[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 69 (Monday, April 10, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18903-18906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8534]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-237-0221; FRL-6570-7]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a state implementation 
plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California to provide 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 approving the SIP revision 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: This action is effective on May 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The rulemaking docket for this notice is available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at EPA's Region IX 
office. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying parts of the 
docket.

[[Page 18904]]

    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

    The SIP materials are also electronically available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1288, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are finalizing approval of the 1997 ozone plan for the South 
Coast, as revised by a 1999 amendment.\1\ The South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the 1997 plan on November 15, 
1996, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the plan 
to us on February 5, 1997. SCAQMD adopted the 1999 amendment on 
December 10, 1999, and CARB submitted the plan to us on February 4, 
2000. EPA determined the submittal to be complete on March 15, 2000.\2\ 
In this document, we refer to the 1997 plan and 1999 amendment as ``the 
revised ozone plan,'' which is intended to replace the 1994 ozone SIP 
except for that portion of the SIP that consists of State control 
measures and EPA's commitment relating to a Public Consultative Process 
on national mobile sources.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The nonattainment area includes all of Orange County and the 
more populated portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and 
Riverside Counties.
    \2\ 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). CARB 
requested that we ``parallel process'' action on the 1997 plan and 
1999 amendment before SIP submittal of the 1999 amendment.
    \3\ For information on the 1994 ozone SIP, see 62 FR 1150 
(January 8, 1997). For information on the Public Consultative 
Process, see 64 FR 39923 (July 23, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 8, 2000, we proposed approval of the revised ozone plan 
with respect to the revised emissions inventory, the modeled attainment 
demonstration, control measures, commitment to achieve specified 
emission reductions in future years, revised rate-of-progress (ROP) 
plan, and emissions budget. Please see that document (65 FR 6091-6102) 
for further details on our proposed action, applicable CAA 
requirements, and additional information on the affected area.

II. Public Comments

    We received 3 public comments. SCAQMD supported the proposed 
action, but requested a minor correction. The proposal stated that the 
South Coast Air Basin recorded the largest number of ozone violations 
in the country in 1999 based on preliminary data from EPA's Aerometric 
Information Retrieval System (AIRS). 65 FR 6092. We agree with SCAQMD 
that updated AIRS data now show that the basin had the second highest 
number of violations in 1999. Over the past three years (1997-1999), 
however, the South Coast Air Basin did have the largest number of ozone 
violations in the country.
    A representative of the National Paint and Coatings Association 
commented regarding the purported technological and economic 
infeasibility of SCAQMD's coatings control measures, and issues 
regarding public notice and hearing requirements relative to SCAQMD's 
revisions to Rule 1113.
    As noted by the commenter, we are barred from considering claims of 
economic or technological infeasibility in determining whether to 
approve a submitted SIP.
    Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 429 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    The comment regarding Rule 1113 is not germane to our proposed 
action on the revised ozone plan, which does not address any approval 
issues associated with revisions to Rule 1113. When we take action on 
the SIP revision to Rule 1113, we will determine whether or not SCAQMD 
met public notice and public hearing requirements when the rule was 
revised. If the commentor continues to believe that these requirements 
were not met, he must resubmit comments during the public comment 
period for our rulemaking on the revisions to SCAQMD Rule 1113.
    A private citizen argued that the emissions inventory does not meet 
the CAA section 172(c)(3) requirements and should not be approved. The 
commenter stated that the control factors associated with California's 
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program are 
known to be bogus. The commenter referenced a CARB letter dated January 
7, 2000, stating: ``There have been a number of legislative and 
operational changes to the I/M program that have reduced its 
effectiveness and associated air quality benefits.''
    We addressed this issue in our proposed approval of the plan, 
noting that the revised ozone plan represents more current and accurate 
information than was used in the 1994 ozone SIP and complies with 
acceptable methodologies for inventory preparation, but that the 
responsible agencies are in the process of updating and refining 
emissions reductions, including those associated with the I/M program. 
65 FR 6094, 6100.
    When improved information is available to refine the estimate of 
emissions reductions associated with the I/M program, CARB and SCAQMD 
will use this information in a comprehensive ozone plan revision, 
scheduled for adoption and submittal as a SIP revision in 2001. As 
discussed in our proposed approval, this future revision will include a 
revised control strategy if needed to provide for expeditious 
attainment.
    We reaffirm our finding that the emissions inventory portion of the 
revised ozone plan not only improves on the accuracy of the 1994 ozone 
SIP but also meets CAA requirements that the inventory be 
comprehensive, accurate, and current. Therefore, we are finalizing 
approval of the revised ozone plan with respect to the requirements of 
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1).

