1150 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA114–0023; FRL–5665–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California—

Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTIONS: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to

the California State Implementation

Plan (SIP) for ozone for 6 nonattainment

areas: South Coast, Southeast Desert,

Ventura, Sacramento, San Diego, and

San Joaquin Valley. In addition, EPA is

approving specific local and statewide

air pollution control measures,

including the California enhanced

motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance program. The California

Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted

these SIP revisions to EPA on November

14, 1994, November 15, 1994, December

28, 1994, December 29, 1994, February

7, 1995, March 30, 1995, January 22,

1996, April 4, 1996, May 17, 1996, June

13, 1996, July 10, 1996, and July 12,

1996.

EPA is approving these revisions to

the California SIP under provisions of

the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals for

nonattainment areas.

EPA is also establishing a consultative

process on the potential for additional

mobile source controls that can

contribute to attainment in the South

Coast, and the Agency is committing to

undertake rulemaking on those controls

deemed to be appropriate for EPA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This approval is

effective on February 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

rulemaking are contained in Docket No.

A–96–13, which is available for viewing

during normal business hours at the

following location: Air Division,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the addresses

listed below:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, California

In addition, copies of the relevant

local plan, the State plan (1994

California Ozone SIP), public

comments, and EPA’s technical support

documents for this rulemaking are

available at the following locations:

San Diego Air Pollution Control District,

9150 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego,

California

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, 1999

Tuolumne Street, Fresno, California

Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District, 669 County Square Drive,

Ventura, California

Mojave Desert Air Quality Management

District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite 200,

Victorville, California

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, California

Electronic Availability

This document and related materials

are available at Region 9’s site on the

World Wide Web at http://

www.epa.gov/region09 (please look

under Air Programs). The Federal

Register is also available on the Internet

by pointing a web browser at: http://

www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs/ or by

telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia

Barrow, Chief, Office of Planning, Air

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901; (415)

744–1230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A Summary

B. General SIP Issues

1. ‘‘Federal Assignments’’

a. Importance of Federal Contribution and

Difficulty of Further Local Controls

b. Public Consultative Process

c. Legal and Policy Issues

d. Comments Specific to Source Categories

(1) Military Exemption

(2) Locomotives

(3) Ships and Shipping Channel

e. EPA Action

2. EPA Approval of Attainment

Demonstrations that Rely, in Part, on

Commitments

3. Additional CAA Issues

a. Attainment as Expeditiously as

Practicable

b. Contingency Measures

c. Adequacy of SIP’s Technical

Foundations

(1) Modeling and Treatment of Transport

(2) Impact of Changes to the ZEV Program

(3) Control Measures

d. Consistency of Local Nonroad Measures

with CAA Preemption

4. Future SIP Updates and Improvements

5. Overall Approvability of Plans

6. Importance of SIP Implementation

C. SIP Submittals

1. SIP Submittals and Previous EPA

Approvals

2. SIP Submittals after EPA’s Proposal

3. EPA Completeness Findings

4. Rationale for EPA Approval of Minor SIP

Changes without Further Opportunity for

Public Comment

II. Review of the State Submittal and

Response to Comments on Specific SIP

Issues

A. State Measures

1. General Comments

2. Mobile Source Measures

a. Review of Measures

(1) M1

(2) M2

(3) M3

(4) M4

(5) M5

(6) M7

(7) M8

(8) M9

(9) M11

(10) Additional New Control Technologies

b. EPA Action

3. I/M

a. Review of Program

b. Response to Comments

c. Emission Reductions

d. EPA Action

4. Consumer Products

a. Introduction

b. Review of Measures

(1) Measure CP–1

(2) Measure CP–3 (Aerosol Paints)

(3) Mid-Term Committal Measure (CP–2)

(4) Long-Term Committal Measure (CP–4)

(5) Alternative Control Plans (ACPs)

c. Emission Reductions

d. EPA Action

5. Pesticides

a. Review of Measures

b. Response to Comments

c. Emission Reductions

d. EPA Action

B. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and

Measures

1. Emission Inventories

a. Response to Comments

b. EPA Action

2. San Diego

a. Control Measures

b. ROP Provisions

c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

d. Overall EPA Action

3. San Joaquin Valley

a. Control Measures

b. ROP Provisions

c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

d. Overall EPA Action

4. Sacramento

a. Control Measures

b. ROP Provisions

c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

d. Overall EPA Action

5. Ventura

a. 1995 AQMP Update

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories

c. Control Measures

d. ROP Provisions

e. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

f. Overall EPA Action

6. South Coast

a. Control Measures

(1) Updated Rule Adoption Schedule

(2) TCM Substitution

(3) Near-Term Control Measures

(4) New-Technology Measures

(5) EPA Action

b. ROP Provisions
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1151

1EPA will take action on the Santa Barbara SIP

separately. After EPA’s proposed approval was

issued, ozone violations were recorded, which

prevent the Santa Barbara area from meeting its

attainment goals this year.

2The respective Federal ozone nonattainment

areas are: San Diego Area, San Joaquin Valley Area,

Sacramento Metro Area, Ventura County Area,

Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area, and Los

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area. The

boundaries of these areas are set forth at 40 CFR

81.305.

c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

d. Overall EPA Action

7. Southeast Desert

a. Control Measures

b. ROP Provisions

c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

d. Overall EPA Action

III. Summary of EPA Actions

IV. Regulatory Process

A. Executive Order 12886

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Unfunded Mandates

D. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Appendix A: Current Status of EPA’s

Activities Relating to the ‘‘Federal

Assignments’’ in the California SIP

Submittal

Appendix B: Schedule for Public

Consultative Process

I. Background

A. Summary

EPA is finalizing approval of the 1994

California Ozone SIP.1 This action was

proposed on March 18, 1996 (61 FR

10920–10962). The reader is referred to

that notice for additional detail on the

affected areas and the SIP submittals, as

well as a summary of relevant Clean Air

Act requirements and EPA

interpretations of those requirements.

Specifically, EPA is approving in this

document:

• The emission inventories in San

Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento,

Ventura, the Southeast Desert, and the

South Coast; 2

• The 15% rate-of-progress plans for

San Diego, San Joaquin, Ventura, and

the South Coast;

• The post-1996 rate-of-progress

plans for San Diego, San Joaquin,

Sacramento, Ventura, and the South

Coast;

• The modeling and attainment

demonstrations in San Diego, San

Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, the

Southeast Desert, and the South Coast;

• All of the individual local control

measures and the State control measures

not previously approved; and

• The State’s motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program and regulations.

This approval indicates EPA’s belief

that this SIP, if faithfully implemented,

will achieve clean air for California. The

health of all Californians now depends

on the dedication of the State to see that

the plans are carried out. While the

State may submit revisions to change

individual strategies, EPA intends to

hold it accountable for timely delivery

of the commitments in the plans

approved today.

An important aspect of EPA’s

approval involves the establishment of a

public consultative process intended to

identify the future mobile source

strategies to provide the remaining

emission reductions needed for

attainment in the South Coast, which

remains the Nation’s only extreme

ozone nonattainment area.

In submitting its 1994 SIP, the State

maintained that achievement of clean

air goals in the South Coast required

further emission reductions from

national and international mobile

sources, as a supplement to the State’s

own aggressive mobile source control

program and the massive contribution

made by locally adopted regulations and

control measures. The State argued that

California lacked the legal authority or

practical ability to control these sources,

and that the Federal efforts were

essential for progress and attainment in

the South Coast because there are no

feasible alternatives, in light of the

stringent State and local controls on all

other sources.

The State identified in the proposed

SIP specific mobile sources requiring

future Federal controls: onroad and

nonroad vehicles and engines, pleasure

craft, marine vessels, aircraft, and

locomotives. For each source, the State

specified a desired level of emission

reductions and the years for Federal

adoption and implementation.

Under the Constitution and the Clean

Air Act, EPA does not believe that a

state has authority to assign emission

reduction responsibilities to the Federal

government. Nevertheless, EPA believes

that the Federal government should

help speed clean air, not only in

California but on a national basis.

Since the Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1990, EPA has already issued 30

national regulations to help reduce

emissions from mobile sources.

Examples of important recent national

controls include: (1) The heavy duty

truck and bus rules for NOX and PM

issued in May 1993; (2) the NOX

standards for nonroad diesel engines

37kW and above promulgated in 1994;

(3) the small nonroad gasoline engine

standards (primarily for lawn and

garden equipment) finalized in July

1995; and (4) the pleasurecraft engine

standards issued in August 1996.

EPA will issue further national

controls for remaining mobile source

categories. In doing so, the Agency must

set controls based on national

considerations and criteria established

by Congress in the applicable sections of

Title II of the Act.

Since the 1994 California Ozone SIP

was submitted, EPA has been working

cooperatively with California and other

stakeholders to develop more stringent

controls for both onroad and nonroad

vehicles and engines. These

constructive, consensus-building

activities have received widespread

national support from the affected

industries, states, and the

environmental community, and have

already resulted in agreement on

stringent new national controls for

highway trucks and buses, proposed on

June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33421–33469), and

for nonroad compression-ignition

engines (agreement signed by EPA,

California, and industry, on September

13, 1996). The proposed controls

achieve California’s reduction targets for

these source categories while at the

same time avoiding the inefficiencies

and dislocation that would result from

different and possibly conflicting

Federal and California standards.

As a result of such successes, EPA is

optimistic that the year-long

consultative process will succeed and

provide emission reductions that

complement the California State and

local controls contained in the South

Coast SIP. The current status of EPA’s

activities in developing further mobile

source controls is presented in

Appendix A of this document.

In order to allow time to evaluate

what additional mobile source

reductions can contribute to ozone

attainment in the South Coast, EPA

intends to continue and broaden the

consultation with the State and other

affected parties through June 1997. As

stated in the proposal, the Agency

believes that this period provides the

opportunity to agree on future mobile

source reductions that will meet our

environmental goals expeditiously and

without adverse consequences to the

State and the South Coast, whether the

controls come from national and

international standards or from new

State and local measures.

