[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1770-1780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-666]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-189-0128; FRL-6217-8]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
California--South Coast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part a 
state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of 
California to provide for attainment of the ozone national ambient air 
quality standard (NAAQS) in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area 
(South Coast). EPA is proposing the approval and disapproval of the SIP 
revisions under provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA 
action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary 
ambient air quality standards, and plan requirements for nonattainment 
areas.

DATES: Written comments must be received by February 11, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Dave Jesson, Air Planning Office 
(AIR-2), Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    The rulemaking docket for this notice is available for public 
inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal

[[Page 1771]]

business hours. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying parts of 
the docket.
    Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at 
the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, California
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, 
Diamond Bar, California

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson at (415) 744-1288.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Summary

1. Introduction
    This proposed action relates to a 1997 revision to the 1994 ozone 
SIP for the South Coast.1 The South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the revision within weeks of EPA's 
approval of the 1994 ozone SIP. The 1997 proposed revision to the ozone 
SIP was not federally required, but was adopted to address, in a 
comprehensive and consistent fashion, federal and state requirements 
for particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide, and 
state requirements for an ozone plan update. In order to understand the 
basis for EPA's proposed disapproval of the 1997 revision, it is 
necessary to understand the 1994 ozone SIP, several aspects of which 
are unique. An overview of the 1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast 
appears below, followed by a description of the 1997 proposed revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a description of the boundaries of the Los Angeles-South 
Coast Air Basin, see 40 CFR 81.305. The nonattainment area includes 
all of Orange County and the more populated portions of Los Angeles, 
San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 1994 South Coast Ozone SIP
    On November 15, 1994, the State of California submitted the 1994 
ozone plan for the South. The plan was subsequently amended and we 
approved the plan on September 25, 1996, as the first fully approved 
and federally enforceable ozone SIP for the South Coast.
    The 1994 plan was built on 4 decades of State and local leadership 
in researching, developing, adopting, and implementing new air 
pollution control strategies. By that date, the California and South 
Coast air quality agencies and industry had a world-wide reputation for 
pushing technological progress to achieve the world's cleanest cars, 
fuels, consumer products, industrial controls, and paints and coatings.
    As a direct result of this extraordinary effort by elected 
officials, governmental agencies, industry, and the residents of 
Southern California, air pollution levels had been dramatically 
reduced: the number of days per year with dirty air and the peak 
concentrations had dropped by more than 60 percent, and severe episode 
days (where health warnings are issued to all residents and pollution-
generating activities must be curtailed) had been completely 
eliminated. This accomplishment is more remarkable in view of Southern 
California's extraordinary growth during these years and the continued 
dependence of the area on private vehicle use.
    Despite the State and local achievements, however, Southern 
California in 1994 continued to have by far the dirtiest air in the 
country. For example, the South Coast in 1994 recorded 1-hour levels at 
or above 0.120 parts per million (ppm) for ozone, or smog, on 107 days 
in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area and 123 days in the Riverside-San 
Bernardino area, while other major metropolitan areas had values at or 
above 0.120 ppm on far fewer days: Houston 32, New York 9, Detroit 6, 
Philadelphia 5, Atlanta 4, and Chicago 2.2 Similarly, the 
South Coast has recorded particulate matter or (soot) and carbon 
monoxide pollution levels greater than other urban areas in the U.S., 
and was the only area of the country in violation of the nitrogen 
dioxide NAAQS under the 1990 CAA Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone 
is 0.12 ppm averaged over a 1-hour period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that all residents have a right to clean air and that 
clean air investments have a high benefit-cost ratio,3 the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD cooperated in the 
adoption of a 1994 plan laying out the strategies that would bring 
clean air by the federal deadline of 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Socioeconomic Assessment Report for the 1994 Air Quality 
Management Plan (SCAQMD, August 1994) calculated total benefits of 
clean air achieved under the plan to exceed total plan costs by 
between $0.9 and $1.5 billion per year. This calculation applies to 
ozone, PM, and visibility benefits, but does not include 
unquantifiable benefits such as reduction in chronic illness, 
reduction in lung function in human beings, reduced damage to 
livestock and plant life, and erosion of building materials. 
Furthermore, 75% of the costs of the plan are associated with 
measure TCM-04 (transportation improvements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State committed to implement 9 new mobile source control 
measures, an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (or Smog 
Check) program, and incremental regulatory reductions in the smog-
forming constituents of consumer products and pesticides, and to 
develop advanced, long-term controls for onroad and nonroad vehicles 
and engines.
    The Governing Board of the SCAQMD and the Southern California 
Association of Governments (SCAG) committed to implement 60 new 
specific controls, and SCAQMD also bound itself to achieve additional 
emission reductions in the future from advanced technology measures.
    Together these State and local measures would reduce the 1990 
emissions level of 2878 tons per day (tpd) to 1032 tpd. Modeling 
analyses by the SCAQMD estimated, however, that the smog problem could 
not be solved without an additional 156 tpd reduction in pollutants. 
The State determined that we should achieve these remaining reductions 
by promulgating national mobile source controls in accordance with our 
new authorities under the 1990 CAA Amendments.
    We concluded that California had no authority under the U.S. 
Constitution or the Clean Air Act to require us to contribute 
particular measures and emissions reductions to the SIP for the South 
Coast. We appreciated, however, the significant level of commitment by 
the State and SCAQMD reflected in the 1994 ozone plan and we wished to 
do our share in contributing further mobile source controls consistent 
with our national authorities and responsibilities. We also saw merit 
in the State's desire to cooperate with us in negotiating with affected 
industry consistent Federal and California mobile source standards.
    We therefore approved the 1994 ozone SIP based upon commitments by 
the State and EPA to participate in a public consultative process on 
mobile source controls, leading to a decision in mid-1997 on what 
further reductions needed to be achieved and which entity should have 
responsibility for them. We and California further committed to adopt 
any additional controls, as necessary and appropriate, to achieve the 
emission reductions required for attainment of the ozone standard in 
the South Coast.
    We believe that we have now achieved, or have rulemaking in 
progress to accomplish, almost all of the reductions the State 
purported to assign to us in the 1994 ozone SIP--approximately 145 tpd 
out of a 156 tpd ``assignment.'' This is the result of close 
coordination between California and EPA and cooperation by 
manufacturers and users of mobile source engines and equipment, 
culminating in agreements on aggressive new standards for trucks and 
buses and most categories of nonroad mobile sources, ranging from 
forklifts to outboard engines, and from locomotives to tractors. We 
believe that

