.
    Heat input means the chemical heat released due to fuel combustion 
in a unit, using the higher heating value of the fuel. This does not 
include the sensible heat of incoming combustion air.
    Higher heating value (HHV) means the total heat liberated per mass 
of fuel burned (Btu per pound), when fuel and dry air at standard 
conditions undergo complete combustion and all resultant products are 
brought to their standard states at standard conditions. If 
certification of the HHV is not provided by the third party fuel 
supplier, it shall be determined by one of the following test methods: 
ASTM D2015-85 for solid fuels; ASTM D240-87 or ASTM D2382-88 for liquid 
hydrocarbon fuels; or ASTM D1826-88 or ASTM D1945-81 in conjunction 
with ASTM D3588-89 for gaseous fuels.
    Municipal-type solid waste means household, commercial/retail, and/
or institutional waste. Household waste includes material discarded by 
single and multiple residential dwellings, hotels, motels, and other 
similar permanent or temporary housing establishments or facilities. 
Commercial/retail waste includes material discarded by stores, offices, 
restaurants, warehouses, nonmanufacturing activities at industrial 
facilities, and other similar establishments or facilities. 
Institutional waste includes material discarded by schools, hospitals, 
nonmanufacturing activities at prisons and government facilities and 
other similar establishments or facilities.
    NOX emissions means the sum of nitric oxides and nitrogen 
dioxide in the flue gas, collectively expressed as nitrogen dioxide.
    Rated heat input capacity means the heat input capacity specified 
on the nameplate of the combustion unit. If the combustion unit has 
been altered or modified such that its maximum heat input is different 
than the heat input capacity specified on the nameplate, the new 
maximum heat input shall be considered as the rated heat input 
capacity.
    Shutdown means the period of time a unit is cooled from its normal 
operating temperature to cold or ambient temperature.
    Startup means the period of time a unit is heated from cold or 
ambient temperature to its normal operating temperature as specified by 
the manufacturer.
    Unit means any biomass boiler or steam generator as defined in this 
paragraph.
    Wood means wood, wood residue, bark, or any derivative fuel or 
residue thereof, in any form, including but not limited to sawdust, 
sanderdust, wood chips, scraps, slabs, millings, shavings, and 
processed pellets made from wood or other forest residues.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) No owner or operator of a biomass boiler or steam generator 
shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases that contain 
NOX in excess of one of the following standards, which ever is 
less stringent:
    (A) 70 parts per million (ppm) corrected to 12 percent volume stack 
gas carbon dioxide (CO2) on a rolling 3 hour average dry basis; or
    (B) 50 percent (0.50) of the NOX concentration in the 
uncontrolled exhaust gas stream. A controlled ppm NOX limit shall 
be established in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 
(n)(7)(ii) of this section for the purpose of demonstrating continuous 
compliance with the 50 percent reduction.
    (ii) The owner or operator of any biomass boiler or steam generator 
subject to one of the standards in paragraph (n)(3)(i) of this section 
shall establish a controlled ppm carbon monoxide (CO) emission limit 
that represents good operating and combustion practices. No owner or 
operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases 
that contain CO in excess of 120 percent of the CO ppm level 
established by an initial compliance test in accordance with the 
requirements of paragraph (n)(7)(iii) of this section. The owner or 
operator shall subsequently comply with the limit once it is 
established. The ppm CO emissions shall be corrected to 12 percent 
volume stack gas CO2 on a rolling 3 hour average dry basis.
    (4) Exemptions. The requirements of paragraphs (n) (3), (5), (6), 
and (7) of this section shall not apply to any owner or operator of the 
following:
    (i) Any boiler or steam generator fired with only gaseous and/or 
liquid fuel that is subject to paragraph (u) of this section.
    (ii) Any boiler or steam generator that is designed for the primary 
purpose of burning municipal-type solid waste.
    (5) Compliance Schedule.
    (i) Any owner or operator of a unit in existence prior to the date 
of adoption of this section that does not need to retrofit the unit or 
install new control equipment to comply with the requirements of 
paragraph (n)(3) of this section shall demonstrate compliance with all 
of the applicable requirements of this section by May 15, 1995.
    (ii) Any owner or operator of a unit in existence prior to the date 
of adoption of this section that must retrofit the unit or install new 
control equipment to comply with the requirements of paragraph (n)(3) 
of this section shall demonstrate compliance with all of the applicable 
requirements of this section by May 15, 1997. Any owner or operator of 
a unit to which this paragraph is applicable shall meet the following 
increments of progress:
    (A) By January 1, 1996, apply for all authority-to-construct 
permits required by the local Air Pollution Control District for all 
retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment to the unit, and
    (B) By January 1, 1997, commence construction of all retrofits and/
or additions of new control equipment to the unit, as approved by the 
local Air Pollution Control District, to demonstrate compliance by May 
15, 1997.
    (iii) Any owner or operator of a new unit that is constructed on 
and after the date of adoption of this section shall apply for, and 
receive approval of, all authority-to-construct permits required by the 
local Air Pollution Control District prior to beginning construction of 
the unit. The owner or operator shall demonstrate that the unit will be 
operated in compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this 
section within 60 days after the date of the initial startup of the 
unit.
    (iv) On and after the date of adoption of this section, any owner 
or operator of a unit exempt from the requirements of paragraph (n)(3) 
of this section that becomes subject to requirements of paragraph 
(n)(3) of this section because the unit's annual heat input rate equals 
or exceeds 9 x 109Btu/yr shall meet the following increments of 
progress:
    (A) Within 7 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 9 x 10\9\ Btu/yr, apply for all authority-to-
construct permits required by the local Air Pollution Control District 
for all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, and
    (B) Within 19 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 9 x 10\9\ Btu/yr, commence construction of all 
retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, as approved by the 
local Air Pollution Control District, to demonstrate compliance within 
24 months after the day that the unit is operated equal to or greater 
than 9 x 10\9\ Btu/yr.
    (6) Reporting, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping.
    (i) Reporting Requirements. Any owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (n)(3) of this section shall comply with the 
applicable notification and reporting requirements of Sec. 60.7, and 
shall also comply with the following requirements:
    (A) By May 15, 1995, submit to the Administrator the identification 
number and type of each unit subject to the section, the name and 
address of the plant where the unit is located, and the name and 
telephone number of the person responsible for demonstrating compliance 
with the section. For each unit identified, the following information 
shall be submitted to the Administrator:
    (1) The rated heat input capacity, hours of operation during the 
previous one-year period, anticipated annual operating time and annual 
heat input for 1995, type of fuel(s) that will be burned in the unit, 
and age and manufacturer of the unit.
    (2) Documentation of existing emissions of NOX and CO in 
accordance with the applicable requirements of paragraph (n)(7) of this 
section, a selection of the standard in paragraph (n)(3)(i) of this 
section with which the unit will comply, and the control method 
selected for achieving compliance.
    (B) Any owner or operator subject to the compliance schedule 
specified in paragraph (n)(5) (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section 
shall notify the Administrator in writing of the following:
    (1) The date construction is commenced on all retrofits and/or 
additions of new control equipment to the unit.
    (2) The anticipated date of initial startup of the unit after 
completing all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment to 
the unit.
    (3) The actual date of initial startup of the unit after completing 
all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment to the unit.
    (C) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (n)(5) 
of this section, submit to the Administrator certification that the 
unit is in compliance with the applicable standard in paragraph (n)(3) 
of this section as demonstrated through a report of the initial 
compliance test performed in accordance with the applicable 
requirements of paragraph (n)(4)(ii)(A) or (n)(7) of this section. The 
owner or operator shall provide the Administrator at least 30 days 
prior notice of the compliance test to afford the Administrator the 
opportunity to have an observer present.
    (ii) Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) Requirements. 
Any owner or operator subject to the requirements of paragraph (n)(3) 
of this section shall comply with the following:
    (A) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (n)(5) 
of this section, install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a CEMS in 
accordance with the applicable requirements of Appendices B and F of 40 
CFR part 60 to demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirements 
of paragraph (n)(3) of this section. The CEMS shall be installed and 
operational before conducting the initial compliance test required 
under paragraph (n)(6)(i)(C) and paragraph (n)(7) of this section. As a 
part of the certification requirement under paragraph (n)(6)(i)(C) of 
this section, the owner or operator shall submit documentation that the 
CEMS is in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
    (B) Each owner or operator shall submit an excess emissions and 
monitoring systems performance report, in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec. 60.7(c) and (d) and 60.13, to the Administrator 
within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter.
    (iii) Recordkeeping Requirements. Any owner or operator of a unit 
subject to this section shall maintain all records necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the section for a period of five calendar 
years at the plant where the subject unit is located. The records shall 
be made available to the Administrator upon request. The owner or 
operator shall maintain records of the following information for each 
day the unit is operated:
    (A) Identification and location of each unit subject to the 
requirements of this section.
    (B) Calendar date of record.
    (C) The number of hours the unit is operated during each day.
    (D) Boiler load, fuel type, actual time of startups and shutdowns, 
breakdown periods, and the type and duration of maintenance and 
repairs.
    (E) The results of all compliance tests.
    (F) The rolling 3 hour average NOX emission concentration 
(expressed as NO2 corrected to 12 percent CO2) measured.
    (G) The rolling 3 hour average CO emission concentration (corrected 
to 12 percent volume stack gas CO2) measured.
    (H) Identification of time periods during which NOX and CO 
standards are exceeded, the reason for the exceedance, and action taken 
to correct the exceedance and to prevent similar future exceedances.
    (I) Identification of the time periods for which operating 
conditions and pollutant data were not obtained including reasons for 
not obtaining sufficient data and a description of corrective actions 
taken.
    (7) Test Methods.
    (i) Any owner or operator that chooses to comply with the standard 
specified in paragraph (n)(3)(i)(A) of this section shall perform an 
initial compliance test to demonstrate compliance with the standard in 
accordance with the applicable requirements of Sec. 60.8, and shall 
also comply with the following:
    (A) Each emission test run shall be conducted while the unit is 
operated at maximum operating capacity. No emission test shall be 
conducted during start-up, shutdown, or under breakdown conditions for 
the purpose of demonstrating compliance with this section.
    (B) Sampling and analytical procedures shall be conducted in 
accordance with the applicable EPA Reference Methods and Submethods 
described in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
    (C) The 70 ppm emission limit specified in paragraph (n)(3)(i)(A) 
of this section shall be corrected to 12 percent volume stack gas 
CO2 on a rolling 3 hour average dry basis.
    (ii) Any owner or operator that chooses to comply with the standard 
specified in paragraph (n)(3)(i)(B) of this section shall perform an 
initial compliance test to demonstrate compliance with the standard in 
accordance with the applicable requirements of Sec. 60.8, and shall 
also comply with the following:
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (n)(7)(i)(A) and (B) of this 
section.
    (B) The 50 percent NOX emission reduction specified in 
paragraph (n)(3)(i)(B) of this section shall be calculated based on the 
pre- and post-controlled ppm NOX concentration referenced at 12 
percent volume stack gas CO2 on a rolling 3 hour average dry 
basis. The pre-controlled ppm NOX concentration to be used in 
demonstrating the 50 percent reduction shall be the ppm NOX 
concentration submitted to the Administrator in accordance with the 
requirements of paragraph (n)(6)(i)(A)(2) of this section. After 
demonstrating a 50 percent reduction by means of a post-controlled 
emissions test, the post-controlled NOX concentration shall be 
used to establish the outlet ppm NOX emission limit for 
determining subsequent compliance. The ppm NOX emission limit 
shall be corrected to 12 percent volume stack gas CO2 on a rolling 
3 hour average dry basis. The outlet ppm NOX emission limit 
established for determining subsequent compliance shall be documented 
in the applicable certification report required under paragraph 
(n)(6)(i)(C) of this section.
    (iii) Any owner or operator that is subject to the requirements of 
paragraph (n)(3)(ii) of this section shall perform a test for CO 
emissions during the initial compliance test for NOX emissions to 
establish a ppm CO emission limit that represents good operating and 
combustion practices for the fuel(s) burned in the unit. Sampling of CO 
emissions shall be performed at the outlet of the control system in 
accordance with the applicable requirements of Sec. 60.8 and the 
applicable EPA Reference Methods and Submethods described in appendix A 
of 40 CFR part 60. The ppm CO emissions shall be corrected to 12 
percent volume stack gas CO2 on a rolling 3 hour average dry 
basis. The outlet ppm CO emission limit established for determining 
subsequent compliance shall be documented in the applicable 
certification report required under paragraph (n)(6)(i)(C) of this 
section.
    (o) Emissions of oxides of nitrogen from stationary gas turbines.
    (1) Applicability. For the purposes of paragraph (o) of this 
section, the affected area includes the Sacramento Metro Area as 
described for ozone in 40 CFR 81.305. Any owner or operator of a 
stationary gas turbine with a rated heat output capacity equal to or 
greater than 0.3 megawatt (MW) shall comply with the applicable 
requirements of paragraphs (o) (1) through (7) of this section.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (o) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    British thermal unit (Btu) means the amount of heat required to 
raise the temperature of one pound of water from 59 deg.F to 60 deg.F 
at one atmosphere.
    Chemical processing stationary gas turbine unit means a gas turbine 
that vents its exhaust gases into the operating stream of a chemical 
process.
    Cogeneration cycle stationary gas turbine unit means a gas turbine 
that is operated both for the simultaneous production of shaft work and 
for the recovery of useful thermal energy from the exhaust gases or 
waste steam as defined by Section 25134 of the California Public 
Resources Code.
    Combined cycle stationary gas turbine unit means a gas turbine that 
is operated both for the production of electrical energy from shaft 
work and the useful energy produced from heat recovered from its 
exhaust gases.
    Emergency standby stationary gas turbine unit means a gas turbine 
that is operated only as a mechanical or electrical power source for a 
facility when the primary power source has been rendered inoperable, 
except due to power interruption pursuant to an interruptible power 
supply agreement. This does not include utility company electrical 
power plant units.
    Exhaust after treatment means a control method for the post- 
combustion reduction of NOX emissions, such as selective catalytic 
reduction.
    Higher heating value (HHV) means the total heat liberated per mass 
of fuel burned (Btu per pound), when fuel and dry air at standard 
conditions undergo complete combustion and all resultant products are 
brought to their standard states at standard conditions. If 
certification of the HHV is not provided by the third party fuel 
supplier, it shall be determined by one of the following test methods: 
ASTM D2015-85 for solid fuels; ASTM D240-87 or ASTM D2382-88 for liquid 
hydrocarbon fuels; or ASTM D1826-88 or ASTM D1945-81 in conjunction 
with ASTM D3588-89 for gaseous fuels.
    LHV means the lower heating value of a fuel.
    NOX emissions means the sum of nitric oxides and nitrogen 
dioxide in the flue gas, collectively expressed as nitrogen dioxide.
    Measured NOX emissions concentration corrected to 
International Standards Organization (ISO) standard conditions is: 
NOX = (NOX obs)(Pref/Pobs) 0.5 (288K/Tamb) 1.53
(e19 (Hobs--0.00633)),

where:
NOX=emissions of NOX at 15 percent oxygen and ISO standard 
conditions on a dry basis, ppm.
NOX obs=measured NOX emissions at 15 percent oxygen on a dry 
basis, ppm.
Pref=reference ambient absolute pressure, 101.3 kilopascals (14.696 
psia).
Pobs=measured ambient absolute pressure.
Hobs=measured absolute specific humidity of ambient air, pounds water 
per pound dry air.
e=transcendental constant (2.718).
Tamb=measured temperature of ambient air, degrees K.

    Peaking unit means a stationary gas turbine that is used 
intermittently to produce energy on a demand basis.
    Power augmentation means the increase in the gas turbine shaft 
output and/or the decrease in gas turbine fuel consumption by the 
addition of energy recovered from exhaust heat.
    Rating of a unit means the continuous MW (megawatt) rating or 
mechanical equivalent by a manufacturer for gas turbine(s) without 
power augmentation.
    Shutdown means the period of time a unit is cooled from its normal 
operating temperature to cold or ambient temperature.
    Startup means the period of time a unit is heated from cold or 
ambient temperature to its normal operating temperature as specified by 
the manufacturer.
    Stationary gas turbine (unit) means any gas turbine system that is 
gas and/or liquid fueled with or without power augmentation. This unit 
is either attached to a foundation at a facility or is portable 
equipment operated at a specific facility for more than 90 days in any 
12-month period. Two or more gas turbines powering one shaft shall be 
treated as one unit.
    Thermal stabilization period means the two-hour start up time 
necessary to build-up steam pressure for NOX control purposes in 
cogeneration cycle and combined cycle units.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) No owner or operator of a stationary gas turbine unit shall 
cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases that contain 
NOX, at concentrations corrected for ISO standard conditions, in 
excess of the following standards:

TP05MY94.110

where:
Compliance Limit=allowable NOX emissions (ppm by volume).
Reference Limit=the NOX emission limit (ppm by volume), calculated 
at ISO standard conditions, corrected to 15 percent oxygen on a dry 
basis, and averaged over 15 consecutive minutes.

The limits for various megawatt ratings (continuous rating by the 
manufacturer without power augmentation) are as follows:

Unit Size 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Reference
                     Megawatt rating, MW                         limit, 
                                                                  ppm   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.3 to <2.9 MW....................................         25
2.9 MW............................................          9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And,

TP05MY94.111

    The demonstrated percent efficiency of the gas turbine only as 
calculated without consideration of any downstream energy recovery from 
the actual heat rate [i.e., (British thermal units (Btu)/kilowatt-hour) 
or 1.34 Btu/horsepower-hour], corrected to the HHV of the fuel and ISO 
conditions, as measured at peak load for the turbine. The value of EFF 
shall not be less than 25 percent. Gas turbines with lower efficiencies 
will be assigned a 25 percent efficiency for this calculation.

or

TP05MY94.112

    The manufacturer's continuous rated percent efficiency 
(manufacturer's rated efficiency) of the gas turbine after correction 
from LHV to the HHV of the fuel, whichever efficiency is higher. The 
value of EFF shall not be less than 25 percent. Gas turbines with lower 
efficiencies will be assigned a 25 percent efficiency for this 
calculation.
    (ii) The owner or operator of any stationary gas turbine subject to 
the standards in paragraph (o)(3) of this section shall establish a 
controlled ppm carbon monoxide (CO) emission limit that represents good 
operating and combustion practices. No owner or operator shall cause to 
be discharged into the atmosphere any gases that contain CO in excess 
of 120 percent of the CO ppm level established by an initial compliance 
test in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (o)(7)(ii) of 
this section. The owner or operator shall subsequently comply with the 
limit once it is established. The ppm CO emissions shall be corrected 
to 15 percent volume stack gas O
52 on a dry basis averaged over a period of 15 consecutive minutes.
    (4) Exemptions.
    (i) The requirements of paragraphs (o) (3), (5), (6), and (7) of 
this section shall not apply to the following:
    (A) Laboratory units used in research and testing.
    (B) Units operated exclusively for firefighting and/or flood 
control.
    (C) Chemical processing gas turbine units.
    (ii) Peaking Units and Emergency Standby Units.
    (A) The requirements of paragraphs (o) (3), (5), (6), and (7) of 
this section shall not apply to peaking units or emergency standby 
units that operate less than 200 hours per calendar year. To 
demonstrate that a unit is operated less than 200 hours in a calendar 
year, the owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain in 
calibration equipment that continuously monitors and records elapsed 
time of operation. The owner or operator shall also keep an operating 
log of start and stop times, type and quantity of fuel used, and 
cumulative hours of operation for each unit.
    (B) The owner or operator of any stationary gas turbine exempt 
under paragraph (o)(ii)(A) of this section shall notify the 
Administrator within 7 days if the unit is operated equal to or greater 
than 200 hours in a calendar year. If the unit is ever operated equal 
to or greater than 200 hours in a calendar year, the exemption shall be 
permanently withdrawn and the owner or operator shall be subject to the 
applicable requirements of paragraphs (o) (3), (6), and (7) of this 
section in accordance with the compliance schedule in paragraph 
(o)(5)(iv) of this section.
    (5) Compliance Schedule.
    (i) Any owner or operator of a unit in existence prior to [Insert 
date of publication of the final rule] that does not need to retrofit 
the unit or install new control equipment to comply with the 
requirements of paragraph (o)(3) of this section shall demonstrate 
compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this section by 
May 15, 1995.
    (ii) Any owner or operator of a unit in existence prior to [Insert 
date of publication of the final rule] that must retrofit the unit or 
install new control equipment to comply with the requirements of 
paragraph (o)(3) of this section shall demonstrate compliance with all 
of the applicable requirements of this section by May 15, 1997. Any 
owner or operator of a unit to which this paragraph is applicable shall 
meet the following increments of progress:
    (A) By January 1, 1996, apply for all authority-to-construct 
permits required by the local Air Pollution Control District for all 
retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, and
    (B) By January 1, 1996, comply with the requirements of paragraph 
(o)(6)(ii)(A) of this section if the owner or operator chooses to 
monitor operating conditions of its turbine to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the section.
    (C) By January 1, 1997, commence construction of all retrofits and/
or additions of new control equipment, as approved by the local Air 
Pollution Control District, to demonstrate compliance by May 15, 1997.
    (iii) Any owner or operator of a new unit that is constructed on 
and after [Insert date of publication of the final rule] the date of 
adoption of this section shall apply for, and receive approval of, all 
authority-to-construct permits required by the local Air Pollution 
Control District prior to beginning construction of the unit. The owner 
or operator shall demonstrate that the unit will be operated in 
compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this section 
within 60 days after the date of the initial startup of the unit.
    (iv) On and after [Insert date of publication of the final rule], 
any owner or operator of a unit that becomes subject to requirements of 
paragraph (o)(3) of this section because of the loss of an exemption 
under paragraph (o)(4)(ii) of this section shall meet the following 
increments of progress:
    (A) Within 7 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 200 hours in a calendar year, apply for all 
authority-to-construct permits required by the local Air Pollution 
Control District for all retrofits and/or additions of new control 
equipment, and
    (B) Within 7 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 200 hours in a calendar year, comply with the 
requirements of paragraph (o)(6)(ii)(A) of this section if the owner or 
operator chooses to monitor operating conditions of its turbine rather 
than installing a continuous emissions monitoring system to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the section.
    (C) Within 19 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 200 hours in a calendar year, commence construction 
of all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, as approved 
by the local Air Pollution Control District, to demonstrate compliance 
within 24 months after the day that the unit is operated equal to or 
greater than 200 hours in a calendar year.
    (6) Reporting, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping.
    (i) Reporting Requirements. Any owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (o)(3) of this section shall comply with the 
applicable notification and reporting requirements of Sec. 60.7, and 
shall also comply with the following requirements:
    (A) By May 15, 1995, submit to the Administrator the identification 
number and type of each unit subject to the section, the name and 
address of the plant where the unit is located, and the name and 
telephone number of the person responsible for demonstrating compliance 
with the section. For each unit identified, the following information 
shall be submitted to the Administrator:
    (1) The rated heat output capacity (in MW and brake horsepower 
units); type of fuel(s) (i.e., gaseous and/or liquid) that will be 
burned in the unit; anticipated annual heat output rate (Btu/kW-hr) 
corrected to the HHV for each type of fuel; hours of operation and fuel 
consumption (cubic feet of gas or gallons of liquid) for each type of 
fuel for the previous one year period; and manufacturer, model 
designation, and age of the unit.
    (2) Identification of the standards in paragraph (o)(3) of this 
section with which the unit will comply, and the control method 
selected for achieving compliance.
    (B) Any owner or operator subject to the compliance schedule 
specified in paragraph (o)(5) (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section 
shall notify the Administrator in writing of the following:
    (1) The date construction is commenced on all retrofits and/or 
additions of new control equipment to the unit.
    (2) The anticipated date of initial startup of the unit after 
completing all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment to 
the unit.
    (3) The actual date of initial startup of the unit after completing 
all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment to the unit.
    (C) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (o)(5) 
of this section, submit to the Administrator certification that the 
unit is in compliance with the applicable standard in paragraph (o)(3) 
of this section as demonstrated through a report of the initial 
compliance test performed in accordance with the applicable 
requirements of paragraph (o)(6)(ii) or (7) of this section. The owner 
or operator shall provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior 
notice of the compliance test to afford the Administrator the 
opportunity to have an observer present.
    (ii) Continuous Emissions Monitoring Requirements. Any owner or 
operator of a unit with a rated heat output capacity less than 2.9 MW 
that is subject to the requirements of paragraph (o)(3) of this section 
shall either comply with the requirements of paragraphs (o)(6)(ii) (A) 
or (B) and (o)(6)(ii)(C) of this section. Any owner or operator of a 
unit with a rated heat output capacity equal to or greater than 2.9 MW 
that is subject to the requirements of paragraph (o)(3) of this section 
shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (o)(6)(ii) (B) and (C) 
of this section.
    (A) Any owner or operator that chooses to monitor operating 
conditions shall comply with the following:
    (1) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (o)(5) 
of this section, submit a plan to the Administrator that includes the 
following:
    (i) Identify the specific operating conditions to be monitored and 
the relationship between the operating conditions and NOX, CO, and 
O2 emission concentrations in the flue gas. For stationary gas 
turbines, the most important operating variables are turbine load 
(i.e., actual heat output/design maximum heat output or actual steam 
generating rate/design maximum steam generating capacity), the level of 
excess air (i.e., flue gas O2 level), and type and nitrogen 
content of each fuel.
    (ii) In addition to those described in paragraph 
(o)(6)(ii)(A)(1)(i) of this section, the water or steam-to-fuel ratio 
and turbine load are important operating variables to be monitored for 
water- or steam-injection systems. For selective catalytic reduction 
systems, the reagent (i.e., ammonia or urea)-to-NOX ratio and 
reagent injection pressure are important operating variables to be 
monitored.
    (iii) Include the data and information that will be used to 
identify the relationship between NOX, CO, and O2 emission 
concentrations and the operating conditions.
    (iv) Describe how the relationship between the operating conditions 
(including turbine load and fuel type) and NOX, CO, and O2 
emission concentrations will be established during the initial 
compliance test. The relationship between the operating conditions and 
NOX, CO, and O2 emission concentrations shall be based on the 
maximum operating conditions at which the unit can be operated. Once 
the plan has been approved by the Administrator, the operating 
conditions used to establish the relationship will be the optimum 
operating conditions under which the owner or operator should operate 
the unit. Deviations from these optimum operating conditions in excess 
of 10% (averaged over the fifteen minute period) shall be recorded and 
reported in accordance with paragraph (o)(6)(ii)(C) of this section.
    (v) Identify how the operating conditions, including turbine load 
and fuel type, will be monitored on a fifteen minute basis; the quality 
assurance procedures or practices that will be used to ensure that the 
data generated by monitoring the operating conditions will be 
representative and accurate; and the type and format of the records of 
the operating conditions, including turbine load and fuel type, that 
will be maintained by the owner or operator.
    (2) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (o)(5) 
of this section, and annually thereafter, submit to the Administrator 
certification that the turbine has been operated in accordance with all 
of the applicable requirements of this section specified under 
paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(6)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (B) Any owner or operator that is required or chooses to install an 
in-stack continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) shall comply 
with the following:
    (1) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (o)(5) 
of this section, install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a CEMS in 
accordance with the applicable requirements of appendices B and F of 40 
CFR part 60 to demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirements 
of paragraph (o)(3) of this section. The CEMS shall be installed and 
operational before conducting the initial compliance test required 
under paragraphs (o)(6)(i)(C) and (o)(7) of this section. As a part of 
the certification requirement under paragraph (o)(6)(i)(C) of this 
section, the owner or operator shall submit documentation that the CEMS 
is in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (o). The CEMS 
shall include equipment that measures and records the following:
    (i) Exhaust gas NOX and CO concentrations corrected to ISO 
conditions at 15 percent oxygen on a dry basis.
    (ii) Flow rate of liquid or gaseous fuels and the ratio of water- 
or steam-to-fuel added to the combustion chamber or to the exhaust for 
the reduction of NOX emissions.
    (iii) Elapsed time of operation.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (C) Each owner or operator shall submit an operating conditions 
deviation or excess emissions report and a monitoring systems 
performance report, in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 60.7(c) 
and (d) and 60.13, to the Administrator within 30 days after the end of 
each calendar quarter.
    (iii) Recordkeeping Requirements. Any owner or operator of a unit 
subject to this section shall maintain all records necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the section for a period of five calendar 
years at the plant where the subject unit is located. The records shall 
be made available to the Administrator upon request. The owner or 
operator shall maintain records of the following information for each 
day the unit is operated:
    (A) Identification and location of each unit subject to the 
requirements of this section.
    (B) Calendar date of record.
    (C) The number of hours the unit is operated during each day 
including actual time of startups and shutdowns, breakdown periods, and 
the type and duration of maintenance and repairs.
    (D) The results of all compliance tests.
    (E) For owners or operators of units complying by means of the 
monitoring requirements of paragraph (o)(6)(ii)(A) of this section, the 
monitored operating conditions, including turbine load and fuel type, 
identified in the plan approved by the Administrator.
    (F) The NOX emission concentration (expressed as 
NO2corrected to 15 percent volume stack gas O2 on a dry basis 
averaged over a period of 15 consecutive minutes) measured or 
predicted.
    (G) The CO emission concentration corrected to 15 percent volume 
stack gas O2 on a dry basis averaged over a period of 15 
consecutive minutes) measured or predicted.
    (H) Identification of time periods during which NOX and CO 
standards are exceeded, the reason for the exceedance, and action taken 
to correct the exceedance and to prevent similar future exceedances.
    (I) Identification of the time periods for which operating 
conditions and pollutant data were not obtained including reasons for 
not obtaining sufficient data and a description of corrective actions 
taken.
    (7) Test Methods.
    (i) Any owner or operator subject to an emission standard under 
paragraph (o)(3) of this section and required to conduct stack testing 
shall comply with the requirements of Sec. 60.8 (c), (d), and (e). The 
test shall be performed and data reduced and reported as follows:
    (A) Each emission test shall be conducted while the unit is 
operated at maximum capacity and operating under representative 
operating conditions.
    (B) Emission test shall be conducted in accordance with the 
appropriate test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Except for the 
modifications in this paragraph and unless otherwise approved by the 
Administrator: NOX shall be measured in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, Method 7E; CO shall be measured in accordance with 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 10; and the diluent shall be 
measured using 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 3A. Testing shall be 
conducted for twelve 15 minute testing periods. Compliance shall be 
evaluated for each 15 minute period. Data recorded during testing to 
determine the 15 minute average shall either be continuously integrated 
by the testing instrument and data recorder, or recorded manually at 30 
second intervals during each 15 minute test period. Zero and 
calibration checks shall be conducted after each 15 minute test period.
    (ii) Any owner or operator that is subject to the requirements of 
paragraph (o)(3)(ii) of this section shall perform a test for CO 
emissions during the initial compliance test for NOX emissions to 
establish a ppm CO emission limit that represents good operating and 
combustion practices for fuel(s) burned in the unit. The CO emission 
limit established for determining subsequent compliance shall be 
documented in the applicable certification report required under 
paragraph (o)(6)(i)(C) of this section.
    (p) RACT Determination--Formica Corporation.
    (1) Applicability.
    The provisions of paragraph (p) of this section shall apply to the 
``Formica Corporation'' (Formica Corporation) or any subsequent owner 
or operator of the Formica Corporation, Sierra Plant located at 3500 
Cincinnati Avenue, Sunset Whitney Ranch, California.
    (2) Definitions.
    For the purpose of paragraph (p) this section, the following 
definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein shall have the 
meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Air Pollution Control Officer means the Executive Officer or his or 
her delegate of an air quality management district or an air pollution 
control district.
    Coating applicator is an apparatus used to apply a surface coating.
    Melamine treater means a paper treater that applies a melamine 
resin to the paper substrate.
    Oven is a chamber within which heat is used for one or more of the 
following purposes: Dry, bake, cure, or polymerize a surface coating or 
ink.
    Paper treating is a coating line process in which a uniform layer 
of phenolic or melamine resin is applied by dipping a continuous moving 
paper substrate into the resin and then using rollers to squeeze the 
excess resin from the paper.
    Paper treating operations is the operation or process of paper 
treating, together with associated equipment including a coating 
applicator and oven.
    Phenolic treater means a paper treater that applies a phenolic 
resin to the paper substrate.
    Pounds of VOC per gallon of coating less water and less exempt 
compounds means the weight of VOC per combined volume of VOC and 
coating solids and is calculated by the following equation:

Gvoc=(Ws-Ww-Wes)/(Vm-Vw-Ves)

where:
Gvoc=Pounds VOC per gallon coating less water and exempt 
compounds;
Ws=Weight of volatile compounds in pounds;
Ww=Weight of water in pounds;
Wes=Weight of exempt compounds in pounds;
Vm=Volume of material in gallons;
Vw=Volume of water in gallons;
Ves=Volume of exempt compounds in gallons.

    Reasonably Available Control Technology or RACT, for the purposes 
of paragraph (p) of this section, means the lowest emission limitation 
that a particular coating line is capable of meeting by using measures 
that are reasonably available in terms of technological and economic 
feasibility. Such measures may include either control system(s) or 
coating reformulation(s) or both.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) Limits. VOC emissions from paper treating operations as defined 
in paragraph (p)(2) of this section must meet the emission limit of 
1.13 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating applied in phenolic treater 
operations and 0.002 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating applied in 
melamine treater operations, less water and less exempt compounds, as 
defined in paragraph (p)(2) of this section.
    (ii) Emission Control System. Alternatively, a facility may comply 
with the provisions of paragraph (p)(3)(i) of this section by using an 
emission control system, provided that the overall efficiency of the 
system (capture efficiency multiplied by destruction efficiency) shall 
not be less than 85% by weight in reducing organic compounds. The 
emission control system, as well as the operation and maintenance plan 
necessary to ensure compliance on an ongoing basis, shall be approved 
in writing by the Executive Officer.
    (iii) Compliance Schedule. Limits as defined in paragraphs 
(p)(3)(i) or (p)(3)(ii) of this section shall be achieved upon 
publication of the final rule. Implementation Plan (FIP), whichever 
occurs first.
    (4) Test Methods.
    (i) Determination of VOC content of coatings. The VOC content of 
coatings subject to the provisions of paragraph (p) of this section, 
excluding exempt compounds, shall be analyzed as prescribed by U.S. EPA 
Reference Method 24 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    (ii) Determination of exempt compounds. Measurement of exempt 
compounds shall be conducted and reported in accordance with ASTM D 
4457-85. For exempt compounds where no reference test method is 
available, a facility requesting the exemption shall provide 
appropriate test methods approved by the Administrator.
    (iii) Determination of destruction efficiency. Destruction 
efficiency as specified in paragraph (p)(3)(ii) of this section shall 
be determined by U.S. EPA Reference Methods 25 and 25A (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A).
    (iv) Determination of capture efficiency. Measurement of capture 
efficiency of the emission control system as specified in paragraph 
(p)(3)(ii) of this section shall be conducted and reported in 
accordance with the U.S. EPA protocols,\35\ or other capture efficiency 
methods approved by the Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\40 CFR 52.741(a)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Administrative Requirements.
    (i) Coating and Solvent Records.
    (A) The facility shall maintain a current list of coatings and 
solvents in use which include the following information:
    (1) Name and manufacturer information;
    (2) Mixing instructions;
    (3) VOC content of coatings as applied;
    (4) Weight percent water; and
    (5) Weight percent exempt solvent.
    (B) The facility shall maintain records of the amounts of coatings 
and VOCs used according to the following schedule:
    (1) Monthly records showing the types and amounts of coatings used 
that meet the coating standards in paragraph (p)(3)(i) of this section; 
and
    (2) Daily records showing the types and amounts of coatings used 
when such usage was in conjunction with emission control equipment.
    (ii) Emission Control Equipment Records. Any facility complying 
with the provisions of paragraph (p)(3)(ii) of this section by using 
air pollution control equipment shall maintain daily records of key 
system operating parameters, such as temperatures, pressures, and/or 
flow rates, for the emission control equipment.
    (iii) Proof of Compliance. The facility shall prove compliance with 
the standards of paragraph (p)(3) of this section by conducting annual 
source testing of paper treating operations and analyzing resin content 
as per paragraph (p)(4) of this section.
    (iv) Retention of Records. All records maintained pursuant to this 
section shall be retained and available for inspection by the 
Administrator for the previous five-year period.
    (q) Reasonably Available Control Technology for Emissions of 
Volatile Organic Compounds at SierraPine, Ltd.
    (1) Applicability. The requirements of paragraph (q) of this 
section shall apply to the owner or operator of SierraPine Limited 
(SierraPine), a medium density fiberboard plant, conducting operations 
at 4300 Dominguez Road, Rocklin, California.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (q) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Fiber drier means a device which uses steam-generated heat to 
reduce the moisture content of wood fibers.
    Fiberboard press means a device which uses heat and pressure to 
form fiberboard from a preformed mat of wood fiber and resin.
    Press line means a series of operations occurring within the press 
building including mat forming, fiberboard pressing, board unloading, 
and board cooling.
    Press vent means a device used to exhaust fiberboard press line 
emissions from the press line building.
    Wood waste-fired boiler means a combustion device which uses wood, 
wood fiber, sanderdust, or other wood byproducts as fuel to produce 
steam for process operations.
    (3) Standards. The owner or operator of SierraPine shall 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (q)(3) (i) 
through (iii) of this section by January 1, 1996.
    (i) Emissions of unburned gaseous combustibles, including VOC and 
carbon monoxide, from the wood waste-fired boiler shall be minimized by 
maintaining proper combustion conditions. Proper combustion conditions 
include but are not limited to optimum combustion temperature, fuel 
moisture content, fuel firing rate, and sufficient secondary air. The 
owner or operator of the facility shall submit for approval by EPA a 
determination of proper combustion conditions. The source shall 
incorporate additional combustion conditions as recommended in writing 
by EPA.
    (ii) A capture and control system shall be installed and operated 
to reduce VOC emissions from the wood fiber driers and which meets the 
following requirements:
    (A) The capture and control system shall achieve a minimum 95% VOC 
control efficiency. Demonstration of VOC control efficiency shall be 
performed in accordance with the methods specified in paragraph (q)(6) 
of this section.
    (B) The VOC capture and control system shall be operated at all 
times during the operation of the wood fiber driers. The capture and 
control system shall be maintained and operated in a manner which 
consistently achieves the VOC control efficiency stated in paragraph 
(q)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (iii) A capture and control system shall be installed and operated 
to reduce VOC emissions from press vents and which meets the following 
requirements:
    (A) The VOC capture and control system shall achieve a minimum 90% 
overall VOC control efficiency. Demonstration of VOC control efficiency 
shall be performed in accordance with the methods specified in 
paragraph (q)(6) of this section.
    (B) The VOC capture and control system shall be operated at all 
times during the operation of the press vents. The VOC capture and 
control system shall be maintained and operated in a manner which 
consistently achieves the overall VOC control efficiency stated in 
paragraph (q)(3)(iii)(A) of this section.
    (4) Reporting. The owner or operator of SierraPine shall be subject 
to the following reporting requirements.
    (i) A compliance plan shall be submitted to the EPA prior to 
installation of any VOC capture and control system or by July 1, 1995, 
whichever comes first. The compliance plan shall include a description 
of how the requirements of paragraph (q) of this section shall be met, 
including:
    (A) A description of the proposed VOC capture and control system to 
be installed at the facility including the following information at a 
minimum:
    (1) Equipment supplier.
    (2) Design drawings of the selected capture and control system, 
including necessary hooding and ducting.
    (3) Operating principles of the selected equipment, including any 
anticipated complications.
    (4) Anticipated VOC capture and control efficiency of any installed 
system.
    (5) Disposal of any VOCs that are collected, but not destroyed 
within the control equipment.
    (6) A description of maintenance practices and schedules for the 
VOC capture and control system necessary to meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (q)(3)(ii)(B) and (q)(3)(iii)(B) of this section.
    (B) Compliance test dates and test methods to be used to satisfy 
the requirements of paragraph (q)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (ii) An annual certification of compliance shall be submitted to 
the EPA on or before January 1 of each year. The certification of 
compliance shall include:
    (A) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of paragraph (q) of this section.
    (B) The results of any compliance testing performed during the 
previous year.
    (C) A description of any process upsets that occurred during the 
previous year that resulted in noncompliance with the emission limit or 
proper combustion conditions as approved by EPA stated in paragraph 
(q)(3) of this section and corrective actions taken to correct the 
noncompliance.
    (iii) By January 1, 1996, the owner or operator of the facility 
shall submit for approval by EPA a determination of proper combustion 
conditions.
    (5) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator of SierraPine shall 
maintain records on site sufficient to show compliance with paragraph 
(q) of this section for a period of five years. Records shall be made 
available to the EPA upon request. At a minimum the following 
information shall be recorded:
    (i) Process data sufficient to show that efficient combustion 
practices are being utilized at the wood waste-fired boiler. These data 
will include, at a minimum, the following:
    (A) Fuel feed rate and composition.
    (B) Combustion temperature.
    (C) Fuel moisture content.
    (D) Percentage of overfire air.
    (E) Boiler load.
    (ii) VOC capture and control system operating parameters identified 
by the EPA following review and approval of the compliance plan 
submitted pursuant to paragraph (q)(4)(i) of this section.
    (6) Test Methods. 
    (i) Measurements of destruction or removal efficiency shall be 
determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 25.
    (ii) Measurement of capture efficiency shall be determined in 
accordance with the EPA method\36\ or by an alternative method approved 
in writing by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\40 CFR 52.741(a)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Characterization of the stack gas shall be determined in 
accordance with the applicable EPA Reference Methods described in 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (r) RACT Determination--Michigan-California Lumber Company.
    (1) Applicability.
    The provisions of paragraph (r) of this section shall apply to the 
``Michigan-California Lumber Company'' or any subsequent owner or 
operator of the Michigan-California Lumber Facility located at 3970 
Carson Road, Camino, California. All provisions are RACT and the 
emissions standards only apply to the main wood waste-fired boiler 
(Boiler #3) at the facility.
    (2) Definitions. For the purpose of paragraph (r) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Air Pollution Control Officer means the Executive Officer, or his 
or her delegate, or an air quality management district or an air 
pollution control district.
    Boiler means any external combustion equipment fired with any fuel 
used to produce heat or steam.
    Production rate is the total steam output of a boiler in pounds of 
steam per hour (lbs-steam/hour) of boiler operation.
    Reasonably Available Control Technology or RACT, for the purposes 
of paragraph (r) of this section, means the lowest emission limitation 
that a particular boiler is capable of meeting by using measures that 
are reasonably available in terms of technological and economic 
feasibility. Such measures may include either control system(s) or 
improved combustion conditions, or both.
    Total organic gases are any compounds that contain at least one 
carbon atom.
    Wood wastes include bark, sawdust, shavings, hogged wood, and other 
wood refuse generated during processing operations.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) Emission limits (ppmv). VOC emissions from wood waste boiler 
operations at a production rate exceeding an annual (calendar year) 
average of 50,000 lbs-steam per hour as defined in paragraph (r)(2)(i) 
of this section must meet the emission limit of 150 ppmv of VOC in the 
stack exhaust stream.
    (ii) Emission limit maintenance. The VOC emission limit presented 
in paragraph (r)(3)(i) of this section shall be maintained through any 
one or more of the following provisions:
    (A) Use of fuel with a maximum moisture content of 50%;
    (B) Operation of the boiler at optimal combustion conditions;
    (C) Proper operation and maintenance of pollution control 
equipment; and
    (D) Periodic inspection, maintenance, and repairs on the boiler and 
other equipment.
    (iii) Compliance Schedule. The VOC emission limit defined in 
paragraph (r)(3)(i) of this section shall be achieved upon publication 
of the final rule.
    (4) Test Methods and Calculations.
    (i) Determination of VOC content of exhaust stream. The VOC content 
of the exhaust gas stream subject to the provisions of paragraph (r) of 
this section, excluding exempt compounds, shall be analyzed as 
prescribed by 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 25 and 25A.
    (ii) Determination of exempt compounds. Measurement of exempt 
compounds shall be conducted and reported in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, Method 18.
    (5) Administrative requirements.
    (i) Emissions testing and records. The facility subject to the 
standards of paragraph (r)(3) of this section shall, at a minimum, 
conduct sample analysis for VOC pollutants at least once each year. The 
Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) shall be provided with adequate 
advance notification at least 2 weeks before any scheduled emissions 
tests. The analysis results must be submitted to the Administrator and 
APCO within 60 days of the emissions test.
    (ii) Emission control records. Any facility complying with the 
provisions of paragraph (r)(3)(i) of this section through the 
provisions of paragraph (r)(3)(ii) of this section with air pollution 
control equipment shall maintain applicable records of system operating 
parameters, including temperatures, pressures, fuel flow rate, and 
steam production rate, repair, fuel moisture, and all VOC control 
measures.
    (iii) Reporting. The Administrator and APCO shall be notified 
within 48 hours of any event or incident that results in a known 
exceedance of this standard.
    (iv) Retention of records. All records maintained pursuant to this 
section shall be retained and available for inspection by the 
Administrator for the previous five-year period.
    (s) RACT determination: Reynolds Metals Company.
    (1) Applicability.
    The provisions of paragraph (s) of this section shall apply to the 
Reynolds Metals Company or any subsequent owner or operator of the 
Reynolds Metals Company's Rocklin Plant located at 3939 Cincinnati 
Avenue, Rocklin, California.
    (2) Definitions.
    For the purposes of paragraph (s) of this section, the following 
definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein shall have the 
meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Air pollution control officer (APCO) means the Executive Officer or 
his or her delegate of an air quality management district or an air 
pollution control district.
    Capture efficiency means the quantity of an air contaminant that is 
collected into the control device versus the total amount emitted, 
expressed as a percentage. This is defined by the following equation: 

TP05MY94.113

    Control efficiency means the quantity of air contaminant removed 
from the inlet stream to the control device, expressed as a percentage. 
This is defined by the following equation: 

TP05MY94.114

    Lubricant applicator is an apparatus used to apply a surface lube.
    Oven is a chamber within which heat is used for one or more of the 
following purposes: dry, bake, cure, or polymerize a surface coating or 
ink.
    Pounds of VOC per gallon of lubricant less water and less exempt 
compounds means the weight of VOC per combined volume of VOC and 
coating solids and is calculated by the following equation:
Gvoc=(Ws--Ww--Wes) / (Vm--Vw--Ves) 
where:
Gvoc=Pounds VOC per gallon lubricant less water and exempt 
compounds;
Ws=Weight of volatile compounds in pounds;
Ww=Weight of water in pounds;
Wes=Weight of exempt compounds in pounds;
Vm=Volume of material in gallons;
Vw=Volume of water in gallons;
Ves=Volume of exempt compounds in gallons.