On July 19, 1996, EPA held the first

of several meetings in Los Angeles to

describe the public consultative process

and stimulate a useful exchange of ideas

on innovative and ambitious approaches

to achieve our pollution reduction

targets. Appendix B to this document

gives more details on the public

consultative process and proposed

future meetings.

At the conclusion of the consultative

process, EPA believes that the State will

have the information it needs to amend
1152 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

3See The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act,

1970 to 1990, USEPA report prepared for US

Congress under section 812 of the Clean Air Act,

Draft report issued May 3, 1996. USEPA expects to

issue the final report in the near future, along with

a similar prospective analysis on benefits and costs

of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

4See Alan Gordon, Myths of Jobs vs. Resources:

Environmental Protections and Economic Growth,

March 1996 (report prepared for the California

Senate Office of Research), and Anil Puri,

Significance of California Air Pollution Control

Regulations for Business Location Decisions, May

1995 (report prepared for the California Air

Resources Board Research Division).

the South Coast attainment

demonstration appropriately, based on

the final mix of international, national,

State, and local mobile source controls.

The State has agreed, and has

committed to submit a revised

attainment demonstration by December

1997, and to adopt and submit any

needed State measures by December

1999. As proposed, EPA is making a

comparable enforceable commitment to

undertake rulemakings, after the

consultative process, on any controls

which are determined to be appropriate

for EPA.

EPA believes that, by working

together with the State, local

government, affected industry,

environmental groups, and the general

public, we can identify approaches to

fulfill our public health obligations in

ways that support progress in other

areas of public concern.

The data collected and analyses

performed as part of EPA’s forthcoming

report to Congress on the Benefits and

Costs of the Clean Air Act demonstrate

that air pollution control activities,

while costly, have returned far greater

economic benefits.3 Similarly,

California-specific studies have recently

underscored the State’s historic success

in reconciling economic growth with air

quality progress.4

If successfully implemented, the 1994

California Ozone SIP will succeed even

more completely than previous clean air

plans in harmonizing public health

progress with the social and economic

goals of the State’s citizens. Federal

approval of the 1994 SIP will help to

provide the regulatory certainty needed

to sustain and accelerate California’s

progress in achieving State and Federal

clean air objectives. EPA will continue

to work together with California to

achieve the clean air that our citizen’s

deserve.

B. Response to Public Comments on

General SIP Issues

1. Federal Assignments.

a. Importance of Federal Contribution

and Difficulty of Further Local Controls.

As discussed in the proposal, the 1994

California Ozone SIP includes 7 specific

mobile source control measures

assigned to the Federal government.

These measures, which were in addition

to those already promulgated by EPA,

comprised a more stringent heavy-duty

diesel vehicle standard, an off-road

diesel equipment standard, a standard

for gasoline- and LPG-fueled industrial

equipment, national and international

standards for marine vessels, national

standards for locomotives with a South

Coast clean locomotive fleet program,

national standards for aircraft, and

standards for pleasurecraft.

EPA received many comments

underscoring the critical need for

reductions from additional national

regulations if California areas,

particularly the South Coast, are to

achieve healthy air quality. Most of

these comments added a corollary:

Further State and local controls could

not reasonably be expected, given the

comprehensiveness and stringency of

existing regulations and committal

measures in the SIP. As stated in the

proposal, EPA recognizes that national

and international mobile sources are

increasingly significant components of

the ozone problem, especially in the

South Coast, and EPA is committing at

this time to undertake the rulemaking

on those controls that are determined to

be appropriate. The increased Federal

contribution that will come from

ongoing national mobile source control

measures, plus the State and local

control measures in the SIP, add up to

almost all of the needed emission

reductions. EPA is confident that a

small shortfall, if it still exists at the end

of the public consultative process, will

be addressed by cooperative Federal,

State, and local strategies, without

adverse impacts.

b. Public Consultative Process. The

California Environmental Protection

Agency (CEPA) commented that the

proposed consultative process is much

like the participatory approach

California has used for many years to

develop new environmental programs.

CEPA stated that CARB’s staff are

prepared to begin work right away with

EPA and other stakeholders to develop

appropriate controls.

The American Association of

Railroads (AAR) commented in support

of EPA’s proposed consultative process

as an innovative and useful method to

help assure that the SIP’s goals are met.

Over twenty years of efforts to clean

the air in Southern California have

taught that cooperation and innovation

by all parties are essential if attainment

is to be achieved while retaining a

healthy economy. The proposed

consultative process builds on that

experience, and in that manner provides

a reasonable basis for EPA approval of

the South Coast attainment

demonstration.

The Western Riverside Council of

Governments (WRCOG) supported the

continuation and expansion of the

collaborative process. WRCOG asked

that a formal participation program

should be developed as part of the

consultative process, to provide a

framework in which local governments

and business communities could

participate, since local agencies are

required to implement whatever control

measures are adopted from this process

and success depends upon local

government ‘‘buy-in.’’ The City of Los

Angeles also requested that EPA

establish a list of key stakeholders and

begin seeking input through a formal

process.

EPA agrees that local government

participation in the design and review

of control measures is critically

important to ensure that the measures

are efficient, acceptable to the affected

communities, and successfully

implemented. The Agency hopes that

the process can be an open and informal

exchange of ideas from the community

at large. EPA believes that this is the

most efficient structure and approach,

in the limited amount of time, to share

and receive important information that

will help all participants to understand

the issues involved and the

opportunities to achieve the remaining

emissions reductions needed from

mobile sources.

c. Legal and Policy Issues. The

Environmental Defense Center opposed

EPA’s proposed public consultative

process to resolve the SIP’s future

mobile source component. EDC

expressed perplexity at EPA’s reliance

on and endorsement of California’s

assignment of emissions reductions to

meet California’s shortfall in attainment

demonstration for the South Coast:

The novel ‘‘consultative’’ process is

without basis in law or propriety under the

facts. EPA should not accept ‘‘assignment’’ of

California’s shortfall; this action violates the

Act, perverts the local air quality planning

process, and rewards California’s

unwillingness to address its own air quality

problems. The precedent is highly

disfavorable to clean air and jeopardizes the

health and well being of everyone in the

United States.

As stated in the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA believes that

California does not have the authority to

assign SIP responsibility to the Federal

government. However, EPA recognizes

that massive further reductions are

needed for attainment in the South

Coast and that attainment may be either
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1153

5See, for example, SCAQMD rules 1111 (Nox

from Gas Fired Furnaces), 1109 (Refinery Boilers &

Process Heaters), 1134 (Nox from Stationary Gas

Turbines), 1135 (Nox from Electric Power

Generating Systems), 431.2 (Liquid Fuel Sulfur

Content), 1142 (Marine Tank Vessel Operations),

1113 (Architectural Coatings), 1128 (Paper, Fabric

& Film Coating Operations), 1106.1 (Pleasure Craft

Coating Operations), 1130.1 (Screen Printing

Operations), 1168 (VOCs from Adhesive

Applications), 1175 (Polymeric Cellular Products—

Blowing Foam), 1146 and 1146.1 (Industrial,

Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Generators, &

Heaters), 1162 (Polyester Resin Operation), 1110.1

& 1110.2 (Emissions from Internal Combustion

Engines), 1151 (Motor Vehicle Non-Assembly Line

Coatings), 1124 (Aerospace Assembly & Component

Manufacturing Operations), 1153 (Commercial

Bakery Ovens), 462 (Organic Liquid Loading, 461

(Gas Transfer and Dispensing), 1136 (Wood

Products Coatings), and Regulation XX (Nox/Sox

RECLAIM program). See also the CARB rules for

motor vehicles and fuels (generally), off-highway

recreational vehicles and engines, consumer

products (generally), and aerosol coating products.

very costly and disruptive or impossible

if further reductions are not achieved

from national and international sources.

EPA therefore established the public

consultative process to resolve the

complex issues associated with national

and international sources and to

determine what combination of controls

at various levels are appropriate to

contribute to the remaining emission

reduction needs in the South Coast.

Both EPA and the State have made

enforceable commitments to prepare the

controls that are determined, after the

public consultation process, to be

appropriate for them. Under these

commitments, any new Federal or State

rules both can and will be adopted

before they are required to meet

progress or attainment requirements in

the South Coast. EPA also believes that

those national or international controls

that issue from the public consultative

process will benefit, rather than

disfavor, clean air elsewhere in the

United States.

The ‘‘Federal Assignments’’ portion of

the SIP is approvable because it is

consistent, in the overall context of the

California SIP, with the Clean Air Act

requirements. The California SIP as a

whole is approvable as long as, among

other things, it includes ‘‘[a]

demonstration that the plan * * * will

provide for attainment’’ of the NAAQS.

CAA section 182(c)(2)(A). As set forth in

the proposal and below in section

II.B.6., the South Coast SIP regulations

and commitments, coupled with

promulgated Federal measures, provide

the great bulk of reductions needed for

attainment. The amount of reductions

expected from the consultative process

is a small percentage of the overall

amount of reductions needed for

attainment. In addition, granting

additional time for identifying and

adopting the remaining measures is

consistent with the statutory scheme

because the time delays are relatively

brief, in the context of the SCAB

attainment process, and thus do not

interfere with the deadline for ROP and

attainment.

EPA counts towards the attainment

demonstration reductions from

measures resulting from the consultative

process, even though those measures

have not yet been determined, in part

because of the practical and technical

challenges of providing for attainment

in the South Coast. The SIP provisions

for the South Coast already include

control requirements that, in general,

are more expensive and technologically

advanced, and apply to smaller emitters,

than any other SIP in the nation.5

Generating additional emissions

reductions from additional SIP

measures presents a high magnitude of

complexity. Such additional SIP

reductions may prove unnecessary

depending on whether and how many

additional reductions from other

Federal measures will occur.

