[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1150-1187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-144]
[[Page 1149]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California--Ozone;
Final Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 1150]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA114-0023; FRL-5665-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California--
Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTIONS: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone for 6 nonattainment areas: South
Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura, Sacramento, San Diego, and San
Joaquin Valley. In addition, EPA is approving specific local and
statewide air pollution control measures, including the California
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted these SIP revisions to
EPA on November 14, 1994, November 15, 1994, December 28, 1994,
December 29, 1994, February 7, 1995, March 30, 1995, January 22, 1996,
April 4, 1996, May 17, 1996, June 13, 1996, July 10, 1996, and July 12,
1996.
EPA is approving these revisions to the California SIP under
provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA action on SIP
submittals for nonattainment areas.
EPA is also establishing a consultative process on the potential
for additional mobile source controls that can contribute to attainment
in the South Coast, and the Agency is committing to undertake
rulemaking on those controls deemed to be appropriate for EPA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This approval is effective on February 7, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in
Docket No. A-96-13, which is available for viewing during normal
business hours at the following location: Air Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at
the addresses listed below:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC
California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, California
In addition, copies of the relevant local plan, the State plan
(1994 California Ozone SIP), public comments, and EPA's technical
support documents for this rulemaking are available at the following
locations:
San Diego Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San
Diego, California
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999
Tuolumne Street, Fresno, California
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive,
Ventura, California
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite
200, Victorville, California
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California
Electronic Availability
This document and related materials are available at Region 9's
site on the World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/region09 (please look
under Air Programs). The Federal Register is also available on the
Internet by pointing a web browser at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
su__docs/ or by telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Barrow, Chief, Office of
Planning, Air Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; (415) 744-1230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A Summary
B. General SIP Issues
1. ``Federal Assignments''
a. Importance of Federal Contribution and Difficulty of Further
Local Controls
b. Public Consultative Process
c. Legal and Policy Issues
d. Comments Specific to Source Categories
(1) Military Exemption
(2) Locomotives
(3) Ships and Shipping Channel
e. EPA Action
2. EPA Approval of Attainment Demonstrations that Rely, in Part,
on Commitments
3. Additional CAA Issues
a. Attainment as Expeditiously as Practicable
b. Contingency Measures
c. Adequacy of SIP's Technical Foundations
(1) Modeling and Treatment of Transport
(2) Impact of Changes to the ZEV Program
(3) Control Measures
d. Consistency of Local Nonroad Measures with CAA Preemption
4. Future SIP Updates and Improvements
5. Overall Approvability of Plans
6. Importance of SIP Implementation
C. SIP Submittals
1. SIP Submittals and Previous EPA Approvals
2. SIP Submittals after EPA's Proposal
3. EPA Completeness Findings
4. Rationale for EPA Approval of Minor SIP Changes without
Further Opportunity for Public Comment
II. Review of the State Submittal and Response to Comments on
Specific SIP Issues
A. State Measures
1. General Comments
2. Mobile Source Measures
a. Review of Measures
(1) M1
(2) M2
(3) M3
(4) M4
(5) M5
(6) M7
(7) M8
(8) M9
(9) M11
(10) Additional New Control Technologies
b. EPA Action
3. I/M
a. Review of Program
b. Response to Comments
c. Emission Reductions
d. EPA Action
4. Consumer Products
a. Introduction
b. Review of Measures
(1) Measure CP-1
(2) Measure CP-3 (Aerosol Paints)
(3) Mid-Term Committal Measure (CP-2)
(4) Long-Term Committal Measure (CP-4)
(5) Alternative Control Plans (ACPs)
c. Emission Reductions
d. EPA Action
5. Pesticides
a. Review of Measures
b. Response to Comments
c. Emission Reductions
d. EPA Action
B. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and Measures
1. Emission Inventories
a. Response to Comments
b. EPA Action
2. San Diego
a. Control Measures
b. ROP Provisions
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
d. Overall EPA Action
3. San Joaquin Valley
a. Control Measures
b. ROP Provisions
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
d. Overall EPA Action
4. Sacramento
a. Control Measures
b. ROP Provisions
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
d. Overall EPA Action
5. Ventura
a. 1995 AQMP Update
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. Control Measures
d. ROP Provisions
e. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
f. Overall EPA Action
6. South Coast
a. Control Measures
(1) Updated Rule Adoption Schedule
(2) TCM Substitution
(3) Near-Term Control Measures
(4) New-Technology Measures
(5) EPA Action
b. ROP Provisions
[[Page 1151]]
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
d. Overall EPA Action
7. Southeast Desert
a. Control Measures
b. ROP Provisions
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
d. Overall EPA Action
III. Summary of EPA Actions
IV. Regulatory Process
A. Executive Order 12886
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Appendix A: Current Status of EPA's Activities Relating to the
``Federal Assignments'' in the California SIP Submittal
Appendix B: Schedule for Public Consultative Process
I. Background
A. Summary
EPA is finalizing approval of the 1994 California Ozone SIP.1
This action was proposed on March 18, 1996 (61 FR 10920-10962). The
reader is referred to that notice for additional detail on the affected
areas and the SIP submittals, as well as a summary of relevant Clean
Air Act requirements and EPA interpretations of those requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA will take action on the Santa Barbara SIP separately.
After EPA's proposed approval was issued, ozone violations were
recorded, which prevent the Santa Barbara area from meeting its
attainment goals this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, EPA is approving in this document:
The emission inventories in San Diego, San Joaquin,
Sacramento, Ventura, the Southeast Desert, and the South Coast; 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The respective Federal ozone nonattainment areas are: San
Diego Area, San Joaquin Valley Area, Sacramento Metro Area, Ventura
County Area, Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area, and Los Angeles-
South Coast Air Basin Area. The boundaries of these areas are set
forth at 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 15% rate-of-progress plans for San Diego, San Joaquin,
Ventura, and the South Coast;
The post-1996 rate-of-progress plans for San Diego, San
Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, and the South Coast;
The modeling and attainment demonstrations in San Diego,
San Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, the Southeast Desert, and the South
Coast;
All of the individual local control measures and the State
control measures not previously approved; and
The State's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program and regulations.
This approval indicates EPA's belief that this SIP, if faithfully
implemented, will achieve clean air for California. The health of all
Californians now depends on the dedication of the State to see that the
plans are carried out. While the State may submit revisions to change
individual strategies, EPA intends to hold it accountable for timely
delivery of the commitments in the plans approved today.
An important aspect of EPA's approval involves the establishment of
a public consultative process intended to identify the future mobile
source strategies to provide the remaining emission reductions needed
for attainment in the South Coast, which remains the Nation's only
extreme ozone nonattainment area.
In submitting its 1994 SIP, the State maintained that achievement
of clean air goals in the South Coast required further emission
reductions from national and international mobile sources, as a
supplement to the State's own aggressive mobile source control program
and the massive contribution made by locally adopted regulations and
control measures. The State argued that California lacked the legal
authority or practical ability to control these sources, and that the
Federal efforts were essential for progress and attainment in the South
Coast because there are no feasible alternatives, in light of the
stringent State and local controls on all other sources.
The State identified in the proposed SIP specific mobile sources
requiring future Federal controls: onroad and nonroad vehicles and
engines, pleasure craft, marine vessels, aircraft, and locomotives. For
each source, the State specified a desired level of emission reductions
and the years for Federal adoption and implementation.
Under the Constitution and the Clean Air Act, EPA does not believe
that a state has authority to assign emission reduction
responsibilities to the Federal government. Nevertheless, EPA believes
that the Federal government should help speed clean air, not only in
California but on a national basis.
Since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA has already issued
30 national regulations to help reduce emissions from mobile sources.
Examples of important recent national controls include: (1) The heavy
duty truck and bus rules for NOX and PM issued in May 1993; (2)
the NOX standards for nonroad diesel engines 37kW and above
promulgated in 1994; (3) the small nonroad gasoline engine standards
(primarily for lawn and garden equipment) finalized in July 1995; and
(4) the pleasurecraft engine standards issued in August 1996.
EPA will issue further national controls for remaining mobile
source categories. In doing so, the Agency must set controls based on
national considerations and criteria established by Congress in the
applicable sections of Title II of the Act.
Since the 1994 California Ozone SIP was submitted, EPA has been
working cooperatively with California and other stakeholders to develop
more stringent controls for both onroad and nonroad vehicles and
engines. These constructive, consensus-building activities have
received widespread national support from the affected industries,
states, and the environmental community, and have already resulted in
agreement on stringent new national controls for highway trucks and
buses, proposed on June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33421-33469), and for nonroad
compression-ignition engines (agreement signed by EPA, California, and
industry, on September 13, 1996). The proposed controls achieve
California's reduction targets for these source categories while at the
same time avoiding the inefficiencies and dislocation that would result
from different and possibly conflicting Federal and California
standards.
As a result of such successes, EPA is optimistic that the year-long
consultative process will succeed and provide emission reductions that
complement the California State and local controls contained in the
South Coast SIP. The current status of EPA's activities in developing
further mobile source controls is presented in Appendix A of this
document.
In order to allow time to evaluate what additional mobile source
reductions can contribute to ozone attainment in the South Coast, EPA
intends to continue and broaden the consultation with the State and
other affected parties through June 1997. As stated in the proposal,
the Agency believes that this period provides the opportunity to agree
on future mobile source reductions that will meet our environmental
goals expeditiously and without adverse consequences to the State and
the South Coast, whether the controls come from national and
international standards or from new State and local measures.
On July 19, 1996, EPA held the first of several meetings in Los
Angeles to describe the public consultative process and stimulate a
useful exchange of ideas on innovative and ambitious approaches to
achieve our pollution reduction targets. Appendix B to this document
gives more details on the public consultative process and proposed
future meetings.
At the conclusion of the consultative process, EPA believes that
the State will have the information it needs to amend
[[Page 1152]]
the South Coast attainment demonstration appropriately, based on the
final mix of international, national, State, and local mobile source
controls. The State has agreed, and has committed to submit a revised
attainment demonstration by December 1997, and to adopt and submit any
needed State measures by December 1999. As proposed, EPA is making a
comparable enforceable commitment to undertake rulemakings, after the
consultative process, on any controls which are determined to be
appropriate for EPA.
EPA believes that, by working together with the State, local
government, affected industry, environmental groups, and the general
public, we can identify approaches to fulfill our public health
obligations in ways that support progress in other areas of public
concern.
The data collected and analyses performed as part of EPA's
forthcoming report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of the Clean
Air Act demonstrate that air pollution control activities, while
costly, have returned far greater economic benefits.3 Similarly,
California-specific studies have recently underscored the State's
historic success in reconciling economic growth with air quality
progress.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to
1990, USEPA report prepared for US Congress under section 812 of the
Clean Air Act, Draft report issued May 3, 1996. USEPA expects to
issue the final report in the near future, along with a similar
prospective analysis on benefits and costs of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments.
\4\ See Alan Gordon, Myths of Jobs vs. Resources: Environmental
Protections and Economic Growth, March 1996 (report prepared for the
California Senate Office of Research), and Anil Puri, Significance
of California Air Pollution Control Regulations for Business
Location Decisions, May 1995 (report prepared for the California Air
Resources Board Research Division).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If successfully implemented, the 1994 California Ozone SIP will
succeed even more completely than previous clean air plans in
harmonizing public health progress with the social and economic goals
of the State's citizens. Federal approval of the 1994 SIP will help to
provide the regulatory certainty needed to sustain and accelerate
California's progress in achieving State and Federal clean air
objectives. EPA will continue to work together with California to
achieve the clean air that our citizen's deserve.
B. Response to Public Comments on General SIP Issues
1. Federal Assignments.
a. Importance of Federal Contribution and Difficulty of Further
Local Controls. As discussed in the proposal, the 1994 California Ozone
SIP includes 7 specific mobile source control measures assigned to the
Federal government. These measures, which were in addition to those
already promulgated by EPA, comprised a more stringent heavy-duty
diesel vehicle standard, an off-road diesel equipment standard, a
standard for gasoline- and LPG-fueled industrial equipment, national
and international standards for marine vessels, national standards for
locomotives with a South Coast clean locomotive fleet program, national
standards for aircraft, and standards for pleasurecraft.
EPA received many comments underscoring the critical need for
reductions from additional national regulations if California areas,
particularly the South Coast, are to achieve healthy air quality. Most
of these comments added a corollary: Further State and local controls
could not reasonably be expected, given the comprehensiveness and
stringency of existing regulations and committal measures in the SIP.
As stated in the proposal, EPA recognizes that national and
international mobile sources are increasingly significant components of
the ozone problem, especially in the South Coast, and EPA is committing
at this time to undertake the rulemaking on those controls that are
determined to be appropriate. The increased Federal contribution that
will come from ongoing national mobile source control measures, plus
the State and local control measures in the SIP, add up to almost all
of the needed emission reductions. EPA is confident that a small
shortfall, if it still exists at the end of the public consultative
process, will be addressed by cooperative Federal, State, and local
strategies, without adverse impacts.
b. Public Consultative Process. The California Environmental
Protection Agency (CEPA) commented that the proposed consultative
process is much like the participatory approach California has used for
many years to develop new environmental programs. CEPA stated that
CARB's staff are prepared to begin work right away with EPA and other
stakeholders to develop appropriate controls.
The American Association of Railroads (AAR) commented in support of
EPA's proposed consultative process as an innovative and useful method
to help assure that the SIP's goals are met.
Over twenty years of efforts to clean the air in Southern
California have taught that cooperation and innovation by all parties
are essential if attainment is to be achieved while retaining a healthy
economy. The proposed consultative process builds on that experience,
and in that manner provides a reasonable basis for EPA approval of the
South Coast attainment demonstration.
The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) supported the
continuation and expansion of the collaborative process. WRCOG asked
that a formal participation program should be developed as part of the
consultative process, to provide a framework in which local governments
and business communities could participate, since local agencies are
required to implement whatever control measures are adopted from this
process and success depends upon local government ``buy-in.'' The City
of Los Angeles also requested that EPA establish a list of key
stakeholders and begin seeking input through a formal process.
EPA agrees that local government participation in the design and
review of control measures is critically important to ensure that the
measures are efficient, acceptable to the affected communities, and
successfully implemented. The Agency hopes that the process can be an
open and informal exchange of ideas from the community at large. EPA
believes that this is the most efficient structure and approach, in the
limited amount of time, to share and receive important information that
will help all participants to understand the issues involved and the
opportunities to achieve the remaining emissions reductions needed from
mobile sources.
c. Legal and Policy Issues. The Environmental Defense Center
opposed EPA's proposed public consultative process to resolve the SIP's
future mobile source component. EDC expressed perplexity at EPA's
reliance on and endorsement of California's assignment of emissions
reductions to meet California's shortfall in attainment demonstration
for the South Coast:
The novel ``consultative'' process is without basis in law or
propriety under the facts. EPA should not accept ``assignment'' of
California's shortfall; this action violates the Act, perverts the
local air quality planning process, and rewards California's
unwillingness to address its own air quality problems. The precedent
is highly disfavorable to clean air and jeopardizes the health and
well being of everyone in the United States.
As stated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA believes
that California does not have the authority to assign SIP
responsibility to the Federal government. However, EPA recognizes that
massive further reductions are needed for attainment in the South Coast
and that attainment may be either
[[Page 1153]]
very costly and disruptive or impossible if further reductions are not
achieved from national and international sources.
EPA therefore established the public consultative process to
resolve the complex issues associated with national and international
sources and to determine what combination of controls at various levels
are appropriate to contribute to the remaining emission reduction needs
in the South Coast. Both EPA and the State have made enforceable
commitments to prepare the controls that are determined, after the
public consultation process, to be appropriate for them. Under these
commitments, any new Federal or State rules both can and will be
adopted before they are required to meet progress or attainment
requirements in the South Coast. EPA also believes that those national
or international controls that issue from the public consultative
process will benefit, rather than disfavor, clean air elsewhere in the
United States.
The ``Federal Assignments'' portion of the SIP is approvable
because it is consistent, in the overall context of the California SIP,
with the Clean Air Act requirements. The California SIP as a whole is
approvable as long as, among other things, it includes ``[a]
demonstration that the plan * * * will provide for attainment'' of the
NAAQS. CAA section 182(c)(2)(A). As set forth in the proposal and below
in section II.B.6., the South Coast SIP regulations and commitments,
coupled with promulgated Federal measures, provide the great bulk of
reductions needed for attainment. The amount of reductions expected
from the consultative process is a small percentage of the overall
amount of reductions needed for attainment. In addition, granting
additional time for identifying and adopting the remaining measures is
consistent with the statutory scheme because the time delays are
relatively brief, in the context of the SCAB attainment process, and
thus do not interfere with the deadline for ROP and attainment.
EPA counts towards the attainment demonstration reductions from
measures resulting from the consultative process, even though those
measures have not yet been determined, in part because of the practical
and technical challenges of providing for attainment in the South
Coast. The SIP provisions for the South Coast already include control
requirements that, in general, are more expensive and technologically
advanced, and apply to smaller emitters, than any other SIP in the
nation.5 Generating additional emissions reductions from
additional SIP measures presents a high magnitude of complexity. Such
additional SIP reductions may prove unnecessary depending on whether
and how many additional reductions from other Federal measures will
occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, for example, SCAQMD rules 1111 (Nox from Gas Fired
Furnaces), 1109 (Refinery Boilers & Process Heaters), 1134 (Nox
from Stationary Gas Turbines), 1135 (Nox from Electric Power
Generating Systems), 431.2 (Liquid Fuel Sulfur Content), 1142
(Marine Tank Vessel Operations), 1113 (Architectural Coatings), 1128
(Paper, Fabric & Film Coating Operations), 1106.1 (Pleasure Craft
Coating Operations), 1130.1 (Screen Printing Operations), 1168 (VOCs
from Adhesive Applications), 1175 (Polymeric Cellular Products--
Blowing Foam), 1146 and 1146.1 (Industrial, Institutional, and
Commercial Boilers, Generators, & Heaters), 1162 (Polyester Resin
Operation), 1110.1 & 1110.2 (Emissions from Internal Combustion
Engines), 1151 (Motor Vehicle Non-Assembly Line Coatings), 1124
(Aerospace Assembly & Component Manufacturing Operations), 1153
(Commercial Bakery Ovens), 462 (Organic Liquid Loading, 461 (Gas
Transfer and Dispensing), 1136 (Wood Products Coatings), and
Regulation XX (Nox/Sox RECLAIM program). See also the CARB
rules for motor vehicles and fuels (generally), off-highway
recreational vehicles and engines, consumer products (generally),
and aerosol coating products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both EPA and the State are committing to undergo the consultative
process described above, and to promulgate controls determined by that
process to be appropriate. Those EPA and State commitments are
enforceable by citizens. Based on these commitments, EPA will assure
that the gap in emissions reductions represented by the consultative
process, and needed to attain, will be closed. For example, at the
close of the consultative process, EPA may promulgate a rulemaking that
identifies (i) additional SIP reductions that EPA considers appropriate
for California to undertake, and additional Federal measures that EPA
intends to promulgate; as well as (ii) schedules for the adoption or
promulgation and implementation of both sets of measures.
For these reasons, EPA has concluded that the SIP for the South
Coast, with its limited reliance on additional reductions to be
determined through a consultative process, ``provide[s] for''
attainment, under section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
EPA believes that CAA section 172(c)(6) supports its conclusion
that the California SIP, including the consultative process
commitments, ``provide[s] for'' attainment under section 182(c)(2)(A).
Section 172(c)(6) of the Act requires, as a rule generally applicable
to nonattainment SIPs, that the SIP ``include enforceable emission
limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques * * *
as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment * * * by
the applicable attainment date * * *.'' (Emphasis added.) The
emphasized terms mean that enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures do not necessarily need to generate reductions in the
full amount needed to attain. Rather, the emissions limitations and
other control measures may be supplemented with other SIP rules--for
example, the commitments EPA is approving today--as long as the entire
package of measures and rules provides for attainment. Under these
circumstances, the emission limitations and control measures generate
reductions in an amount that falls short of the amount needed to
attain; yet those limitations and measures are all that is necessary or
appropriate to attain in light of the additional SIP rules for
commitments.
EPA finds further support for its action in the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Kamp v. Hernandez, 752 F.2d 1444 (1985). There, the court
upheld EPA's full approval of a SIP that relied on a State's agreement
to submit a fugitive emission control plan in the future. Although
recognizing that lack of any controls on fugitive emissions would
prevent attainment, the court justified its holding on the grounds that
the plan was substantially complete, and that the remaining shortfall
would be covered under the state's future submission. The court also
interpreted the predecessor provision to section 172(c)(6) in a manner
consistent with EPA's interpretation of section 172(c)(6) above.
EDC commented that it is unclear how the ``meet and confer''
commitments meet the minimal requirements of the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) and the public participation elements of the CAA.
EPA believes that these requirements will be met and intends a
process with more than the legally-mandated public opportunities for
input. All Federal mobile source measures will be issued through
rulemaking that complies with the CAA and APA provisions. EPA will
ensure that all other future SIP measures go through a fully public
process that complies with applicable APA and CAA requirements for
public involvement. Finally, any necessary revisions to the South Coast
attainment demonstration must comply with all applicable public
notification, public hearing, and public participation requirements.
EDC commented that the practical and legal insufficiency of the
``Federal Assignments'' portion of the SIP is reflected in EPA's
proposal to make enforceable commitments to undertake additional
rulemakings after a
[[Page 1154]]
consultative process (which EDC described as ``secret'') on control
measures necessary to achieve the emissions reductions determined to be
appropriate for EPA. EDC added: ``This promise to make future promises
provides no certainty, specificity or meaning, and violates the spirit
and letter of the CAA.''
In today's action, EPA finalizes its commitment to undertake
rulemaking on any measures which are determined to be EPA's
responsibility, and EPA finalizes its approval of California's
enforceable commitment to adopt measures determined to be the State's
responsibility. These enforceable commitments, in conjunction with the
other SIP measures and other sources of emissions reductions,
constitute the required demonstration of attainment and ROP. As noted
in the discussion of the ``Federal Assignments'' (see Appendix A),
significant progress has already occurred or is expected in the near
future with respect to accomplishing, in enforceable form, specific
regulations (such as EPA's recently proposed national standards for
heavy-duty onroad vehicles) that achieve the vast majority of required
reductions.
EPA has authority to commit itself to promulgate additional Federal
measures determined through the consultative process to be appropriate,
under CAA section 301. This provision authorizes the Administrator to
``prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his
functions under [the Clean Air Act].'' In title I of the Act, Congress
set out what amounts to a ``blueprint'' by which nonattainment areas
will attain the NAAQS. This blueprint couples SIP reductions with
reductions from various Federal measures, such as reductions from
mobile source measures promulgated by EPA under Title II of the Act.
The EPA commitment prescribed in today's rulemaking is necessary to
carry out EPA's functions both in promulgating mobile source
regulations under Title II and in fulfilling its share of the
``blueprint'' reductions needed for attainment.
EPA proposed a public, not a secret, consultative process, and the
Agency sets forth in Appendix B to this document more details on
opportunities for the public to be involved in the difficult
decisionmaking on what additional controls on mobile sources need to be
adopted at the Federal, State, and local level. EPA's commitment,
finalized in this action, is as specific and enforceable as possible,
prior to the completion of critically important public input and
consultation. After the consultative process is completed, in June
1997, responsibility for the small increment of necessary additional
emission reductions should be fully resolved.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Coalition for
Clean Air (CCA) submitted joint comments opposing EPA's proposed
resolution of the ``Federal Assignments.'' The environmental groups
stated that EPA's proposed approval violates the CAA by providing full
credit toward attainment for ``Federal Assignments'' in the SIP.