    Reasonably available control technology or RACT, for the purposes 
of paragraph (s) of this section, means the lowest emission limitation 
that a particular coating line is capable of meeting by using measures 
that are reasonably available in terms of technological and economic 
feasibility. Such measures may include either control system(s) or 
coating reformulation(s) or both.
    Tab press lubrication is the process which uses a lubricated 
mechanical press to create beverage container lid tabs from flat 
aluminum metal stock.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) Limits. Tab press lubricant cannot exceed a VOC content of 5.73 
pounds per gallon of lubricant used, less water and less exempt 
compounds, as defined in paragraph (s)(2) of this section; and VOC 
emissions from tab press lubricant usage cannot exceed 1.2  x  
10-5 pounds of VOC per tab produced.
    (ii) Emission control system. Alternatively, a facility may comply 
with the provisions of paragraph (s)(3)(i) of this section by using an 
emission control system, provided that the overall efficiency of the 
system (capture efficiency multiplied by destruction efficiency) shall 
not be less than 85% by weight in reducing organic compounds. The 
emission control system, as well as the operation and maintenance plan 
necessary to ensure compliance on an ongoing basis, shall be approved 
in writing by the Administrator.
    (iii) Compliance schedule. Limits as defined in paragraphs 
(s)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section shall be achieved upon publication of 
the final rule.
    (4) Test methods.
    (i) Determination of VOC content of lubricants. The VOC content of 
coatings subject to the provisions of paragraph (s) of this section, 
excluding exempt compounds, shall be analyzed as prescribed by 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, Method 24.
    (ii) Determination of exempt compounds. Measurement of exempt 
compounds shall be conducted and reported in accordance with ASTM D 
4457-85. For exempt compounds where no reference test method is 
available, a facility requesting the exemption shall provide 
appropriate test methods approved by the Administrator.
    (iii) Determination of destruction efficiency. Destruction 
efficiency as specified in paragraph (s)(3)(ii) of this section shall 
be determined by 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 25 and 25A.
    (iv) Determination of capture efficiency. Measurement of capture 
efficiency of the emission control system as specified in paragraph 
(s)(3)(ii) of this section shall be conducted and reported in 
accordance with the U.S. EPA protocols,\37\ or other capture efficiency 
methods approved by the Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\40 CFR 52.741(a)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Administrative requirements.
    (i) Material usage records.
    (A) The facility shall maintain a current list of lubricants and 
solvents in use which include the following information:
    (1) Name and manufacturer information;
    (2) Mixing instructions;
    (3) VOC content of tab press lubricants as applied;
    (4) Weight percent water; and
    (5) Weight percent exempt solvent. (B) The facility shall maintain 
records of the amounts of lubricants and VOCs used according to the 
following schedule:
    (1) Monthly records showing the types and amounts of lubricants 
used that meet the standards in paragraph (s)(3)(i) of this section; 
and
    (2) Daily records showing the types and amounts of lubricants used 
when such usage was in conjunction with emission control equipment.
    (C) The facility shall maintain monthly records of the number of 
tabs produced by each type of tab press.
    (ii) Emission control equipment records. Any facility complying 
with the provisions of paragraph (s)(3)(ii) of this section by using 
air pollution control equipment shall maintain daily records of key 
system operating parameters, such as temperatures, pressures, and/or 
flow rates, for the emission control equipment.
    (iii) Proof of compliance. The facility shall prove compliance with 
the standards of paragraph (s)(3) of this section by conducting annual 
source testing of tab press lubrication operations and analyzing VOC 
content of the lubricants as per paragraph (s)(4)(i) of this section.
    (iv) Retention of records. All records maintained pursuant to this 
section shall be retained and available for inspection by the 
Administrator for the previous five-year period.
    (t) Fugitive emissions from oil and gas production facilities and 
conveying stations.
    (1) Applicability. The requirements of paragraph (t) of this 
section shall apply to any owner or operator of an oil or gas 
production field or conveying station. For the purposes of this 
paragraph, the affected areas include the Sacramento Metro Area, the 
Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area, and the Ventura County Area as 
described for ozone in 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraphs (t)(1) through 
(t)(7) of this section, the following definitions shall apply. All 
terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given them in 
Sec. 52.2950.
    Background means the ambient concentration of organic compounds 
expressed as methane as determined by a portable hydrocarbon detection 
instrument when the reading is taken at least three meters upwind from 
any component to be inspected and which is not influenced by any 
specific emission point.
    Closed-vent system means any system that is not open to the 
atmosphere and is composed of piping, connections and, if necessary, 
flow-inducing devices that transport gases or vapors from a piece or 
pieces of equipment to a vapor recovery or disposal system.
    Commercial natural gas means natural gas containing less than 10% 
VOC by weight.
    Component means any valve, fitting, pump, compressor, pressure 
relief device, diaphragm, hatch, sight-glass, open-ended line, or 
meter.
    Compressor means any device used to compress gases and/or vapors.
    Control valve means a device used to regulate the fluid pressure or 
volume in a process unit that, upon actuation, releases process stream 
VOCs. Excluded from this definition are control valves that are 
actuated by non-process stream compressed air.
    Conveying station means any compressor station, metering station, 
or other transfer station located between the extraction well and the 
refinery or gas processing plant.
    Critical component means any component that if shut down would 
require the shutdown of a critical process unit.
    Critical process unit means a process unit that has no standby 
equipment available, that cannot be bypassed, and that would be 
technically infeasible to repair leaks from without shutting down the 
associated process.
    Fitting means a component used to attach or connect pipes, piping 
details, and other equipment, such as, vessels, heat exchangers, and 
condensers. These components include but are not limited to flanges, 
threaded connections, and other connectors.
    Gas processing plant means any facility engaged in the separation 
of liquids from field gas and/or fractionation of the liquids into 
gaseous products, such as ethane, propane, butane, and natural 
gasoline.
    Gas production facility means a facility at which petroleum gas or 
natural gas extraction and handling are conducted, as defined in the 
Standard Industrial Classification Manual as Industry Number 1311, 
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas. This definition includes, but is not 
limited to, compressor stations, dehydration units, sweetening units, 
field treatment units, liquefied natural gas units, extraction wells, 
flow lines, gathering lines, separators, and other auxiliary 
nontransportation equipment used in petroleum gas or natural gas 
extraction and handling.
    Hatch means any covered opening system that provides access to a 
tank or container, usually through the top deck.
    Inaccessible component means any component located over fifteen 
feet above ground when access is required from the ground; or any 
component located over six feet away from a platform when access is 
required from the platform.
    Leak means a major gas leak, major liquid leak, minor gas leak, or 
minor liquid leak.
    Leak minimization means reducing a leak to the lowest achievable 
level using best modern practices including tightening, adjusting, or 
adding sealing material and without shutting down the process which the 
component serves.
    Leak repair means any corrective action taken for the purposes of 
reducing a component leak to the lowest achievable level below the 
applicable standard using best modern practices.
    Major component means any 4-inch or larger valve, any 5-horse-power 
(5-hp) or larger pump, any compressor, and any 4-inch or larger 
pressure relief device.
    Major gas leak for any component means the detection of total 
gaseous organic compounds in excess of 10,000 ppmv as methane above 
background as measured according to the test procedures in paragraph 
(t)(7)(i) of this section.
    Major liquid leak means a visible mist or cloud or a continuous 
flow of liquid.
    Minor component means any component that is not a major component.
    Minor gas leak means for any component, except stuffing boxes and 
control valves, the detection of total gaseous organic compounds in 
excess of 1,000 ppmv but not more than 10,000 ppmv as methane above 
background as measured according to the test procedures in paragraph 
(t)(7)(i) of this section.
    Minor liquid leak is any liquid leak which is not a major liquid 
leak and drips at a rate of more than three drops per minute.
    Oil production facility means a facility at which crude oil 
extraction and handling is conducted, as defined in the Standard 
Industrial Classification Manual as Industry Number 1311, Crude 
Petroleum and Natural Gas. This definition includes, but is not limited 
to, extraction wells, flow lines, gathering lines, separators, and 
other auxiliary nontransportation equipment used in petroleum 
extraction and handling.
    Open ended line means any valve, except safety relief valves, 
having one side of the valve seat in contact with the process fluid or 
gas and one side open to the atmosphere.
    Owner or operator means any person who owns, operates, leases, 
controls, or supervises an emissions source or air pollution control 
equipment.
    Person means any individual, corporation, copartnership, firm, 
company, partnership, joint stock company, trust, association, State, 
municipality, political subdivision, or any other legal entity, or 
their legal representative, agent, or assigns.
    Pipeline transfer station means a facility that handles the storage 
or transfer, or both, of petroleum products or crude petroleum in 
pipelines.
    Platform means any raised, permanent, horizontal surface that 
provides access to components.
    Pressure relief device (PRD) means a pressure relief valve, rupture 
disc, or any other equipment designed to relieve pressure within 
process a line when the static pressure reaches a setpoint.
    Pressure relief event means a release from a pressure relief device 
resulting when the static pressure reaches the setpoint of the pressure 
relief device. A pressure relief event is not a leak.
    Pressure relief valve (PRV) means any valve that is automatically 
actuated by upstream static pressure, and used for safety or emergency 
purposes.
    Pump means any device used to transport fluids by the addition of 
mechanical energy.
    Refinery means a facility that processes petroleum, as defined in 
the Standard Industrial Classification Manual as Industry Number 2911, 
Petroleum Refining.
    Repair means any corrective action taken for the purposes of 
reducing a leak to below the applicable standard.
    Rupture disc means a diaphragm held between flanges for the purpose 
of isolating a volatile organic compound from the atmosphere or from a 
downstream pressure relief valve.
    Stuffing box means a packing gland, a chamber or ``box'' which 
holds packing material compressed around a moving pump rod or valve 
stem. For the purposes of paragraph (t) of this section, stuffing box 
seals are considered to be pump seals.
    Unmanned facility means a remote facility which has no permanent 
sited personnel and is greater than five miles from the nearest manned 
facility.
    Unsafe-to-monitor component means a component installed at a 
location that would prevent its safe inspection or repair as defined by 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards or in 
provisions for worker safety found in 29 CFR part 1910.
    Vacuum service or In vacuum service means that the equipment in VOC 
service is operating at an internal pressure that is at least 5 kPa 
(0.73 in. Hg) below ambient pressure.
    Valve means a device that regulates or isolates the fluid flow in a 
pipe, tube, or conduit by means of an external actuator.
    Vapor control system means any system that is not open to the 
atmosphere and is composed of piping, connections and, if necessary, 
flow-inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from a piece or 
pieces of equipment to a vapor recovery or disposal system.
    Visual inspection means performing a survey to identify signs of 
leaking liquid, visible mist, or audible leaks.
    (3) Specific provisions. Each owner or operator of an oil or gas 
production field or conveying station shall be in compliance with the 
requirements of paragraphs (t)(3) (i) and (ii) of this section by 
January 1, 1996.
    (i) Identification requirements. Components in VOC service shall 
meet the following identification requirements:
    (A) All major and critical components shall be physically 
identified clearly and visibly for inspection, repair, replacement, and 
recordkeeping purposes. The physical identification shall consist of 
labels, tags, or other system approved by the EPA which enables the EPA 
and the operator to locate each individual component.
    (B) All major, critical, inaccessible, and unsafe-to-monitor 
components shall be clearly identified in Piping and Instrumentation 
(P&I) diagrams for inspection, repair, replacement, and recordkeeping 
purposes. For identical field production units, the following items 
will satisfy the requirements of this paragraph:
    (1) A single P&I diagram representing the typical component 
configuration.
    (2) A listing of field production units by the identification 
number which is located on a lease map in use by the owner/operator.
    (C) A list of all components subject to paragraph (t) of this 
section shall be prepared which includes separate identification of 
inaccessible, unsafe-to-monitor, and critical components. The list 
shall include component identification information as specified under 
paragraph (t)(3)(i)(A) of this section, the number of minor components 
by component type, and a description of the VOC service for each 
component or component type.
    (D) The EPA shall be notified of any changes in the identification 
of a major component within thirty days. The notification shall include 
necessary amendments to the compliance plan specified under paragraph 
(t)(5)(i) of this section.
    (ii) Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) program. Any owner or 
operator of a facility subject to this section shall implement an I&M 
program that meets the requirements of paragraphs (t)(3)(ii)(A) through 
(C) of this section within twelve months after [Insert date of 
publication of the final rule].
    (A) Inspection requirements. The I&M program will be conducted in 
accordance with the following inspection requirements.
    (1) Visual inspection requirements.
    (i) All pumps, compressors, and pressure relief valves (PRVs) shall 
be visually inspected for leaks once during every operating shift, 
except for components located at oil and natural gas production fields.
    (ii) All pumps, compressors, PRVs, and stuffing boxes located at 
manned oil and gas production fields shall be visually inspected for 
leaks once per day and the same components located at unmanned fields 
shall be inspected once per week.
    (iii) Any vapor leak which is identified during the visual 
inspection of components under paragraphs (t)(3)(ii)(A)(1)(i) and (ii) 
of this section shall be measured to quantify emission concentrations 
according to the test method specified in paragraph (t)(7)(i) of this 
section.
    (2) All components, except as provided in paragraphs (t)(3)(ii) 
(1), (3), (4), and (5) of this section, shall be inspected quarterly 
according to the method prescribed in paragraph (t)(7)(i) of this 
section. The time between inspections shall not exceed 110 consecutive 
days.
    (3) The components specified in paragraphs (t)(3)(ii)(A)(3) (i) and 
(ii) of this section shall be subject to other than quarterly 
inspection requirements.
    (i) All inaccessible components shall be inspected annually 
according to the method prescribed in paragraph (t)(7)(i) of this 
section. The time between inspections shall not exceed 13 consecutive 
months.
    (ii) All fittings, including threaded connections and flanges, 
shall be inspected for leaks according to the method prescribed in 
paragraph (t)(7)(i) of this section immediately after being placed into 
service and semi-annually, not to exceed 195 consecutive days between 
inspections, thereafter.
    (4) Unsafe-to-monitor components shall be inspected in accordance 
with an inspection plan approved by the EPA.
    (5) PRVs shall be inspected according to the method prescribed in 
paragraph (t)(7)(i) of this section within three calendar days after 
every pressure relief event.
    (6) The inspection frequency for all components except pump seals, 
compressor seals, PRVs, and stuffing boxes may be changed to annually, 
not to exceed 13 consecutive months between inspections, provided that 
all of the following conditions are met:
    (i) All components at the facility have been successfully operated 
and maintained for a period of twelve consecutive months with no leaks 
exceeding the thresholds listed in the table of leak thresholds in 
paragraph (t) of this section. Leaks from stuffing boxes are not 
included in the total count of leaking components specified by 
paragraphs (t)(3)(ii)(A) (6) and (7) of this section.
    (ii) The requirements specified in paragraph (t)(3)(ii)(A)(6)(i) of 
this section are substantiated by documentation and written approval 
obtained from the EPA.
    (7) Any annual inspection frequency approved in paragraph 
(t)(3)(ii)(A)(6)(ii) of this section, shall revert to the inspection 
frequencies specified in paragraphs (t)(3)(ii)(A) (2) and (3) of this 
section, should liquid leaks or major gas leaks exceed 0.5 percent of 
the total components inspected per inspection period.
    (8) A brightly colored, weather-proof tag shall be affixed to all 
leaking components showing the date of leak detection and the 
hydrocarbon concentration determined according to the method prescribed 
in paragraph (t)(7)(i) of this section.
    (B) Repair and maintenance requirements. The I&M program shall be 
conducted in accordance with the following repair and maintenance 
requirements:
    (1) All component leaks shall be immediately minimized following 
detection.
    (2) All leaks from noncritical components shall be successfully 
repaired or replaced within the time period following detection of the 
leak, as specified in the table of repair periods in paragraph (t) of 
this section.
    (3) For leaks from critical and unsafe-to-monitor components, the 
leaking component shall be replaced with Best Available Control 
Technology (BACT) equipment as determined by EPA within one year or 
during the next process turnaround, whichever occurs first.
    (i) The percentage of valves in service and awaiting repair or 
replacement at any time shall not exceed the values below:

Effective Date Percentage of Leaking Valves

January 1, 1996--2%
January 1, 1997--1%
January 1, 1999--0.5%

    (ii) The percentage of pump and compressor seals in service and 
awaiting repair or replacement at any time shall not exceed the values 
below:

Effective Date Percentage of Leaking Pumps and Compressors

January 1, 1996--10%
January 1, 1999--1%
    (4) Any repaired or replaced component shall be re-inspected in 
accordance with the method prescribed in paragraph (t)(7)(i) of this 
section by the owner or operator within 30 days of the repair or 
replacement.
    (5) A component or parts thereof which incur five repair actions 
for a major gas or liquid leak within a continuous twelve month period 
shall be replaced with BACT equipment as determined by EPA. Replacement 
with BACT equipment for all components except critical components shall 
take place within the time periods following the fifth repair action 
specified in the table of repair periods in paragraph (t) of this 
section. For critical components, replacement with BACT equipment shall 
take place within one year of the fifth repair action or at the next 
process turn around following the fifth repair action, whichever comes 
first.
    (C) Leak control requirements. The owner or operator of any 
facility subject to this section shall comply with the following leak 
control requirements. The requirements of paragraphs (t)(3)(ii)(C) (1) 
and (2) of this section shall not apply to components being repaired or 
replaced within the specified repair or replacement period, as given in 
the table of repair periods or paragraph (t)(3)(ii)(B)(3) of this 
section, if the requirements for leak minimization under paragraph 
(t)(3)(ii)(B)(1) of this section have been met.
    (1) A liquid leak from any component detected during an inspection 
by EPA shall constitute a violation of this section.
    (2) Any leak detected during an inspection by EPA, within any 
continuous 24-hour period, and numbering in excess of the leak 
thresholds for that component listed in the table of leak thresholds, 
shall constitute a violation of this section.
    (3) Any open-ended line or valve found to be leaking shall be 
sealed with a second valve, blind flange, cap, plug, or a second closed 
valve except during operations requiring process fluid flow through the 
open-ended line or valve.
    (4) Hatches shall be closed at all times except during sampling, 
addition of process material, or attended maintenance operations.
    (5) Effective twelve months after [Insert date of publication of 
the final rule], control valves shall be replaced or retrofitted so 
that a major leak shall not occur during valve actuation or at any 
other time.
    (6) Effective twelve months after [Insert date of publication of 
the final rule], any component leak that is vented through a stack or 
other confined air stream shall be transported in a closed-vent system 
with a collection efficiency of at least 95% to a VOC control device 
with a control efficiency of at least 95%. The determination of control 
efficiency shall be made in accordance with the test method specified 
in paragraph (t)(7)(iv) of this section.
    (7) Effective twelve months after [Insert date of publication of 
the final rule], any venting of wellhead gases shall be done through a 
closed vent system to a control device with a VOC control efficiency of 
at least 95%.
    (4) Exemptions. The provisions of paragraphs (t)(3) (i) and (ii) of 
this section shall not apply to the following components:
    (i) Pressure relief valves, pump seals, and compressor seals that 
are equipped with a closed-vent system with a VOC collection efficiency 
of at least 95% that transports the VOC emissions to a vapor control 
system with a VOC control efficiency of at least 95%. The determination 
of control efficiency shall be made in accordance with the test method 
specified in paragraph (t)(7)(iv) of this section.
    (ii) The following cases, where the person seeking the exemption 
shall supply proof of the applicable criteria to the satisfaction of 
the EPA:
    (A) Components buried below ground.
    (B) Components exclusively handling fluids with a VOC concentration 
of 10 percent by weight or less, as determined by the test method 
specified in paragraph (t)(7)(ii) of this section; or components 
exclusively handling fluids, if the weight percent evaporated is 10 
percent or less at 150 degrees Celsius as determined by the test method 
specified in paragraph (t)(7)(iii) of this section.
    (C) Components at oil and gas production facilities or conveying 
stations handling liquids of:
    (1) Less than or equal to 20 degree API gravity after the point of 
primary separation.
    (2) Between 20 and 30 degree API gravity which are located either:
    (i) Downstream of a wellhead equipped with a casing vapor recovery 
system, provided that the vapor recovery is at a pressure of less than 
10 psig; or
    (ii) After the point of primary separation of oil and gas, provided 
the separation vessel is equipped with a vapor recovery system and is 
operated at a pressure less than 25 psig.
    (3) Components qualifying for an exemption under paragraph 
(t)(4)(ii)(C)(2) (i) or (ii) of this section shall be subject to the 
following requirements:
    (i) Components shall be visually inspected on a quarterly basis. 
Upon detection of a visible leak, the leak shall be measured to 
quantify emission concentrations according to paragraph (t)(7)(i) of 
this section. The quarterly visual inspection can be changed to an 
annual inspection if the requirements of paragraph (t)(3)(ii)(A)(6) of 
this section are satisfied; and
    (ii) Components shall either be subject to paragraph 
(t)(4)(ii)(C)(3)(i) of this section, or that any leak from components 
not subject to an inspection program that are detected by the EPA shall 
constitute a violation of this section.
    (iii) One-half inch and smaller stainless steel tube fittings which 
have been demonstrated to the EPA to be leak-free based on an initial 
inspection in accordance with paragraph (t)(7)(i) of this section.
    (iv) Components in vacuum service.
    (5) Reporting. Any owner or operator of a facility subject to 
paragraph (t) of this section shall comply with the following reporting 
requirements.
    (i) A compliance plan shall be prepared and submitted to the EPA by 
July 1, 1995. The plan will include the following information:
    (A) Component identification methodology to meet the requirements 
of paragraphs (t)(3)(i) (A) through (C) of this section.
    (B) An inspection schedule for all unsafe-to-monitor components 
pursuant to paragraph (t)(3)(ii)(A)(4) of this section.
    (C) A description of all components meeting the exemption 
requirements of paragraphs (t)(4) (i) through (iv) of this section.
    (ii) A certification of compliance shall be submitted to the EPA on 
or before January 1, 1996, and annually thereafter. The certification 
of compliance shall include:
    (A) A declaration that the facility is in compliance with all of 
the requirements of paragraph (t) of this section.
    (B) A summary of any changes that have been made to component 
identification in the original compliance plan.
    (6) Recordkeeping.
    (i) Each facility operator shall maintain an inspection log 
containing, at a minimum, the following:
    (A) Name, location, type of components, and description of any unit 
where leaking components are found.
    (B) Date of leak detection, emission level (ppmv) of leak, and 
method of leak detection.
    (C) Date of leak repair and description of repair action.
    (D) Date and emission level of re-check after leak is repaired.
    (E) Identification of leaks from critical components that cannot be 
repaired until the next process turnaround.
    (F) If applicable, the API gravity of petroleum process fluids.
    (G) The VOC content of leaking process fluids or gases.
    (H) Total number of components inspected, and total number and 
percentage of leaking components found by component type.
    (ii) Records of leaks detected by a quarterly or annual operator 
inspection and each subsequent repair and reinspection shall be 
submitted to the EPA upon request.
    (iii) All records of operator inspection and repair shall be 
maintained at the facility for the previous two year period and be made 
available at the time of inspection by the EPA or immediately upon EPA 
request.
    (7) Test methods.
    (i) Measurements of total gaseous organic compounds in leak 
concentrations shall be conducted according to EPA Reference Method 21. 
The analyzer shall be calibrated with methane.
    (ii) The VOC content of fluids shall be determined using procedures 
that conform to ASTM Methods E 168, E 169, or E 260 or any other 
procedure that conforms to the above ASTM methods and is approved by 
the EPA in writing.
    (iii) Determination of the evaporated compounds of liquids shall be 
performed in accordance with ASTM Method D 86-82.
    (iv) Determination of the control efficiency of any VOC control 
equipment shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, Method 25 or 25A; or SCAQMD Test Method 25.1, which is 
available from EPA.
    (v) Determination of the API gravity of crude oil shall be 
performed in accordance with ASTM Method D 287.

                        Table of Leak Thresholds                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum number of  
                                                          leaks         
                                                 -----------------------
                 Component type                     200 or     More than
                                                     less         200   
                                                  components  components
                                                  inspected   inspected 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valves..........................................           1       (\1\)
Pump seals......................................           2       (\2\)
Compressors.....................................           1           1
Pressure relief valves..........................           1           1
Hatches.........................................           0           0
Open ended lines................................           0           0
Other components................................           1          1 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\0.5% of the number inspected.                                        
\2\1% of the number inspected.                                          


                        Table of Repair Periods                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Time period (days)a 
                   Type of leak                    ---------------------
                                                     Onshore   Offshore 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Gas Leak....................................         14         14
Major Gas Leak....................................          5          5
Major Gas Leak over 50,000 ppmv...................       b,c1          5
Major Liquid Leak.................................       b,c1          5
Minor Liquid Leak.................................         b2         5 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aDay means a 24 hour period from the time of leak detection.            
bUnless prohibited by state safety standards or 29 CFR 1910.            
cComponents located at unmanned oil and gas production facilities or    
  conveying stations shall be repaired within two days.                 