Both EPA and the State are

committing to undergo the consultative

process described above, and to

promulgate controls determined by that

process to be appropriate. Those EPA

and State commitments are enforceable

by citizens. Based on these

commitments, EPA will assure that the

gap in emissions reductions represented

by the consultative process, and needed

to attain, will be closed. For example, at

the close of the consultative process,

EPA may promulgate a rulemaking that

identifies (i) additional SIP reductions

that EPA considers appropriate for

California to undertake, and additional

Federal measures that EPA intends to

promulgate; as well as (ii) schedules for

the adoption or promulgation and

implementation of both sets of

measures.

For these reasons, EPA has concluded

that the SIP for the South Coast, with its

limited reliance on additional

reductions to be determined through a

consultative process, ‘‘provide[s] for’’

attainment, under section 182(c)(2)(A)

of the Act.

EPA believes that CAA section

172(c)(6) supports its conclusion that

the California SIP, including the

consultative process commitments,

‘‘provide[s] for’’ attainment under

section 182(c)(2)(A). Section 172(c)(6) of

the Act requires, as a rule generally

applicable to nonattainment SIPs, that

the SIP ‘‘include enforceable emission

limitations, and such other control

measures, means or techniques * * * as

may be necessary or appropriate to

provide for attainment * * * by the

applicable attainment date * * *.’’

(Emphasis added.) The emphasized

terms mean that enforceable emission

limitations and other control measures

do not necessarily need to generate

reductions in the full amount needed to

attain. Rather, the emissions limitations

and other control measures may be

supplemented with other SIP rules—for

example, the commitments EPA is

approving today—as long as the entire

package of measures and rules provides

for attainment. Under these

circumstances, the emission limitations

and control measures generate

reductions in an amount that falls short

of the amount needed to attain; yet

those limitations and measures are all

that is necessary or appropriate to attain

in light of the additional SIP rules for

commitments.

EPA finds further support for its

action in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

Kamp v. Hernandez, 752 F.2d 1444

(1985). There, the court upheld EPA’s

full approval of a SIP that relied on a

State’s agreement to submit a fugitive

emission control plan in the future.

Although recognizing that lack of any

controls on fugitive emissions would

prevent attainment, the court justified

its holding on the grounds that the plan

was substantially complete, and that the

remaining shortfall would be covered

under the state’s future submission. The

court also interpreted the predecessor

provision to section 172(c)(6) in a

manner consistent with EPA’s

interpretation of section 172(c)(6) above.

EDC commented that it is unclear

how the ‘‘meet and confer’’

commitments meet the minimal

requirements of the Administrative

Procedures Act (APA) and the public

participation elements of the CAA.

EPA believes that these requirements

will be met and intends a process with

more than the legally-mandated public

opportunities for input. All Federal

mobile source measures will be issued

through rulemaking that complies with

the CAA and APA provisions. EPA will

ensure that all other future SIP measures

go through a fully public process that

complies with applicable APA and CAA

requirements for public involvement.

Finally, any necessary revisions to the

South Coast attainment demonstration

must comply with all applicable public

notification, public hearing, and public

participation requirements.

EDC commented that the practical

and legal insufficiency of the ‘‘Federal

Assignments’’ portion of the SIP is

reflected in EPA’s proposal to make

enforceable commitments to undertake

additional rulemakings after a
1154 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

consultative process (which EDC

described as ‘‘secret’’) on control

measures necessary to achieve the

emissions reductions determined to be

appropriate for EPA. EDC added: ‘‘This

promise to make future promises

provides no certainty, specificity or

meaning, and violates the spirit and

letter of the CAA.’’

In today’s action, EPA finalizes its

commitment to undertake rulemaking

on any measures which are determined

to be EPA’s responsibility, and EPA

finalizes its approval of California’s

enforceable commitment to adopt

measures determined to be the State’s

responsibility. These enforceable

commitments, in conjunction with the

other SIP measures and other sources of

emissions reductions, constitute the

required demonstration of attainment

and ROP. As noted in the discussion of

the ‘‘Federal Assignments’’ (see

Appendix A), significant progress has

already occurred or is expected in the

near future with respect to

accomplishing, in enforceable form,

specific regulations (such as EPA’s

recently proposed national standards for

heavy-duty onroad vehicles) that

achieve the vast majority of required

reductions.

EPA has authority to commit itself to

promulgate additional Federal measures

determined through the consultative

process to be appropriate, under CAA

section 301. This provision authorizes

the Administrator to ‘‘prescribe such

regulations as are necessary to carry out

his functions under [the Clean Air

Act].’’ In title I of the Act, Congress set

out what amounts to a ‘‘blueprint’’ by

which nonattainment areas will attain

the NAAQS. This blueprint couples SIP

reductions with reductions from various

Federal measures, such as reductions

from mobile source measures

promulgated by EPA under Title II of

the Act. The EPA commitment

prescribed in today’s rulemaking is

necessary to carry out EPA’s functions

both in promulgating mobile source

regulations under Title II and in

fulfilling its share of the ‘‘blueprint’’

reductions needed for attainment.

EPA proposed a public, not a secret,

consultative process, and the Agency

sets forth in Appendix B to this

document more details on opportunities

for the public to be involved in the

difficult decisionmaking on what

additional controls on mobile sources

need to be adopted at the Federal, State,

and local level. EPA’s commitment,

finalized in this action, is as specific

and enforceable as possible, prior to the

completion of critically important

public input and consultation. After the

consultative process is completed, in

June 1997, responsibility for the small

increment of necessary additional

emission reductions should be fully

resolved.

The Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC) and the Coalition for

Clean Air (CCA) submitted joint

comments opposing EPA’s proposed

resolution of the ‘‘Federal

Assignments.’’ The environmental

groups stated that EPA’s proposed

approval violates the CAA by providing

full credit toward attainment for

‘‘Federal Assignments’’ in the SIP.

Although NRDC and CCA encouraged

federal-state cooperation to achieve

healthful air in the South Coast, they

felt that the consultative process

combined merely with gap-filling

commitments cannot be used to

circumvent the November 1994

deadline in the CAA for the State to

provide evidence that it has the legal

authority to implement and enforce all

SIP provisions. NRDC and CCA

commented that EPA cannot approve a

SIP which relies for ROP and attainment

on prospective federal measures over

which CARB has no control and which

have neither been formally proposed

nor promulgated.

NRDC and CCA observed that some of

what they describe as the ‘‘nonexistent’’

federal measures are given credit as

early as 1999, but CARB is not required

to submit replacement measures until

the end of 1999. NRDC and CCA argued

that the State should cover the ‘‘Federal

Assignments’’ emissions in its 1994 SIP,

which could then be revised to decrease

the State’s responsibilities as EPA

adopts new federal regulations. The

environmental groups stated that there

is no reason why CARB cannot

immediately begin development of these

rules concurrent with the consultative

process. Finally, NRDC and CCA

commented that EPA should require

that CARB immediately adopt rules,

scheduled for implementation in the

year 2000 or later, as backstop measures

which will go into effect to the extent

necessary to make up a shortfall that

remains after the consultative process.

EPA’s responses to EDC’s comments

address many of these concerns. EPA

believes that the public consultative

process for resolving mobile source

emission reductions is appropriate to

the unique facts of the South Coast

attainment demonstration. The 1994 SIP

submittal includes massive reductions

achieved by combined State and local

regulations and commitments, covering

every significant source category. It is

not clear what feasible measures could

be adopted by the State and local

agencies at this time to cover the entire

emission reductions included in the

‘‘Federal Assignments.’’ The additional

time which EPA is allowing for the

evaluation and development of future

Federal controls, revision to the SIP’s

attainment demonstration, and then

adoption, if necessary, of any gap-filling

measures, is justified by the magnitude

and complexity of the issues involved in

regulating sources that have never

previously been subject to emission

standards and sources that are critical

components of interstate and, in some

cases, international commerce.

Furthermore, for the larger emission

reduction categories in the ‘‘Federal

Assignments,’’ CARB has matched the

national controls with its own measures

to adopt and implement at least

equivalent State controls under the

State’s unique CAA authorities to

regulate mobile sources. The success of

this enterprise to develop cooperative

and consistent Federal-State mobile

source emission standards would

eliminate for manufacturers and users

the costs of compliance with conflicting

standards and test procedures.

d. Comments Specific to Source

Categories. (1) Military Exemption.

The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard

expressed concern about any

reconsideration of the exempt status of

military aircraft as part of the

exploration of more stringent standards

for aircraft engines, and both agencies

expressed a desire to be involved in

future discussions. EPA hopes that these

agencies will participate fully in the

public consultative process to help in

Federal, State, and local cooperative

efforts to identify viable strategies for

achieving our air quality goals.

(2) Locomotives. The Association of

American Railroads (AAR) commented

that the consultative process should not

be used as a route to develop any State

or local regulations imposing

locomotive controls for the purpose of

reducing emissions. AAR expressed

concern that SIP measure M14 indicates

that CARB ‘‘will also consider

operational controls, such as reduced

idling and use of California diesel fuel,

if * * * additional emission reductions

are needed.’’ AAR argued that these

types of state and local standards and

requirements must be avoided in order

to avert adverse effects on interstate

commerce. AAR recommended that the

consultative process be used to devise

ways to maintain the competitiveness of

railroads and improve their volume of

intercity, long-haul freight, given the

significant emissions advantages of rail

transportation over trucks. AAR further

requested that EPA work with the

railroads and other stakeholders to

design mechanisms to properly account
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1155

6NRDC/CCA also claim that the SIP

inappropriately relies on a September 1994 EPA

memorandum, ‘‘November 1994 Ozone SIP’s—

Rulemaking Policy,’’ to support the inclusion of

commitments in the plan. As NRDC/CCA correctly

point out, this memorandum was rescinded in

1995. Because EPA is not relying on the 1994

memorandum to support its approval of California’s

SIP commitments, it is irrelevant to this rulemaking

and is therefore not addressed further in this notice.