Although NRDC and CCA encouraged federal-state cooperation to achieve
healthful air in the South Coast, they felt that the consultative
process combined merely with gap-filling commitments cannot be used to
circumvent the November 1994 deadline in the CAA for the State to
provide evidence that it has the legal authority to implement and
enforce all SIP provisions. NRDC and CCA commented that EPA cannot
approve a SIP which relies for ROP and attainment on prospective
federal measures over which CARB has no control and which have neither
been formally proposed nor promulgated.
NRDC and CCA observed that some of what they describe as the
``nonexistent'' federal measures are given credit as early as 1999, but
CARB is not required to submit replacement measures until the end of
1999. NRDC and CCA argued that the State should cover the ``Federal
Assignments'' emissions in its 1994 SIP, which could then be revised to
decrease the State's responsibilities as EPA adopts new federal
regulations. The environmental groups stated that there is no reason
why CARB cannot immediately begin development of these rules concurrent
with the consultative process. Finally, NRDC and CCA commented that EPA
should require that CARB immediately adopt rules, scheduled for
implementation in the year 2000 or later, as backstop measures which
will go into effect to the extent necessary to make up a shortfall that
remains after the consultative process.
EPA's responses to EDC's comments address many of these concerns.
EPA believes that the public consultative process for resolving mobile
source emission reductions is appropriate to the unique facts of the
South Coast attainment demonstration. The 1994 SIP submittal includes
massive reductions achieved by combined State and local regulations and
commitments, covering every significant source category. It is not
clear what feasible measures could be adopted by the State and local
agencies at this time to cover the entire emission reductions included
in the ``Federal Assignments.'' The additional time which EPA is
allowing for the evaluation and development of future Federal controls,
revision to the SIP's attainment demonstration, and then adoption, if
necessary, of any gap-filling measures, is justified by the magnitude
and complexity of the issues involved in regulating sources that have
never previously been subject to emission standards and sources that
are critical components of interstate and, in some cases, international
commerce.
Furthermore, for the larger emission reduction categories in the
``Federal Assignments,'' CARB has matched the national controls with
its own measures to adopt and implement at least equivalent State
controls under the State's unique CAA authorities to regulate mobile
sources. The success of this enterprise to develop cooperative and
consistent Federal-State mobile source emission standards would
eliminate for manufacturers and users the costs of compliance with
conflicting standards and test procedures.
d. Comments Specific to Source Categories. (1) Military Exemption.
The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard expressed concern about any
reconsideration of the exempt status of military aircraft as part of
the exploration of more stringent standards for aircraft engines, and
both agencies expressed a desire to be involved in future discussions.
EPA hopes that these agencies will participate fully in the public
consultative process to help in Federal, State, and local cooperative
efforts to identify viable strategies for achieving our air quality
goals.
(2) Locomotives. The Association of American Railroads (AAR)
commented that the consultative process should not be used as a route
to develop any State or local regulations imposing locomotive controls
for the purpose of reducing emissions. AAR expressed concern that SIP
measure M14 indicates that CARB ``will also consider operational
controls, such as reduced idling and use of California diesel fuel, if
* * * additional emission reductions are needed.'' AAR argued that
these types of state and local standards and requirements must be
avoided in order to avert adverse effects on interstate commerce. AAR
recommended that the consultative process be used to devise ways to
maintain the competitiveness of railroads and improve their volume of
intercity, long-haul freight, given the significant emissions
advantages of rail transportation over trucks. AAR further requested
that EPA work with the railroads and other stakeholders to design
mechanisms to properly account
[[Page 1155]]
in the SIP for the NOx benefits of rail transportation.
EPA trusts that the rail industry will raise these important issues
in the public consultative process.
AAR also raised legal issues regarding the authority of States to
adopt and implement any type of emission-related standard or other
requirement for locomotives. These issues are more germane to EPA's
forthcoming rulemaking to establish national locomotive regulations and
to clarify the extent to which States are preempted from adopting or
implementing locomotive controls.
(3) Ships and Shipping Channel. The U.S. Coast Guard reiterated its
concerns expressed at the time of EPA's proposed Federal Implementation
Plan for California areas regarding any operational controls on marine
vessels, including international legal implications. The U.S. Navy
supported EPA's position that recommendations regarding movement of the
shipping channel should await the results of ongoing studies. The Navy
opposed any strategy that would increase traffic in the Pt. Mugu Sea
Test Range.
EPA welcomes the involvement of these agencies in the public
consultative process. EPA will particularly appreciate the assistance
of the Coast Guard in clarifying international issues as they affect
potential controls on the emissions or operations of ocean-going
vessels, and the continued constructive involvement of the Navy in
studies to help assess the air quality benefits of moving the shipping
channel.
e. EPA Action. EPA approves the State's commitments to revise the
South Coast attainment demonstration and adopt appropriate measures
following the conclusion of the public consultative process, and EPA
finalizes its commitment to undertake rulemaking on any controls which
are determined to be appropriate for EPA.
2. EPA Approval of Attainment Demonstrations that Rely, in Part, on
Commitments. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Coalition
for Clean Air (NRDC/CCA), in a joint comment letter, contended that EPA
cannot approve the California ozone SIP because the majority of
emission reductions in the plan are in the form of commitments and not
adopted rules as required by the CAA. NRDC/CCA also asserted that
approval of such committal SIP provisions would lead to an
inappropriate delay in the statutory SIP submittal deadline. To support
these propositions, NRDC/CCA cite the holding of Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994); the alleged
effect of EPA's interpretation of the conditional approval provision of
the CAA, section 110(k)(4); and the language of EPA's regulation at 40
CFR 51.281.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NRDC/CCA also claim that the SIP inappropriately relies on a
September 1994 EPA memorandum, ``November 1994 Ozone SIP's--
Rulemaking Policy,'' to support the inclusion of commitments in the
plan. As NRDC/CCA correctly point out, this memorandum was rescinded
in 1995. Because EPA is not relying on the 1994 memorandum to
support its approval of California's SIP commitments, it is
irrelevant to this rulemaking and is therefore not addressed further
in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NRDC case, the Court addressed the merits of EPA's
interpretation, as set forth in various policy memoranda, that in
certain circumstances section 110(k)(4) of the CAA allows conditional
approval of commitments unaccompanied by regulatory measures.7 In
these policy memoranda, EPA provided that it would consider conditional
approval of SIP submittals, which were meant to fulfill certain
specific SIP requirements and which consisted entirely of a commitment
letter to submit the required measure by a date certain, but no later
than one year after conditional approval. In reviewing these policies,
the Court concluded, based on the express language of section
110(k)(4), the CAA's general SIP approval scheme, and the legislative
history of section 110(k)(4), that:
\7\ Section 110(k)(4) of the CAA provides:
(4) Conditional approval--
The Administrator may approve a plan revision based on a
commitment of the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a
date certain, but not later than 1 year after the date of approval
of the plan revision. Any such conditional approval shall be treated
as a disapproval if the State fails to comply with such commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * the conditional approval mechanism was intended to provide
the EPA with an alternative to disapproving substantive, but not
entirely satisfactory, SIPs submitted by the statutory deadlines and
not, as the EPA has used it, a means of circumventing those
deadlines. 22 F.3d at 1134-35.
The Court found that on its face the language of section 110(k)(4)
``seems to authorize conditional approval of a substantive SIP or SIP
revision which, though not approvable in its present form, can be made
so by adopting specific EPA-required changes within the prescribed
conditional period.'' 22 F.3d at 1134. The Court also noted that the
CAA requires EPA to make completeness determinations on required plan
submittals and that such determinations could not reasonably be made
unless the submittal contains ``something more than a mere promise to
take appropriate but unidentified measures in the future.'' Id.
Finally, the Court determined from the legislative history of section
110(k)(4) that the contemplated specific and enforceable measures are
to be additional to some specific enforceable measures already in the
SIP. Id.
NRDC/CCA apparently interpret the NRDC holding as precluding EPA
from accepting in a SIP submittal any commitments to adopt rules at a
future date, even where that submittal includes a significant quantity
of emission reductions in adopted form. We believe that such an
interpretation is far too broad a reading of the NRDC case and that the
circumstances presented by today's action are readily distinguishable
from those in the NRDC case.
First, and most importantly, EPA is not approving the California
SIP commitments under section 110(k)(4), but rather under sections 301
and 110(k)(3), as discussed below. Thus the Court's analysis of the
express language of section 110(k)(4) and its specific legislative
history is not, as NRDC/CCA claim, applicable to EPA's action here. For
the reasons set forth below, EPA's authority to approve enforceable
commitments under sections 110(k)(3) and 301 is not constrained by
section 110(k)(4).
Furthermore, to the extent that the NRDC case has any relevance to
EPA's action under sections 110(k)(3) and 301, in the present case, EPA
has not proposed to approve submittals that consist only of a
commitment. The EPA policies at issue in NRDC permitted a state to
initially satisfy an individual CAA requirement (e.g., an inspection
and maintenance program) with only a commitment to adopt such a
requirement in the future. In contrast, the SIP approved by EPA today
contains in adopted, enforceable form a large percentage of the
emission reductions that make up the required submittal, in this case,
the attainment demonstrations.8 In addition, the California ozone
SIP, because of its many substantive, adopted rules, does not pose the
barrier to a completeness determination that the Court in NRDC
perceived where only a commitment existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Because they include such major substantive components, the
attainment demonstrations do not circumvent the submittal deadline
in the CAA as NRDC/CCA claim. See, e.g, tables for each area on ROP
Forecasts and Targets, Local Control Measures, and Attainment
Demonstrations. These tables summarize far more expansive
discussions and data in the actual SIP submittals, which for some
areas amount to many volumes and thousands of pages of relevant
information and analyses in support of the attainment
demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRDC/CCA claim that full approval of the commitments in the
California ozone SIP (pursuant to sections 110(k)(3) and 301) would
render section
[[Page 1156]]
110(k)(4)'s conditional approval mechanism meaningless. We disagree
with this conclusion. Historically, EPA has interpreted the CAA to
allow states to submit enforceable commitments to adopt rules in the
future. The enactment of section 110(k)(4) in 1990 provided a new type
of approval for a limited set of commitments that, in general, could
not be enforced under sections 113 and 304 of the Act 9; there is
no evidence that Congress intended this limited provision to replace
EPA's well-established policy of using its general approval authority
to approve enforceable commitments. In fact, other provisions in the
statute belie that result. Finally, there continue to be strong policy
considerations for interpreting the statute to allow for approvals
under section 110(k)(3) of enforceable commitments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In commenting on EPA's proposed SIP approval action, the
Environmental Defense Center (EDC) suggested that EPA approve the
SIP's commitments under section 110(k)(4) rather than section
110(k)(3) because of the important enforceability benefits of a
conditional approval. As discussed below, commitments that are
conditionally approved cannot be enforced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA interpreted the pre-amended Act to allow for approval of
attainment demonstrations that included, in part, enforceable
commitments to adopt rules in the future. And courts have found these
commitments to be enforceable by the public under the citizen suit
provisions of the Act. See, e.g., American Lung Association of New
Jersey v. Kean, 670 F.Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), affirmed, 871 F.2d 319
(3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC v. N.Y. State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, 668 F.Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better
Environment v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, reconsideration granted
in part, 746 F.Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition v. City of New
York, 967 F.2d 764 (2d Cir. 1992); Trustees for Alaska v. Fink, 17 F.3d
1209 (9th Cir. 1994).10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Courts have also upheld EPA's approval of SIPs that contain
enforceable commitments. See, e.g., the cases cited below in the
discussion of 40 CFR 51.281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In enacting section 110(k)(4), Congress enacted a much more limited
type of approval of commitments. First, conditional approval under
section 110(k)(4) is for a very limited duration--the commitment must
provide a date certain for submittal that cannot exceed one year after
conditional approval. Furthermore, in contrast to the enforceable
commitments historically accepted by the Agency and the courts, section
110(k)(4) anticipates that the commitment made by the State will not be
an enforceable commitment. Under the express language of section
110(k)(4), upon the State's failure to meet the commitment, the
conditional approval must be converted to a disapproval. Once a SIP is
disapproved, there is no longer any commitment left to enforce under
section 113 or 304 of the Act.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A disapproved SIP--i.e., a plan rejected by EPA--is not
considered to be federally enforceable. Both sections 113(a)(1) and
304(a) and (f)(3) provide for enforcement regarding a violation of
only an ``applicable implementation plan,'' which CAA Sec. 302(q)
defines as a plan ``which has been ``approved'' or ``promulgated''
under section 110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing in the legislative history of the 1990 CAA
Amendments to suggest that Congress's addition of section 110(k)(4),
which is much more limited in scope, was intended to preclude EPA's
prior practice. Furthermore, other provisions of the amended Act
indicate that Congress contemplated continued approval of enforceable
commitments. For example, section 182(e)(5) of the CAA, which concerns
attainment demonstrations for extreme ozone nonattainment areas,
addresses the ``anticipate[d] development of new control
technologies.'' This section provides that EPA may approve provisions
relying on such technologies if, among other things, the state submits
``enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures to
be implemented * * * if the anticipated technologies do not achieve
planned reductions. These enforceable commitments would clearly need to
extend well-beyond the maximum one-year period that may be granted for
conditional approval under section 110(k)(4). Nothing in the language
of section 182(e)(5) indicates that Congress authorized those
enforceable commitments ``notwithstanding'' section 110(k)(4).
Nor does EPA agree with NRDC/CCA's assertion that approval of
enforceable commitments constitutes an inappropriate delay in the
statutory SIP submittal dates. Congress anticipated that section
110(k)(4) would result in submittal delays for some SIP measures beyond
the initial submittal deadlines. EPA believes that the delays in
submittal of final rules that would result in this action are
permissible under section 110(k)(3) because the State has obligated
itself to submit the rules by specified, short-term dates, and that
obligation is enforceable by EPA and the public. Moreover, as noted
above, the SIP submittal approved today contains major substantive
components submitted as adopted regulations. As such, the California
submittal is readily distinguishable from the submittals that were the
subject of the NRDC case.
Finally, as matter of policy it is important to continue to read
section 110 as allowing for full approval of SIP submittals containing
some enforceable commitments. The conditional approval provision is
most effectively used where a State makes a short term commitment to
correct a problem or fill a gap in a SIP submission. If the State fails
to meet the commitment, the conditional approval is converted to a
disapproval and an 18-month clock for sanctions and a 2-year period for
promulgation of a federal implementation plan (FIP) start. However,
neither EPA nor citizens have authority under the CAA to take action to
enforce those commitments that have been converted to a disapproval.
While a disapproval may motivate a state to ultimately meet its
commitments, through the potential for sanctions and a FIP, in some
cases it may be more desirable to have an approved commitment that EPA
or a citizen can enforce directly in court. Approval under section
110(k)(3) allows for enforcement action. Such a remedy is frequently
preferable in promoting actual air quality improvements. Moreover, even
with respect to an approved commitment, EPA may start the sanctions
process through a finding of failure to implement if the state does not
meet its enforceable commitment.
EDC commented, with apparent approval, on the vehicle of
enforceable commitments. EDC maintained, however, that the
Administrative Procedure Act and notions of fairness require that they
be more fully articulated. EPA believes that the SIP commitments
approved today are sufficiently specific to be enforceable by the
Agency or the public. For example, the control measure commitments are
for particular agencies to adopt and implement specific controls by
definite dates to achieve precise emission reductions from identified
source categories for each milestone year through attainment. In the
case of the South Coast, the plan also provides detailed discussions of
the source category, the regulatory history, proposed method of control
(including descriptions of available control technologies and
operational approaches), control efficiency assumptions, rule
compliance approaches (e.g., reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
source testing, certification programs, etc.), test methods, cost
effectiveness calculations, and references to document assumptions and
provide for further information. The rules to fulfill these commitments
will be subject to notice-and-comment at the State level prior to
[[Page 1157]]
adoption and submittal to EPA; furthermore, EPA will approve or
disapprove those measures through notice-and-comment rulemaking
procedures.
Reading the statute as a whole, it is clear that Congress did not
intend section 110(k)(4) to be the sole mechanism for approving
submittals that contain at least some commitments. Furthermore, for the
above reasons, enforceable commitments serve several distinct purposes
not addressed by section 110(k)(4). Under these circumstances, EPA's
interpretation of the statute is entitled to considerable deference.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As one court has observed: The need for flexibility in the
administration of a statute whose provisions have been described as
`virtually swim[ming] before one's eyes,' * * * should not be
underestimated. We have in the past been careful to defer to EPA's
choice of methods to carry out its `difficult and complex job' as
long as that choice is reasonable and consistent with the Act * *
*. Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. v. EPA, 672 F.2d 998,
1006 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1035 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRDC/CCA also assert that EPA is precluded from approving the
commitments in the California ozone SIP because EPA's regulation at 40
CFR 51.281 \13\ requires SIPs to include adopted rules and regulations.
EPA has long interpreted this regulation to require States, when
submitting rules and regulations, to submit those regulations in
adopted rather than proposed form.\14\ EPA has not interpreted this
regulation to require that every submittal must be in regulatory form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 40 CFR 51.281 provides, in pertinent part: Emissions
limitations and other measures necessary for attainment and
maintenance of any national standard * * * must be adopted as rules
and regulations * * *. Submittal of a plan setting forth proposed
rules and regulations will not satisfy the requirements of this
section * * *. (Emphasis added.)
\14\ In order to expedite SIP approval, EPA has occasionally
proposed to approve a state's draft rules that have been fully
developed but have not yet been adopted. An EPA approval using this
``parallel processing'' procedure, of course, cannot be finalized
until the rules have been adopted and formally submitted to EPA as a
SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA promulgated this regulation long before the enactment of the
1990 CAA Amendments. See 36 FR 22398 (Nov. 25, 1971), codified as 40
CFR 51.22; recodified as 40 CFR 51.281 with minor modifications at 51
FR 40674 (Nov. 7, 1986). As discussed above, EPA has historically
accepted enforceable commitments in SIPs and courts have found these
provisions to be enforceable by the public under section 304 of the
CAA. In addition, in a number of cases, courts of appeals in some
circuits, including the Ninth Circuit, have upheld EPA's approval of
plans that included commitments to fill gaps. See Kamp v. Hernandez,
752 F.2d 1444, 1445 (9th Cir. 1985); Connecticut Fund for the
Environment v. EPA, 672 F.2d 998 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1035
(1982); Friends of the Earth v. EPA, 499 F.2d 1118, 1124 (2d Cir.
1974).
The cited cases demonstrate that, over a long period of time, EPA
has not interpreted 40 CFR 51.281 as limiting the permissible
procedural vehicles for SIP measures to rules and regulations. Rather,
the Agency has viewed the primary purpose of section 51.281 as ensuring
that SIP submittals contain adopted, not proposed, emission limitations
and other measures. The commitments at issue here are not merely
proposed; they have been adopted by the various local air districts and
ARB. Because EPA's interpretation of its regulation is a reasonable
interpretation, it is entitled to deference. Chevron, 467 U.S. 837.
3. Additional Clean Air Act Issues
a. Attainment as Expeditiously as Practicable. The Environmental
Defense Center commented that the SIPs should be disapproved because
they fail to meet the CAA requirement of attaining the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable. The commenter provided no further
statutory interpretation or information relating to this CAA provision
and defects in the SIPs relating to it. EPA continues to believe that
the SIPs meet the progress requirements of the Act, as discussed in the
proposal, and provide for expeditious attainment.
b. Contingency Measures. NRDC and CCA commented that only SCAQMD's
measure CTY-01 meets the section 182(c)(9) CAA requirement for
contingency measures that take effect without further action by the
State or EPA upon a failure of the State to meet the applicable
milestone. The commenters stated that EPA should require further
definition and refinement of the contingency measures and the schedule,
funding and enforcement responsibilities required for the measure to
succeed.
EPA's proposal addressed only the following CAA requirements:
section 181(a)(1) relating to emissions inventories; section 182(b)(1)
relating to 15% ROP Plans; section 182(c)(2)(B) relating to Post-1996
ROP Plans; sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2) relating to modeling and
attainment demonstrations, and sections 182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3)
relating to I/M Programs. The remaining requirements of Part D of the
Act, including the sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures, will be acted upon in separate rulemakings.
c. Adequacy of SIP's Technical Foundations. (1) Modeling and
Treatment of Transport. The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
submitted a comment that EPA has failed to provide all data and
documentation relating to the modeling in the SIPs. Noting that EPA has
admitted that problems in model performance and transport led to
California's inability to follow EPA's modeling guidelines in its
analyses, EMA asked that EPA not take final action on modeling but
should require that appropriate adjustments be made in order to provide
accurate modeling assumptions on which to base California's proposed
measures.
EPA has not provided all data and documentation relating to the
modeling analyses. For each area, modeling input and documentation
include hundreds of thousands of data. This information is available
from local air pollution agencies.
Again, EMA failed to provide specific information to support its
general conclusion. EPA recognizes the opportunities to refine the
modeling in each of the areas, including the data upon which the
modeling is based. Major modeling projects or modeling refinements are
underway in each area. EPA contributes technical and funding support to
these projects, which may provide information helpful in enhancing the
SIP strategies in the future. However, EPA believes that the current
modeling in each area meets the requirements of the Act and provides a
reasonable basis for estimating the emission reductions needed for
attainment and the ambient impact of the control measures.
(2) Impact of Changes to the ZEV Program. The Environmental Defense
Center commented that the state has already rescinded the Zero Emission
Vehicle (ZEV) program, demonstrating immediately their willingness and
intent to renege on the SIP's commitments. EDC stated that both the
Sacramento and South Coast attainment demonstrations should be
disapproved because CARB has rescinded the ZEV program. NRDC and the
Coalition for Clean Air commented that EPA needs to quantify the
increased emissions that will result from changes to the ZEV program
and should demand compensating reductions.
At a public hearing on March 28 and 29, 1996, CARB approved
revisions to the ZEV program in the California motor vehicle control
regulations. These changes included elimination of the ZEV production
requirement for the 1998 through 2002 model years. CARB retained the
10% ZEV requirement for
[[Page 1158]]
the 2003 and later model years. In order to offset the loss of emission
reductions, CARB negotiated an enforceable contractual agreement with
the vehicle manufacturers, committing them to produce cleaner 49-state
cars in the 2001 through 2003 model years. CARB prepared a staff report
demonstrating that the emission reductions achieved within the South
Coast by the cleaner 49-state vehicles exceed the emission losses from
delay of the ZEV program (See CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement of
Rulemaking--PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLE
REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS, February 9,
1996).
EPA shares the commenters' concerns that the SIP must be
implemented fully and that substitute measures should immediately
correct any SIP shortfalls. However, the State has argued that
successful implementation of the ZEV program requires the March 1996
rule amendments, in order to ensure that concerns relating to battery
technology and ZEV sales potential can be resolved and the ultimate
sales mandate be fully accomplished. The State has also provided
evidence that the loss in emissions from the elimination of the ZEV
mandate for the first 5 years will be offset by provisions of CARB's
enforceable contract with the automakers. EPA will carefully monitor
implementation of the contractual agreement and the ZEV program and
will require the State to revise the SIP to provide new emission
reductions if needed to meet the progress and attainment requirements
of the Act.
(3) Control Measures. NRDC and CCA commented that EPA cannot
approve the South Coast SIP because it fails to include as measures all
already adopted regulations and measures characterized as assumptions.
The environmental groups argued that the CAA and EPA's regulations
require quantification of reductions from each adopted regulation, and
that these regulations themselves should be an enforceable part of the
SIP.
