[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 141 (Friday, July 23, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39923-39927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18719]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA-227-151; FRL-6378-2]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
California--South Coast
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is concluding the Public Consultative Process (PCP) on
mobile source emission reductions needed for attainment of the 1-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Los Angeles-
South Coast Air Basin Area (South Coast). EPA is also approving the
State's update to the state implementation plan (SIP) for ozone in the
South Coast to reflect the outcome of this process and the
implementation status of some of the control measures. Finally, EPA is
approving the State's joint commitment with EPA to issue regulations to
eliminate the remaining SIP shortfall as determined appropriate for
each agency. EPA is taking these actions under provisions of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for NAAQS,
and plan requirements for nonattainment areas.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on August 23, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The rulemaking docket for this rule is available for public
inspection during normal business hours at EPA's Region IX office, Air
Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying parts of the docket.
Electronic availability: This document is also available as an
electronic file on EPA's Region 9 Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/
region09.
Copies of related materials are also available for inspection at
the following location: California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street,
Sacramento, California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson, EPA Region IX Air
Planning Office, (415) 744-1288, or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. EPA's Final Action
We are concluding the Public Consultative Process on mobile source
reductions needed for attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the South
Coast.1 During this process, we have issued or are in the
process of issuing regulations which are expected to reduce emissions
of nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the South Coast in 2010 by
approximately 94 tons per day (tpd), and reduce emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) by about 39 tpd.2 This is roughly 85
percent of the Federal emission reductions identified in the 1994 ozone
SIP submittal for the South Coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ The South Coast plan sometimes substitutes the term Reactive
Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To achieve the remaining reductions (15 tpd of NOX and 8
tpd of VOC), we intend to continue a focused cooperative effort with
California to resolve remaining issues and to agree upon the best
approach for achieving the balance of reductions still unaccomplished.
We will complete by December 31, 2001, any actions identified as
appropriate for our rulemaking under our existing commitment,
promulgated when we approved the 1994 ozone SIP (40 CFR 52.238).
We are approving a similar commitment by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB). The State included this commitment in Executive
Order G-99-037, dated May 20, 1999.3 In the order, CARB
``commits to continue working with U.S. EPA and the affected parties to
achieve the emission reductions identified in the SIP for federal
measures, and to (a) adopt by December 31, 2000, and submit as a SIP
revision, a revised attainment demonstration for the federal one-hour
ozone standard in the South Coast Air Basin, and (b) adopt by December
31, 2001, control measures needed to achieve any additional emission
reductions which are determined to be appropriate for ARB.'' This State
commitment replaces a commitment made at the beginning of the Public
Consultative Process in 1996, and codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(235). We
are therefore rescinding that prior commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CARB submitted the Executive Order on May 20, 1999. We found
the submittal complete on May 20, 1999. We 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we are approving the State's update on the status of CARB
control measures in the 1994 ozone SIP, included as Attachment A to the
Executive Order. This update displays
[[Page 39924]]
reductions from CARB's various measures for control of mobile sources,
consumer products, and aerosol paints. It also discusses new CARB
control measures to achieve the reductions required in the 1994 ozone
SIP.
II. Background
On June 7, 1999, in 64 FR 30276-30287, we proposed to conclude the
Public Consultative Process, identified emissions reductions from
promulgated and pending Federal measures, discussed potential measures
for eliminating the remaining emissions reduction shortfall, and
proposed to approve CARB's commitment and SIP update for the South
Coast. For additional details and background, please consult that
document and our final approval of the 1994 ozone SIP for the South
Coast, which was issued on January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150-
1187).4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ 4\ The 1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast consists of two
plans: California's 1994 State Implementation Plan for Ozone, which
deals with the State's control measures, and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District's 1994 Air Quality Management Plan,
which includes all of the local control measures and other plan
elements. The State's portion of the plan is available
electronically at the California Air Resources Board's web site at
www.arb.ca.gov/sip/sip.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may also find in the proposal a description of EPA's consent
decree and settlement agreement with environmental plaintiffs in
Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. SCAQMD, CARB, and USEPA, No. CV 97-
6916 HLH (C.D. Cal.). Among other things, the consent decree requires
us to conclude the Public Consultative Process by July 1, 1999, and to
attempt to promulgate by December 31, 2001, final measures that are
needed for ozone attainment and are appropriate for EPA to
promulgate.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We issued a notice of the pending settlement on December 9,
1998 (63 FR 67879), consistent with CAA section 113(g). The consent
decree was entered by the Court on June 9, 1999; the settlement
agreement has been signed by the plaintiffs and EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Response to Public Comments
A. Summary of Comments and Responses
In response to the proposal, we received comments from South Coast
Air Quality Management District (``SCAQMD''), City of Los Angeles
(``City''), Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, and US Navy
(Region Southwest). We appreciate the thoughtful comments and the
commenters' support and encouragement of our efforts to achieve further
emission reductions from national and international mobile sources
beyond the jurisdiction of local and State agencies.