7Section 110(k)(4) of the CAA provides:

(4) Conditional approval—

The Administrator may approve a plan revision

based on a commitment of the State to adopt

specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but

not later than 1 year after the date of approval of

the plan revision. Any such conditional approval

shall be treated as a disapproval if the State fails

to comply with such commitment.

8Because they include such major substantive

components, the attainment demonstrations do not

circumvent the submittal deadline in the CAA as

NRDC/CCA claim. See, e.g, tables for each area on

ROP Forecasts and Targets, Local Control Measures,

and Attainment Demonstrations. These tables

summarize far more expansive discussions and data

in the actual SIP submittals, which for some areas

amount to many volumes and thousands of pages

of relevant information and analyses in support of

the attainment demonstrations.

in the SIP for the NOx benefits of rail

transportation.

EPA trusts that the rail industry will

raise these important issues in the

public consultative process.

AAR also raised legal issues regarding

the authority of States to adopt and

implement any type of emission-related

standard or other requirement for

locomotives. These issues are more

germane to EPA’s forthcoming

rulemaking to establish national

locomotive regulations and to clarify the

extent to which States are preempted

from adopting or implementing

locomotive controls.

(3) Ships and Shipping Channel. The

U.S. Coast Guard reiterated its concerns

expressed at the time of EPA’s proposed

Federal Implementation Plan for

California areas regarding any

operational controls on marine vessels,

including international legal

implications. The U.S. Navy supported

EPA’s position that recommendations

regarding movement of the shipping

channel should await the results of

ongoing studies. The Navy opposed any

strategy that would increase traffic in

the Pt. Mugu Sea Test Range.

EPA welcomes the involvement of

these agencies in the public consultative

process. EPA will particularly

appreciate the assistance of the Coast

Guard in clarifying international issues

as they affect potential controls on the

emissions or operations of ocean-going

vessels, and the continued constructive

involvement of the Navy in studies to

help assess the air quality benefits of

moving the shipping channel.

e. EPA Action. EPA approves the

State’s commitments to revise the South

Coast attainment demonstration and

adopt appropriate measures following

the conclusion of the public

consultative process, and EPA finalizes

its commitment to undertake

rulemaking on any controls which are

determined to be appropriate for EPA.

2. EPA Approval of Attainment

Demonstrations that Rely, in Part, on

Commitments. The Natural Resources

Defense Council and the Coalition for

Clean Air (NRDC/CCA), in a joint

comment letter, contended that EPA

cannot approve the California ozone SIP

because the majority of emission

reductions in the plan are in the form

of commitments and not adopted rules

as required by the CAA. NRDC/CCA

also asserted that approval of such

committal SIP provisions would lead to

an inappropriate delay in the statutory

SIP submittal deadline. To support

these propositions, NRDC/CCA cite the

holding of Natural Resources Defense

Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir.

1994); the alleged effect of EPA’s

interpretation of the conditional

approval provision of the CAA, section

110(k)(4); and the language of EPA’s

regulation at 40 CFR 51.281.6

In the NRDC case, the Court

addressed the merits of EPA’s

interpretation, as set forth in various

policy memoranda, that in certain

circumstances section 110(k)(4) of the

CAA allows conditional approval of

commitments unaccompanied by

regulatory measures.7 In these policy

memoranda, EPA provided that it would

consider conditional approval of SIP

submittals, which were meant to fulfill

certain specific SIP requirements and

which consisted entirely of a

commitment letter to submit the

required measure by a date certain, but

no later than one year after conditional

approval. In reviewing these policies,

the Court concluded, based on the

express language of section 110(k)(4),

the CAA’s general SIP approval scheme,

and the legislative history of section

110(k)(4), that:

* * * the conditional approval mechanism

was intended to provide the EPA with an

alternative to disapproving substantive, but

not entirely satisfactory, SIPs submitted by

the statutory deadlines and not, as the EPA

has used it, a means of circumventing those

deadlines. 22 F.3d at 1134–35.

The Court found that on its face the

language of section 110(k)(4) ‘‘seems to

authorize conditional approval of a

substantive SIP or SIP revision which,

though not approvable in its present

form, can be made so by adopting

specific EPA-required changes within

the prescribed conditional period.’’ 22

F.3d at 1134. The Court also noted that

the CAA requires EPA to make

completeness determinations on

required plan submittals and that such

determinations could not reasonably be

made unless the submittal contains

‘‘something more than a mere promise

to take appropriate but unidentified

measures in the future.’’ Id. Finally, the

Court determined from the legislative

history of section 110(k)(4) that the

contemplated specific and enforceable

measures are to be additional to some

specific enforceable measures already in

the SIP. Id.

NRDC/CCA apparently interpret the

NRDC holding as precluding EPA from

accepting in a SIP submittal any

commitments to adopt rules at a future

date, even where that submittal includes

a significant quantity of emission

reductions in adopted form. We believe

that such an interpretation is far too

broad a reading of the NRDC case and

that the circumstances presented by

today’s action are readily

distinguishable from those in the NRDC

case.

First, and most importantly, EPA is

not approving the California SIP

commitments under section 110(k)(4),

but rather under sections 301 and

110(k)(3), as discussed below. Thus the

Court’s analysis of the express language

of section 110(k)(4) and its specific

legislative history is not, as NRDC/CCA

claim, applicable to EPA’s action here.

For the reasons set forth below, EPA’s

authority to approve enforceable

commitments under sections 110(k)(3)

and 301 is not constrained by section

110(k)(4).

Furthermore, to the extent that the

NRDC case has any relevance to EPA’s

action under sections 110(k)(3) and 301,

in the present case, EPA has not

proposed to approve submittals that

consist only of a commitment. The EPA

policies at issue in NRDC permitted a

state to initially satisfy an individual

CAA requirement (e.g., an inspection

and maintenance program) with only a

commitment to adopt such a

requirement in the future. In contrast,

the SIP approved by EPA today contains

in adopted, enforceable form a large

percentage of the emission reductions

that make up the required submittal, in

this case, the attainment

demonstrations.8 In addition, the

California ozone SIP, because of its

many substantive, adopted rules, does

not pose the barrier to a completeness

determination that the Court in NRDC

perceived where only a commitment

existed.

NRDC/CCA claim that full approval of

the commitments in the California

ozone SIP (pursuant to sections

110(k)(3) and 301) would render section
1156 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

9 In commenting on EPA’s proposed SIP approval

action, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC)

suggested that EPA approve the SIP’s commitments

under section 110(k)(4) rather than section 110(k)(3)

because of the important enforceability benefits of

a conditional approval. As discussed below,

commitments that are conditionally approved

cannot be enforced.

10Courts have also upheld EPA’s approval of SIPs

that contain enforceable commitments. See, e.g., the

cases cited below in the discussion of 40 CFR

51.281.

11 A disapproved SIP—i.e., a plan rejected by

EPA—is not considered to be federally enforceable.

Both sections 113(a)(1) and 304(a) and (f)(3) provide

for enforcement regarding a violation of only an

‘‘applicable implementation plan,’’ which CAA

§ 302(q) defines as a plan ‘‘which has been

‘‘approved’’ or ‘‘promulgated’’ under section 110.

110(k)(4)’s conditional approval

mechanism meaningless. We disagree

with this conclusion. Historically, EPA

has interpreted the CAA to allow states

to submit enforceable commitments to

adopt rules in the future. The enactment

of section 110(k)(4) in 1990 provided a

new type of approval for a limited set

of commitments that, in general, could

not be enforced under sections 113 and

304 of the Act 9; there is no evidence

that Congress intended this limited

provision to replace EPA’s wellestablished policy of using its general

approval authority to approve

enforceable commitments. In fact, other

provisions in the statute belie that

result. Finally, there continue to be

strong policy considerations for

interpreting the statute to allow for

approvals under section 110(k)(3) of

enforceable commitments.

EPA interpreted the pre-amended Act

to allow for approval of attainment

demonstrations that included, in part,

enforceable commitments to adopt rules

in the future. And courts have found

these commitments to be enforceable by

the public under the citizen suit

provisions of the Act. See, e.g.,

American Lung Association of New

Jersey v. Kean, 670 F.Supp. 1285 (D.N.J.

1987), affirmed, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir.

1989); NRDC v. N.Y. State Dept. of

Environmental Conservation, 668

F.Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens

for a Better Environment v. Deukmejian,

731 F. Supp. 1448, reconsideration

granted in part, 746 F.Supp. 976 (N.D.

Cal. 1990); Coalition v. City of New

York, 967 F.2d 764 (2d Cir. 1992);

Trustees for Alaska v. Fink, 17 F.3d

1209 (9th Cir. 1994).10

In enacting section 110(k)(4),

Congress enacted a much more limited

type of approval of commitments. First,

conditional approval under section

110(k)(4) is for a very limited duration—

the commitment must provide a date

certain for submittal that cannot exceed

one year after conditional approval.

Furthermore, in contrast to the

enforceable commitments historically

accepted by the Agency and the courts,

section 110(k)(4) anticipates that the

commitment made by the State will not

be an enforceable commitment. Under

the express language of section

110(k)(4), upon the State’s failure to

meet the commitment, the conditional

approval must be converted to a

disapproval. Once a SIP is disapproved,

there is no longer any commitment left

to enforce under section 113 or 304 of

the Act.11

There is nothing in the legislative

history of the 1990 CAA Amendments

to suggest that Congress’s addition of

section 110(k)(4), which is much more

limited in scope, was intended to

preclude EPA’s prior practice.