With respect to the quantification of reductions from the various
regulations that comprise the existing California motor vehicle
program, the State has submitted reductions from the program as a
whole, without a disaggregation by program element. In recent
correspondence, the State has provided further detail, including an
estimate of Statewide emission reductions from each severable
component.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Table 1 (``Adopted state regulations in the SIP baseline,
with implementation dates in 1996 or later'') in a letter from Lynn
Terry, Assistant Executive Officer, CARB, to Julia Barrow, Chief,
Planning Office, Air & Radiation Division, USEPA, dated September
19, 1996. This correspondence is part of EPA's rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rate-of-progress and ozone attainment demonstrations for each
area rely, in part, on emission reductions from regulations adopted by
local air pollution control districts, since the impact of these
regulations is factored into the projections of future year baseline
emissions.16 EPA has already approved the great majority of these
local regulations and expects in the near future to complete final
action on the remaining regulations. With respect to those few
regulations which are relied upon in the SIP for rate-of-progress or
attainment and which have not yet been approved as part of the SIP, EPA
construes that reliance and the fact that the local agencies have
adopted and the State has submitted the rules as SIP revisions to
constitute an enforceable commitment by these agencies to implement the
rules to achieve the reductions assumed in the rate-of-progress plans
and the attainment demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In a letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, Deputy Executive
Officer, SCAQMD, to Dave Howekamp, Division Director, Air & Toxics
Division, Region IX, dated September 18, 1996, the SCAQMD has
provided a list of local measures and associated emission reductions
assumed in the baseline of the South Coast SIP. This correspondence
is part of EPA's rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the State withdraws (before EPA's final action) any of these
regulations that have been submitted but not yet approved as part of
the SIP, or if EPA's final action is a disapproval, or if EPA
determines that the rule will achieve fewer emissions reductions than
relied upon in the SIP, EPA will call upon the State to fulfill its
commitment by submitting replacement measures on an expeditious
schedule and the State will be obligated to provide such replacements.
EPA requires identification of emission reductions associated with
each of the new measures that are incorporated in the plan's rate-of-
progress and attainment demonstrations and that reduce emissions below
the baseline inventory levels. The South Coast SIP fulfills this
requirement, and EPA has included, in the tables of new measures, the
specific credit assigned.
The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) stated that, based on
the information provided in the NPRM, EPA and California have not
established a reasonable, cost-effective basis for certain of the
proposed regulatory measures. EMA provided no specific information to
support the comment. EPA believes that the SIP control measures are, in
fact, reasonable. Moreover, EPA does not find statutory authority for
the Agency to require states to submit analyses demonstrating that
proposed measures are reasonable, cost-effective and appropriate.
Finally, due to the nature of the Federal/state relationship under the
Act, EPA analysis of the cost-effectiveness of SIP measures would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state
action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct.
1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
d. Consistency of Local Nonroad Measures with Clean Air Act
Preemption. The Engine Manufacturers Association commented that EPA
should not finalize approval of local measures without a determination
that they have met CAA requirements respecting preemptions on a state's
authority to regulate certain nonroad engines and applications. The
commenter did not identify any State or local measure that was
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. EPA has not identified any
measure, approved at this time, that violates the Act's preemptions.
When regulations are adopted and submitted for SIP approval, EPA
reviews the regulations to ensure that they fall within the authority
of the State or local agency and that the regulations are otherwise
consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements.
4. Future SIP Updates and Improvements
Western Riverside Council of Governments commented that the SIP
should provide the flexibility to replace measures with local programs
that are more sensitive to local political, economic and social
conditions. EPA supports and encourages SIP flexibility that respects
the superior ability of local agencies to reconcile environmental
progress with other community goals.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) commented
that, as EPA recognized in the proposed approval, some of California's
specific strategies may require adjustment as actual rules are
developed. CEPA stated that ``we will retain the flexibility to revise
the SIP as long as the emission reductions continue to provide for
attainment.''
As stated in the NPRM, EPA supports the State's flexibility to
revise the SIP, but cautions that EPA must review SIP revisions for
approvability under Sections 110(l) and 193. Section 110(l) prevents
EPA from approving a revision if it would interfere with any applicable
[[Page 1159]]
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the Act. Section 193 prevents
modification of control requirements ``in effect, or required to be
adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before
November 15, 1990 in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air
pollutant * * * unless the modification insures equivalent or greater
emission reductions of such air pollutant.''
5. Overall Approvability of Plans
Almost all of the commenters supported EPA's proposed approvals of
the plans for each area. However, comments opposing full approval of
the plans at this time were received from the Engine Manufacturers
Association, the Environmental Defense Center, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and the Coalition for Clean Air. These comments are
addressed elsewhere in section I.B., or in discussions relating to
individual areas.
6. Importance of SIP Implementation
Several commenters reflected on the critical importance of follow
through at the local, State, and Federal levels if the SIPs are to
achieve the air quality standards. EPA agrees that all parties,
including local government and the general public, must work together
to ensure that each responsible agency honors its commitments. Because
these challenging SIPs are so important from the perspective of public
health, the success of the SIPs requires widespread public
participation and public support. EPA encourages California agencies to
report frequently to the public on progress in implementing the plans
and to involve the public in resolving implementation issues. Through
the Public Consultative Process and other forums, EPA intends to inform
and engage the public as the Agency proceeds to develop future mobile
source controls.
C. SIP Submittals
1. SIP Submittals Before EPA's Proposal
On November 15, 1994, CARB submitted a revision to the ``State of
California Implementation Plan for Achieving and Maintaining the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (ozone SIP)
The revision consists of: (a) The State's comprehensive ozone plan,
including the State's own measures and the State's summaries of, and
revisions to, the local plans; (b) the State's previously adopted
regulations for consumer products and reformulated gasoline and diesel
fuels; and (c) local plans addressing the ozone attainment
demonstration and ROP requirements.
On August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379), EPA approved the State's consumer
products and reformulated gasoline and diesel fuels regulations. At the
same time, EPA took interim approval action on CARB and SCAQMD New-
Technology Measures, under the provisions of section 182(e)(5) of the
CAA, which authorizes the Administrator to approve fully and credit as
part of an extreme ozone area SIP conceptual measures dependent upon
new control technologies or new control techniques. The new-technology
measures approved at that time were: CARB's measures M2 (Improved
Control Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles), M9 (Off-Road Diesel
Equipment), CP-4 (Consumer Products Advanced Technology and Market
Incentives), and Additional Measures; and SCAQMD measures ADV-CTS-01
(Coating Technologies), ADV-FUG (Fugitives), ADV-PRC (Process Related
Emissions), ADV-UNSP (Unspecified, Stationary Sources), ADV-CTS-02
(Coatings Technologies).
On December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126), EPA issued the final SIP
approval of the State's mid-term control measures M3 (Accelerated
Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle requirement for Medium-Duty Vehicles), M5
(Heavy-Duty Vehicle NOX regulations), M8 (Heavy-Duty Gasoline
Vehicles lower emissions standards), M11 (Industrial Equipment, Gas and
LPG), and CP2 (Mid-Term Consumer Products).
The remaining portions of the ozone SIP submittal, upon which EPA
is acting today, include the following separate documents:
1. ``The 1994 California State Implementation Plan for Ozone,''
volumes I-IV. The November 15, 1994, submittal letter refers to other
submittals, described below, as completing the 1994 California Ozone
SIP. Volume I provides an overview of the entire submittal; Volumes II
and III include the State's measures for mobile sources, consumer
products, and pesticides; and Volume IV treats the local plans.
On December 29, 1994 and February 7, 1995, the State submitted
updates to these documents, incorporating changes made by CARB at the
time of adoption, and providing other technical and editorial
corrections.
2. ``1994 Ozone Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans for San Diego
County.''
3. ``San Joaquin Valley Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans.'' On
December 28, 1994, the State submitted the ``Rate-of-Progress and
Attainment Demonstration Plans for the Kern County Air Pollution
Control District,'' applicable to the Kern desert portion of the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.
4. ``Sacramento Area Proposed Attainment and Rate-of-Progress
Plans.'' On December 29, 1994, the State replaced this with the
``Sacramento Area Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans.''
5. ``1994 Air Quality Management Plan for Ventura County.''
6. ``Rate-of Progress and Attainment Demonstration Plans for the
Mojave Desert.''
7. ``1994 Air Quality Management Plan for South Coast Air Basin,
Antelope Valley and Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area.'' On December
29, 1994, the State submitted the ``Rate of-Progress Plan Revision:
South Coast Air Basin & Antelope Valley & Coachella/San Jacinto
Planning Area.'' 17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Antelope Valley and Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area are
portions of the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management
Area which are currently under the jurisdiction of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District. California has recently revised its
air basin classifications, so that Antelope Valley is part of Mojave
Desert Air Basin and the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area is part
of Salton Sea Air Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. On March 30, 1995, CARB submitted revised 1990 base year
emission inventories for each of the California ozone nonattainment
areas.
9. On June 30, 1995, CARB submitted desriptive materials relating
to the State's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program,
adopted by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair. On January 22,
1996, CARB submitted the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
regulations adopted by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair.
2. SIP Submittals After EPA's Proposal
On April 4, 1996, CARB submitted a revision for the San Joaquin
Valley, withdrawing an obsolete transportation control measure
(Exclusive High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Freeway 41, included in the
1982 Air Quality Management Plan for Fresno).
On May 17, 1996, CARB submitted Executive Order G-96-031, the
State's commitment to participate in the public consultative process,
submit a revised attainment demonstration for the South Coast as
appropriate after the consultative process, and submit control measures
needed to achieve emission reductions determined to be appropriate.
On June 13, 1996, CARB submitted supplemental information regarding
the 1994 California SIP, including
[[Page 1160]]
additional information on emission reductions from the State's measures
(Letter from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp, with Attachments A, B,
and C).
On July 10, 1996, CARB submitted updates to the South Coast rule
adoption schedule (``Control Measure Adoption Schedule'').
On July 12, 1996, CARB submitted updates to the Ventura AQMP
(``Ventura County 1995 Air Quality Management Plan Revision'' and
``Appendix E-95'') and an updated post-96 ROP for San Joaquin Valley
(``Revised Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan'').
3. EPA Completeness Findings
On January 30, 1995, EPA issued a finding of completeness under
Section 110(k)(1) of the Act for the following portions of the
California ozone SIP submittal: Diesel Fuel Regulations; Reformulated
Gasoline Regulations; CARB Measures M2, M3, M5, M8, M9, M11, CP-2, CP-
3, CP-4, Additional Measures; and SCAQMD Long Term Measures ADV-CTS-01/
02, ADV-FUG, ADV-PRC, ADV-UNSP. These elements of the revision were
found complete based on EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth
in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 18, 1995 the EPA issued a finding of completeness for the
remaining portions of the November and December 1994 submittals with
regard to: (1) attainment and post-1996 RFP requirements at section
182(c)(2) of the Act; (2) 15% ROP requirement of section 182(b)(1)(A);
and (3) 1990 base year inventory requirements of section 182(a)(1). The
CARB emission inventory submittal of March 30, 1995, was included in
the completeness determination of April 18, 1995.
On June 30, 1995, and February 5, 1996, EPA issued a finding of
completeness for the State's I/M program submittals.
On August 14, 1996, EPA issued a finding of completeness for
updates to the San Joaquin Valley plan (submitted on April 4, 1996, and
July 12, 1996); the South Coast plan (submitted on July 10, 1996); the
Ventura plan (submitted on July 12, 1996); the State's commitment to
participate in the public consultative process and revise the South
Coast plan as appropriate (submitted on May 17, 1996); and technical
information on State and local measures (submitted on June 13, 1996).
4. Rationale for EPA Approval of Minor SIP Changes without Further
Opportunity for Public Comment
The NPRM indicated that EPA intended to approve in the final action
SIP updates if received before the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFRM)
was signed. The State, local agencies, and other commenters requested
EPA to absorb these updates and corrections into the final plan action.
In the NFRM, EPA has also made numerous changes to the tables of
control measures, in response to State and local agency requests for
correction and clarification. These changes make minor adjustments to
the measures, the arrangement of the measures in the table, the
schedule of measure adoption and implementation, or the emission
reductions associated with the measures. Since the changes are
administrative or clerical in nature, or otherwise are not significant,
and neither individually nor cumulatively affect ROP or attainment, EPA
has incorporated the changes in this action without further opportunity
for public comment.19 Notice and comment are not required under
the Administrative Procedures Act, ``when the agency for good cause
finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons
therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon
are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 5
U.S.C. 553(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The State's 15% ROP plans for each area do not rely on
reductions from any of the measures (all reductions come from fully
adopted regulations), and the changes do not reduce the amount of
emission reductions from the measures in post-1996 ROP milestone
years or the attainment years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State and involved local agencies in the San Joaquin Valley,
South Coast, and Ventura all requested that the final notice clarify
the original intent of the 1994 SIP submittal that, coincident with
approving the new Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in the current
SIP, EPA would delete from the applicable SIP the prior TCMs, which are
out-dated and not relied upon in the new ROP and attainment
demonstrations. Because these rescissions were mistakenly omitted
either from the original submittals or EPA's proposed action on the
submittals, and because the rescissions are inconsequential and fully
consistent with the 1994 SIP submittal respecting progress and
attainment, EPA is finalizing the TCM replacement without further
opportunity for public comment.
II. Review of the State Submittal, Response to Comments on Specific SIP
Issues, and EPA Final Action
A. State Measures
1. General Comments
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) commented
that EPA's proposal to approve the State's measures on a statewide
basis (if, under State law, they apply throughout California) did not
reflect the intent of the State, which was to limit the Federally
enforceable State measures only to the serious, severe, and extreme
nonattainment areas. EPA is so limiting the final approval action.
Accordingly, under Federal law the statewide measures will not count
toward attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS except in the ozone
nonattainment areas classified as serious and above. As a result, the
State must submit a SIP revision if it wishes in the future to extend
the geographic applicability of the measures. Because EPA is accepting
the State's request that Federal approval of the measures in the SIP
apply narrowly to the ozone ROP and attainment needs in serious and
above areas, the State must submit a SIP revision if, at any time in
the future, the emission reductions associated with the measures in
other areas are needed as components of attainment or maintenance SIPs
for other areas.
CEPA also requested that EPA not approve the reductions shown for
State measures M1, M2, M7, and M9 in the South Coast in the year 2007,
because 2007 is not a milestone year for the South Coast. EPA is
complying with the State's request in this final action. The year 2007
reductions in the South Coast may need to be resubmitted by the State
if federally enforceable 2007 reductions from these measures in the
upwind South Coast nonattainment area are needed for the 2007
attainment demonstration in the Southeast Desert.
Finally, CEPA asked that EPA not assign emission reduction credits
from measures M3, M5, M8, and CP-2/CP-3 to San Diego, since the area
did not use them for rate-of-progress or attainment. EPA is deleting
this credit. If reductions from these measures are needed in San Diego
in the future, the CARB must resubmit for SIP approval the State
measures with associated San Diego emission reductions.
2. Mobile Source Measures
a. Review of Measures. The following is a brief description of the
State's mobile source measures, or M Measures, identification of minor
corrections and clarifications to the measures or their
[[Page 1161]]
associated emission reductions, summary of public comment on the
measures and EPA's response, and EPA's final approval actions on the
measures.
(i) M1--Accelerated Retirement of Light-Duty Vehicles. The SIP
commits to secure a financing mechanism by the end of 1995, adopt the
measure in 1996, undertake a demonstration program from 1996 through
1998, and implement the program fully from 1999 to 2010, through the
annual retirement (scrappage or removal) of up to 75,000 older, high-
emitting vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin. CARB has clarified in
recent correspondence that the State's commitments for M-1 and for M-7,
the other vehicle retirement program in the 1994 Ozone SIP, are for the
specified emission reductions, rather than a particular number of
vehicles to be retired.20 While M1 is a commitment to implement an
accelerated vehicle retirement program only in the South Coast, the SIP
states that ``implementation of light-duty vehicle retirement programs
in other non-attainment areas will be considered as a means of further
reducing emissions'' (Vol. II, p. B-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Letter from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow, dated September 20,
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Defense Center commented that M1 is illusory
until an adequate and enforceable funding source is identified. EPA
considers the State's progress in implementing the measure to be
acceptable at this time. During 1995, the California Legislature
enacted SB501, which established a statewide scrappage program to work
in concert with the scrap component of the I/M program. Current funding
comes from legislation authorizing fees in lieu of smog check at first
registration renewal. EPA believes that timely program implementation
requires the State to develop an adequate long-term funding approach by
the end of 1997.
EPA will continue to monitor M1. If the program does not mature on
a schedule likely to deliver the reductions needed for progress and
attainment, EPA will work with the State to correct implementation or
substitute other measures that provide the needed emission reductions.
Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final
action to approve M1, its implementation schedule, and the emission
reductions to be achieved in the South Coast, as displayed in the table
below, labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M1.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M1 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG.................................. 5 8 11 13 14
NOX.................................. 4 6 9 10 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) M2--Improved Control Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles. CARB
commits to adopt this measure in 2000 and begin implementation in 2004-
2005. This measure will achieve emission reductions from LDVs through
the use of one or more market-based and/or technology-forcing
approaches. Emission reductions associated with this measure are relied
upon in the South Coast only.
The Western States Petroleum Association commented that the
description of the measure in the NPRM appeared to limit the
flexibility of the State. EPA's description, which was excerpted from
the SIP, was not intended to prescribe the ways in which the measure
could be implemented.
The Environmental Defense Center (EDC) noted that M2 relies on the
ZEV program, which was recently revised to rescind the interim
milestones. EDC also commented that M2 is highly speculative and
unenforceable and inappropriate for SIP credit.
On August 21, 1995, EPA approved M2 and assigned it SIP credit in
the South Coast under the provisions of section 182(e)(5) of the Act.
EPA will continue to work with CARB to ensure that the measure is
developed on schedule. CARB has recently provided additional
information regarding the development of this measure in a letter from
Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow, dated September 19, 1996: ``We expect to
begin developing this advanced technology measure following the 1998
biennial report to the ARB on the Low-Emission Vehicle Program. To meet
our commitment for adoption in 2000, we would need to hold public
workshops on the technical basis and regulatory concepts by 1999.
However, as part of the on-going Low-Emission Vehicle Program review,
staff continue to evaluate advanced control technologies that may
contribute to post-2003 emission reduction strategies for this
measure.'' The State has indicated that compliance options include
advanced gasoline vehicles, alternative fueled vehicles, and fuel cell
technologies.
Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final
action to approve the emission reductions to be achieved in the South
Coast by milestone year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from
California Mobile Source Measure M2.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M2 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG.................................. 0 0 3 6 10
NOX.................................. 0 0 5 9 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) M3--Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Requirement
for Medium-Duty Vehicles (MDVs). CARB commits in the SIP to adopt
regulations for this measure in 1997, with implementation occurring
from 1998 to 2002. This measure commits to an increase in the fraction
of MDV ULEVs from 10 percent of sales of new MDVs in the 1998 model
year to 100 percent in the 2002 and later model years. This measure
offers some flexibility by allowing other mixes of vehicles and
technologies that generate equivalent emission reductions.
In their joint comments, the Natural Resources Defense Council and
the Coalition for Clean Air noted that, at a public hearing in
September 1995, CARB announced that it had made a calculation error
which resulted in an overallocation of emission reductions to this
measure. As a result, the regulations adopted at that time will achieve
2 tpd VOC and 23.9 tpd NOX reduction, compared to M3's claimed
credits of approximately 4 tpd VOC and 32 tpd NOX in the South
Coast in 2010. The environmental groups stated that EPA must require
CARB to submit an additional measure to make up this shortfall before
EPA can approve the SIP. Despite CARB's error, EPA expects and requires
CARB to adhere to the State's enforceable commitment to adopt by 1997
regulations that achieve the full credit assigned to M3 for the
milestone dates specified for each of the 5 areas where reductions are
claimed.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The State has clarified its intentions in this regard
(letter from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow, dated September 19, 1996):
``The SIP binds the State to develop enforceable measures that
deliver the emission reductions needed for rate-of-progress and
attainment, as identified in the plan and subsequent technical
transmittals. Volume I of the SIP says `* * * Once the SIP is
approved by U.S. EPA, these enforceable commitments become mandatory
and must be carried out * * *. [they] compel the State or local air
districts to obtain the reductions or to substitute alternative
measures by formal revision of the SIP.' Thus, if we discover that a
rule to implement a plan measure will not generate the targeted
emission reductions, we are obliged to find replacement reductions
or to demonstrate that rate-of-progress and attainment requirements
will still be met. Further, we recognize that any shortfall in
emission reductions would have to be made up on an expedited basis
because of the need for those reductions in the South Coast and
other areas for rate-of-progress and attainment. ARB will be looking
at any feasible alternatives proposed during the process of
developing each measure into a regulation. This process includes
several rounds of public review and a thorough consideration of the
economic impacts on the affected industries.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1162]]
EPA approved M3 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve
the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by
nonattainment area and milestone/attainment year in the table below,
labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M3.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M3
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast....................... 0 .89 .78 9.51 1.85 21.1 2.31 26.7 3.37 33.16
SE Desert....................... 0 .1 .1 1.4 .2 3.5 ...... ...... ...... ......
Ventura......................... 0 0 0 .5 .1 1.0 ...... ...... ...... ......
Sacramento...................... .2 .2 0 1.7 .4 3.9 ...... ...... ...... ......
S. Joaquin...................... 0 .4 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) M4--Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV); Early Introduction of
2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX engines. The SIP commits to implementation of
this measure beginning in 1996. CARB and the Districts share
responsibility for this measure. M4 is a commitment to increase the use
of existing low-emission engines among on-road HDDVs through locally
implemented demand-side programs and market incentives. This program is
intended to result in a 5% sales penetration of 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX
engines through the period 1996-1999, and a 10% sales penetration of
these engines between 2000 and 2002. Other combinations of penetrations
and emission levels that provide equivalent emission reductions could
be implemented.
CEPA commented that the NPRM omits SIP credits for this measure
outside of the South Coast. EPA agrees to include the State's M4
reductions for the remaining State areas. The credits for these areas
are taken from tables provided by CARB in Attachment C to a June 13,
1996 letter from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp.
EPA approved M4 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve
the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by
nonattainment area and milestone/attainment year in the table below,
labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M4.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M4
[Tons per day of NOX]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast......................... 2.17 3.90 2.93 ........... 2.34 1.36
SE Desert......................... 0.31 0.57 0.39 0.35 ........... ...........
Ventura........................... 0.1 0.18 0.14 ........... ........... ...........
Sacramento........................ 0.28 0.49 0.36
S. Joaquin........................ 0.74 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Kern.............................. 0.04 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) M5--Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDVs); Additional NOX
Reductions. The SIP commits to adopt this measure in 1997 and begin
implementation in 2002. CARB commits to achieve emission reductions
through adoption of a 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX emissions standard for new
HDDV engines sold in California beginning in 2002, or by implementation
of alternative measures which achieve equivalent or greater reductions.
This measure is designed to achieve emission reductions prior to
the introduction of a national HDDV standard in 2004. The 1994
California Ozone SIP (``Federal Measure'' M6) assigns to EPA
responsibility for adopting such a national standard. See discussion in
the NPRM (61 FR 10928-9). Since EPA's proposal, further progress toward
fulfilling the M5 and M6 commitments has been made by CARB and EPA. On
June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33421-33469), EPA published an NPRM proposing a
national onroad heavy-duty engine standard giving manufacturers the
flexibility to choose between two options: (1) A combined non-methane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus NOX standard of 2.4 g/bhp-hr and (2) a
combined NMHC plus NOX standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr together with a
NMHC cap of .5 g/bhp-hr. EPA and CARB expect that the combined standard
will result in NOX reductions comparable to those achieved with a
2.0 g/bhp-hr standard.
EPA approved M5 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve
the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by
nonattainment area and milestone/attainment year in the table below,
labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M5.'' Future
SIP updates may need to redistribute the emissions assigned to the
State (M5) and Federal (M6) measures.
[[Page 1163]]
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M5
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast............................................... 0 0 0.2 1.7 1.8 22.0 ...... ...... 3.1 37.6 4.8 56.2
SE Desert............................................... 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 3.9 0.4 5.1 ...... ...... ...... ......