III. EPA Final Action

    In this document, we are finalizing the following actions on the 
revised ozone plan. For each action, we indicate the page on which the 
element is discussed in our proposal.
    (1) Approval of the revised baseline and projected emissions 
inventories under CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1)--6094;
    (2) Approval of the SCAQMD commitment to implement those measures 
that had been adopted in regulatory form between November 1994 and 
September 1999, by the dates specified to achieve the identified 
emission reductions, under CAA section 110(k)(3)--6095 (Table 1);
    (3) Approval of the SCAQMD commitment to adopt and implement the 
short- and intermediate-term control measures in the revised ozone plan 
by the dates specified to achieve the identified emission reductions, 
under CAA section 110(k)(3)--6095 (Table 2);
    (4) Approval of the SCAQMD commitment to adopt and implement 
control measures to achieve the identified emission reduction 
commitments \4\ for 1999 to 2008, as specified in Table 2-6 of the 1999

[[Page 18905]]

amendment, under CAA section 110(k)(3)--6097 (Table 3);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This approval makes enforceable the SCAQMD commitment to 
achieve the overall emission reduction schedule and thus creates the 
possibility of SCAQMD control measure adjustments and substitutions 
under the approved SIP, so long as the overall emission reduction 
obligations are met as described in Chapter 2 of the 1999 amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Deletion of 1994 ozone SIP control measures identified in the 
1999 Amendment--6097 (Table 4);
    (6) Approval of the SCAQMD commitment to adopt and implement the 
long-term control measures in the revised ozone plan by the dates 
specified to achieve the identified emission reductions, under CAA 
section 110(k)(3) and 182(e)(5)--6098 (Table 5);
    (7) Approval of the revised rate-of-progress plan for the milestone 
years 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2010, under CAA sections 182(c)(2)--
6099 (Table 6);
    (8) Approval of the revised attainment demonstration under CAA 
sections 182(c)(2) and (e)--6100;
    (9) Approval of the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for 
purposes of transportation conformity under CAA section 176(c)(2)(A). 
Approval of the revised ozone plan also establishes new emissions 
budgets for ROP milestone years for purposes of general conformity 
under CAA section 176(c)(1)--6100-1 (Table 8).
    Upon the effective date of our approval of the revised ozone plan, 
this plan replaces and supersedes the 1994 ozone SIP for the South 
Coast Air Basin with the exception of the State control measures for 
mobile sources, consumer products, and pesticides, and EPA's 
commitment. The State measures remain unchanged from those approved as 
part of the 1994 ozone SIP until we, in separate action, approve 
revised measures.
    As discussed in our proposed action, CARB and SCAQMD intend to 
adopt and submit a comprehensive revision to the ozone plan in 2001. 65 
FR 6101. We intend to work with CARB and SCAQMD to ensure the timely 
completion of this new comprehensive revision to refine and enhance the 
technical foundations of the attainment demonstration and update the 
control measures, as necessary.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

C. 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 affects 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. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must 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 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 Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13121, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 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

[[Page 18906]]

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 the approval action promulgated 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 approves 
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.

G. 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. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

I. 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 June 9, 2000. 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen 
oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: March 20, 2000.
David P. Howekamp,
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 adding paragraphs (c)(247)(i)(A)(3) 
and (c)(272) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (247) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Baseline and projected emissions inventories and ozone 
attainment demonstration, as contained in the South Coast 1997 Air 
Quality Management Plan for ozone.
* * * * *
    (272) New and amended plan for the following agency was submitted 
on February 4, 2000, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) SCAQMD commitment to adopt and implement short- and 
intermediate-term control measures; SCAQMD commitment to adopt and 
implement long-term control measures; SCAQMD commitment to achieve 
overall emissions reductions for the years 1999-2008; SCAQMD commitment 
to implement those measures that had been adopted in regulatory form 
between November 1994 and September 1999; rate-of-progress plan for the 
1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2010 milestone years; amendment to the 
attainment demonstration in the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan for 
ozone; and motor vehicle emissions budgets for purposes of 
transportation conformity, as contained in the 1999 Amendment to the 
South Coast 1997 Air Quality Management Plan.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-8534 Filed 4-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P