    (u) Emissions of oxides of nitrogen from large institutional, 
commercial, and industrial boilers, steam generators, and process 
heaters.
    (1) Applicability. For the purposes of this paragraph, the affected 
area includes the Sacramento Metro Area as described for ozone in 40 
CFR 81.305.
    (i) Any owner or operator of a boiler, steam generator, or process 
heater with a rated heat input capacity equal to or greater than 5 
million British thermal units per hour (mmBtu/hr) shall comply with the 
applicable requirements standards of paragraphs (u)(1) through (u)(7) 
of this section.
    (ii) Any owner or operator of a boiler, steam generator, or process 
heater with a rated heat input capacity equal to or greater than 5 
million British thermal units per hour (mmBtu/hr) that claims an 
exemption from the standards of paragraph (u)(3) of this section 
because of the exemption criteria specified under paragraph (u)(4)(ii) 
of this section shall comply with the applicable requirements of 
paragraph (u)(6)(iii)(I) of this section.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (u)(1) through 
(u)(7) of this section, the following definitions shall apply. All 
terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given them in 
Sec. 52.2950.
    Annual heat input means the actual amount of heat released by fuels 
burned in a unit during a 12 calendar month rolling period, based on 
the fuel's higher heating value. The annual heat input shall be 
calculated as the sum of the previous 12 monthly fuel use rates 
multiplied by the fuel's higher heating value.
    Boiler or steam generator means any combustion equipment used in 
any institutional, commercial, or industrial operation that is designed 
to burn gaseous and/or liquid fuel and used to produce steam, heat 
water and/or other fluids, and/or generate electricity. A boiler or 
steam generator does not include any waste heat recovery unit that is 
used to recover sensible heat from the exhaust of a combustion turbine 
or any unfired waste heat recovery boiler that is used to recover 
sensible heat from the exhaust of any combustion equipment.
    British thermal unit (Btu) means the amount of heat required to 
raise the temperature of one pound of water from 59 deg.F to 60 deg.F 
at one atmosphere.
    Heat input means the chemical heat released due to fuel combustion 
in a unit, using the higher heating value of the fuel. This does not 
include the sensible heat of incoming combustion air.
    Higher heating value (HHV) means the total heat liberated per mass 
of fuel burned (Btu per pound), when fuel and dry air at standard 
conditions undergo complete combustion and all resultant products are 
brought to their standard states at standard conditions. If 
certification of the HHV is not provided by the third party fuel 
supplier, it shall be determined by one of the following test methods: 
ASTM D2015-85 for solid fuels; ASTM D240-87 or ASTM D2382-88 for liquid 
hydrocarbon fuels; or ASTM D1826-88 or ASTM D1945-81 in conjunction 
with ASTM D3588-89 for gaseous fuels.
    Non-gaseous fuel means any fuel which is not a gas at 68  deg.F and 
one atmosphere.
    NOX emissions means the sum of nitric oxides and nitrogen 
dioxide in the flue gas, collectively expressed as nitrogen dioxide.
    Process heater means any combustion equipment used in any 
institutional, commercial, or industrial operation that is designed to 
burn gaseous and/or liquid fuel and which transfers heat from 
combustion gases to water, heat transfer medium, or process streams. 
Process heater does not include any kiln or oven used for drying, 
baking, cooking, calcining or vitrifying; any unfired waste heat 
recovery heater that is used to recover sensible heat from the exhaust 
of any combustion equipment; or any fuel-fired degreasing or metal 
finishing equipment.
    Rated heat input capacity means the heat input capacity specified 
on the nameplate of the combustion unit. If the combustion unit has 
been altered or modified such that its maximum heat input is different 
than the heat input capacity specified on the nameplate, the new 
maximum heat input shall be considered as the rated heat input 
capacity.
    Shutdown means the period of time a unit is cooled from its normal 
operating temperature to cold or ambient temperature.
    Stack gas oxygen trim system means the system of monitors that is 
used to measure stack excess combustion air, typically consisting of 
flue gas oxygen and/or carbon monoxide monitors that automatically 
provide a feedback signal to the combustion air controller that 
maintains the stack excess air at the desired level.
    Startup means the period of time a unit is heated from cold or 
ambient temperature to its normal operating temperature as specified by 
the manufacturer.
    Unit means any boiler, steam generator, or process heater as 
defined in this definition.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) Any owner or operator that operates a unit with an annual heat 
input rate equal to or greater than 9 billion British thermal units per 
year (10\9\ Btu/yr) shall:
    (A) Not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases that 
contain NOX emissions in excess of the following:
    (1) For gaseous fuels, 30 parts per million (ppm) corrected to 3 
percent volume stack gas O2 on a dry basis averaged over a period 
of 15 consecutive minutes; or
    (2) For liquid fuels, 40 ppm corrected to 3 percent volume stack 
gas O2 on a dry basis averaged over a period of 15 consecutive 
minutes; and
    (3) Demonstrate initial compliance with the NOX emission 
standard in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (u)(7)(i) of 
this section.
    (B) Establish a controlled ppm carbon monoxide (CO) emission limit 
that represents good operating and combustion practices. No owner or 
operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases 
that contain CO in excess of the lowest of one of the following limits:
    (1) 120 percent of the CO ppm level established by an initial 
compliance test in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (u)(7) 
of this section, or
    (2) 400 ppm. The owner or operator shall subsequently comply with 
the limit once it is established. The ppm CO emissions shall be 
corrected to 3 percent volume stack gas O2 on a dry basis averaged 
over a period of 15 consecutive minutes.
    (C) Demonstrate initial compliance with the NOX and CO 
emission standards specified in paragraphs (u)(3)(i) (A) and (B) of 
this section in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 
(u)(6)(i)(C) and (u)(7)(i) of this section.
    (D) Units with a rated heat input capacity equal to or greater than 
5 mmBtu/hr and less than 40 mmBtu/hr shall demonstrate compliance with 
the NOX and CO emission standards specified in paragraphs 
(u)(3)(i) (A) and (B) of this section in accordance with the 
requirements of paragraph (u)(7)(i) of this section not less than once 
every 24 months since the previous compliance test.
    (E) Units with a rated heat input capacity greater than 40 mmBtu/hr 
and less than 100 mmBtu/hr shall demonstrate compliance with the 
NOX and CO emission standards specified in paragraphs (u)(3)(i) 
(A) and (B) of this section in accordance with the requirements of 
paragraph (u)(7)(i) of this section not less than once every 12 months 
since the previous compliance test.
    (F) Units with a rated heat input capacity equal to or greater than 
100 mmBtu/hr shall demonstrate compliance with the NOX and CO 
emission standards specified in paragraphs (u)(3)(i) (A) and (B) of 
this section in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 
(u)(6)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (ii) Any owner or operator that operates a unit with an annual heat 
input rate less than 9 x 109 Btu/yr shall comply with one of the 
following:
    (A) The unit shall be tuned once every 6 months or after 750 hours 
of operation since the previous tuneup, whichever occurs last, but in 
no case less than once per calendar year. The unit shall be tuned in 
accordance with the procedures described in paragraph (u)(7)(ii) of 
this section; or
    (B) The unit shall be operated in a manner that maintains stack gas 
oxygen concentrations at less than or equal to 3 percent on a dry basis 
for any 15 consecutive minute averaging period; or
    (C) The unit shall be operated using a stack gas oxygen trim system 
set at 3 percent oxygen. The tolerance of the setting shall be 
5 percent; or
    (D) Demonstrate compliance with the NOX and CO emission 
standards specified in paragraphs (u)(3)(i) (A) and (B) of this section 
in accordance with the applicable requirements of paragraphs 
(u)(3)(i)(D), (E), or (F) of this section.
    (E) Any owner or operator of a unit subject to the requirements of 
paragraph (u)(3)(ii) of this section shall comply with the requirements 
of paragraph (u)(3)(i) of this section if the unit is ever operated 
during any rolling 12 calendar month period at a total annual heat 
input rate equal to or greater than 9 x 109 Btu/yr.
    (4) Exemptions.
    (i) The requirements of paragraphs (u)(3), (u)(5), (u)(6), and 
(u)(7) of this section shall not apply to any owner or operator of a 
unit with a rated heat input capacity of less than 5 mmBtu/hr.
    (ii) The requirements of paragraph (u)(3)(i)(A)(1) of this section 
shall not apply to any owner or operator of a unit normally operated on 
gaseous fuel under the following conditions:
    (A) Non-gaseous fuel use is required due to the curtailment of 
natural gas service to the individual unit by the natural gas supplier. 
Non-gaseous fuel use in this case shall not exceed the period of 
natural gas curtailment.
    (B) Non-gaseous fuel use is required to maintain the non-gaseous 
fuel system. Non-gaseous fuel use in this case shall not exceed 50 
hours per year.
    (C) Any owner or operator that claims an exemption under paragraph 
(u)(4)(ii) of this section shall comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements specified under paragraph (u)(6)(iii)(I) of this section.
    (5) Compliance schedule.
    (i) Any owner or operator of a unit in existence prior to [Insert 
date of publication of the final rule] that does not need to retrofit 
the unit or install new control equipment to comply with the 
requirements of paragraph (u)(3) of this section shall demonstrate 
compliance with all of the applicable requirements of paragraph (u) of 
this section by May 15, 1995.
    (ii) Any owner or operator of a unit in existence prior to [Insert 
date of publication of the final rule] that must retrofit the unit and/
or install new control equipment to comply with the requirements of 
paragraph (u)(3) of this section shall demonstrate compliance with all 
of the applicable requirements of paragraph (u) of this section by May 
15, 1997. Any owner or operator of a unit to which paragraph (u) of 
this section is applicable shall meet the following increments of 
progress:
    (A) By January 1, 1996, apply for all authority-to-construct 
permits required by the local Air Pollution Control District for all 
retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, and
    (B) By January 1, 1997, commence construction of all retrofits and/
or additions of new control equipment, as approved by the local Air 
Pollution Control District, to demonstrate compliance by May 15, 1997.
    (iii) Any owner or operator of a new unit that is constructed on 
and after [Insert date of publication of the final rule] the date of 
adoption of this section shall apply for, and receive approval of, all 
authority-to-construct permits required by the local Air Pollution 
Control District prior to beginning construction of the unit. The owner 
or operator shall demonstrate that the unit will be operated in 
compliance with all of the applicable requirements of paragraph (u) of 
this section within 60 days after the date of the initial startup of 
the unit.
    (iv) On and after [Insert date of publication of the final rule], 
any owner or operator of a unit exempt from the requirements of 
paragraph (u)(3)(i) of this section that becomes subject to 
requirements of paragraph (u)(3)(i) of this section because the unit's 
rolling 12 calendar month annual heat input rate equals or exceeds 
9 x 109 Btu/yr shall meet the following increments of progress:
    (A) Within 7 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 9 x 109 Btu/yr, apply for all authority-to-
construct permits required by the local Air Pollution Control District 
for all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, and
    (B) Within 19 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 9 x 109 Btu/yr, commence construction of all 
retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, as approved by the 
local Air Pollution Control District, to demonstrate compliance within 
24 months after the day that the unit is operated equal to or greater 
than 9 x 109 Btu/yr.
    (6) Reporting, monitoring, and recordkeeping.
    (i) Reporting requirements. Any owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (u)(3) of this section shall comply with the 
applicable notification and reporting requirements of Sec. 60.7, and 
shall also comply with the following requirements:
    (A) By May 15, 1995, submit to the Administrator the identification 
number and type of each unit subject to the section, the name and 
address of the plant where the unit is located, and the name and 
telephone number of the person responsible for demonstrating compliance 
with paragraph (u) of this section. For each unit identified, the 
following information shall be submitted to the Administrator:
    (1) The rated heat input capacity, hours of operation during the 
previous one-year period, anticipated annual operating time and annual 
heat input for 1995, type of gaseous and/or liquid fuel(s) that will be 
burned in the unit, and age and manufacturer of the unit.
    (2) Identification of the NOX standard in paragraph (u)(3)(i) 
or (u)(3)(ii) of this section with which the unit will comply, and the 
control and compliance method selected for demonstrating compliance.
    (B) Any owner or operator subject to the compliance schedule 
specified in paragraph (u)(5) (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section 
shall notify the Administrator in writing of the following:
    (1) The date construction is commenced on all retrofits and/or 
additions of new control equipment to the unit.
    (2) The anticipated date of initial startup of the unit after 
completing all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment to 
the unit.
    (3) The actual date of initial startup of the unit after completing 
all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment to the unit.
    (C) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (u)(5) 
of this section, any owner or operator of a unit subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (u)(3)(i) of this section shall submit to the 
Administrator certification that the unit is in compliance with the 
applicable standards in paragraph (u)(3)(i) of this section as 
demonstrated through the applicable requirements of paragraph 
(u)(6)(ii)(A) or (u)(7)(i) of this section. As a part of the 
certification, the owner or operator shall submit a written report of 
the results of the compliance method used. If an owner or operator 
demonstrates compliance by use of a compliance test in accordance with 
the requirements of paragraph (u)(7)(i) of this section, the owner or 
operator shall provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior notice 
of the compliance test to afford the Administrator the opportunity to 
have an observer present.
    (D) Any owner or operator that must or chooses to demonstrate 
compliance with paragraph (u)(3)(i) of this section shall submit to the 
Administrator a written report of the results of all compliance tests 
required under paragraph (u)(3)(i)(D) or (E) of this section within 60 
days after completing each compliance test. The owner or operator shall 
provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior notice of the 
compliance test to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an 
observer present.
    (E) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (u)(5) 
of this section, any owner or operator of a unit subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (u)(3)(ii) of this section shall submit to 
the Administrator a report that documents the compliance method 
selected for demonstrating compliance with the requirements of 
paragraph (u)(3)(ii) of this section. The report shall also contain 
documentation of the procedure used or the results of the compliance 
method to demonstrate that the unit is in compliance with the 
requirements of paragraph (u)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (F) Any owner or operator subject to the requirements of paragraph 
(u)(3)(ii) of this section shall submit to the Administrator a report 
every 12 months after the initial compliance date that contains 
documentation of the procedure used and the results of the compliance 
method to demonstrate that the unit is in compliance with the 
requirements of paragraph (u)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (G) Any owner or operator subject to the monitoring requirements of 
paragraph (u)(6)(ii)(B) of this section shall notify the Administrator 
in writing within 30 days after the rolling 12 calendar month annual 
heat input rate of the unit equals or exceeds 9  x  1.2  x  109 
Btu/yr. Any owner or operator that becomes subject to the requirements 
of paragraph (u)(3)(i) of this section as a result of the requirements 
of this paragraph shall be subject to the compliance schedule in 
paragraph (u)(5)(iv) of this section and the applicable requirements of 
paragraphs (u)(6) and (u)(7) of this section.
    (ii) Monitoring requirements.
    (A) Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) Requirements. 
Owners or operators subject to the requirements of this paragraph 
because of paragraph (u)(3)(i)(F) of this section shall comply with the 
following:
    (1) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (u)(5) 
of this section, install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a CEMS in 
accordance with the applicable requirements of appendices B and F of 40 
CFR part 60 to demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirements 
of paragraphs (u)(3)(i) (A) and (B) of this section. The CEMS shall be 
installed and operational before conducting the initial compliance test 
required under paragraphs (u)(6)(i)(C) and (u)(7) of this section. The 
owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator documentation that 
the CEMS is in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (u) of 
this section.
    (2) Each owner or operator shall submit an excess emissions and 
monitoring systems performance report, in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec. 60.7 (c) and (d) and Sec. 60.13, to the 
Administrator within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter.
    (B) Any owner or operator of a unit with an annual heat input rate 
of less than 9  x  109 Btu/yr and not complying with the 
requirements of paragraph (u)(3)(i) of this section shall install a 
totalizing fuel meter for each applicable unit and for each fuel. 
Meters shall be accurate to  1 percent, as certified by the 
manufacturer in writing. Fuel consumption for each unit shall be 
compiled monthly into a rolling 12 calendar month report.
    (iii) Recordkeeping requirements. Any owner or operator of a unit 
subject to this section shall maintain all records necessary to 
demonstrate compliance with the section for a period of five calendar 
years at the plant where the subject unit is located. The records shall 
be made available to the Administrator upon request. The owner or 
operator shall maintain records of the following information for each 
day the unit is operated:
    (A) Identification and location of each unit subject to the 
requirements of this section.
    (B) Calendar date of record.
    (C) The number of hours the unit is operated during each day.
    (D) Boiler load, fuel type, actual time of startups and shutdowns, 
breakdown periods, and the type and duration of maintenance and 
repairs.
    (E) The results of all compliance tests and monitored stack gas 
oxygen concentrations.
    (F) If a unit is equipped with a flue gas recirculation system, 
records of the percentage of the flue gas that is recirculated to the 
combustion chamber of the unit.
    (G) If a unit is equipped with a CEMS:
    (1) The NOX and CO emission concentrations measured, corrected 
to 3 percent volume stack gas O2 on a dry basis averaged over a 
period of 15 consecutive minutes.
    (2) Identification of time periods during which NOX and CO 
standards are exceeded, the reason for the exceedance, and action taken 
to correct the exceedance and to prevent similar future exceedances.
    (3) Identification of the time periods for which operating 
conditions and pollutant data were not obtained including reasons for 
not obtaining sufficient data and a description of corrective actions 
taken.
    (H) For units with an annual heat input rate less than 9  x  
109 Btu/yr, the monthly fuel consumption and the rolling 12 
calendar month fuel consumption.
    (I) Any owner or operator that uses a non-gaseous fuel in any unit, 
pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (u)(4)(ii) of this section, 
shall maintain daily records of each occurrence. Each record shall 
specify the reason why non-gaseous fuel is used in a unit and shall 
include the type of fuel, the quantity of fuel, and the hours of 
operation during the use of non-gaseous fuel. If non-gaseous fuel is 
used during a natural gas curtailment, the owner or operator shall 
obtain information from the natural gas supplier to verify the period 
of curtailment. If non-gaseous fuel is used to maintain the non-gaseous 
fuel system, the owner or operator shall maintain records of the total 
hours during which the unit was operated on non-gaseous fuel during 
each calendar year.
    (7) Test methods.
    (i) Any owner or operator of a unit that is required to perform a 
compliance test to demonstrate compliance with the standards specified 
in paragraph (u)(3(i) of this section, or chooses to perform a 
compliance test to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 
paragraph (u)(3)(ii) of this section, shall comply with the 
requirements of Sec. 60.8 (c), (d), and (e). The test shall be 
performed and data reduced and reported as follows:
    (A) Each emission test shall be conducted while the unit is 
operated at maximum capacity and operating under representative 
operating conditions.
    (B) Each emission test shall be conducted in accordance with the 
appropriate test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Except for the 
modifications in this paragraph and unless otherwise approved by the 
Administrator: NOX shall be measured in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, Method 7E; CO shall be measured in accordance with 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 10; and the diluent shall be 
measured using 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 3A. Testing shall be 
conducted for twelve 15 minute testing periods. Compliance shall be 
evaluated for each 15 minute period. Data recorded during testing to 
determine the 15 minute average shall either be continuously integrated 
by the testing instrument and data recorder, or recorded manually at 30 
second intervals during each 15 minute test period. Zero and 
calibration checks shall be conducted after each 15 minute test period.
    (C) The ppm CO emission limit required by paragraph (u)(3)(i)(B) of 
this section shall be established during the initial compliance test 
for NOX emissions to establish a ppm CO emission limit that 
represents good operating and combustion practices for fuel(s) burned 
in the unit. The CO emission limit established for determining 
subsequent compliance shall be documented in the applicable 
certification report required under paragraph (u)(6)(i)(C) of this 
section.
    (ii) Any owner or operator that chooses to comply with the 
requirements of paragraph (u)(3)(ii) of this section by the compliance 
method specified in paragraph (u)(3)(ii)(A) of this section shall tune 
the unit using the equipment tuning procedure specified in this 
paragraph.\38\ Nothing in the equipment tuning procedure shall be 
construed to require any act or omission that would result in unsafe 
conditions or would be in violation of any regulation or requirement 
established by Factory Mutual, Industrial Risk Insurers, National Fire 
Prevention Association, California Department of Industrial Relations 
(Occupational Safety and Health Division), Federal Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration, or other relevant regulations and 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\This tuning procedure is based on a tune-up procedure 
developed by KVD, Inc. for the USEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) Step 1. Operate the unit at the firing rate most typical of 
normal operation. If the unit experiences significant load variations 
during normal operation, operate it at its average firing rate.
    (B) Step 2. At this firing rate, record stack gas temperature, 
oxygen concentration, and CO concentration (for gaseous fuels) or 
smoke-spot\39\ number (for liquid fuels), and observe flame conditions 
after unit operation stabilizes at the firing rate selected. If the 
excess oxygen in the stack gas is at the lower end of the range of 
typical minimum values,\40\ and if the CO emissions are low and there 
is no smoke, the unit is probably operating at near optimum efficiency 
at this particular firing rate. However, complete the remaining portion 
of this procedure to determine whether still lower oxygen levels are 
practical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\The smoke-spot number can be determined with ASTM Test 
Method D-2156 or with the Bacharach method.
    \40\Typical minimum oxygen levels for boilers at high firing 
rates are: 0.5 to 3 percent for natural gas; and 2 to 4 percent for 
liquid fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (C) Step 3. Increase combustion air flow to the furnace until stack 
gas oxygen levels increase by 1 to 2 percent over the level measured in 
Step 2. As in Step 2, record the stack gas temperature, CO 
concentration (for gaseous fuels) or smoke-spot number (for liquid 
fuels), and observe flame conditions for these higher oxygen levels 
after boiler operation stabilizes.
    (D) Step 4. Decrease combustion air flow until the stack gas oxygen 
concentration is at the level measured in Step 2. From this level 
gradually reduce the combustion air flow, in small increments. After 
each increment, record the stack gas temperature, oxygen concentration, 
CO concentration (for gaseous fuels) and smoke-spot number (for liquid 
fuels). Also, observe the flame and record any changes in its 
condition.
    (E) Step 5. Continue to reduce combustion air flow stepwise, until 
one of these limits is reached:
    (1) Unacceptable flame conditions--such as flame impingement on 
furnace walls or burner parts, excessive flame carryover, or flame 
instability.
    (2) Stack gas CO concentrations greater than 400 ppm.
    (3) Smoking at the stack.
    (4) Equipment-related limitations--such as low windbox/furnace 
pressure differential, built in air-flow limits, etc.
    (F) Step 6. Develop an O2/CO curve (for gaseous fuels) or 
O2/smoke curve (for liquid fuels) similar to those shown in 
Figures 1 and 2 using the excess oxygen and CO or smoke-spot number 
data obtained at each combustion air flow setting.
     (G) Step 7. From the curves prepared in Step 6, find the stack gas 
oxygen levels where the CO emissions or smoke-spot number equal the 
following values: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Fuel                  Measurement                 Value        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous................  CO Emissions...........  400 ppm.              
#1 & 2 oils............  Smoke-spot.............  Number 1.             
#4 oil.................  Smoke-spot number......  Number 2.             
#5 oil.................  Smoke-spot number......  Number 3.             
Other oils.............  Smoke-spot number......  Number 4.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above conditions are referred to as CO or smoke threshold, or 
as the minimum excess oxygen level. Compare this minimum value of 
excess oxygen to the expected value provided by the combustion unit 
manufacturer. If the minimum level found is substantially higher than 
the value provided by the combustion unit manufacturer, burner 
adjustments can probably be made to improve fuel and air mixing, 
thereby allowing operation with less air.
    (H) Step 8. Add 0.5 to 2.0 percent to the minimum excess oxygen 
level found in Step 7 and reset burner controls to operate 
automatically at this higher stack gas oxygen level. This margin above 
the minimum oxygen level accounts for fuel variations, variations in 
atmospheric conditions, load changes, and nonrepeatability or play in 
automatic controls.
    (I) Step 9. If the load of the combustion unit varies significantly 
during normal operation, repeat Steps 1-8 for firing rates that 
represent the upper and lower limits of the range of the load. Because 
control adjustments at one firing rate may affect conditions at other 
firing rates, it may not be possible to establish the optimum excess 
oxygen level at all firing rates. If this is the case, choose the 
burner control settings that give best performance over the range of 
firing rates. If one firing rate predominates, settings should optimize 
conditions at that rate.
    (J) Step 10. Verify that the new settings can accommodate the 
sudden load changes that may occur in daily operation without adverse 
effects. Do this by increasing and decreasing load rapidly while 
observing the flame and stack. If any of the conditions in Step 5 
result, reset the combustion controls to provide a slightly higher 
level of excess oxygen at the affected firing rates. Next, verify these 
new settings in a similar fashion. Then make sure that the final 
control settings are recorded at steady-state operating conditions.
    (v) Emissions of oxides of nitrogen from small institutional, 
commercial, and industrial boilers, steam generators, and process 
heaters.
    (1) Applicability. For the purposes of this paragraph, the affected 
area includes the Sacramento Metro Area as described for ozone in 40 
CFR 81.305.
    (i) Any owner or operator of a boiler, steam generator, or process 
heater with a rated heat input capacity equal to or greater than 1 
million British thermal units per hour (mmBtu/hr) and less than 5 
mmBtu/hr shall comply with the applicable requirements standards of 
paragraphs (v)(1) through (v)(7) of this section.
    (ii) Any owner or operator of a boiler, steam generator, or process 
heater with a rated heat input capacity equal to or greater than 1 
mmBtu/hr and less than 5 mmBtu/hr that claims an exemption from the 
standards of paragraph (v)(3) of this section because of the exemption 
criteria specified under paragraph (v)(4) of this section shall comply 
with the applicable requirements of paragraph (v)(6)(iii)(H) of this 
section.
    (2) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraph (v) of this section, 
the following definitions shall apply. All terms not defined herein 
shall have the meaning given them in Sec. 52.2950.
    Annual heat input means the actual amount of heat released by fuels 
burned in a unit during a 12 calendar month rolling period, based on 
the fuel's higher heating value. The annual heat input shall be 
calculated as the sum of the previous 12 monthly fuel use rates 
multiplied by the fuel's higher heating value.
    Boiler or steam generator means any combustion equipment used in 
any institutional, commercial, or industrial operation that is designed 
to burn gaseous and/or liquid fuel and used to produce steam, heat 
water and/or other fluids, and/or generate electricity. A boiler or 
steam generator does not include any waste heat recovery unit that is 
used to recover sensible heat from the exhaust of a combustion turbine 
or any unfired waste heat recovery boiler that is used to recover 
sensible heat from the exhaust of any combustion equipment.
    British thermal unit (Btu) means the amount of heat required to 
raise the temperature of one pound of water from 59 deg.F to 60 deg.F 
at one atmosphere.
    Heat input means the chemical heat released due to fuel combustion 
in a unit, using the higher heating value of the fuel. This does not 
include the sensible heat of incoming combustion air.
    Higher heating value (HHV) means the total heat liberated per mass 
of fuel burned (Btu per pound), when fuel and dry air at standard 
conditions undergo complete combustion and all resultant products are 
brought to their standard states at standard conditions. If 
certification of the HHV is not provided by the third party fuel 
supplier, it shall be determined by one of the following test methods: 
ASTM D2015-85 for solid fuels; ASTM D240-87 or ASTM D2382-88 for liquid 
hydrocarbon fuels; or ASTM D1826-88 or ASTM D1945-81 in conjunction 
with ASTM D3588-89 for gaseous fuels.
    Non-gaseous fuel means any fuel which is not a gas at 68  deg.F and 
one atmosphere.
    NOX emissions means the sum of nitric oxides and nitrogen 
dioxide in the flue gas, collectively expressed as nitrogen dioxide.
    Process heater means any combustion equipment used in any 
institutional, commercial, or industrial operation that is designed to 
burn gaseous and/or liquid fuel and which transfers heat from 
combustion gases to water, heat transfer medium, or process streams. 
Process heater does not include any kiln or oven used for drying, 
baking, cooking, calcining or vitrifying; any unfired waste heat 
recovery heater that is used to recover sensible heat from the exhaust 
of any combustion equipment; or any fuel-fired degreasing or metal 
finishing equipment.
    Rated heat input capacity means the heat input capacity specified 
on the nameplate of the combustion unit. If the combustion unit has 
been altered or modified such that its maximum heat input is different 
than the heat input capacity specified on the nameplate, the new 
maximum heat input shall be considered as the rated heat input 
capacity. This alteration or modification can be through either burner 
alteration or modification or installation of a fixed orifice. The new 
maximum heat input must be certified, in writing, by the manufacturer 
or installer and engineering calculations supporting the new maximum 
heat input rating must be submitted to the Administrator.
    Shutdown means the period of time a unit is cooled from its normal 
operating temperature to cold or ambient temperature.
    Stack gas oxygen trim system means the system of monitors that is 
used to measure stack excess combustion air, typically consisting of 
flue gas oxygen and/or carbon monoxide monitors that automatically 
provide a feedback signal to the combustion air controller that 
maintains the stack excess air at the desired level.
    Startup means the period of time a unit is heated from cold or 
ambient temperature to its normal operating temperature as specified by 
the manufacturer.
    Unit means any boiler, steam generator, or process heater as 
defined in paragraph (v) of this section.
    (3) Standards.
    (i) Any owner or operator that operates a unit with an annual heat 
input rate equal to or greater than 1.8 billion British thermal units 
per year (109 Btu/yr) shall:
    (A) Not cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases that 
contain NOX emissions in excess of 30 parts per million (ppm) 
corrected to 3 percent volume stack gas O2 on a dry basis averaged 
over a period of 15 consecutive minutes.
    (B) Establish a controlled ppm carbon monoxide (CO) emission limit 
that represents good operating and combustion practices. No owner or 
operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any gases 
that contain CO in excess of the lowest of one of the following limits:
    (1) 120 percent of the CO ppm level established by an initial 
compliance test in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (v)(7) 
of this section, or
    (2) 400 ppm.
    The owner or operator shall subsequently comply with the limit once 
it is established. The ppm CO emissions shall be corrected to 3 percent 
volume stack gas O2 on a dry basis averaged over a period of 15 
consecutive minutes.
    (C) Demonstrate initial compliance with the NOX and CO 
emission standards specified in paragraphs (v)(3)(i) (A) and (B) of 
this section in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 
(v)(6)(i)(C) and (v)(7)(i) of this section.
    (D) Demonstrate compliance with the NOX and CO emission 
standards specified in paragraphs (v)(3)(i) (A) and (B) of this section 
in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (v)(7)(i) of this 
section not less than once every 24 months since the previous 
compliance test.
    (ii) Any owner or operator that operates a unit with an annual heat 
input rate equal to or greater than 0.3 x 109 Btu/yr and less than 
1.8 x 109 Btu/yr shall comply with one of the following:
    (A) The unit shall be tuned once every 6 months or after 750 hours 
of operation since the previous tuneup, whichever occurs last, but in 
no case less than once per calendar year. The unit shall be tuned in 
accordance with the procedures described in paragraph (v)(7)(ii) of 
this section; or
    (B) The unit shall be operated in a manner that maintains stack gas 
oxygen concentrations at less than or equal to 3 percent on a dry basis 
for any 15 consecutive minute averaging period; or
    (C) The unit shall be operated using a stack gas oxygen trim system 
set at 3 percent oxygen for any 15 consecutive minute averaging period. 
The tolerance of the setting shall be 5 percent; or
    (D) Demonstrate compliance with the NOX and CO emission 
standards specified in paragraphs (v)(3)(i) (A) and (B) of this section 
in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (v)(3)(i) (C) and (D) 
of this section.
    (iii) Any owner or operator of a unit exempt from the requirements 
of paragraph (v)(3)(i) of this section shall demonstrate that the unit 
is exempt by complying with the applicable reporting, monitoring, and 
recordkeeping requirements of paragraphs (v)(6)(i)(H), (v)(6)(ii), and 
(v)(6)(iii) of this section, respectively. If the unit is ever operated 
during any rolling 12 calendar month period at a total annual heat 
input rate equal to or greater than 1.8 x 109 Btu/yr, the owner or 
operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (v)(3)(i) of 
this section. If the unit is ever operated during any rolling 12 
calendar month period at a total annual heat input rate equal to or 
greater than 0.3 x 109 Btu/yr and less than 1.8 x 109 Btu/yr, 
the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of paragraph 
(v)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (4) Exemptions. The requirements of paragraph (v)(3)(i) of this 
section shall not apply to any owner or operator of a unit operated on 
non-gaseous fuel under the following conditions:
    (i) Non-gaseous fuel use is required due to the curtailment of 
natural gas service to the individual unit by the natural gas supplier. 
Non-gaseous fuel use in this case shall not exceed the period of 
natural gas curtailment.
    (ii) Non-gaseous fuel use is required to maintain the non-gaseous 
fuel system. Non-gaseous fuel use in this case shall not exceed 50 
hours per year.
    (iii) Any owner or operator that claims an exemption under 
paragraph (v)(4) of this section shall comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements specified under paragraph (v)(6)(ii)(I) of this section.
    (5) Compliance schedule.
    (i) Any owner or operator of a unit in existence prior to the 
[Insert date of publication of the final rule] that does not need to 
retrofit the unit or install new control equipment to comply with the 
requirements of paragraph (v)(3) of this section shall demonstrate 
compliance with all of the applicable requirements of paragraph (v) of 
this section by May 15, 1995.
    (ii) Any owner or operator of a unit in existence prior to [Insert 
date of publication of the final rule] that must retrofit the unit and/
or install new control equipment to comply with the requirements of 
paragraph (v)(3) of this section shall demonstrate compliance with all 
of the applicable requirements of this paragraph (v) of this section by 
May 15, 1997. Any owner or operator of a unit to which paragraph (v) of 
this section is applicable shall meet the following increments of 
progress:
    (A) By January 1, 1996, apply for all authority-to-construct 
permits required by the local Air Pollution Control District for all 
retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, and
    (B) By January 1, 1997, commence construction of all retrofits and/
or additions of new control equipment, as approved by the local Air 
Pollution Control District, to demonstrate compliance by May 15, 1997.
    (iii) Any owner or operator of a new unit that is constructed on 
and after [Insert date of publication of the final rule] shall apply 
for, and receive approval of, all authority-to-construct permits 
required by the local Air Pollution Control District prior to beginning 
construction of the unit. The owner or operator shall demonstrate that 
the unit will be operated in compliance with all of the applicable 
requirements of paragraph (v) of this section within 60 days after the 
date of the initial startup of the unit.
    (iv) On and after [Insert date of publication of the final rule], 
any owner or operator of a unit exempt from requirements of paragraph 
(v)(3)(i) of this section that becomes subject to requirements of 
paragraph (v)(3)(i) of this section because the unit's rolling 12 
calendar month annual heat input rate equals or exceeds 1.8 x 109 
Btu/yr shall meet the following increments of progress:
    (A) Within 7 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 1.8 x 109 Btu/yr, apply for all authority-to-
construct permits required by the local Air Pollution Control District 
for all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, and
    (B) Within 19 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 1.8 x 109 Btu/yr, commence construction of all 
retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, as approved by the 
local Air Pollution Control District, to demonstrate compliance within 
24 months after the day that the unit is operated equal to or greater 
than 1.8 x 109 Btu/yr.
    (v) On and after [Insert date of publication of the final rule], 
any owner or operator of a unit exempt from the requirements of 
paragraph (v)(3)(ii) of this section that becomes subject to 
requirements of paragraph (v)(3)(ii) of this section because the unit's 
rolling 12 calendar month annual heat input rate equals or exceeds 
0.3 x 109 Btu/yr shall meet the following increments of progress:
    (A) Within 7 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 0.3 x 109 Btu/yr, apply for all authority-to-
construct permits required by the local Air Pollution Control District 
for all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, and
    (B) Within 19 months after the day that the unit is operated equal 
to or greater than 0.3 x 109 Btu/yr, commence construction of all 
retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment, as approved by the 
local Air Pollution Control District, to demonstrate compliance within 
24 months after the day that the unit is operated equal to or greater 
than 0.3 x 109 Btu/yr.
    (6) Reporting, monitoring, and recordkeeping.
    (i) Reporting requirements. Any owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (v)(3) of this section shall comply with the 
applicable notification requirements of Sec. 60.7, and shall also 
comply with the following requirements:
    (A) By May 15, 1995, submit to the Administrator the identification 
number and type of each unit subject to the section, the name and 
address of the plant where the unit is located, and the name and 
telephone number of the person responsible for demonstrating compliance 
with paragraph (v) of this section. For each unit identified, the 
following information shall be submitted to the Administrator:
    (1) The rated heat input capacity, hours of operation during the 
previous one-year period, anticipated annual operating time and annual 
heat input for 1995, type of gaseous and/or liquid fuel(s) that will be 
burned in the unit, and age and manufacturer of the unit.
    (2) Identification of the NOX standard in paragraph (v)(3)(i) 
or (v)(3)(ii) of this section with which the unit will comply, and the 
control and compliance method selected for demonstrating compliance.
    (B) Any owner or operator subject to the compliance schedule 
specified in paragraph (v)(5) (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of this section 
shall notify the Administrator in writing of the following:
    (1) The date construction is commenced on all retrofits and/or 
additions of new control equipment to the unit.
    (2) The anticipated date of initial startup of the unit after 
completing all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment to 
the unit.
    (3) The actual date of initial startup of the unit after completing 
all retrofits and/or additions of new control equipment to the unit.
    (C) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (v)(5) 
of this section, any owner or operator of a unit subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (v)(3)(i) of this section shall submit to the 
Administrator certification that the unit is in compliance with the 
applicable standards in paragraph (v)(3)(i) of this section as 
demonstrated through the applicable requirements of paragraph (v)(7)(i) 
of this section. As a part of the certification, the owner or operator 
shall submit a written report of the results of the compliance method 
used. If an owner or operator demonstrates compliance by use of a 
compliance test in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 
(v)(7)(i) of this section, the owner or operator shall provide the 
Administrator at least 30 days prior notice of the compliance test to 
afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an observer present.
    (D) Any owner or operator that must or chooses to demonstrate 
compliance with paragraph (v)(3)(i) of this section shall submit to the 
Administrator a written report of the results of all compliance tests 
required under paragraph (v)(3)(i)(D) of this section within 60 days 
after completing each compliance test. The owner or operator shall 
provide the Administrator at least 30 days prior notice of the 
compliance test to afford the Administrator the opportunity to have an 
observer present.
    (E) By the applicable compliance date specified in paragraph (v)(5) 
of this section, any owner or operator of a unit subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (v)(3)(ii) of this section shall submit to 
the Administrator a report that documents the compliance method 
selected for demonstrating compliance with the requirements of 
paragraph (v)(3)(ii) of this section. The report shall also contain 
documentation of the procedure used or the results of the compliance 
test to demonstrate that the unit is in compliance with the 
requirements of paragraph (v)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (F) Any owner or operator subject to the requirements of paragraph 
(v)(3)(ii) of this section shall submit to the Administrator a report 
every 12 months after the initial compliance date that contains 
documentation of the procedure used and the results of the compliance 
method to demonstrate that the unit is in compliance with the 
requirements of paragraph (v)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (G) Any owner or operator subject to the monitoring requirements of 
paragraph (v)(6)(ii) of this section shall notify the Administrator in 
writing within 30 days after the rolling 12 calendar month annual heat 
input rate of the unit equals or exceeds 1.8  x  10\9\ Btu/yr or 0.3 
x  10\9\ Btu/yr. Any owner or operator that becomes subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (v)(3)(i) or (v)(3)(ii) of this section as a 
result of the requirements of this paragraph shall be subject to the 
compliance schedule in paragraph (v)(5)(iv) or (v)(5)(v) of this 
section and the applicable requirements of paragraphs (v)(6) and (v)(7) 
of this section.
    (ii) Monitoring requirements. Any owner or operator of a unit with 
an annual heat input rate of less than 1.8  x  10\9\ Btu/yr and not 
complying with the requirements of paragraph (v)(3)(i) of this section 
shall install a totalizing fuel meter for each applicable unit and for 
each fuel. Meters shall be accurate to 1 percent, as 
certified by the manufacturer in writing. Fuel consumption for each 
unit shall be compiled monthly into a rolling 12 calendar month report.
    (iii) Recordkeeping requirements. Any owner or operator of a unit 
subject to paragraph (v) of this section shall maintain all records 
necessary to demonstrate compliance with the section for a period of 
five calendar years at the plant where the subject unit is located. The 
records shall be made available to the Administrator upon request. The 
owner or operator shall maintain records of the following information 
for each day the unit is operated:
    (A) Identification and location of each unit subject to the 
requirements of this section.
    (B) Calendar date of record;
    (C) The number of hours the unit is operated during each day;
    (D) Boiler load, fuel type, actual time of startups and shutdowns, 
breakdown periods, and the type and duration of maintenance and 
repairs.
    (E) The results of all compliance tests and monitored stack gas 
oxygen concentrations.
    (F) If a unit is equipped with a flue gas recirculation system, 
records of the percentage of the flue gas that is recirculated to the 
combustion chamber of the unit.
    (G) For units with an annual heat input rate less than 1.8  x  
10\9\ Btu/yr, the monthly fuel consumption and the rolling 12 calendar 
month fuel consumption.
    (H) Any owner or operator that uses a non-gaseous fuel in any unit, 
pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (v)(4) of this section, shall 
maintain daily records of each occurrence. Each record shall specify 
the reason why non-gaseous fuel is used in a unit and shall include the 
type of fuel, the quantity of fuel, and the hours of operation during 
the use of non-gaseous fuel. If non-gaseous fuel is used during a 
natural gas curtailment, the owner or operator shall obtain information 
from the natural gas supplier to verify the period of curtailment. If 
non-gaseous fuel is used to maintain the non-gaseous fuel system, the 
owner or operator shall maintain records of the total hours during 
which the unit was operated on non-gaseous fuel during each calendar 
year.
    (7) Test methods.
    (i) Any owner or operator of a unit that is required to perform a 
compliance test to demonstrate compliance with the standards specified 
in paragraph (v)(3)(i) of this section, or chooses to perform a 
compliance test to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 
paragraph (v)(3)(ii) of this section, shall comply with the 
requirements of Sec. 60.8 (c), (d), and (e). The test shall be 
performed and data reduced and reported as follows:
    (A) Each emission test shall be conducted while the unit is 
operated at maximum capacity and operating under representative 
operating conditions.
    (B) Each emission test shall be conducted in accordance with the 
appropriate test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Except for the 
modifications in this paragraph and unless otherwise approved by the 
Administrator: NOX shall be measured in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, Method 7E; CO shall be measured in accordance with 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 10; and the diluent shall be 
measured using 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 3A. Testing shall be 
conducted for four 15 minute testing periods. Compliance shall be 
evaluated for each 15 minute period. Data recorded during testing to 
determine the 15 minute average shall either be continuously integrated 
by the testing instrument and data recorder, or recorded manually at 30 
second intervals during each 15 minute test period. Zero and 
calibration checks shall be conducted after each 15 minute test period.
    (C) The ppm CO emission limit required by paragraph (v)(3)(i)(B) of 
this section shall be established during the initial compliance test 
for NOX emissions to establish a ppm CO emission limit that 
represents good operating and combustion practices for fuel(s) burned 
in the unit. The CO emission limit established for determining 
subsequent compliance shall be documented in the applicable 
certification report required under paragraph (v)(6)(i)(C) of this 
section.
    (ii) Any owner or operator that chooses to comply with the 
requirements of paragraph (v)(3)(ii)(A) of this section shall tune the 
unit using the equipment tuning procedure specified in this 
paragraph.\41\ Nothing in these equipment tuning procedure shall be 
construed to require any act or omission that would result in unsafe 
conditions or would be in violation of any regulation or requirement 
established by Factory Mutual, Industrial Risk Insurers, National Fire 
Prevention Association, California Department of Industrial Relations 
(Occupational Safety and Health Division), Federal Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration, or other relevant regulations and 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\This tuning procedure is based on a tune-up procedure 
developed by KVD, Inc. for the USEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) Step 1. Operate the unit at the firing rate most typical of 
normal operation. If the unit experiences significant load variations 
during normal operation, operate it at its average firing rate.
    (B) Step 2. At this firing rate, record stack gas temperature, 
oxygen concentration, and CO concentration (for gaseous fuels) or 
smoke-spot\42\ number (for liquid fuels), and observe flame conditions 
after unit operation stabilizes at the firing rate selected. If the 
excess oxygen in the stack gas is at the lower end of the range of 
typical minimum values,\43\ and if the CO emissions are low and there 
is no smoke, the unit is probably operating at near optimum efficiency 
at this particular firing rate. However, complete the remaining portion 
of this procedure to determine whether still lower oxygen levels are 
practical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\The smoke-spot number can be determined with ASTM Test 
Method D-2156 or with the Bacharach method.
    \43\Typical minimum oxygen levels for boilers at high firing 
rates are: 0.5 to 3 percent for natural gas; and 2 to 4 percent for 
liquid fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (C) Step 3. Increase combustion air flow to the furnace until stack 
gas oxygen levels increase by 1 to 2 percent over the level measured in 
Step 2. As in Step 2, record the stack gas temperature, CO 
concentration (for gaseous fuels) or smoke-spot number (for liquid 
fuels), and observe flame conditions for these higher oxygen levels 
after boiler operation stabilizes.
    (D) Step 4. Decrease combustion air flow until the stack gas oxygen 
concentration is at the level measured in Step 2. From this level 
gradually reduce the combustion air flow, in small increments. After 
each increment, record the stack gas temperature, oxygen concentration, 
CO concentration (for gaseous fuels) and smoke-spot number (for liquid 
fuels). Also, observe the flame and record any changes in its 
condition.
    (E) Step 5. Continue to reduce combustion air flow stepwise, until 
one of these limits is reached:
    (1) Unacceptable flame conditions--such as flame impingement on 
furnace walls or burner parts, excessive flame carryover, or flame 
instability.
    (2) Stack gas CO concentrations greater than 400 ppm.
    (3) Smoking at the stack.
    (4) Equipment-related limitations--such as low windbox/furnace 
pressure differential, built in air-flow limits, etc.
    (F) Step 6. Develop an O2/CO curve (for gaseous fuels) or 
O2/smoke curve (for liquid fuels) similar to those shown in 
Figures 1 and 2 using the excess oxygen and CO or smoke-spot number 
data obtained at each combustion air flow setting.
    (G) Step 7. From the curves prepared in Step 6, find the stack gas 
oxygen levels where the CO emissions or smoke-spot number equal the 
following values: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Fuel                 Measurement                 Value        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous................  CO Emissions...........  400 ppm.              
#1 & #2 oils...........  Smoke-spot number......  number 1.             
#4 oil.................  Smoke-spot number......  number 2.             
#5 oil.................  Smoke-spot number......  number 3.             
Other oils.............  Smoke-spot number......  number 4.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above conditions are referred to as CO or smoke threshold, or 
as the minimum excess oxygen level. Compare this minimum value of 
excess oxygen to the expected value provided by the combustion unit 
manufacturer. If the minimum level found is substantially higher than 
the value provided by the combustion unit manufacturer, burner 
adjustments can probably be made to improve fuel and air mixing, 
thereby allowing operation with less air.
    (H) Step 8. Add 0.5 to 2.0 percent to the minimum excess oxygen 
level found in Step 7 and reset burner controls to operate 
automatically at this higher stack gas oxygen level. This margin above 
the minimum oxygen level accounts for fuel variations, variations in 
atmospheric conditions, load changes, and nonrepeatability or play in 
automatic controls.
    (I) Step 9. If the load of the combustion unit varies significantly 
during normal operation, repeat Steps 1-8 for firing rates that 
represent the upper and lower limits of the range of the load. Because 
control adjustments at one firing rate may affect conditions at other 
firing rates, it may not be possible to establish the optimum excess 
oxygen level at all firing rates. If this is the case, choose the 
burner control settings that give best performance over the range of 
firing rates. If one firing rate predominates, settings should optimize 
conditions at that rate.
    (J) Step 10. Verify that the new settings can accommodate the 
sudden load changes that may occur in daily operation without adverse 
effects. Do this by increasing and decreasing load rapidly while 
observing the flame and stack. If any of the conditions in Step 5 
result, reset the combustion controls to provide a slightly higher 
level of excess oxygen at the affected firing rates. Next, verify these 
new settings in a similar fashion. Then make sure that the final 
control settings are recorded at steady-state operating conditions.


Sec. 52.2962  Enhanced in-use compliance program for light-and medium-
duty vehicles.

    (a) General applicability.
    (1) Every new 1999 and later model year light-duty vehicle, light-
duty truck, and medium-duty vehicle manufactured for sale, sold, 
offered for sale, introduced, or delivered for introduction to 
commerce, or imported into the State of California for sale or resale 
shall be covered by a certificate of conformity issued pursuant to 
paragraph (d) of this section. Medium-duty vehicles whose engines are 
covered by a certificate of conformity applicable to heavy-duty engines 
issued by the State of California pursuant to the California Code are 
exempted from this requirement, but must comply with the requirements 
of Sec. 52.2966.
    (2) Any manufacturer, dealer, or other person who violates 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of 
not more than $25,000. Any such violation with respect to paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section shall constitute a separate offense with respect 
to each motor vehicle.
    (3) Certain vehicle fleet operators, as defined in paragraph (g) of 
this section, are subject to the provisions contained in that 
paragraph.
    (b) Definitions and abbreviations. The definitions and 
abbreviations of 40 CFR parts 86 and 88, Sec. 52.2963, and the 
definitions contained in the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q) apply 
to this section unless the term is defined in this section. If defined 
in this section, the definition in this section governs.
    California emission standards means standards for the emission of 
pollutants from motor vehicles and engines set by the California Air 
Resources Board which have received waivers from the Administrator 
under section 209 of the Clean Air Act.
    Composite non-methane hydrocarbon emission level means the combined 
exhaust and evaporative emission non-methane hydrocarbon level, 
expressed in g/mi (or g/km). Conversion factors are applied to measured 
evaporative emissions to generate the composite level and measured 
evaporative hydrocarbon levels are equated to evaporative non-methane 
hydrocarbon levels.
    Enhanced ILEV means a vehicle for which the Administrator has 
issued the manufacturer a certificate of conformity designating the 
vehicle as an ILEV under 40 CFR 88.311-93 and as complying with the 
provisions of paragraph (d) of this section.
    FIP I/M program means any motor vehicle inspection and maintenance 
program meeting the provisions of Sec. 52.2963.
    Full life means up to and including 100.0 percent of the full 
useful life mileage and age.
    Half life means up to and including 50.0 percent of the full useful 
life mileage and age.
    Light-duty truck  means any motor vehicle rated at 6000 pounds GVWR 
or less which is designed primarily for purposes of transportation of 
property or is a derivative of such vehicle, or is available with 
special features enabling off-street or off- highway operation and use.
    Medium-duty vehicle means any heavy-duty vehicle having a GVW of 
14,000 pounds or less, or any motor vehicle having a GVW greater than 
6000 pounds but less than 14,000 pounds.
    New, when applied to motor vehicles, means a motor vehicle, the 
equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an 
ultimate purchaser. It is conclusively presumed that the equitable or 
legal title to a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, with an 
odometer reading of 7,500 miles or more, has been transferred to an 
ultimate purchaser, and that the equitable or legal title to a motor 
vehicle, other than a motorcycle, with an odometer reading of less than 
7,500 miles has not been transferred to an ultimate purchaser.
    Obvious abuse or tampering means the deliberate removal of the 
catalyst or evaporative emissions canister, turbocharging of a 
naturally aspirated engine, operation with less than one half the 
recommended level of oil in the engine, or damage to the engine or 
emission controls resulting from a vehicular accident.
    (c) Emissions standards and design specifications.
    (1) Emission standards: light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
    (i) The emissions standards for 1999 and later model year light-
duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty trucks (LDTs) as measured under 40 
CFR part 86, subpart B are as follows: 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Full life      Oxides of nitrogen   
                                                                            composite         (grams/mile)      
    Class         Loaded vehicle weight               Category             non-methane -------------------------
                        (pounds)                                          hydrocarbons                          
                                                                          (grams/mile)   Half Life    Full Life 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV           All.........................  Enhanced....................          0.20         0.20         0.30
LDV           All.........................  Transitional................          0.29         0.40         0.60
LDT           0-3750......................  Enhanced....................          0.20         0.20         0.30
LDT           0-3750......................  Transitional................          0.29         0.40         0.60
LDT           3751-5750...................  Enhanced....................          0.26         0.40         0.50
LDT           3751-5750...................  Transitional................          0.33         0.70         0.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) For the 1999 model year only, the transitional standards 
specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section apply to up to 25 
percent of a vehicle manufacturer's sales of LDVs, LDTs below 3751 
pounds loaded vehicle weight and LDTs above 3750 pounds loaded vehicle 
weight. The sales in each of the above three vehicle categories is 
accounted for separately. The enhanced in-use standards apply to at 
least 75 percent of 1999 model year sales of these vehicles and to all 
2000 and later model year sales.
    (iii) Composite non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions are 
determined according to the following equation:

TP05MY94.115

where:
    (A) Exhaust=Exhaust NMHC emissions in g/mi using the test 
procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B and as calculated at 
Sec. 86.144-94(1) of this chapter, with the fuel specifications 
contained in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (B) Diurnal=Diurnal breathing loss emissions in grams using the 
test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B and as 
calculated per Sec. 86.143-96 of this chapter, with the fuel 
specifications and test temperatures contained in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) 
of this section.
    (C) Hot soak=Hot soak emissions in grams using the test procedures 
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B and as calculated in 
Sec. 86.143-96 of this chapter, with the fuel specifications and test 
temperatures contained in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (D) Running Loss=Running loss emissions in g/mi using the test 
procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B and as calculated in 
Sec. 86.143-96 of this chapter, with the fuel specifications and test 
temperatures contained in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (iv)(A) In testing the vehicle for both exhaust and evaporative 
emissions under 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, the test fuel used shall 
meet the specifications contained in paragraph 9(a)(1)(ii) of the 
California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1998 and 
subsequent Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty 
Vehicles, as referenced in Sec. 1956.8 of Title 13 of the California 
code of Regulations.
    (B) In testing the vehicle for diurnal, hot soak, and running loss 
emissions under 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, the following temperatures 
shall be used with no change in the specified tolerance about the mean 
temperatures:
    (1) In testing diurnal emissions, the following sequence of 
temperatures shall be repeated three times and substituted for those 
specified in table 1 of appendix II to 40 CFR part 86: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Temperature (                       Temperature (  
     Minute             deg.F)             Minute           deg.F)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...............            65.0               780             101.1    
60..............            66.6               840              95.3    
120.............            72.6               900              88.8    
180.............            80.3               960              84.4    
240.............            86.1              1020              80.8    
300.............            90.6              1080              77.8    
360.............            94.6              1140              75.3    
420.............            98.1              1200              72.0    
480.............           101.2              1260              70.0    
540.............           103.4              1320              68.2    
600.............           104.9              1380              66.5    
660.............           105.0              1440              65.0    
720.............           104.2                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) In testing hot soak emissions, 105  deg.F shall be substituted 
for 95  deg.F in 40 CFR 86.138-96(e).
    (3) In testing running loss emissions, 105  deg.F shall be 
substituted for 95  deg.F in 40 CFR 86.134-96(g)(1) (xii) and (xiv) of 
this chapter.
    (v) NOX emissions are determined in g/mi using the test 
procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B and as calculated at 
40 CFR 86.144-94(1), with the fuel specifications contained in 
paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (vi) The exhaust HC and NOX emissions standards for 1999 and 
later model year light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty trucks 
(LDTs) as measured over the IM240 transient mass emissions test 
specified in Sec. 52.2963(i)(5) are as follows: 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Full life      Oxides of nitrogen   
                                                                              total           (grams/mile)      
    Class         Loaded vehicle weight               Category            hydrocarbons -------------------------
                        (pounds)                                          (grams/mile)                          
                                                                                         Half life    Full life 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV           All.........................  Enhanced....................          0.20         0.30         0.45
LDV           All.........................  Transitional................           .34          .60          .90
LDT           0-3750......................  Enhanced....................           .20          .30          .45
LDT           0-3750......................  Transitional................           .34          .60          .90
LDT           3751-5750...................  Enhanced....................           .29          .60          .75
LDT           3751-5750...................  Transitional................           .44         1.05        1.35 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vii) For the 1999 model year only, the transitional standards 
specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iv)(A) of this section apply to those 
sales of LDVs and LDTs to which the transitional standards specified in 
paragraph (c)(1)(v) of this section apply. The enhanced in-use 
standards apply to all other 2000 and later model year sales of LDVs 
and LDTs.
    (2) Emission standards: medium-duty vehicles.
    (i) The emissions standards for 1999 and later model year medium-
duty vehicles (MDVs) (excluding those MDVs powered by engines certified 
under the heavy-duty engine emissions standards contained in 
Sec. 52.2966) as measured under 40 CFR part 86, subpart B are as 
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Full Life      Oxides of nitrogen   
                                                                            composite         (grams/mile)      
 Test weight                                                               non-methane -------------------------
  (pounds)                             Category                           hydrocarbons                          
                                                                          (grams/mile)   Half life    Full life 
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-3750......  Enhanced..................................................          0.28          0.2          0.3
0-3750......  Transitional..............................................           .35           .4           .6
3751-5750...  Enhanced..................................................           .31           .4           .5
3751-5750...  Transitional..............................................           .40           .7          1.0
5751-8500...  Enhanced..................................................           .34           .6           .8
5751-8500...  Transitional..............................................           .45          1.1          1.5
8501-10000..  Enhanced..................................................           .37           .7           .9
8501-10000..  Transitional..............................................           .50          1.3          1.8
10001-14000.  Enhanced..................................................           .43          1.0          1.4
10001-14000.  Transitional..............................................           .60          2.0          2.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) For the 1999 model year only, the transitional standards 
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section apply to up to 25 
percent of a vehicle manufacturer's sales of MDVs. The enhanced in-use 
standards apply to at least 75 percent of 1999 model year sales of MDVs 
and to all 2000 and later model year sales of MDVs.
    (iii) Composite NMHC and NOX emissions are determined 
according to paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section.
    (iv) The exhaust HC and NOX emissions standards for 1999 and 
later model year MDVs (excluding those MDVs powered by engines 
certified under the heavy-duty engine emissions standards contained in 
Sec. 52.2966) as measured over the IM240 transient mass emissions test 
specified in Sec. 52.2963(i)(5) are as follows: 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Full life      Oxides of nitrogen   
                                                                              total           (grams/mile)      
 Test weight                           Category                           hydrocarbons -------------------------
  (pounds)                                                                (grams/mile)                          
                                                                                         Half life    Full life 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-3750......  Enhanced..................................................           .24          .30          .45
0-3750......  Transitional..............................................           .40          .60          .90
3751-5750...  Enhanced..................................................           .31          .60          .75
3751-5750...  Transitional..............................................           .51         1.05         1.50
5751-8500...  Enhanced..................................................           .37          .90         1.20
5751-8500...  Transitional..............................................           .62         1.65         2.25
8501-10000..  Enhanced..................................................           .43         1.05         1.35
8501-10000..  Transitional..............................................           .73         1.95         2.70
10001-14000.  Enhanced..................................................           .57         1.50         2.10
10001-14000.  Transitional..............................................           .95         3.00         4.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (v) For the 1999 model year only, the transitional standards 
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section apply to those sales 
of MDVs to which the transitional standards specified in paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) of this section apply. The enhanced in-use standards 
specified in this paragraph apply to all other 2000 and later model 
year sales of MDVs.
    (3) Canister access requirement. All 1999 and later model year LDV, 
LDTs, and MDVs (excluding those MDVs powered by engines certified under 
the heavy-duty engine emissions standards contained in Sec. 52.2966) 
shall be designed and manufacturered such that enhanced I/M evaporative 
pressure and purge functional tests can be readily conducted (i.e., the 
evaporative vapor storage canister(s) can be easily and quickly 
accessed and the pressure and purge test equipment (described in 
Sec. 52.2963(t) and (u)) can be easily and quickly attached without 
damaging the post-test integrity of the evaporative emission control 
system.
    (d) Application for certification.
    (1) A separate application for a certificate of conformity shall be 
made for each set of standards and each class of new motor vehicles or 
new motor vehicle engines. Such application shall be made to the 
Administrator by the manufacturer and shall be updated and corrected by 
amendment. The application shall meet all of the requirements set forth 
in 40 CFR 86.094-21, unless otherwise provided in the California 
application specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
    (2) The application shall contain a copy of the application for 
certification specified in Sec. 1960.1 of title 13 of the California 
Code of Regulations.
    (3) The application shall also demonstrate that throughout all 
testing conducted by the manufacturer in fulfilling the application for 
certification specified in Sec. 1960.1 of title 13 of the California 
Code of Regulations, and such additional testing as may be necessary, 
that the vehicle(s) for which certification is being requested meet all 
the applicable emission standards and design specifications specified 
in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (4) The applications shall also contain a statement by the 
manufacturer that the vehicle(s) for which certification is being 
requested will meet the emission standards specified in paragraph of 
this section over its full useful life (or half life, as applicable) in 
the absence of obvious abuse or tampering, as defined in paragraph 
(e)(iii)(B) of this section. Vehicles found to not do so under the 
provisions of paragraph (e) of this section will be subject to recall 
per the provisions of paragraph (e) of this section.
    (e) Enhanced in-use recall provisions.
    (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (e) of this section, 
the provisions of subpart S or 40 CFR part 85, and the associated 
established practices of EPA, shall apply to the recall of vehicles 
subject to the requirements of this section.
    (2) Vehicle selection. Vehicles shall be selected by EPA for 
purposes of recall testing from the portion of the vehicle population 
subject to enhanced inspection and maintenance testing described in 
Sec. 52.2963. EPA may test vehicles at any time or mileage within their 
applicable useful life.
    (3) Vehicle testing. (i) Selected vehicles will be tested unless 
EPA determines that a selected vehicle(s) has been subjected to obvious 
abuse or tampering.
    (ii) For purposes of paragraph (e) of this section, obvious abuse 
or tampering includes the following conditions:
    (A) The presence of less than one half of the recommended volume of 
motor oil in the engine crankcase;
    (B) The deliberate removal of the catalyst or evaporative canister;
    (C) The addition of a turbocharger to a naturally aspirated engine;
    (D) The presence of damage to the engine or emission controls 
resulting from a vehicular accident; and
    (E) Other factors which the Administrator may consider appropriate 
for determining the presence of obvious abuse or tampering.
    (iii) The manufacturer may be present at the time of vehicle 
procurement and testing and request that a vehicle not be tested due to 
obvious abuse or tampering. The Administrator may request that such a 
request from a manufacturer be supported by appropriate documentation, 
though the final determination rests with the Administrator.
    (iv) Vehicles that EPA determines have been subject to obvious 
abuse or tampering will be removed from the test sample.
    (v) EPA will test vehicles in the condition in which the vehicles 
are received from the owner. No repair or maintenance will be conducted 
on the vehicle prior to testing.
    (vi) Vehicles shall be tested according to the same test procedures 
prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (4) (i) Discretionary recall authority. Based on the criteria 
contained in 40 CFR 85.1802, the Administrator may determine that a 
nonconformity with an applicable standard under paragraph (c) of this 
section exists for a vehicle engine family. In addition, the 
Administrator may make such a determination of nonconformity when the 
average emissions of the test vehicles for any pollutant exceeds the 
applicable recall emission standard specified in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (ii) Any vehicle recall conducted by a manufacturer under paragraph 
(e) of this section shall apply to all vehicles of the affected engine 
family which have been sold in the State of California.
    (5) (i) Prohibitions. Should the Administrator make a determination 
of nonconformity under paragraph (e)(4) of this section:
    (A) The Secretary of State of California, the California Department 
of Motor Vehicles, its employees, and any other persons representing 
the State of California are prohibited from registering any vehicle 
covered by this nonconformity unless evidence is presented that the 
required remedies have been performed on that vehicle; and
    (B) Operators of motor vehicles covered by this nonconformity are 
prohibited from registering the vehicle without first obtaining the 
required remedies for their vehicle.
    (ii) The penalties contained in Section 43016 of the California 
Health and Safety Code for the failure by a vehicle owner to have 
needed repairs made to a recalled vehicle shall apply to the failure by 
a vehicle owner to have needed repairs made to a recalled vehicle under 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (f) I/M-based selective recall requirements.
    (1) Liability for I/M-related repairs.
    (i) Except as noted in paragraphs (f)(1) (v) and (vi) of this 
section, the manufacturer of a vehicle shall be responsible for its 
repair sufficient for it to pass an emission inspection performed as 
part of a FIP I/M program, including the enhanced in-use I/M standards 
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, and for obtaining 
official certification of the successful passage of the above emission 
inspection (i.e., repeat test) if:
    (A) That vehicle has failed an emission inspection performed as 
part of a FIP I/M program for the pollutant for which the I/M based 
selective recall liability threshold has been exceeded in paragraph 
(f)(1)(i)(B) of this section; and
    (B) At least one model year's sales of that vehicle's exhaust 
engine family has exceeded a liability threshold for either HC or 
NOX emissions, as defined in paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
    (ii) This liability shall begin 30 days after receipt of 
notification of exceedance of a liability threshold from the 
Administrator.
    (iii) (A) The vehicle manufacturer shall be liable to remedy the 
defects and for the repairs necessary for the vehicle to pass all 
aspects of an emission inspection which is part of a FIP I/M program 
applicable to that vehicle at the time of the failure of the I/M 
emission inspection referred to in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) of this 
section, regardless of whether the liability threshold for only one of 
the two pollutants was exceeded or both were exceeded.
    (B) At minimum, manufacturers must allow the repairs required under 
paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section to be performed at any of its 
manufacturer authorized repair facilities. Nothing here shall be 
construed to limit the performance of such repairs to only manufacturer 
dealerships.
    (iv) In performing the repairs conducted under this section, the 
manufacturer shall promptly schedule and expeditiously repair the 
vehicle. In doing so, the manufacturer shall provide a loaner vehicle 
of equivalent or better quality free of charge to the owner of the 
vehicle being repaired:
    (A) During the period of time when the vehicle is at the 
manufacturer authorized repair facility whenever the repairs will 
require more than one day to complete, or
    (B) Starting 14 days after the vehicle owner initially contacted 
the manufacturer authorized repair facility regarding the repair of the 
vehicle and continuing to the time the vehicle is delivered to the 
vehicle owner along with official certification that the vehicle has 
successfully passed the repeat emission inspection, if the vehicle has 
not already been so delivered by this time.
    (v) (A) In lieu of performing the repairs required in paragraph 
(f)(1)(i) of this section, a manufacturer may purchase the vehicle and 
remove it from use in California.
    (B) The manufacturer's responsibility for performing the repairs 
required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section ends if the vehicle 
owner declines to sell the vehicle to the manufacturer at a price equal 
to Average Retail Value listed in the N.A.D.A. Official Used Car Guide 
published by the National Automobile Dealers Used Car Guide Co., 8400 
Westpark Dr., McLean, VA 22102-9985 for the month containing the date 
of the emission inspection failure referred to in paragraph 
(f)(1)(i)(A) of this section and for the smallest geographical area 
covered by the above Guide which contains the area covered by the FIP  
I/M program.
    (vi) Exempted repairs. (A) Manufacturers are not responsible for 
repairs to vehicles to which there has been obvious abuse or tampering, 
as defined in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section and determined by the 
FIP I/M program test provider.
    (B) Manufacturers are not responsible for repairs of vehicles that 
have exceeded their useful life.
    (2) Applicable enhanced in-use I/M standards.
    (i) (A) The enhanced in-use I/M standards for exhaust HC emissions 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section shall be substituted for the 
exhaust HC emission standards specified in appendix 2 of Sec. 52.2963 
for all vehicles of an exhaust engine family if at least one model 
year's sales of that exhaust engine family has exceeded a liability 
threshold for HC emissions, as defined in paragraph (f)(4) of this 
section.
    (B) The enhanced in-use I/M standards for NOX emissions 
specified in paragraphs (c) of this section shall be substituted for 
the NOX emission standards specified in appendix 2 of Sec. 52.2963 
for all vehicles of an exhaust engine family if at least one model 
year's sales of that exhaust engine family has exceeded a liability 
threshold for NOX emissions, as defined in paragraph (f)(4) of 
this section.
    (ii) This substitution shall begin 30 days after the date on which 
notification from the Administrator of the exceedance of the liability 
threshold is received by the manager of the affected I/M test facility.
    (3) Notification to Vehicle Owners. Immediately following the 
failure of an emission inspection for a pollutant (i.e., HC or 
NOX) by a vehicle for which the FIP I/M program test provider has 
received notification of exceedance of a liability threshold per 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section for that pollutant, the certifed 
emission inspector shall:
    (i) Determine whether or not the vehicle has been obviously abused 
or tampered with, per paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section,
    (ii) If the vehicle was not obviously abused or tampered with, 
inform the vehicle owner (or the vehicle operator present at the test) 
that the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for remedial repairs, and
    (iii) Provide the vehicle owner with a written copy of the test 
results and the determination that the vehicle was not obviously abused 
or tampered with. This document shall be signed by the certified 
emission inspector and the manager or an assistant manager of the FIP 
I/M test facility.
    (4) Exceedance of an I/M-based selective recall liability 
threshold.
    (i) The liability threshold is 5.0 percent for vehicles that have 
not exceeded 50.0 percent of their useful life and 10.0 percent for 
vehicles that have not exceeded 100.0 percent of their full useful 
life.
    (ii) An exhaust engine family is deemed to have exceeded the 
liability threshold for NOX or HC if the NOX or HC failure 
rate for any model year of that exhaust engine family, per paragraph 
(f)(5) of this section, exceeds the half- or full-life liability 
threshold at any time, after three months of data have been submitted 
for that model year's vehicles. Exceedance of the liability thresholds 
for HC and NOX are determined independently.
    (5) Calculation of failure rates.
    (i) The failure rate (in percent) for a specific pollutant for each 
model year of each exhaust engine family will consist of the total 
number of failing vehicles for that pollutant divided by the total 
number of vehicles multiplied by 100, where:
    (A) The total number of vehicles refers to the sum of all vehicles 
from a specific model year and exhaust engine family which have been 
tested in a FIP I/M program,
    (B) The total number of failing vehicles includes those vehicles 
included under paragraph (f)(5)(i)(A) of this section which:
    (1) At any time exceeded the applicable IM240 exhaust NOX 
standard specified in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) or (c)(2)(iv) of this 
section, as applicable, (considered a failure for NOX); or
    (2) At any time exceeded the applicable IM240 exhaust HC standard 
specified in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) or (c)(2)(iv) of this section, as 
applicable, or failed either the purge or pressure functional tests 
described in Sec. 52.2963(t) and (u), respectively (considered a 
failure for HC).
    (C) Separate failure rates for each pollutant will be calculated 
for vehicles which have not exceeded 50.0 percent of their full useful 
life and for vehicles which have not exceeded 100.0 percent of their 
full useful life.
    (D) Failure rates shall be expressed as a percentage, rounded to 
one figure after the decimal.
    (ii) On a monthly basis, the Administrator will calculate the HC 
and NOX failure rates for each exhaust engine family and notify 
each vehicle manufacturer, as applicable, of the results for their 
engine families.
    (iii) Within thirty days after a liability threshold for an exhaust 
family has been determined to be exceeded, the Administrator shall, by 
registered mail, notify the manufacturer of the affected vehicles and 
managers of enhanced I/M test facilities required to meet the 
requirements of Sec. 52.2963.
    (g) Enhanced ILEV fleet program.
    (1) Fleet operators which control 10 or more vehicles which operate 
at any time in the South Coast Air Basin Nonattainment Area for Ozone 
as defined in 40 CFR 81.305 shall determine whether they are a covered 
fleet operator. This determination is to be made as follows:
    (i) The fleet operator shall not count the following types of 
vehicles:
    (A) Vehicles with a GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds;
    (B) Law enforcement and other emergency vehicles;
    (C) Nonroad vehicles;
    (D) Vehicles garaged at a private residence that are not centrally 
fueled;
    (E) Vehicles held for lease or rent to the general public;
    (F) Vehicles held for sale by motor vehicle dealers (including 
demonstration vehicles); and
    (G) Vehicles used for motor vehicle manufacturer product 
demonstrations and tests.
    (ii) Fleet operators shall determine the number of vehicles not 
exempted in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section that can be centrally 
fueled (as defined in 40 CFR 88.302-94).
    (iii) If a fleet operator determines under paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of 
this section that 10 or more non-exempt vehicles can be centrally 
fueled, then the fleet operator shall be considered to be a covered 
fleet operator.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, covered 
fleet operators acquiring vehicles to replace vehicles meeting the 
provisions of paragraph (g)(1) of this section, or acquiring additional 
vehicles which meet the same provisions, shall acquire a number of 
enhanced ILEVs equal to the number of such vehicles acquired multiplied 
by the appropriate percentage as follows:
    (i) For model year 1999 light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and 
medium-duty vehicles, 50 percent;
    (ii) For model year 2000 and later light-duty vehicles, light-duty 
trucks, and medium-duty vehicles, 70 percent.
    (3) Enhanced ILEV purchase credits. Covered fleet operators may 
satisfy the enhanced ILEV purchase requirements provided in paragraph 
(g)(2) of this section wholly or in part by redeeming an appropriate 
number of enhanced ILEV purchase credits. Enhanced ILEV purchase 
credits may be generated as follows:
    (i) A covered fleet operator which purchases enhanced ILEVs in 
excess of the enhanced ILEV purchase requirement may receive one 
enhanced ILEV purchase credit for each excess vehicle; and
    (ii) A covered fleet operator which purchases enhanced ILEVs 
earlier than required may receive one enhanced ILEV purchase credit for 
each such vehicle.
    (iii) The Administrator shall issue a credit document or documents 
to a covered fleet operator which requests enhanced ILEV credit or 
credits and which provides evidence of the appropriate purchases.
    (iv) The Administrator shall approve the reduction of any covered 
fleet operator's enhanced ILEV purchase requirement by a number equal 
to the number of credits presented to the Administrator for redemption, 
subject to confirmation of the legitimacy of the credit documents so 
presented.
    (4) Reporting. Fleet operators which control 10 or more vehicles 
which operate at any time in the South Coast Air Basin Nonattainment 
Area for Ozone as defined in 40 CFR 81.305 shall submit the following 
information to the Administrator by January 1 of each year beginning 
January 1999:
    (i) Total number of vehicles operated in the covered area;
    (ii) Numbers of vehicles by class (e.g., LDV, LDT) and fueling 
characteristics (e.g., centrally fueled) acquired during the previous 
calendar year;
    (iii) Numbers of vehicles by class and fueling characteristics 
expected to be acquired in the coming calendar year;
    (iv) Numbers of enhanced ILEVs purchased during the previous 
calendar year and expected during the coming calendar year;
    (v) Vehicle Information Numbers (VINs) and engine family 
designations (see 40 CFR 86.092-24) for each of the vehicles reported 
in paragraphs (g)(4)(ii) through (iv) of this section.
    (vi) The identity of the responsible party which has control of 
vehicle acquisition decisions; and
    (vii) The covered fleet operator's calculated minimum purchase 
requirement from paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
    (5) Violations. The following shall be considered violations of the 
enhanced ILEV fleet program:
    (i) Failure to submit required data to the Administrator;
    (ii) Failure to meet the appropriate purchase requirements; or
    (iii) Counterfeiting or commerce in counterfeit enhanced ILEV 
purchase credit documents.
    (6) Penalties. Any person which the Administrator finds in 
violation of the provisions of paragraph (g)(4)(v) of this section 
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000.