Ventura................................................. 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 1.0 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Sacramento.............................................. 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 2.7 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
S. Joaquin.............................................. 0 0 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vi) M7--Accelerated Retirement of Heavy-Duty Vehicles. CARB
commits to adopt this measure in 1996 and begin implementation in the
same year. This measure involves the annual retirement (scrapping or
removal) of about 1600 of the oldest, high emitting trucks in the South
Coast Air Basin, beginning in 1999. A smaller number of trucks would be
scrapped in 1996 to 1998 in order to gain experience with the program
and determine the impacts on the used truck market. The SIP commits to
secure a financing mechanism for this measure by the end of 1995. While
the SIP commits only to implement this measure in the South Coast, the
State indicates that consideration is being given to establishing a
truck retirement program in Sacramento and other nonattainment areas.
The Environmental Defense Center notes that M7 relies on an
enforceable funding mechanism to be secured by the end of 1995. EDC
comments that it is capricious to fail to identify the secure,
enforceable funding source for this speculative scrappage program.
State funding legislation has been prepared to establish the
Accelerated Vehicle Replacement Program, and the State is continuing to
pursue viable funding options. EPA will monitor program implementation
and ensure that the State and involved parties meet the SIP's schedule
for program adoption and implementation in 1996.
CARB requested that the ROG emission reductions shown for the South
Coast in the year 2002 be reduced from 1 to zero (0.21). EPA is doing
so at this time.
Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final
action to approve M7, its implementation schedule, and the emission
reductions to be achieved in the South Coast, as displayed in the table
below, labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M7.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M7--South Coast Air Basin
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG............................... 0 0 1 1 1 1
NOX............................... 3 6 7 8 9 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vii) M8--Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (HDGVs), Lower Emission
Standards. The SIP commits to adoption of this measure by 1997 and
implementation beginning in 1998. This measure generates emission
reductions through the adoption of a LEV/ULEV program for HDGV engines
to obtain 50% reductions of NOX and ROG emissions through the
application of 3-way catalyst technology.
EPA approved M8 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve
the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by
nonattainment area and milestone/attainment year in the table below,
labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M8.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M8
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast............................................... 0 0 0 0.8 0.1 1.8 ...... ...... 0.2 2.3 0.3 3.0
SE Desert............................................... 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.4 ...... ...... ...... ......
Ventura................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Sacramento.............................................. 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.4 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
S. Joaquin.............................................. 0 0 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(viii) M9--Off-road Diesel Equipment; 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOX
Standard, California. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 2001 and
begin implementation in 2005. The measure requires CARB to adopt a 2.5
g/bhp-hr NOX standard effective in the 2005 model year for new
off-road industrial equipment diesel engines that are not preempted
from California authority. California is preempted from adopting or
enforcing any standard or other requirement relating to the control of
emissions from new construction and farm equipment or vehicles which
are smaller than 175 hp (see section 209(e) of the Act).
CARB requested that the ROG emission reductions shown for the South
Coast in the year 2005 be increased from zero to 0.5. EPA is doing so
at this time.
On August 21, 1995, EPA approved M9 and assigned it SIP credit in
the South Coast under the provisions of section 182(e)(5) of the Act.
Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final
action to approve
[[Page 1164]]
the emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast by milestone
year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile
Source Measure M9.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M9--South Coast Air Basin
[tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG............................... 0 0 0.5 4 1 3
NOX............................... 0 0 4 35 14 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ix) M11--Industrial Equipment; Gas and LPG-California; 3-way
catalyst technology. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 1997 and
implement it beginning in 2000. The measure requires CARB to adopt
emission standards for new gas and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) engines
25 to 175 horsepower that are not primarily used in construction or
farm equipment. As noted above, California is preempted from regulating
new farm and construction equipment smaller than 175 hp. The standards
will be phased-in beginning in 2000, and are intended to reduce ROG
emissions by 75% and NOx by at least 50%.
CEPA commented that the NPRM omits SIP credits for this measure in
Ventura, Sacramento, and the Southeast Desert. EPA agrees to include
the State's M11 reductions for these areas. The credits for these areas
are taken from tables provided by CARB in Attachment C to a June 13,
1996 letter from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp. Since the reductions
in these areas are all considerably less than one ton per day and EPA's
proposal showed credits only for whole number reductions in the South
Coast, EPA is also amending the reductions for the South Coast by
showing estimated reductions to the nearest tenth of a ton.
EPA approved M11 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve
the emission reductions associated with the measure by milestone/
attainment year for each area in the table below, labeled ``Reductions
from California Mobile Source Measure M11.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M11
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast............................................... 0 0 4.2 2.0 8.8 4.4 ...... ...... 15.1 7.7 23.0 11.6
SE Desert............................................... 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
Ventura................................................. 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Sacramento.............................................. 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(x) Additional New Control Technologies. In addition to the new
control technologies described above in measures M2 and M9, CARB has
committed to the implementation of additional innovative measures to
achieve the emission reductions needed in the South Coast to reach
attainment by 2010. CARB anticipates that these additional measures
will include a combination of market-based and technology-based
measures. CARB has committed to adoption of these measures no later
than 2006 to ensure the needed emissions reductions (55 tpd of ROG and
20 tpd of NOX) are achieved by 2009.
The Environmental Defense Center commented that these new-
technology measures jeopardize the efficacy of the entire SIP. EDC
stated that many of the State's example controls are unrealistic (speed
controls) or illegal (episodic controls).
On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's additional new control
technologies measure under the provisions of section 182(e)(5), with
2010 emission reduction credits of 79 tpd ROG and 60 tpd NOX in
the South Coast. CARB has subsequently clarified that the emissions
reductions associated with this measure are 55 tpd ROG and 20 tpd
NOX.
CARB has also furnished additional information regarding the
State's approach to developing the control measure. A September 19,
1996 letter from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow provides the following
description of the State's proposed schedule: ``We anticipate kicking
off development of this measure in 1997 with an international symposium
on clean transportation to solicit ideas for new technologies and
approaches. We intend to follow up with technical work (including any
appropriate research contracts), meetings, and workshops on the most
promising ideas through 2000. At that point, we expect to develop
regulatory concepts for discussion in 2001-2003, followed by release of
specific proposals in 2004-2005, and adoption of appropriate
regulations by 2006.'' EPA remains eager to work with the State to
ensure that progress is made to develop approvable mobile source
controls as necessary in the South Coast to meet the SIP's progress and
attainment goals.
c. EPA Action. As described above, EPA has already approved most of
the State's M Measure commitments. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved the
CARB new-technology measures M2, M9, and Additional New Technology
Mobile Source Measures (described above), and assigned credit in the
South Coast ozone attainment demonstration to the measures. At the same
time, EPA proposed approval of the State's control measure commitments
for M3, M5, M8, and M11. EPA issued final approval of the measures on
December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Because EPA was at that time not
acting on the State's ROP and attainment demonstrations, EPA's approval
of the State's commitments did not include assignment of specific
emission reduction credits associated with the measures. EPA is here
approving the ROP and attainment demonstrations of California ozone
nonattainment area plans which rely, in part, on the M Measure
commitments. Therefore, under sections 110(k)(3) and
[[Page 1165]]
301(a) of the Act, EPA now takes final action to assign credit to the
State's enforceable commitments to achieve the specific emission
reductions associated with M3, M5, M8, and M11, and displayed in the
tables above for each measure.
EPA is also approving, under sections 110(a)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, and assigning credit to measures M1, M4, and M7 as part of the ROP
and attainment demonstrations for appropriate nonattainment areas, as
shown in the tables above. EPA believes that CARB is making significant
progress toward the development and adoption of regulations to fulfill
the M measure commitments. EPA therefore takes final action to approve
and credit CARB's enforceable commitments to these M measures under
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, as part of the demonstrations
of ROP and attainment in the California ozone nonattainment areas.
2. I/M
a. Review of Program. CARB initially submitted its motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, known as the Smog Check
program, as a revision to its SIP on June 30, 1995. The submittal was
made to fulfill EPA's requirements for basic and enhanced I/M programs
as set forth in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S. EPA found the submittal
complete on June 30, 1995. A revised and final revision was submitted
by the State on January 22, 1996 and found complete on February 5,
1996. Section 348 of the National Highway System Designation Act
(Public Law 104-59), hereafter referred to as the Highway Act, which
was enacted on November 28, 1995, modified EPA's I/M regulation. In
this notice EPA is finalizing approval of California's basic program as
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 51, Subpart S as amended (see
60 FR 48029, September 18, 1995) and approval of California's enhanced
I/M program as meeting the high enhanced performance standard
requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S, as amended and section
348(c) of the Highway Act.
The table labeled ``California I/M Program Coverage by County''
shows for every county in the State whether the I/M program is
implemented as enhanced or basic, or is required only upon change of
ownership. For many counties, the type of I/M program in effect varies
depending upon air quality designations and whether the area is
urbanized. The State has established these I/M program boundaries
within counties based upon ZIP code. The reader may contact the Bureau
of Automotive Repair (BAR) to obtain specific program applicability
information by ZIP code.
California I/M Program Coverage by County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change of
County Enhanced Basic ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda....................... ............ x ............
Alpine........................ ............ ............ x
Amador........................ ............ ............ x
Butte......................... ............ x ............
Calaveras..................... ............ ............ x
Colusa........................ ............ x ............
Contra Costa.................. ............ x ............
Del Norte..................... ............ ............ x
El Dorado..................... ............ x x
Fresno........................ x x ............
Glenn......................... ............ x ............
Humboldt...................... ............ ............ x
Imperial...................... ............ ............ x
Inyo.......................... ............ ............ x
Kern.......................... x x ............
Kings......................... ............ x ............
Lake.......................... ............ ............ x
Lassen........................ ............ ............ x
Los Angeles................... x ............ ............
Madera........................ ............ x ............
Marin......................... ............ x ............
Mariposa...................... ............ ............ x
Mendocino..................... ............ ............ x
Merced........................ ............ x ............
Modoc......................... ............ ............ x
Mono.......................... ............ ............ x
Monterey...................... ............ x ............
Napa.......................... ............ x ............
Nevada........................ ............ x ............
Orange........................ x ............ ............
Placer........................ x x x
Plumas........................ ............ ............ x
Riverside..................... x x x
Sacramento.................... x x ............
San Benito.................... ............ x ............
San Bernardino................ x x x
San Diego..................... x x x
San Francisco................. ............ x ............
San Joaquin................... x x ............
San Luis Obispo............... ............ x ............
San Mateo..................... ............ x ............
Santa Barbara................. ............ x ............
Santa Clara................... ............ x ............
Santa Cruz.................... ............ x ............
[[Page 1166]]
Shasta........................ ............ x ............
Sierra........................ ............ ............ x
Siskiyou...................... ............ ............ x
Solano........................ x x ............
Sonoma........................ ............ x x
Stanislaus.................... x x ............
Sutter........................ ............ x ............
Tehama........................ ............ x ............
Trinity....................... ............ ............ x
Tulare........................ ............ x ............
Tuolumne...................... ............ ............ x
Ventura....................... x x ............
Yolo.......................... x x ............
Yuba.......................... ............ x ............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP revision submitted to EPA by CARB includes the Laws and
Regulations relating to California's I/M program which comprises
pertinent sections of the California Business and Professions Code, the
Health and Safety Code, the Vehicle Code, and the California Code of
Regulations. Included in the supplemental submittal are final
regulations for the mandatory exhaust emissions inspection standards
and test procedures for the enhanced program and for the licensing of
I/M stations and technicians which became legally effective on December
1, 1995 and December 5, 1995, respectively. Other documents in the
submittal are: The Request for Conceptual Design for Test-only Networks
and Referee Services; the BAR-90 Test Analyzer System Specifications
(June 1995); the California Smog Check Inspection Manual; the Quality
Assurance Operations Manual, Chapter 27 of the Department of Motor
Vehicles Manual of Registration Procedures; the Smog Check Diagnostic
and Repair Manual; the Request for Proposal for On-Road Emissions
Measurement Systems Services, and the Radian Report entitled
``Evaluation of the California Pilot Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)
Program.''
EPA's I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for
basic and enhanced I/M programs as well as requirements for the
following: Network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and
resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test
procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and
compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement
program oversight; quality assurance; enforcement against contractors,
stations and inspectors; data collection; data analysis and reporting;
inspector training and licensing or certification; public information
and consumer protection; improving repair effectiveness; compliance
with recall notices; on-road testing; SIP revisions; and implementation
deadlines. The performance standard for basic I/M programs remains the
same as it has been since initial I/M policy was established in 1978,
pursuant to the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The high
performance standard for enhanced I/M programs is based on high-
technology loaded mode exhaust testing for HC, CO, and NOX and
testing of the integrity and performance of the evaporative control
system.
California's basic program is a test-and-repair program utilizing
two-speed idle testing. California's enhanced program is a hybrid
program in which 15% of the dirtiest vehicles, based upon high-emitter
profile and remote sensing results as well as other factors, are
targeted for test-only inspection. All vehicles in the enhanced areas
will be subject to loaded mode testing. More stringent requirements
apply to technicians licensed in the enhanced areas. The two programs
are essentially the same in all other respects, excepting that
frequency of enforcement related activities such as remote sensing will
be much greater in the enhanced areas. (A more detailed discussion of
how the elements of California's I/M programs address the requirements
of EPA's I/M regulations is contained in the TSD for the NPRM.) The SIP
submittal includes modeling which demonstrates that the program design
for California's basic program will meet EPA's performance standard for
basic programs. EPA is, therefore, approving this revision to
California's SIP for the basic I/M program.
The Highway Act prohibits the Administrator from disapproving or
applying an automatic discount of emission reduction credits to a SIP
revision because the I/M program is decentralized or a test-and-repair
program. The Highway Act directs the Administrator to propose approval
of the program for the full credit proposed by the state if the
proposed credits reflect good faith estimates by the state and the
revision is otherwise in compliance with the Clean Air Act. The
approval remains effective for up to 18 months after the date of final
rulemaking. After the 18-month period, permanent approval of the SIP
revision based on the credits proposed by the state shall be granted if
the data collected on the operation of the program demonstrates that
the credits are appropriate and the program is otherwise in compliance
with the Act.
EPA issued guidance regarding approval of I/M plans under the
Highway Act on December 12, 1995. The Highway Act is clear that
approval under its provisions shall last for only 18 months, and that
the program evaluation is due to EPA at the end of that period.
Therefore, EPA believes Congress intended for these programs to start-
up as soon as possible, which EPA believes should be at the latest, 12
months after the effective date of the approval, so that at least 6
months of operational program data can be collected to evaluate the
performance of the program. ``Start-up'' is defined as a fully
operational program which has begun regular, mandatory inspections and
repairs, using the final test strategy and covering each of the state's
required areas. If the state fails to start its program on this
schedule, the approval granted under the provisions of the Highway Act
will convert to a disapproval after a finding letter is sent to the
state.
As mentioned above, the Highway Act specifies that EPA grant
approval if good faith estimates of credits are made.
[[Page 1167]]
The Conference Report states that good faith estimates may be based on
previous I/M program performance, remote sensing programs, or other
evidence relevant to effectiveness of I/M programs. EPA has further
suggested that good faith estimates could be based on innovative
program designs.
The program evaluation to be used by the state during the 18-month
period must be acceptable to EPA. EPA anticipates that such a program
evaluation process will be developed by the Environmental Council of
State (ECOS) group that is convening now and that was organized for
this purpose. California is an active participant in the ECOS group.
EPA further expects that in addition to the interim, short term
evaluation to be conducted within 18 months, the state will conduct a
long term, ongoing evaluation of its I/M program as required by the I/M
Rule in sections 51.353 and 51.366.
At the end of the 18-month approval period, EPA will review the
state's final I/M SIP revision, which will include the state's program
evaluation, and take action to make the approval of the I/M program
permanent, if the program evaluation data collected by the state
demonstrates that the I/M program is achieving the emission reduction
credits claimed in the SIP.
According to the schedule submitted by California test-only
inspection began in Sacramento in August 1995. The program is expected
to be fully operational in Fresno, Bakersfield and San Diego by the
fall of 1996, and in the South Coast areas in early 1997. Although this
schedule appears to be slipping, EPA anticipates that California will
start its program within 12 months of this approval.
California has made a good faith estimate that its hybrid enhanced
I/M program will meet EPA's high performance standard based on the
California Pilot Program and innovative program features including an
electronic transmission project with a trigger program used for
enforcement, a high visibility remote sensing program, and stringent
licensing and training requirements.
The pilot program conducted as part of the Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA and California provided data on the effectiveness of
targeting high emitting vehicles through the use of the high-emitter
profile (HEP) and remote sensing combined with the HEP, and the use of
Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) testing. The vehicles required to go
to test-only facilities for inspection will comprise likely high-
emitters as identified through use of the HEP and remote sensing,
previously identified high emitters which must undergo annual testing
for 2 to 5 years, high emitters identified by test-and-repair stations,
high mileage fleet vehicles, vehicles for hire, a 2% random sample, and
motorists voluntarily choosing to go to test-only stations.
California's program includes an electronic transmission program. A
central Vehicle Information Database has been created and an electronic
network enabling the test analyzer system units to connect
automatically to the database has been established. The central
database will be able to restrict the issuance of certificates under
certain circumstances, e.g., if a test-only inspection is required,
when the vehicle is identified as a high emitter, or when an enhanced
test is required. The database will also furnish a real-time
communications link to vehicle emissions data which will provide
information to BAR enforcement teams to help immediately identify
illicit activity. The database will also be used to develop a trigger
program to identify shops that are performing improper inspections and
to track the location and performance of licensed smog check
technicians.
The State is also phasing in a high-visibility remote sensing
program. California plans to identify as least 200,000 high emitting
vehicles annually in the enhanced program areas. Data collected from
the program will be used as a target parameter for the enforcement
program. The program will also serve as a visible reminder to both
motorists and test-and-repair stations that improper inspections and/or
program avoidance may be detected. Stringent licensing and training
requirements are being required for test-and-repair stations and repair
technicians, respectively.
California has committed to performing quarterly evaluations of its
program to determine if EPA's performance standard is being met and the
credits taken for the program are being achieved. California plans to
adjust the number of vehicles sent to test-only stations based on these
evaluations.
b. Response to Comments. The Environmental Defense Center commented
that the State's I/M program must be bolstered to return the emissions
reduction necessary to meet attainment. California has committed to
performing quarterly program evaluations to determine whether SIP
emission reduction requirements and EPA's performance standard are
being met. EPA's approval under section 348(c) of the Highway Act
requires the State to collect data on the operation of the program to
demonstrate with an 18 month period that the I/M credits are valid and
the program is otherwise in compliance with the CAA. EPA will work with
the State to help ensure that data are timely collected and that the
program delivers SIP-required reductions or is promptly modified to do
so.
c. Emissions Reductions. The emission reductions to be achieved by
the measure are displayed by nonattainment area and milestone/
attainment year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from
California Enhanced I/M Program.'' The table reflects the revisions to
the estimated reductions shown in the NPRM. These changes were
requested by CARB in Attachment A to a letter dated June 13, 1996
(James D. Boyd to David Howekamp). South Coast 2002 NOX is changed
from 35.5 to 35.6; Southeast Desert 2005 ROG is changed from 2.9 to
2.6; Southeast Desert 2007 NOX is changed from 2.8 to 2.7;
Sacramento 2005 ROG is changed from 5.1 to 5.2; and San Joaquin Valley
1999 NOX is changed from 4.9 to 5.0. The emission reductions
claimed for the San Joaquin Valley are based on implementation of the
enhanced I/M program in Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, and Modesto.
Reductions From California Enhanced I/M Program
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast..................... 34.8 32.4 40.3 35.6 32.5 33.0 ........ ........ 30.2 34.8 26.2 31.1
SE Desert..................... 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.7
Ventura....................... 1.6 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.9
[[Page 1168]]
Sacramento.................... 5.4 5.7 6.3 6.5 5.2 6.4
S. Joaquin.................... 4.3 5.0
S. Diego...................... 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. EPA Action. EPA is finalizing approval of the California I/M
regulations submitted on January 22, 1996, under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the Act as strengthening the SIP and contributing specific
emission reductions toward the progress, attainment, and maintenance
requirements of the Act.
EPA is also finalizing, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, approval of the California I/M program and regulations submitted
on January 22, 1996, as meeting the requirements of section 182(b)(4)
of the Act for basic I/M in applicable areas of the State classified as
moderate for ozone.22 By mistake EPA's proposed approval was
limited to ozone. In this final action EPA is also approving the
California I/M program as meeting the requirements of section 187(a)(4)
of the Act for basic I/M for the following areas of the State
classified as moderate for CO with design values less than 12.7:
Fresno, Sacramento, Modesto, Chico, Stockton and San Diego.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The January 22, 1996 SIP submittal includes and supersedes
materials contained in the State's earlier submittal of June 30,
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 348(c) of the Highway Act, EPA is finalizing, for a
period of 18 months, approval of the California I/M submittal of
January 22, 1996, as meeting the requirements of section 182(c)(3) of
the CAA for enhanced I/M in applicable areas of the State classified as
serious and above for ozone. In addition, EPA is approving the I/M
submittals as meeting the requirements of section 187(a)(6) of the Act
for enhanced I/M for the South Coast which is classified as a serious
nonattainment area for carbon monoxide; by mistake, this aspect of
EPA's approval of the I/M program was also omitted from the NPRM.
Finally, EPA is finalizing, for a period of 18 months, approval of the
emission reductions to be achieved by the enhanced I/M program, as
displayed in the table above, labeled ``Reductions from California
Enhanced I/M Program.'' Section 348(c)(3) of the Highway Act provides
that EPA will take regulatory action to make the approval permanent if,
at the expiration of the 18-month period or at an earlier time, the
data collected on the operation of the State program demonstrates that
``the credits are appropriate and the revision is otherwise in
compliance with the Clean Air Act.''
If EPA finds that California has failed to start its program within
12 months from the effective date of this notice, or by February 9,
1998, and issues a letter so informing California, then this approval
will convert to a disapproval as of the date of such letter. If the
required State demonstration is not completed within 18 months and
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision or does not show that the credits
are appropriate and that the program is otherwise in compliance with
the CAA, EPA will take regulatory action to disapprove the program for
purposes of compliance with the enhanced I/M requirements of sections
182(c)(3) and 187(a)(6). After 18 months have elapsed, unless and until
EPA approves a new SIP submittal, the SIP will no longer meet the
specific requirements of the Act relating to enhanced I/M, but the
State's regulations will continue in the SIP as contributing to
progress, attainment, and maintenance of the NAAQS.
3. Consumer Products.
a. Introduction. As discussed in the NPRM, CARB classifies the
emissions reductions resulting from regulations on consumer products
regulations into 3 main categories: near-term, mid-term, and long-term
with regard to date of promulgation and implementation.
CARB's near-term measures consist of rules adopted prior to May
1995. The existing consumer products regulations, antiperspirant and
deodorant regulations, and the 1996 and 1999 VOC content standards of
the recently adopted aerosol paints rule comprise the near-term
measures.
CARB's mid-term measures consist of anticipated regulations from
categories of consumer products for which regulations had not yet been
adopted at the time of the submittal. These regulations are expected to
be adopted by July 1, 1997 and implemented by the year 2005, and will
cover various consumer product categories which are currently not
regulated by the State of California. These mid-term measures are
needed for attainment demonstrations in the Sacramento Metropolitan and
Ventura County air basins. In the SIP, CARB asserts that these
measures, like the near-term measures, rely on available or reasonably
foreseeable technology. CARB has also committed to investigating the
feasibility of incorporating reactivity considerations into the mid-
term measures to reduce ozone-forming potential while providing
additional flexibility at reduced costs to industry and consumers.
CARB has committed to obtaining further reductions (as compared to
the near- and mid-term measures) from consumer products after 2000.