[[Page 1772]]

these aggressive Federal controls will have clean air benefits 
nationally, and that the stringent new standards will ensure that all 
sources of the pollution problem contribute their share to needed 
emission reductions.
    California's plan assumed, however, that stringent new emissions 
standards would be set for aircraft engines and ocean-going vessels. 
Unfortunately, the international standard-setting process for 
commercial aircraft engines and ocean-going vessels has not resulted in 
standards that will benefit the South Coast appreciably by 2010, 
especially in view of the long life-span of these engines. Moreover, 
the State assumed an unrealistically rapid turnover rate for harbor 
craft, and therefore overestimated reductions that would be achieved in 
2010, even by a very stringent federal standard.
    While we and the State continue to work with the ports, shippers, 
airports, and airlines to achieve reductions from their operations, we 
now expect that there will remain a small shortfall in the ``federal'' 
category. Unfortunately, the SCAQMD has filed a suit against us to 
promulgate the aircraft and ocean-going vessel standards postulated by 
the State, although all parties are now aware that the standards are 
set internationally and that the international standards recently 
adopted will not, in fact, achieve the reductions anticipated by the 
State in its 1994 SIP submittal.
    The SCAQMD has also sued us to end the public consultative process 
by making specific additional federal commitments to adopt regulations 
for all remaining emission reduction assignments. In response to a suit 
from environmental groups, we have already negotiated a settlement that 
requires us by June 1, 1999, to conclude the public consultative 
process, determine remaining responsibilities of the State and EPA, and 
schedule adoption of controls to fulfill those responsibilities.
    Thus, we believe that both District suits are a waste of public 
resources, and we conclude that it would be inconsistent with our 
pending obligations to resolve the public consultative process for us 
to approve a new South Coast SIP that includes Federal assignments to 
undertake discretionary controls.
3. 1997 South Coast Ozone Plan
    As we finalized our approval of the 1994 ozone SIP, the SCAQMD 
unveiled a replacement plan. This revised plan abandoned, relaxed, or 
postponed approximately 30 measures in the ozone SIP. The revised plan 
employed new growth projections, new inventories, and new modeling 
analyses to support the proposition that the area could meet the 
minimum statutory progress requirements and eventually attain the ozone 
NAAQS despite the extensive rollback in near-term controls.
    When the revised plan was announced, we indicated our serious 
concerns about the direction of the plan, particularly its backsliding 
at the very time we were issuing revised ozone NAAQS and new fine 
particulate matter (PM-2.5) NAAQS that would require still greater 
levels of control than were reflected in the 1994 ozone SIP. We noted 
that the extremely high ozone and PM levels in the South Coast 
continued to represent one of our country's most severe environmental 
and public health problems--problems highlighted by the hundreds of 
scientific studies that formed the basis of the new and revised NAAQS. 
We encouraged the District to focus on implementation of the newly 
approved SIP and, if measures proved to be infeasible or ineffective, 
to adopt replacement measures in order to sustain progress.
    The SCAQMD nevertheless adopted the revised plan in November 1996, 
and the State submitted the plan as a proposed SIP revision in early 
February 1997. We continued to express our concerns and to remind the 
SCAQMD that the District, responsible for public health in the most 
polluted area of the country, had an obligation to increase its efforts 
rather than regress. We have repeatedly indicated that we support the 
District's flexibility to amend or replace any measure when it is 
determined to be infeasible or ineffective, but we cannot support the 
significant relaxation of the SIP represented by the 1997 plan.
    After adopting a plan revision that postponed or eliminated most of 
the near-term measures in the 1994 ozone SIP, the District has since 
failed to meet most of its implementation commitments in the 1997 ozone 
plan. This is consistent with the District's record over the past 4 
years, during which the SCAQMD has adopted and revised credit and 
trading rules and has amended existing prohibitory rules to postpone 
compliance dates, but has adopted only a handful of new measures 
designed to reduce pollution levels.
    On September 26, 1997, environmental groups sued the SCAQMD and 
CARB in federal district court, seeking a court order to compel the 
agencies to meet their federally enforceable commitments to adopt and 
implement control measures in the 1994 ozone SIP. We urged the parties 
to attempt settlement and we provided a facilitator for the sessions. 
Negotiations began in the early Spring of 1998, and a proposed 
settlement was drafted in late June. The SCAQMD Governing Board, 
however, rejected the proposed settlement in June 1998.
    On November 4, 1998, the SCAQMD filed suit against us to compel our 
action on the 1997 plans, repeating the argument that the plan should 
be approved. We have been consistent in expressing our contrary view, 
that the Clean Air Act gives us authority to approve revised SIPs but 
does not allow us to approve revisions that represent a significant 
retreat from the approved SIP. We believe that it would be particularly 
ill-advised to approve major relaxations in the South Coast, where the 
public suffers by far the worst pollution levels in the country.
    We continue to hope that the SCAQMD will decide to meet its 
difficult responsibilities to protect public health and, in so doing, 
will both strengthen the plan and begin fully to implement the plan to 
fulfill the 1994 plan's promise of clean air progress.