Sec. 52.2963  Enhanced inspection/maintenance program.

    (a) Applicability of 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. For the purposes of 
this section, except as otherwise provided, the definitions and 
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart S (Inspection/Maintenance 
Program Requirements) apply.
    (b) Additional definitions.
    Centralized inspection network means a network of vehicle 
inspection facilities owned and operated by a single, identifiable 
entity, such as a state or other governmental entity, or an agreed upon 
agent of a state or other governmental entity.
    Certificate of compliance means a serially numbered instrument 
(either paper-based or electronic) indicating that a vehicle has met 
the requirements of this section, either by passing all applicable 
emission tests, or by being granted a waiver (see ``Waiver'' in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    Certified emission inspector means a person who has successfully 
completed all necessary training and who is certified by the 
Administrator or his/her designee as qualified to perform emission 
inspections on subject vehicles. Such certification must be 
periodically renewed, and is subject to suspension and permanent 
revocation as a result of violating the requirements of this section.
    Emission inspection means the full range of emission-related 
inspections a vehicle is subject to as a result of participating in an 
I/M program, including the sampling and analysis of tailpipe exhaust, 
purge and pressure testing of the evaporative system, and any visual 
inspections for the presence and proper connection of specific emission 
control devices.
    Emission inspection test report means an automated report of a 
vehicle's emission inspection results, coded to a specific vehicle 
through the use of unambiguous vehicle identifiers, such as the license 
plate number and vehicle identification number (VIN). The emission 
inspection test report is a separate document and distinguished from 
the certificate of compliance by virtue of the fact that a test report 
shall not be accepted as valid for registration purposes.
    Enhanced I/M program means a program meeting the enhanced I/M 
performance standard as established under EPA's I/M rule (40 CFR 
51.351).
    Farm equipment means a vehicle designed or adapted and determined 
by the Administrator to be used exclusively for agricultural operations 
and only incidentally operated or moved upon highways.
    Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) means the value specified by the 
manufacturer on the Federal weight certification label as the loaded 
weight of a single vehicle. For the purposes of the FIP's I/M program, 
California-certified vehicles shall be considered to fall under the 
same gross vehicle weight ratings as comparable, 49-state vehicles.
    Heavy-duty vehicles means trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds 
GVWR.
    Light-duty trucks 1 (LDT1) means trucks weighing less than 6,000 
pounds GVWR.
    Light-duty trucks 2 (LDT2) means trucks weighing from 6,000 to 
8,500 pounds GVWR.
    Light-duty vehicles means passenger cars or multi-purpose vehicles 
weighing less than 6,000 pounds GVWR.
    Onboard diagnostic device (OBD) means a system for monitoring the 
in-use emission performance of a vehicle which provides feedback to the 
driver concerning actual or potential malfunctions through the 
illumination of a malfunction indicator light (MIL). The event 
triggering MIL illumination is also stored on the OBD computer as a 
trouble code which can be downloaded at a vehicle testing or repair 
facility.
    Oversight contractor(s) means a contractor or contractors who have 
been awarded a contract by the Administrator to conduct and report the 
results of overt and covert audits of the test provider(s) sites and 
personnel. The information generated by the oversight contractor shall 
be used by the Administrator to substantiate enforcement actions taken 
by EPA against the test provider and its employees.
    Qualifying repairs means those vehicle repairs necessary to correct 
the deficiencies which resulted in a vehicle's failure of an emissions 
inspection and which count toward the minimum dollar amount required 
before a waiver may be issued. For those repairs where repair or 
replacement of emission-related parts requires replacement of other 
non-emission related equipment constructed as one indivisible unit by 
the manufacturer, the total replacement costs or repair costs may be 
counted toward qualifying repairs.
    Recognized repair facility means a business engaged in the 
diagnosis and repair of automotive engines and related systems.
    Recognized repair technician means a person who has received and 
has proof of formal training in the diagnosis and repair of automotive 
engines and related systems, or holds a valid license issued by the 
California Bureau of Automotive Repair, or is employed by a recognized 
repair facility primarily for the purpose of diagnosing and repairing 
automotive engines and their related systems.
    Remote Sensing Devices (RSD) means a transportable system of 
devices designed for the remote gathering of vehicle emissions and 
identification data while vehicles are being operated on public roads.
    Special mobile equipment means vehicles not designed or used 
primarily for the transportation of persons or property and only 
incidentally operated or moved over a highway, including ditch digging 
apparatus; well boring apparatus; earth moving and road construction 
and maintenance machinery, such as asphalt spreaders, bituminous 
mixers, bucket loaders, ditchers, graders, finishing machines, road 
rollers, scarifiers, earth moving carryalls, scrapers, power shovels 
and draglines; and self-propelled cranes and tractors, other than truck 
tractors. The term does not include house trailers; dump trucks; truck-
mounted transit mixers, cranes or shovels; or other vehicles designed 
for the transportation of persons or property to which machinery has 
been attached.
    Test provider(s) means one or more entities with whom the 
Administrator has entered into a legal agreement, for the purposes of 
providing vehicle emission testing and other FIP I/M program activities 
except those activities which would clearly constitute a conflict of 
interest or are otherwise impractical, such as overt and covert 
auditing of the testing element, program effectiveness evaluation, and 
enforcement. As part of this legal agreement, the test provider(s) 
would be reimbursed for operating expenses and allowed a reasonable 
profit by way of a test fee to be collected directly from motorists at 
the time of testing.
    Transient test means a vehicle emission test in which exhaust 
emissions are sampled and analyzed under conditions simulating actual 
on-road driving conditions, including the use of loaded operation 
simulation, and a standardized driving cycle. For the purposes of the 
FIP I/M program, a transient test known as the IM240 shall be used for 
vehicle exhaust emissions testing.
    Unsafe condition means a defect, malfunction or other condition of 
a vehicle which may expose an emission inspector to harm in the 
performance of an emission inspection of that vehicle. A vehicle which 
is presented for testing in an unsafe condition may be rejected from 
testing until such time as the factors contributing to the vehicle's 
unsafe condition have been corrected.
    Vehicle model year means the date of manufacture of a vehicle as 
specified by the vehicle identification number (VIN), or, if this 
number is not available or cannot be interpreted for the year, the 
annual production period of the vehicle as designated by the 
manufacturer.
    Waiver means a notation on the emission inspection certificate of 
compliance indicating that the requirement of passing the otherwise 
required reinspection test has been waived.
    (c) Subject vehicles. Subject vehicles include all model year 1966 
to 1998 gasoline-fueled vehicles to 19,500 pounds GVWR (including 
vehicles with engine-based certification), and all model year 1999 and 
newer vehicles of all fuel types to 14,000 pounds GVWR (excluding 
vehicles with engine-based certification from 8,500 to 14,000 pounds 
GVWR) which are:
    (1) Registered in or required to be registered in a FIP I/M program 
area.
    (2) Leased vehicles with registration or titling in the name of an 
equity owner other than the lessee or user where the motor vehicle is 
registered or required to be registered in a FIP I/M program area.
    (3) Available for rent in a FIP I/M program area or used in a FIP 
I/M program area, regardless of where the vehicles are registered.
    (4) part of a fleet registered in and/or primarily operated within 
a FIP I/M program area.
    (5) Federally-owned vehicles operated within a FIP I/M program 
area, with the exception of tactical military vehicles.
    (6) Vehicles owned, leased or operated by civilian and military 
personnel on Federal installations, except for vehicles belonging to or 
operated by visiting agency, employee or military personnel whose stays 
do not exceed a total of 60 calendar days per calendar year.
    (d) Exempted vehicles. Exempted vehicles shall include vehicles 
operated or registered as one of the following:
    (1) Special mobile equipment.
    (2) Farm equipment.
    (3) Motorcycles.
    (4) Motorized pedalcycles.
    (5) Vehicles repossessed by a financier or debt collector through 
the use of miscellaneous motor vehicle business registration plates. 
This vehicle exemption will no longer hold once a repossessed vehicle 
has been resold or leased or is otherwise being operated on a routine 
basis in the FIP I/M program area.
    (e) Prohibitions. (1) The Secretary of State of California, the 
California Department of Motor Vehicles, its employees, and any other 
persons representing the State of California are prohibited from 
reregistering any subject vehicle registered in the name of an owner or 
lessee whose primary residence is located within one of the FIP I/M 
areas unless evidence is presented that the EPA Administrator or his/
her designee has issued such a vehicle a certificate of compliance with 
or a waiver from the applicable requirements of this section.
    (2) Operators of subject motor vehicles registered in the FIP I/M 
areas are prohibited from obtaining vehicle registration without first 
meeting all applicable FIP I/M program requirements.
    (3) The test provider(s) and its employees, as part of an agreement 
with the Administrator, shall be prohibited from the intentional 
improper testing or retesting of vehicles subject to the FIP I/M 
program.
    (f) Commencement date. The enhanced I/M program, as described in 
this section, will commence with 100 percent vehicle testing coverage 
on January 1, 1997. Given the lateness of this starting date, no phase-
in of vehicle coverage shall be assumed, contrary to the provisions of 
40 CFR 51.373.
    (g) Vehicle emission inspection cycle.
    (1) Biennial inspection. Vehicles subject to the current California 
I/M program which are registered in the FIP  I/M areas shall be subject 
to the FIP I/M program and will be tested on the same biennial schedule 
as is currently used, with the exception that such vehicles shall go to 
official FIP I/M program test provider(s) for valid testing. New 
vehicles which are registered in the FIP I/M areas shall be tested in 
the next even numbered calendar year after the initial titling if the 
model year is even, or in the next odd numbered calendar year after the 
initial titling if the model year is odd, and shall be subject to 
regular FIP I/M testing every two years thereafter. Once a vehicle has 
been tested as part of the FIP I/M program, it will remain on the same 
biennial testing schedule until such time as the FIP I/M program is 
discontinued. The sale of a vehicle shall not change that vehicle's 
regularly scheduled testing date. Vehicles previously registered in 
California but outside the FIP I/M areas which move into a FIP I/M area 
shall be tested in time to meet the I/M requirement for their first 
registration as residents of a FIP I/M area, and shall be tested every 
two years thereafter.
    (2) Out-of-cycle inspection. Vehicles otherwise subject to the FIP 
I/M program's requirements which are targeted as potential high 
emitters as a result of RSD detection must be presented for an enhanced 
I/M inspection within 30 days of notification of the failure (or 
sooner, if the regularly scheduled inspection deadline occurs first). 
If the vehicle fails this confirmatory test, it shall be subject at 
that time to the same repair, retest, and waiver requirements as apply 
to vehicles which fail the regularly scheduled biennial inspection. 
Failure to comply with this out-of-cycle testing requirement shall 
result in the assessment of a late fee to be collected prior to testing 
whenever the vehicle is next presented for regular testing. A late fee 
of $10 will be assessed for each full week past the testing deadline. 
Being subject to an out-of-cycle inspection does not change the 
deadline for the vehicle's regularly scheduled biennial inspection, 
unless it occurs within 30 days of the out-of-cycle test.
    (h) Notification of requirement for emission inspection. A letter 
of notification shall be sent to subject vehicle owners or lessees such 
that the letter shall have been received by the individual owner or 
lessee no later than 45 days prior to the regularly scheduled test 
deadline and no later than 30 days prior to an out-of-cycle 
confirmatory test deadline. In the case of the out-of-cycle inspection 
requirement, the notification shall be sent by registered mail to 
ensure documentation of the owner or lessee's receipt of notification.
    (i) Emission inspection period. The period during which a subject 
vehicle may be presented for an I/M inspection shall be stated on the 
emission inspection notification form along with the deadline for 
completing the inspection process. Subject vehicles presented for an 
initial inspection or reinspection after the time period shown on the 
emission inspection notification shall be charged a late fee of $10 for 
each full week that a vehicle is late. This late fee shall be collected 
prior to the initiation of testing.
    (j) Inspection failure.
    (1) If a subject vehicle fails any phase of the enhanced emission 
inspection, the vehicle owner shall have the vehicle repaired and 
submit the vehicle for retesting along with a repair form supplied by 
the test provider (to be completed by the vehicle repair provider). No 
reinspection shall occur without a completed repair form.
    (2) If the subject vehicle fails the retest, and it otherwise meets 
the waiver requirements for enhanced I/M programs addressed under 40 
CFR 51.360(a), the vehicle owner may apply for a waiver.
    (k) Enhanced I/M program requirements. The FIP I/M program design 
shall include the following program elements:
    (1) Network type. Testing shall be performed through a centralized 
system of official emission inspection stations which shall be operated 
by one or more test provider(s) under agreement with the Administrator.
    (2) Test-only. Official emission inspection stations shall conduct 
vehicle emission testing only and shall not perform vehicle repairs, 
except to restore the vehicle to the as-received condition after 
testing (including the reattachment of hoses disconnected for the 
evaporative system check). Official emission inspection stations shall 
meet all the requirements for test-only stations established in 40 CFR 
51.353.
    (3) Geographic coverage. The FIP I/M program shall cover the same 
geographic areas within the Sacramento, Ventura and South Coast FIP 
areas as are covered by the existing California Smog Check program as 
of [Insert date of publication of the final rule]. (See 40 CFR part 52, 
subpart GGG, appendix A for a detailed listing of I/M FIP area coverage 
by zip code.)
    (4) Exhaust emission test type. All 1966 and newer subject vehicles 
shall be tested using the IM240 transient mass emission test as 
specified by EPA guidance and regulation.
    (5) Emission control device visual inspection. All 1971 and newer 
subject vehicles shall be visually inspected for the presence and 
proper connection of the air pump and positive crankcase ventilation 
(PCV) systems. The visual inspection of these components shall be 
conducted in compliance with procedures established by EPA guidance and 
regulation.
    (6) Evaporative system tests. All 1971 and newer subject vehicles 
shall be subject to an evaporative system pressure test and an 
evaporative system purge test conducted as specified by EPA guidance 
and regulation.
    (7) Onroad testing. Onroad testing shall be conducted on 
approximately 10 percent of the subject fleet using RSD on an annual 
basis. Subject vehicles have been targeted by RSD as potential high-
emitters shall be subject to out-of-cycle testing requirements as 
specified in paragraph (t) of this section.
    (l) Documentation of compliance for vehicles operated on Federal 
installations. Federal installations located within the FIP I/M program 
area shall provide annual documentation of proof of compliance with 
paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6) of this section to EPA. This documentation 
shall be updated periodically, but at least once per inspection cycle. 
The installation shall use one of the following methods to establish 
proof of compliance:
    (1) Presentation of a valid certificate of compliance with or 
waiver from the FIP I/M program or a comparable I/M program (i.e., one 
meeting the enhanced I/M performance standard as set forth in 40 CFR 
51.351). In the event the FIP I/M program adopts an electronic-based 
instrument for certifying vehicle compliance, the test provider(s) 
shall make arrangements for issuing a special ``Federal vehicle,'' 
paper-based certificate of compliance. Such a certificate of compliance 
shall clearly read ``Not Valid for Vehicle Registration in the State of 
California'' in a point size and location which will make it impossible 
to remove this message without destroying the certificate.
    (2) Presentation of proof of vehicle registration for each vehicle 
operating on the grounds of the Federal installation which is already 
registered within the geographic area covered by the FIP I/M program.
    (m) Emission inspection criteria for vehicles operated with 
miscellaneous motor vehicle business registration plates or dealer 
registration plates. A subject vehicle which displays a miscellaneous 
motor vehicle business registration plate or a dealer registration 
plate shall be exempt from the requirements for emission inspection 
until it reaches two years of age (based on model year) at which that 
time it shall be subject to emission inspection.
    (n) Repair technician training. Repair technician training shall be 
provided to all qualified applicants. This training will include, at a 
minimum:
    (1) Diagnosis and repair of malfunctions in computer controlled 
close-loop vehicles.
    (2) Application of emission control theory and diagnostic data to 
the diagnosis and repair of failures of the transient emission test and 
the evaporative system function tests.
    (3) Utilization of diagnostic information on systematic or repeated 
failures observed in the transient emission test and the evaporative 
system function tests.
    (4) Generalized training on the various subsystems related to 
emission control.
    (o) Emission test procedures. Emission tests and functional tests 
shall be subject to the following requirements:
    (1) Flexibly fueled vehicles (i.e., those capable of operating both 
on gasoline and other fuels) shall at a minimum be subject to testing 
and shall be tested while operating in the gasoline mode unless the 
vehicle is never operated with gasoline.
    (2) An initial test is the emission test that occurs the first time 
in a test cycle. The initial test shall be performed without repair or 
adjustment at the emission inspection station prior to the test, except 
as provided for in the evaporative system integrity test. An emission 
inspection performed after failure of the initial test in a test cycle 
shall be considered a retest.
    (3) An official test, once initiated, shall be performed in its 
entirety regardless of intermediate outcomes except in the case of an 
invalid test condition or unsafe conditions.
    (4) Tests involving measurements shall be performed with approved 
equipment that has been calibrated according to the quality control 
procedures contained in EPA guidance or regulation.
    (5) Vehicles shall not be tested if the exhaust system is missing 
or leaking, or if the vehicle is in an unsafe condition.
    (6) The vehicle owner or driver shall have access to an area in the 
inspection station which permits observation of the entire official 
inspection procedure. This access may be limited but it may not prevent 
full observation.
    (7) In the inspection process, vehicles that have been altered from 
their original certified configuration shall be tested in the same 
manner as other subject vehicles, in accordance with the following:
    (i) Vehicles with engines other than the engine originally 
installed by the manufacturer, or an identical replacement engine, 
shall be subject to the test procedures and standards for the chassis 
type and model year, regardless of the engine replacement, including 
visual equipment inspections for parts that are part of the original 
certified configuration and part of the normal inspection for such 
configuration. An exception may be made if the vehicle meets new 
certification standards for that chassis and model year.
    (ii) Vehicles which are switched to a fuel type for which there is 
no certified configuration shall be tested according to the emission 
standards established for that vehicle type and model year. Emission 
control device requirements may be waived if the Administrator 
determines that the alternatively fueled vehicle configuration would 
meet the new vehicle standards for that model year without these 
devices.
    (p) Emission standards. Subject vehicles shall be tested and passed 
or failed according to the IM240 cutpoints provided in appendix B of 
subpart GGG of this part.
    (q) Emission inspection test report. The test provider(s) shall 
provide the vehicle owner or driver with a computer-generated emission 
inspection test report which includes the following:
    (1) A vehicle description, including license plate number, vehicle 
title number, VIN, vehicle make and model and odometer reading.
    (2) The date and time of the test.
    (3) The name or identification number of the individuals performing 
the tests and the location of the test station and lane number.
    (4) The type of tests performed, including emission tests, visual 
checks for the presence of emission control components, and functional, 
evaporative system checks.
    (5) The applicable test standards.
    (6) The test results, including exhaust concentrations and pass/
fail results for each mode measured, pass/fail results for evaporative 
system checks, and which emission control devices inspected were 
passed, failed or not applicable.
    (7) A statement indicating the availability of warranty coverage as 
required in section 207 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7525).
    (8) A certification that tests were performed in accordance with 
this section.
    (9) For vehicles that fail the tailpipe emission test, any 
available information on the possible causes of the specific pattern of 
high emission levels found during the test.
    (10) For vehicles that fail the enhanced I/M test, a description of 
the consumer complaint procedure, including a statement indicating that 
any administrative challenge regarding the performance or results of 
the test must be made by the vehicle owner or operator within 10 days 
of the failure of the emission inspection.
    (r) Retest.
    (1) Procedure. Vehicles that fail the initial test or a retest 
shall be retested after repair to determine if the repairs were 
effective for any portion of the inspection that was failed on the 
previous test. To the extent that repair to correct a previous failure 
could lead to failure of another portion of the test, that portion 
shall also be retested. Evaporative system repairs performed as a 
result of the vehicle's failing either the evaporative system purge or 
pressure test shall be cause for a complete retest covering all of the 
initial test requirements.
    (2) Prerequisites. For a retest, the vehicle owner or driver shall 
present to the inspection station the emission inspection test report 
and a completed repair data form. If the repairs were performed by the 
owner or someone other than a recognized repair technician, the repair 
data form shall be completed by the person performing the repair. If 
the repairs were performed at a recognized repair facility, the repair 
data form completed by the repair facility shall be presented to the 
emission inspection station.
    (3) Content of repair data form. The repair data form shall include 
the following:
    (i) The repairs performed.
    (ii) The cost of repairs.
    (iii) The repair technician's number or name if the person who made 
the repairs does not have a license number issued by the California 
Bureau of Automotive Repair.
    (iv) Any repairs recommended by the repair facility that were not 
performed.
    (v) The name, address and telephone number of the repair facility.
    (s) Issuance of a waiver. The emission inspection station shall 
issue a certificate of emission inspection with an indicator to show 
that the vehicle has received a waiver if all of the following are 
complied with:
    (1) The subject vehicle has failed the initial emission inspection, 
qualifying repairs have been completed and the subject vehicle has 
failed the retest.
    (2) Emission control devices, as originally equipped, are 
installed. Vehicles with emission devices which are obsolete and cannot 
be obtained through the original equipment manufacturer, aftermarket 
manufacturers or suppliers of used parts are exempt from this 
paragraph.
    (3) The amount spent on qualifying repairs shall:
    (i) Be at least $450 adjusted annually in January by the percentage 
by which the Consumer Price Index for the current year differs from the 
1989 Consumer Price Index.
    (ii) Include parts costs and labor costs paid for qualifying 
emission repair services performed on the vehicle if paid by the 
vehicle owner and if the qualifying repairs were performed by a 
recognized repair technician. For qualifying emission repair services 
performed on pre-1980 vehicles, by someone other than a recognized 
repair technician, parts costs but not labor costs shall be counted 
toward the minimum cost limit. For qualifying emission repair services 
performed on 1980 and newer vehicles, by someone other than a 
recognized repair technician, neither parts costs nor labor costs may 
be counted toward the minimum cost limit.
    (iii) Be considered qualifying if they are appropriate to the cause 
of the test failure.
    (iv) Exclude expenses which are incurred in the repair of emission 
control devices which are found to be tampered with, rendered 
inoperative, or not installed.
    (v) Exclude costs recoverable under an emission warranty, insurance 
policy or prepaid maintenance agreement. These recoverable cost repairs 
shall be completed before necessary repair costs can be applied toward 
the waiver cost limitations. The operator of a vehicle within the 
statutory age and mileage coverage under section 207(b) of the Clean 
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7525(b)) shall present a written denial of warranty 
coverage from the manufacturer or authorized dealer for this provision 
to be waived.
    (vi) Exclude the fee for emission inspection.
    (vii) Exclude charges for giving a written estimate of needed 
repairs.
    (viii) Exclude charges for checking for the presence of emission 
control devices.
    (ix) Exclude costs for repairs performed on the vehicle before the 
initial test failure.
    (4) The vehicle owner or driver shall present the original of 
repair bills to the inspection station to demonstrate compliance with 
the qualifying dollar amount for that year. The bills shall:
    (i) Include the name, address and phone number of the repair 
facility.
    (ii) Describe the repairs that were performed.
    (iii) State the labor and parts costs separately for each repair.
    (5) Upon completion of waiver requirements and a visual check to 
determine that repairs were actually made, a certification of emission 
inspection, with a waiver indicator, shall be made for the subject 
vehicle.
    (t) Onroad testing. Onroad testing of subject vehicles shall be 
conducted using RSD in each FIP I/M program area using a carbon 
monoxide (CO) cutpoint of 4 percent to screen for potential gross 
emitters. The onroad testing program will be aimed at identifying 10 
percent of the subject fleet for follow-up, out-of-cycle confirmatory 
testing.
    (1) Failure of onroad emission test. The owner or operator of a 
subject vehicle that fails an onroad emission test shall be notified by 
registered mail to report for an out-of-cycle confirmatory test. The 
notification of the need for confirmatory testing shall be received by 
the vehicle owner or lessee no later than 30 days prior to the 
confirmatory test deadline. If the subject vehicle does not have a 
valid emissions test waiver and fails the confirmatory test, the owner 
or operator shall have 30 days following the initial confirmatory test 
failure in which to have the failed vehicle repaired and retested. The 
vehicle owner or operator shall be notified of this obligation as part 
of the initial RSD-failure notification process.
    (2) Failure to produce proof of correction of onroad emission test 
failure. If the owner of the subject vehicle fails to comply with a 
notice of RSD failure within 30 days of receiving the notice by 
registered mail, a late penalty will be assessed at the time the 
vehicle is presented for confirmatory testing, or at the time of the 
next regularly scheduled test, whichever comes first. The late penalty 
is a $10 fee for each full week beyond the 30-day deadline after 
initial notification of the need for confirmatory testing.
    (3) Failure to procure repairs and retest after initial 
confirmatory test failure. If a subject vehicle fails an initial 
confirmatory test and the owner or lessee fails to procure the 
necessary repairs and retest within 30 days of the initial confirmatory 
test failure, a late penalty shall be assessed at the time the vehicle 
is presented for retesting, or at the time of the next regularly 
scheduled test, whichever comes first. The late penalty is a $10 fee 
for each full week beyond the 30-day deadline for receiving a passing 
retest or waiver after the initial confirmatory test failure.
    (u) Certified emission inspectors.
    (1) General. Personnel who perform emission inspections at each 
emission inspection station operated by the test provider(s) shall be 
certified by the Administrator as emission inspectors. The emission 
inspection shall only be performed by certified emission inspectors.
    (2) Certified emission inspector requirements. An inspector 
desiring to be certified shall:
    (i) Be at least 18 years of age.
    (ii) Have completed an emission inspection training course, 
approved by the Administrator, that includes, at a minimum, information 
on the following:
    (A) The air pollution problem, including its cause and effects.
    (B) The purpose, function and goal of the inspection program.
    (C) Emission inspection regulations and procedures.
    (D) Technical details of the test procedures and the rationale for 
their design.
    (E) Emission control device function, configuration and inspection.
    (F) Test equipment operation, calibration and maintenance.
    (G) Quality control procedures and their purpose.
    (H) Public relations.
    (I) Safety and health issues related to the inspection process.
    (iii) Passed a required written test addressing the above elements 
with a minimum of 80 percent correct test responses.
    (iv) Demonstrated the ability to properly utilize test equipment 
and to follow other required procedures by means of a hands-on test 
addressing the complete emission inspection. The inability to properly 
conduct the test procedures shall constitute failure of the test.
    (v) Renew the certification every 2 years under procedures 
established by the Administrator.
    (3) Identification. While conducting inspections, a certified 
emission inspector shall have in his/her possession a currently valid 
inspector certification card issued by the Administrator.
    (v) Test provider(s) obligations and responsibilities.
    (1) Personal liability. The test provider(s) or those acting as 
agents of the test providers(s) shall assume full responsibility for:
    (i) Conducting the business of the official emission inspection 
station honestly and in a manner consistent with this section, and 
making every reasonable effort to inspect all vehicles upon request.
    (ii) Making official emission inspection regulations and 
supplements available for the use of certified emission inspectors and 
other employees involved in the emission inspection process.
    (iii) Notifying EPA and the oversight contractor when a certified 
emission inspector is hired, resigns or is dismissed.
    (iv) Maintaining emission inspection records for examination by EPA 
or the oversight contractor.
    (v) Providing the vehicle emission inspection test report to 
motorists after testing and having the repair requirements stated on a 
form provided to the vehicle owner or operator.
    (vi) Insuring full compliance with this section with respect to:
    (A) Every emission inspection conducted at the emission inspection 
station.
    (B) Every emission inspection waiver issued at the emission 
inspection station.
    (C) Every certification of emission inspection made to and by each 
emission inspection station.
    (D) Every provision of this section related to emission inspections 
performed by an employee of the emission inspection station.
    (E) Assuring the proper maintenance and calibration of emission 
inspection equipment according to procedures established in EPA's high-
tech procedures guidance.
    (F) Completing and retaining emission equipment maintenance and 
calibration records as required by EPA.
    (G) Placing emission equipment out of service when calibration 
cannot be performed.
    (H) Maintaining computer records of each inspection.
    (I) Making records available to EPA or the oversight contractor 
during periodic station audits.
    (2) Emission test data. The requirements for data collection and 
transmission shall be as specified in the agreement between the 
Administrator and the test provider(s).
    (3) Repair performance monitoring. The test provider(s) shall be 
responsible for collecting and maintaining emission repair information 
concerning subject vehicles that have failed the emission inspection 
and have been returned for a retest. The particulars of this 
requirement will be detailed in the agreement between the EPA 
Administrator and the test provider(s).
    (w) Quality control.
    (1) Quality control requirements for test provider(s). Quality 
control measures shall be implemented by the test provider(s) and shall 
ensure that emission measurement equipment is calibrated and maintained 
according to the procedures in this section and in the agreement 
between the EPA Administrator and the test provider(s). Inspection, 
calibration records and control charts shall be accurately created and 
recorded and maintained as prescribed in this section and in the 
agreement between the Administrator and the test provider(s).
    (2) General requirements. General requirements for quality control 
practices for test equipment shall be as follows:
    (i) The practices described in this section, in the agreement and 
in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, appendix A (relating to calibrations, 
adjustments and quality control), and EPA's high-tech procedures 
document shall be followed.
    (ii) Preventive maintenance on inspection equipment shall be 
performed on a periodic basis, as provided by in the agreement between 
the Administrator and the test provider(s) consistent with the 
equipment manufacturer's requirements.
    (iii) To assure quality control, computerized analyzers shall 
automatically record quality control check information, lockouts, 
attempted tampering with test equipment and circumstances which require 
a service representative to work on the equipment.
    (iv) To assure test accuracy, equipment shall be maintained 
according to demonstrated good engineering practices.
    (v) Computer control of quality assurance checks and quality 
control charts shall be used whenever possible.
    (3) Requirements for transient exhaust emission testing equipment. 
Calibration and maintenance procedures for transient exhaust emission 
testing equipment shall be conducted as specified in EPA guidance and 
regulation.
    (4) Requirements for the purge analysis system. Calibration and 
maintenance procedures for the purge analysis system shall be conducted 
as specified in EPA guidance and regulation.
    (5) Requirements for evaporative system pressure test equipment. 
Calibration and maintenance procedures for evaporative system pressure 
test equipment shall be conducted as specified in EPA guidance and 
regulation.
    (x) Quality assurance.
    (1) Performance audits. The oversight contractor(s) will conduct 
performance audits on a periodic basis to determine whether inspectors 
are correctly performing the tests and other required functions.
    (i) Performance audits shall be of two types:
    (A) Overt performance audits which shall include the following:
    (1) A check for appropriate document security.
    (2) A check to see that required recordkeeping practices are being 
followed.
    (3) A check for licenses or certificates and other required display 
information.
    (4) Observation and written evaluation of each inspector's ability 
to properly perform an inspection.
    (B) Covert performance audits which shall include the following:
    (1) Remote visual observation of inspector and inspection station 
personnel performance, which may include the use of binoculars or video 
cameras.
    (2) Site visits using covert vehicles presented for inspection.
    (3) Other activities deemed appropriate by the EPA Administrator.
    (ii) The test provider(s) and the employees of the test provider(s) 
shall make available information requested by the oversight 
contractor(s) and shall fully cooperate with the oversight contractor's 
personnel who conduct the audits and other authorized EPA 
representatives or agents.
    (2) Document security. Measures shall be taken to maintain the 
security of documents and/or instrumentation by which compliance with 
the inspection requirements is established.
    (y) Penalties for test provider(s). The test provider(s) shall 
assume full responsibility, with or without actual knowledge, for the 
complete operation of an official emission inspection station, 
including the actions of emission inspectors. Failure to comply with 
the appropriate provisions of this section or the provisions prescribed 
in the agreement between the Administrator and the test provider(s) 
will be considered sufficient cause for imposing civil penalties for 
violation of the applicable implementation plan or damages under the 
contract, as applicable. In addition thereto, intentional violations 
may be subject to criminal prosecution where they meet the grounds for 
prosecution under any federal criminal statute.
    (z) Penalties for emission inspectors.
    (1) An emission inspector shall assume full responsibility for his/
her acts as an emission inspector. Failure to comply with the 
appropriate provisions of this section will be considered sufficient 
cause for suspension of an emission inspector's certification. In 
addition, intentional violations may also be subject to criminal 
prosecution where they meet the grounds for prosecution under any 
federal criminal statute. After providing the emission inspector with 
an opportunity for a hearing, the Administrator may impose suspensions 
or penalties upon the emission inspector for the following categories 
of offenses:
    (i) Category 1.
    (A) Issuance or possession of altered, forged, stolen or 
counterfeit certificates of emission inspection.
    (B) Furnishing, lending, giving, selling or receiving a certificate 
of emission inspection without inspection.
    (C) Fraudulent recordkeeping.
    (D) Fraudulent inspection.
    (ii) Category 2.
    (A) Improper recordkeeping.
    (B) Improper inspection.
    (C) Improper assigning of certificate of emission inspection.
    (2) Duration of suspension.
    (i) Category 1.
    (A) First offense: 1 year.
    (B) Second offense: permanent.
    (ii) Category 2.
    (A) First offense: 3 months.
    (B) Second offense: 6 months.
    (C) Third offense: 1 year.
    (3) Multiple violations. Violations affecting more than one vehicle 
will be treated as separate violations.
    (4) Opportunity for an EPA hearing. Except for a penalty or 
sanction imposed directly under the terms of the agreement between the 
EPA Administrator and the test provider(s), a person charged with a 
violation of this section shall have the right to request a hearing 
regarding the charges.


Sec. 52.2964  Importation of vehicles into California.

    (a) The State of California may not permit California residents to 
register for the first time in California any vehicle that was 
previously registered in another state, unless that vehicle was 
originally certified to the FIP's durable vehicle standards for its 
class.
    (b) California residents may not own and keep a car in California 
that is currently registered in another state.
    (c) As an exception to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the 
State of California may allow recent immigrants to California (defined 
as residents of California for less than three months) to register a 
car, over 7500 miles, that they had previously registered for at least 
three months in another state while a resident of that state.
    (d) Implementation date. This program shall be implemented on 
January 1, 1999.


Sec. 52.2965  Requirements for engines past their useful life.