These reductions may rely on available or in-the-pipeline technology,
and may also rely on various combinations of traditional control
strategies, technology-forcing standards, innovative market-based
approaches, and consumer education programs. These long-term measures
would be enforced on a statewide basis, but only the South Coast plan
relies on the emissions reductions to demonstrate attainment.
CARB has further categorized their emission reduction commitments
into 4 classifications, or ``measures'': CP-1, CP-2, CP-3, and CP-4.
These measures are either adopted rules or commitments to adopt rules
to reduce VOC emissions from consumer products and aerosol paints. A
description of each of these measures follows.
b. Review of Measures. (1) Measure CP-1. Measure CP-1 includes two
rules, both adopted prior to November 1994, that are designed to
control VOC emissions from commercial products. One rule controls VOC
emissions from antiperspirants and deodorants; the other rule controls
emissions from household products, such as air fresheners, shaving
cream, and hairsprays. Both rules were submitted to EPA on November 15,
1994. EPA
[[Page 1169]]
approved these rules into the SIP on August 21, 1995 (see 60 FR 43379).
(2) Measure CP-3 (Aerosol Paints). Measure CP-3 is a near term
commitment to adopt and implement VOC content standards in aerosol
paints. Regulations meeting these commitments were adopted in mid-1995.
These regulations limit the VOC content of aerosol paints by
establishing sets of VOC content standards for various coating types.
These standards establish the maximum percentage of VOC by weight
allowed in the various types of aerosol coatings. The coating standards
are divided into two phases. In the first phase, effective January 1,
1996, aerosol coatings' VOC content must comply with limits that range
from 60 percent to 95 percent, depending on the coating.
In the second phase, currently due to take effect December 31,
1999, aerosol coatings' VOC content limits will range from 30 percent
to 80 percent, depending on the type of coating. Before the second
phase of content limits can be implemented, CARB must conduct a public
hearing to determine if the limits are commercially and technologically
feasible. If the Board determines that they are not feasible, the
implementation of some or all of the limits may be postponed for up to
5 years. However, CARB must ensure that the 1999 limits do not become
federally enforceable prior to the final effective date, including any
extension, according to section 41712 (f)(3) of the California Health
and Safety Code.
EPA approval action on both phases of the aerosol paint rules will
be taken in separate rulemakings following SIP submittal of the rules.
(3) Mid-Term Committal Measure CP-2. Measure CP-2 is a mid-term
commitment to adopt additional regulations in 1997 to further reduce
VOC emissions from currently unregulated household, industrial and
institutional, and commercial consumer products. These reductions are
anticipated to result from the further regulation of new categories of
consumer products through technology that is currently feasible and
commercially viable. EPA approved CP-2 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR
64126).
(4) Long-Term Committal Measure CP-4. Measure CP-4 is a long-term
measure to further reduce emissions after measures CP-1, CP-2, and CP-3
are implemented. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's Measure CP-4
as meeting the requirements of section 182(e)(5).
(5) Alternative Control Plans (ACPs). In order to provide industry
with flexibility in meeting the VOC content limits, CARB has adopted
regulations that will allow manufacturers to meet the VOC standards on
an emissions average basis. The regulations, CARB's Alternative Control
Plan (ACP) for consumer products and aerosol coatings, require that
manufacturers carefully track sales and VOC content of all products
being averaged together in order to determine total VOC emissions from
their products and compliance with the rule. EPA will act on the ACP
regulations following submittal by the State.
c. Emission Reductions. The following table, ``Reductions from
California Consumer Products and Aerosol Paint Program,'' describes the
ROG emission reductions in terms of tons per day, as identified in the
SIP submittal. Credits for near-term consumer products (CP-1) are not
included, since they were presumed in baseline emissions projections as
adopted regulations. The table combines credits for consumer products
and aerosol paints. Credit for CP-4 is claimed only for South Coast.
The ROP and attainment demonstrations for San Diego and San Joaquin
Valley do not rely on reductions from the consumer products measures.
The State has submitted for SIP approval no emissions reductions for
these areas associated with consumer products and aerosol paints
measures, although real reductions will occur in those areas. San
Joaquin Valley Unified APCD requested that EPA identify a 1.1 tpd VOC
emissions reduction in the San Joaquin Valley area from these measures.
Since the State does not wish to claim SIP credit for these measures in
the San Joaquin Valley, EPA is not assigning the credits to San Joaquin
Valley.
Reductions From California Consumer Products and Aerosol Paint Program [Reductions Beyond Those Achieved by CP-
1]
[Tons per day of ROG]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast...................... 0 8 39.2 ........... 42.2 89.2
SE Desert........................ 0 0.6 3.5 3.9 ........... ...........
Ventura.......................... 0 0.4 2.2 ........... ........... ...........
Sacramento....................... 0 1.1 5.6 ........... ........... ...........
San Joaquin...................... 0 ............ ........... ........... ........... ...........
San Diego........................ 0 ............ ........... ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. EPA Action. As discussed above, EPA has already fully approved
all of the State's consumer products rules and committal measures with
the exception of CP-3 (Aerosol Paints). EPA is now approving CP-3 under
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and assigning credit to this
measure, as well as to the previously approved consumer products
measures, as part of the ROP and attainment demonstrations for
appropriate nonattainment areas. EPA will take regulatory action on the
recently adopted ACP and Aerosol Paints regulations themselves in
separate rulemakings.
4. Pesticides
a. Review of Measure. California's 1994 SIP submittal includes a
commitment to reduce VOC emissions from the application of agricultural
and structural pesticides. The submittal describes relevant authority
in Section 6220 of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations that
has been granted to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation
(DPR).
b. Response to Comments. The Environmental Defense Center (EDC)
questioned whether the pesticides measure should be granted credit. EDC
stated that pest management research alone will not create any
reductions and the SIP is entirely vague as to how these air quality
benefits will be accomplished. While the NPRM refers to a June 1997
date for promulgation of regulations should the voluntary measures
fail, the SIP itself recites a possible, not obligatory, 1998 date.
Finally, EDC recommends that the pesticides rule that was included in
EPA's 1995 Federal Implementation
[[Page 1170]]
Plan (or some comparable rule) must be included in the SIP.
On May 11, 1995, CARB submitted a clarification by the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation (Memo from James W. Wells to James
D. Boyd) to the pesticide element of the SIP, submitted on November 15,
1994. This SIP clarification, which was cited in the NPRM, states, in
part, that ``The Department of Pesticide Regulation commits to adopt
and submit to U.S. EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to
reduce volatile organic compound emissions from agricultural and
commercial structural pesticides by specific percentages of the 1990
base year emissions, by specific years, and in specific nonattainment
areas * * * as listed in the following table * * *.'' California
assigns to the pesticides measure less emission reductions than were
associated with EPA's proposed FIP rule but the SIP reductions are
sufficient to meet progress and attainment requirements in each area
for this control category.
c. Emission Reductions As described in the SIP, California has
committed to adopt and submit to U.S. EPA by June 15, 1997, any
regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and
commercial structural pesticides by 20 percent of the 1990 base year
emissions in the attainment years for Sacramento, Ventura, Southeast
Desert, and the South Coast, and by 12 percent in 1999 for the San
Joaquin Valley. The table labeled ``Reductions from Pesticides
Measure'' shows reductions counted toward attainment in each area. EPA
has revised the table to reflect CEPA's request that emission
reductions for interim years be excluded from the SIP, since CARB
elects not to assign credit to the pesticides measure except for
purposes of attainment. If reductions from the measure are, in the
future, needed to meet ROP milestones, CARB must resubmit the measure
and interim reduction estimates as an SIP revision.
Reductions From Pesticides Measure
[Tons per day of ROG]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast..................... 0 0 0 0 0 1.7
Southeast Desert................ 0 0 0 1.5
Ventura......................... 0 0 2.4
Sacramento...................... 0 0 2.8
San Joaquin..................... 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. EPA Action. EPA is approving the Pesticides measure under
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and assigning credit to the
measure as part of the attainment demonstrations for appropriate
nonattainment areas. EPA will take regulatory action on the State's
Pesticides regulations, if any regulations are required and are
submitted, in separate rulemakings.
B. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and Measures
1. Emission Inventories
a. Response to Comments. The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
commented that EPA has not provided all of the data or documented all
of the assumptions that were part of California's inventory and
modeling analyses. EMA added that it has serious concerns that the
baseline emissions inventories include potentially significant
overestimates of growth in VMT, trips, and vehicle and equipment sales
and usage. EMA indicated that these estimates do not accurately reflect
the emissions reductions that will result from the imposition of
current and future national and state regulations. Finally, EMA noted
that EPA acknowledged that its baseline and projected emissions are
uncertain, and EMA requested that EPA should not take final action on
the proposed inventories but should require that appropriate
adjustments be made in order to provide accurate and reasonable
inventory calculations on which to base California's proposed measures.
EPA does not believe that it is necessary or practical for the
Agency to set forth the complete emission inventory data and
documentation. This information is available from the State and local
agencies, and amounts to thousands of pages of emissions and activity
data, emissions factors, calculations, and quality assurance programs.
The commenter provided no specific information relating to
inaccuracies in the SIP emission inventories. EPA recognizes that, in
general, the accuracy of inventories for any area can be improved. If
EMA has specific corrections to suggest, they should be provided to the
State, EPA, and local agencies for review and possible inclusion in
future SIP revisions. However, EPA has determined that the existing
inventories meet applicable SIP requirements and provide reasonable
foundations for the SIP.
The City of Los Angeles commented that the South Coast is preparing
a 1997 AQMP update, which will improve the inventory. EPA recognizes
that the improved inventory in progress may allow for SIP refinement.
If and when inventory updates and improvements are submitted as SIP
revisions for any of the nonattainment areas, EPA will consider them.
b. EPA Action. EPA is finalizing approval of the emission
inventories for each of the nonattainment areas as meeting the
requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the Act.
2. San Diego
a. SIP Control Measures. Only one comment was received on the San
Diego plan. As discussed above in Section II.A.1, CEPA asked EPA to
exclude from the San Diego SIP those emission reductions that will
result from implementation of State measures M3, M5, M8, and CP-2/CP-3,
since these reductions are not needed for purposes of progress or
attainment. EPA is deleting these credits from the emission reduction
tables for State measures in Section II.A.
EPA is not approving any new State or local measures as part of the
San Diego ozone SIP, since none were included in the State's submittal.
The State demonstrated that the ROP and attainment demonstration
provisions of the Act could be met with pre-existing regulations.
b. ROP Provisions. EPA is finalizing approval of the ROP plan as
meeting the 15% ROP requirements of section 182(b)(1) and the post-1996
ROP requirements of section 182(c)(2) of the Act. The ROP VOC targets,
projected VOC emissions, and creditable VOC and NOX reductions are
shown below in the table labeled ``San Diego ROP Forecasts and
Targets.''
[[Page 1171]]
San Diego ROP Forecasts and Targets
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Year 1996 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Base Year VOC Inventory....................... 312.6 312.6
VOC Projections (Adopted Measures)................. 236.1 232.0
ROP VOC Target..................................... 241.2 212.2
VOC Shortfall...................................... 0 19.8
NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents................ 0 19.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration. EPA is approving the
State's modeling analysis and attainment demonstration under section
182(c)(2)(A) of the Act. A summary of the emission reductions needed to
attain the standard and reductions projected from the SIP control
strategy is provided below in the table labeled ``San Diego Attainment
Demonstration.''
San Diego Attainment Demonstration
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory..................... 313 238
Carrying Capacity..................................... 232 175
Reductions Needed..................................... 81 63
Reductions from Adopted Measures...................... 81 63
Reductions from Committed Local Measures.............. 0 0
Reductions from Committed State Measures.............. 1 1
Total SIP Reductions.................................. 82 64
Remaining Emissions in 1999........................... 231 174
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves the San Diego ozone SIP with
respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control
measures, modeling, and demonstrations of 15% ROP, post-1996 ROP, and
attainment.
3. San Joaquin Valley
a. Control Measures. The San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD commented
that no reductions are tied to any of the transportation control
measures (TCMs) individually, but rather to the overall TCM package,
since the overall emission reductions target is expected to be achieved
but it is not anticipated that all of the measures would be
implemented. EPA's table of control measures is consistent with the
APCD's position in both the proposal and final action.
On April 4, 1996, CARB submitted a SIP revision (letter from James
D. Boyd to Felicia Marcus, attaching CARB Executive Order G-125-203).
This submittal requests EPA to delete from the existing SIP an obsolete
TCM that was originally adopted by the Fresno County APCD as part of a
1982 ozone SIP. (The Fresno County APCD has since been absorbed into
the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD). The 1994 San Joaquin Valley AQMP
does not assume emission reductions from this TCM, but rather
substitutes a TCM package listed among the local measures in the table
labeled ``San Joaquin Local Control Measures.'' In this document, EPA
is taking final action to delete the obsolete measure, which is
entitled ``Exclusive High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Freeway 41.''
The table labeled ``San Joaquin Local Control Measures'' indicates
the dates of rule adoption and implementation and the emission
reductions presumed to occur by 1999, the applicable attainment
deadline. These measures are relied upon in meeting the attainment
requirements of the Act. Accordingly, and because the measures
strengthen the SIP, EPA is approving, under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the Act, the enforceable commitments to adopt and implement
the control measures by the dates specified to achieve the emission
reductions shown. EPA also is assigning credit to the measures for
purposes of attainment. EPA approval of the adopted regulations will be
completed in separate rulemakings in the future.
San Joaquin Local Control Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions
Rule No. Control Measure Implementing Agency Adoption Date Implementation ---------------------------
Title Date VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 Emission Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4403 (VOC)... Components SJVUAPCD 2Q/91........ 2Q/91......... 4.55 ............
Serving Gas
Production.
4703......... Stationary Gas SJVUAPCD 3Q/94........ 3Q/2000....... ............ 11.92
Turbine
Engines.
4653......... Adhesives...... SJVUAPCD 1Q/94........ 1Q/95......... 1.3 ............
4623......... Organic Liquid SJVUAPCD 2Q/91........ 2Q/96......... 13.2 ............
Storage.
TCMs........... ..................... Ongoing...... Ongoing....... 1.8 1.5
4601......... Architectural SJVUAPCD 1Q/96........ 1Q/98......... 1.51 ............
Coatings.
4692......... Commercial SJVUAPCD 2Q/96........ 2Q/98......... 0.39 ............
Charbroiling.
4354......... Glass Melting SJVUAPCD 1Q/96........ 4Q/99......... ............ 2.87
Furnaces.
4607......... Graphic Arts... SJVUAPCD 4Q/95........ 4Q/97......... 0.84 ............
4642......... Landfill Gas SJVUAPCD 1Q/95........ 4Q/99......... 1.41 ............
Control.
4412......... Oil Workover SJVUAPCD 2Q/96........ 2Q/98......... ............ 0.87
Rigs.
4623......... Organic Liquid SJVUAPCD 3Q/95........ 3Q/98......... 3.0 ............
Storage.
4662......... Organic Solvent SJVUAPCD 1Q/96........ 1Q/98......... 2.44 ............
Degreasing.
4663......... Organic Solvent SJVUAPCD 2Q/96........ 2Q/98......... 0.19 ............
Waste.
4306......... Small Boilers, SJVUAPCD 3Q/95........ 3Q/99......... ............ 7.6
Process
Heaters and
Steam
Generators.
4611......... Smaller Printer SJVUAPCD 4Q/95........ 4Q/97......... 0.30 ............
Operations.
4702......... Stationary IC SJVUAPCD 2Q/95........ 4Q/99......... ............ 12.44
Engines.
4621 and 4622 Stationary SJVUAPCD 2Q/96........ 2Q/98......... 0.41 ............
Storage Tanks/
Fuel Transfer
into Vehicle
Tanks.
Waste Burning.. ND ND........... ND............ ............ ............
4411......... Well Cellars... SJVUAPCD 2Q/96........ 2Q/98......... 0.56 ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1172]]
b. ROP Provisions. On July 12, 1996, CARB submitted a revised post-
1996 ROP plan for San Joaquin Valley (letter from James D. Boyd to
Felicia Marcus, attaching CARB Executive Order G-125-200). The revised
ROP, which was adopted on September 20, 1995, excludes NOX
reductions from specified controls at facilities located west of
Interstate 5 in Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties. This change is
consistent with the 1994 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan. EPA is taking final action on this substitute plan,
as requested by CARB and by the San Joaquin Valley APCD (letter from
David L. Crow to Regional Administrator, dated May 2, 1996).
EPA is finalizing approval of the ROP plans (the original 1994
submittal for 15% ROP requirements and the Kern District portion of the
San Joaquin Valley, and the 1996 substitute submittal for post-1996
requirements) as meeting the 15% ROP requirements of section 182(b)(1)
and the post-1996 ROP requirements of section 182(c)(2) of the Act. The
ROP VOC targets, projected VOC emissions, and creditable VOC and
NOX reductions are shown below in the tables labeled ``San Joaquin
Valley ROP Forecasts and Targets'' and ``San Joaquin Valley (Kern
District) ROP Forecasts and Targets.''
San Joaquin Valley ROP Forecasts and Targets
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Year 1996 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions to Meet ROP Target.............. 433 383
VOC Emissions with Plan Reductions............ 430 430
NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents........... 0 47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Joaquin Valley (Kern District) ROP Forecasts and Targets
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Year 1996 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions to Meet ROP Target.............. 13.2 11.7
VOC Emissions with Plan Reductions............ 13.2 13.3
NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents........... 0 1.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration. San Joaquin Valley
Unified APCD commented that the area was modeled as a single domain,
with 3 areas of special study modeled on a finer scale. The APCD
further stated that the air basin is not separated into subregions, and
the carrying capacities referenced should not be considered separable
targets in lieu of properly constructed modeling analyses. EPA's tables
should not be divided into subregions. All references to carrying
capacity should be deleted since the concept is not effective or
accurate for a domain as large as the San Joaquin Valley and carrying
capacities fail to account for the influence of spatial location of
reductions or transport from one area to another. Finally, the APCD
commented that the reductions in the attainment demonstration table do
not add up and do not correspond to those in the District's adopted
plan. The APCD stated that CARB would make the needed changes.
EPA agrees that the State's tables in the 1994 California Ozone SIP
that display carrying capacities for the 3 subregions may be less
accurate than reliance on basinwide modeling information, but there are
also benefits, from a planning perspective, in dividing the area into
subregions. The State has not employed a single, unified attainment
analysis summary, and EPA is, in the final action, continuing to use
the subregion information contained in the State's SIP summary document
(1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Tables G-1, G-3, and G-5). EPA
believes that the data included in the ``San Joaquin Valley Attainment
and Rate-of-Progress Plans'' is also helpful in characterizing, from
both a subregional and basinwide perspective, the attainment
requirements for, and emission reduction contributions from, each area.
The San Joaquin Valley Transportation Planning Agencies Directors
Association commented that the San Joaquin Valley motor vehicle
emission and activity projections are outdated. The Association asked
EPA to approve them but state that conformity demonstrations be allowed
to be made with models or assumptions consistent with those used in the
plan. The Association asked EPA to commit to rapidly expediting
development of a SIP revision to reflect the new information for the
development of the emission budget.
EPA will continue to work with the agencies involved in the update
and refinement of the activity, emissions, and modeling data used in
the SIP. EPA agrees that models and assumptions consistent with the
plan should be used, in the interim, for purposes of conformity
determinations. Improvements to the technical foundations of the plan's
attainment demonstration are underway and should be substituted in the
SIP when they are completed. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the
existing plan adequately addresses applicable Clean Air Act
requirements relating to emission inventories, projected inventories,
and modeling analyses.
EPA is therefore taking final action to approve the State's
modeling analysis and attainment demonstration under section
182(c)(2)(A) of the Act. A summary of the emission reductions needed to
attain the standard and reductions projected from the SIP control
strategy is provided below in the table labeled ``San Joaquin Valley
Attainment Demonstration.''
[[Page 1173]]
San Joaquin Valley Attainment Demonstration
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Central South
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory. 129 124 126 115 217 367
Carrying Capacity................. >129 >124 88 90 145 165
Reductions Needed................. 0 0 38 25 72 202
Adopted measures.............. 15 8 27 9 58 164
Committed Local Measures...... 5 5 8 6 22 20
Committed State Measures...... 8 2 4 2 3 1
Total Reductions.................. 28 15 39 17 83 185
Remaining Emissions............... 101 109 87 98 134 182
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of the attainment demonstration, the Kern District
portion of the San Joaquin Valley was not separately modeled, under the
assumption that attainment in this area should result primarily from
upwind reductions achieved in the South San Joaquin sub-region.
d. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves the San Joaquin Valley ozone
SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories,
control measures, modeling, and demonstrations of 15% ROP and post-1996
ROP and attainment. EPA also approves SJVAPCD's commitments to adopt
and implement the listed control measures to achieve the specified
emissions reductions.
4. Sacramento
a. Control Measures. CEPA commented that EPA's proposal listed a
measure that was not in the SIP submittal: Placer County's Woodwaste
Boilers measure. EPA is deleting the measure in this final approval
action. CARB provided minor corrections to the list of adoption and
implementation dates. All of these changes have been incorporated in
the final action.
The table labeled ``Sacramento Local Control Measures'' indicates
the dates of rule adoption and implementation and the emission
reductions presumed to occur by the 1999 and 2002 milestone years and
by 2005, the applicable attainment deadline. The proposal contained a
typographical error, in labeling as ``1996'' the column for 1999
emission reductions.
These measures are relied upon in meeting the attainment and post-
1996 ROP requirements of the Act. Accordingly, and because the measures
strengthen the SIP, EPA is approving, under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the Act, the enforceable commitments to adopt and implement
the control measures by the dates specified to achieve the emission
reductions shown. EPA also is assigning credit to the measures for
purposes of ROP and attainment. EPA approval of the adopted regulations
will be completed in separate rulemakings in the future.
Sacramento Local Control Measures
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission reductions
VOC control measure title Implementing agency Adoption date Imple-mentation date --------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG Control Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhesives............................ ECAPCD.................. 2/95.................... 1996.................. 1.2 1.3 1.4
PCAPCD.................. 2/95....................
SMAQMD.................. 5/95....................
YSAPCD.................. Adopted '94.............
Architectural Coatings............... ECAPCD.................. Adopted 4/95............ 1996.................. 0.9 1.3 1.6
PCAPCD.................. Adopted 3/95............
Amendment to existing Adopted 3/95............
rule SMAQMD YSAPCD.
Auto Refinishing..................... ECAPCD.................. Adopted '94............. 1996.................. 2.1 2.6 3.2
PCAPCD.................. Adopted '94.............
SMAQMD.................. 5/95....................
YSAPCD.................. Adopted '94.............
Fugitive HC Emissions................ ECAPCD.................. 4/95.................... 1999.................. 1.4 1.4 1.4
PCAPCD.................. Adopted.................
SMAQMD.................. Adopted.................
YSAPCD.................. Adopted 4/94............
Graphic Arts......................... ECAPCD.................. Adopted 9/94............ June 1995............. 0.4 0.5 0.5
PCAPCD.................. 11/94...................
SMAQMD.................. '81, '93................
YSAPCD.................. Adopted 5/94............
Landfill Gas Control................. ECAPCD.................. 11/95................... 1996.................. 1.2 1.2 1.2
PCAPCD.................. Adopted................. 1996..................
SMAQMD.................. 2/95.................... 1997..................
YSAPCD.................. Adopted................. 1996..................
Pleasure Craft Coating Operations.... ECAPCD.................. 4/96.................... 1996-1999............. 0.2 0.2 0.2
PCAPCD.................. 12/94...................
[[Page 1174]]
SMAQMD.................. 1998....................
YSAPCD.................. 4/95....................
Pleasure Craft Refueling............. ECAPCD.................. 1998.................... 1999.................. 0.1 0.1 0.2
PCAPCD.................. 1998....................