B. The South Coast Ozone Problem

    Ground-level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOX), 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and oxygen react in the presence of 
sunlight, generally at elevated temperatures.4 Strategies 
for reducing smog typically require reductions in both VOC and 
NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The South Coast plan sometimes substitutes the term Reactive 
Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ozone causes serious health problems by damaging lung tissue and 
sensitizing the lungs to other irritants. When inhaled, even at very 
low levels, ozone can cause acute respiratory problems; aggravate 
asthma; cause temporary decreases in lung capacity of 15 to 20 percent 
in healthy adults, cause inflammation of lung tissue; lead to hospital 
admissions and emergency room visits; and impair the body's immune 
system defenses, making people more susceptible to respiratory 
illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia. Children are most at 
risk from exposure to ozone because they breathe more air per pound of 
body weight than adults; their respiratory systems are still developing 
and thus more susceptible to environmental threats; and children 
exercise outdoors more than adults in the high-ozone months of summer.
    Direct exposure to NOX and VOCs also has adverse public 
health consequences. Exposure to elevated NOX concentrations 
can reduce breathing efficiency, increase lung and airway irritation, 
and exacerbate symptoms of respiratory illness, lung

[[Page 1773]]

congestion, wheeze, and increased bronchitis in children. VOCs include 
many toxic compounds (such as benzene), which can cause respiratory, 
immunological, neurological, reproductive, developmental, and mutagenic 
problems. Some VOCs have been identified as probable or known human 
carcinogens.
    Since the strategies in the 1994 ozone SIP and 1997 ozone plan 
address VOC and NOX, the primary precursor of particulate 
matter in the South Coast, the plans also affect PM concentrations.
    Particulate matter is associated with a number of significant 
respiratory and cardiovascular-related effects, including premature 
death, increased hospitalization, increased emergency room visits, 
increased respiratory symptoms, increased disease (especially among 
children and people with lung disease such as asthma), and decreased 
lung function.
    Both ozone and PM damage vegetation. Experimental studies on the 
major commercial crops in the U.S. suggest that ozone may be 
responsible for significant agricultural crop yield losses.
    Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary, health-
related NAAQS for ozone: 0.12 ppm averaged over a 1-hour period. See 44 
FR 8220 (February 8, 1979). EPA also set NAAQS for particulate matter 
up to 10 microns in diameter (PM-10): 150 micrograms per cubic meter 
(ug/m3) averaged over a 24-hour period, and 50 ug/m3 as an annual 
arithmetic average of the 24-hour samples. See 52 FR 24672 (July 1, 
1987).
    On July 18, 1997, EPA reaffirmed the annual PM-10 standard and 
slightly revised the 24-hour standard (62 FR 38651). At the same time, 
EPA also established two new standards for PM, both applying only to 
particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5). Finally, on 
July 18, 1997, EPA also revised the ozone NAAQS, replacing the 1-hour 
standard with a standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period (62 
FR 38855). EPA has not yet issued specific plan and control 
requirements for the new and revised NAAQS.
    The South Coast has continuously had by far the worst 1-hour ozone 
concentrations in the country, both in terms of peak concentrations and 
number of violations. While the South Coast ozone levels have greatly 
improved over the years, the trend is not continuous. For example, in 
1998 there have been 12 Stage I Alerts (which are triggered by ozone 
concentrations at or above 0.20 ppm), compared to only 1 in 1997.
    The South Coast typically has among the worst PM-10 annual mean and 
24-hour concentration in the country. Last year, the South Coast had 
the second worst PM-10 annual mean concentration of U.S. urbanized 
areas, with only Phoenix recording a worse level.

C. Clean Air Act Requirements

    The Federal CAA was substantially amended in 1990 to establish new 
planning requirements and attainment deadlines for the NAAQS. Under 
section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, areas designated nonattainment prior 
to enactment of the 1990 amendments, including the South Coast, were 
designated nonattainment by operation of law.
    Under section 181(a) of the Act, each ozone area designated 
nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by operation of 
law as either marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, 
depending on the 1986-1988 design value for the area. An ozone area 
with a design value at and above 0.280 ppm was classified as extreme. 
The South Coast was the only area so classified. Section 181(a) sets 
attainment deadlines for each class of area. The attainment date for an 
extreme area is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 
November 15, 2010.
    Section 172 of the Act contains general requirements applicable to 
SIPs for nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the Act set out additional 
air quality planning requirements for ozone nonattainment areas.
    The most fundamental of these nonattainment area provisions 
applicable to the South Coast is the requirement that the State submit 
by November 15, 1994, a SIP demonstrating attainment of the ozone 
NAAQS. This demonstration must be based upon enforceable measures to 
achieve emission reductions leading to emissions at or below the level 
predicted to result in attainment of the NAAQS throughout the 
nonattainment area. The measures must be implemented expeditiously and 
must ensure attainment no later than the applicable CAA deadline.
    EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing the Agency's 
preliminary views on how EPA intends to act on SIPs submitted under 
Title I of the Act. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 
FR 18070 (April 28, 1992. The reader should refer to the General 
Preamble for a more detailed discussion of EPA's preliminary 
interpretations of Title I requirements. In this proposed rulemaking 
action, EPA applies these policies to the South Coast ozone SIP 
submittal, taking into consideration the specific factual issues 
presented.

D. SIP Submittals Must Meet Requirements of the Pre-Existing NAAQS

    Before the SCAQMD adopted the 1997 ozone plan, EPA had already 
announced its intention to issue new and revised ozone and PM NAAQS. 
The SCAQMD included in Chapter 10 of the 1997 South Coast Air Quality 
Management Plan (AQMP) an initial analysis of the emission reductions 
that might be needed to attain the anticipated new and revised ozone 
and PM NAAQS. The SCAQMD concluded that significantly greater 
reductions would be required to attain the new and revised NAAQS that 
were under consideration. However, the SCAQMD prepared the plans to 
address only the NAAQS then in effect.
    Although EPA has now promulgated revised ozone NAAQS, EPA is not 
evaluating the plan based upon the NAAQS issued in 1997. The Agency 
will not require states to submit SIPs to address the revised NAAQS for 
several years. The pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS remain in effect in 
each nonattainment area until the area attains NAAQS. Thus, the 1-hour 
NAAQS of 0.12 ppm will not be revoked in the South Coast until the area 
has recorded 3 years with no more than 3 concentrations at or above 
0.125 ppm at any monitor. State and local agencies remain under an 
obligation to adopt and implement SIPs to attain the pre-existing ozone 
NAAQS until the EPA revokes the NAAQS for the area.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA has determined that subpart 2 of part D of Title I of 
the CAA should continue to apply as a matter of law for the purposes 
of achieving attainment of the current 1-hour ozone standard until 
an area attains the standard. See the final rule promulgating the 
revised ozone NAAQS (July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38873 for ozone), 
``Implementation Plan for Revised Air Quality Standards'' (July 18, 
1997, at 62 FR 38424), and ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour 
Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS'' (memo from Richard D. Wilson, 
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated December 
29, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. EPA Actions on Prior South Coast Ozone SIP Revisions