    (a) General applicability. Heavy-duty on-highway engines certified 
to applicable engine standards contained in Sec. 52.2966(c) and (d) and 
nonroad engines certified to applicable engine standards contained in 
Sec. 52.2975 (c) and (d) shall be subject to the provisions contained 
in this section.
    (b) Definitions and abbreviations. The definitions and 
abbreviations of parts 86 and 89 of this chapter, the definitions 
contained in Sec. 52.2966(b), and the definitions contained in the 
Clean Air Act apply to this section unless a term is also defined in 
this section.
    Engine configuration means a complete set of engine and emissions 
control system parts, components, specifications, calibrations, and 
other items deemed necessary by a engine configuration certifier to 
restore an engine to its original configuration or another 
configuration meeting applicable recall emissions standards.
    Useful life renewal means the period in years and miles or hours 
specified by the engine configuration certifier over which the engine 
configuration certifier assumes recall liability for engines of the 
certified configuration.
    (c) Owner requirements. An owner of a vehicle or equipment equipped 
with an engine subject to the provisions of this section, at all times 
must be able to demonstrate either:
    (1) That the engine in the vehicle or nonroad equipment being 
registered is within its original useful life, or
    (2) That the engine in the vehicle or nonroad equipment being 
registered is within the useful life renewal period as defined by the 
certifier of the engine's configuration pursuant to paragraph (d) of 
this section. The owner shall make this demonstration by presenting the 
useful life renewal certificate furnished by the engine configuration 
certifier pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. Failure to provide 
such demonstration at time of vehicle or equipment registration shall 
result in the denial of vehicle or equipment registration.
    (d) Useful life renewal. The certifier of an engine configuration 
shall define the useful life renewal period in years and miles or hours 
over which the engine configuration certifier accepts liability for an 
engine(s) that does not conform to applicable recall standards.
    (e) Useful life renewal certificate. (1) The certifier of an engine 
configuration shall provide to the owner a certificate with each engine 
that is restored to the certified engine configuration. The certificate 
shall contain the following:
    (i) The useful life renewal period;
    (ii) For on-highway engines, the effective date and the odometer 
mileage of the useful life renewal period; For nonroad engines, the 
effective date and hours; and
    (iii) The vehicle or equipment identification number.
    (2) The engine configuration certifier shall designate an office or 
officer to receive a copy of completed certificates. The certificates 
shall be stored in an adequately organized and indexed file or the 
information required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall be 
entered into a database completely and stored. The certificate or 
information in the database shall be stored for a period not less than 
the useful life renewal period.
    (f) Engine configuration certification. Engine configuration 
certifiers shall demonstrate certification compliance as follows:
    (1) Test procedure and emission results. Certification emissions 
testing of engine configurations shall be conducted using new engine 
certification testing procedures specified in Sec. 52.2966(e) for on-
highway heavy-duty engines and Sec. 52.2975(e) for nonroad engines. 
Certification emissions testing must be carried out using 
representative production equipment as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of 
this section. The test results must demonstrate that engines restored 
to the engine configuration being certified will comply with the 
applicable recall standards over the useful life renewal period.
    (2) Emissions test engine selection. The test engine shall be an 
engine representative of the engine family and that is at or beyond the 
end of its original useful life.
    (3) To demonstrate compliance with the applicable recall standards, 
the test engine shall be restored to the engine configuration being 
certified in accordance with the instructions that are to be followed 
when restoring actual in-use engines. No other maintenance or 
adjustments shall be performed on the test engine.
    (4) Test fuel. The engine configuration shall be certified using 
the same fuel used for new engine certification as specified in 
Sec. 52.2966 (f) for heavy-duty on-highway engines and Sec. 52.2975 (f) 
for nonroad engines.
    (5) Component selection. Where replacement components are used to 
restore an engine to the configuration being certified, certification 
shall be based upon tests utilizing representative production parts and 
components selected in a random manner.
    (6) Replacing original equipment parts. Changes to an engine shall 
not result in the permanent removal or rendering inoperative of any 
original equipment emission related part other than the part(s) being 
replaced. Furthermore, engine changes shall not cause or contribute to 
an unreasonable risk to the public health, welfare or safety, or result 
in any additional range of parameter adjustability or accessibility to 
adjustment than that of the vehicle or equipment manufacturer's 
emission related part.
    (7) Effects on engine on-board diagnostic system. Changes to an 
engine shall not alter or render inoperative any feature of the on-
board diagnostic system incorporated by the engine manufacturer. The 
engine configuration being certified may integrate with the existing 
diagnostic system if it does not alter or render inoperative any 
features of the system.
    (g) In-use recall. Engines restored to an engine configuration 
certified pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section within its useful 
life renewal period, shall be subject to the recall provisions 
contained in Sec. 52.2966(g).
    (h) Notification of intent to certify. (1) Prior to the issuance of 
any useful life renewal certificate, notification of the intent to 
certify must be approved by the MOD Director.
    (2) All notifications shall include:
    (i) Identification and description of the candidate engine 
configuration to be certified, including a list of replacement parts 
and part numbers;
    (ii) Identification of the engine family including make(s), engine 
model(s), model year(s), engine size(s) and all other specific 
configuration characteristics;
    (iii) Identification and description of any emissions related 
component(s) not being replaced and rationale as to why its replacement 
is unnecessary;
    (iv) All results and documentation of tests and procedures used by 
the engine configuration certifier as evidence of compliance with 
applicable recall emission standards;
    (v) A description of the test replacement part selection criteria 
used, and a statement that the replacement parts used for certification 
testing is representative production equipment consistent with 
paragraph (f)(1)(v) of this section;
    (vi) A description of the test engine selection criteria used, and 
rationale that supports the technical judgment of the engine 
configuration certifier that the engine meets the requirements of 
paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and (f)(1)(iii) of this section;
    (vii) Results of durability testing and an engineering analysis 
showing that the emissions performance of engines can be expected to be 
maintained over the useful life renewal period;
    (viii) A copy of any written installation instructions that are to 
be used and a copy of the warranty to be provided to the owner;
    (ix) A copy of the written instructions for proper maintenance and 
use of the engine during the useful life renewal period;
    (x) A copy of the useful life renewal certificate to be provided to 
the owner pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section;
    (xi) A statement of commitment and willingness to comply with all 
the relevant terms and conditions of this section;
    (xii) A statement by the engine configuration certifier that 
changes done to an engine to bring it to the engine configuration being 
certified will not cause a substantial increase to engine emissions in 
any normal driving mode not represented during certification testing; 
and
    (xiii) The office or officer of the engine configuration certifier 
authorized to receive correspondence regarding certification 
requirements pursuant to this subpart.
    (3) The notification shall be signed by an officer of the engine 
configuration certifier attesting to the accuracy and completeness of 
the information supplied in the notification.
    (4) Notification to the Agency shall be by certified mail or 
another method by which date of receipt can be established.
    (5) Two complete and identical copies of the notification and any 
subsequent industry comments on any such notification shall be 
submitted by the engine configuration certifier to: MOD Director, MOD 
(6405J), Attention: Engine Configuration Certification, 401 ``M'' 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
    (i) [Reserved].
    (j) Objections to certification. (1) At any time prior to 
certification, the MOD Director may notify the engine configuration 
certifier that such its engine configuration shall not be certified 
pending further investigation. The basis upon which this notification 
shall be made may include, but not be limited to, information or test 
results submitted by the engine configuration certifier including:
    (i) The test procedure used to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable recall standards does not meet the requirements of paragraph 
(f) of this section;
    (ii) Use of the candidate engine configuration could cause or 
contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare or safety 
in its operation or function;
    (iii) Installation of the candidate replacement parts requires 
procedures or materials which would likely cause such parts to be 
improperly installed under normal conditions or would likely result in 
an engine being misadjusted; or
    (iv) Information and/or data required to be in the notification of 
intent to certify as provided by paragraph (h) of this section have not 
been provided or may be inadequate.
    (2) The engine configuration certifier must respond in writing to 
the statements made in the notification by the MOD Director, or the MOD 
Director shall withdraw the notification of intent to certify.
    (3) The MOD Director may, at his or her discretion, allow oral 
presentations by the engine configuration certifier.
    (4) If notification has been provided to an engine configuration 
certifier pursuant to paragraph (j) of this section, the MOD Director 
shall, after reviewing all pertinent data and information, render a 
decision and inform the engine configuration certifier in writing as to 
whether such engine configuration may be certified and, if so, under 
what conditions the engine configuration may be certified. The written 
decision shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
    (i) The decision by the MOD Director shall be provided to the 
engine configuration certifier after receipt of all necessary 
information by the certifier or interested parties, or of the date of 
any oral presentation regarding the certification, whichever occurs 
second.
    (ii) Within 20 days of receipt of a decision made pursuant to 
paragraph (j)(4)(i) of this section, any party may file a written 
appeal to the Office Director. The Office Director may, in his or her 
discretion, allow additional oral or written submissions, prior to 
rendering a final decision.
    (iii) If no party files an appeal with the Office Director within 
20 days, then the decision of the MOD Director shall be final.
    (iv) The Office Director shall make a final decision regarding the 
certification of engine configuration after receipt of all necessary 
information by the engine configuration certifier or from the date of 
any oral presentation, whichever occurs later.
    (k) Changes after certification. The engine configuration certifier 
shall recertify any engine configuration which was certified pursuant 
to paragraph (f) of this section and to which modifications are made 
affecting emissions or the capability of the engine to meet any other 
requirement of this section.
    (l) Labeling requirements. (1) All engine configurations certified 
pursuant to this section shall contain a label affixed to the rebuilt 
engine that states:
    (i) Identification of the engine configuration;
    (ii) The useful life renewal period provided by the certifier 
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section;
    (iii) A place for the certifier to record the date and the mileage 
of the useful life renewal period. The label containing the information 
must be made durable and readable for at least the useful life renewal 
period; and
    (iv) The statement:
Certified to EPA In-Use Recall Emissions Standards
contains:
    (2) The certifier shall ensure that all of the information that is 
entered on the label supplied by the engine configuration certifier 
pursuant to paragraph (l)(1) of this section is accurate and complete 
and that the label is securely affixed to the engine, upon the 
completion of all activities necessary to bring the engine to the 
certified configuration.
    (3) The package in which any replacement parts are contained, or an 
insert as described in paragraph (j)(4) of this section, must have the 
following information conspicuously placed thereon:
    (i) The statement ``Certified by (name of engine configuration 
certifier) to EPA In-use Recall Emission Standards''; and
    (ii) The engine family for which the parts are certified.
    (4) The package in which the parts are contained must include the 
following information provided on a written insert:
    (i) The engine family for which the parts are certified, unless 
such information is provided as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this 
section;
    (ii) A list of all of the parts and identification numbers for the 
parts included;
    (iii) The instructions for proper installation of the parts;
    (iv) A description of the maintenance necessary to be performed on 
the engine during its useful life renewal period.
    (m) Maintenance and submittal of records by engine configuration 
certifiers.
    (1) For each certified engine configuration, the engine 
configuration certifier must establish, maintain and retain for 5 years 
from the date of certification the following adequately organized and 
indexed records:
    (i) Detailed production drawings showing all dimensions, 
tolerances, performance requirements and material specifications and 
any other information necessary to completely describe the engine 
configuration;
    (ii) All data obtained during testing of the engine configuration 
and subsequent analyses based on that data, including the mileage and 
the vehicle or engine configuration determinants;
    (iii) All information used in determining the engine for which the 
replacement parts or components are represented as being equivalent 
from an emissions standpoint to the original equipment parts being 
replaced;
    (iv) A description of the quality control plan used to monitor 
production and assure compliance of in-use engines with the applicable 
requirements;
    (v) All data taken in implementing the quality control plan, and 
any subsequent analyses of that data; and
    (vi) All in-service data, analyses performed by the engine 
configuration certifier and correspondence with rebuilders, vendors, 
distributors, consumers, retail outlets or engine manufacturers 
regarding any design, production or in-service problems associated with 
25 or more engines of the same engine configuration.
    (2) The records required to be maintained in paragraph (m)(1) of 
this section shall be made available to the Agency upon the written 
request of the MOD Director.
    (n) Decertification.
    (1) The MOD Director may notify a engine configuration certifier 
that the Agency has made a preliminary determination that a certain 
engine configuration should be decertified.
    (i) Such a preliminary determination may be made if there is reason 
to believe that the engine configuration has failed to comply with the 
requirements of this section. Information upon which such a 
determination will be made includes but is not limited to the 
following:
    (A) The engine configuration was certified on the basis of 
emissions tests, and the procedures used in such tests were not in 
substantial compliance with a portion or portions of the test 
procedures required to be used pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section; or
    (B) Use of the certified engine configuration is causing emissions 
to exceed any in-use recall emission standard; or
    (C) Use of the engine configuration causes or contributes to an 
unreasonable risk to public health, welfare or safety or severely 
degrades driveability operation or function; or
    (D) The engine configuration has been modified in a manner 
requiring recertification pursuant to paragraph (k) of this section; or
    (E) The engine configuration certifier has not established, 
maintained or retained the records required pursuant to paragraph 
(m)(1) of this section or fails to make the records available to the 
MOD Director upon written request pursuant to paragraph (m)(2) of this 
section.
    (ii) Notice of a preliminary determination to decertify shall 
contain:
    (A) A description of the noncomplying engine configuration;
    (B) The basis for the MOD Director's preliminary decision; and
    (C) The date by which the certifier must:
    (1) Terminate the issuance of useful life renewals; or
    (2) Make the necessary change (if so recommended by the Agency); or
    (3) Request an opportunity in writing to dispute the allegations of 
the preliminary decertification.
     (2) If the engine configuration certifier requests an opportunity 
to respond to the preliminary determination, the manufacturer and other 
parties interested in the MOD Director's decision whether to decertify 
the engine configuration shall, within 15 days of the date of the 
request, submit written presentations, including the relevant 
information and data, to the MOD Director. The MOD Director, in his or 
her discretion, may provide an opportunity for oral presentations.
    (i) Any interested party may request additional time to respond to 
the information submitted by the engine configuration certifier. The 
MOD Director upon a showing of good cause by the interested party may 
grant an extension of time to reply up to 30 days.
    (ii) The engine configuration certifier may have an extension of up 
to 30 days to reply to information submitted by interested parties. 
Notification of intent to reply shall be submitted to the MOD Director 
within 10 days of the date information from interested parties is 
submitted to the MOD Director.
    (3) If a engine configuration certifier has disputed the 
allegations of the preliminary decisions, the MOD Director shall, after 
reviewing any additional information, notify the engine configuration 
certifier of his or her decision whether the engine configuration may 
continue to be sold as certified. This notification shall include an 
explanation upon which the decision was made and the effective date for 
decertification, where appropriate.
    (4) Within 20 days from the date of a decision made pursuant to 
paragraph (n)(3) of this section, any adversely affected party may 
appeal the decision to the Office Director.
    (i) A petition for appeal to the Office Director must state all of 
the reasons why the decision of the MOD Director should be reversed.
    (ii) The Office Director may, in his or her discretion, allow 
additional oral or written testimony.
    (iii) If no appeal is filed with the Office Director within the 
permitted time period, the decision of the MOD Director shall be final.
    (5) If a final decision is made to decertify an engine 
configuration under paragraph (n)(4) of this section, the engine 
configuration certifier shall notify his immediate customers that, as 
of the date of the final determination, the engine configuration in 
question has been decertified. The engine configuration certifier shall 
offer to replace engines of the decertified engine configurations in 
the customer's inventory with certified replacement engines or, if 
unable to do so, shall at the customer's request repurchase such 
inventory at a reasonable price. The immediate customers must stop 
selling the engines once the certifier has notified the customer that 
the engine configuration has been decertified.
    (6) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (n)(5) of this 
section, an engine purchased by an owner prior to decertification, 
shall be considered certified pursuant to this section.


Sec. 52.2966  Enhanced in-use compliance heavy-duty engine and vehicle 
program.

    (a) General applicability. New 1999 model year and later heavy-duty 
vehicles and engines, other than medium-duty vehicles certified to the 
standards contained in Sec. 52.2962, that are registered exclusively in 
California or that are offered for sale in California, shall meet the 
standards and requirements specified in paragraphs (c) through (h) of 
this section, and in Sec. 52.2965. Other state and federal requirements 
may also apply to these vehicles and engines. Heavy-duty vehicles that 
are registered in California and that are also registered in other 
states shall be subject to the requirements specified in paragraph (h) 
of this section.
    (b) Definitions and abbreviations.
    The definitions and abbreviations of parts 86 and 88 of this 
chapter and the definitions contained in the Clean Air Act apply to 
this section unless a term is also defined in this section. New, when 
applied to motor vehicles, means a motor vehicle, the equitable or 
legal title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate 
purchaser. It is conclusively presumed that the equitable or legal 
title to a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, with an odometer 
reading of 7,500 miles or more, has been transferred to an ultimate 
purchaser, and that the equitable or legal title to a motor vehicle, 
other than a motorcycle, with an odometer reading of less than 7,500 
miles has not been transferred to an ultimate purchaser.
    (c) Emission standards. For the purposes of certification and 
recall testing, exhaust emissions shall not exceed the following:
    (1) Non-methane hydrocarbons. 0.2 to 0.6 grams per brake 
horsepower-hour, as measured under transient operating conditions.
    (2) Oxides of nitrogen. 1.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour, as 
measured under transient operating conditions.
    (d)(1) For the purposes of certification and recall testing, 
evaporative hydrocarbon emissions shall not exceed the applicable 
federal heavy-duty engine evaporative emissions standards described in 
40 CFR part 86.
    (2) Manufacturers' applications for certification shall include 
test results or an engineering evaluation demonstrating compliance with 
the inherently low evaporative emission requirements of Sec. 88.311-
93(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2) of this chapter. Diurnal emission levels shall 
be adjusted to reflect corresponding results for a nominal 20 gallon 
fuel tank volume. This demonstration may be based on a diurnal 
temperature excursion of 65 deg.F to 105 deg.F and California 
certification fuel rather than the EPA conditions and test fuel.
    (e) Test procedures. (1) The exhaust emission standards set forth 
in paragraph (c) of this section refer to the exhaust emissions 
collected under the conditions and measured in accordance with the 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, except as specified 
in paragraph (f) of this section. Assembly line testing procedures are 
those set forth in 40 CFR part 86, subpart K, except as specified in 
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) The evaporative standards set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section refer to the evaporative emissions collected under the 
conditions and measured in accordance with the procedures set forth in 
40 CFR part 86, subpart M, except as specified in paragraph (f) of this 
section.
    (f) Test fuels. All certification, assembly line, and recall 
testing performed on vehicles and engines covered under this section 
shall use the fuels provided for by California as found in the 
California regulations. Testing performed to demonstrate compliance 
with the inherently low evaporative emission requirements of paragraph 
(d)(2) of this section may, as an alternative, be conducted with fuels 
meeting the federal specifications of 40 CFR part 86. Assembly line and 
recall testing shall use the same type of fuel as used in certification 
testing.
    (g) Recall program. (1) Engines certified to the standards set 
forth in this section shall be subject to the recall provisions 
described in this paragraph. For purposes of recall testing under this 
section, the term ``engine'' includes all emissions control systems.
    (2) The recall provisions for light-duty vehicles contained in 
Sec. 52.2962(e) shall apply to engines subject to the provisions of 
this paragraph as well, with appropriate references to applicable 
standards and test procedures, except that:
    (i) Engines shall be selected by EPA for purposes of recall testing 
from the vehicle population of the entire state rather than only from 
areas subject to enhanced inspection and maintenance testing; and
    (ii) The provisions of Sec. 52.2965 shall also apply.
    (h) Fleet averaging program. (1) General applicability. The 
requirements of this program apply to all heavy-duty vehicles of over 
19,500 pounds GVWR that are registered in California.
    (2) Effective January 1, 2000, any person who owns one or more 
heavy-duty vehicles of over 19,500 pounds GVWR that are registered in 
California shall submit the following information on each of these 
affected fleet vehicles to EPA by January 31st of every calendar year. 
The submittal shall reflect the owner's affected fleet as it existed on 
January 1st of the same calendar year. Owners may combine their 
affected vehicles with those of other vehicle owners for the purposes 
of this program. Required information per affected vehicle:
    (i) Vehicle license number;
    (ii) Engine model year;
    (iii) Engine identification number; and
    (iv) GVWR.
    (3)(i) The results of the following Fleet Average Emissions (FAE) 
calculations contained in Tables 2966-1 and 2966-2 shall be submitted 
concurrently with the per vehicle information specified in paragraph 
(h)(2) of this section; separate calculations shall be performed, and 
results submitted, for affected vehicles of GVWR between 19,501-33,000 
pounds and for affected vehicles of over 33,000 pounds GVWR:

    Table 2966-1.--Calculation of Medium Heavy-duty Vehicle Fleet NOX   
                               Emissions                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  A: No. of                    C: Total 
                                 vehicles in                     NOX    
                                  affected        B: Per      emissions 
     Model year grouping        fleet (19500-  vehicle NOX    from model
                                33000 pounds    emissions        year   
                                   GVWR)         (tons)        grouping 
                                                              (C=A x B) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 and later................  ............   x  0.071....  ...........
1998..........................  ............   x  0.19.....  ...........
1991-1997.....................  ............   x  0.24.....  ...........
1988-1990.....................  ............   x  0.28.....  ...........
1984-1987.....................  ............   x  0.24.....  ...........
Pre-1984......................  ............   x  0.51.....  ...........
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D: Total Fleet Emissions for all Model Year Groupings, (sum of numbers  
 in Column C)                                                           
E: Total Number of Affected Vehicles (19500-33000 pounds GVWR) in Fleet,
 (sum of numbers in Column A)                                           
F: Fleet Average Emissions (FAE), (F=DE)                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 2966-2.--Calculation of Heavy Heavy-duty Vehicle Fleet NOX    
                               Emissions                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  A: No. of                    C: Total 
                                 vehicles in                     NOX    
                                   affected       B: Per      emissions 
      Model year grouping           fleet      vehicle NOX    from model
                                   (>33000      emissions        year   
                                    pounds        (tons)       grouping 
                                    GVWR)                     (C=A x B) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 and later.................  ...........   x  0.28.....  ...........
1998...........................  ...........    x  0.74....  ...........
1991-1997......................  ...........   x  0.93.....  ...........
1988-1990......................  ...........   x  1.12.....  ...........
1984-1987......................  ...........   x  0.95.....  ...........
Pre-1984.......................  ...........   x  1.99.....  ...........
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D: Total Fleet Emissions for all Model Year Groupings, (sum of numbers  
 in Column C)                                                           
E: Total Number of Affected Vehicles (>33000 pounds GVWR) in Fleet, (sum
 of numbers in Column A)                                                
F: Fleet Average Emissions (FAE), (F=DE)                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The submittal shall also include the name and address of each 
owner of vehicles included in the calculations, and a designated 
mailing address for subsequent EPA correspondence.
    (4) The fleet owner, or owner group, shall compare the calculated 
Fleet Average Emissions with the Baseline Emission Level (BEL) in Table 
2966-3 applicable to the calendar year for which the calculation 
applies (that is, the calendar year in which the submittal is due), and 
shall calculate the fleet averaging program surcharge according to the 
following equation:

Surcharge=$10,000 x (FAE-BEL x (Number of Affected Vehicles)

This calculation shall be performed separately for vehicles in the 
19,501 to 33,000 pound GVWR range, if the fleet contains any such 
vehicles, and in the over 33,000 pound GVWR range, if the fleet 
contains any such vehicles. If the calculated surcharge is less than 
zero for either category of vehicles, the surcharge for that category 
of vehicles shall be set to zero. The sum of the surcharges for the two 
categories of vehicles shall be paid concurrently with the submittal of 
information described in paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this section.

    Table 2966-3.--Heavy-duty Vehicle Baseline Emission Levels (BEL)    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 BEL for       BEL for  
                                                 vehicles      vehicles 
                Calendar year                 19,501-33,000    >33,000  
                                               pounds GVWR   pounds GVWR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000........................................          0.28           1.1
2001........................................          0.26          1.02
2002........................................          0.24          0.94
2003........................................          0.22          0.87
2004........................................          0.20          0.80
2005........................................          0.19          0.74
2006........................................          0.17          0.68
2007........................................          0.16          0.62
2008........................................          0.15          0.57
2009........................................          0.13          0.52
2010........................................          0.13          0.49
2011........................................          0.12          0.47
2012........................................          0.11          0.45
2013........................................          0.11          0.43
2014........................................          0.10          0.41
2015........................................         0.098          0.39
2016........................................         0.093          0.37
2017........................................         0.089          0.35
2018........................................         0.086          0.34
2019........................................         0.083          0.33
2020........................................         0.080          0.31
2021........................................         0.077          0.30
2022........................................         0.075          0.29
2023........................................         0.072          0.29
2024 and later..............................         0.071          0.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Within 30 days of receipt of an adequate owner's submittal, 
including sufficient payment, EPA shall send a certificate of 
compliance to the designated mailing address. The certificate shall 
indicate the license numbers of the vehicles to which it applies. 
Inadequate owners' submittals, including insufficient payment of fees, 
shall be returned to the designated mailing address, along with an 
explanation of why the submittal was found inadequate, within 30 days 
of receipt. Resubmittals by owners shall be responded to by EPA within 
30 days of receipt.
    (6) Certificates of compliance shall be valid only through March 
1st of the calendar year following the year in which they are issued. 
Expiration dates shall be indicated on the certificates.
    (7) Effective March 15, 2000, no vehicle subject to the 
requirements of the fleet averaging program shall be allowed to 
register in California without proof of compliance in the form of a 
valid certificate covering the subject vehicle, unless the vehicle has 
not previously been subject to the requirements of this program because 
it is a new vehicle or had not been previously registered in 
California.


Secs. 52.2967-52.2968  [Reserved]


Sec. 52.2969  Nonroad vehicles and engines, on-highway motorcycles.

    (a) Applicability. All provisions of this section will apply to 
nonroad vehicles and engines and on-highway motorcycles manufactured 
after December 31, 1995 and manufactured for sale, sold, offered for 
sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into commerce, or 
imported in the State of California.
    (b)(1) Compression-ignition Engines at or above 37 kW. EPA will 
finalize national rules for new compression-ignition engines at or 
above 37 kW by May 1994 which will achieve a cumulative 37 percent 
NOX emission reduction from the fleet of uncontrolled compression-
ignition engines in this category.
    (2) Additional measures. If EPA fails to publish a national rule 
which achieves the cumulative 37 percent reduction in NOX 
emissions from compression-ignition engines described in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section, EPA will promulgate additional compression-
ignition engine control measures applicable to such engines in the 
State of California or the FIP areas. These additional measures will 
cumulatively achieve the targeted 37 percent reduction.
    (c)(1) Spark-ignition Engines at or Below 19 kW. EPA will finalize 
national Phase 1 and 2 rules for new spark-ignition engines at or below 
19 kW which will achieve a cumulative 90 percent VOC emission reduction 
from the fleet of uncontrolled spark-ignition engines in this category. 
A Phase 1 rule will be finalized by May 1995 and a Phase 2 rule will be 
finalized by May 1997.
    (2) Additional measures. If EPA fails to publish Phase 1 and 2 
national rules which achieve a cumulative 90 percent reduction in VOC 
emissions from spark-ignition engines described in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, EPA will promulgate tighter standards for all users of 
such engines and/or fees for commercial users of such engines in the 
State of California or in the FIP areas. These additional measures will 
cumulatively achieve the targeted 90 percent reduction.
    (d)(1) Spark-ignition Marine Engines. (i) EPA will finalize 
national rules for new spark-ignition marine engines by November 1995 
which will achieve a cumulative 50-60 percent VOC emission reduction 
from the fleet of uncontrolled spark-ignition marine engines in this 
category. The national regulations shall be phased in commencing with 
model year 1998 and later spark-ignition outboard, sterndrive, and 
inboard engines and all model year 1999 and later personal watercraft 
spark-ignition engines that are sold, manufactured for sale, offered 
for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into commerce or 
imported into the State of California.
    (ii) A marine engine is any nonroad engine which is used on a 
``vessel'' as defined in 1 U.S.C. 3.
    (2) Additional measures. If EPA fails to publish a national rule 
which achieves a cumulative 50-60 percent reduction in VOC emissions 
from spark-ignition marine engines described in paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section, EPA will promulgate a fee schedule for users of such 
spark-ignition marine engines in the FIP areas. The additional measures 
will cumulatively achieve the targeted 50-60 percent reduction.
    (e) On-highway motorcycles and engines used in nonroad motorcycles.
    (1) General applicability. This regulation applies to new gasoline 
and methanol fueled on-highway motorcycles and nonroad motorcycles 
manufactured after December 31, 1995 and manufactured for sale, sold, 
offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into 
commerce, or imported into the State of California, including 
motorcycles with engine displacements less than 3.1 cubic inches (50 
cc).
    (2) Definitions.
    Nonroad motorcycle means any motorized land vehicle designed for 
transporting person or property and which has two wheels, or three or 
more wheels and a curb mass less than or equal to 680 kilograms; it 
does not include devices regulated by the State of California as other 
classes of motor vehicles or devices regulated by EPA as other classes 
of nonroad engines nor does it include devices designed solely for 
operation on rails.
    On-highway motorcycle means any motor vehicle with a headlight, 
taillight, and stoplight and having: two wheels, or three wheels and a 
curb mass less than or equal to 680 kilograms.
    (3) Emission standards applicable in California for 1996 and later 
model year on-highway motorcycles and nonroad motorcycles.
    (i) Exhaust emissions from 1996 and later model year on-highway 
motorcycles and nonroad motorcycles subject to this paragraph shall not 
exceed:
    (A) Hydrocarbons or Organic material hydrocarbon equivalent: 0.8 
grams per vehicle kilometer.
    (B) Carbon monoxide: 12 grams per vehicle kilometer.
    (C) Oxides of nitrogen: 0.8 grams per vehicle kilometer.
    (ii) The standards set forth in paragraph (a) of this section refer 
to the exhaust emitted over driving schedules set forth in 40 CFR part 
86, subpart F and measured and calculated in accordance with those 
procedures.
    (iii) No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient 
atmosphere from any on-highway motorcycle subject to this subpart.
    (iv) Evaporative emissions from on-highway motorcycles shall not 
exceed 2.0 grams diurnal and hot soak according to State of California 
procedures referenced in 13 CCR 1976.
    (4) On-highway motorcycles and nonroad motorcycles subject to this 
paragraph shall be subject to the definitions and requirements of 40 
CFR 86.401 through 86.544, except as other-wise provided in this 
paragraph (e).


Sec. 52.2970  Civil aircraft operations.

    (a) Definitions. [Reserved]
    (b) Commercial aviation control measures.
    (1) Applicability. The provisions of Sec. 52.2970(b) shall apply to 
all commercial aircraft operators with aircraft operations in the South 
Coast, Ventura, and Sacramento control areas as defined in 40 CFR 
81.305.
    (2) Specific provisions.
    (i) Environmental performance targets.
    (A) Commercial aircraft operators subject to the provisions of this 
section per paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall operate aircraft in 
the control areas at emission rates not to exceed those presented in 
Tables 2970-1 and 2970-2. 

    Table 2970-1.--Example NOX Environmental Performance Targets for    
            Commercial Aviation in the South Coast Air Basin            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Environmental performance
               Control period                           target          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990........................................  0.162 pounds/PEU.         
2001........................................  0.128 pounds/PEU.         
2002........................................  0.113 pounds/PEU.         
2003........................................  0.100 pounds/PEU.         
2004........................................  0.086 pounds/PEU.         
2005........................................  0.073 pounds/PEU.         
2005 +......................................  0.073 pounds/PEU.         
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 2970-2.--Example VOC Environmental Performance Targets for    
            Commercial Aviation in the South Coast Air Basin            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Environmental performance
               Control period                           target          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990........................................  0.087 pounds/PEU.         
2001........................................  0.068 pounds/PEU.         
2002........................................  0.061 pounds/PEU.         
2003........................................  0.053 pounds/PEU.         
2004........................................  0.046 pounds/PEU.         
2005........................................  0.039 pounds/PEU.         
2005 +......................................  0.039 pounds/PEU.         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Reporting.
    (A) Compliance plan. [Reserved]
    (B) Baseline report. [Reserved]
    (C) Annual report.
    (1) Each commercial aircraft operator subject to paragraph 
(b)(2)(i)(A) of this section shall submit annual reports to the 
Administrator on covered activity and emissions as defined in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii)(C)(3) of this section.
    (2) Annual reports submitted pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)(1) 
of this section shall be submitted no later than March 1 of each 
calendar year describing covered aircraft operations during the ozone 
season of the preceding calendar year pursuant to the information 
requirements in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)(3) of this section. The first 
annual report shall be submitted no later than March 1, 2000 describing 
covered aircraft operations during the calendar year 1999.
    (3) Annual reports submitted pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)(1) 
of this section shall include the following information. For each 
flight operating in the control areas during the ozone season of each 
area: Flight number; aircraft type and model; engine type and model; 
taxi/idle time by engine; APU operating time; number of passengers 
carried; and weight of non-passenger cargo. In addition, annual reports 
shall include the following information for all airports in the control 
areas at which the reporting operator had aircraft operations: GSE 
population by type; and GSE by fuel type, engine size, emission control 
level, and annual ozone season use hours. The annual ozone seasons for 
each of the three FIP areas are:
    (i) Sacramento--May through October.
    (ii) Ventura--April through October.
    (iii) South Coast--March through October.
    (4) Commercial aircraft operators submitting annual reports 
pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)(1) of this section shall calculate 
their total annual ozone season emissions of VOC and NOX in pounds 
and include this information in the annual report. EPA-approved methods 
for calculating aircraft emissions shall be used for determining VOC 
and NOX emissions during the control period.
    (5) Commercial aircraft operators submitting annual reports 
pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)(1) of this section shall calculate 
their annual ozone season environmental performance in pounds of VOC 
per passenger equivalent unit and pounds of NOX per passenger 
equivalent unit and include this information in the annual report. The 
following calculations shall be used to determine annual environmental 
performance:
    (i) For VOC, [control period VOC emissions] divided by [(number of 
passengers carried during control period) + (weight of non-passenger 
cargo carried during control period divided by 200)]
    (ii) For NOX, [control period NOX emissions] divided by 
[(number of passengers carried during control period) + (weight of non-
passenger cargo carried during control period divided by 200)]
    (6) The accuracy of all information submitted pursuant to this 
section shall be certified according to the requirements of paragraphs 
(b)(2)(ii)(D) (1) through (4) of this section.
    (7) A commercial aircraft operator subject to the provisions of 
this section who fails to submit an annual report as required under 
paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(C)(1)-(6) of this section will be subject to 
enforcement as described in paragraphs (b)(2)(vii) of this section.
    (D) Certification.
    (1) All permit applications submitted pursuant to this regulation 
shall be signed as follows:
    (i) For a corporation by a responsible corporate officer. For the 
purposes of this regulation, a responsible corporate officer means a 
president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation 
in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who 
performs similar policy- or decision-making functions for the 
corporation, or
    (ii) For a partnership or sole proprietorship by a general partner 
or the proprietor, respectively.
    (2) All annual reports and other supplemental information submitted 
pursuant to this regulation shall be signed by a person described in 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D)(1) of this section, or by a duly authorized 
representative of that person. For the purposes of this regulation, a 
person is a duly authorized representative if:
    (i) The authorization is made in writing by a person described in 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D)(1) of this section;
    (ii) The authorization specifies an individual or a position having 
responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated sources, or 
an individual or a position having overall responsibility for 
environmental matters for the company; and
    (iii) The written authorization is submitted to the Administrator.
    (3) If an authorization submitted under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D)(2) 
of this section is no longer accurate because of personnel changes or 
changes in authority, a new authorization satisfying the requirements 
of paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D)(2) of this section must be submitted to the 
Administrator prior to or together with any reports or supplemental 
information signed by an authorized representative.
    (4) Any person signing a document under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D) (1) 
or (2) of this section shall make the following certification:

    I certify under penalty of law that this document and all 
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in 
accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel 
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my 
inquiry of the person or persons directly responsible for gathering 
the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my 
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that 
there are significant penalties for submitting false information, 
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing 
violations.

    (iii) Compliance determination.
    (A) Compliance with paragraph ((b)(2)(i)(A) of this section shall 
be determined annually, using information provided in the annual report 
submitted pursuant to paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(C)(1) through (6) of this 
section, by comparing the reported pounds-per-PEU environmental 
performance to the relevant environmental performance standard from 
Tables 2970-1 and 2970-2.
    (B) Commercial aircraft operators whose reported pounds-per-PEU 
environmental performance exceeds the relevant environmental 
performance standard shall pay an emissions fee calculated according to 
the provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
    (iv) Emissions fee.
    (A) Emissions fees imposed on a commercial aircraft operator 
pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section will be calculated 
using emissions and activity data reported by that operator in the 
annual submitted under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)(1) of this section. The 
provisions of this section apply separately for VOC and NOX 
emissions.
    (B) Emissions fees will be based on the quantity of pollutants 
emitted in excess of the emission rates presented in Tables 2970-1 and 
2970-2, calculated as follows:
    (1) The applicable emission rate from Tables 2970-1 and 2970-2 is 
multiplied by the operator's reported Passenger Equivalent Unit (PEU) 
control period total to determine the operator's total emission 
quantity target for the relevant year.
    (2) This total emission quantity target is subtracted from the 
operator's reported emissions for the relevant year to determine the 
quantity of pollutants emitted in excess of the total emission quantity 
target.
    (3) This excess quantity of pollutants is subject to the emissions 
fee described in paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(C) of this section.
    (C) Emissions fee rate. [Reserved]
    (D) Emissions fees paid pursuant to the provisions of this section 
must be remitted along with the relevant annual report submitted under 
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C)(1) of this section.
    (E) A commercial aircraft operator subject to the requirements of 
this section who fails to pay fees as required under paragraphs 
(b)(2)(iv) (A) through (D) of this section will be subject to 
enforcement as described in paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of this section.
    (v) Recordkeeping. Commercial aircraft operators subject to the 
provisions of paragraphs (b)(2) (i) through (iv) of this section shall 
collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate compliance 
with the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section and 
maintain the information for a period of three (3) years. The 
information shall be collected and recorded each day of the control 
period beginning in 1999.
    (vi) Exemptions. [Reserved]
    (vii) Enforcement. [Reserved]
    (c) General aviation control measures.
    (1) Applicability. The provisions of Sec. 52.2970 (c) shall apply 
to all general aviation operations in the South Coast, Ventura, and 
Sacramento control areas as defined in 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Specific provisions.
    (i) All general aviation aircraft subject to paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section shall pay a fee for each operation during the control 
period beginning in 2001, except for those aircraft operations exempted 
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(v) of this section.
    (ii) For the purpose of this section, general aviation operations 
subject to this fee are defined as take-offs from airports located in 
the control areas.
    (iii) Reporting.
    (A) General aviation operation certificate.
    (1) All airports with general aviation operations subject to 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section must obtain a General Aviation 
Operation Certificate.
    (2) All airports with general aviation operations subject to 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall submit to the Administrator an 
application for a general aviation operation certificate.
    (3) This application shall include the following information:
    (i) Airport name;
    (ii) Airport location, including latitude and longitude;
    (iii) Number of general aviation operations in 1999;
    (iv) Number of general aviation aircraft based at the airport; and
    (v) Services provided at the airport.
    (4) This application shall be submitted to the Administrator no 
later than March 20, 2000.
    (5) The accuracy of all information submitted pursuant to this 
section shall be certified according to the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(2)(iii)(C) of this section.
    (6) Airports with general aviation operations in the absence of a 
general aviation operation certificate after January 1, 2001 will be 
subject to enforcement as described in paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of this 
section.
    (B) Monthly general aviation activity reports.
    (1) All airports subject to paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(A) of this 
section shall submit to the Administrator monthly general aviation 
activity reports for the control period.
    (2) Monthly general aviation activity reports shall include the 
following information:
    (i) Airport name as indicated on the General Aviation Operation 
Certificate;
    (ii) Total number of general aviation operations for the reported 
month; and
    (iii) For each general aviation operation during the reported 
month, the aircraft FAA registration number (``N'' number).
    (3) Monthly general aviation activity reports shall be submitted no 
later than the tenth day of the following month. The first report shall 
be submitted no later than February 10, 2001 covering general aviation 
operations in January 2001.
    (4) The accuracy of all information submitted pursuant to this 
section shall be certified according to the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(2)(iii)(C) of this section.
    (5) Failure to submit a monthly general aviation activity report as 
required in this section will be subject to enforcement as described in 
paragraph (c)(2)(vii) of this section.
    (C) Certification. [Reserved]
    (iv) Fee Rate. [Reserved]
    (v) Fee Collection. [Reserved]
    (vi) Exemptions.
    (A) Atypical operations. [Reserved]
    (B) Other exemptions. [Reserved]
    (vii) Enforcement. [Reserved]


Sec. 52.2971  Locomotives.

    (a) General provisions.
    (1) Applicability. (i) The provisions of paragraphs (a)(2)(i), 
(a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii) and (a)(4)(iii) of this 
section, shall apply specifically to all locomotives operating in 
California.
    (ii) The provisions of paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (a)(2)(v), 
(a)(4)(iv), (a)(4)(v), (b), (c) and (e) of this section shall apply to 
all locomotives located in the ``control area'' defined as the South 
Coast Air Basin ozone nonattainment area in 40 CFR 81.305.
    (2) Compliance dates. The dates for compliance with the requirement 
of this section are as follows:
    (i) January 1, 2000 for locomotives manufactured before January 1, 
2000 and after January 1, 1973, and remanufactured on or after January 
1, 2000 for compliance with the standard in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this 
section.
    (ii) January 1, 2000 for locomotives manufactured between January 
1, 2000 and December 31, 2004 at the time of manufacture and at each 
remanufacturing on or after January 1, 2000 for compliance with the 
standard in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (iii) January 1, 2005 for locomotives manufactured after January 1, 
2005 at the time of manufacture and at each remanufacturing on or after 
january 1, 2005 for compliance with the standard in paragraph 
(a)(4)(iii) of this section.
    (iv) January 1, 2007 for railroads operating in the control area 
for compliance with the standard in paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of this 
section.
    (v) January 1, 2010 for railroads operating in the control area for 
compliance with the standard in paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section.
    (3) Definitions.
    Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency or his/her authorized representative.
    Engine used in a locomotive means either an engine placed in the 
locomotive to move other equipment, freight, or passenger traffic, or 
an engine mounted on the locomotive to provide auxiliary power.
    Locomotive means a self-propelled piece of on-track equipment 
(other than equipment designed for operation both on highways and 
rails, specialized maintenance equipment, and other similar equipment) 
designed for moving other equipment, freight, or passenger traffic.
    Railroad company means any company or organization that operates 
one or more locomotives.
    (4) Emissions standards.
    (i) NOX emissions from a locomotive manufactured before 
January 1, 2000 and after January 1, 1973, following remanufacturing on 
or after January 1, 2000, shall comply with a standard such that the 
emissions from the locomotive average 8 g/bhp-hr or less.
    (ii) NOX emissions from a locomotive manufactured on or after 
January 1, 2000 and before January 1, 2005 shall comply with a NOX 
standard of 6.5 g/bhp-hr.
    (iii) NOX emissions from a locomotive manufactured on or after 
January 1, 2005 shall comply with a NOX standard of 5.5 g/bhp-hr.
    (iv) NOX emissions from locomotives owned or operated by a 
railroad company and operated in the South Coast shall average 5.5 g/
bhp-hr or less effective January 1, 2007.
    (v) NOX emissions from locomotives owned or operated by a 
railroad company and operated in the South Coast shall average 4 g/bhp-
hr or less effective January 1, 2010.
    (5) Test methods and procedures. Test methods and procedures which 
will be adopted for the national locomotive emission control program 
shall apply in this South Coast Locomotive FIP. The applicable 
reference for the national locomotive emission control program will be 
provided when promulgated.
    (6) Enforcement.
    (i) Inspections. All sources subject to provisions of this section 
shall be subject to unannounced inspections by representatives of EPA 
pursuant to section 114 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q).
    (ii) Information requests. Documentation maintained by all sources, 
facilities, and persons subject to paragraph (c) of this section must 
be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with all the requirements of 
paragraph (b) of this section and must be provided to representatives 
of EPA in response to information requests pursuant to section 114 of 
the Clean Air Act.
    (iii) Testing. All sources subject to provisions of this section 
shall be subject to testing by representatives of EPA pursuant to 
section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
    (iv) Failure to comply with any provisions of this section is a 
violation of the applicable implementation plan for purposes of section 
113 of the Clean Air Act.
    (b) Compliance.
    (1) Average emission rate. Immediately following the end of each 
year, each railroad company shall calculate its average emission rate 
in the control area for the preceding year as follows:

TP05MY94.116

Where:

LEV=RR Company Annual Emission Level
ELi=Emission level of each locomotive (i) owned or operated by the 
railroad company in g/bhp-hr
FUi=Fuel used by each locomotive (i) owned or operated by the 
railroad company in gallons
n=Number of locomotives/engines the company owns
i=The ith locomotive of the company's locomotive fleet

    (2) Labelling. All locomotive or locomotive engines that are 
designated to operate in the South Coast subject to the requirements of 
this section shall have labels affixed such that the labels clearly 
identify the locomotive and locomotive engine as being a designated 
South Coast locomotive or locomotive engine. The locations and sizes of 
the labels shall be as follows:
    (i) Each locomotive shall display two labels measuring 15 inches 
(38 centimeters) by 15 inches (38 centimeters). One label shall be 
attached to each side of the locomotive in a location that will allow 
the label to be visible from outside of the locomotive. The labels 
shall be permanently attached to a part of the locomotive necessary for 
normal operation, and not to parts of the locomotive that can be easily 
removed. The labels shall consist of the green letters ``SC'' set upon 
a white background. Each letter shall be 13 inches (33 centimeters) 
high by 6 inches (15 centimeters) wide.
    (ii) A permanent legible label shall be affixed to the engine in a 
position in which it will be readily visible after installation in a 
locomotive and shall be attached to an engine part necessary for normal 
engine operation and not normally requiring replacement during engine 
life. The labels shall have dimensions of 6 inches (15 centimeters) x 6 
inches (15 centimeters)and shall contain the green letters ``SC'' set 
upon a white background. Each letter shall be 4 inches (10 centimeters) 
high by 2 inches (5 centimeters) wide.
    (c) Reporting and recordkeeping. Each owner or operator of a 
locomotive emission source which is subject to the limitations of this 
section, shall submit to the administrator by April 1, of each calendar 
year, beginning in 2007, a certification of compliance with this 
section for the previous calendar year. This certification shall 
include:
    (1) A declaration that the company is in compliance with all the 
requirements of this section, and
    (2) Documentation of the methods used to meet the NOX fleet 
emission average required in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (3) Each owner or operator of locomotive emission sources which is 
subject to the limitations of this section shall collect and record all 
information necessary to demonstrate compliance with this section. 
These records shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. The 
information shall be collected and recorded for each year starting in 
2007.
    (d) Testing and monitoring. The Administrator may require, at any 
time, any owner or operator of a locomotive emission source subject to 
the limitations of this section to perform tests using the applicable 
test methods defined in the national locomotive emission control 
program when finalized, to demonstrate compliance with the limitations 
of this section.
    (e) Fees and noncompliance penalties.
    (1) Railroad companies that own and/or operate a locomotive within 
the confines of the South Coast which is designated as a South Coast 
locomotive engine shall pay an annual fee for each locomotive engine 
they operate in the South Coast. [Such fee is to be developed in this 
rulemaking.]
    (2) Any engine that EPA finds operating in the South Coast that is 
not properly identified as a designated South Coast locomotive or 
without proper maintenance shall be fined an amount not to exceed 
$25,000 per day of improper operation.
    (3) A noncompliance penalty for each ton of emissions produced by a 
railroad company above its emission cap as provided for in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section, shall be assessed at a rate of $10,000 per ton 
of emissions.