Furthermore, other provisions of the

amended Act indicate that Congress

contemplated continued approval of

enforceable commitments. For example,

section 182(e)(5) of the CAA, which

concerns attainment demonstrations for

extreme ozone nonattainment areas,

addresses the ‘‘anticipate[d]

development of new control

technologies.’’ This section provides

that EPA may approve provisions

relying on such technologies if, among

other things, the state submits

‘‘enforceable commitments to develop

and adopt contingency measures to be

implemented * * * if the anticipated

technologies do not achieve planned

reductions. These enforceable

commitments would clearly need to

extend well-beyond the maximum oneyear period that may be granted for

conditional approval under section

110(k)(4). Nothing in the language of

section 182(e)(5) indicates that Congress

authorized those enforceable

commitments ‘‘notwithstanding’’

section 110(k)(4).

Nor does EPA agree with NRDC/

CCA’s assertion that approval of

enforceable commitments constitutes an

inappropriate delay in the statutory SIP

submittal dates. Congress anticipated

that section 110(k)(4) would result in

submittal delays for some SIP measures

beyond the initial submittal deadlines.

EPA believes that the delays in

submittal of final rules that would result

in this action are permissible under

section 110(k)(3) because the State has

obligated itself to submit the rules by

specified, short-term dates, and that

obligation is enforceable by EPA and the

public. Moreover, as noted above, the

SIP submittal approved today contains

major substantive components

submitted as adopted regulations. As

such, the California submittal is readily

distinguishable from the submittals that

were the subject of the NRDC case.

Finally, as matter of policy it is

important to continue to read section

110 as allowing for full approval of SIP

submittals containing some enforceable

commitments. The conditional approval

provision is most effectively used where

a State makes a short term commitment

to correct a problem or fill a gap in a SIP

submission. If the State fails to meet the

commitment, the conditional approval

is converted to a disapproval and an 18-

month clock for sanctions and a 2-year

period for promulgation of a federal

implementation plan (FIP) start.

However, neither EPA nor citizens have

authority under the CAA to take action

to enforce those commitments that have

been converted to a disapproval. While

a disapproval may motivate a state to

ultimately meet its commitments,

through the potential for sanctions and

a FIP, in some cases it may be more

desirable to have an approved

commitment that EPA or a citizen can

enforce directly in court. Approval

under section 110(k)(3) allows for

enforcement action. Such a remedy is

frequently preferable in promoting

actual air quality improvements.

Moreover, even with respect to an

approved commitment, EPA may start

the sanctions process through a finding

of failure to implement if the state does

not meet its enforceable commitment.

EDC commented, with apparent

approval, on the vehicle of enforceable

commitments. EDC maintained,

however, that the Administrative

Procedure Act and notions of fairness

require that they be more fully

articulated. EPA believes that the SIP

commitments approved today are

sufficiently specific to be enforceable by

the Agency or the public. For example,

the control measure commitments are

for particular agencies to adopt and

implement specific controls by definite

dates to achieve precise emission

reductions from identified source

categories for each milestone year

through attainment. In the case of the

South Coast, the plan also provides

detailed discussions of the source

category, the regulatory history,

proposed method of control (including

descriptions of available control

technologies and operational

approaches), control efficiency

assumptions, rule compliance

approaches (e.g., reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, source

testing, certification programs, etc.), test

methods, cost effectiveness calculations,

and references to document

assumptions and provide for further

information. The rules to fulfill these

commitments will be subject to noticeand-comment at the State level prior to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1157

12As one court has observed: The need for

flexibility in the administration of a statute whose

provisions have been described as ‘virtually

swim[ming] before one’s eyes,’ * * * should not be

underestimated. We have in the past been careful

to defer to EPA’s choice of methods to carry out its

‘difficult and complex job’ as long as that choice is

reasonable and consistent with the Act * * *.

Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. v. EPA,

672 F.2d 998, 1006 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S.

1035 (1982).

13 40 CFR 51.281 provides, in pertinent part:

Emissions limitations and other measures necessary

for attainment and maintenance of any national

standard * * * must be adopted as rules and

regulations * * *. Submittal of a plan setting forth

proposed rules and regulations will not satisfy the

requirements of this section * * *. (Emphasis

added.)

14 In order to expedite SIP approval, EPA has

occasionally proposed to approve a state’s draft

rules that have been fully developed but have not

yet been adopted. An EPA approval using this

‘‘parallel processing’’ procedure, of course, cannot

be finalized until the rules have been adopted and

formally submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

adoption and submittal to EPA;

furthermore, EPA will approve or

disapprove those measures through

notice-and-comment rulemaking

procedures.

Reading the statute as a whole, it is

clear that Congress did not intend

section 110(k)(4) to be the sole

mechanism for approving submittals

that contain at least some commitments.

Furthermore, for the above reasons,

enforceable commitments serve several

distinct purposes not addressed by

section 110(k)(4). Under these

circumstances, EPA’s interpretation of

the statute is entitled to considerable

deference. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.

NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).12

NRDC/CCA also assert that EPA is

precluded from approving the

commitments in the California ozone

SIP because EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR

51.281 13 requires SIPs to include

adopted rules and regulations. EPA has

long interpreted this regulation to

require States, when submitting rules

and regulations, to submit those

regulations in adopted rather than

proposed form.14 EPA has not

interpreted this regulation to require

that every submittal must be in

regulatory form.

EPA promulgated this regulation long

before the enactment of the 1990 CAA

Amendments. See 36 FR 22398 (Nov.

25, 1971), codified as 40 CFR 51.22;

recodified as 40 CFR 51.281 with minor

modifications at 51 FR 40674 (Nov. 7,

1986). As discussed above, EPA has

historically accepted enforceable

commitments in SIPs and courts have

found these provisions to be enforceable

by the public under section 304 of the

CAA. In addition, in a number of cases,

courts of appeals in some circuits,

including the Ninth Circuit, have

upheld EPA’s approval of plans that

included commitments to fill gaps. See

Kamp v. Hernandez, 752 F.2d 1444,

1445 (9th Cir. 1985); Connecticut Fund

for the Environment v. EPA, 672 F.2d

998 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1035

(1982); Friends of the Earth v. EPA, 499

F.2d 1118, 1124 (2d Cir. 1974).

The cited cases demonstrate that, over

a long period of time, EPA has not

interpreted 40 CFR 51.281 as limiting

the permissible procedural vehicles for

SIP measures to rules and regulations.

Rather, the Agency has viewed the

primary purpose of section 51.281 as

ensuring that SIP submittals contain

adopted, not proposed, emission

limitations and other measures. The

commitments at issue here are not

merely proposed; they have been

adopted by the various local air districts

and ARB. Because EPA’s interpretation

of its regulation is a reasonable

interpretation, it is entitled to deference.

Chevron, 467 U.S. 837.

3. Additional Clean Air Act Issues

a. Attainment as Expeditiously as

Practicable. The Environmental Defense

Center commented that the SIPs should

be disapproved because they fail to meet

the CAA requirement of attaining the

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.

The commenter provided no further

statutory interpretation or information

relating to this CAA provision and

defects in the SIPs relating to it. EPA

continues to believe that the SIPs meet

the progress requirements of the Act, as

discussed in the proposal, and provide

for expeditious attainment.

b. Contingency Measures. NRDC and

CCA commented that only SCAQMD’s

measure CTY–01 meets the section

182(c)(9) CAA requirement for

contingency measures that take effect

without further action by the State or

EPA upon a failure of the State to meet

the applicable milestone. The

commenters stated that EPA should

require further definition and

refinement of the contingency measures

and the schedule, funding and

enforcement responsibilities required

for the measure to succeed.

EPA’s proposal addressed only the

following CAA requirements: section

181(a)(1) relating to emissions

inventories; section 182(b)(1) relating to

15% ROP Plans; section 182(c)(2)(B)

relating to Post-1996 ROP Plans;

sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)

relating to modeling and attainment

demonstrations, and sections 182(b)(4)

and 182(c)(3) relating to I/M Programs.

The remaining requirements of Part D of

the Act, including the sections 172(c)(9)

and 182(c)(9) requirements for

contingency measures, will be acted

upon in separate rulemakings.

c. Adequacy of SIP’s Technical

Foundations. (1) Modeling and

Treatment of Transport. The Engine

Manufacturers Association (EMA)

submitted a comment that EPA has

failed to provide all data and

documentation relating to the modeling

in the SIPs. Noting that EPA has

admitted that problems in model

performance and transport led to

California’s inability to follow EPA’s

modeling guidelines in its analyses,

EMA asked that EPA not take final

action on modeling but should require

that appropriate adjustments be made in

order to provide accurate modeling

assumptions on which to base

California’s proposed measures.

EPA has not provided all data and

documentation relating to the modeling

analyses. For each area, modeling input

and documentation include hundreds of

thousands of data. This information is

available from local air pollution

agencies.

Again, EMA failed to provide specific

information to support its general

conclusion. EPA recognizes the

opportunities to refine the modeling in

each of the areas, including the data

upon which the modeling is based.

Major modeling projects or modeling

refinements are underway in each area.

EPA contributes technical and funding

support to these projects, which may

provide information helpful in

enhancing the SIP strategies in the

future. However, EPA believes that the

current modeling in each area meets the

requirements of the Act and provides a

reasonable basis for estimating the

emission reductions needed for

attainment and the ambient impact of

the control measures.

(2) Impact of Changes to the ZEV

Program. The Environmental Defense

Center commented that the state has

already rescinded the Zero Emission

Vehicle (ZEV) program, demonstrating

immediately their willingness and

intent to renege on the SIP’s

commitments. EDC stated that both the

Sacramento and South Coast attainment

demonstrations should be disapproved

because CARB has rescinded the ZEV

program. NRDC and the Coalition for

Clean Air commented that EPA needs to

quantify the increased emissions that

will result from changes to the ZEV

program and should demand

compensating reductions.