1. Fair Share Reductions of Federal Sources
All but one of the commenters asked the Federal government to do
its fair share in reducing emissions from Federal mobile sources,
stating that: (a) Further control of local stationary sources will be
difficult, given the stringency of existing local rules, and (b)
Federal sources are under-controlled. To make this point visually,
SCAQMD presented a table showing 2010 reductions from 1990 baseline
emissions inventories for Federal sources, in contrast to much greater
reductions required from stationary sources in the 1994 California
Ozone SIP. Commenters stated that it is especially critical that EPA
and other federal agencies cooperate and achieve additional reductions
from sources beyond the State's regulatory authority.
Response: We intend that the Federal government will contribute
emission reductions to help the South Coast attain the NAAQS. We will
fulfill our regulatory responsibilities under Title II of the CAA and
thus will continue to pursue all appropriate national mobile source
controls, even after the current shortfall is eliminated.
2. Toxic Benefit of Diesel Emission Reductions
SCAQMD noted that we stated that mobile sources are a contributor
to urban air toxics and adverse health effects have been associated
with diesel exhaust. SCAQMD presented a table of the potential cancer
risk contribution from diesel compared to all other emission sources in
the South Coast. SCAQMD stated that local citizens may not benefit from
potential reductions in toxic emissions if reductions are achieved from
non-diesel sources located in and around airports and marine ports,
rather than from diesel-type sources in the aircraft and marine engine
categories.
Response: We appreciate SCAQMD's information regarding the relative
magnitude of diesel emissions among sources of air toxics in the South
Coast. Reductions in urban air toxics are, and will continue to be, an
important consideration in our standard-setting activities.
3. Heavy-Duty Off-Cycle Settlement
SCAQMD estimated a 7 tpd NOX emission reduction
shortfall in 2010 in the South Coast due to excess emissions from non-
compliant engines. SCAQMD expressed concern about claiming benefits
from the settlement until this issue is resolved.
Response: We agree that this issue warrants further analysis in the
context of future SIP revisions, and wish to work with SCAQMD and CARB
to assess 2010 emissions from trucks in the South Coast using the most
current inventory models and assumptions. For purposes of the close-out
of the Public Consultative Process, which is rooted in the 1994 SIP
submittal, we continue to agree with CARB that use of the 1994 SIP
assumptions throughout made the most sense, rather than attempting to
adjust the SIP analysis with various updates to our information base.
Thus, all of the calculations in the table of Public Consultative
Process reductions and shortfalls at 64 FR 30280-1 are consistent with
the 1994 ozone SIP in terms of base year and projected emissions
inventories and emissions factors. The emission reduction numbers shown
for the heavy-duty off-cycle settlement are for the early introduction
in October 2002 of cleaner engines assumed in the 1994 ozone SIP to be
introduced in January 2004.
4. Public Process
Commenters desired greater opportunities for public input. SCAQMD
noted that agreements negotiated by EPA and CARB with affected
industries did not go through extensive discussions and public input.
In order to update stakeholders on future developments and public
involvement opportunities, the City of Los Angeles recommended that we
establish an information mechanism, such as EPA Region IX's web page.
Commenters objected to the 14-day public comment period as too short to
allow for the most meaningful comment.
Response: We intend to post information on the status of our South
Coast mobile source activities on the Region IX web page (www.epa.gov/
region09/air). The Office of Mobile Source web page (www.epa.gov/
omswww) informs the public of ongoing national mobile source rulemaking
activities and opportunities for public involvement. Both EPA and CARB
will also continue to use mailing lists of parties interested in the
aircraft/airport and vessel/port task forces. We solicit suggestions
for other ways to expand public notification and involvement. While we
prefer longer public comment periods, we need to comply with a consent
decree, which requires final action by July 1.
5. Enforceability of Credited SIP Reductions; Credit for Voluntary
Measures
SCAQMD expressed concern that CARB and EPA should not claim credit
for voluntary agreements (such as the State's clean locomotive fleet
agreement
[[Page 39925]]
with railroads operating in California), unless the agreements are
turned into regulatory form. SCAQMD encouraged us to provide backstop
measures for future rules, in the event that emission reductions do not
occur. The City of Los Angeles supported voluntary measures, noted that
existing EPA policy on credit for voluntary measures constrains SIP
accounting for such measures, and urged us to assist states and local
air districts in developing flexible and innovative emission reduction
strategies and allowing full SIP credit for such programs.