Sec. 52.2972  Military aircraft operations. [Implementing program 
described in section III(D)(4)(e)(2)(c) of the Supplementary 
Information section.]


Sec. 52.2973  Ships and ports. [Implementing program described in 
Section III(D)(4)(e)(iv) of the Supplementary Information section.]


Sec. 52.2974  [Reserved]


Sec. 52.2975  Enhanced in-use compliance program for nonroad engines 
over 37 kw.

    (a) General applicability. (1) New 1999 model year and later 
nonroad engines, except those exempted in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, that are operated in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, 
Ventura, or in the Sacramento Metropolitan ozone nonattainment areas as 
defined in 40 CFR 81.305 shall meet the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section, in paragraph (j) of this 
section, and in Sec. 52.2965. Other state and federal requirements may 
also apply to these engines. Owners of nonroad engines of any model 
year, except those exempted in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, that 
are operated in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, Ventura, or 
Sacramento Metropolitan ozone nonattainment areas as defined in 40 CFR 
81.305 shall meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (h) and (j) 
of this section.
    (2) Exempted nonroad engines. The following nonroad engines are 
exempted from the requirements of this section:
    (i) Engines rated below 37 kw;
    (ii) Compression-ignition engines used in marine applications that 
have a rated speed at maximum torque of 1200 RPM or less;
    (iii) Spark-ignition engines used in marine applications;
    (iv) Engines used in aircraft as defined in Sec. 87.1(a) of this 
chapter;
    (v) Engines used in underground mining equipment and regulated by 
the Mining Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in 30 CFR parts 7, 
31, 32, 36, 56, 70, and 75; and
    (vi) Engines used to propel locomotives, as defined in Sec. 85.1602 
of this chapter.
    (3)(i) Labeling requirements. (A) For 1999 and later model year 
nonroad equipment, the equipment manufacturer shall affix a label 
meeting the requirements of paragraph (j) of this section to every 
piece of nonroad equipment operated, stored, or transported in the 
South Coast Air Basin, in Ventura County, or in the Sacramento 
Metropolitan ozone nonattainment areas as defined in 40 CFR 81.305, 
except those pieces of equipment and associated engines exempted in 
paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (B) For 1998 and earlier model year nonroad equipment, effective 
March 15, 2000, a label meeting the requirements of paragraph (j) of 
this section shall be affixed to every piece of nonroad equipment 
operated, stored, or transported in the South Coast Air Basin, in 
Ventura County, or in the Sacramento Metropolitan ozone nonattainment 
areas as defined in 40 CFR 81.305, except those pieces of equipment and 
associated engines exempted in paragraph (a)(2) and (a)(3)(ii) of this 
section.
    (ii) Labeling exceptions. The labeling requirements of paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) of this section do not apply to:
    (A) Equipment stored on the premises of an equipment dealer or 
leaser, unless such location is on or adjacent to a site at which work 
is being done that could gainfully employ the equipment; and
    (B) Equipment transported through or out of the FIP area that is 
not unloaded from its carrier while in the FIP area.
    (b) Definitions and abbreviations.
    The definitions and abbreviations of Sec. 52.2966 and parts 86 and 
89 of this chapter, and the definitions contained in the Clean Air Act 
apply to this section unless the term is defined in this section.
    (c) Exhaust emission standards. For the purposes of certification, 
assembly line, and recall testing, exhaust emissions from nonroad 
engines to which these requirements apply shall not exceed the 
following:
    (1) Non-methane hydrocarbons. 1.2 grams per brake horsepower-hour, 
as measured under steady-state operating conditions.
    (2) Oxides of nitrogen. (i) For engines operated in the South Coast 
Air Basin or in Ventura County: 1.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour, as 
measured under steady-state operating conditions.
    (ii) For engines operated in the Sacramento Metropolitan ozone 
nonattainment areas as defined in 40 CFR 81.305: 2.5 grams per brake 
horsepower-hour, as measured under steady-state operating conditions.
    (d) Evaporative emission requirements. Manufacturers' applications 
for certification shall include test results or an engineering 
evaluation demonstrating compliance with the inherently low evaporative 
emission requirements of Sec. 88.311-93 (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2) of this 
chapter. Diurnal emission levels shall be adjusted to reflect 
corresponding results for a nominal 20 gallon fuel tank volume. This 
demonstration may be based on a diurnal temperature excursion of 65 
deg.F to 105  deg.F and California certification fuel rather than the 
EPA conditions and test fuel.
    (e) Test procedures. The exhaust standards set forth in paragraph 
(c) of this section refer to the exhaust emitted over the operating 
schedule set forth in the Federal nonroad regulations, and measured and 
calculated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Federal 
nonroad regulations. Assembly line testing procedures are those set 
forth in 40 CFR part 86, subpart K, except as specified in paragraph 
(f) of this section.
    (f) Test fuels. All certification, assembly line, and recall 
testing performed as described in paragraph (e) of this section shall 
use the fuels provided for by California as found in the California 
nonroad regulations. Testing performed to demonstrate compliance with 
the inherently low evaporative emission requirements of paragraph (d) 
of this section may, as an alternative, be conducted with fuels meeting 
the federal specifications of 40 CFR part 86. Assembly line and recall 
testing shall use the same type of fuel as used in certification 
testing.
    (g) Recall program. (1) Engines certified to the standards set 
forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section shall be subject to the 
recall provisions of part 89, subpart H of this chapter and the 
associated established practices of EPA, except as otherwise provided 
in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (2) For purposes of the recall testing under this section, the term 
``engine'' includes all emissions control systems.
    (3) The recall provisions for light-duty vehicles contained in 
paragraphs (e) (3), (4), and (5) of this section shall apply to engines 
subject to the provisions of paragraph (g) of this section as well, 
with appropriate references to applicable standards and test 
procedures, except that:
    (i) Engines shall be selected by EPA for the purposes of recall 
testing from the equipment population of the South Coast, Ventura, and 
Sacramento nonattainment areas; and
    (ii) The prohibitions on registering vehicles contained in 
paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this section shall apply to equipment used in 
the South Coast, Ventura, and Sacramento nonattainment areas;
    (h) Fleet averaging program.
    (1) General Applicability. The requirements of this program apply 
to owners of equipment equipped with a nonroad engine that is operated 
in the South Coast Air Basin, in Ventura County, or in the Sacramento 
Metropolitan ozone nonattainment areas as defined in 40 CFR 81.305, 
except those pieces of equipment and associated engines exempted in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) Effective January 1, 1999, any person who owns one or more 
pieces of equipment described in paragraph (h)(1) of this section shall 
submit the following information on each such piece of equipment to EPA 
by January 31st of every calendar year. The submittal shall reflect the 
owner's affected fleet as it existed on January 1st of the same 
calendar year. Owners in the South Coast Air Basin and Ventura County 
may combine their affected equipment with that of other equipment 
owners in the South Coast Air Basin and Ventura County for the purposes 
of this program.\44\ Required information per affected piece of 
equipment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\Owners in the Sacramento ozone nonattainment area may 
combine their affected equipment with that of other equipment owners 
in the Sacramento ozone nonattainment area for the purposes of this 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Type of equipment and equipment class as specified in Table 
2975-1;
    (ii) Engine model year;
    (iii) Engine serial number;
    (iv) The NOX certification level (for 1999 and later model 
year engines only);
    (v) The useful life renewal certificate as described in 
Sec. 52.2965(d) (for 1999 and later model year engines beyond their 
original useful life period only); and
    (vi) Proof that remedial actions have been performed by an 
authorized party for any engine subject to a recall action as described 
in paragraph (g) of this section.

                Table 2975-1.--Nonroad Equipment Classes                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Class                            Equipment types                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.........  Wood splitters.                                             
            Sprayers.                                                   
            Swathers.                                                   
II........  Other agricultural equipment.                               
            Combines.                                                   
            Chippers/stump grinders.                                    
            Balers.                                                     
III.......  Tractors/loaders/backhoes.                                  
            Concrete/industrial saws.                                   
            Forklifts.                                                  
            Rough terrain forklifts.                                    
            Other material handling equipment.                          
            Paving equipment.                                           
            Agricultural tractors.                                      
            Concrete pavers.                                            
            Asphalt pavers.                                             
IV........  Rollers.                                                    
            Other general industrial equipment.                         
            Other construction equipment.                               
            Aircraft support equipment.                                 
            Cranes.                                                     
            Bore/drill rigs.                                            
V.........  Graders.                                                    
            Crawler tractors.                                           
            Sweepers/scrubbers.                                         
            Crushing/process equipment.                                 
            Skidders.                                                   
            Terminal tractors.                                          
            Excavators.                                                 
            Off-highway tractors.                                       
            Rubber-tired loaders.                                       
VI........  Feller/bunchers.                                            
            Rubber-tired dozers.                                        
            Scrapers.                                                   
VII.......  Off-highway trucks.                                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3)(i) The results of the following Fleet Average Emissions (FAE) 
calculations contained in Table 2975-2 shall be submitted concurrently 
with the information specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section; 
separate calculations shall be performed, and results submitted, for 
each equipment class specified in Table 2975-1:

  Table 2975-2.--Calculation of Nonroad Fleet NOX Emissions for a Given 
                             Equipment Class                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               C: Total 
                                    A: Pieces      B: Per        NOX    
                                   of affected     engine     emissions 
       Model year grouping          equipment    emissions    from model
                                        in       from table      year   
                                    equipment      2975-3      grouping 
                                      class        (tons)     (C=A x B) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 and later...................  ...........  ...........  ...........
1998.............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
1997.............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
1996.............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Pre-1996.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D: Total Fleet Emissions for all Model Year Groupings, (sum of numbers  
 in Column C)                                                           
E: Total Pieces of Affected Equipment for the Given Equipment Class,    
 (sum of numbers in Column A)                                           
F: Fleet Average Emissions (FAE), (F=DE)                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                           Table 2975-3.--Per Engine Emissions                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Per engine emissions by class (tons)                            
                   Model year grouping                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                I             II           III            IV            V           VI           VII    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999+                                                                                                                                                   
1.5 g/bhp-hr2.5 g/bhp-hr.................................        0.0062         0.027         0.047         0.090         0.16         0.32         0.89
2.5 g/bhp-hr.............................................        0.010          0.045         0.079         0.15          0.27         0.53         1.49
1998.....................................................        0.028          0.12          0.22          0.41          0.75         1.47         4.11
1997.....................................................        0.037          0.17          0.35          0.41          0.75         1.47         4.11
1996.....................................................        0.037          0.17          0.35          0.70          1.25         1.47         4.11
Pre-1996.................................................        0.037          0.17          0.35          0.70          1.25         2.10         7.09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The submittal shall also include the name and address of each 
owner of nonroad equipment included in the calculations, and a 
designated mailing address for subsequent EPA correspondence.
    (4) By January 1, 2000 and every year thereafter, the fleet owner, 
or owner group, shall compare the calculated Fleet Average Emissions 
(FAE) with the Baseline Emission Level (BEL) in Table 2975-4 (for 
equipment in the South Coast Air Basin or in Ventura County) or Table 
2975-5 (for equipment in the Sacramento ozone nonattainment area), 
applicable to the appropriate equipment class and calendar year for 
which the calculation applies (that is, the BEL for the calendar year 
in which the submittal is due), and shall calculate the fleet averaging 
program surcharge according to the following equation:

TP05MY94.117

where n is the class of equipment as indicated in table 2975-1.

This calculation shall be performed separately for each equipment class 
as specified in Table 2975-1. If the calculated surcharge is less than 
zero for any equipment class, the surcharge for that equipment class 
shall be set to zero. The sum of the surcharges for all of the 
equipment classes shall be paid concurrently with the submittal of 
information described in paragraphs (h) (2) and (3) of this section.

                         Table 2975-4.--South Coast and Ventura Baseline Emission Levels                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Class specific baseline emission level (tons)                 
         Calendar year          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     I           II         III          IV          V         VI         VII   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999...........................    N/A          N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A        N/A        N/A   
2000...........................      0.035        0.16        0.32        0.62        1.12       1.86       6.15
2001...........................      0.033        0.15        0.30        0.59        1.05       1.75       5.77
2002...........................      0.031        0.14        0.28        0.55        0.99       1.65       5.41
2003...........................      0.029        0.14        0.27        0.52        0.92       1.54       5.05
2004...........................      0.027        0.13        0.25        0.48        0.86       1.44       4.70
2005...........................      0.026        0.12        0.23        0.45        0.80       1.34       4.35
2006...........................      0.024        0.11        0.21        0.41        0.74       1.25       4.02
2007...........................      0.022        0.10        0.20        0.38        0.68       1.15       3.70
2008...........................      0.021        0.094       0.18        0.35        0.63       1.06       3.40
2009...........................      0.019        0.087       0.17        0.32        0.57       0.98       3.11
2010...........................      0.017        0.080       0.15        0.29        0.53       0.90       2.84
2011...........................      0.016        0.074       0.14        0.27        0.48       0.83       2.60
2012...........................      0.015        0.068       0.13        0.24        0.44       0.76       2.37
2013...........................      0.014        0.062       0.12        0.22        0.40       0.70       2.16
2014...........................      0.013        0.057       0.11        0.20        0.37       0.64       1.97
2015...........................      0.012        0.053       0.098       0.19        0.33       0.59       1.80
2016...........................      0.011        0.049       0.090       0.17        0.31       0.55       1.65
2017...........................      0.010        0.045       0.083       0.16        0.28       0.51       1.52
2018...........................      0.0093       0.042       0.077       0.15        0.26       0.47       1.40
2019...........................      0.0088       0.039       0.071       0.13        0.24       0.44       1.30
2020...........................      0.0082       0.037       0.066       0.13        0.23       0.42       1.21
2021...........................      0.0078       0.035       0.062       0.12        0.21       0.39       1.13
2022...........................      0.0074       0.033       0.058       0.11        0.20       0.37       1.07
2023...........................      0.0070       0.031       0.055       0.10        0.19       0.36       1.01
2024...........................      0.0068       0.030       0.052       0.099       0.18       0.34       0.97
2025...........................      0.0065       0.029       0.050       0.096       0.17       0.33       0.94
2026...........................      0.0064       0.028       0.049       0.093       0.17       0.33       0.92
2027...........................      0.0063       0.028       0.048       0.092       0.17       0.32       0.91
2028...........................      0.0062       0.027       0.047       0.091       0.16       0.32       0.90
2029 and later.................      0.0062       0.027       0.047       0.090       0.16       0.32       0.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 2975-5.--Sacramento Nonroad Fleet Baseline Emission Levels Class Specific Baseline Emission Level    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Class specific baseline emission level (tons)                 
         Calendar Year          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      I          II          III         IV          V          VI        VII   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000...........................      0.035        0.16        0.32        0.63        1.12       1.87       6.19
2001...........................      0.033        0.16        0.31        0.60        1.06       1.78       5.85
2002...........................      0.032        0.15        0.29        0.56        1.01       1.69       5.52
2003...........................      0.030        0.14        0.27        0.53        0.95       1.60       5.20
2004...........................      0.029        0.13        0.26        0.50        0.89       1.51       4.88
2005...........................      0.027        0.12        0.24        0.47        0.84       1.42       4.57
2006...........................      0.026        0.12        0.23        0.44        0.79       1.34       4.27
2007...........................      0.024        0.11        0.21        0.41        0.73       1.25       3.98
2008...........................      0.023        0.10        0.20        0.38        0.68       1.18       3.71
2009...........................      0.021        0.098       0.19        0.36        0.64       1.10       3.46
2010...........................      0.020        0.092       0.17        0.33        0.59       1.03       3.22
2011...........................      0.019        0.086       0.16        0.31        0.55       0.97       3.00
2012...........................      0.018        0.081       0.15        0.29        0.52       0.91       2.79
2013...........................      0.017        0.076       0.14        0.27        0.48       0.86       2.61
2014...........................      0.016        0.072       0.13        0.25        0.45       0.81       2.44
2015...........................      0.015        0.068       0.12        0.24        0.42       0.77       2.29
2016...........................      0.014        0.064       0.12        0.22        0.40       0.73       2.16
2017...........................      0.014        0.061       0.11        0.21        0.38       0.69       2.04
2018...........................      0.013        0.058       0.10        0.20        0.36       0.66       1.94
2019...........................      0.013        0.056       0.10        0.19        0.34       0.64       1.85
2020...........................      0.012        0.054       0.095       0.18        0.33       0.61       1.77
2021...........................      0.012        0.052       0.091       0.17        0.31       0.59       1.70
2022...........................      0.011        0.050       0.088       0.17        0.30       0.58       1.64
2023...........................      0.011        0.049       0.085       0.16        0.29       0.56       1.59
2024...........................      0.011        0.048       0.083       0.16        0.29       0.55       1.56
2025...........................      0.011        0.047       0.081       0.16        0.28       0.54       1.53
2026...........................      0.010        0.046       0.080       0.15        0.28       0.53       1.51
2027...........................      0.010        0.046       0.079       0.15        0.27       0.53       1.50
2028...........................      0.010        0.046       0.078       0.15        0.27       0.53       1.49
2029 and later.................      0.010        0.045       0.078       0.15        0.27       0.53      1.49 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Within 30 days of receipt of an adequate owner's submittal, 
including sufficient payment, EPA shall send a certificate of 
compliance to the designated mailing address. The certificate shall 
indicate the serial numbers of the engines to which it applies. 
Inadequate owners' submittals, including insufficient payment of fees, 
shall be returned to the designated mailing address, along with an 
explanation of why the submittal was found inadequate, within 30 days 
of receipt. Resubmittals by owners shall be responded to by EPA within 
30 days of receipt.
    (6) Certificates of compliance shall be valid only through March 
1st of the calendar year following the year in which they are issued. 
Expiration dates shall be indicated on the certificates.
    (7) Effective January 1, 2000, no piece of nonroad equipment that 
is equipped with an engine of model year 1998 or earlier, except 
equipment and associated engines exempted in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, shall be allowed to be registered unless it was included in 
the 1999 information submittal specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this 
section.
    (8) Effective January 1, 1999, no piece of nonroad equipment that 
is equipped with an engine of model year 1999 or later, except 
equipment and associated engines exempted in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, shall be allowed to be registered for use in the FIP areas 
without proof that it meets the enhanced in-use compliance program 
engine standards of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (j) Label specifications. (1) For new 1999 and later model year 
nonroad engines, the equipment manufacturer shall affix a permanent 12 
inch by 14 inch white label to each piece of nonroad equipment. The 
label shall be applied to the exterior of the equipment at the highest 
location, and shall be affixed in such a manner that it is readily 
visible from the ground. The label shall contain the following 
information lettered in the English language in block letters and 
numerals which shall be of a color that contrasts with the background 
of the label:
    (i) The label heading: Enhanced In-use Compliance Program--Nonroad 
Engine;
    (ii) The prominent statement:

______Model Year;

    (iii) The serial number of the engine powering the nonroad 
equipment;
    (iv) The nonroad equipment class as specified in Table 2975-1; and
    (v) The NOX standard, in grams per brake horsepower-hour, to 
which the engine is certified.
    (2) For 1998 and earlier model year nonroad engines, the equipment 
owner shall affix a permanent label, that is provided by EPA to the 
equipment owner along with the certificate of compliance described in 
paragraph (h)(5) of this section, to the appropriate piece of nonroad 
equipment specified on the label. The label shall be permanently 
affixed to the exterior of the equipment at the highest location, and 
shall be affixed in such a manner that it is readily visible from the 
ground. The equipment owner shall apply the most recent label directly 
over the previously existing labels for that piece of equipment.


Secs. 52.2976-52.2998  [Reserved]


Sec. 52.2999  Employee commute options program rule (Sacramento).

    (a) Applicability.
    This section applies to all employers in the Sacramento ECO program 
area as defined in paragraph (c) of this section who employ 100 or more 
employees at a work location unless exempted under the provisions of 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
    (b) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to reduce work trips by 
requiring employers of 100 or more employees to implement work trip 
reduction plans designed to attain an average passenger occupancy (APO) 
target which is 25% over the average occupancy for all peak period work 
trips in the area. This section will increase the average vehicle 
occupancy (AVO) of work-related trips and reduce the number of work-
related trips and miles traveled.
    (c) Definitions.
    For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall 
apply:
    Administrator means the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency or a designated and delegated representative.
    Average passenger occupancy (APO) means the average passenger 
occupancy of commuting vehicles arriving at an employer's work location 
during the peak travel period. The APO is equal to the number of 
employees arriving at the location during the peak travel period 
divided by the number of vehicles in which employees arrive at the same 
location during the peak travel period.
    Average passenger occupancy survey (APO survey) means the survey of 
employees' commute patterns required to be conducted at a work location 
by employers in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section.
    Average vehicle occupancy or AVO means the average occupancy of all 
commuting vehicles arriving at all work locations within the Sacramento 
ECO Program Area during the peak travel period.
    Carpool means a group of two to eight employees commuting to and 
from work by means of a vehicle.
    Clean Air Act means the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
    Commute alternative means the mode of travel between a person's 
place of residence and place of employment, which is other than in a 
motor vehicle occupied by one person. Commute alternatives include, but 
are not limited to, public transportation, carpools, vanpools, 
buspools, ferries, bicycling, and walking, which may be used 
independent of or in conjunction with compressed work week schedules, 
telecommuting and like measures. For purposes of this section, 
telecommuting is considered a commuting alternative.
    Compliance plan means the specific plan an employer is required to 
submit before March 1, 1997 and subsequently implement demonstrating 
that the employer will reach the APO target before March 1, 1999.
    Compressed work week means a schedule in which employees work 35 or 
more hours in fewer than five work days or more than 70 hours in fewer 
than ten work days. Compressed work week refers to schedules that 
include but are not limited to: ``4 day-40 hour'', ``3 day-36 hour'', 9 
day-80 hour'', ``9 day-72 hour'' schedules, and other work schedules 
that reduce the number or frequency of required commute trips.
    Employee means a partner or limited partner in a partnership, or 
any person employed by an employer, in a full-time or part-time, 
permanent, temporary or contract position, excluding volunteers, who 
either reports to work or is assigned primarily to a work location 80 
or more hours per 28-day period for at least two months in any four 
consecutive months. A contract position is one in which the employee 
reports to the work location for a period of at least two months and 
whose work hours and assignments are defined by the employer at any 
time after the effective date of this section.
    Employee transportation coordinator (ETC) means an employee 
appointed by an employer to develop, implement, monitor, and market a 
trip reduction program at a work location as required in this section.
    Employer means any person(s), trust, firm, business, joint stock 
company, corporation, partnership, association, non-profit agency or 
corporation, educational institution, school district, hospital or 
other health care facility, or federal, state, city or county 
government department, agency, or district, or subdivision or 
instrumentality thereof, or any other special purpose public agency or 
district that employs 100 or more employees reporting to a single work 
location. A city or county is a single employer for purposes of this 
section, not individual departments or agencies of the city or county. 
Individual departments or agencies of the State of California and the 
federal government are separate employers for the purposes of this 
section.
    Highest ranking responsible officer means the president, executive 
or managing director, other chief executive or operating officer, or 
other highest ranking employee located at a work location, who has 
primary responsibility for the operation and management of that work 
location.
    Maintenance plan means the plan an employer who achieves the APO 
target implements after that date to maintain the APO target at the 
work location.
    Peak travel period means the time period between the hours of 6 
a.m. and 10 a.m. inclusive, Monday through Friday.
    Plan means any plan an employer is required to submit to the 
Administrator in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section. 
Specific plans an employer may submit under this section include 
initial compliance plans, update plans, or maintenance plans.
    Public transportation means rail passenger service, motorbus 
regular route service, paratransit service, and motorbus charter 
service or other transportation services available to the traveling 
public whose purpose is to carry passengers between two or more 
locations. Chauffeured limousines and taxi cabs are not considered 
public transportation for purposes of this section.
    Sacramento ECO program area means the Sacramento ozone 
nonattainment area as defined in 40 CFR 81.305.
    Telecommuting means a strategy in which an employee substitutes the 
location at which work is performed for an entire day. Work otherwise 
assigned to be done at the work location is instead done at the 
employee's residence.
    Transportation management association (TMA) means a nonprofit 
organization that coordinates local commuter transportation services, 
including but not limited to public transportation, vanpools, carpools, 
bicycling and pedestrian modes, as well as strategies such as 
alternative work hours; and provides other similar services for 
corporations, employees, developers, individuals, and other groups.
    Travel demand management (TDM) means a system of actions whose 
purpose is to alleviate traffic-related problems through improved 
management of vehicle trip demand. Primarily directed at commuter 
travel, TDM actions are structured to reduce the dependence on and use 
of single occupant vehicles.
    Update plan means the plan submitted by an employer who has not 
achieved the APO target by March 1, 1999 showing what additional 
actions the employer will implement to achieve the target APO within 1 
year.
    Vanpool means a group of nine to fifteen employees, including the 
driver, commuting to and from their work location using a vehicle that 
is used and maintained for the primary purpose of ridesharing.
    Vehicle means a highway vehicle powered by a gasoline or diesel 
internal combustion engine used for commuting purposes with the 
exception of public transportation, vanpools and vehicles used to 
convey disabled persons as described in paragraph (g)(4)(viii) of this 
section.
    Work location or location means an area, building, or grouping of 
buildings in actual physical contact or separated only by a private or 
public roadway or other private or public right-of-way that does not 
represent an impassable barrier to bicycle or pedestrian travel located 
within the Sacramento ECO Program Area under the ownership, operation, 
or control of the same employer. Businesses operated separately and 
distinctly shall be considered separate work locations even if they are 
owned by the same employer and are physically located in the same or 
adjacent buildings.
    (d) Employer requirements and exemptions.
    (1) Overview of employer requirements. This section requires the 
following seven actions of all subject employers. An employer failing 
to undertake any or all of these actions shall be considered in 
violation of this section and shall be subject to penalties in 
accordance with paragraph (l) of this section.
    (i) Register with the Administrator as an employer subject to the 
provisions of this section (paragraph (f) of this section).
    (ii) Designate an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) at each 
work location (paragraph (i) of this section).
    (iii) Conduct an annual APO survey of employees at each work 
location to determine employees' commute patterns and report the 
results of the survey to the Administrator (paragraph (h) of this 
section).
    (iv) Develop and submit to the Administrator by March 1, 1997 and 
in subsequent years as required by this section, compliance, update, or 
maintenance plans that describe activities to be implemented at the 
location under an employee commute option (ECO) program (paragraph (i) 
of this section).
    (v) Implement the program outlined in the compliance, update, or 
maintenance plan (paragraph (i) of this section).
    (vi) No later than March 1, 1999, increase the average passenger 
occupancy (APO) at each location by not less than 25 percent over the 
average vehicle occupancy (AVO) for the Sacramento ECO program area 
(paragraph (g) of this section).
    (vii) Maintain the target APO after achieving it.
    (2) Exemptions. An employer that meets any of the criteria 
described in paragraph (d)(2) (i) or (ii) of this section may apply to 
the Administrator for an exemption from the requirements of this 
section. Requests for exemptions shall be made in writing and shall be 
signed by the highest ranking responsible officer at the work location.
    (i) Any employer that employs 100 or more employees at a single 
work location, but has fewer than 33 employees reporting to work during 
the peak travel period may apply to the Administrator for an exemption 
from the requirements of this section.
    (ii) Any employer whose employee population at a work location 
decreases to fewer than 100 employees for a 12 month period, calculated 
as a monthly average, may apply to the Administrator for an exemption 
from the requirements of this section. The employer must submit 
documentation demonstrating an employee population of less than 100.
    (e) Employer notification.
    The Administrator will notify employers individually and by 
published notice of the requirements of this section.
    (1) Individual notification of employers. By May 1, 1995 or 90 days 
after final promulgation of this section whichever is later, the 
Administrator shall notify employers known to be subject to this 
section by certified mail of their obligations under this section. The 
notification letter shall outline the procedure for employer 
registration and be accompanied by a standard registration form 
described in paragraph (f) of this section. In each year after the 
initial notices are mailed, The Administrator shall send notices to any 
employer known to be added to the employer list since the previous 
notification mailing.
    (2) General notification of employers. Not later than May 1, 1995 
or 90 days after final publication of this section whichever is later 
and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall publish notice and 
information concerning Sacramento employers' obligations under this 
section. The notice shall provide information on how employers can 
obtain required forms from EPA and shall establish a date by which 
employers must return a completed form to the Administrator. The 
Administrator shall publish the notice beginning on the date of the 
first individual notification mailings and shall run the notice for at 
least three days over a two week period in Sacramento regional 
newspapers. Also, the Administrator shall publish the notice in the 
first Federal Register released after the date of the first 
notification mailings.
    (3) Failure to receive an individual notification as provided for 
in paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall not relieve any employer of 
the obligation to meet all applicable requirements of this section.
    (f) Employer registration.
    (1) Registration deadlines.
    (i) By the due date specified in the notification mailing and as 
published in the public notice (see paragraph (e) of this section), 
each employer who received by certified mail the standard registration 
form shall submit a completed standard registration form to the 
Administrator. Notwithstanding that an employer may not have been 
mailed or received notice from the Administrator, an employer is 
required to complete the registration form and submit the completed 
form to the Administrator by the deadline specified in the published 
notice. Copies of the registration form may be obtained upon request 
from the EPA.
    (ii) Any employer that receives a notification packet must respond 
even if the employer believes it is not subject to this section. An 
employer that does not meet the definition of employer under this 
section is not required to submit the standard registration form, but 
instead must submit an ECO program return card included in the 
notification packet indicating the reason for non-applicability. The 
Administrator may request the employer to submit additional 
documentation to verify an employer's non-applicable status.
    (iii) An employer who is not subject to this section at the time 
the first notices are mailed, but subsequently becomes an employer 
subject to this section, shall submit a registration form to the 
Administrator within 60 days of becoming subject to this section.
    (iv) An employer that moves its work location within the Sacramento 
ECO program area after registering with the Administrator must submit a 
new registration form within 60 days after the date of the relocation.
    (2) Completion and submittal of registration form.
    (i) Each employer who is subject to this section or who receives by 
certified mail a standard registration form shall complete a standard 
registration form for each work location in the Sacramento ECO Program 
Area. The form must be signed by the highest ranking responsible 
officer at the location who shall attest to the accuracy of the 
information reported. An employer shall provide the following 
information on the form:
    (A) The name of the employer and address of the work location;
    (B) The name and telephone of the highest ranking responsible 
officer at the location;
    (C) Designation of the location as a single site, headquarters, or 
branch;
    (D) The total number of employees at the location and the number 
assigned to report to the work location during the peak travel period; 
and
    (E) The name, telephone number, and address (if different from that 
named in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) (A) and (B) of this section) of the 
employee transportation coordinator (ETC) at the location to receive 
APO survey and compliance plan forms and who will serve as the 
employer's contact with the EPA.
    (ii) An employer with more than one location in the Sacramento ECO 
Program Area shall complete a separate registration form for each work 
location, but individual registration forms may be submitted together. 
The employer shall designate an ETC for EPA to contact at each 
location. Notwithstanding this provision, an employer may designate a 
single contact person to receive APO survey and compliance plan forms 
for all work locations.
    (g) Average Passenger Occupancy (APO) target.
    (1) Designation of target APO. The CAA has established average 
passenger occupancy (APO) at a work location as the performance measure 
for determining an employer's compliance. The APO performance target is 
125 percent of the average vehicle occupancy (AVO) for the Sacramento 
ECO Program Area. Given a baseline AVO of 1.11, the target APO for the 
Sacramento ECO Program Area is 1.38.
    (2) Deadline for compliance with the target APO. Not later than 
March 1, 1999, each employer is required to increase the APO at the 
employer's work location during the peak travel period to the target 
APO. An employer that has achieved the target APO is required to 
maintain the location APO at a level at least as high as the target 
APO, but is not required to increase its APO beyond the target APO. 
Each employer shall annually document achievement of the target APO at 
each work location through the APO survey described in paragraph (h) of 
this section, and report the location's compliance with the target APO 
to the Administrator in the maintenance plan, as required by paragraph 
(i) of this section.
    (h) Average Passenger Occupancy (APO) survey requirements.
    (1) Notice of requirement to survey. Within 180 days of receiving 
completed registration forms from employers, but not later than March 
1, 1996, the Administrator shall notify each employer of the 
requirement to conduct an APO survey and to develop and implement a 
compliance plan in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 
(h)(1)(i) of this section. The notice shall include copies of the 
required APO survey and compliance plan forms. Failure of an employer 
to receive such notification shall not relieve any employer of the 
obligation to comply with all applicable obligations of this section. 
Employers not receiving such forms may request them from EPA by 
contacting the Region IX office.
    (2) Requirement to survey. For the purpose of documenting the work 
location APO, each employer shall conduct annual APO surveys of the 
commute patterns of the employees who arrive at its work location 
during the peak travel period. An employer with more than one location 
in the Sacramento ECO Program Area shall conduct a survey at each 
location.
    (3) Survey procedure. An employer shall conduct an APO survey of 
all employees assigned to report to the work location during the peak 
travel period using the following procedure, except as provided in 
paragraph (h)(3)(iii) of this section:
    (i) Except as provided below, an employer shall use the standard 
APO survey form provided by the EPA. The APO survey form is designed to 
collect information on the commute patterns of employees and to allow 
the employer to calculate the work location APO as described in this 
paragraph. The standard form shall be used without alteration. If the 
employer's individual survey form has been submitted to and approved by 
the Administrator prior to administration of the survey, the 
Administrator may permit the employer to use this pre-approved form as 
a substitute for the standard APO survey form. The Administrator shall 
not approve any survey form that could be expected, in the 
Administrator's judgement, to produce different survey results than if 
the standard form had been used. An employer is permitted to attach 
additional survey forms to the standard form if desired, without prior 
approval of the Administrator.
    (ii) Employers shall choose a typical week in which to conduct the 
APO survey. A week shall not be considered typical if it:
    (A) Includes a holiday observed by the employer;
    (B) Immediately follows a week in which a holiday was observed on 
Friday or precedes a week in which a holiday will be observed on 
Monday;
    (C) Is a week during which the employer holds a rideshare fair or 
other intensive information promotion related to the ECO program;
    (D) Is a week in which the location has a partial or complete 
shutdown of its operation; or
    (E) Is a week with any other anomalous change or fluctuation in the 
number of employees reporting to the work location.
    (iii) An employer shall survey all employees arriving at or 
scheduled to report to the work location during the peak travel period 
in the survey week. An employer with 400 or more employees arriving at 
a single location during the peak travel period may survey a random 
sample of those employees if approved by the Administrator. All 
employees selected for the random sample must be accounted for either 
by the survey data, or a documented leave of absence. Any employee 
designated for the random sample that does not respond to the survey 
must be counted as arriving in a single occupancy vehicle. Employers 
desiring to conduct a random sample survey shall submit the following 
information to the Administrator: a sampling process and statistical 
methodology that will produce reliable and valid results consistent 
with a 95 percent confidence level; and, documentation that the person 
or persons conducting the survey have the qualifications to ensure the 
survey will be conducted in a statistically valid manner. The 
Administrator shall grant or deny approval for the random sample survey 
within 30 days of receipt of the methodology.
    (iv) An employer shall achieve an APO survey response rate of at 
least 75 percent of all employees assigned to report to the work 
location during the peak travel period. An employer that fails to 
achieve at least a 75 percent response rate on any APO survey shall 
repeat the survey until the required response rate is achieved. If the 
response rate is less than 90% but 75% or greater, all non-respondents 
shall be treated as single occupant vehicle commuters. If the response 
rate is 90% or greater, non-respondents shall be treated as having the 
same commute behavior as that of the average of the respondents.
    (v) An employer may use its own staff to conduct the APO survey or 
arrange with a market research or transportation consultant, local 
government, TMA, or other entity outside the employer to conduct the 
survey.
    (4) Calculating work location APO. An employer shall demonstrate 
its compliance with this section by documenting achievement of the 
target APO specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (i)(A) An employer shall calculate the APO for its work location 
from the results of the APO survey as follows:

TP05MY94.127

where:
    Employees arriving is: total number of employees arriving at the 
location between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m., Monday through Friday of the 
survey week, and
    Vehicles arriving is: total number of vehicles in which employees 
arrive at the location between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m., Monday through 
Friday of the survey week.
    (B) To illustrate the calculation of APO, the following example is 
provided:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Mon.         Tue.         Wed.         Thur.        Fri.       Total week
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Employees.....................          205          198          201          202          194        1,000
No. Vehicles......................          165          170          180          175          170         860 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TP05MY94.128

    (ii) Calculation of location APO shall count employees arriving at 
the location during the peak travel periods, Monday through Friday of 
the survey week as follows:
    (A) Each employee that arrives at the location during the peak 
travel period shall be counted as one employee arriving for each of the 
days Monday through Friday of the survey week that the employee reports 
to the location, regardless of the length of time the employee remains 
at the location.
    (B) Each employee that telecommutes all day from the employee's 
home shall be counted as one employee arriving for each day the 
employee telecommutes.
    (C) Each employee that works a compressed work week shall be 
counted as one employee arriving for each day the employee works and 
for each compressed work week day off.
    (iii) For calculation of APO, the count of vehicles arriving shall 
include:
    (A) Passenger cars and trucks, with fewer than nine employees; and
    (B) Motorcycles and mopeds.
    (iv) The following shall be counted as zero vehicles arriving:
    (A) Vanpools with nine or more employees;
    (B) Public or private buses, trains, or other mass transportation 
vehicles and;
    (C) Bicycles and other non-motorized vehicles.
    (v) An employee that works a compressed work week or telecommutes 
the entire day at home shall be counted as arriving at the work 
location in a zero vehicle on the day he or she does not report to the 
work location.
    (vi) An employee that is dropped off at the work location by 
another employee or employees commuting to their work location or 
locations shall be counted as arriving in a share of a vehicle 
proportional to the number of occupants in the vehicle. An employee 
that is dropped off at the work location by a person not traveling to 
his or her work location shall be counted as arriving in a single 
occupant vehicle.
    (vii) An employee that commutes in a commute alternative for 50 
percent or more of the total length of his or her work trip or in a 
commute alternative for 10 or more one-way miles, whichever is less, 
shall be counted as arriving in that commute alternative in the APO 
calculation.
    (viii) An employer shall not count employees who have disabilities 
which require the use of a single-occupant vehicle (or a chauffeured 
vehicle) for commuting or their vehicles in the APO calculation.
    (ix) An employee that does not respond to the APO survey as 
described in paragraph (h)(3)(iv) of this section shall be considered 
for purposes of the APO calculation to have arrived at the work 
location in a single-occupant vehicle and be counted as one employee 
arriving in one vehicle, unless the response rate of the survey is 90 
percent or above.
    (5) Reporting of APO survey results. An employer shall tabulate the 
APO survey results and report the results to the Administrator on a 
standard form provided by the EPA. An employer shall submit the APO 
survey results as a component of the compliance plan in accordance with 
paragraph (i) of this section. In years in which the employer is 
required to document and provide its work location APO to the 
Administrator but is not required to submit a plan, survey results 
shall be submitted as an APO survey report.
    (6) Required components of APO survey reports. A complete APO 
survey report submittal will consist of the following elements:
    (i) Completed APO survey report, prepared on standard forms 
provided by the EPA; and
    (ii) A letter signed by the highest ranking responsible officer at 
the work location or report preparer, if different from the employer, 
who attests to the accuracy of the information included in the report.
    (i) Compliance, update, and maintenance plans.
    (1) Requirements. Each employer shall prepare and implement 
compliance, update, or maintenance plans in accordance with the 
procedures and schedules established in this section.
    (2) Plan submittal schedule. Each employer shall submit compliance, 
update, or maintenance plans, as described in paragraph (i)(3) and (4) 
of this section respectively, to the Administrator in accordance with 
the following schedule.
    (i) Not later than March 1, 1997, each employer shall prepare and 
submit to the Administrator a compliance plan for each work location. 
An employer that becomes subject to this section after March 1, 1997 
shall be given a minimum of 180 days from the date it registers with 
the Administrator, as required by paragraph (f) of this section, to 
prepare and submit a compliance plan. This employer further shall not 
be required to demonstrate achievement of the target APO until two 
years following submittal of the compliance plan.
    (ii) Not later than March 1, 1999, each employer who has not 
achieved the target APO shall prepare and submit to the Administrator 
an update plan for each work location as described in paragraph (i)(4) 
of this section. An employer that fails to meet the target APO by March 
1, 1999 shall be subject to the penalty for failure to reach the target 
APO as of March 1, 1999.
    (iii) Not later than March 1, 1999, each employer who has achieved 
the target APO shall prepare and submit to the Administrator a 
maintenance plan. If an employer determines that no additional measures 
are needed to maintain the APO target, the original compliance plan may 
be referenced to meet this requirement. Additional update plans 
demonstrating achievement and maintenance of the target APO may be 
required later if an employer is not in compliance with the target APO.
    (iv) An employer that moves its work location within the Sacramento 
ECO Program Area, desires to modify the elements of its compliance 
plan, or experiences a change in its work location operations that 
could reasonably be expected to affect the appropriateness or 
effectiveness of an approved compliance, update, or maintenance plan, 
shall submit a revised plan within 90 days of the change.
    (3) Components of a plan.
    (i) An employer shall prepare a plan using a standard plan form 
developed by the EPA. The plan will include all information required by 
the standard plan form, including the following information:
    (A) The name of the employer, address of the work location, and 
name, title, and signature of the Employee Transportation Coordinator 
(ETC) at the work location appointed by the employer;
    (B) The results of the most recent APO survey and a description of 
the procedure used to conduct the APO survey;
    (C) A description of the physical and transportation service 
characteristics of the work location, and demographic, work, and 
travel-related characteristics of the employee population;
    (D) A description of ECO strategies currently implemented that 
provide commute alternative incentives to employees at the work 
location and additional ECO strategies the employer will implement at 
the work location; an employer desiring advice and suggestions on ECO 
strategies should refer to resource materials provided by the EPA.
    (E) Activities planned by the employer to implement the ECO program 
and a time schedule for implementation of the program;
    (F) A description of the process by which the employer will 
periodically monitor and review progress toward the APO target.
    (ii) Each employer shall provide information included in paragraphs 
(i)(3)(i) (A) through (F) of this section in the compliance plan to 
establish a baseline against which future years can be compared. 
Beginning with the 1999-2000 update plan and for any subsequent update 
plan, an employer that has not achieved the target APO shall update any 
changes to the information under paragraphs (i)(3)(i) (A) through (F) 
of this section and provide the following:
    (A) A discussion of the employer's ``good faith efforts'', 
described in paragraph (k)(4) of this section, to achieve the target 
APO;
    (B) An explanation of why the ECO strategies included in the last 
plan did not produce the target APO; and
    (C) A discussion of how the employer plans to achieve the APO 
target within one year.
    (4) Required additional elements of plan submittals. A complete 
compliance plan submittal to the Administrator shall include of the 
following additional elements:
    (i) An executive summary plan that shall consist of a cover sheet 
that includes information described in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) (A) and (B) 
of this section, and a summary of information described in paragraphs 
(i)(3)(i) (C) through (F) of this section, and paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of 
this section as appropriate;
    (ii) A letter signed by the highest ranking responsible officer at 
the work location who shall attest that the employer will implement the 
plan as described, retain all ECO documents on file, as required by 
paragraph (i)(7) of this section, and make such documents available for 
review by the Administrator or an agent designated by the 
Administrator;
    (iii) A letter signed by the highest ranking responsible officer at 
the work location or plan preparer, if different from the employer, who 
shall attest to the correctness of the information included in the 
plan.
    (5) Alternative plan preparers. An employer may contract with a 
transportation planning consultant, TMA or outside entity to prepare or 
assist in preparation of a compliance plan or report. The use of an 
outside entity for this purpose shall not, however, remove or reduce 
the responsibility of the employer with regard to any of the 
requirements of this section.
    (6) Requirement for an ETC. An employer shall designate an employee 
transportation coordinator (ETC) at each work location with 100 or more 
employees to administer the ECO program at that work location.
    (7) Document recordkeeping. An employer shall maintain copies of 
all documents prepared or used in the document preparation by the 
employer or by other entities acting on behalf of the employer in 
accordance with this section in the office of the ETC for a period not 
less than four years from the date the documents were first generated. 
These documents shall include, but not be limited to documents related 
to:
    (i) Conduct of the APO survey;
    (ii) Calculation of work location APO;
    (iii) Preparation of compliance, update, and maintenance plans and 
APO survey reports;
    (iv) Program implementation, including all organizational policies 
and procedures; and
    (v) Program monitoring and evaluation.
    (j) Plan certification. Prior to submittal to the Administrator, 
plans shall be certified as to completeness. Notwithstanding this 
provision, an employer that submits a revised or maintenance plan in 
accordance with paragraph (i)(2)(iv) or paragraph (k)(1) of this 
section shall not be required to have the plan certified prior to its 
submittal to the Administrator.
    (1) Plan Certifiers. The Administrator shall designate an 
organization or organizations as plan certifiers for the Sacramento ECO 
program area.
    (i) The Administrator will provide the Air Districts in the 
Sacramento ECO area with the first opportunity to become designated 
certifiers for employer plans for employers in the geographic areas for 
their jurisdiction. In addition to certifying plans for completeness, 
the Air Districts may provide, if they so choose, a recommendation 
regarding the approvability of plans.
    (ii) Should any or all of the Air Districts in the Sacramento area 
decline the opportunity to become designated certifiers, the 
Administrator will designate another organization or organizations to 
certify plans.
    (2) Plan certification criteria. In assessing whether a plan can be 
certified, the certifier shall consider the following criteria:
    (i) The completeness of the plan based on the presence of all 
required components of plan submittals as described in paragraphs 
(i)(3) and (4) of this section.
    (ii) The accuracy of the work location APO computation;
    (iii) Consistency with this section.
    (3) Certification procedures.
     (i) A certifier shall review the plan utilizing EPA approved 
training and the criteria described in paragraph (j)(2) of this 
section. The certifier may contact the employer to clarify questions 
related to the plan or to request reasonable additional documentation 
from the employer.
    (ii) If the certifier deems the plan to meet the certification 
criteria, the certifier shall certify the plan and return it to the 
employer for submittal to the Administrator. Plans not meeting the 
certification criteria shall be returned to the employer with an 
explanation of the reasons the plan was returned, indication of the 
sections of the plan that are unacceptable, and an indication of where 
corrections are necessary in order to make the plan meet certification 
requirements. The employer shall revise its plan as appropriate and re-
submit the revised plan to the certifying agency.
    (iii) It is the responsibility of an employer to allow adequate 
time for certification. Failure of the certifier to certify the 
employer's plan in time to allow submittal of the plan to the 
Administrator prior to the deadline shall not excuse the employer from 
this obligation. Notwithstanding this provision, however, an employer 
that submits a certifiable plan to a certifier at least 90 days prior 
to the plan submittal deadline shall not be considered in violation of 
the plan submittal deadline until 60 days after the scheduled submittal 
date to the Administrator.
    (k) Plan review and approval.
    (1) Plan review and approval schedule. The Administrator will 
strive to approve or disapprove plans within 90 days of receipt of a 
plan. An employer whose plan is returned shall have 60 days from the 
date of return to revise and resubmit the plan to the Administrator. 
The employer shall not be required to have the plan recertified prior 
to re-submittal to the Administrator.
    (2) Plan review guidelines. The Administrator shall review and 
approve plans based on the following criteria:
    (i) The presence of all required plan sections and minimum plan 
requirements, as described in paragraph (i) of this section;
    (ii) The accuracy of the APO calculation, in accordance with the 
formula provided in paragraph (h) of this section; and,
    (iii) A demonstration of plan certification, in accordance with the 
procedures defined in paragraph (j) of this section.
    (iv) The appropriateness of the commute alternatives proposed in 
the plan to the location and employee population;
    (v) The appropriateness of the ECO program services and incentives 
selected by the employer to the commute alternatives;
    (vi) The likely effectiveness of the ECO strategies in producing 
the target APO by the scheduled deadline;
    (vii) The ability of the proposed implementation schedule to ensure 
ECO strategies included in the plan are implemented in a timely and 
thorough manner; and
    (viii) The ability of the proposed monitoring process to allow a 
timely and effective review of the employer's progress toward the 
target APO.
    (l) Enforcement and penalties.
    (1) Noncompliance. An employer shall be subject to civil or 
criminal penalties according to 42 U.S.C. 7413 (section 113 of the 
Clean Air Act) for violations of any provisions of this section. Upon 
determining that a violation has occurred, the Administrator shall 
issue the employer a notice of violation. Penalties for continued 
noncompliance may accrue from the date of the notice of violation.
    (2) Penalties. The Administrator may assess civil penalties of up 
to $25,000 per day of violation. Penalties under this section will be 
assessed according to criteria in 42 U.S.C. 7413(e). These criteria 
include:
     (i) The size of the business;
    (ii) The economic impact of the penalty on the business;
    (iii) The violator's compliance history and good faith efforts to 
comply;
    (iv) The duration of the violation;
    (v) Prior payment of penalties for similar violations;
    (vi) The economic benefit of noncompliance; and
    (vii) The seriousness of the violation.
    (3) Work location audits. To verify implementation of work location 
programs, the Administrator shall have the authority to conduct or 
cause to be conducted audits of an employer's location. The employer 
shall provide the Administrator access to all records pertaining to the 
development, implementation, and administration of the ECO program 
described in the employer's plan, and access to employees at the 
location.
    (4) Good faith effort. A good faith effort will be taken into 
account when penalties are determined. The Administrator may consider 
any or all of the following criteria in assessing an employer's good 
faith effort:
    (i) Did management at the location demonstrate significant 
commitment to implementation of the program and institute written 
employee policies that encouraged the use of commute alternatives?;
    (ii) Did the employer assess the transportation needs and interests 
of employees through employee surveys or other techniques?;
    (iii) Did the employer periodically review its progress toward the 
target APO, at a minimum through conduct of an APO survey of its 
employees in the second program year (1996-1997), and through other 
actions designed to assess the continuing appropriateness of the 
employer's ECO program services and incentives?;
    (iv) If the employer's 1997-1998 APO survey showed the APO increase 
was less than 50 percent of that needed to achieve the target APO, did 
the employer increase and or modify its program to include appropriate 
contingency strategies?;
    (v) Did the employer seek advice from the EPA, a TMA, a 
transportation consultant, or other entity with TDM experience, prior 
to September 1, 1998, regarding desirable future actions to increase 
APO?;
    (vi) Did the employer have strategies like those known to be 
implemented by others like it?; and
    (vii) Did the APO at the work location increase a reasonable amount 
compared to other employers with similar work location characteristics 
and employee populations?
    (m) Extensions.
    (1) Deadline extensions. An employer that, for reasons beyond its 
control, is unable to meet a deadline established in this section may 
petition the Administrator for an extension of the deadline. All 
requests shall be submitted in writing and signed by the highest 
ranking responsible officer at the site. The Administrator will strive 
to rule on extensions of scheduled deadlines within 30 days from 
receipt of the request. Extensions may be considered for hardship 
circumstances or other unusual circumstances that may make it 
impossible to meet the deadlines established in this section. Requests 
for deadline extensions must be filed in the following manner.
    (i) A request for an extension of the deadline to register as an 
employer shall be submitted not less than 45 days in advance of the 
deadline for registration.
    (ii) A request for extension of the deadline to submit a plan or 
APO survey report shall be submitted not less than 90 days in advance 
of the deadline.