SMAQMD.................. 1998....................
YSAPCD.................. 1998....................
Polyester Resin Operations........... ECAPCD.................. 2/96.................... 1997.................. 0.2 0.2
PCAPCD.................. 1/96.................... 1997..................
SMAQMD.................. 1998.................... 1999..................
YSAPCD.................. Adopted '93.............
Semiconductor Mfg.................... PCAPCD others?.......... 2/95.................... 1996.................. 0.1 0.2 0.2
SOCMI Distillation/Reactors.......... SMAQMD others?.......... 9/95.................... 1997.................. 1.4 1.5 1.6
Surface Preparation & Cleanup........ ECAPCD.................. 2/95.................... 1996.................. 3.0 3.3 3.6
PCAPCD.................. 2/95....................
SMAQMD.................. 2/95....................
YSAPCD.................. Adopted 5/94............
Vents on Underground Gasoline Storage SMAQMD.................. 2/95.................... 1996.................. 0.1 0.2 0.2
Tanks.
YSAPCD (both amend 1/95....................
current rules).
Wood Products Coatings............... ECAPCD.................. 4/95.................... 1996.................. 0.5 0.5 0.5
PCAPCD.................. Adopted 11/94........... 1996..................
SMAQMD.................. 2/95.................... 1996..................
YSAPCD.................. 2/95....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional NOX Control Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilers & Steam Generators........... ECAPCD.................. Adopted '94............. 1996-1997............. 0.8 0.9 1.0
PCAPCD.................. Adopted '94.............
SMAQMD.................. 2/95....................
YSAPCD.................. Adopted '94.............
Gas Turbines......................... PCAPCD.................. Adopted 10/94........... 1997.................. 0.2 0.3 0.3
SMAQMD.................. 2/95....................
YSAPCD.................. Adopted 7/94............
Internal Combustion Engines.......... ECAPCD.................. Adopted '94............. Phased in 1997........ 0.3 0.4 0.5
PCAPCD.................. 12/95...................
SMAQMD.................. 2/95....................
YSAPCD.................. Adopted '94.............
Residential Water Heaters............ ECAPCD.................. 1996.................... 1995-1997............. 0.3 0.4 0.5
PCAPCD.................. 12/95...................
SMAQMD.................. 1996....................
YSAPCD.................. Adopted 11/94...........
Mobile NOX Measures 1. Off-Road Heavy All..................... 12/95................... 1/97.................. 2.0 3.0 5.0
Duty Vehicles 2. On-Road Heavy Duty
Vehicles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. ROP Provisions. EPA is finalizing approval of Sacramento area's
post-1996 ROP plan under section 182(b)(2) of the Act. EPA will act on
Sacramento's 15% ROP Plan in separate rulemaking. The ROP VOC targets,
projected VOC emissions, and creditable VOC and NOX reductions are
shown in the table below labeled ``Sacramento ROP Forecasts and
Targets.''
Sacramento ROP Forecasts and Targets
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Year 1996 1999 2002 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Base Year VOC Inventory................................ 211 211 211 211
VOC Inventory Projection.................................... 175 167 163 159
ROP VOC Target.............................................. 162 142 124 107
Preliminary VOC Shortfall................................... 13 25 39 52
VOC Reductions from Committal Measures...................... 0 19 23 14
[[Page 1175]]
Total VOC Shortfall......................................... 13 6 16 38
NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents......................... 13 6 16 38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration. The Environmental Defense
Center commented that Sacramento's attainment demonstration must be
disapproved because CARB has rescinded the ZEV program, which was
relied upon to produce emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate
Sacramento's timely attainment. As discussed in Section I.B.3.c.(3)
above, EPA strongly supports the State's ZEV program and, while CARB's
March 1996 amendments to the ZEV mandate eliminates the ZEV production
requirements for the 1998 through 2002 model years, the State's 10%
production requirement for 2003 and later years remains in place and
some new compensating reductions are expected from the national LEV
program. EPA does not have information to support the commenter's
contention that the ZEV amendments invalidate Sacramento's attainment
demonstration.
EPA is taking final action to approve the modeling analysis and
attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Act. A
summary of the emission reductions needed to attain the standard and
reductions projected from the SIP control strategy is provided below in
the table labeled ``Sacramento Attainment Demonstration.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento attainment demonstration (tons per summer
day) VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory..................... 222 164
Attainment Inventory.................................. 137 98
Reductions Needed..................................... 85 66
From Adopted Measures............................... 55 40
From Committed Local Measures....................... 17 7
From Committed State Measures....................... 15 14
From National Measures \1\.......................... 1.6 4.3
Total................................................. 88.6 65.3
Remaining Emissions................................... 133.4 98.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Credit shown is EPA's estimate of reductions from statutorily-
mandated national rules.
d. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves the Sacramento ozone SIP with
respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control
measures, modeling, and demonstrations of post-1996 ROP and attainment.
EPA also approves the local agencies' commitments to adopt and
implement the listed control measures to achieve the specified
emissions reductions by the dates shown.
5. Ventura.
a. 1995 AQMP Update. Ventura's 1994 Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP), adopted on November 8, 1994, was submitted as part of the 1994
California Ozone SIP. On December 19, 1995, Ventura adopted a 1995 AQMP
revision, with slightly revised emission inventories, control measures,
modeling analyses, and attainment demonstration. At the time of the
proposed action, CARB had not yet submitted this updated plan as a
replacement for the 1994 AQMP, but the State indicated that it would do
so in the near future and requested EPA to act upon portions of the
1995 AQMP in the final approval action. On July 12, 1996, CARB
submitted the previously agreed upon portions of the 1995 AQMP intended
to replace portions of the 1994 AQMP.
EPA's proposal addressed much of the new information from the 1995
AQMP, and EPA is now finalizing approval of the 1994 AQMP as modified
by portions of the 1995 AQMP. The specific modifications submitted by
CARB are the ``Revised Rule Adoption and Implementation Schedule''
(Table 4-2) and Appendix E-95 (revised emissions from architectural
coatings in Tables E-43 and E-45) from the 1995 AQMP.
In their comment letters, the District and Environmental Defense
Center (EDC) requested that EPA rulemaking reflect the 1995 AQMP
revision. EPA is not acting on the entire 1995 AQMP revision at this
time because the entire revision has not been submitted by the State.
EPA is only acting on the portions of the 1995 AQMP which have been
submitted by the State. In their SIP submittal, the State indicated
that the remaining updates ``will be submitted at a later date after
revisions to CARB's mobile source inventory are incorporated by the
District.'' After the remaining portions of the 1995 AQMP are
submitted, EPA intends to act expeditiously to take action on the
submittal.
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. Ventura County APCD requested in
their comment letter that the Ventura County SIP emissions inventory
used in the NPRM be revised by excluding OCS emissions, since these OCS
emissions are outside the District's nonattainment area. EPA is not
proposing to change the inventory estimates because CARB has not
requested this change, and the totals are consistent with their SIP
submittal. EPA will continue to work with the District and CARB
regarding the District's comment.
1990 Ventura SIP Inventories
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary.......................................... 44 17
Mobile.............................................. 41 56
Outer Continental Shelf............................. 2 8
-------------------
Total......................................... 87 81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Control Measures. EPA's proposal addressed the 1995 AQMP updates
to the control measures, with slightly revised adoption dates,
implementation dates, and reductions for numerous district measures
already contained in the 1994 SIP. After EPA's proposal, Ventura
adopted very minor further revisions to the rule adoption schedule for
5 measures (N-102, R-317, R-410, R-421, and R-425). No change was made
to the implementation dates for the measures. Ventura adopted these
minor changes on January 9, 1996. If the changes are submitted as a
further revision to the SIP rule adoption schedule, EPA intends to
approve them since they do not adversely affect rate-of-progress or
attainment. Because the changes have not been submitted at the time of
this action, however, EPA is finalizing approval of the schedule as
revised by Ventura on December 19, 1995, and submitted by CARB on July
12, 1996.
Also subsequent to EPA's proposal, the State and Ventura County
APCD indicated that measures R-303, Architectural Coatings, and R-700/
N-700, Transportation Control Measures, should be included in the list
of control measures. The addition of these two measures and minor
adjustments to the adoption and implementation schedules and estimates
of emission reductions for some of the control measures are reflected
in the table of measures below, labeled ``Ventura Local Control
Measures.'' EPA's proposed approval
[[Page 1176]]
stated: ``If a SIP revision with the revised reduction estimates and
measure R-303 is submitted before EPA's final action, EPA proposes to
approve it without further opportunity for public comment.'' EPA's
proposal also indicated the following finding: ``Overall, the revised
reduction estimates do not negatively impact ROP or attainment.''
The State and Ventura County APCD both requested that EPA approve
in the final action measure R-700/N-700, Transportation Control
Measures, and delete from the existing SIP prior transportation
measures. Measure R-700/N-700 was included in the 1994 Ventura AQMP but
mistakenly omitted by the State from the list of measures in the
State's SIP. No emission reductions from any prior transportation
measures were assumed in the 1994 or 1995 Ventura AQMP. In this
document, EPA is taking final action to approve measure R-700/N-700,
Transportation Control Measures, and rescind from the existing SIP all
prior transportation control measures.
The table labeled ``Ventura Local Control Measures'' indicates the
dates of rule adoption and implementation and the emission reductions
presumed to occur by each ROP milestone year and by 2005, the
applicable attainment deadline. At the request of CARB and the
District, EPA has deleted from this table the 1996 column of
reductions, since no reductions from new local measures were used to
demonstrate compliance with the 1996 ROP target.
The Environmental Defense Center commented that Ventura's measures
are not fully articulated, that this violates the Administrative
Procedures Act, and that the measures should be disapproved or
conditionally approved. EPA disagrees with the commenter's
characterization of the Ventura control measures. The commenter does
not give any examples of what it perceives as ambiguities or vagueness.
The measures are set forward with sufficient detail to understand the
control category, the type of emission standard expected to be adopted,
likely compliance options, scheduled adoption and implementation dates,
base year emissions for the category, and expected emission reductions
from the measure by milestone year. As discussed in section I.B.2., EPA
also disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that EPA may not fully
approve specific enforceable commitments to adopt control measures.
The Ventura control measures are relied upon in meeting the post-
1996 ROP and attainment requirements of the Act. Accordingly, and
because the measures strengthen the SIP, EPA is approving, under
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the enforceable commitments
to adopt and implement the control measures by the dates specified to
achieve the emission reductions shown. EPA also is assigning credit to
the measures for purposes of post-1996 ROP and attainment.
Some of the measures have been adopted in regulatory form. These
include N-101, adopted 3/14/95; R-105, adopted 12/13/94; R-403, adopted
5/9/95; R-419, adopted 11/8/94; R-424, adopted 5/9/95; and R-606,
adopted 10/10/95. EPA has already approved R-105, and EPA approval of
the remaining regulations will be completed in separate rulemakings in
the future.
Ventura Local Control Measures
[tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adoption Implementation
Rule No. Control measure date date 1999 2002 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-101............... Gas Turbines.......... 3/95 4/97 0.45 0.47 0.49
N-102............... Boilers, Steam 12/96 1/97 0.05 0.06 0.06
generators, Heaters,
<1 mmbtu.
R-105............... Glycol Dehydrators.... 12/94 7/96 0.73 0.65 0.57
R-303............... AIM Architectural 12/96 12/97 0.0 0.0 0.89
Coatings.
R-317............... Clean-up Solvents and 6/96 7/96 1.57 1.67 1.76
Solvent Wastes.
R-322............... Painter Certification 6/97 12/97-12/98 0.48 0.51 0.53
Program.
R-324............... Screen Printing 6/96 7/97 0.29 0.30 0.31
Operations.
R-327............... Electronic Component 6/96 7/97 0.07 0.07 0.08
Manufacture.
R-403............... Vehicle Gas 5/95 1/96 0.22 0.22 0.23
Dispensing--Phase II.
R-410............... Marine Tanker Loading. 9/96 7/97 0.0 0.0 0.0
R-419............... Tank Degassing 11/94 3/95 0.03 0.03 0.02
Operations.
R-420............... Pleasure Craft Fuel 6/97 7/98 0.08 0.08 0.08
Transfer.
R-421............... Utility Engine 12/96 9/97 0.19 0.20 0.20
Refueling Operations.
R-424............... Gasoline Transfer/ 5/95 1/96 0.03 0.04 0.04
Dispensing.
R-425............... Enhanced Fugitive I/M 9/96 5/97 1.21 1.07 0.95
Program.
R-606............... Soil Decontamination.. 10/95 4/96 0.10 0.10 0.11
R-700............... Transportation........ 96-05 1996-2005 0.0 0.0 0.58
N-700............... Control Measures...... ........... .............. 0.0 0.0 0.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``R'' refers to ROG control measures, ``N'' refers to NOX control measures.
d. ROP Provisions. CARB and the District commented that the Ventura
ROP Forecasts and Targets table in the NPRM contained erroneous
information in the line titled ``VOC Inventory Including Committals.''
EPA concurs and has deleted the line from the table below labeled
``Ventura ROP Forecasts and Targets.''
EPA is finalizing approval of Ventura's ROP plan as meeting the 15%
ROP requirements of section 182(b)(1) and the post-1996 ROP
requirements of section 182(c)(2) of the Act. The ROP VOC targets,
projected VOC emissions, and creditable VOC and NOX reductions are
shown in the table below labeled ``Ventura ROP Forecasts and Targets.''
[[Page 1177]]
Ventura ROP Forecasts and Targets
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Year 1996 1999 2002 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Base Year VOC Inventory................................ 85 85 85 85
VOC Inventory after Adopted Measures........................ 64 60 57 55
ROP VOC Target.............................................. 68 60 53 45
VOC Shortfall............................................... 0 0 4 10
NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents......................... 0 0 4 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration. EPA's proposal reflected
the additional modeling refinements and technical clarifications made
in the 1995 AQMP, as requested by the State and Ventura County APCD.
The Environmental Defense Center (EDC) commented that, ``Assuming
the competence of the Ventura County model, EDC is concerned that the
2005 prediction of a .12 ppm peak ozone concentration provides
virtually no buffer or room for error. Any relaxation, slippage or
difficulties in adopting each of the control measures, local, state and
federal jeopardizes Ventura County's timely attainment. Already CARB
has rescinded the bulk of the ZEV program, thereby impairing Ventura
County's prospects for attainment.'' The Act does not require SIPs to
overcontrol and, under the current ozone NAAQS, a .12 ppm ozone
concentration is not treated as a violation. With respect to CARB's
amendments to the ZEV program, see the discussion in section
I.B.3.c.(2).
EDC also commented that ``EDC does not believe that the Ventura
County AQMP and attendant state and national control measures are
sufficient to provide for timely attainment of the ozone NAAQS in
Ventura County. EDC questions the validity of the model, including its
assumptions.'' The commenter provided no new information or rationale
for its assertions, and EPA continues to conclude that the attainment
demonstration is approvable.
On June 13, 1996, CARB provided supplemental information to EPA
which clarified the ROG reductions needed for attainment in Ventura.
EPA has incorporated this minor change in the attainment demonstration
shown below. This minor change affects ROG reductions from ``Committed
Local Measures'' (increased from 5 tpd to 6 tpd) and the ROG ``TOTAL''
column (increased from 42 tpd to 43 tpd ROG).
Ventura Attainment Demonstration
[In tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory..................... 87 81
Carrying Capacity..................................... 45 52
Reductions Needed..................................... 42 29
Reductions from Adopted Measures.................... 30 24
Committed Local Measures............................ 6 1
Committed State Measures............................ 6 4
Reductions from National Measures\1\................ 1 1
Total........................................... 43 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Credit shown is EPA's estimate of reductions from statutorily-
mandated national rules.
f. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves the Ventura ozone SIP with
respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control
measures, modeling, and demonstrations of 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP and
attainment. EPA also approves the Ventura County APCD's commitments to
adopt and implement the listed control measures to achieve the
specified emissions reductions by the dates shown.
7. South Coast
a. SIP Control Measures. (1) Updated Rule Adoption Schedule. EPA's
proposal discussed the failure of the SCAQMD to adopt regulations on
the schedule contained in the 1994 Ozone SIP, and asked the SCAQMD to
adopt and submit a revised schedule that is ``reasonable and
aggressive.'' EPA indicated its intention to approve substitute dates
if the revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement of
the Act.
On April 12, 1996, the SCAQMD adopted an updated rule schedule for
the South Coast. On July 10, 1996, CARB submitted the schedule as a SIP
revision. In submitting the revision, CARB summarized the State's
findings regarding impacts of the delayed adoption dates:
As stated in the Notice, the 1990-1996 rate-of-progress
requirement for the South Coast was met with previously adopted
state and local rules and regulations. Although the revised schedule
may delay by a year or two the implementation dates of a few control
measures and the associated emission reductions, all of the planned
emission reductions will be on track by the year 2000. This will not
affect compliance with the Act's progress requirement since the 1994
Ozone SIP currently accounts for 68 tons per day of volatile organic
compound emission reductions above and beyond the minimum progress
requirement through 1999. Finally, because the 2010 emission
reductions from the control measures remain unchanged, the
attainment demonstration will not be affected by this revised
schedule.
EPA concludes that the revision would not violate applicable
provisions of the Act, including ROP and attainment, assuming that the
SCAQMD adheres to the new schedule. EPA therefore takes final action to
approve the revised adoption dates as listed in the table labeled
``South Coast Local Control Measures.''
(2) TCM Substitution. The State and the Southern California
Association of Governments both requested that EPA's final approval of
the South Coast TCMs and Indirect Source control measures be
accompanied by deletion of prior TCMs approved as part of previous SIPs
and replaced by these new measures. The previously approved TCMs have
become outdated, and were not assumed in the current attainment
demonstration. The request for TCM deletion was included in the 1994
SIP submittal as one of the elements of the SCAQMD's resolution of
adoption of the 1994 AQMP. In this document, EPA is taking final action
to rescind from the applicable SIP all previously approved TCMs--an
action which was mistakenly omitted from the proposal.
(3) Near-Term Control Measures. The State submitted comments making
minor adjustments to the dates and emission reductions associated with
the control measures. EPA is making those changes in this final action,
as reflected in revisions to the table labeled ``South Coast Local
Control Measures.''
The State also requested several adjustments to the table of
measures. First, EPA's proposal included 12 SCAQMD measures which the
State did not intend to submit as part of the ozone
[[Page 1178]]
SIP on the grounds that they are not needed for ozone attainment: CMB-
01A, CMB-01B, CMB-01C, CMB-01D, CMB-01E, CMB-02A, CMB-02B, CMB-02C,
CMB-06, CMB-10, CMB-11, and MON-07. The State requested deletion of the
measures in the final action. EPA is correcting the mistake in the NPRM
and eliminating these measures from the table.
Second, the State requested that EPA amend the table of measures to
substitute for VOC RECLAIM the ``Substitute Measures for CTS-01 VOC
RECLAIM'' listed in Table A-10 of Volume IV of the 1994 California
Ozone SIP, along with the reductions originally associated with the VOC
RECLAIM program. After submittal of the 1994 SIP, the SCAQMD decided
not to adopt the VOC RECLAIM program, but to pursue instead these
alternative sources of equivalent reductions. To correct the mistake in
the proposal, EPA has revised the table to incorporate this list of
substitute measures from the 1994 submittal, along with the reductions
originally assigned to VOC RECLAIM.
Third, the State requested that EPA amend the table to list the
South Coast transportation control measures (TCM-01, ATT-01, ATT-02,
ATT-03, ATT-04, and ATT-05) under measure RME-01, which was intended to
subsume them. In the final action, EPA has rearranged the table to
display more accurately this relationship.
Fourth, the State asked EPA to clarify that the South Coast's
market-based measures (MKT-01, MKT-02, and MKT-03 23) are intended
as possible alternatives to the 7 indirect source (ISR) measures in the
SIP. In the final action, EPA has added a footnote and rearranged the
table to place the 3 market-based measures under the ISR measures as
potential replacements for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Measure M-3, Congestion Pricing, was inadvertently omitted
from the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the State requested that EPA not make part of the SIP any
emission reductions from new local measures for the 1996 ROP milestone
year, since the 15% ROP plan assumes reductions only from adopted State
and local rules. In the final action, EPA has deleted the 1996 column
from the table of local measures.
Environmental groups commented on EPA's proposed approval of the
control measures portion of the plan. NRDC and the Coalition for Clean
Air commented extensively on the issue of whether EPA should approve
the South Coast commitments to adopt control measures and a SIP that is
based on those commitments rather than fully adopted rules. EPA has
responded to these comments in section I.B.2.
The Environmental Defense Center (EDC) stated that the South Coast
plan lacks potentially applicable controls and fails the ``as
expeditiously as practicable'' standard. The commenter provided no
examples of controls that were either not included in the South Coast
SIP or were not scheduled for expeditious adoption and implementation.
EPA believes that the SCAQMD and CARB adopted control measures and
enforceable schedules for adoption and implementation of additional
measures together represent a thorough list of control measures in
light of currently available control technologies and control
techniques. EPA further believes that the schedules for developing and
adopting measures in the future reflects expeditious progress. CARB's
adopted and scheduled mobile source, consumer product, and pesticides
measures all go beyond (in many cases, they go considerably beyond)
existing control requirements applicable elsewhere in the Country.
SCAQMD's existing regulations generally represent the most complete and
stringent controls for each subject source category in the Country.
EPA believes that SCAQMD's schedule for adopting rules meets any
reasonable test for expeditious action, given the complexity of most of
the pending regulations and the fact that most of the controls are for
source categories previously unregulated or never yet controlled to the
extent contemplated. SCAQMD's rate-of-progress demonstration exceeds
the Clean Air Act 3% per year requirement. Finally, both SCAQMD and
CARB supplemented their comprehensive lists of near-term measures with
new-technology measures. The SCAQMD's advanced control technology
research and development activities attract worldwide interest as the
most significant air pollution control technology development program
of any local air pollution control agency, and CARB's programs for
investigating new technologies and fuels, particularly for motor
vehicle emission reductions, receives similar acclaim.
(4) New-Technology Measures. NRDC and the Coalition for Clean Air
(CCA) had extensive comments on EPA's proposed approval of the new-
technology measures submitted by CARB and the SCAQMD for inclusion in
the SIP under provisions of section 182(e)(5) of the Act. As discussed
in the proposal, this CAA section authorizes EPA to approve conceptual
measures that rely on new technologies or new control techniques as
part of the attainment demonstration for the South Coast, the only
``extreme'' ozone nonattainment area. The Act requires that the
measures not be needed to meet progress requirements for the first 10
years and that the submittal be accompanied by a commitment to adopt
contingency measures 3 years before the new-technology measures are
scheduled for implementation. EPA approved the CARB and SCAQMD new-
technology measures on August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379).24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for review of
EPA's action in approving the measures would need to have been
properly filed within 60 days of this final action. Since new
information has been provided relating to the section 182(e)(5) new-
technology measures, however, EPA is addressing most of the comments
that apply to EPA's prior approval action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRDC and CCA asked that EPA include adoption dates for all section
182(e)(5) measures in the table of South Coast Local Control Measures.
EPA agrees and has inserted the applicable dates, which were
inadvertently omitted from the proposal.
NRDC and CCA commented that the SIP does not include adequate
schedules and resource commitments for the measures. Both CARB and the
SCAQMD have provided further information as updates to and elaboration
on the development approach for the new-technology measures.25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Letter from Lynn Terry, Assistant Executive Officer, CARB,
to Julia Barrow, Chief, Planning Office, Air & Radiation Division,
USEPA, dated September 19, 1996; letter from Barry Wallerstein,
Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Dave Howekamp, Division
Director, Air & Toxics Division, Region IX USEPA, dated September
18, 1996. This correspondence is part of EPA's rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint NRDC-CCA comments argued that the SIP does not include an
adequate commitment from the State to adopt contingency measures at
least 3 years before proposed implementation of the measures, as
required by section 182(e)(5)(B). In a letter from Lynn Terry to Julia
Barrow dated September 19, 1996, CARB has clarified that the State's
``commitment in the SIP with respect to the contingency measure
requirement is intended to provide the commitment required by the Clean
Air Act.''