    The SCAQMD adopted an ozone plan on September 9, 1994. This plan, 
which was included in the 1994 South Coast AQMP, was supplemented by 
State measures adopted by CARB and was submitted as a proposed revision 
to the California SIP on November 15, 1994. On July 10, 1996, CARB 
submitted an extensive revision to the South Coast control measure 
adoption schedule, to adjust for slippage in the plan's initial 
implementation. On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150), EPA finalized approval 
of the South Coast ozone plan, including the ozone portions of the 1994 
South Coast

[[Page 1774]]

AQMP, as amended in 1996, and the State measures.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Some of the State and SCAQMD measures in the plan had been 
approved in prior rulemakings. See, particularly, 60 FR 43379 
(August 21, 1995), approving CARB regulations relating to 
antiperspirants and deodorants and other consumer products, 
reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel, and certain new-technology 
measures adopted by CARB and SCAQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. South Coast 1997 Plan Revision

    On February 5, 1997, CARB submitted as a revision to the California 
SIP the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin 
(SCAB), Antelope Valley, and Coachella Valley, adopted by the SCAQMD on 
November 15, 1996. This submittal addressed all four pollutants for 
which the South Coast was designated nonattainment: ozone, PM-10, 
carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
    EPA has previously acted on two components of the 1997 AQMP. On 
April 21, 1998, EPA granted interim final approval to the 1997 South 
Coast CO plan (63 FR 19661).7 EPA has also fully approved 
the 1997 South Coast NO2 attainment and maintenance plan and the 
State's request on March 4, 1998, to redesignate the South Coast to 
attainment for NO2 (63 FR 39747, July 24, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA approved the CO plan with respect to the CAA 
requirements for notice and adoption, baseline and projected 
emissions inventory, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecasts. EPA 
granted interim approval to the CO attainment demonstration, 
quantitative milestones, and reasonable further progress, since 
these plan elements depend, in part, on emission reductions from the 
State's enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program. 
The I/M program was given interim approval in EPA's final action on 
the 1994 ozone SIP (see 62 FR 1165-1168, January 8, 1997) under 
section 187(a)(6) of the CAA and section 348 of the 
National Highway System Designation Act (Pub. L. 104-59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ozone and PM-10 portions of the South Coast 1997 AQMP became 
complete by operation of law on August 5, 1997.8 SCAQMD and 
CARB intend the 1997 ozone plan to supersede completely the 1994 ozone 
SIP with respect to the SCAQMD portion of the plan. As discussed, EPA 
has not yet issued its interpretation of CAA section 172(e) to prevent 
backsliding in PM-10 nonattainment areas. EPA intends to propose action 
on the South Coast 1997 PM-10 plan in separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State has revised several of its own measures that are part of 
the South Coast plan, but at this time CARB has submitted as a SIP 
revision only one of these changes. On April 15, 1998, CARB submitted 
new Measure M17 (Additional Emission Reductions from Heavy-Duty 
Vehicles) as a replacement for Measure M7 (Accelerated Retirement of 
Heavy-Duty Vehicles). EPA will take action on Measure M17 in separate 
rulemaking.
    The 1997 ozone plan includes, among other things, attainment 
demonstrations based on updated VMT projections reflecting new 
forecasts prepared by SCAG, an amended Regional Mobility Element 
adopted by SCAG, revised motor vehicle emissions estimates using 
California's EMFAC7G and BURDEN7G program, new stationary and area 
source emission inventories, amended SCAQMD control measure 
commitments, and revised Urban Airshed Modeling (UAM), using the new 
inventories and changes to other modeling inputs.

II. Review of the Plan Submittal and Proposed EPA Action

A. Summary of Proposed Action

    In this document, EPA is proposing to approve in part and 
disapprove in part the 1997 ozone plan. The ozone plan for the South 
Coast depends on commitments by SCAQMD to adopt and implement various 
VOC and NOX control measures by particular dates to achieve 
specific emission reductions needed for progress and attainment. EPA 
proposes to disapprove the control measure portion of the plan for the 
reasons discussed in section II.D., below. EPA proposes also to 
disapprove the progress and attainment demonstrations in the plan, 
since these plan elements depend upon the control measure provisions.

B. Procedural Requirements

    Both SCAQMD and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior 
to adoption of the plan and each of the plan amendments. SCAQMD 
conducted numerous public workshops and public hearings prior to the 
adoption hearing on November 15, 1996, at which the 1997 AQMP was 
adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board (Resolution No. 96-23). On 
January 23, 1997, the CARB Governing Board adopted the plan (Resolution 
No. 97-1). The plan was submitted to EPA by Michael P. Kenny, Executive 
Officer of CARB, on February 5, 1997. The SIP submittal includes proof 
of publication for notices of SCAQMD and CARB public hearings, as 
evidence that all hearings were properly noticed. Therefore, EPA 
proposes to approve the 1997 ozone plan as meeting the procedural 
requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.