Sec. 52.3000  General permit requirements (Sacramento).

    (a) Purpose. This section provides an orderly procedure for the 
review of new sources of air pollution and the orderly review of the 
modification of existing sources through the issuance of permits.
    (b) Definitions. When used in this section, Sec. 52.3001, New 
Source Review, and Sec. 52.3002, Emissions Reduction Credit 
Authorization, the following terms have the meanings given below.
    Actual emissions means measured, or estimated if measurement is not 
possible, emissions which most accurately represent the emissions from 
an emissions unit. Fugitive emissions associated with the emissions 
unit shall be included in the actual emissions of the emissions unit.
    Actual emissions reductions means reductions of emissions from an 
emissions unit. Actual emission reductions shall be calculated pursuant 
to paragraphs (d)(12) and (13) of Sec. 52.3001, New Source Review, and 
authorized pursuant to section Sec. 52.3002, Emissions Reduction Credit 
Authorization, and shall meet all of the following criteria:
    (1) The emissions reductions shall be real, enforceable, 
quantifiable, and permanent.
    (2) The emissions reductions shall be surplus emissions reductions 
in excess of any emissions reduction which is:
    (i) Required or encumbered by any laws, rules, regulations, 
agreements, or orders; or
    (ii) Attributed to a control measure noticed for workshop in the 
district, or proposed or contained in a State Implementation Plan or 
Federal Implementation Plan; or
    (iii) Proposed or contained in the district air quality attainment 
plan for attaining the annual reductions required by the Clean Air Act.
    (3) Emission reductions attributed to a proposed control measure 
contained in the District Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) may be re-
eligible as an offset emission reduction only if such measure has been 
removed from the AQAP during the next AQAP update.
    (4) Source shutdowns and curtailments may not be given emission 
reduction credit in the case of non-attainment pollutants, including 
precursors, if the shutdown or curtailment occurred prior to the date 
of application unless:
    (i) The crediting of shutdown emissions complies with the most 
recent emission trading policy of the EPA, and
    (ii) The proposed new source or modification is a replacement, and 
the shutdown or curtailment occurred after August 7, 1977, and
    (iii) The shutdown or curtailment was claimed by the affected 
facility as a credit within 180 days of the last date of operation, or
    (iv) The district has met statutory planning mandates and air 
quality improvement milestones.
    Actual interruptions of electrical power means when electrical 
service is interrupted by an unforeseeable event.
    Actual operating days means any day of operation which results in 
the emission of an affected pollutant from the emissions unit.
    Administrative permit amendment means an amendment to an Authority 
to Construct which:
    (1) Corrects a typographical error; or
    (2) Identifies a minor administrative change at the stationary 
source; for example, a change in the name, address, or phone number of 
any person identified in the permit; or
    (3) Requires more frequent monitoring or reporting by a responsible 
official of the stationary source; or
    (4) Transfers ownership or operational control of a stationary 
source, provided that, prior to the transfer, the EPA receives a 
written agreement which specifies a date for the transfer of permit 
responsibility, coverage, and liability from the current to the 
prospective permittee.
    Ambient air quality standards means state and federal ambient air 
quality standards for the purpose of submittal to the EPA for inclusion 
in the California State Implementation Plan. All references in this 
section, Sec. 52.3001, and Sec. 52.3002 to ambient air quality 
standards shall be interpreted as National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards.
    Applicable requirements means air quality requirements with which a 
facility must comply pursuant to the State Implementation Plan, the 
Federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 and implementing regulations, 
other provisions of the United States Code, and the Code of Federal 
Regulations.
    Authority to construct means a preconstruction permit authorizing 
construction prior to the start of construction and conforming to the 
requirements of Sec. 52.3001, New Source Review.
    Authorized means emission reduction credits (ERCs) which have been 
evaluated by the EPA to verify that they are quantifiable, enforceable, 
permanent and surplus at the time of use. Authorization of the ERCs 
must occur both prior to approval of, and concurrent with, the 
application for use of the ERCs as offsets pursuant to Sec. 52.3001, 
New Source Review.
    Banking means the system of quantifying, adjusting, certifying, 
recording, and storing ERCs for future use and transfer. Procedures for 
banking ERCs are described in applicable district banking rules.
    Begin actual construction means initiation of physical, on-site 
construction activities on an emissions unit which are of a permanent 
nature. Such activities include, but are not limited to, installation 
of building supports and foundations, laying of underground pipework, 
and construction of permanent storage structures. With respect to a 
change in the method of operation, this term refers to those on-site 
activities other than preparatory activities which mark the initiation 
of the change.
    Best available control technology (BACT) means:
    (1) For any emissions unit, an emission limit based on the most 
stringent of the following:
    (i) The most effective emission control device, emission limit, or 
technique, singly or in combination, which has been required or used 
for the type of equipment comprising such an emissions unit unless the 
applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the EPA that such 
limitations required on other sources have not been demonstrated to be 
achievable.
    (ii) Any alternative basic equipment, fuel, process, emission 
control device or technique, singly or in combination, determined to be 
technologically feasible and cost-effective by the EPA.
    (iii) For replacement equipment only, the emission limitation that 
is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable, taking into 
account environmental, energy, and economic impacts by each class or 
category of source.
    (2) In making a BACT determination for a nonattainment pollutant, 
the EPA may consider the overall effect on other nonattainment 
pollutants. In some cases the lowest emission rates may be required for 
one or more nonattainment pollutants at the cost of not achieving the 
lowest emission rate for other nonattainment pollutants. The EPA shall 
discuss these considerations in the Preliminary Decision prepared 
pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 52.3001(d)(3).
    (3) Under no circumstances shall BACT be determined to be less 
stringent than the emission control required by an applicable provision 
of district, state or federal laws or regulations unless the applicant 
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the EPA that such limitations are 
not achievable.
    Best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) means an 
emission limitation that is based upon the maximum degree of reduction 
achievable, taking into account environmental, energy, and economic 
impacts by each class or category of source. The criteria for BARCT are 
specified in ``California Clean Air Act Guidance for the Determination 
of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit 
Control Technology,'' California Air Resources Board, April 1990.
    California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) means the California 
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et 
seq.
    Cargo carriers means trains dedicated to a specific source and 
marine vessels while docked at a specific source.
    Certified means emission reduction credits which have been 
evaluated under the requirements of a district banking rule.
    Commence means that the owner or operator has all of the necessary 
permits or approvals required under state and federal air quality 
control laws, district rules and regulations, and those air quality 
control laws and regulations which are part of the California State 
Implementation Plan or any applicable Federal Implementation Plan, and 
has:
    (1) Begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of on-site 
construction of the source, to be completed in a reasonable time; or
    (2) Entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations 
which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss to the 
owner or operator, to undertake a program of actual construction of the 
source to be completed within a reasonable time.
    Complete application means an application for an Authority to 
Construct a new or modified emission unit that, on the basis of the 
criteria of 40 CFR part 70.5(c) of the Federal Operating Permit Program 
and the applicable requirements of this section, contains adequate 
information for the EPA to evaluate the application for compliance with 
the applicable requirements of this section. Such determination shall 
be made after receipt of payment of an application filing fee, as 
determined by the EPA, that reflects the costs to the EPA to review the 
application and issue permits.
    Construction means any physical change or change in the method of 
operation (including fabrication, erection, installation, demolition, 
or modification of an emissions unit) which would result in a change in 
actual emissions.
    Contiguous property means two or more parcels of land with a common 
boundary or separated solely by a public roadway or other public right-
of-way.
    Cost-effective means a cost per unit of emissions reduction which 
is lower than or equivalent to the maximum unit costs, for the 
regulated pollutant or source category, of the same emission reduction 
through the use of Best Available Control Technology, calculated in 
current year dollars in accordance with methodology and criteria 
specified in the EPA OAQPS Control Cost Manual (EPA 450/3-90-006).
    District means the local air pollution permitting agency with 
jurisdiction within the area in which this section applies. 
``District'' may also refer to the geographic area in which the local 
permitting agency has jurisdiction.
    Emission decrease means any modification which would result in a 
decrease of actual emissions. The emission decrease shall be calculated 
by subtracting the proposed emissions from the historic actual 
emissions.
    Emission reduction credits (ERC) means reductions of actual 
emissions from an emission unit that are registered with the district 
in accordance with the requirements of a district banking rule.
    Emissions limitation means one or a combination of permit 
conditions specific to an emissions unit which restricts its maximum 
emissions, at or below the emissions associated with the maximum design 
capacity. An emissions limitation shall be:
    (1) Contained in the latest Authority to Construct and contained in 
or enforceable by the latest district or federal permit to operate for 
the emission unit; and
    (2) Enforceable on a daily basis or quarterly basis pursuant to 
provisions of Sec. 52.3001(d)(7)(ii). Emission limitations should be 
stated in a manner consistent with testing procedures. Emission 
limitations may be expressed as enforceable design, operational, or 
equipment standard pursuant to provisions of Sec. 52.3001(d)(7)(iii); 
and
    (3) No less stringent that the applicable emission standards given 
at 40 CFR part 60, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, 
and 40 CFR part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants.
    Emissions unit means an identifiable operation or piece of process 
equipment such as an article, machine, or other contrivance which 
controls, emits, may emit, or results in the emissions of any regulated 
air pollutant or hazardous air pollutant (HAP), directly or as fugitive 
emissions. An emissions unit shall not include the open burning of 
agricultural biomass.
    Enforceable means verifiable and legally binding. Enforceable, for 
the purposes of federal requirements, means all federally enforceable 
limitations and conditions enforceable by the EPA, including NSPS; 
NESHAP; requirements within any applicable State Implementation Plan; 
any permit requirement established pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 
51.160 through 166, or 40 CFR 70.
    EPA means an official of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
or his or her authorized representative.
    ERC certificate means a document identifying the quantity and type 
of ERCs issued by the district pursuant to a banking rule to the source 
identified on the Certificate.
    Fugitive emissions means those emissions which could not reasonably 
pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent 
opening.
    Halogenated hydrocarbons means the following: 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, methylene chloride, 2,2-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane 
(HCFC-123), 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124), 
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), 
1,1,1-trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113), 1-chloro-1,1-difluoro-
2-chloro-2,2-difluoroethane (CFC-114), chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-
115), pentafluoroethane (HFC-125), 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134), 
tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a), 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b), 
1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b), 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-
143a), chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22), trifluoromethane (HFC-23), 1,1-
difluoroethane (HFC-152a), and the following four classes of 
perfluorocarbon compounds: Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely 
fluorinated alkanes; cyclic, branched, or linear, completely 
fluorinated ethers, with no unsaturations; cyclic, branched, or linear, 
completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no unsaturations; and 
sulfur-containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and with 
sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine. Perfluorocarbon compounds 
will be assumed to be absent from a product or process unless a 
manufacturer or facility operator identifies the specific individual 
compounds (from the broad classes of perfluorocarbon compounds) and the 
amounts present in the product or process and provides a validated test 
method which can be used to quantify the specific compounds.

    Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) means any air pollutant listed 
pursuant to section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 
7401 et seq.).
    Historic actual emissions means:
    (1) The actual emissions for the existing emissions unit averaged 
over the consecutive two-year period immediately preceding the date of 
application for authorized emission reduction credits. If the last two 
years are unrepresentative of normal source operations as determined by 
the EPA, then any two consecutive years of the last five years that 
represent normal source operation may be used.
    (2) If, at any time during the two-year period, actual emissions 
exceeded the allowed or permitted emission levels, then actual 
emissions shall be reduced to reflect emission levels that would have 
occurred if the unit were in compliance with all applicable limitations 
and rules.
    (3) Where an emissions unit has been in operation for less than two 
years, a shorter averaging period of at least one year may be used, 
provided that the averaging period is representative of the full 
operational history of the emissions unit. If an emissions unit has 
been in operation for less than one year, then the historic actual 
emissions shall be zero.
    Historic potential emissions means emissions based on the potential 
to emit of the emissions unit prior to modification. In determining the 
potential to emit, daily emissions limitations shall be treated as part 
of an emissions unit's design only if the limitations are 
representative of normal operations, of in the facility has provided 
offsets form previous permitting actions. If there are no enforceable 
limiting conditions, an emissions unit's potential to emit shall be 
limited to the unit's historic actual emissions. For a new emissions 
unit, historic potential emissions are equal to zero. For the purposes 
of the above determination, ``normal operations'' is defined as the 
usual or typical daily operating of an emissions unit resulting in 
actual emissions which are at least 80% of the specific limits 
contained in the emission unit's authority to construct or permit to 
operate.
    Lake Tahoe air basin means that portion of Placer County within the 
drainage area naturally tributary to Lake Tahoe including said lake, 
plus that area in the vicinity of the head of the Truckee River 
described as follows (as established pursuant to section 39606 of the 
Health and Safety Code of the State of California and as described in 
Title 17, California Code of Regulations, section 60113 [b]): 
Commencing at the point common to the aforementioned drainage area 
crestline and the line common to Townships 15 North and 16 North, Mount 
Diablo Base and Meridian (M.D.B. & M.), and following that line in a 
westerly direction to the northwest corner of section 3, Township 15 
North, Range 16 East, (M.D.B. & M.), thence south along the west line 
of Sections 3 and 10, Township 15 North, Range 16 East, M.D.B. & M., to 
the intersection with the drainage crestline, thence following the said 
drainage area boundary in a southwesterly, then northeasterly, 
direction to and along the Lake Tahoe Dam, thence following the said 
drainage area crestline in a northeasterly, then northwesterly, 
direction to the point of beginning. This Lake Tahoe Air Basin is 
delineated on an official map on file at the California Air Resources 
Board Headquarters Office.
    Major stationary source means any stationary source which emits or 
has the potential to emit 25 tons per year or more of NOX or 25 
tons per year or more of ROC. In addition, any physical change 
occurring at a stationary source not otherwise qualifying as a major 
stationary source, which would constitute a major stationary source by 
itself makes the source a major stationary source.
    Major modification means a modification to a major stationary 
source which, when aggregated with all other increases in potential to 
emit over the period of five consecutive years before the application 
for modification, and including the calendar year of the most recent 
application, results in an increase in the potential to emit greater 
than 25 tons per year of NOX or 25 tons per year of ROC.
    Modification means any physical change, change in method of 
operation (including change in fuel characteristics), change in hours 
of operation, or change in production rate, which:
    (1) For an emissions unit:
    (i) Would necessitate a change in permit conditions; or
    (ii) Is not specifically limited by a permit condition; or
    (iii) Results in an increase, a decrease, or no change in emissions 
which are not subject to an emissions limitation.
    (2) For a stationary source:
    (i) Is a modification of its emissions unit; or
    (ii) Is an addition of any new emissions unit.
    The following shall not be considered a modification: a change in 
ownership; routine maintenance and repair; a reconstructed stationary 
source or emissions unit which shall be treated as a new stationary 
source or emissions unit, not as a modification; and the addition of a 
continuous emission monitoring system.
    Mountain Counties air basin means (as established pursuant to 
Section 39606 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California 
and as described in Title 17, California Code of Regulations, section 
60111 [i]), all of Placer County except that portion included in the 
Lake Tahoe Air Basin, defined by 17 CCR 60113(b), and that portion 
included in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, defined by 17 CCR 
60106(k).
    Non-permitted emissions means those emissions of an regulated 
pollutant which are not required to obtain a permit pursuant to this 
section. Non-permitted emissions may include emissions from mobile 
sources, indirect sources, and exempt equipment.
    Nonattainment pollutant means any pollutant and its precursors that 
have been designated ``nonattainment'' by the EPA in the Federal 
Register.
    Offset means the use of an emission reduction credit to compensate 
for an emission increase of an regulated pollutant from a new or 
modified source subject to the requirements of Sec. 52.3001, New Source 
Review.
    Permanent means only permanent reductions in emissions can be 
authorized as emission reduction credit. For stationary sources, 
permanence shall be assured for sources subject to federal requirements 
through federally enforceable changes in source permits.
    PM10 means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 
smaller than or equal to a nominal 10 microns as measured by an 
applicable reference test method or methods found acceptable by the 
EPA.
    Portable equipment means equipment which is periodically relocated 
and is not operated more than a total of 180 days at any one location 
in the district within any continuous 12-month period.
    Potential to emit means the maximum daily physical and operational 
design capacity to emit an air pollutant during each calendar quarter. 
Any limitation on the physical or operational design capacity, 
including emission control devices and restrictions on hours of 
operation, or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or 
processed, may be considered as part of the design only if the 
limitation, or the effect it would have on emissions, is incorporated 
into the Authority to Construct as an enforceable permit condition as 
daily emissions limitations. Fugitive emissions associated with the 
emissions unit or stationary source shall be included in the potential 
to emit of the emissions unit or stationary source.
    Precursor means a pollutant that, when emitted into the atmosphere, 
may undergo either a chemical or physical change which then produces 
another pollutant for which an ambient air quality standard has been 
adopted, or whose presence in the atmosphere will contribute to the 
violation of one or more ambient air quality standards. The following 
precursor-secondary air contaminant relationships shall be used for the 
purposes of this section, Sec. 52.3001 and Sec. 52.3002: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Precursor                    Secondary air contaminant     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reactive organic compound..........  (1) Photochemical oxidants (ozone).
                                     (2) Organic fraction of PM10.      
Nitrogen oxides....................  (1) Nitrogen dioxide.              
                                     (2) Nitrate fraction of PM10.      
                                     (3) Photochemical oxidants (ozone).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed emissions means emissions based on the potential to emit 
for the new or modified emissions unit.
    Quantifiable means the ability to estimate emission reductions in 
terms of both their amount and characteristics. The same method of 
estimating emissions shall be used to quantify the emission levels 
before and after the reduction.
    Quarterly means calendar quarters beginning in January, April, 
July, and October.
    Quarterly emissions limitation means one or a combination of permit 
conditions specific to an emissions unit which restricts its maximum 
emissions, in pounds per quarter, at or below the emissions associated 
with the maximum design capacity. A quarterly emissions limitation must 
be:
    (1) Contained in the latest Authority to Construct and contained in 
or enforceable by the latest Permit to Operate for the emission unit; 
and
    (2) Enforceable on a quarterly basis.
    Reactive organic compound means any compound containing carbon 
except methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, 
metallic carbides or carbonates, ammonium carbonates, and halogenated 
hydrocarbons.
    Real means actually occurring, implemented, and not artificially 
devised.
    Reasonably available control technology (RACT) means the lowest 
emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by 
the application of emission control technology that is reasonably 
available considering technical and economic feasibility. The criteria 
for RACT are specified in ``California Clean Air Act Guidance for the 
Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best 
Available Retrofit Control Technology,'' California Air Resources 
Board, April 1990 and in the General Preamble to Title I, April 16, 
1992.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\Proposed rule published in the Federal Register of April 16, 
1992 (57 FR 13498).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reconstructed source means any stationary source or emissions unit 
undergoing physical modification where the fixed capital cost of the 
new components exceeds 50% of the fixed capital cost of a comparable, 
entirely new stationary source or emissions unit. Fixed capital cost 
means the capital that is needed to provide all the depreciable 
components. A reconstructed source shall be treated as a new stationary 
source or emissions unit.
    Register means a document maintained pursuant to a district banking 
rule which records all ERC deposits, withdrawals, transfers, and 
transactions.
    Regulated air pollutant means any pollutant that is emitted into or 
otherwise enters the ambient air, and for which the EPA has adopted an 
emission limit, standard, or other requirement. Regulated air 
pollutants include:
    (1) Oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds;
    (2) Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard 
has been promulgated pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act;
    (3) Any pollutant subject to a new source performance standard 
promulgated pursuant to section 111 of the Clean Air Act;
    (4) Any ozone-depleting substance specified as a Class I 
(chlorofluorocarbons) or Class II (hydrofluorocarbons) substance 
pursuant to Title VI of the Clean Air Act;
    (5) Any pollutant subject to a standard or requirement promulgated 
pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, including:
    (i) Any pollutant listed pursuant to section 112(r) of the Clean 
Air Act (Prevention of Accidental Releases), which shall be considered 
a ``regulated air pollutant'' upon promulgation of the list.
    (ii) Any hazardous air pollutant subject to a standard or other 
requirement promulgated by the EPA pursuant to section 112(d) or 
adopted by the district pursuant to 112(g) and (j) of the Clean Air Act 
which shall be considered a ``regulated air pollutant'' for all sources 
or categories of sources upon promulgation of the standard or 
requirement or 18 months after the standard or requirement was 
scheduled to be promulgated pursuant to section 112(e)(3) of the Clean 
Air Act.
    (iii) Any HAP subject to a district case-by-case emissions 
limitation determination for a new or modified source, prior to the EPA 
promulgation or scheduled promulgation of an emissions limitation, 
which shall be considered a ``regulated air pollutant'' when the 
determination is made pursuant to section 112(g)(2) of the Clean Air 
Act. In case-by-case emissions limitation determinations, the HAP shall 
be considered a ``regulated air pollutant'' only for the individual 
source for which the emissions limitation determination was made.
    Replacement equipment means:
    (1) Routine replacement: The replacement or modification of 
emission units(s) where the replacement unit(s) serves the identical 
function as the unit(s) being replaced, and the maximum rating and the 
potential to emit any pollutant will not be greater from the new or 
modified emissions unit(s) than the replaced unit(s), when the 
emissions unit(s) is operated at the same permitted conditions. The EPA 
will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a project to replace 
an emissions unit in whole or part with functionally equivalent 
equipment is a routine repair, commonly made in the industry. Projects 
intended to extend the expected useful life of the unit may not be 
considered routine replacements.
    (2) Identical replacement: The total or partial replacement of an 
emissions unit where the replacement is the same as the original unit 
in all respects except for serial number.
    Responsible official means an individual with the authority to 
certify that a source complies with all applicable requirements, 
including the conditions of permits issued to sources. A ``responsible 
official'' means one of the following:
    (1) For a corporation, a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-
president of the corporation in charge of a principal business 
function, or any other person who performs similar policy or 
decisionmaking functions for the corporation, or a duly authorized 
representative of such person if the representative is responsible for 
the overall operation of one or more manufacturing, production, or 
operating facilities applying for or subject to a permit and either:
    (i) The facilities employ more than 250 persons or have gross 
annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 
1980 dollars); or
    (ii) The delegation of authority to such representative is approved 
in advance by the EPA; or
    (2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship, a general partner or 
the proprietor, respectively; or
    (3) For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency, 
either a principal executive officer or a ranking elected official; or
    (4) For an acid rain unit subject to Title IV (Acid Deposition 
Control) of the Clean Air Act, the ``responsible official'' is the 
designated representative of that unit for any purposes under Title IV.
    Sacramento Valley air basin means that portion of Placer County 
which lies west of Range 9 east, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (M.D.B. 
& M.), as established pursuant to section 39606 of the Health & Safety 
Code of the State of California and as described in title 17, 
California Code of Regulations, Sec. 60106(k).
    Shutdown means the earlier of either the permanent cessation of 
emissions from a source or an emission unit or the surrender of that 
unit's or source's operating permit.
    Startup means the setting in operation of a stationary source or 
emission unit for any purpose.
    Stationary source (source or facility) means any building, 
structure, facility, or emissions unit which emits or may emit any 
regulated pollutant directly or as fugitive emissions.
    (1) The terms ``building,'' ``structure,'' ``facility,'' or 
``emissions unit'' include all pollutant-emitting activities which:
    (i) Belong to the same industrial grouping; and
    (ii) Are located on one property or on two or more contiguous 
properties; and
    (iii) Are under the same or common ownership, operation, or control 
or which are owned or operated by entities which are under common 
control.
    (2) Pollutant-emitting activities shall be considered as part of 
the same industrial grouping if:
    (i) They belong to the same two-digit standard industrial 
classification code under the system described in the 1987 Standard 
Industrial Classification Manual; or
    (ii) They are part of a common production process. (Common 
production process includes industrial processes, manufacturing 
processes and any connected processes involving a common material.)
    (3) The emissions within district boundaries of cargo carriers 
associated with the stationary source shall be considered emissions 
from the stationary source to the extent that emission reductions from 
cargo carriers are proposed as offsets.
    Surplus means emission reductions that are in excess of any 
emissions reduction which is:
    (1) Required or encumbered by any laws, rules, regulations, 
agreements, or orders; or
    (2) Attributed to a control measure noticed for workshop in the 
district, or proposed or contained in a State Implementation Plan or 
Federal Implementation Plan; or
    (3) Proposed or contained in a district air quality attainment plan 
for attaining reductions required by the Clean Air Act.
    Temporary source means emission sources such as pilot plants, and 
portable facilities that will be terminated or located outside the 
district after less than a cumulative total of 90 days of operation in 
any 12 continuous months, and the emissions resulting from the 
construction phase of a new source.
    Title V permits means permits issued, denied, renewed, amended, or 
reopened pursuant to the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
7401 et seq.), and 40 CFR part 70, ``State Operating Permit Programs.''
    Total reduced sulfur compounds means the sulfur compounds hydrogen 
sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide.
    (c) Standards.
    (1) Authority to construct. Any person building, erecting, altering 
or replacing any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, the 
use of which may cause, eliminate, reduce, or control the issuance ROC 
or NOX, shall obtain authorization for such construction from the 
EPA as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, prior to 
beginning actual construction. An Authority to Construct shall remain 
in effect until it expires or the application is cancelled. An 
Authority to Construct shall expire no later than two years following 
the date of permit issuance, unless the applicant has commenced 
construction prior to that date. If the applicant has commenced 
construction, the Authority to Construct shall remain in effect for the 
life of the emissions unit(s), unless the EPA has taken action to 
modify or revoke it.
    (i) An Authority to Construct shall be valid beyond two years if:
    (A) Commencement of construction has occurred; and
    (B) Construction is completed in a reasonable period of time, as 
determined by the EPA.
    (ii) If a written request to extend the Authority to Construct is 
received by the EPA prior to the expiration of the Authority to 
Construct, an extension may be granted for up to two years at the 
discretion of the EPA.
    (iii) The EPA shall be notified of the anticipated date of initial 
startup or operation of any permitted article, machine, equipment or 
other contrivance. Such notice shall be made no less than 30 days prior 
to the startup date.
    (iv) The EPA shall be notified of the actual date of initial 
startup within five days after such date.
    (2) Standards for granting applications.
    (i) The EPA shall deny an Authority to Construct except as provided 
in Sec. 52.3001, New Source Review, if the applicant does not show that 
every article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, the use of 
which may cause, eliminate, reduce, or control the issuance of air 
contaminants, is so designed, controlled, equipped, and operated with 
such air pollution control equipment that it may be shown to operate 
without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants in 
violation of these rules and regulations or of such state or federal 
statutes as may be enforceable by the EPA on the date the application 
is deemed complete.
    (ii) The EPA shall require enforceable emission limitations as 
permit conditions in Authorities to Construct to assure compliance with 
all analyses performed for the issuance of the permit, including the 
permanence of surplus actual emissions reductions applied for use as 
internal reductions or authorized emission reduction credits in 
accordance with Sec. 52.3001, New Source Review, and Sec. 52.3002, 
Emissions Reduction Credit Authorization.
    (iii) Approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator 
of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable requirements, 
including applicable provisions of the California State Implementation 
Plan or any applicable Federal Implementation Plan, district rules and 
regulations, or state or federal law.
    (3) Provision of sampling and testing facilities. In addition to 
the monitoring and testing required to comply with state or federal 
laws or regulations, the EPA may, upon reasonable written notice or 
before an Authority to Construct is granted, require the applicant or 
the owner or operator of any article, machine, equipment, or other 
contrivance, the use of which may cause the issuance of air 
contaminants, or the use of which may eliminate, reduce, or control the 
issuance of air contaminants to:
    (i) Provide and maintain such facilities as are necessary for 
sampling and testing purposes in order to secure information that will 
disclose the nature, extent, quantity or degree of air contaminants 
discharged into the atmosphere from the equipment in question. In the 
event of such a requirement, the EPA shall notify the applicant in 
writing of the required size, number and location of sampling holes; 
the size and location of the sampling platform; the access to the 
sampling platform; and the utilities for operating the sampling, 
testing, and air monitoring equipment. Such platform and access shall 
be constructed in accordance with the applicable General Industry 
Safety Orders of the State of California.
    (ii) Provide and maintain sampling and monitoring apparatus to 
measure emissions of air contaminants when the EPA has determined that 
such apparatus is available and should be installed.
    (A) Continuous emission monitoring systems at a minimum shall be 
installed when required, and to the performance specifications required 
by Sec. 52.3001.
    (B) A violation of emission standards of these rules, as shown by 
the stack-monitoring system, shall be reported by the owner or operator 
to the EPA within 96 hours, or such earlier time as may be required by 
any permit issued pursuant to this section.
    (C) In the event of a breakdown of monitoring equipment, the owner 
or operator shall notify the EPA within 48 hours and shall initiate 
repairs. The owner or operator shall inform the EPA of the intent to 
shutdown any monitoring equipment at least 24 hours prior to the event.
    (iii) If the EPA determines that technological or economic 
limitations on the application of measurement methodology to a 
particular class of sources would make the imposition of a numerical 
emission standard infeasible, the EPA may instead prescribe a design, 
operational, or equipment standard. In such cases, the EPA may require 
the installation or modification of process monitoring devices such 
that the design characteristics or equipment will be properly 
maintained, or that the operational conditions will be properly 
performed, so as to continuously achieve the assumed degree of control. 
To the extent applicable, reporting requirements for process monitors 
shall be the same as for continuous emission monitoring systems.
    (iv) A person operating or using a stack monitoring system shall, 
upon written notice from the EPA, provide a summary of the data 
obtained from such systems. This summary of the data shall be in the 
form and manner prescribed by the EPA. The summary of data shall be 
available for public inspection at the office of the Air Pollution 
Control District. Records from the monitoring equipment shall be kept 
by the owner or operator for a period of five years, during which time 
they shall be available to the EPA in such form as directed.
    (5) Transfer. An Authority to Construct shall not be transferable, 
whether by operation of law or otherwise, either from one location to 
another, from one piece of equipment to another, or from one person to 
another. In the event any person contemplates or desires to make any 
such transfer as herein above described, said person shall make an 
application for authorization in accordance with paragraph (e)(3) of 
this section.
    (6) Performance testing. Within 60 days after achieving the maximum 
production rate or the maximum rate of emissions to which the source is 
limited by enforceable conditions, but not later than 180 days after 
initial startup of such source, or as otherwise required by the EPA to 
determine continuous compliance with emission limitations or to confirm 
emission reductions claimed, the owner or operator of such source shall 
conduct performance test(s) in accordance with methods and under 
operating conditions as are approved by the EPA and furnish the EPA a 
written report of the results of such performance test(s).
    (i) Such test(s) shall be at the expense of the owner or operator.
    (ii) Testing shall be conducted with the source(s) of emissions 
operating at maximum capacity or other rate conforming to the maximum 
rate of emissions to which the source(s) are limited by enforceable 
condition(s).
    (iii) The EPA may monitor such tests and may also conduct 
performance tests.
    (iv) The owner or operator of a source shall provide the EPA 15 
days prior notice of the performance test to afford the EPA the 
opportunity to have an observer present.
    (v) The EPA may waive the requirement for performance tests if the 
owner or operator of a source has demonstrated by other means to the 
EPA's satisfaction that the source is being operated in compliance with 
all local, state and federal regulations which are part of the 
California State Implementation Plan or any applicable Federal 
Implementation Plan.
    (d) Exemptions.
    (1) General. The exemptions contained in this section shall not 
apply to an otherwise exempt piece of equipment which is part of a 
process that requires a permit. An Authority to Construct shall not be 
required for the equipment listed in paragraphs (d)(2) to (11) of this 
section unless an emissions unit is:
    (i) Subject to New Source Performance Standards; or
    (ii) Subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants; or
    (iii) An emissions unit or stationary source for which emission 
reduction credits have been requested or granted in accordance with 
Sec. 52.3002, Emissions Reduction Credit Authorization; or
    (iv) Any emissions unit that, in combination with other emissions 
units at the source, would cause the source to exceed the offset 
trigger as specified in Sec. 52.3001.
    (2) Vehicles.
    (i) Vehicles used to transport passengers or freight, but not 
including any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance mounted 
on such a vehicle that would otherwise require a permit under the 
provisions of this section and Secs. 52.3001 and 52.3002.
    (ii) Locomotives, airplanes and watercraft used to transport 
passengers or freight. This exemption shall not apply to equipment used 
for dredging of waterways or equipment used in pile driving adjacent to 
or in waterways, nor to the emissions from watercraft while docked at a 
stationary source.
    (3) Combustion and heat transfer equipment.
    (i) Internal combustion engines with a manufacturer's maximum 
continuous rating of 50 brake horsepower or less or gas turbine engines 
with a maximum heat input rate of 3,000,000 British Thermal Units (Btu) 
per hour or less at ISO standard day conditions (288 degrees Kelvin, 
60% relative humidity, and 101.3 kilopascals pressure). The ratings of 
all engines or turbines used in the same process will be accumulated to 
determine whether this exemption applies.
    (ii) Any combustion equipment that has a maximum heat input of less 
than 1,000,000 Btu per hour (gross) and is equipped to be fired 
exclusively with purchased quality natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas 
or any combination thereof. The ratings of all combustion equipment 
used in the same process will be accumulated to determine whether this 
exemption applies.
    (4) Residential structures. Equipment utilized exclusively in 
connection with any structure, when the structure is designed for and 
used exclusively as a dwelling for not more than four families.
    (5) Plastics and ceramics processing. Ovens, kilns, or furnaces 
fired by electricity used exclusively for the heating, curing, 
softening, or annealing of plastics or ceramics, and not emitting more 
than 5 pounds of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in any one 
day. These exemptions shall not apply to ovens used for heating or 
curing of fiberglass reinforced plastics.
    (6) Storage and transfer. Tanks, reservoirs, vessels or other 
containers and their associated dispensing, pumping and compression 
systems used exclusively for the storage of:
    (i) Liquefied or compressed gases.
    (ii) Unheated organic materials with an initial boiling point of 
150 deg.C (302 deg.F) or greater, as determined by the testing 
procedure specified in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, or with an 
organic vapor pressure of 5 mm Hg (0.1 psia) or less at 20 deg.C, as 
determined by the testing procedure specified in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) 
of this section.
    (iii) Organic liquids with a vapor pressure of 77.5 mm Hg (1.5 
psia) or less at 20 deg.C, as determined by the testing procedure 
specified in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section, having a capacity 
of 23,000 liters (6,076 gallons or less). Equipment used exclusively 
for the transfer of organic liquids with a vapor pressure of 77.5 mm Hg 
(1.5 psia) at 20 deg.C to or from storage.
    (iv) Unheated solvent dispensing containers of 380 liters (100 
gallons) capacity or less.
    (7) Surface coating and preparation.
    (i) Water solution for surface preparation, cleaning, stripping, 
etching (other than chemical milling) or the electrolytic plating with 
electrolytic polishing of, or the electrolytic stripping of brass, 
bronze, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, tin, zinc, and precious 
metals.
    (ii) Surface coating operations using a combined total of 1 gallon 
per day or less of coating material and solvent.
    (iii) Unheated non-conveyorized solvent-rinsing containers or 
unheated non-conveyorized coating dip tanks of 380 liters (100 gallons) 
capacity or less.
    (8) Food processing. The following processing equipment for food or 
other human consumables and exhaust systems or collectors serving 
exclusively such equipment used in:
    (i) Eating establishments for the purpose of preparing food for 
human consumption.
    (ii) Smokehouses in which the maximum horizontal inside cross-
sectional area does not exceed 2 square meters (21.5 square feet).
    (iii) Mixers and blenders used in bakeries.
    (iv) Confection cookers.
    (v) Grinding, blending or packaging tea, cocoa, spices, or roasted 
coffee.
    (9) Laboratory equipment. Laboratory equipment used exclusively for 
chemical or physical analysis and bench-scale tests, including 
associated vacuum-producing equipment.
    (10) Repairs and maintenance. Routine repairs or maintenance not 
involving changes to any equipment for which a permit has been granted 
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (11) Other equipment. Other equipment authorized for exemption by 
the EPA and which would emit less than 2 pounds in any 24-hour period 
of any pollutants without the benefit of air pollution control devices.
    (e) Administrative requirements.
    (1) Posting. A person who has been granted a permit to operate any 
article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance described in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall maintain a legible copy of said 
permit on the premises of the subject equipment. Other information, 
analysis, plans or specifications which disclose the nature, extent, 
quantity, or degree of air contaminants which are or may be discharged 
from such source shall be readily available for inspection by the EPA.
    (2) Altering of permit. A person shall not willfully deface, alter, 
forge, counterfeit, or falsify an Authority to Construct any article, 
machine, equipment, or other contrivance described in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section. A permit amendment or revision requested by the owner 
or operator, other than an administrative permit amendment or an 
amendment pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, shall require 
the filing of an application. For an administrative permit amendment, a 
responsible official may implement the change addressed in the written 
request immediately upon submittal of the request.
    (i) After designating the permit revisions as an administrative 
permit amendment, the EPA may revise the permit without providing 
notice to the public or any affected state.
    (ii) The EPA shall provide a copy of the revised permit to the 
responsible official.
    (iii) While the EPA need not make a completeness determination on a 
written request, the EPA shall notify the responsible official if it 
determines that the permit can not be revised as an administrative 
permit amendment.
    (3) Applications. An application for an Authority to Construct, 
Permit to Operate, change of ownership, or an application for a permit 
amendment, permit reopening, or revision shall be filed in the manner 
and form prescribed by the EPA, and shall give all the information 
necessary to enable the EPA to make the determinations required by 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section and Sec. 52.3001, New Source Review.
    (i) A responsible official representing the owner or operator shall 
certify the truth, accuracy and completeness of application forms.
    (ii) When the information submitted with the application is 
insufficient for the EPA to make the determination required by 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, Sec. 52.3001, and any other 
applicable rule, regulation, or order, a responsible official shall 
supplement any complete application with additional information upon 
the written request of the EPA within the time frame specified by the 
EPA.
    (iii) A responsible official shall promptly provide additional 
information in writing to the EPA upon discovery of submittal of any 
inaccurate information as part of the application or as a supplement 
thereto, or of any additional relevant facts previously omitted which 
are needed for accurate analysis of the application.
    (iv) Intentional or negligent submittal of inaccurate information 
shall be reason for denial of an application.
    (v) An application for an Authority to Construct, permit amendment 
or revision shall be accompanied by payment of the application filing 
fee as determined by the EPA.
    (vi) An application for an Authority to Construct shall be 
accompanied by evidence of a sufficient number of authorized emission 
reduction credits, to meet any offset obligation in accordance with 
Sec. 52.3001, New Source Review.
    (4) Action on applications. The EPA shall notify the applicant in 
writing of its approval, conditional approval, suspension, or denial of 
the application for an Authority to Construct.
    (i) In the event said notification or notification of application 
completeness pursuant to Sec. 52.3001, New Source Review, is not 
received by the applicant within 30 days of the filing of the 
application, or within 30 days of providing further information as 
required by paragraph (e)(3) of this section, the applicant may, at his 
or her option, deem the application to construct denied.
    (ii) Service of said notification may be made in person or by mail, 
and such service may be proved by the written acknowledgement of the 
person(s) served or affidavit of the person making the service.
    (5) Conditional approval. The EPA may issue an Authority to 
Construct subject to conditions which will bring the operation of any 
article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, the use of which may 
cause the issuance of air contaminants or the use of which may 
eliminate or reduce or control the issuance of air contaminants, within 
the standards of paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The conditions shall 
be specified in writing. Commencing work under such an Authority to 
Construct shall be deemed acceptance of all the conditions so 
specified. The EPA shall issue an Authority to Construct with revised 
conditions upon receipt of a new application, if the applicant 
demonstrates that the article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, 
the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants, can 
operate under the revised conditions within the standards of paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section.
    (6) Denial of application. In the event of a denial of an Authority 
to Construct, the EPA shall notify the applicant in writing of the 
reasons therefore. Service of this notification may be made in person 
or by mail, and such service may be proved by the written 
acknowledgement of the person(s) served or affidavit of the person 
making the service. The EPA shall not accept a further application 
unless the applicant has complied with the objections specified by the 
EPA as his or her reasons for denial of the Authority to Construct.
    (7) Disclosure. The EPA, at any time, may require from an 
applicant, or holder of any permit provided for in these rules and 
regulations, such information, analyses, plans, or specifications which 
will disclose the nature, extent, quality, or degree of air 
contaminants which are, or may be, discharged by the source for which 
the permit was issued or applied. A responsible official representing 
the owner or operator shall certify the truth, accuracy and 
completeness of disclosures. Studies necessary to provide such 
information shall be completed at the expense of the owner or operator 
of the source for which a permit was issued or applied.
    (8) Suspension. The EPA may suspend a permit if a holder of such 
permit willfully fails and refuses to furnish information, analyses, 
plans, and specifications, within a reasonable time, as requested by 
the EPA pursuant to any law, rule, regulation, agreement, or order 
enforceable by the EPA. The EPA shall serve notice, in writing, of such 
suspension and the reasons therefore. Service of said notification may 
be made in person or by mail, and such service may be proved by the 
written acknowledgement of the persons served or affidavit of the 
person making the service. The permit shall be reinstated when the EPA 
is furnished with all requested information, analyses, plans, and 
specifications.
    (9) Cancellation of application. An Authority to Construct 
application may be cancelled by the EPA:
    (i) At the request of the applicant; or
    (ii) If additional information has been requested of the applicant 
in accordance with paragraph (e)(3) of this section without the 
subsequent submittal of information within a reasonable time.
    (f) Monitoring and records.
    (1) Testing procedures.
    (i) General requirements. Except as otherwise specified in the 
district rules and regulations, the State Implementation Plan, any 
applicable Federal Implementation Plan, any Authority to Construct 
issued pursuant to this section, testing methods for determining 
compliance with emission limits shall be:
    (A) The appropriate methods of 40 CFR part 50, appendix M, 
Recommended Test Methods for State Implementation Plans; or
    (B) Any appropriate method of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Test 
Methods; or
    (C) An alternative method following review and approval of that 
method by the California Air Resources Board and EPA.
    (ii) Initial boiling point. ASTM D-1078-86, ``Test Method for 
Distillation Range of Volatile Organic Liquids.''
    (iii) Vapor pressure. ASTM D-2879-86, ``Vapor Pressure-Temperature 
Relation and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by 
Isoteniscope.''
    (2) Monitoring. As applicable, each emission source subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall comply with the 
following monitoring requirements:
    (i) The requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix P,
    Minimum Emission Monitoring Requirements.
    (ii) The applicable federal requirements for monitoring of Title V 
of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
     (3) Recordkeeping.
    (i) The following records shall be maintained and provided to the 
EPA upon request.
    (A) Emissions monitoring and process data records necessary for the 
determination and reporting of emissions, in accordance with applicable 
provisions of the applicable rules and regulations, shall be 
maintained. Records shall be kept for at least five years.
    (B) Other records of the nature and amounts of emissions or any 
other information as may be deemed necessary by the EPA to determine 
whether the stationary source or emissions unit is in compliance with 
applicable emission limitations, credited emission reductions, 
exemptions from rule provisions, or other requirements. The information 
must include emission measurements, continuous emission monitoring 
system performance testing measurements, performance evaluations, 
calibration checks and adjustments, maintenance performed on such 
monitoring systems, and other records and reports required by 40 CFR 
part 51, appendix P, Minimum Emission Monitoring Requirements.
    (C) Operation and maintenance plans shall be submitted to the 
district for all add-on capture and control equipment for review and 
approval by the EPA. Such plans shall demonstrate, though the use of 
specific recordkeeping requirements, continuous operation of the add-on 
control equipment when emission-producing operations are occurring. The 
plan shall also specify records to be kept to document the performance 
of required periodic maintenance. Records shall be consistent with 
compliance time frames and employ the most recent EPA recordkeeping 
guidance.
    (D) The EPA may require monitoring or recordkeeping and may 
authorize inspections pursuant to Section 114 of the Clean Air Act and 
the regulations thereunder.
    (E) All monitoring, reporting, inspection and compliance 
requirements authorized under the Clean Air Act shall apply.
    (ii) The EPA may require recordkeeping to verify or maintain any 
exemption.