At a public hearing on March 28 and

29, 1996, CARB approved revisions to

the ZEV program in the California motor

vehicle control regulations. These

changes included elimination of the

ZEV production requirement for the

1998 through 2002 model years. CARB

retained the 10% ZEV requirement for
1158 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

15Table 1 (‘‘Adopted state regulations in the SIP

baseline, with implementation dates in 1996 or

later’’) in a letter from Lynn Terry, Assistant

Executive Officer, CARB, to Julia Barrow, Chief,

Planning Office, Air & Radiation Division, USEPA,

dated September 19, 1996. This correspondence is

part of EPA’s rulemaking docket.

16 In a letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, Deputy

Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Dave Howekamp,

Division Director, Air & Toxics Division, Region IX,

dated September 18, 1996, the SCAQMD has

provided a list of local measures and associated

emission reductions assumed in the baseline of the

South Coast SIP. This correspondence is part of

EPA’s rulemaking docket.

the 2003 and later model years. In order

to offset the loss of emission reductions,

CARB negotiated an enforceable

contractual agreement with the vehicle

manufacturers, committing them to

produce cleaner 49-state cars in the

2001 through 2003 model years. CARB

prepared a staff report demonstrating

that the emission reductions achieved

within the South Coast by the cleaner

49-state vehicles exceed the emission

losses from delay of the ZEV program

(See CARB Staff Report: Initial

Statement of Rulemaking—PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS TO THE ZERO–

EMISSION VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS

FOR PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT–

DUTY TRUCKS, February 9, 1996).

EPA shares the commenters’ concerns

that the SIP must be implemented fully

and that substitute measures should

immediately correct any SIP shortfalls.

However, the State has argued that

successful implementation of the ZEV

program requires the March 1996 rule

amendments, in order to ensure that

concerns relating to battery technology

and ZEV sales potential can be resolved

and the ultimate sales mandate be fully

accomplished. The State has also

provided evidence that the loss in

emissions from the elimination of the

ZEV mandate for the first 5 years will

be offset by provisions of CARB’s

enforceable contract with the

automakers. EPA will carefully monitor

implementation of the contractual

agreement and the ZEV program and

will require the State to revise the SIP

to provide new emission reductions if

needed to meet the progress and

attainment requirements of the Act.

(3) Control Measures. NRDC and CCA

commented that EPA cannot approve

the South Coast SIP because it fails to

include as measures all already adopted

regulations and measures characterized

as assumptions. The environmental

groups argued that the CAA and EPA’s

regulations require quantification of

reductions from each adopted

regulation, and that these regulations

themselves should be an enforceable

part of the SIP.

With respect to the quantification of

reductions from the various regulations

that comprise the existing California

motor vehicle program, the State has

submitted reductions from the program

as a whole, without a disaggregation by

program element. In recent

correspondence, the State has provided

further detail, including an estimate of

Statewide emission reductions from

each severable component.15

The rate-of-progress and ozone

attainment demonstrations for each area

rely, in part, on emission reductions

from regulations adopted by local air

pollution control districts, since the

impact of these regulations is factored

into the projections of future year

baseline emissions.16 EPA has already

approved the great majority of these

local regulations and expects in the near

future to complete final action on the

remaining regulations. With respect to

those few regulations which are relied

upon in the SIP for rate-of-progress or

attainment and which have not yet been

approved as part of the SIP, EPA

construes that reliance and the fact that

the local agencies have adopted and the

State has submitted the rules as SIP

revisions to constitute an enforceable

commitment by these agencies to

implement the rules to achieve the

reductions assumed in the rate-ofprogress plans and the attainment

demonstrations.

If the State withdraws (before EPA’s

final action) any of these regulations

that have been submitted but not yet

approved as part of the SIP, or if EPA’s

final action is a disapproval, or if EPA

determines that the rule will achieve

fewer emissions reductions than relied

upon in the SIP, EPA will call upon the

State to fulfill its commitment by

submitting replacement measures on an

expeditious schedule and the State will

be obligated to provide such

replacements.

EPA requires identification of

emission reductions associated with

each of the new measures that are

incorporated in the plan’s rate-ofprogress and attainment demonstrations

and that reduce emissions below the

baseline inventory levels. The South

Coast SIP fulfills this requirement, and

EPA has included, in the tables of new

measures, the specific credit assigned.

The Engine Manufacturers

Association (EMA) stated that, based on

the information provided in the NPRM,

EPA and California have not established

a reasonable, cost-effective basis for

certain of the proposed regulatory

measures. EMA provided no specific

information to support the comment.

EPA believes that the SIP control

measures are, in fact, reasonable.

Moreover, EPA does not find statutory

authority for the Agency to require

states to submit analyses demonstrating

that proposed measures are reasonable,

cost-effective and appropriate. Finally,

due to the nature of the Federal/state

relationship under the Act, EPA

analysis of the cost-effectiveness of SIP

measures would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

d. Consistency of Local Nonroad

Measures with Clean Air Act

Preemption. The Engine Manufacturers

Association commented that EPA

should not finalize approval of local

measures without a determination that

they have met CAA requirements

respecting preemptions on a state’s

authority to regulate certain nonroad

engines and applications. The

commenter did not identify any State or

local measure that was inconsistent

with the Clean Air Act. EPA has not

identified any measure, approved at this

time, that violates the Act’s

preemptions. When regulations are

adopted and submitted for SIP approval,

EPA reviews the regulations to ensure

that they fall within the authority of the

State or local agency and that the

regulations are otherwise consistent

with statutory and regulatory

requirements.

4. Future SIP Updates and

Improvements

Western Riverside Council of

Governments commented that the SIP

should provide the flexibility to replace

measures with local programs that are

more sensitive to local political,

economic and social conditions. EPA

supports and encourages SIP flexibility

that respects the superior ability of local

agencies to reconcile environmental

progress with other community goals.

The California Environmental

Protection Agency (CEPA) commented

that, as EPA recognized in the proposed

approval, some of California’s specific

strategies may require adjustment as

actual rules are developed. CEPA stated

that ‘‘we will retain the flexibility to

revise the SIP as long as the emission

reductions continue to provide for

attainment.’’

As stated in the NPRM, EPA supports

the State’s flexibility to revise the SIP,

but cautions that EPA must review SIP

revisions for approvability under

Sections 110(l) and 193. Section 110(l)

prevents EPA from approving a revision

if it would interfere with any applicable
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1159

17Antelope Valley and Coachella-San Jacinto

Planning Area are portions of the Southeast Desert

Modified Air Quality Management Area which are

currently under the jurisdiction of the South Coast

Air Quality Management District. California has

recently revised its air basin classifications, so that

Antelope Valley is part of Mojave Desert Air Basin

and the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area is part

of Salton Sea Air Basin.

requirement concerning attainment and

reasonable further progress, or any other

applicable requirement of the Act.

Section 193 prevents modification of

control requirements ‘‘in effect, or

required to be adopted by an order,

settlement agreement, or plan in effect

before November 15, 1990 in any area

which is a nonattainment area for any

air pollutant * * * unless the

modification insures equivalent or

greater emission reductions of such air

pollutant.’’

5. Overall Approvability of Plans

Almost all of the commenters

supported EPA’s proposed approvals of

the plans for each area. However,

comments opposing full approval of the

plans at this time were received from

the Engine Manufacturers Association,

the Environmental Defense Center, the

Natural Resources Defense Council, and

the Coalition for Clean Air. These

comments are addressed elsewhere in

section I.B., or in discussions relating to

individual areas.

6. Importance of SIP Implementation

Several commenters reflected on the

critical importance of follow through at

the local, State, and Federal levels if the

SIPs are to achieve the air quality

standards. EPA agrees that all parties,

including local government and the

general public, must work together to

ensure that each responsible agency

honors its commitments. Because these

challenging SIPs are so important from

the perspective of public health, the

success of the SIPs requires widespread

public participation and public support.

EPA encourages California agencies to

report frequently to the public on

progress in implementing the plans and

to involve the public in resolving

implementation issues. Through the

Public Consultative Process and other

forums, EPA intends to inform and

engage the public as the Agency

proceeds to develop future mobile

source controls.

C. SIP Submittals

1. SIP Submittals Before EPA’s Proposal

On November 15, 1994, CARB

submitted a revision to the ‘‘State of

California Implementation Plan for

Achieving and Maintaining the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (ozone

SIP)

The revision consists of: (a) The

State’s comprehensive ozone plan,

including the State’s own measures and

the State’s summaries of, and revisions

to, the local plans; (b) the State’s

previously adopted regulations for

consumer products and reformulated

gasoline and diesel fuels; and (c) local

plans addressing the ozone attainment

demonstration and ROP requirements.

On August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379),

EPA approved the State’s consumer

products and reformulated gasoline and

diesel fuels regulations. At the same

time, EPA took interim approval action

on CARB and SCAQMD NewTechnology Measures, under the

provisions of section 182(e)(5) of the

CAA, which authorizes the

Administrator to approve fully and

credit as part of an extreme ozone area

SIP conceptual measures dependent

upon new control technologies or new

control techniques. The new-technology

measures approved at that time were:

CARB’s measures M2 (Improved Control

Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles),

M9 (Off-Road Diesel Equipment), CP–4

(Consumer Products Advanced

Technology and Market Incentives), and

Additional Measures; and SCAQMD

measures ADV–CTS–01 (Coating

Technologies), ADV–FUG (Fugitives),

ADV–PRC (Process Related Emissions),

ADV–UNSP (Unspecified, Stationary

Sources), ADV–CTS–02 (Coatings

Technologies).

On December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126),

EPA issued the final SIP approval of the

State’s mid-term control measures M3

(Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission

Vehicle requirement for Medium-Duty

Vehicles), M5 (Heavy-Duty Vehicle NOX

regulations), M8 (Heavy-Duty Gasoline

Vehicles lower emissions standards),

M11 (Industrial Equipment, Gas and

LPG), and CP2 (Mid-Term Consumer

Products).