NRDC and CCA argued that the South Coast SIP cannot be approved
because it over-relies on speculative section 182(e)(5) new
technologies, which the SIP fails to define adequately. EPA does not
believe that the Act provides a quantitative limit on the extent to
which the attainment demonstration may rely on new-technology measures.
Moreover, the majority of needed reductions in the South Coast
attainment demonstration (roughly 75% of the required VOC and
[[Page 1179]]
NOX reductions) derive from currently adopted rules or enforceable
commitments to adopt rules in the near future.
Nevertheless, EPA agrees with the commenters that all the
responsible parties should work together to reduce the size of the new-
technology component of the SIP by expeditiously converting these
measures first into carefully defined control development projects and
then into feasible regulations. EPA commits to do its share to support
the needed research and development activities of CARB and the SCAQMD.
Measures which the 1994 South Coast Ozone SIP scheduled for near-
term adoption and implementation, or any portion of the emissions
reductions scheduled to be achieved as a result of implementation of
those near-term measures, may not be converted, at some future time,
into section 182(e)(5) new-technology measures or moved into emissions
reductions associated with section 182(e)(5) new technology measures,
without a convincing showing in a SIP revision that the technologies
relied upon in the near-term rules have been found to be
technologically infeasible or ineffective in achieving emissions
reductions in the near-term. The near-term measures in the 1994 SIP
have not been determined to ``anticipate development of new control
techniques or improvement of existing control technologies'' (section
182(e)(5)). On the contrary, they were evidently determined by the
SCAQMD and CARB to be both available and necessary for expeditious
progress in reducing emissions in the near term in the South Coast.
Should either CARB or the SCAQMD determine that new information
requires a reconsideration of the near-term feasibility of the 1994 SIP
near-term measures, the agencies must submit a SIP revision
demonstrating convincingly that the standard defined in this paragraph
above for conversion of near-term measures to section 182(e)(5) new
technology measures has been met. Absent such a convincing showing, a
SIP revision will not be approved by EPA.
In view of continuing progress in the development and successful
application of control technologies and control techniques, the amount
and relative proportion of reductions from measures scheduled for long-
term adoption under section 182(e)(5), as compared to measures already
adopted in regulatory form or scheduled for near-term adoption, should
clearly decrease in any future SIP update. EPA will not approve a SIP
revision that contains an increase in the amount and relative
proportion of reductions scheduled for long-term adoption under section
182(e)(5) that is inconsistent with the standard defined in the
preceding paragraph. Further, to the extent new modeling performed in
any subsequent SIP revision demonstrates that there is an increase in
the year 2010 carrying capacity for ROG and NOX, this change shall
not be used to decrease the amount of emissions reductions scheduled to
be achieved by any near-term measure from the 1994 SIP unless CARB or
the SCAQMD make the convincing showing required by the preceding
paragraph.
EPA also agrees with the commenters that, as part of California's
1997 SIP revision, the SCAQMD should provide greater specificity in the
description of the South Coast Air Basin long-term control measures. In
order to help ensure that the measures are successfully developed and
adopted pursuant to the requirements of section 182(e)(5), the 1997 SIP
and a summary from publicly available budget documents submitted to EPA
must define the long-term measures more precisely with respect to the
affected source categories, expected reductions from each category (or
as many categories as may be feasible), the most likely control
technologies and control techniques to be employed, the agency's
working schedule for each phase in the development and adoption of the
control measures, evidence of adequate resources committed to the
activities, and opportunities for the public to be informed and
involved in the process. Furthermore, to ensure approvability of the
1997 SIP, the revision must contain a level of specificity for the non-
budgetary items noted above at least containing the level of detail in
the clarification to draft Appendix IV to the 1997 Air Quality
Management Plan, which further defines the section 182(e)(5) measures,
attached as Attachment 2 to the letter from Barry Wallerstein to Dave
Howekamp, dated September 18, 1996. The level of specificity in the
Long-Term Control Measure for Miscellaneous VOC Sources should be
enhanced as additional information becomes available. EPA understands
that this clarification to draft Appendix IV is being made available
for public review and will be formally considered for adoption by the
SCAQMD Governing Board.
(5) EPA Action. EPA concludes that the control measures should be
approved in the final action. The South Coast control measures are
relied upon in meeting the post-1996 ROP and attainment requirements of
the Act. Accordingly, and because the measures strengthen the SIP, EPA
is approving, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the
enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the near-term control
measures by the dates specified to achieve the emission reductions
shown. EPA also is assigning credit to the near-term and new-technology
measures for purposes of post-1996 ROP and attainment.
South Coast Local Control Measures
[Tons per day of VOC/NOX]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control measure Implementing Adoption Implementation
Control measure No. title agency date dates 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTS-01............. Substitute SCAQMD............ ........... 1998-2010 22.5/0 29.9/0 37.4/0 44.9/0 49.9/0
Measures for VOC
RECLAIM (12
rules listed
immediately
below).
CTS-A.............. Electronic SCAQMD............ 1996
Components.
CTS-B.............. Petroleum Cold SCAQMD............ 1996
Cleaning.
CTS-C.............. Solvent Cleaning SCAQMD............ 7/96
Operations.
CTS-D.............. Marine/Pleasure SCAQMD............ 1996
Craft Coatings.
CTS-E.............. Adhesives........ SCAQMD............ 1996
CTS-F.............. Motor Vehicle Non- SCAQMD............ 12/96
Assembly Coating.
CTS-G.............. Paper/Fabric/Film SCAQMD............ 9/96
Coatings.
CTS-H.............. Metal Parts/ SCAQMD............ 10/96
Products
Coatings.
CTS-I.............. Graphic Arts/ SCAQMD............ 1996
Screen Printing.
CTS-J.............. Wood Products SCAQMD............ 6/96
Coatings.
CTS-K.............. Aerospace/ SCAQMD............ 11/96
Component
Coatings.
[[Page 1180]]
CTS-L.............. Automotive SCAQMD............ 1997
Assembly
Operations.
CTS-02............. Emission SCAQMD............ 1997 1998-2005 25.0/0 58.1/0 80.9/0 88.3/0 92.8/0
Reductions from
Solvents and
Coatings at Non-
RECLAIM Sources.
CTS-03............. Consumer Product SCAQMD............ ........... 1998-2005 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Labeling Program.
CTS-04............. Public Awareness/ SCAQMD............ ........... 1997-1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Education
Programs--Area
Sources.
CTS-05............. Further Emission SCAQMD............ 1994 1996-1996 2.49/0 2.73/0 2.9/0 2.99/0 2.99/0
Reductions from
Perchloroethylen
e Dry Cleaning
Operations.
CTS-07............. Further Emission SCAQMD............ 8/96 2001-2006 0/0 27.49/0 40.5/0 60.65/0 62.26/0
Reductions from
Architectural
Coatings (Rule
1113).
FUG-01............. Emission SCAQMD............ 1995 1996-1996 4.96/0 5.11/0 5.01/0 4.98/0 4.98/0
Reductions from
Organic Liquid
Transfer.
FUG-02............. Emission SCAQMD............ 7/96 1996-1996 5.52/0 5.73/0 5.49/0 5.05/0 4.76/0
Reductions from
Active Draining
of Liquid
Products.
FUG-03............. Further Emission SCAQMD............ 1996 1998-1998 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Reductions from
Floating Roof
Tanks.
FUG-04............. Further Emission SCAQMD............ 10/96 2000-2010 0/0 .75/0 .75/0 .75/0 .75/0
Reductions of
Fugitive
Emissions.
RFL-01............. Emission SCAQMD............ 1997 2000-2010 0/0 .04/0 .04/0 .05/0 .06/0
Reductions from
Utility Engine
Refueling
Operations.
RFL-02............. Further Emission SCAQMD............ 1995 1996-2000 4.94/0 5.06/0 5.2/0 5.44/0 5.58/0
Reductions from
Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities.
RFL-03............. Emission SCAQMD............ 1996 1996-1996 .77/0 .80/0 .83 .86/0 .88/0
Reductions from
Pleasure Boat
Fueling
Operations.
CMB-02F............ Further Controls SCAQMD............ 11/96 1998-2008 1.52/6.83 1.74/6.62 1.99/5.43 2.19/3.67 2.29/2.20
of Emissions
from Internal
Combustion
Engines.
CMB-03............. Area Source SCAQMD............ 11/96 1997-2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Credits for
Commercial and
Residential
Combustion
Equipment.
CMB-04............. Area Source SCAQMD............ 11/96 1997-2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Credits for
Energy
Conservation.
CMB-05............. Clean Stationary SCAQMD............ 1996 1996-2008 1.22/1.01 2.27/1.76 3.53/2.84 3.99/2.71 4.09/2.41
Fuels.
CMB-07............. Emission SCAQMD............ 1997 1999-1999 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Reductions from
Petroleum
Refinery Flares.
MSC-01............. Promotion of SCAQMD/local govts ........... 1996-1998 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Lighter Color
Roofing and Road
Materials and
Tree Planting.
MSC-02............. In-Use Compliance SCAQMD............ 12/96 1997-1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Program for Air
Pollution
Control
Equipment.
PRC-02............. Further Emission SCAQMD............ 1996 1998-2001 .24/0 .64/0 .68/0 .72/0 .75/0
Reductions from
Bakeries.
PRC-03............. Emission SCAQMD............ 10/96 1996-2001 8.55/0 10.77/0 11.14/0 11.49/0 11.7/0
Reductions from
Restaurant
Operations.
PRC-04............. Emission SCAQMD............ 1996 1997-1997 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0
Reductions from
Rubber Products
Manufacturing.
PRC-05............. Emission SCAQMD............ 1996 1997-1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Reductions from
Malt Beverage
Production
Facilities and
Wine or Brandy
Making
Facilities.
SIP-01............. SIP Amendments-- SCAQMD............ Various 1998-1998 .06/0 .06/0 .06/0 .05/0 .05/0
for
Miscellaneous
Sources.
WST-01............. Emission SCAQMD............ 12/96 1996-2003 8.39/0 8.86/0 9.31/0 9.77/0 10.07/0
Reductions from
Livestock Waste.
WST-02............. Emission SCAQMD............ 1997 1998-2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Reductions from
Composting of
Dewatered Sewage
Sludge.
WST-03............. Waste Burning.... SCAQMD............ 1996 1998-1998 .07/0 .07/0 .06/0 .06/0 .06/0
WST-04............. Disposal of SCAQMD............ 1996 1998-2001 .8/0 2.12/0 2.21/0 2.31/0 2.37/0
Materials
Containing
Volatile Organic
Compounds.
RME-01............. Regional Mobility .................. ........... .............. 11.3/1.15 15.98/6.58 18.5/13.74 20.64/21.77 22.26/27.67
Adjustment
(subsumes next 6
measures in
table).
TCM-01............. Transportation SCAG.............. 1997 2000-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Improvements.
ATT-01............. Telecommunication SCAQMD/SCAG/local ........... 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
s. govts.
ATT-02............. Advanced Shuttle SCAQMD/SCAG/local ........... 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Transit. govts.
[[Page 1181]]
ATT-03............. Zero Emission Partnership....... ........... 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Vehicles/
Infrastructure.
ATT-04............. Alternative Fuel Partnership....... ........... 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Vehicles/
Infrastructure.
ATT-05............. Intelligent SCAQMD/ SCAG/local ........... 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Vehicle Highway govts.
Systems.
ISR-01............. Special Event SCAQMD/local govts 1996 1997-2010 .77/.84 1.4/1.67 1.07/1.43 .81/1.26 1.33/2.2
Centers (SCAG
Measure TCM #10).
ISR-02............. Shopping Centers SCAQMD/local govts 1996 1997-2010 1.36/1.5 2.3/2.73 1.75/2.35 1.34/2.07 1.69/2.89
(SCAG Measure
TCM #11).
ISR-03............. Registration and SCAQMD............ 1996 1997-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Commercial
Vehicles (SCAG
Measure TCM #12).
ISR-04............. Airport Ground SCAQMD/local govts 1996 1997-2010 .38/.42 .77/.92 .59/.79 .45/.7 .38/.65
Access (SCAG
Measure TCM #13).
ISR-05............. Trip Reduction SCAQMD/local govts 1996 1997-2010 .21/.24. .47/.63 .46/.72 .35/.64 .38/.74
for Schools
(SCAG Measure
TCM #14).
ISR-06............. Enhanced Rule SCAQMD/local govts 1996 1997-2010 2.86/3.15 3.01/3.59 2.30/3.08 1.75/2.72 1.48/2.51
1501 (SCAG
Measure TCM #15).
ISR-07............. Parking Cash-Out SCAQMD/local govts 1995 1997-2010 .17/.17 .13/.14 .10/.12 .08/.11 .06/.1
(SCAG Measure
TCM #16).
MKT-01............. Emission/VMT..... SCAG.............. * 2000-2010 * * * * *
MKT-02............. At-the-Pump Fee.. SCAG.............. * 2000-2010 * * * * *
MKT-03............. Congestion SCAG.............. * 2000-2010 * * * * *
Pricing.
MON-01............. Emission SCAQMD/CARB....... 1996 1996-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Reduction
Credits for Low-
Emission
Retrofit Fleet
Vehicles.
MON-02............. Eliminate SCAQMD/local govts 1996 .............. 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Excessive Car
Dealership
Vehicle Starts;
Educational.
MON-04............. Eliminate SCAQMD/local govts 1996 .............. 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Excessive Curb
Idling;
Educational.
MON-05............. Emissions SCAQMD............ 1995 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 .12/.65 .11/.65 .11/.65
Reduction Credit
for Heavy-Duty
Buses.
MON-06............. Emissions SCAQMD............ 1995 .............. 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Reduction Credit
for Heavy-Duty
Trucks.
MOF-03............. Emission SCAQMD/local govts 5/96 1996-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Reduction
Credits for Leaf
Blowers.
MOF-04............. Off-Road Mobile SCAQMD............ 1995 1996-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Source Emission
Reduction Credit
Programs.
FSS-01............. Stage I Episode SCAQMD............ ........... 2005-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Plans.
ADV-CTS-01......... Advanced SCAQMD............ 2003-2005 2006-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 14.35/0 23.88/0
Technology--Coat
ing Technologies.
ADV-FUG............ Advanced SCAQMD............ 2003-5 2006-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 14.13/0 23.11/0
Technology--Fugi
tive Emission
Controls.
ADV-PRC............ Advanced SCAQMD............ 2003-5 2006-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 7.55/0 12.27/0
Technology--Proc
ess Related
Emissions.
ADV-UNSP........... Advanced SCAQMD............ 2003-5 2006-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 39.45/0 66.97/0
Technology--Unsp
ecified
Stationary
Source Controls.
ADV-CTS-02......... Advanced SCAQMD............ 1996-2000 1997-2010 0/0 20.44/0 32.37/0 45.38/0 54.69/0
Technology--Coat
ing Technologies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Alternative to ISR measures above.
c. ROP Provisions. EPA is finalizing approval of the South Coast
ROP plan as meeting the 15% ROP requirements of section 182(b)(1) and
the post-1996 ROP requirements of section 182(c)(2) of the Act. The ROP
VOC targets, projected VOC emissions, and creditable VOC and NOX
reductions are shown in the table below labeled ``South Coast ROP
Forecasts and Targets.'' The table reflects CARB's request that the
State's ROP forecasts be substituted for the SCAQMD plan forecasts,
which EPA erroneously displayed in the proposal.
South Coast ROP Forecasts
[In tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emissions to meet ROP target.. 1181 1019 890 767 647 568
VOC emissions with plan reductions 1144 951 818 686 530 323
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration. The Environmental Defense
Center (EDC) commented that EPA should reject the South Coast's
attainment demonstration because CARB has abandoned the ZEV program.
[[Page 1182]]
EPA does not have information to support the commenter's contention
that the ZEV amendments invalidate the attainment demonstration. See
discussion in section I.B.3.c.(2).
As discussed above in the proposal and in section I.B.1., EPA's
proposed approval of the South Coast attainment demonstration was
based, in part, on the State's submission of an enforceable SIP
commitment to adopt and submit as a SIP revision:
(a) a revised attainment demonstration for the South Coast as
appropriate after a consultative process on future mobile source
controls. This SIP revision would be due December 31, 1997; and
(b) enforceable emission limitations and other control measures
needed to achieve the emission reductions which are determined to be
appropriate for the State. This SIP revision would be due no later than
December 31, 1999.
On May 17, 1996, CARB submitted this commitment in the form of
Executive Order G-96-03, attached to a letter from John D. Dunlap, III,
to Felicia Marcus. The Executive Order includes the following language:
Now, Therefore, it is Ordered that pursuant to Board Resolution
94-60, ARB hereby commits to participate in the consultative process
described above, and to adopt and submit as a SIP revision: (a) By
December 31, 1997, a revised attainment demonstration for the South
Coast Air Basin as appropriate after the consultative process, and
(b) by December 31, 1999, control measures needed to achieve any
additional emission reductions which are determined to be
appropriate.
EPA is taking final action to approve this commitment under
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a), and the modeling analysis and attainment
demonstration under section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Act. A summary of the
emission reductions needed to attain the standard and reductions
projected from the SIP control strategy is provided below in the table
labeled ``South Coast Attainment Demonstration.''
South Coast Attainment Demonstration
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory..................... 1517 1361
Carrying Capacity..................................... 323 553
Reductions Needed..................................... 1194 808
Reductions from Adopted measures...................... 463 429
Committed Local measures.............................. 453 43
Committed State measures.............................. 231 227
``Federal Assignments''............................... 47 109
Total........................................... 1194 808
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The South Coast attainment demonstration relies, in part, on
reductions from a fully-enhanced I/M program. As discussed in EPA's
proposed approval of California's enhanced I/M program and above in
section II.A.3., credits associated with this control measure will
become permanent following the State's submission of the required
analysis demonstrating that the enhanced I/M program is achieving the
emission reductions claimed in the attainment demonstration. At that
point, EPA's approval of the South Coast attainment demonstration will
also become permanent.
f. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves the South Coast ozone SIP with
respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control
measures, modeling, and demonstrations of 15% ROP, post-1996 ROP, and
attainment. EPA approves SCAQMD's commitments to adopt and implement
the near-term control measures to achieve the specified emission
reductions by the dates shown. EPA also approves CARB's commitments
relating to the public consultative process and future SIP revisions.
7. Southeast Desert
(a) Control Measures. As discussed in EPA's proposal, the Southeast
Desert Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area (``Southeast Desert'')
covers the Victor Valley/Barstow region in San Bernardino County
(``Mojave''), the Coachella Valley/San Jacinto region in Riverside
County (``Coachella''), and the Antelope Valley region in Los Angeles
County (``Antelope'').26 The first of these areas is the
responsibility of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
(MDAQMD). The second and third areas are currently the responsibility
of the SCAQMD. Separate control measures, ROP and attainment
demonstrations were prepared for each of the areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The State has recently changed the names of the respective
air basins. Under State law, the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area
is now part of the Salton Sea Air Basin, and Antelope Valley is part
of the Mojave Desert Air Basin. In its 1996 session, the California
State Legislature passed legislation that would establish a new air
agency to have the responsibility for local air pollution plans and
measures in the Antelope Valley area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SCAQMD's existing rules and committal measures apply not only
throughout the South Coast Air Basin but also in the SCAQMD's portions
of the Southeast Desert. The SIP includes the State measures and a
subset of the SCAQMD measures approved above in sections II.A. and
II.B.6., but does not add to that list any unique State or local
controls for the Coachella and Antelope regions.
The MDAQMD included in the Mojave Plan 7 measures, all of which
have now been adopted in regulatory form. Three of the rules have been
approved as part of the SIP: 461 Gasoline Transfer Dispensing, 1103
Asphalt Paving, and 1160 Internal Combustion Engines. The table labeled
``Mojave SIP Control Measures and VOC/NOX Reductions lists the
rules that have not yet been approved. This table includes Rules 1157,
1158, and 1159, which were mistakenly omitted from the proposal.
The MDAQMD control measures are relied upon in meeting the
attainment requirements of the Act. Accordingly, and because the
measures strengthen the SIP, EPA is approving, under sections 110(k)(3)
and 301(a) of the Act, the enforceable commitments to adopt and
implement the control measures to achieve the emission reductions
shown. EPA also is assigning credit to the measures for purposes of
attainment.
Mojave SIP Control Measures and VOC/NOX Reductions
[In Tons/Day for 1996]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDAQMD Measure VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings................... 0.92 0
Rule 1157 Boilers/Process Heaters.................. 0 0.04
Rule 1158 Electric Power Generation................ 0 0.13
Rule 1159 Gas Turbines............................. 0 0.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. ROP Provisions. EPA will take action on the ROP provisions for
the Southeast Desert in separate rulemakings.
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration. As discussed in the
proposal, the SIP includes modeling information, based on the South
Coast UAM analysis, demonstrating that reductions from the South Coast
SIP (along with SIP reductions within the area) will bring the
Southeast Desert into attainment by the statutory deadline. EPA
therefore proposes to approve the Southeast Desert modeling and
attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2) of the Act.
d. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves the Southeast Desert ozone SIP
with
[[Page 1183]]
respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control
measures, modeling, and demonstration of attainment. EPA also approves
MDAQMD's commitments to adopt and implement the listed control measures
to achieve the specified emissions reductions. EPA will take action on
the 15% ROP and the post-1996 ROP plan elements for the three Southeast
Desert subregions in separate rulemakings.
III. Summary of EPA Actions
EPA approves the following elements of the 1994 California Ozone
SIP for the listed areas, as meeting applicable CAA requirements:
(1) Emission Inventories for San Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento,
Ventura, South Coast, and Southeast Desert, under section 182(a)(1) of
the CAA.
(2) 15% ROP Plans for San Diego, San Joaquin, Ventura, and South
Coast, under section 182(b)(1).
(3) Post-1996 ROP Plans for San Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento,
Ventura, and South Coast, under section 182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA.
(4) Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations for San Diego, San
Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, Southeast Desert, and South Coast, under
section 182(c)(2) of the CAA.
(5) All of the local control measures listed above in section
II.B., for each of the nonattainment areas, including the specific
emissions reductions for each milestone year, under sections 110(k)(3)
and 301(a) of the CAA.
(6) All of the State's control measures contained in the 1994
California Ozone SIP that EPA has not previously approved: M1--
Accelerated Retirement of LDVs, M4--Early Introduction of 2g/bhp-hr
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles, M7--Accelerated Retirement of HDVs, CP3--
Aerosol Paints, and Pesticides, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a).
EPA approval includes assignment of specific emissions reductions by
nonattainment area and milestone year (as displayed in the tables in
section II.A.) for all of the State control measures, including those
previously approved under sections 110(k)(3), 182(e)(5), and 301(a) of
the CAA. Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA approves
CARB's commitments to revise the South Coast attainment demonstration
and adopt appropriate measures following the conclusion of the public
consultative process. Under section 301 of the Act, EPA issues the
Agency's commitment to undertake rulemaking to promulgate additional
Federal measures determined to be appropriate.
EPA approves California's I/M regulations under sections 110(k)(3)
and 301(a). EPA also approves the State's basic I/M program under
sections 182(b)(4) and 187(a)(4) of the CAA and the enhanced I/M
program, including the assignment of specific emissions reductions
identified in section II.A.3. above, under sections 182(c)(3) and
187(a)(6) of the CAA and section 348(c) of the Highway Act.
In final action, EPA deletes from the applicable SIP all
transportation control measures included in prior SIPs for Ventura and
the South Coast, and Fresno measure ``Exclusive High Occupancy Vehicle
Lanes on Freeway 41.''