Sec. 52.3001  New source review (Sacramento).

    (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for the 
review of new and modified stationary air pollution sources and to 
provide requirements, including emission offsets, for issuing Authority 
to Construct permits for such sources without interfering with the 
attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards.
    (b) Applicability and exemptions. This section shall apply to all 
new stationary sources and emissions units and all modifications to 
existing stationary sources and emissions units which, after 
construction, emit or have the potential to emit nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) or reactive organic compounds (ROC). This section shall not 
apply to prescribed burning of forest, agriculture or range land; road 
construction or any non-point source common to timber harvesting or 
agricultural practices; open burning in accordance with the following 
district regulations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      District                         Rule/Regulation  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feather River                                                           
Sutter County.......................................  Rule 2.0.         
Yuba County.........................................  Rule 2.0.         
Yolo/Solano.........................................  Rule 2.8.         
El Dorado...........................................  Regulation 3.     
Placer..............................................  Regulation 3.     
Sacramento..........................................  Regulation 5.     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exemptions allowed in this section shall not be used to exempt from 
permit requirements any stationary source or modification which would 
be subject to review under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
regulations or review pursuant to the operating permit requirements of 
Title V of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq.) The regulations in effect at the time any application for an 
Authority to Construct is deemed complete shall apply.
     (1) Exemptions for emergency electrical generating equipment. 
Except as otherwise required for sources subject to the requirements of 
Title V of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq.) the EPA shall exempt an application from the requirements of 
paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section if the emissions unit would 
provide emergency electrical power or emergency water pumping for flood 
control or emergency fire fighting and is not a major source or major 
modification, provided the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and 
(ii) of this section are met. This exemption shall not apply to 
emissions units supplying power to a serving utility for distribution 
on the electric transmission grid nor the operation of standby power 
sources due to a voluntary reduction in power by the serving utility.
    (i) Operation for maintenance purposes of internal combustion 
engines used solely as a source of emergency electrical power, not 
otherwise exempt, shall be limited to 100 hours per year, and such 
maintenance shall be scheduled in cooperation with the district so as 
to have no adverse air quality impact or shall be mitigated by emission 
offsets or on-site reductions so that there is no net increase in 
emissions; and
    (ii) Operation for other than maintenance purposes shall be limited 
to actual interruptions of electrical power by the serving utility. 
Operation shall not exceed 24 hours without prior authorization by the 
EPA.
    (2) Exemptions to notification requirements. Except as otherwise 
required for sources subject to the requirements of Title V of the 
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) the 
requirements of paragraphs (d)(3) through (6) of this section relating 
to notification, publication, and public inspection of preliminary 
decisions; and notification, publication, and public inspection of 
final action shall not apply if the application is for a new or 
modified stationary source whose emissions, calculated pursuant to 
paragraph (d)(12) or (13) of this section, are less than 2500 pounds 
per quarter of nitrogen oxides or reactive organic compounds.
    (3) Exemptions for relocated equipment. The requirements of 
paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section shall only apply once to 
relocation of emission units solely within the district and within the 
air basin of which the district is part, and the relocation does not 
result in an increase in emissions. This exemption requires the 
performance of an air quality analysis pursuant to paragraph (c)(5) of 
this section.
    (4) Exemptions for replacement equipment. The requirements of 
paragraphs (c) (2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to 
replacement equipment, as defined in paragraph (b) of Sec. 52.3000 
General Permit Requirements, providing the replacement does not result 
in any emissions increase.
    (5) Exemptions for temporary sources. The requirements of 
paragraphs (c) (2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to temporary 
stationary emission sources, emission units, and portable equipment 
which will be operated on a temporary basis. This exemption requires 
the performance of an air quality analysis pursuant to paragraph (c)(5) 
of this section.
    (c) Standards.
    (1) Best Available Control Technology. An applicant shall apply 
Best Available Control Technology to a new emissions unit or 
modification of an existing emissions unit, except cargo carriers, for 
each emissions change of NOX or ROC which would create an increase 
in emissions, according to procedures specified in paragraph (d)(10) of 
this section, and the potential to emit of the new or modified 
emissions unit would equal or exceed the levels specified in this 
paragraph. In addition, BACT shall be applied to each source that 
applies for a major modification as defined and calculated in 
Sec. 52.3000(b). A condition which reflects BACT in a manner consistent 
with testing procedures, such as ppmv NOX, g/liter VOC, or lbs/hr, 
shall be contained in the latest Authority to Construct and Permit to 
Operate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Pollutant                              lb/day 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reactive organic compounds...................................         10
Nitrogen oxides..............................................         10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) General offset requirements.
    (i) Applicants for major modifications to major sources of NOX 
or ROC shall provide offsets for the affected pollutant, obtained 
pursuant to Sec. 52.3002 Emissions Reduction Credit Authorization, in 
the amount calculated pursuant to paragraphs (d) (12) and (13) of this 
section.
    (ii) An applicant shall provide offsets for the affected pollutant, 
obtained pursuant to Sec. 52.3002 Emissions Reduction Credit 
Authorization, for new and modified sources where the cumulative 
emission changes of ROCs or NOX calculated pursuant to paragraph 
(d)(11) of this section exceed the level specified in paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii) of this section. Sufficient offsets shall be provided, from 
the same calendar quarter as the emissions, to offset positive 
emissions changes of ROCs or NOX calculated according to 
procedures specified in paragraph (d)(13) of this section. Facilities 
shall be required to curtail operations if sufficient offsets are not 
obtained as required by permit conditions. Offsets used to mitigate 
emission increases must be of the same pollutant. The facility is 
ultimately responsible for ensuring offsets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Pounds 
                          Pollutant                               per   
                                                                quarter 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROC..........................................................      7,500
NOX..........................................................      7,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) In no case shall halogenated hydrocarbons be used as offsets 
for ROCs, nor shall exempt compounds or other compounds excluded from 
the definition of ROCs be used as offsets for ROCs.
    (iv) Portable equipment shall be evaluated for offsets at the 
initial location only. In the event such portable equipment is 
shutdown, emission reduction credits shall be granted based on the 
emissions calculated at the initially permitted location. If operated a 
cumulative total of less than 90 days within a continuous 12-month 
period, at all locations within the same non- attainment designated 
area and in any air basin of which the district is a part, the portable 
equipment is considered a temporary source.
    (v) Offsets can only come from regions with air quality 
classifications that are the same as or worse than those in which the 
emissions unit or stationary source that requires the offsets is 
located.
    (3) Location of offsets and offset ratios.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) (ii), (iii), (iv) and 
(v) of this section, an applicant shall provide offsets for emissions 
from a proposed stationary source subject to the requirements of 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section according to the following ratios and 
requirements as a minimum:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Location of offset           Offset ratio ROC and NOX pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same source (see paragraph           1.3 to 1.0.                        
 (c)(3)(iv) of this section).                                           
Within 15-mile radius and within     1.3 to 1.0.                        
 the district.                                                          
Within 15-mile radius outside the    1.3 to 1.0.                        
 district, but within the same air                                      
 basin.                                                                 
Greater than 15 miles but within 50- 2.0 to 1.0.                        
 mile radius and within district.                                       
Greater than 15 miles but within 50- 2.1 to 1.0.                        
 mile radius and outside the                                            
 district, but within the same air                                      
 basin.                                                                 
More than 50-mile radius and within  Greater than 2.1 to 1.0.           
 the same air basin.                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Offsets obtained from locations not satisfying the location 
criteria of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section shall be subject to an 
offset ratio of at least 1.3 to 1.0. An air quality analysis pursuant 
to paragraph (c)(5) of this section shall be performed. The EPA may 
impose, based on the air quality analysis, a higher offset ratio such 
that the new or modified stationary source will not prevent or 
interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any ambient air quality 
standard.
    (iii) Offsets which are obtained pursuant to paragraphs (c)(2) and 
(c)(3) of this section and pursuant to permitting actions in a district 
other than that in which the proposed source is located may be used 
only if the EPA has reviewed the permit conditions issued by the other 
district in which the proposed offsets are obtained and certifies that 
the impacts of using such offsets meet the requirements of all 
applicable rules and regulations. Emission reduction credits used to 
offset project emissions in another district shall be implemented 
through an interdistrict agreement to ensure their enforceability and 
permanence.
    (iv) Applicants providing internal offsets for major modifications 
at major sources of NOX or ROCs must provide them at a 1.3 to 1 
offset ratio.
    (v) Offsets which are achieved from mobile emission reduction 
credits shall be subject to an offset ratio of 2.0 to 1.0.
    (4) Emission reductions, shutdowns, and curtailments. Actual 
emission reductions from a shutdown or curtailment of permitted 
emission units may be credited for the purposes of banking and offsets 
pursuant to Sec. 52.3002, Emissions Reduction Credit Authorization, 
provided:
    (i) Application is made for emission reduction credits; and
    (ii) The crediting and disbursement of emission reductions from 
source shutdowns and curtailments are in accordance with the most 
current EPA emissions trading policy and applicable federal 
regulations; and
    (iii) Emissions decreases are ensured and documented by enforceable 
emission limitations contained in the Authority to Construct; or
    (iv) Emissions decreases are ensured by the permanent surrender or 
cancellation of the Authority to Construct.
    (5) Ambient air quality standards. In no case shall emissions from 
the new or modified stationary source prevent or interfere with the 
attainment or maintenance of any applicable ambient air quality 
standard. The EPA may require the use of an air quality model to 
estimate the effects of a new or modified stationary source. The 
analysis shall estimate the effects of a new or modified stationary 
source, and verify that the new or modified stationary source will not 
prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any ambient 
air quality standard. In making this determination, the EPA shall take 
into account the mitigation of emissions through offsets pursuant to 
this section and the impacts of transported pollutants on downwind 
pollutant concentrations. The EPA may impose, based on an air quality 
analysis, offset ratios greater than the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section.
    (6) Denial, failure to meet standards. The EPA shall deny any 
Authority to Construct if the EPA finds that the subject of the 
application would not comply with the standards set forth in federal 
rules or regulations. Stationary sources and emission units are 
required to curtail operations corresponding to the extent that 
required offsets are not obtained, or are not permanently maintainable. 
The owner or operator of the stationary source or emissions unit 
requiring offsets has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that 
offsets are real, surplus, permanent, and quantifiable.
    (7) Alternative siting analysis. By means of an analysis of 
alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental 
control techniques for a new or modified stationary source, the owner 
or operator of the proposed stationary source or modification shall 
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the EPA that the benefits of the 
proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social 
costs incurred as a result of its location, construction, or 
modification. Whenever any proposed source or modification is subject 
to action by a state or federal agency that might necessitate the 
preparation of an environmental impact statement, which includes an 
alternative siting analysis, the EPA may accept the alternative sitings 
analysis prepared pursuant to that action to meet this requirement to 
the extent appropriate.
    (d) Administrative requirements. The following administrative 
requirements shall apply to any activities regulated by this section.
    (1) Complete application. The EPA shall determine whether the 
application is complete no later than 30 days after receipt of the 
application, or after such longer time period that the applicant and 
the EPA have agreed to in writing. If the EPA determines that the 
application is not complete, the applicant shall be notified in writing 
of the decision specifying the information required. Upon receipt of 
any re-submittal of the application, a new 30-day period to determine 
completeness shall begin. Completeness of an application or a re-
submitted application shall be evaluated on the basis of the 
information requirements set forth in 40 CFR 70.5(c), Federal Operating 
Permit Program and the information required by this section. The EPA 
may, at any time during the processing of the application, request an 
applicant to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the 
information submitted in the application.
    (2) Air quality models. All air quality models used for the 
purposes of this section shall be consistent with the requirements 
provided in the most recent edition of the EPA's ``Guidelines on Air 
Quality Models, OAQPS 1.2-080,'' unless the EPA finds that such model 
is inappropriate for use. After making such a finding, the EPA may 
designate an alternate model only after allowing for public comment. 
Credit shall not be given for stacks higher than dictated by good 
engineering practice. All modeling costs associated with the siting of 
a stationary source shall be borne by the applicant.
    (3) Preliminary decision. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section, following acceptance of an application as complete, the 
EPA shall perform the evaluations required to determine compliance with 
all applicable requirements of this section and make a preliminary 
written decision as to whether an Authority to Construct should be 
approved, conditionally approved, or denied. The decision shall be 
supported by a succinct written analysis.
    (4) Publication, public comment, and requests for public hearings. 
Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, within 10 
calendar days following a preliminary decision pursuant to paragraph 
(c) of this section, the EPA shall publish, in at least one newspaper 
of general circulation in the district, a notice stating the 
preliminary decision of the EPA noting how the pertinent information 
can be obtained, and inviting written public comment for a 30-day 
period following the date of publication. The notice shall also provide 
that any interested person may submit a written request for a public 
hearing, and that such request must include a statement of the issues 
proposed to be raised in the hearing. If a written request for a public 
hearing is received during the public comment period, the EPA shall use 
the procedures given at 40 CFR 124.12, Public Hearings, applicable to 
PSD permits, to grant or deny the request and to hold a public hearing.
    (5) Public inspection. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section, the EPA shall make available for public inspection, at 
the district's office and the Regional Office of the EPA, the 
information submitted by the applicant and the EPA's analysis no later 
than the date the notice of the preliminary decision is published 
pursuant to paragraph (d)(4) of this section. Information submitted 
that contains trade secrets shall be handled in accordance with the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 2.
    (6) Authority to Construct, final action. Except as provided in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the EPA shall provide written notice 
of the final action to the applicant, and shall make the notice and all 
supporting documents available for public inspection at the district's 
office and Regional Office of the EPA. Within 30 days after the final 
decision has been made on the authority to construct, the applicant or 
any person who filed comments of the preliminary determination, may 
petition the EPA to review any condition of the permit. Any person who 
failed to file comments on the preliminary decision, may petition for 
administrative review only on the changes from the preliminary to the 
final determination.
    (7) Requirements, authority to construct.
    (i) General conditions. As a condition for the issuance of an 
Authority to Construct, the EPA shall require that the emissions unit 
and stationary source, and any emissions units which provide offsets, 
be operated in the manner stated in the application in making the 
analysis required to determine compliance with this section, and as 
conditioned in the Authority to Construct.
    (ii) Emissions limitations. All of the following emissions 
limitations shall be included in the Authority to Construct, if 
applicable:
    (A) The Authority to Construct shall include emission limitations 
which reflect Best Available Control Technology. Such condition(s) 
shall be expressed in a manner consistent with testing procedures, such 
as ppmv NOX, g/liter VOC, or lbs/hr.
    (B) A quarterly emissions limitation for each affected pollutant 
for which offsets are being provided pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section shall be contained in the Authority to Construct.
    (C) A daily emission limitation shall be contained in the Authority 
to Construct when offsets are not being provided pursuant to paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section, or when required to be consistent with ambient 
air quality standards.
    (iii) Design, operational, or equipment standards. If the EPA 
determines that technological or economic limitations on the 
application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources 
would make the imposition of a numerical emission standard infeasible, 
the EPA may instead prescribe a design, operational, or equipment 
standard. In such cases, the EPA shall make a best estimate as to the 
emission rate that will be achieved. Any permits issued without an 
enforceable numerical emission standard must contain enforceable 
conditions that assure that the design characteristics or equipment 
will be properly maintained, or that the operational conditions will be 
properly performed, so as to continuously achieve the assumed degree of 
control.
    (iv) Offsets.
    (A) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
operation of any emissions unit or stationary source which provides 
offsets shall be subject to enforceable permit conditions, containing 
specific emissions and operational limitations, to ensure that the 
emission reductions shall be provided in accordance with the provisions 
of this section and shall continue for the reasonably expected life of 
the proposed emissions unit or stationary source.
    (B) Where the source of offsets is not required to obtain an 
Authority to Construct pursuant to Sec. 52.3000, General Permit 
Requirements, and Sec. 52.3002(c)(2), a legally binding contract shall 
be required between the applicant and the owner or operator of such 
source. Such contract, by its terms, shall be enforceable by the EPA. 
For such non-permitted sources, a source-specific SIP revision is 
required.
    (C) An internal emission offset will be considered federally 
enforceable if it is made a SIP requirement by inclusion as a condition 
of the authority to construct.
    (D) External offsets must be made enforceable either by revision of 
an offsetting source's Authority to Construct or by a SIP revision 
prior to the operation of the emissions unit.
    (E) A violation of the emission limitation provisions of any 
contract pursuant to the above stipulations shall be a violation of 
this section by the applicant.
    (F) The operation of any emissions unit or stationary source which 
uses offsets provided by another emissions unit or stationary source 
shall be subject to enforceable permit conditions, containing specific 
emissions and operational limits, to ensure that the emission 
reductions are used in accordance with the provisions of all applicable 
rules and shall continue for the reasonably expected life of the 
proposed emissions unit or stationary source.
    (G) The permanence of emissions reductions may be demonstrated by 
federally enforceable changes in source permits to reflect a reduced 
level of allowable emissions.
    (8) Issuance, replacement unit. Where a new or modified stationary 
source is, in whole or in part, a replacement for an existing 
stationary source on the same property, the EPA may allow a maximum of 
90 days as a startup period for simultaneous operation of the existing 
stationary source and the new source or replacement.
    (9) Regulations in force. An Authority to Construct shall be 
granted or denied based on Best Available Control Technology 
requirements and offset requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of 
this section in force on the date the application is deemed complete as 
defined in Sec. 52.3000(b). In addition, the EPA shall deny an 
Authority to Construct for any new stationary source or modification, 
or any portion thereof, unless:
    (i) The new source or modification, or applicable portion thereof, 
complies with the provisions of this section and all other applicable 
district rules and regulations; and
    (ii) The owner or operator of the proposed new or modified source 
has certified that all existing major stationary sources owned or 
operated by such person (or by any entity controlling, controlled by, 
or under common control with such person) in California which are 
subject to emission limitations are in compliance, or on an expeditious 
schedule for compliance, with all applicable emission limitations and 
standards.
    (10) Calculation of emissions--BACT. The emissions change for a new 
or modified emissions unit shall be calculated by subtracting historic 
actual emissions from proposed emissions. Calculations shall be 
performed separately for each emissions unit for each calendar quarter.
    (11) Calculation of emissions--offsets trigger for ROC and 
NOX. The potential to emit for each calendar quarter for a 
stationary source shall be the sum of the potential to emit, including 
fugitive emissions, for all emissions units based on current Authority 
to Construct permits, information contained in current Permits to 
Operate, the pending application, and banked authorized emission 
reduction credits.
    (12) Calculation of emissions--offsets general. The emissions 
change for a new or modified emissions unit shall be calculated by 
subtracting historic potential emissions from proposed emissions. 
Calculations shall be performed separately for each pollutant and each 
emissions unit for each calendar quarter. Negative emissions changes 
shall be processed under the procedures specified in Sec. 52.3002, 
Emissions Reduction Credit Authorization.
    (13) Calculation of emissions--offsets required for ROC and 
NOX. The cumulative net emissions increase pursuant to paragraph 
(d)(12) of this section for a stationary source shall be the sum of 
emissions from each of the following for each calendar quarter 
expressed in terms of pounds per quarter.
    (i) The potential to emit including associated fugitive emissions 
not previously offset, for all emissions units installed after 
September 21, 1993, based on current Authority to Construct permits, 
information contained in current Permits to Operate, and the pending 
application.
    (ii) All emission increases, including associated fugitive 
emissions not previously offset, from the modification to emissions 
units installed before September 21, 1993, as determined by procedures 
specified in paragraph (d)(12) of this section. Any emissions increase 
represented by an Authority to Construct, which has been canceled by 
the EPA or has expired, shall not be included in the cumulative 
emissions increase calculation.
    (e) Fees.
    (1) The EPA will collect permit fees calculated in accordance with 
the fee requirements imposed in the district, not to exceed the costs 
to EPA to issue permits and administer the permit program.
    (2) If this section is delegated, the delegated agency will collect 
fees calculated in accordance with the fee requirements imposed in the 
district. Upon delegation of any portion of this section, the EPA will 
cease to collect fees imposed in conjunction with that portion.
    (f) Monitoring and records. The following records shall be 
maintained for five years and shall be provided to the EPA upon 
request.
    (1) Emergency electrical generating equipment. Records of operation 
for maintenance purposes, for actual interruptions of power.
    (2) Portable and temporary equipment. Records of operating location 
and corresponding dates of operation.


Sec. 52.3002  Emissions reduction credit authorization (Sacramento).

    (a) Purpose. To provide an administrative mechanism for authorizing 
surplus emission reductions for transfer to other sources as offsets 
pursuant to Sec. 52.3001, New Source Review. Actual emission reductions 
certified in a district bank shall be reevaluated and authorized under 
the requirements and procedures specified in this section.
    (b) Applicability. This section shall apply to all emissions 
reduction credits which are to be used for offsets pursuant to 
Sec. 52.3001, New Source Review.
    (c) Standards.
    (1) Authorization. Only actual emission reductions shall become 
authorized ERCs. Such actual emission reductions shall meet the 
following requirements to be authorized as ERCs:
    (i) Be certified in accordance with a district banking rule except 
as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (ii) Receive written approval of the EPA, as described in paragraph 
(e)(4) of this section.
    (iii) If the emission reduction is created from an emission unit 
where the demand for the services or product could shift to other 
similar sources in the district, submittal of data to document that 
such reductions will result in district-wide emission reductions may be 
required by the EPA. Such documentation must be approved by the EPA.
    (iv) Emissions reductions shall be prescribed by enforceable 
emission limitations contained in Authority to Construct permits.
    (2) Non-permitted sources. If state or federal law prohibits the 
permitting authority from requiring an Authority to Construct or a 
Permit to Operate pursuant to Sec. 52.3000, General Permit 
Requirements, the applicant for authorized emission reduction credits 
shall execute a legally binding contract with one or more owner(s) or 
operator(s) of the non-permittable emissions unit that ensures the sum 
of all emission reductions will be provided in accordance with the 
requirements of this section, and will continue for the life of the 
stationary source using the credits or life of the credits as provided 
in the application. Such a contract shall be filed with the EPA and, by 
its terms, be enforceable by the EPA. In the absence of federally 
enforceable conditions, the execution of a source- specific SIP 
revision is required.
    (3) Certification of ERCs in the absence of a district banking 
rule. If the applicable district does not have a banking rule, the EPA 
will certify the ERC in accordance with EPA's most recent emission 
trading policy.
    (d) Exemptions. Concurrent stationary source modification: 
Concurrent reductions need not be authorized prior to use as offsets, 
if those reductions satisfy all criteria established by this section; 
Sec. 52.3000, General Permit Requirements; and Sec. 52.3001, New Source 
Review. For the purposes of this exemption, ``concurrent stationary 
source modification'' means the simultaneous modification of emission 
units and/or the addition of new emissions units to a stationary source 
with all emission reductions occurring after the issuance of the 
Authority to Construct authorizing such reductions, but before the 
start of operation of the new or modified emissions unit(s) with 
emission increases.
    (e) Administrative requirements.
    (1) Procedures for authorization of ERCs.
    (i) Any person or entity, or an authorized agent, applying to use 
an ERC in accordance with Sec. 52.3001, New Source Review, must submit 
a complete application for authorization of ERCs 60 days prior to 
submitting an Authority to Construct Application under Sec. 52.3001.
    (ii) The person or entity requesting ERC authorization shall submit 
an application on forms approved by the EPA.
    (iii) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the 
application must include an engineering evaluation and verification of 
district certification of the ERC and any other information necessary 
to calculate the emission reductions as described in paragraph (e)(2) 
of this section. Documents submitted and received according to a 
district banking rule may be sufficient for the application for 
authorization.
    (iv) Applicants may claim confidentiality for submitted information 
to the extent allowed and provided for by Federal Regulation at 40 CFR 
part 2.
    (v) To verify emission reductions claimed in conjunction with an 
application for ERC authorization, the EPA may require source tests by 
approved methods, continuous monitoring, production records, fuel use 
records, or any other appropriate means.
    (2) General calculation of emission reductions. The following 
procedures apply to the calculation of ERCs for all sources:
    (i) Actual emission reductions from modifications to, or shutdowns 
of, existing emissions units shall be calculated for each calendar 
quarter by subtracting the proposed emissions from historical actual 
emissions. Any positive value shall qualify for conversion to an 
emission reduction credit.
    (ii) Credits shall be quantified in terms of pounds of pollutants 
per quarter for each calendar quarter.
    (iii) In addition to the criteria explained in the definition of 
Actual Emission Reductions above, actual emission reductions shall be 
adjusted to at least reflect those emission rates achievable with 
reasonably available control technology (RACT), or best available 
retrofit control technology (BARCT), or any requirement of federal or 
state implementation plan rules, whichever results in the greatest 
adjustment.
    (iv) The EPA may adjust the credits to maintain any discounting by 
the district prior to district certification of the ERCs. Such 
discounting includes adjustments made by the district for deposit into 
a district priority reserve bank and reductions claimed by the district 
to meet any federal planning requirements.
    (v) The original ERC Certificate should be surrendered prior to 
authorization of an ERC.
    (3) Notification. Following the authorization of emission reduction 
credits, the EPA shall issue a Authorization Certificate to the 
owner(s) by certified mail or in person. The authorization certificate 
shall contain the following information:
    (i) Authorization Certificate number;
    (ii) Date of authorization which expires pursuant to paragraph 
(e)(6) of this section;
    (iii) Street address and Application Number of the site creating 
the surplus emissions reductions for which the ERC Certificate is 
issued;
    (iv) Signature of the responsible EPA official;
    (v) The name of the owner, typed on the certificate, and the 
owner's signature. If the owner is a public or private business entity, 
a person authorized to sign on behalf of the owner shall sign the 
certificate;
    (vi) The life of the credit specifying the date and duration (and 
time of year, for seasonal emissions reductions) of the expected 
reduction;
    (vii) Conditions of operation or use, including restrictions on the 
use of the reductions (e.g., on site only, replacement equipment only, 
seasonal equipment only, etc.), and current rules which affect the 
value of the ERCs; and
    (viii) The mechanism by which the credit was created (e.g., 
shutdown, installation of Flue Gas Recirculation system, 1D/3D cyclone, 
etc.).
    (4) Registration. When an Authority to Construct permit using 
authorized emission reduction credits has been issued, the following 
information shall be entered in the register:
    (i) All information required in paragraph (e)(3) of this section 
except the information in paragraph (e)(3)(v) of this section, which 
can not be entered into the register;
    (ii) Date that the Authorized ERC Certificate was surrendered to 
the EPA;
    (iii) Permit numbers to which ERCs are being applied;
    (iv) Name and address of ERC user;
    (v) Name (if any), address, and application number of site where 
ERCs are being used as offsets; and
    (vi) Number of ERCs being used for offsets.
    (5) Public inspection. The information entered in the register 
pursuant to paragraph (e)(4) of this section shall be available for 
public inspection at the EPA Region IX office after the date of use of 
authorized ERCs as offsets. In addition, all such information shall be 
transmitted to the district, the California Air Resources Board, and 
(for trades proposed within 100 km of a Class I area, or for trades 
more than 100 km from a Class I area that might reasonably be 
anticipated to impact such area) the appropriate Federal Land Manager.
    (6) Expiration of authorization. If an Authority to Construct 
permit is not granted within one year of the authorization of an ERC, 
the ERC will lose its authorized status and must reapply for 
authorization when a source again applies to use the ERC.
    (7) Moratorium. If the EPA determines that additional emission 
reductions are necessary, a moratorium on authorizations of ERCs may be 
imposed. Prior to imposing a moratorium, the EPA shall provide notice 
to holders of ERCs and other interested parties and a 30-day 
opportunity for public comment on the proposed issuance of a 
moratorium. The moratorium shall be lifted upon determination by the 
EPA that additional emission reductions are not necessary.

Appendix A to Subpart GGG of Part 52--Counties, Partial Counties, and 
ZIP Codes for Partial Counties Included in the I/M Program

    (I) Counties in which the entire county is in the program: Los 
Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, Solano, Sutter, Ventura, Yolo.
    (II) Counties in which a portion of the county is in the program:
    El Dorado, Placer, Riverside, San Bernardino.
    (III) ZIP Codes for partial counties in the program:
El Dorado County 

95613-95614............               95651                   95684     
95619..................               95656                   95709     
95623..................               95664             95720-95721     
95630..................               95667             95725-95727     
95633-95636............               95672                   95735     
95643..................               95682                             
                                                                        

Placer County 

95603-95604............               95663             95713-95715     
95631..................         95677-95678                   95717     
95648..................               95681                   95722     
95650..................               96701                   95736     
95658..................         95703-95704                   95746     
95661..................                                                 
                                                                        

Riverside County 

91718-91720............               92282                   92562     
91752..................               92320                   92563     
91760..................               92340                   92564     
92201..................         92501-92523                   92567     
92202..................               92530                   92570     
92210..................               92532                   92571     
92220..................               92536                   92572     
92223..................               92539                   92581     
92230..................               92543                   92582     
92234..................               92544                   92583     
92236..................               92545                   92585     
92240..................               92546                   92588     
92253-92254............               92548                   92590     
92257-92258............               92549                   92591     
92260-92264............               92553                   92592     
92270..................               92555                   92595     
92274..................               92557                   92596     
92276..................              92561                              
                                                                        

San Bernardino County

91701..................         92304-92305             92368-92369     
91708-91710............         92307-92312             92371-92378     
91729-91730............         92314-92319                   92382     
91739..................         92321-92322             92385-92386     
91743..................         92324-92327             92391-92392     
91759..................               92329                   92394     
91761-91764............         92333-92336             92397-92399     
91785-91786............         92338-92339             92401-92418     
92252..................         92341-92342                   92423     
92256..................         92345-92347                   92427     
92268..................               92352                   93516     
92277-92278............               92354                   93558     
92284-92286............         92356-92359                   93562     
92301..................               92365                             
                                                                        

Appendix B to Subpart GGG of Part 52--Start-up and Final IM240 
Cutpoints for Light- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles for the California FIP

    Start-up Standards. The following standards shall be used during 
calendar years 1997 and 1998: 

                                              Light Duty Vehicles                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model Years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite        Phase 2    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All LEVs.....................         0.80         0.50         15.0         12.0          2.0  (Reserved).     
1994+ Tier 1.................         0.80         0.50         15.0         12.0          2.0  Do.             
1991-95 Tier 0...............         1.20         0.75         20.0         16.0          2.5  Do.             
1983-90......................         2.00         1.25         30.0         24.0          3.0  Do.             
1981-82......................         2.00         1.25         60.0         48.0          3.0  Do.             
1980.........................         2.00         1.25         60.0         48.0          6.0  Do.             
1977-79......................         7.50         5.00         90.0         72.0          6.0  Do.             
1975-76......................         7.50         5.00         90.0         72.0          9.0  Do.             
1973-74......................        10.00         6.00        150.0        120.0          9.0  Do.             
1968-72......................        10.00         6.00        150.0        120.0         10.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Light Duty Trucks 1 (less than 6000 pounds GVWR)                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite        Phase 2    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994+ Tier 1 and all LEVs:                                                                                      
    (3750 LVW)....         0.80         0.50         15.0         12.0          2.0  (Reserved).     
    (>3750 LVW)..............         1.00         0.63         20.0         16.0          2.5  Do.             
1991-95 Tier 0...............         2.40         1.50         60.0         48.0          3.0  Do.             
1988-90......................         3.20         2.00         80.0         64.0          3.5  Do.             
1984-87......................         3.20         2.00         80.0         64.0          7.0  Do.             
1979-83......................         7.50         5.00        100.0         80.0          7.0  Do.             
1975-78......................         8.00         5.00        120.0         96.0          9.0  Do.             
1973-74......................        10.00         6.00        150.0        120.0          9.0  Do.             
1968-72......................        10.00         6.00        150.0        120.0         10.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Light Duty Trucks 2 (greater than 6000 pounds GVWR)                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite        Phase 2    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994+ Tier a and all LEVs:                                                                                      
    (5750 LVW)....         1.00         0.63         20.0         16.0          2.5  (Reserved).     
    (>5750 LVW)..............         2.40         1.50         60.0         48.0          4.0  Do.             
1991-95 Tier 0...............         2.40         1.50         60.0         48.0          4.5  Do.             
1988-90......................         3.20         2.00         80.0         64.0          5.0  Do.             
1984-87......................         3.20         2.00         80.0         64.0          7.0  Do.             
1979-83......................         7.50         5.00        100.0         80.0          7.0  Do.             
1975-78......................         8.00         5.00        120.0         96.0          9.0  Do.             
1973-74......................        10.00         6.00        150.0        120.0          9.0  Do.             
1968-72......................        10.00         6.00        150.0        120.0         10.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                           Heavy-Duty Truck Standards                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite        Phase 2    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998+........................         2.00         1.30         30.0         24.0          4.0  (Reserved).     
1991-1997....................         3.00         1.90         60.0         48.0          6.0  Do.             
1987-1990....................         3.00         1.90         60.0         48.0          8.0  Do.             
1985-1986....................         5.00         3.10         75.0         60.0          8.0  Do.             
1979-1984....................         6.00         3.80        100.0         80.0          8.0  Do.             
1974-1978....................        10.00         6.30        150.0        120.0         10.0  Do.             
1970-1973....................        10.00         6.30        175.0        140.0         10.0  Do.             
pre-1970.....................        20.00        12.50        200.0        160.0         15.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second-Cycle Standards. The following exhaust emissions standards, 
in grams per mile, shall be used for vehicles tested in calendar years 
1999 and 2000:

                                              Light Duty Vehicles                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite        Phase 2    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All LEVs.....................         0.60         0.40         10.0          8.0          1.5  (Reserved).     
1994+ Tier 1.................         0.60         0.40         10.0          8.0          1.5  Do.             
1983-95 Tier 0...............         0.80         0.50         15.0         12.0          2.0  Do.             
1981-82......................         0.80         0.50         30.0         24.0          2.0  Do.             
1980.........................         0.80         0.50         30.0         24.0          4.0  Do.             
1977-79......................         3.00         2.00         65.0         52.0          4.0  Do.             
1975-76......................         3.00         2.00         65.0         52.0          6.0  Do.             
1973-74......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          6.0  Do.             
1968-72......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          7.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Light Duty Trucks 1 (Less Than 6000 Pounds GVWR)                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite        Phase 2    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994+ Tier 1 and all LEVs:                                                                                      
    (3750 LVW)....         0.60         0.40         10.0          8.0          1.5  (Reserved).     
    (>3750 LVW)..............         0.80         0.50         13.0         10.0          1.8  Do.             
1988-95 Tier 0...............         1.60         1.00         40.0         32.0          2.5  Do.             
1984-87......................         1.60         1.00         40.0         32.0          4.5  Do.             
1979-83......................         3.40         2.00         70.0         56.0          4.5  Do.             
1975-78......................         4.00         2.50         80.0         64.0          6.0  Do.             
1973-74......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          6.0  Do.             
1968-72......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          7.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Light Duty Trucks 2 (Greater Than 6000 Pounds GVWR)                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite       Phase 2     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994+ Tier 1 and all LEVs:                                                                                      
    (5750 LVW)....         0.80         0.50         13.0         10.0          1.8  (Reserved).     
    (>5750 LVW)..............         0.80         0.50         15.0         12.0          2.0  Do.             
1988-95 Tier 0...............         1.60         1.00         40.0         32.0          3.5  Do.             
1984-87......................         1.60         1.00         40.0         32.0          4.5  Do.             
1979-83......................         3.40         2.00         70.0         56.0          4.5  Do.             
1975-78......................         4.00         2.50         80.0         64.0          6.0  Do.             
1973-74......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          6.0  Do.             
1968-72......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          7.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Heavy-Duty Trucks                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite       Phase 2     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998+........................         2.00         1.30         30.0         24.0          4.0  (Reserved).     
1991-97......................         2.00         1.30         40.0         32.0          5.0  Do.             
1987-90......................         2.00         1.30         40.0         32.0          6.0  Do.             
1985-86......................         3.00         1.90         50.0         40.0          6.0  Do.             
1979-84......................         5.00         3.10         75.0         60.0          6.0  Do.             
1974-78......................        10.00         6.30        150.0        120.0         10.0  Do.             
1970-73......................        10.00         6.30        175.0        140.0         10.0  Do.             
pre-1970.....................        20.00        12.50        200.0        160.0         15.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final Standards. The following exhaust emissions standards, in 
grams per mile, shall be used for vehicles tested in calendar years 
2001 and later:

                                              Light Duty Vehicles                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite       Phase 2     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All LEVs.....................         0.60         0.40         10.0          8.0          1.5  (Reserved).     
1994+ Tier 1.................         0.60         0.40         10.0          8.0          1.5  Do.             
1983-95 Tier 0...............         0.60         0.40         10.0          8.0          1.5  Do.             
1981-82......................         0.60         0.40         10.0          8.0          1.5  Do.             
1980.........................         0.80         0.50         30.0         24.0          4.0  Do.             
1977-79......................         3.00         2.00         65.0         52.0          4.0  Do.             
1975-76......................         3.00         2.00         65.0         52.0          6.0  Do.             
1973-74......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          6.0  Do.             
1968-72......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          7.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Light Duty Trucks 1 (Less Than 6000 Pounds GVWR)a                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite        Phase 2    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994+ Tier 1 and all LEVs:                                                                                      
    (3750 LVW)....         0.60         0.40         10.0          8.0          1.5  (Reserved).     
    (>3750 LVW)..............         0.80         0.50         13.0         10.0          1.8  Do.             
1988-95 Tier 0...............         1.60         1.00         40.0         32.0          2.5  Do.             
1984-87......................         1.60         1.00         40.0         32.0          4.5  Do.             
1979-83......................         3.40         2.00         70.0         56.0          4.5  Do.             
1975-78......................         4.00         2.50         80.0         64.0          6.0  Do.             
1973-74......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          6.0  Do.             
1968-72......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          7.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThe final cutpoints for LDT1, LDT2, and Heavy-duty trucks have not been modified from the second-cycle for     
  those vehicles.                                                                                               


                              Light Duty Trucks 2 (Greater Than 6000 Pounds GVWR)                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite       Phase 2     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994+ Tier 1 and all LEVs:                                                                                      
    (<5750 LVW)..............         0.80         0.50         13.0         10.0          1.8  (Reserved).     
    (5750 LVW)....         0.80         0.50         15.0         12.0          2.0  Do.             
1988-95 Tier 0...............         1.60         1.00         40.0         32.0          3.5  Do.             
1984-87......................         1.60         1.00         40.0         32.0          4.5  Do.             
1979-83......................         3.40         2.00         70.0         56.0          4.5  Do.             
1975-78......................         4.00         2.50         80.0         64.0          6.0  Do.             
1973-74......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          6.0  Do.             
1968-72......................         7.00         4.50        120.0         96.0          7.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Heavy-Duty Trucks                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          HC                        CO                          NOX             
         Model years          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Composite     Phase 2     Composite     Phase 2     Composite       Phase 2     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998+........................         2.00         1.30         30.0         24.0          4.0  (Reserved).     
1991-97......................         2.00         1.30         40.0         32.0          5.0  Do.             
1987-90......................         2.00         1.30         40.0         32.0          6.0  Do.             
1985-86......................         3.00         1.90         50.0         40.0          6.0  Do.             
1979-84......................         5.00         3.10         75.0         60.0          6.0  Do.             
1974-78......................        10.00         6.30        150.0        120.0         10.0  Do.             
1970-73......................        10.00         6.30        175.0        140.0         10.0  Do.             
pre-1970.....................        20.00        12.50        200.0        160.0         15.0  Do.             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    27. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    28. Section 81.305 is proposed to be amended in the table for 
California--Ozone by revising the entry for ``Sacramento Metro Area'' 
to read as follows:


Sec. 81.305  California--

* * * * * 

                                               California--Ozone                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Designation                                 Classification             
   Designated area    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Date\1\                    Type                   Date\1\                Type   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
                                                  * * * * * * *                                                 
Sacramento Metro Area  [Insert date 30 days from   Non-attainment......  [Insert date 30 days from   Severe.    
                        date of publication of                            date of publication of                
                        final rule].                                      final rule].                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.                                                      

[FR Doc. 94-9963 Filed 5-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P