C. Baseline and Projected Emissions Inventory

    The revised and updated emissions inventory included in the 1997 
AQMP conforms to EPA's guidance documents.9 This EPA 
guidance allows approval of California's motor vehicle emissions 
factors in place of the corresponding federal emissions factors. The 
motor vehicle emissions factors used in the plan were generated by the 
CARB EMFAC7G and BURDEN7G program. The gridded inventory for motor 
vehicles was then produced using an updated Caltrans Direct Travel 
Impact Model (DTIM2) (Systems Applications International, 1994) to 
combine EMFAC7G data with transportation modeling performed by SCAG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, for example, Procedures for the Preparation of Emission 
Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, Volume I: 
General Guidance for Stationary Sources, EPA--450/4-91-016; 
Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile 
Sources, EPA--450/5-91-026d Revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCAG provided the baseline socioeconomic data used in the plan. 
These forecasts include the following predicted growth through the 
ozone attainment year.

[[Page 1775]]



               1997 AQMP Baseline Socioeconomic Forecasts
                              [In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                      1993     2000     2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population...................................     13.8     14.8     16.7
Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)...........    293.3    317.9    377.9
Daily Vehicle Trips..........................     31.2     33.2     37.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that these predictions assume that the area's growth will 
increase at rates considerably below long-term historic 
trends.10 This makes it particularly important for 
transportation agencies to track actual VMT and trip numbers carefully, 
and to trigger remedial actions, if necessary, before the plan fails to 
meet scheduled reduction targets. The growth projections for industrial 
categories are also generally lower than past trends, and EPA strongly 
encourages the SCAQMD to revise the emission inventories and adopt 
additional control measures, as may be necessary, if information 
suggests that growth will exceed the SIP projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 1997 AQMP's growth projections are also considerably 
reduced from those used in the 1994 ozone SIP, which used 2010 
projections of 17.4 million for population, 413.9 million miles for 
daily VMT, and 45.7 million vehicle trips per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The plan includes interpolated inventories for all milestone years 
for ozone precursors. The methodologies used to prepare the base year 
and projected emissions inventories, as described in Chapter 3 and 
Appendix 3 of the AQMP, are acceptable. Accordingly, EPA proposes to 
approve the 1997 ozone plan with respect to the emissions inventory 
requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the CAA.

D. Control Measures

    CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) require that all measures 
and other elements in the SIP be enforceable. As discussed at length in 
EPA's approval of the 1994 California ozone SIPs, EPA has interpreted 
these provisions to allow for approval of attainment demonstrations 
that rely, in part, on commitments to adopt and implement rules in the 
future, so long as the commitments are specific and enforceable (see 57 
FR 13556 and 13568, April 16, 1992; and 62 FR 1155-1157, January 8, 
1997).
    The attainment demonstration in the 1997 ozone plan rests on 
emission reductions derived from adopted regulations and from rules and 
programs which SCAQMD commits to adopt. The plan measures that are 
scheduled for adoption in the future are commonly referred to as 
``committal measures.'' In the case of the South Coast, the committal 
measures are further divided into near-term measures and long-term (or 
new-technology) measures, which are authorized for extreme ozone 
nonattainment areas under CAA section 182(e)(5). The 1994 ozone SIP 
contains 66 near-term control measures for adoption by SCAQMD, SCAG, or 
local governments, and 5 long-term measures for adoption by SCAQMD. The 
1997 ozone plan includes 36 near-term control measures for adoption by 
SCAQMD, SCAG, or local governments, and 6 long-term measures for 
adoption by SCAQMD. Both plans contain the same group of near-term and 
long-term measures assigned to the State or to the Federal government 
(see discussion below in Section II.D.3.)
    EPA proposes to disapprove the SCAQMD's committal measures for 4 
reasons.
1. SCAQMD Is Already in Default of Many Control Measure Commitments
    Although the plan schedules SCAQMD adoption of 23 VOC/
NOX regulations or programs by the end of 1998, the SCAQMD 
has adopted less than 10, and no additional measures are scheduled for 
adoption by the end of the year. EPA does not believe there is a basis 
for approving commitments to adopt rules and programs or to approve an 
attainment demonstration based, in part, on reductions from these rules 
and programs, if the adoption dates have passed and the rules or 
programs have not been adopted. The SCAQMD's faithful implementation of 
the plan would cure this deficiency.
2. The Control Measures Are an Impermissible Relaxation of the SIP
    The commitments in the 1997 ozone plan to adopt VOC and 
NOX control measures represent backsliding from the 1994 
ozone SIP. The 1997 plan abandons, relaxes, or postpones approximately 
30 control measures in the approved South Coast ozone SIP. 
Specifically, SCAQMD removed, postponed, relaxed, or shifted to a 
``further evaluation'' category the following control measures, which 
were scheduled for near-term adoption in the 1994 ozone SIP: CTS-A 
Electronic Components, CTS-C Solvent Cleaning, CTS-D Marine/Pleasure 
Craft Coatings, CTS-E Adhesives, CTS-F Motor Vehicle Non-Assembly 
Coating, CTS-G Paper/Fabric/Film Coatings, CTS-H Metal Parts/Product 
Coatings, CTS-I Graphic Arts/Screen Printing, CTS-J Wood Products 
Coatings, CTS-K Aerospace/Component Coatings, CTS-L Automotive Assembly 
Operations, CTS-02 Solvents and Coatings at Non-RECLAIM Sources, CTS-07 
Architectural Coatings, FUG-01 Organic Liquid Transfer, FUG-02 Active 
Draining of Liquid Products, FUG-04 Fugitive Emissions of VOCs, RFL-02 
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, RFL-03 Pleasure-Boat Fueling 
Operations, CMB-02F Internal Combustion Engines, CMB-05 Clean 
Stationary Fuels, PRC-02 Bakeries, PRC-03 Restaurant Operations, WST-01 
Livestock Waste, WST-03 Waste Burning, WST-04 Disposal of Materials 
Containing VOCs, ISR-01 Special Events Centers, ISR-02 Shopping 
Centers, ISR-04 Airport Ground Access, ISR-05 Trip Reduction for 
Schools, ADV-CTS-02 Advanced Technology--Coatings. This list does not 
include control measures approved as part of the 1994 ozone SIP but 
without assigned emission reduction credits.
    The scale of the SIP relaxation may be seen in the table below, 
``South Coast 1994 Ozone SIP and 1997 Ozone Plan VOC Emission 
Reductions from SCAQMD/SCAG Local Rules for Each Rate-of-Progress 
Milestone Year.'' 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The table is not adjusted to harmonize the control category 
baseline emission inventories. A small number of near-term control 
measures in the 1994 ozone SIP were adopted as regulations before 
the 1997 plan was issued. The emission reductions from these adopted 
regulations were treated as ``baseline'' emissions in the 1997 plan, 
rather than as near-term emission reductions. In addition, the 1997 
plan revises the emissions inventory in the 1994 ozone SIP and 
reduces the emissions inventory for the control categories and the 
emission reductions associated with some of the 1994 ozone SIP's 
near-term control measures.