EPA will take separate regulatory action on the 15% ROP Plans for
Sacramento and the Southeast Desert and the post-1996 ROP Plan for the
Southeast Desert.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
IV. Regulatory Process
A. Executive Order 12886
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small business, small not-for-profit enterprises and
government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301 and subchapter I, part D
of the Clean Air Act, do not create any new requirements, but simply
approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore,
because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements,
it does not have a significant impact on any small entities affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal/state relationship under the
Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the
APA as amended.
[[Page 1184]]
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 10, 1997. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Appendix A: Current Status of EPA's Activities Relating to the
``Federal Assignments'' in the California SIP Submittal
Note: The 1994 California Ozone SIP includes ``Federal'' mobile
source assignments (SIP Measures M6, M10, M12, M13, M14, M15, and
M16). In so doing, the State not only asked EPA to complete
statutorily mandated responsibilities but also to undertake
discretionary regulations to achieve specific mobile source emission
reductions needed for the California attainment demonstrations,
particularly for the South Coast. This fact sheet summarizes the
current status of Federal activities relating to the source
categories covered by each of the State's ``Federal Assignments.''
Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles
Measure M6 of the 1994 California Ozone State Implementation
Plan (``the SIP'') provides for adoption by EPA of a Federal oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) standard for new heavy-duty diesel on-highway
vehicles. The NOX standard called for in the SIP is 2.0 grams
per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), to be implemented beginning in
2004. A Federal standard would help reduce emissions from the large
number of out-of-state trucks which operate in California.
EPA is fulfilling its commitment to propose tighter NOX
emission standards for Federal on-highway heavy-duty vehicles as
part of the NOX/PM (particulate matter) Initiative. On July 11,
1995, EPA, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the
leading manufacturers of heavy-duty engines signed a Statement of
Principles (SOP) that established a consensus plan to substantially
reduce emissions from future trucks and buses on a nationwide basis.
The goal of the SOP is to ensure cleaner air in a manner which is
both realistic for the heavy-duty engine industry and responds to
environmental needs as well. As a result of the SOP, EPA published
an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on August 31,
1995. The ANPRM announced plans to propose a choice of standards for
combined non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus NOX: 2.4 g/bhp-hr,
or 2.5 g/bhp-hr with an NMHC cap of 0.5 g/bhp-hr. Engines meeting
these future standards are expected to be over 80 percent cleaner
than pre-control engines. EPA formally proposed these standards and
related provisions in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
published on June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33421-33469). The Final Rule has a
target publication date of winter 1996-1997. The new standards would
be implemented beginning in 2004 and would apply to all on-highway
heavy-duty engines.
CARB played a very important role in the achievement of the
Statement of Principles (SOP). In addition, CARB has given EPA
tremendous support in the development of the ANPRM and the NPRM. As
a result of the SOP and rulemaking processes, EPA and CARB will have
harmonized programs for new heavy-duty engines, an advantage for
engine manufacturers.
Off-Road Industrial Equipment (Diesel)
Measure M10 of the SIP provides for adoption by EPA of a Federal
NOX standard for, at a minimum, new farm and construction
equipment with diesel engines rated at less than 175 hp (130 kw).
These are the engines which California is preempted from regulating
under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The NOX standard
called for in the SIP is 2.5 g/bhp-hr (3.3 g/kw-hr), to be
implemented beginning in 2005.
In its 1991 Nonroad Study, EPA determined that nonroad diesel
engines rated at 37 kw and more, including those covered in SIP
measure M10, emit a substantial portion of the nation's NOX
inventory. In response, EPA set a 9.2 g/kw-hr NOX standard for
these engines in 1994, to be phased-in beginning in 1996. The Agency
also expressed its intent to undertake a second tier of standard
setting to further control these emissions. The Clean Air Act
provides for this as a discretionary effort and contains no
requirements or guidance regarding the level or timing of the
standards.
Initial work on this second tier of standard setting is
currently underway as part of the NOX/PM Initiative. The
NOX/PM Initiative has been a joint program of both EPA and
CARB. EPA and CARB recognize that harmonizing Federal and California
standards would help to achieve air quality goals in all states by
eliminating the potential for equipment with higher-emitting engines
being transported across state borders. Harmonized standards would
also have obvious advantages for manufacturers. The participation of
CARB staff on this initiative has been invaluable.
EPA, CARB, and all key nonroad diesel engine and equipment
manufacturers signed an SOP on September 13, 1996, similar in many
ways to the SOP signed in 1995 relating to highway heavy-duty
engines. EPA expects to propose standards for diesel engines used in
most land-based nonroad equipment and in some marine applications.
The proposed standards will represent second and third tiers of
control for larger engines and will also include Tier 1 and Tier 2
standards for small diesel engines. These standards are expected to
result in major reductions in this very large class of emission
sources, with NOX reductions ranging from 40-75%, depending on
engine size. Also based on the SOP, EPA expects to propose special
provisions which provide implementation flexibility to manufacturers
of the nonroad equipment in which these engines are used to account
for engine modifications which the engine manufacturers may choose
to make. In addition to resulting in a common set of standards for
this category for EPA and CARB, these standards will essentially
achieve harmonization of standards between the U.S. and Europe.
Gas and LPG Equipment 25-175 Horsepower
Measure M12 of the SIP provides for adoption by EPA of a Federal
program that will implement three-way catalyst technology on new
nonroad equipment powered by gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) engines rated at between 25 hp (18 kw) and 175 hp (130 kw).
The goal of this measure it to reduce NOX emissions by at least
50 percent and hydrocarbon emissions by 75 percent. This is a
complementary measure to measure M10 and much of the discussion of
that measure applies here as well.
EPA does not currently have any emission standards for gasoline
or LPG engines in this category. However, under a consent decree
signed by EPA with the Sierra Club on June 10, 1993, EPA agreed to
determine by November 30, 1996 whether or not to regulate large
gasoline nonroad engines and, if so, by what schedule. At this time,
the Agency is considering setting standards for these engines as
part of the NOX/PM Initiative and has begun discussions about a
possible SOP. Although substantial emission reductions may be
pursued, there is no assurance that setting standards as low as
those sought by CARB would be the most appropriate approach
nationwide.
Marine Vessels
Measure M13 of the SIP assumes that the U.S. EPA and
International Maritime Organization (IMO) will adopt emission
standards that will reduce NOX emissions from new marine diesel
engines by 30 percent. M13 also assumes that EPA will issue
standards for new marine diesel engines used in vessels operated
primarily in domestic waters that will reduce NOX emissions by
at least 65 percent.
The IMO, a special agency of the United Nations, is developing
regulations for the reduction of NOX and sulfur oxides
(SOX) from ships. These regulations are part of a new Annex VI
to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL 73/78), which addresses the control of air pollution
from ships. An IMO committee, the Marine Environmental Protection
Committee (MEPC) is scheduled to finalize the draft Annex in March
1997. A diplomatic conference will be held in September 1997 to
review and adopt the Annex. After adoption, each signatory country
will consider the Annex for ratification and, after the ratification
requirements specified in the Annex are met, it will go into effect.
Before the Annex can be enforced within U.S. waters, Congress will
have to ratify it and provide appropriate authority to a government
agency to implement it.
The emission requirements set out in the Annex will apply only
to engines larger than
[[Page 1185]]
130 kW (175 hp) installed on ships constructed on or after January
1, 2000; engines installed on ships constructed before that date are
exempt. However, the standards will apply to any replacement engine
installed on any ship beginning January 1, 2000, as well as to
engines that undergo ``substantial modification'' or whose power is
increased by 10 percent. Because existing engines are not covered by
the standards, achieving the target 30 percent reduction will
require considerable time (turnover of ships is estimated to be
about 30 years). Also, it will be necessary for the annex to achieve
full implementation by flag states.
Only one-third of the commercial marine fleet will have turned
over by 2010; therefore, the full 30 percent emission reduction from
marine vessels will not be realized. To achieve greater reductions
more quickly, it will be necessary to explore operational controls
on ocean-going commercial marine vessels that operate off
California's coasts, particularly in the South Coast region. Three
studies are underway to investigate issues relating to the
contribution of these marine vessels to air quality in the South
Coast area and along the Santa Barbara channel. Collectively, these
studies will help EPA and other interested parties understand and
explore potential operational control strategies needed for further
emissions reductions from marine sources. EPA is involved in all of
these efforts, along with the United States Navy, the United States
Coast Guard, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and
CARB.
The largest of these studies is sponsored by the United States
Navy. This goal of this study is to better characterize ship traffic
and its impact on ozone exceedances in Ventura County. It will
investigate air trajectory and transport mechanisms, clarify ship
traffic patterns, collect ozone measurement data, and collect
weather parameters for modeling. This on-going study is not complete
at this time. A second study, sponsored by SCAQMD, will measure the
marine vessel emission inventory and explore potential control
strategies. The SCAQMD study should be completed by June 1996. A
third study, the Southern California Transport Study, led by CARB,
will examine air pollution transport in Southern California. This
study will provide an enhanced air quality and meteorological
database for Southern California, which will provide the basis for
improved modeling. Data will be collected at the surface and aloft,
as well as over water.
As originally drafted, the standards set out in MARPOL Annex VI
would apply to any engine larger than 130 kW installed on a vessel
that operates in the ``marine environment.'' This means that the
Annex would apply to vessels operating in domestic as well as
international waters. To preserve the ability to set more stringent
standards for engines installed on vessels that operate in U.S.
domestic waters, the U.S. sought to limit the application of the
Annex. Specifically, at the July 1996 MEPC meeting, the U.S.
succeeded in obtaining an exemption to the Annex for high speed
engines installed on vessels that are not engaged in international
voyages. This exemption gives EPA the ability to pursue more
stringent national emission control for high speed diesel marine
engines on vessels that operate primarily in domestic waters. EPA is
currently preparing an NPRM to set standards for these engines.
Locomotives
In Measure M14, CARB assumed locomotive emission reductions from
two EPA programs. The first of these programs was the statutorily
required EPA national regulation for locomotives and locomotive
engines, (national locomotive regulation). EPA expects that the
planned national locomotive regulation will provide all of the CARB
SIP credits with the exception of the 67% reduction in NOX
emissions in the South Coast by 2010.
To address the South Coast's need for further emission
reductions EPA has considered a special locomotive program for the
South Coast. This program would ensure that all locomotives
operating in the South Coast achieve on average, an emission level
equal to EPA national locomotive regulation tier 2 standards. Since
these standards are technology forcing, the practical requirement
would be to require an accelerated fleet turnover in the South Coast
such that only the newest engines meeting the EPA tier 2 standards
would operate in the South Coast. This program would provide an
approximately two-thirds reduction in locomotive NOX emissions
in the South Coast by 2010 and result in a NOX emission level
of 12 tons/day in the South Coast. The railroads that operate in the
South Coast have indicated support for this program. EPA is
continuing to explore innovative approaches to establish the South
Coast clean locomotive fleet program as part of the SIP.
Aircraft
Measure M15 calls for U.S. EPA to adopt standards to effect a 30
percent reduction in reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOX
emissions beginning in 2000. M15 apparently applies to new
commercial aircraft engines, but also suggests reconsideration of
the exempt status of military aircraft.
The federal Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emission
standards for aircraft engines. In recognition of this preemptive
authority, the SIP assigns new nationwide emission standards for
commercial aircraft engines to EPA that would reduce ROG and
NOX emissions from this source by 30 percent beginning in 2000.
The SIP also correctly acknowledges that military aircraft engines
are currently exempt from emission standards, which otherwise apply
to commercial aircraft engines. In this regard, the SIP recommends
that the exempt status of these aircraft be reconsidered.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is the most
appropriate forum for establishing commercial aircraft engine
emission standards due to the international nature of the aviation
industry. EPA is currently preparing a direct final rule to formally
adopt the existing ICAO NOX and CO standards.
EPA has actively participated in considering more stringent
NOX standards as part of ICAO's Committee on Aviation
Environmental Protection (CAEP) in the intervening period since the
FIP. In December 1995, CAEP recommended a 16 percent increase in
stringency for the NOX standard that applies to medium and
large turbine engines used on commercial aircraft. The revised
standard would affect newly certified engines (i.e., engine models
produced for the first time) beginning in 2000, and all newly
manufactured engines (i.e., engines already being produced) in 2008.
The revised standard would not affect engines already in air
service. No revision of the hydrocarbon emission standard was
considered by CAEP at the time, principally because modern turbine
engines are considered very ``clean'' in this regard.
The CAEP recommendation will now move through the ICAO hierarchy
for consideration. Initially, the ICAO Council will act on the
recommendation. If the Council finds it acceptable, the revision
moves to the full ICAO Assembly for final action. This process may
not be complete until the spring of 1998.
The emission benefits of any new NOX standard will occur
worldwide. These benefits, however, will gradually accrue over an
extended period of time. More specifically, the full benefits of the
revised standard will not occur until well after 2010, because of
the 2008 date for full implementation of the standard and the slow
fleet turnover to new, cleaner engines (e.g., aircraft last about 25
years in active service.) Therefore, very few of the potential
benefits will be realized by the SIP's attainment date.
Turning to the exemption for military engines, EPA agrees with
the SIP recommendation that such a blanket exemption should be
reconsidered in the consultative process. EPA hopes to address the
feasibility of applying emission standards to military engines in
the public consultative process.
EPA has also continued to explore other ways to reduce the
environmental effects of air travel in California and throughout the
nation in the intervening period since the FIP. More specifically,
the Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are working
cooperatively to encourage continuing progress in reducing emissions
from ground service equipment and aircraft auxiliary power units.
EPA has sponsored additional work to compile technical data and
emission inventory methods. This information will be used by the
Federal Aviation Administration to develop an Advisory Circular for
use by airlines and airport authorities interested in reducing the
emissions from these sources.
Pleasurecraft
Measure M16 assumes that U.S. EPA finalizes proposed national
ROG and NOX standards for various categories of new engines
used in watercraft.
EPA has finalized its proposed emission standards for spark-
ignition marine engines. The final rule is expected to reduce by
about 75% the HC emissions from outboard motors, personal
watercraft, and jet boats beginning in model year 1998. EPA has
issued guidance to states on the amount of credit that will be
allowed due to this rulemaking. There is no second phase rulemaking
planned.
[[Page 1186]]
EPA has not yet finalized the proposed emission standards for
compression-ignition marine engines. The court ordered deadline for
completion of this action is December 1996. EPA has not yet issued
guidance to states on the amount of credit that will be allowed due
to this rulemaking.
Appendix B: Schedule for Public Consultative Process
Background: The Need to Achieve Our Public Health Goals
Air pollution remains a significant public health concern in
many parts of the country, including many areas of California. The
Clean Air Act requires states to develop state implementation plans
(SIPs) that lay out how areas will reduce pollution and attain the
health-based air quality standards for a number of pollutants
including ground level ozone--smog.
Despite the dramatic progress that aggressive air quality
regulations have made in reducing smog levels, residents of the
South Coast continue to experience by far the worst air pollution in
the United States. The 1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast shows the
need for massive additional reductions to reach target emission
levels of VOC and NOX--volatile organic compounds and nitrogen
oxides, the pollutants that react with sunlight to form ozone.
The South Coast SIP includes federal, state and local
regulations and commitments to achieve the emission reductions
needed to attain the national ozone health standard by 2010. U.S.
EPA has already issued or is in the process of issuing stringent
national controls on most categories of mobile sources, including
heavy-duty trucks and buses; construction, farm, and lawn and garden
equipment; pleasure craft; some categories of marine vessels; and
locomotives.
Purpose of the Public Consultative Process on Future Mobile Source
Controls
Through a public process, we hope together to identify the best
options for achieving further emission reductions from mobile source
controls, at least to the extent they are needed for attainment of
the ozone health standard in the South Coast, and to ensure that
appropriate parties accept responsibility for adopting and
implementing the controls expeditiously.
Schedule
July 19, 1996--Los Angeles public meeting to introduce to the
general public the consultative process and to allow California
stakeholders an opportunity to provide input to the proposed
national truck and bus rules during the public comment period.
November 1996--Los Angeles public meeting to discuss pending
national and international ship controls, possible reductions from
port measures, pending national and international aircraft controls,
and possible reductions from airport measures.
November 1996 to May 1997--Los Angeles informal workshops to
provide further input on desirable control measures for airports/
aircraft and (separately) ports/ships.
February 1997--Los Angeles public meeting to continue
discussions of opportunities for reductions from future mobile
source measures and to allow California stakeholders to provide
informal input to the proposed national nonroad rules during the
public comment period.
June 1997--Los Angeles public meeting or public hearing to
summarize findings during the consultative process, identifying SIP
reductions from specific new measures and setting out an approach
for dealing with the remaining shortfall (if any).
Future Updates to the Schedule
Information on the date and location of public meetings will be
placed on EPA Region 9's site on the Internet's World Wide Web at
http://www.epa.gov/region09 (go to Air Programs). Those wishing to
be placed on EPA's mailing list for public consultative process
meeting announcements should write or phone Julia Barrow (see the
Addresses portion of this document).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 25, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart F--California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs
(c)(204)(i)(A)(6), (c)(204)(i)(B)(2), (c)(204)(i)(C) through (F),
(c)(205)(i)(A), (c)(213), and (c)(233) through (238) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(204) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(6) State control measures: Accelerated Retirement of LDV's
(Measure M1), Early Introduction of 2g/bhp-hr Heavy Duty Diesel
Vehicles (Measure M4), Accelerated Retirement of Heavy-Duty Vehicles
(Measure M7), Aerosol Paints (Measure CP3), and California Department
of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Plan, as contained in ``The
California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume II: The Air
Resources Board's Mobile Source and Consumer Products Elements,''
adopted on November 15, 1994, and tables of local agency control
measures and revisions to local Rate-of-Progress plan elements as
contained in ``The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone,
Volume IV: ``Local Plans,'' adopted on November 15, 1994.
(B) * * *
(2) Control measures, emissions inventory, modeling, and ozone
attainment demonstration, as contained in ``1994 Air Quality Management
Plan,'' adopted on September 9, 1994.
(C) San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Emissions inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress plan, Post-1996 Rate-
of-Progress plan, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration, as
contained in ``1994 Ozone Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans for San
Diego County,'' adopted on November 1, 1994.
(D) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Control measures, emissions inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress
plan, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling, and ozone attainment
demonstration, as contained in ``San Joaquin Valley Attainment and
Rate-of-Progress Plans,'' adopted on November 14, 1994.
(E) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Control measures, emissions inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress
plan, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling, and ozone attainment
demonstration, as contained in ``1994 Air Quality Management Plan for
Ventura County,'' adopted on November 8, 1994.
(F) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
(1) Control measures, emissions inventory, modeling, and ozone
attainment demonstration, as contained in ``Rate-of-Progress and
Attainment Demonstration Plans for the Mojave Desert,'' adopted on
October 26, 1994.
(205) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Kern County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Emissions inventory, modeling, and ozone attainment
demonstration, as contained in ``Rate-of-Progress and Attainment
Demonstration Plans for the Kern County Air Pollution Control
District,'' adopted on December 1, 1994.
* * * * *
(213) California Statewide Emission Inventory submitted on March
30, 1995, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) 1990 Base-Year Emission Inventory for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
in California.
[[Page 1187]]
(i) Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast,
Southeast Desert, Ventura.
* * * * *
(233) New and amended plans for the following agencies were
submitted on December 29, 1994, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(1) 15% Rate-of-Progress plan and Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan
for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area, as contained in the
``Rate-of-Progress Plan Revision: South Coast Air Basin & Antelope
Valley & Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area,'' adopted on December 9,
1994.
(B) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.
(1) Emissions inventory, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling,
and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in ``Sacramento Area
Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans,'' adopted by Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District on December 1, 1994; by
Feather River Air Quality Management District on December 12, 1994; by
El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District on December 13, 1994;
by Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District on December 14, 1994; and
by Placer County Air Pollution Control District on December 20, 1994.
(234) The California Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program was
submitted on January 22, 1996, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program adopted on
January 22, 1996.
(i) Health and Safety Code: Division 26, Part 5 Sec. 39032.5;
Chapter 5. Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, Article 1, Article 2,
Article 3, Article 4, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 8,
Article 9.
(ii) Business and Professions Code, Chapter 20.3, Automotive
Repair, Article 4, Sec. 9886, Sec. 9886.1, Sec. 9886.2, Sec. 9886.4.
(iii) Vehicle Code Sec. 4000.1, Sec. 4000.2, Sec. 4000.3,
Sec. 4000.6.
(iv) Title 16, California Code or Regulations, Division 33, Bureau
of Automotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection Program,
Sec. 3340.1, Sec. 3340.5, Sec. 3340.6, Sec. 3340.10, Sec. 3340.15,
Sec. 3340.16, Sec. 3340.16.5, Sec. 3340.16.6, Sec. 3340.17,
Sec. 3340.18, Sec. 3340.22, Sec. 3340.22.1, Sec. 3340.22.2,
Sec. 3340.22.3, Sec. 3340.23, Sec. 3340.24, Sec. 3340.28, Sec. 3340.29,
Sec. 3340.30, Sec. 3340.31, Sec. 3340.32, Sec. 3340.32.1, Sec. 3340.33,
Sec. 3340.33.1, Sec. 3340.35, Sec. 3340.35, Sec. 3340.36, Sec. 3340.41,
Sec. 3340.41.3, Sec. 3340.41.5, Sec. 3340.42, Sec. 3340.42.1.,
Sec. 3340.50, Sec. 3340.50.1, Sec. 3340.50.3, Sec. 3340.50.4,
Sec. 3340.50.5.
(235) New and amended plans for the following agencies were
submitted on May 17, 1996, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) Executive Order G-96-031, dated May 17, 1996, State commitment
to participate in public consultative process, submit a revised
attainment demonstration for the South Coast as appropriate by December
31, 1997, and submit control measures to achieve emission reductions
determined to be appropriate, if any, by December 31, 1999.
(236) New and amended plans for the following agencies were
submitted on June 13, 1996, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) Letter dated June 13, 1996, from James D. Boyd to David
Howekamp, including ``Corrections to State and Local Measures''
(Attachment A) and ``Summary Emission Reduction Spreadsheets''
(Attachment C).
(237) New and amended plans for the following agencies were
submitted on July 10, 1996, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(1) Revised rule adoption schedule, adopted on April 12, 1996.
(238) New and amended plans for the following agencies were
submitted on July 12, 1996, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) ``Revised Rule Adoption and Implementation Schedule'' (Table 4-
2) and ``Architectural Coatings'' (Appendix E-95, Tables E-43 and E-45)
contained in ``Ventura County 1995 Air Quality Management Plan
Revision,'' adopted on December 19, 1995.
(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, as contained in ``San Joaquin
Valley Revised Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plans,'' adopted on September
20, 1995.
3. 40 CFR part 52 is amended by adding a new section 52.238 to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.238 Commitment to undertake rulemaking.
(a) The Administrator shall undertake rulemaking, after the South
Coast mobile source public consultative process, to promulgate any VOC
and NOX mobile source controls which are determined to be
appropriate for EPA and needed for ozone attainment in the Los Angeles-
South Coast Air Basin Area.
4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended by adding a new section 52.241 to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.241 Interim approval of enhanced inspection and maintenance
program.
(a) Under section 348(c) of the National Highway Systems
Designation Act (Pub. L. 104-59), the California SIP is approved as
meeting the provisions of section 182(c)(3) for applicable ozone areas
and section 187(a)(6) for applicable carbon monoxide areas with respect
to the requirements for enhanced motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance. This approval expires on August 7, 1998, or earlier if by
such earlier date the State has submitted as a SIP revision the
required demonstration that the credits are appropriate and that the
program is otherwise in compliance with the Clean Air Act and EPA takes
final action approving that revision.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-144 Filed 1-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P