The remaining portions of the ozone

SIP submittal, upon which EPA is acting

today, include the following separate

documents:

1. ‘‘The 1994 California State

Implementation Plan for Ozone,’’

volumes I–IV. The November 15, 1994,

submittal letter refers to other

submittals, described below, as

completing the 1994 California Ozone

SIP. Volume I provides an overview of

the entire submittal; Volumes II and III

include the State’s measures for mobile

sources, consumer products, and

pesticides; and Volume IV treats the

local plans.

On December 29, 1994 and February

7, 1995, the State submitted updates to

these documents, incorporating changes

made by CARB at the time of adoption,

and providing other technical and

editorial corrections.

2. ‘‘1994 Ozone Attainment and Rateof-Progress Plans for San Diego

County.’’

3. ‘‘San Joaquin Valley Attainment

and Rate-of-Progress Plans.’’ On

December 28, 1994, the State submitted

the ‘‘Rate-of-Progress and Attainment

Demonstration Plans for the Kern

County Air Pollution Control District,’’

applicable to the Kern desert portion of

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment

area.

4. ‘‘Sacramento Area Proposed

Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans.’’

On December 29, 1994, the State

replaced this with the ‘‘Sacramento

Area Attainment and Rate-of-Progress

Plans.’’

5. ‘‘1994 Air Quality Management

Plan for Ventura County.’’

6. ‘‘Rate-of Progress and Attainment

Demonstration Plans for the Mojave

Desert.’’

7. ‘‘1994 Air Quality Management

Plan for South Coast Air Basin,

Antelope Valley and Coachella/San

Jacinto Planning Area.’’ On December

29, 1994, the State submitted the ‘‘Rate

of-Progress Plan Revision: South Coast

Air Basin & Antelope Valley &

Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area.’’ 17

8. On March 30, 1995, CARB

submitted revised 1990 base year

emission inventories for each of the

California ozone nonattainment areas.

9. On June 30, 1995, CARB submitted

desriptive materials relating to the

State’s motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance program, adopted by the

California Bureau of Automotive Repair.

On January 22, 1996, CARB submitted

the motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance regulations adopted by the

California Bureau of Automotive Repair.

2. SIP Submittals After EPA’s Proposal

On April 4, 1996, CARB submitted a

revision for the San Joaquin Valley,

withdrawing an obsolete transportation

control measure (Exclusive High

Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Freeway

41, included in the 1982 Air Quality

Management Plan for Fresno).

On May 17, 1996, CARB submitted

Executive Order G–96–031, the State’s

commitment to participate in the public

consultative process, submit a revised

attainment demonstration for the South

Coast as appropriate after the

consultative process, and submit control

measures needed to achieve emission

reductions determined to be

appropriate.

On June 13, 1996, CARB submitted

supplemental information regarding the

1994 California SIP, including
1160 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

18EPA 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).

19The State’s 15% ROP plans for each area do not

rely on reductions from any of the measures (all

reductions come from fully adopted regulations),

and the changes do not reduce the amount of

emission reductions from the measures in post-1996

ROP milestone years or the attainment years.

additional information on emission

reductions from the State’s measures

(Letter from James D. Boyd to David

Howekamp, with Attachments A, B, and

C).

On July 10, 1996, CARB submitted

updates to the South Coast rule

adoption schedule (‘‘Control Measure

Adoption Schedule’’).

On July 12, 1996, CARB submitted

updates to the Ventura AQMP (‘‘Ventura

County 1995 Air Quality Management

Plan Revision’’ and ‘‘Appendix E–95’’)

and an updated post-96 ROP for San

Joaquin Valley (‘‘Revised Post-1996

Rate-of-Progress Plan’’).

3. EPA Completeness Findings

On January 30, 1995, EPA issued a

finding of completeness under Section

110(k)(1) of the Act for the following

portions of the California ozone SIP

submittal: Diesel Fuel Regulations;

Reformulated Gasoline Regulations;

CARB Measures M2, M3, M5, M8, M9,

M11, CP–2, CP–3, CP–4, Additional

Measures; and SCAQMD Long Term

Measures ADV–CTS–01/02, ADV–FUG,

ADV–PRC, ADV–UNSP. These elements

of the revision were found complete

based on EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51

Appendix V.18

On April 18, 1995 the EPA issued a

finding of completeness for the

remaining portions of the November and

December 1994 submittals with regard

to: (1) attainment and post-1996 RFP

requirements at section 182(c)(2) of the

Act; (2) 15% ROP requirement of

section 182(b)(1)(A); and (3) 1990 base

year inventory requirements of section

182(a)(1). The CARB emission inventory

submittal of March 30, 1995, was

included in the completeness

determination of April 18, 1995.

On June 30, 1995, and February 5,

1996, EPA issued a finding of

completeness for the State’s I/M

program submittals.

On August 14, 1996, EPA issued a

finding of completeness for updates to

the San Joaquin Valley plan (submitted

on April 4, 1996, and July 12, 1996); the

South Coast plan (submitted on July 10,

1996); the Ventura plan (submitted on

July 12, 1996); the State’s commitment

to participate in the public consultative

process and revise the South Coast plan

as appropriate (submitted on May 17,

1996); and technical information on

State and local measures (submitted on

June 13, 1996).

4. Rationale for EPA Approval of Minor

SIP Changes without Further

Opportunity for Public Comment

The NPRM indicated that EPA

intended to approve in the final action

SIP updates if received before the Notice

of Final Rulemaking (NFRM) was

signed. The State, local agencies, and

other commenters requested EPA to

absorb these updates and corrections

into the final plan action.

In the NFRM, EPA has also made

numerous changes to the tables of

control measures, in response to State

and local agency requests for correction

and clarification. These changes make

minor adjustments to the measures, the

arrangement of the measures in the

table, the schedule of measure adoption

and implementation, or the emission

reductions associated with the

measures. Since the changes are

administrative or clerical in nature, or

otherwise are not significant, and

neither individually nor cumulatively

affect ROP or attainment, EPA has

incorporated the changes in this action

without further opportunity for public

comment.19 Notice and comment are not

required under the Administrative

Procedures Act, ‘‘when the agency for

good cause finds (and incorporates the

finding and a brief statement of reasons

therefor in the rules issued) that notice

and public procedure thereon are

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary

to the public interest.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

The State and involved local agencies

in the San Joaquin Valley, South Coast,

and Ventura all requested that the final

notice clarify the original intent of the

1994 SIP submittal that, coincident with

approving the new Transportation

Control Measures (TCMs) in the current

SIP, EPA would delete from the

applicable SIP the prior TCMs, which

are out-dated and not relied upon in the

new ROP and attainment

demonstrations. Because these

rescissions were mistakenly omitted

either from the original submittals or

EPA’s proposed action on the

submittals, and because the rescissions

are inconsequential and fully consistent

with the 1994 SIP submittal respecting

progress and attainment, EPA is

finalizing the TCM replacement without

further opportunity for public comment.

II. Review of the State Submittal,

Response to Comments on Specific SIP

Issues, and EPA Final Action

A. State Measures

1. General Comments

The California Environmental

Protection Agency (CEPA) commented

that EPA’s proposal to approve the

State’s measures on a statewide basis (if,

under State law, they apply throughout

California) did not reflect the intent of

the State, which was to limit the

Federally enforceable State measures

only to the serious, severe, and extreme

nonattainment areas. EPA is so limiting

the final approval action. Accordingly,

under Federal law the statewide

measures will not count toward

attainment and maintenance of the

NAAQS except in the ozone

nonattainment areas classified as

serious and above. As a result, the State

must submit a SIP revision if it wishes

in the future to extend the geographic

applicability of the measures. Because

EPA is accepting the State’s request that

Federal approval of the measures in the

SIP apply narrowly to the ozone ROP

and attainment needs in serious and

above areas, the State must submit a SIP

revision if, at any time in the future, the

emission reductions associated with the

measures in other areas are needed as

components of attainment or

maintenance SIPs for other areas.

CEPA also requested that EPA not

approve the reductions shown for State

measures M1, M2, M7, and M9 in the

South Coast in the year 2007, because

2007 is not a milestone year for the

South Coast. EPA is complying with the

State’s request in this final action. The

year 2007 reductions in the South Coast

may need to be resubmitted by the State

if federally enforceable 2007 reductions

from these measures in the upwind

South Coast nonattainment area are

needed for the 2007 attainment

demonstration in the Southeast Desert.

Finally, CEPA asked that EPA not

assign emission reduction credits from

measures M3, M5, M8, and CP–2/CP–3

to San Diego, since the area did not use

them for rate-of-progress or attainment.

EPA is deleting this credit. If reductions

from these measures are needed in San

Diego in the future, the CARB must

resubmit for SIP approval the State

measures with associated San Diego

emission reductions.

2. Mobile Source Measures

a. Review of Measures. The following

is a brief description of the State’s

mobile source measures, or M Measures,

identification of minor corrections and

clarifications to the measures or their
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1161

20Letter from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow, dated

September 20, 1996.

21The State has clarified its intentions in this

regard (letter from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow,

dated September 19, 1996): ‘‘The SIP binds the

State to develop enforceable measures that deliver

the emission reductions needed for rate-of-progress

and attainment, as identified in the plan and

subsequent technical transmittals. Volume I of the

SIP says ‘* * * Once the SIP is approved by U.S.

EPA, these enforceable commitments become

mandatory and must be carried out * * *. [they]

compel the State or local air districts to obtain the

reductions or to substitute alternative measures by

formal revision of the SIP.’ Thus, if we discover that

a rule to implement a plan measure will not

generate the targeted emission reductions, we are

obliged to find replacement reductions or to

demonstrate that rate-of-progress and attainment

Continued

associated emission reductions,

summary of public comment on the

measures and EPA’s response, and

EPA’s final approval actions on the

measures.