[[Page 1776]]



  South Coast 1994 Ozone SIP and 1997 Ozone Plan VOC Emission Reductions From SCAQMD/SCAG Local Rules for Each
                                         Rate-of-Progress Milestone Year
                                    [In tons per day rounded to nearest ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       1999     2002     2005     2008     2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1994 Ozone SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Near-Term..........................................................      104      186      233      268      285
Long-Term..........................................................        0       20       32      121      180
    Total..........................................................      104      207      266      389      465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                1997 Ozone Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Near-Term..........................................................       11       41       67       86       91
Long-Term..........................................................        0        0        3       54       89
    Total..........................................................       11       41       70      140      180
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(l) of the Act provides that EPA may not approve a SIP 
revision if the revision will interfere with attainment or reasonable 
further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Based 
on the measures relaxed or deleted and the associated loss of emissions 
reductions, EPA concludes that the 1997 ozone plan constitutes an 
unapprovable relaxation of the ozone SIP.12 The State has 
not demonstrated why it is not reasonable or feasible for the SCAQMD to 
adopt measures sufficient to achieve emission reductions on the 1994 
ozone SIP schedule, thus potentially expediting attainment of the 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The SCAQMD has argued that CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) 
authorizes states to amend their SIPs as new information becomes 
available, provided the resulting plan is adequate to attain the 
NAAQS it implements and it otherwise continues to comply with the 
CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA actually requires that a SIP 
``provide for revision of such plan from time to time as may be 
necessary to take account of * * * the availability of improved or 
more expeditious methods of attaining such [NAAQS] * * *.'' This CAA 
provision clearly contemplates that states should revise their plans 
to provide for greater or more expeditious emission reductions. In 
contrast, the District has elected to relax its plan, and the 
governing provision of the Act for relaxations is section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the SCAQMD can identify and adopt substitute 
near-term measures. In fact, the SCAQMD has already adopted or 
scheduled for near-term adoption some measures not included in the 1997 
plan.13 Thus, this deficiency in the 1997 plan could be 
cured if the SCAQMD submits commitments to adopt additional control 
measures along with a demonstration that the amended plan provides for 
attainment on a schedule that is as expeditious as practical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, SCAQMD's June 13, 1997 amendment to Rule 1171 
Solvent Cleaning Operations contributes VOC reductions not 
specifically called for in the 1997 plan. As an example of another 
feasible control option that could achieve significant VOC 
reductions, EPA has encouraged SCAQMD implementation of more 
stringent requirements for spray booths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Plan Includes Unlawful Assignments of Control Measure 
Responsibility to EPA
    The plan relies in part on reductions from control measures 
assigned to EPA to adopt in the future. In acting on the 1994 ozone 
SIP, which also included these ``federal measures,'' EPA stated that 
the Agency does not accept California's proposition that a state can, 
under the CAA, assign SIP responsibilities to the Federal government 
(61 FR 10936, March 18, 1996, 62 FR 1151, January 8, 1997).
    Rather than disapprove the 1994 plan, EPA elected to establish a 
brief ``public consultative process'' to identify the best options for 
achieving further emission reductions from mobile source controls to 
contribute to attainment of the NAAQS in the South Coast. EPA indicated 
that at the conclusion of this process, in June 1997, EPA expected that 
the State would be able to amend the South Coast attainment 
demonstration based on the final mix of national, State and local 
controls. See 61 FR 10923 (March 18, 1996) and 62 FR 1151-1153 (January 
8, 1997).
    As part of the final SIP approval, EPA approved CARB's commitment 
to amend the South Coast ozone SIP by December 31, 1997, and to adopt 
additional mobile source measures, as appropriate, by December 31, 
1999, to resolve SIP shortfalls remaining at the end of the public 
consultative process. See 40 CFR 52.220(C)(235)(I)(A)(1). In taking 
final action to approve the 1994 ozone SIP, EPA also made a commitment 
to adopt additional federal mobile source measures which are determined 
to be appropriate for EPA and needed for ozone attainment in the South 
Coast. See 40 CFR 52.241.
    EPA has not yet concluded the public consultative process, but has 
been sued by environmental groups to do so (Coalition for Clean Air, 
et. al. vs. South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Air 
Resources Board, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. CV 97-
6916 HLH (C.D. Cal.)). Subsequently, the SCAQMD also sued EPA for 
failing to adopt certain of the Federal Measures included in 
California's 1994 ozone SIP and to resolve the public consultative 
process and adopt measures determined to be appropriate for the Agency.
    EPA has recently entered into a Consent Decree with the 
environmental plaintiffs to conclude the public consultative process 
and to determine by June 1, 1999, the respective responsibilities of 
EPA and the State for adopting measures to achieve the remaining 
emission reduction requirements. This Consent Decree was lodged with 
the U.S. District Court on November 13, 1998. EPA sought public comment 
on the Consent Decree on December 9, 1998 (63 FR 67879).
    In light of the imminent conclusion of the public consultative 
process provided for in EPA's final approval of the 1994 ozone SIP, the 
Agency has determined that it is not appropriate to approve another 
South Coast plan that includes emission reductions associated with 
specific Federal Measures assigned by the State to EPA, much less a 
plan that increases the illegal emission reduction assignment to the 
Federal government, as the 1997 plan does for several source 
categories.14 EPA reiterates its position that states do not 
have the authority under the Clean Air Act or the Constitution to 
assign SIP responsibility to the Federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, the 1997 plan increases the emission reduction 
assignment for measures M13 (Marine Vessels), M15 (Aircraft), and 
M16 (Pleasure Craft).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA expects that this particular SIP deficiency will be resolved in 
the future