Response: As indicated in the proposal, we have concluded that it
is appropriate to assign credit to the South Coast Locomotive Fleet
Average Emissions Program. The agreement between CARB and the railroads
is exemplary in its detail and in the extent of its provisions to
quantify and verify reductions. We believe that the program will
achieve the scheduled reductions, but if it does not, we will use our
existing authorities to assure that the reductions will occur. We
support voluntary and other innovative measures and commit to work with
agencies to establish SIP credit to the extent that such credit is
consistent with the Clean Air Act.
6. Remaining Shortfall
Some commenters encouraged EPA not to downplay the potential
shortfall of 23 tpd, which must be eliminated if the area is to attain
the ozone NAAQS. These commenters also felt that EPA should not assign
responsibility for remaining reductions to the State. If EPA ultimately
does assign responsibility to the State, SCAQMD urged EPA to require
the State to achieve reductions from mobile sources, rather than
stationary sources, which are already stringently controlled. SCAQMD
also felt that EPA's statement that ``EPA actions might not be limited
to controls on mobile sources and fuels'' was not consistent with the
consent decree.
Response: We agree with commenters that the task of eliminating the
shortfall is important and directly linked to public health protection.
In concert with the State and other parties, we expect to achieve most,
if not all, of the remaining reductions from mobile sources rather than
stationary sources.
7. Marine Vessel Activities
The City requested that EPA fund finalization of the ship emission
and alternative marine vessel control strategy study, and that EPA
support (including with Federal funds) CARB's Deep Sea Vessel/Shipping
Channel Technical Working Group. The Navy reiterated its opposition to
an operational control strategy to move the vessel channel 25 miles off
the coast, based on the Navy's belief that the strategy lacks
scientific support and would have severe impacts on the Pt. Mugu Sea
Test Range. The Navy preferred a strategy involving slowing commercial
vessels, and encouraged us to make that determination, implement the
measure, and conclude the process with respect to marine vessel
operational controls.
Response: In May 1999, the EPA contracted study referenced in the
City's comment letter was finalized. However, the results may need to
be updated to reflect more recent information. We will continue to
participate in, and support, studies needed to evaluate the feasibility
and benefit of marine vessel control options. We appreciate the Navy's
valuable contributions to the technical assessment of potential
strategies, as we do the participation and expertise of the shipping
industry, the ports, and other stakeholders. CARB, EPA, and other
participants will provide the Navy with opportunities to express its
views and share its research as we conclude the technical projects and
reach final decisions on the best approaches.
8. Programs to Increase Engine Turn-Over Rates
The City encouraged us to pursue Federal funding sources for such
programs and to ensure that Federal fleets, such as the U.S. Postal
Service fleet, convert to cleaner technologies at an accelerated rate.
Response: We identified possible Federal funding sources in the
proposal and will attempt to direct currently available funds to
projects that can reduce pollutants in the South Coast. Other potential
Federal funds, such as for the Clean Air Partnership, or Federal
subsidies, including changes to the Federal Tax Code, depend upon
Congressional action. We intend to work with Federal agencies in the
South Coast to increase use of alternative-fueled vehicles with the
lowest emissions.
B. Conclusion
We are finalizing the action as proposed. As noted above, however,
we will undertake additional actions in response to comments in order
to improve and strengthen the process for resolving the remaining
shortfall in emission reductions.
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.
IV. 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
[[Page 39926]]
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 is 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. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
G. 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 September 21, 1999. 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).)
H. 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 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: July 1, 1999.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
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 et seq.
Subpart F--California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by removing paragraph (c)(235) and
adding paragraph (c)(265) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(265) New and amended plans for the following agencies were
submitted on May 20, 1999, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) Executive Order G-99-037, dated May 20, 1999, State commitment
to continue working with U.S. EPA and the affected parties to achieve
the emission reductions identified in the SIP for federal measures, and
to adopt by December 31, 2000, and submit as a SIP revision, a revised
attainment demonstration for the federal one-hour ozone standard in the
South Coast Air
[[Page 39927]]
Basin, and adopt by December 31, 2001, control measures needed to
achieve any additional emission reductions which are determined to be
appropriate for ARB; Attachment A, update to the 1994 ozone SIP for the
South Coast.
[FR Doc. 99-18719 Filed 7-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P