[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