[[Page 1777]]

through an amendment to the SIP providing specific enforceable 
commitments, if appropriate, by responsible agencies to adopt mobile 
source control measures sufficient to eliminate any shortfall in 
emissions reductions that might remain at the end of the public 
consultative process.
4. Section 182(e)(5)
    As noted above, CAA section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to approve 
long-term, 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. This CAA 
provision recognizes the difficulty faced by CARB, SCAQMD, and SCAG in 
fully developing and adopting in the near-term all of the controls that 
are needed to achieve attainment by the 2010 deadline.
    There is no evidence, however, that CAA section 182(e)(5) was 
enacted to provide a broad excuse for postponing the adoption of 
available near-term controls because they are difficult or unpopular. 
Moreover, the progressive nature of control technology development is 
evidently a basic assumption behind the CAA section 182(e)(5) 
provision. It would not be consistent with that assumption to authorize 
agencies to amend their approved SIP to replace numerous near-term 
control measures and emission reductions with long-term commitments. On 
the contrary, later revisions to the SIP should reduce, rather than 
increase, the long-term measure element.
    EPA's proposed approval of the 1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast 
elicited extensive comments from environmental groups. These commenters 
felt that the SIP should be disapproved because it relied too 
extensively on speculative and poorly defined long-term measures. The 
commenters argued that these measures should be replaced by more near-
term controls and better defined and supported long-term measures.
    In response to these comments and based on further discussions with 
CARB and the SCAQMD, EPA included in the final approval the following 
interpretation of the section 182(e)(5) provisions of the CAA as they 
apply to the 1994 ozone SIP and any subsequent revisions to the South 
Coast ozone SIP.

    Measures which the 1994 South Coast Ozone SIP scheduled for 
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 standards 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.

(62 FR 1179)
    As mentioned, the 1997 ozone plan deletes or relaxes some 30 VOC/
NOX near-term measures in the 1994 ozone SIP, shifts others 
to the contingency/further study category or to the long-term measure 
category, and decreases the proportion of VOC emission reductions from 
near-term measures, while increasing the carrying capacity for 
VOC.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The 1997 ozone plan adds several new measures: FLX-01 
Intercredit Trading Program, FLX-02 Air Quality Investment Program, 
and MSC-03 Promotion of Catalyst-Surface Coating Technology Programs 
for Air Conditioning Units, MON-09 In-Use Vehicle Emission 
Mitigation, MON-10 Emissions Reduction Credit for Truck Stop 
Electrification, and MOF-07 Credits for the Replacement of Existing 
Pleasure Craft Engines with New Lower Polluting Engines. All of 
these measures, however, are designed to enhance compliance 
flexibility and none contributes emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 9 of the 1997 plan addresses the SIP approval criteria 
quoted above by brief discussions and by labelling those 1994 SIP 
measures that are deleted (14 VOC/NOX measures) or placed in 
a contingency/further study category (17 VOC/NOX measures) 
as ``not cost-effective,'' ``technically infeasible,'' ``minimal 
emission reduction potential,'' ``low public acceptability,'' and 
``economic concerns, implementation authority.''
    EPA believes that the 1997 ozone plan revision violates the intent 
of CAA section 182(e)(5). This section of the Act was intended to allow 
an extreme ozone nonattainment area additional time, if necessary, 
beyond the November 15, 1994 ozone SIP submittal deadline, to develop, 
adopt, and submit some of the specific regulations and programs needed 
to achieve attainment. EPA finds no indication that the provision was 
designed to allow a state to design SIP revisions that progressively 
postpone SIP commitments to adopt regulations and programs in the near-
term, and in so doing to shift the balance of the SIP increasingly 
toward vague and undocumented future commitments. EPA therefore is 
inclined to consider the increased reliance of the 1997 ozone plan on 
long-term, conceptual measures to be a basis for disapproval of the 
control measure portion of the plan. However, the Agency particularly 
solicits public comment on whether the proposed 1997 revision can be 
reconciled with the purpose and language of CAA section 182(e)(5) or 
should be disapproved, in part, because the South Coast's substitute 
plan is inconsistent with this section of the Act.
    As discussed in Section II.D.2 above, EPA believes that the SCAQMD 
recognizes that additional near-term measures can be added to avoid 
increasing the proportion of emission reductions assigned to the long-
term measure category. SCAQMD adoption and submittal of replacement 
near-term measures could ensure that the plan complies with the Act's 
provisions relating to inclusion of long-term measures in the 
attainment demonstration.

E. Attainment Demonstration

    The attainment demonstration was conducted using the Urban Airshed 
Model. The UAM analysis uses 4 episodes in 1987, including a September 
7-9 episode with a peak concentration of 0.33 ppm.

[[Page 1778]]

    Previous SCAQMD modeling analyses also used a more challenging 
episode, June 5-7, 1985, which had a peak concentration of 0.36 ppm. 
For the 1997 plan, the SCAQMD modeled the 1985 episode but did not show 
attainment with all control measures, and the episode was dropped for 
purposes of the attainment demonstration. SCAQMD based its decision not 
to use the 1985 episode on the age of the episode and the District's 
contention that the episode reflects meteorological conditions that 
rarely occur in the South Coast. Current EPA modeling guidelines allow 
use of a ``weight of evidence'' analysis to justify abandonment of 
episodes with extremely rare meteorological conditions.16 On 
November 18, 1998, the SCAQMD submitted a weight of evidence analysis 
for the June 1985 episode.17 A copy of this analysis has 
been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. The analysis addresses 
EPA's current modeling guidance and argues for elimination of the 1985 
episode under a weight of evidence approach. Attachment B to the 
November 18, 1998, SCAQMD correspondence addresses the acceptability of 
the remaining 4 episodes as a basis for an attainment demonstration. 
The SCAQMD provides evidence that the episodes are representative of 
the types of meteorological episodes expected in the South Coast Air 
Basin when high ozone concentrations occur. The evidence examines the 
episodes based on the deviation index (Horie CART analysis) and the 
Chu-Cox methodology for assessing episode frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ U.S.E.P.A., Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to 
Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007 (1996).
    \17\ Letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, SCAQMD Executive Officer, 
to Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, Attachment 
A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The model performance for the 1987 episodes shows a high systematic 
bias (for example, ozone underprediction of 44% for June 24 and 40% for 
June 25; 47% for September 8 and 38% for September 9). This 
underprediction is significantly reduced if motor vehicle VOC emissions 
are doubled. For example, the underprediction becomes 24% for June 24 
and 19% for June 25; and 2% for September 8 and 3% for September 9.
    The SCAQMD contends that this inventory adjustment is warranted, 
since it is generally conceded that motor vehicle VOC emissions were 
substantially underestimated in the 1987 historical episode emissions 
calculations. If this inventory adjustment is valid, model performance 
for the UAM simulation is within EPA's acceptable range of accuracy.
    The 1997 ozone plan's modeling analysis predicts attainment with 
VOC emissions are reduced to 413 tons per day (tpd) and NOX 
emissions are reduced to 530 tpd. For comparison purposes, the 1994 
ozone SIP projected attainment with carrying capacities of 323 tpd VOC 
and 553 tpd NOX, while the final 1994 AQMP identifies the 
carrying capacities as 313 tpd VOC and 274 tpd NOX.
    The ozone plan's modeled attainment demonstration is based on 
emission reductions from the 1997 ozone plan's suite of control 
measures. As discussed in section II.D., EPA proposes to disapprove 
these control measures for the 3 reasons discussed in section II.D. The 
1997 ozone plan therefore does not meet the CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) 
requirement that the plan include ``(a) demonstration that the plan, as 
revised, will provide for attainment of the ozone national ambient air 
quality standard by the applicable attainment date.'' EPA proposes to 
disapprove the ozone plan with respect to the attainment demonstration 
requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), because of the deficiencies 
in the control measure portions of the plan.

E. Quantitative milestones and reasonable further progress (RFP)

1. Clean Air Act Provisions
    CAA section 182(c)(2) requires that ozone SIPs include quantitative 
milestones that are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is 
redesignated attainment and that demonstrate reasonable further 
progress (RFP) toward attainment by the applicable date. CAA section 
171(a) of the Act defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions 
in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part 
or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of 
ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality 
standard by the applicable date.''
    For ozone areas classified as serious or above, CAA section 
182(c)(2) requires that the SIP must provide for reductions in ozone 
season, weekday VOC emissions of at least 3 percent per year net of 
growth averaged over each consecutive 3-year period beginning in 1996 
until the attainment date. This is in addition to the 15 percent 
reduction over the first 6-year period required by CAA section 
182(b)(1) for moderate areas. EPA believes that ``(by) meeting the 
specific 3 percent reduction requirements (of CAA section 182(c)(2)), 
the State will also satisfy the general RFP requirements of section 
172(c)(2) for the time period discussed.'' (General Preamble, April 16, 
1992, 57 FR 13518.)
    The 1997 ozone plan shows reductions consistent with the 3 percent 
per year rate of progress requirement for 1999 through use of VOC 
emission reductions alone. Beginning in 2002, however, the plan does 
not have enough creditable VOC reductions to meet the milestones, and 
must substitute NOX reductions, as allowed by CAA section 
182(c)(2)(C). The schedule for these milestone years in the 1997 ozone 
plan is 6 percent VOC and 3 percent NOX in 2005; 0.5 percent 
VOC and 8.5 percent NOX in 2008; and 0.5 percent VOC and 5.5 
percent NOX in 2010. The rate of progress schedule in the 
1994 ozone SIP far exceeds the CAA progress requirements for each 
milestone year using VOC emission reductions alone (see EPA's final 
approval of the 1994 ozone SIP, January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1181, table 
entitled ``South Coast ROP Forecasts'').
    Compliance with the milestone and RFP requirements of the Act 
requires that all of the creditable emission reductions be approved as 
enforceable parts of the SIP (General Preamble, April 16, 1992, at 57 
FR 13517). Because EPA proposes to disapprove the control measure 
provisions in the ozone plan, EPA also proposes to disapprove the plan 
with respect to the CAA section 182(c)(2) quantitative milestone and 
reasonable further progress requirements.

F. Summary of Proposed EPA Actions

    EPA proposes the following actions on elements of the South Coast 
ozone plan, as submitted on February 5, 1997:
    (1) Approval of procedural requirements, under sections 110(a)(1) 
and 110(k)(3) of the CAA;
    (2) Approval of baseline and projected emission inventories, under 
sections 110(a)(1), 110(k)(3), 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the CAA;
    (3) Disapproval of the VOC and NOX control measure 
provisions, under CAA sections 110(k)(3), 110(l), 172(c)(6), and 
182(e)(5);
    (4) Disapproval of the attainment demonstration, under CAA sections 
110(k)(3) and 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA; and
    (5) Disapproval of quantitative milestones and reasonable further 
progress, under sections 110(k)(3) and 182(c)(2) of the CAA.
    As discussed above, the partial disapproval of the ozone SIP 
revision does not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179, 
since EPA's approval of the 1994 South Coast ozone

[[Page 1779]]

plan with respect to the same requirements remains in force.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by 
statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal 
government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary 
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or 
EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, 
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of 
Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' 
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian 
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under 
section 110 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 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that this action does not include a Federal 
mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or 
to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve and 
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.


[[Page 1780]]


    Dated: December 30, 1998.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 99-666 Filed 1-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P