(i) M1—Accelerated Retirement of

Light-Duty Vehicles. The SIP commits

to secure a financing mechanism by the

end of 1995, adopt the measure in 1996,

undertake a demonstration program

from 1996 through 1998, and implement

the program fully from 1999 to 2010,

through the annual retirement

(scrappage or removal) of up to 75,000

older, high-emitting vehicles in the

South Coast Air Basin. CARB has

clarified in recent correspondence that

the State’s commitments for M–1 and

for M–7, the other vehicle retirement

program in the 1994 Ozone SIP, are for

the specified emission reductions,

rather than a particular number of

vehicles to be retired.20 While M1 is a

commitment to implement an

accelerated vehicle retirement program

only in the South Coast, the SIP states

that ‘‘implementation of light-duty

vehicle retirement programs in other

non-attainment areas will be considered

as a means of further reducing

emissions’’ (Vol. II, p. B–2).

The Environmental Defense Center

commented that M1 is illusory until an

adequate and enforceable funding

source is identified. EPA considers the

State’s progress in implementing the

measure to be acceptable at this time.

During 1995, the California Legislature

enacted SB501, which established a

statewide scrappage program to work in

concert with the scrap component of the

I/M program. Current funding comes

from legislation authorizing fees in lieu

of smog check at first registration

renewal. EPA believes that timely

program implementation requires the

State to develop an adequate long-term

funding approach by the end of 1997.

EPA will continue to monitor M1. If

the program does not mature on a

schedule likely to deliver the reductions

needed for progress and attainment,

EPA will work with the State to correct

implementation or substitute other

measures that provide the needed

emission reductions.

Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of

the Act, EPA is taking final action to

approve M1, its implementation

schedule, and the emission reductions

to be achieved in the South Coast, as

displayed in the table below, labeled

‘‘Reductions from California Mobile

Source Measure M1.’’

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M1 SOUTH

COAST AIR BASIN

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

ROG ....... 5 8 11 13 14

NOX ....... 4 6 9 10 11

(ii) M2—Improved Control

Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles.

CARB commits to adopt this measure in

2000 and begin implementation in

2004–2005. This measure will achieve

emission reductions from LDVs through

the use of one or more market-based

and/or technology-forcing approaches.

Emission reductions associated with

this measure are relied upon in the

South Coast only.

The Western States Petroleum

Association commented that the

description of the measure in the NPRM

appeared to limit the flexibility of the

State. EPA’s description, which was

excerpted from the SIP, was not

intended to prescribe the ways in which

the measure could be implemented.

The Environmental Defense Center

(EDC) noted that M2 relies on the ZEV

program, which was recently revised to

rescind the interim milestones. EDC also

commented that M2 is highly

speculative and unenforceable and

inappropriate for SIP credit.

On August 21, 1995, EPA approved

M2 and assigned it SIP credit in the

South Coast under the provisions of

section 182(e)(5) of the Act.

EPA will continue to work with CARB

to ensure that the measure is developed

on schedule. CARB has recently

provided additional information

regarding the development of this

measure in a letter from Lynn Terry to

Julia Barrow, dated September 19, 1996:

‘‘We expect to begin developing this

advanced technology measure following

the 1998 biennial report to the ARB on

the Low-Emission Vehicle Program. To

meet our commitment for adoption in

2000, we would need to hold public

workshops on the technical basis and

regulatory concepts by 1999. However,

as part of the on-going Low-Emission

Vehicle Program review, staff continue

to evaluate advanced control

technologies that may contribute to

post-2003 emission reduction strategies

for this measure.’’ The State has

indicated that compliance options

include advanced gasoline vehicles,

alternative fueled vehicles, and fuel cell

technologies.

Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of

the Act, EPA is taking final action to

approve the emission reductions to be

achieved in the South Coast by

milestone year in the table below,

labeled ‘‘Reductions from California

Mobile Source Measure M2.’’

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M2 SOUTH

COAST AIR BASIN

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

ROG ....... 0 0 3 6 10

NOX ....... 0 0 5 9 15

(iii) M3—Accelerated Ultra-Low

Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Requirement

for Medium-Duty Vehicles (MDVs).

CARB commits in the SIP to adopt

regulations for this measure in 1997,

with implementation occurring from

1998 to 2002. This measure commits to

an increase in the fraction of MDV

ULEVs from 10 percent of sales of new

MDVs in the 1998 model year to 100

percent in the 2002 and later model

years. This measure offers some

flexibility by allowing other mixes of

vehicles and technologies that generate

equivalent emission reductions.

In their joint comments, the Natural

Resources Defense Council and the

Coalition for Clean Air noted that, at a

public hearing in September 1995,

CARB announced that it had made a

calculation error which resulted in an

overallocation of emission reductions to

this measure. As a result, the regulations

adopted at that time will achieve 2 tpd

VOC and 23.9 tpd NOX reduction,

compared to M3’s claimed credits of

approximately 4 tpd VOC and 32 tpd

NOX in the South Coast in 2010. The

environmental groups stated that EPA

must require CARB to submit an

additional measure to make up this

shortfall before EPA can approve the

SIP. Despite CARB’s error, EPA expects

and requires CARB to adhere to the

State’s enforceable commitment to

adopt by 1997 regulations that achieve

the full credit assigned to M3 for the

milestone dates specified for each of the

5 areas where reductions are claimed.21
1162 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

requirements will still be met. Further, we

recognize that any shortfall in emission reductions

would have to be made up on an expedited basis

because of the need for those reductions in the

South Coast and other areas for rate-of-progress and

attainment. ARB will be looking at any feasible

alternatives proposed during the process of

developing each measure into a regulation. This

process includes several rounds of public review

and a thorough consideration of the economic

impacts on the affected industries.’’

EPA approved M3 on December 14,

1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA

here takes final action to approve the

emission reductions associated with the

measure, as displayed by nonattainment

area and milestone/attainment year in

the table below, labeled ‘‘Reductions

from California Mobile Source Measure

M3.’’

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M3

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX

So. Coast ............................................................................... 0 .89 .78 9.51 1.85 21.1 2.31 26.7 3.37 33.16

SE Desert ............................................................................... 0 .1 .1 1.4 .2 3.5 .......... .......... .......... ..........

Ventura ................................................................................... 0 0 0 .5 .1 1.0 .......... .......... .......... ..........

Sacramento ............................................................................ .2 .2 0 1.7 .4 3.9 .......... .......... .......... ..........

S. Joaquin .............................................................................. 0 .4 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

(iv) M4—Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV); Early Introduction of 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX engines. The SIP commits

to implementation of this measure beginning in 1996. CARB and the Districts share responsibility for this measure.

M4 is a commitment to increase the use of existing low-emission engines among on-road HDDVs through locally implemented demand-side programs and market incentives. This program is intended to result in a 5% sales penetration

of 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX engines through the period 1996–1999, and a 10% sales penetration of these engines between

2000 and 2002. Other combinations of penetrations and emission levels that provide equivalent emission reductions

could be implemented.

CEPA commented that the NPRM omits SIP credits for this measure outside of the South Coast. EPA agrees to

include the State’s M4 reductions for the remaining State areas. The credits for these areas are taken from tables

provided by CARB in Attachment C to a June 13, 1996 letter from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp.

EPA approved M4 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA

here takes final action to approve the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by nonattainment

area and milestone/attainment year in the table below, labeled ‘‘Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure

M4.’’

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M4

[Tons per day of NOX]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

So. Coast .................. 2.17 3.90 2.93 ............................. 2.34 1.36

SE Desert .................. 0.31 0.57 0.39 0.35 ............................. .............................

Ventura ...................... 0.1 0.18 0.14 ............................. ............................. .............................

Sacramento ............... 0.28 0.49 0.36

S. Joaquin ................. 0.74 ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. .............................

Kern ........................... 0.04 ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. .............................

(v) M5—Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDVs); Additional NOX Reductions. The SIP commits to adopt this measure

in 1997 and begin implementation in 2002. CARB commits to achieve emission reductions through adoption of a 2.0

g/bhp-hr NOX emissions standard for new HDDV engines sold in California beginning in 2002, or by implementation

of alternative measures which achieve equivalent or greater reductions.

This measure is designed to achieve emission reductions prior to the introduction of a national HDDV standard

in 2004. The 1994 California Ozone SIP (‘‘Federal Measure’’ M6) assigns to EPA responsibility for adopting such a

national standard. See discussion in the NPRM (61 FR 10928–9). Since EPA’s proposal, further progress toward fulfilling

the M5 and M6 commitments has been made by CARB and EPA. On June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33421–33469), EPA published

an NPRM proposing a national onroad heavy-duty engine standard giving manufacturers the flexibility to choose between

two options: (1) A combined non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus NOX standard of 2.4 g/bhp-hr and (2) a combined

NMHC plus NOX standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr together with a NMHC cap of .5 g/bhp-hr. EPA and CARB expect that

the combined standard will result in NOX reductions comparable to those achieved with a 2.0 g/bhp-hr standard.

EPA approved M5 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA

here takes final action to approve the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by nonattainment

area and milestone/attainment year in the table below, labeled ‘‘Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure

M5.’’ Future SIP updates may need to redistribute the emissions assigned to the State (M5) and Federal (M6) measures.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1163

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M5

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX

So. Coast .................. 0 0 0.2 1.7 1.8 22.0 ............ ............ 3.1 37.6 4.8 56.2

SE Desert .................. 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 3.9 0.4 5.1 ............ ............ ............ ............

Ventura ...................... 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 1.0 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

Sacramento ............... 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 2.7 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

S. Joaquin ................. 0 0 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

(vi) M7—Accelerated Retirement of Heavy-Duty Vehicles. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 1996 and begin

implementation in the same year. This measure involves the annual retirement (scrapping or removal) of about 1600

of the oldest, high emitting trucks in the South Coast Air Basin, beginning in 1999. A smaller number of trucks

would be scrapped in 1996 to 1998 in order to gain experience with the program and determine the impacts on

the used truck market. The SIP commits to secure a financing mechanism for this measure by the end of 1995. While

the SIP commits only to implement this measure in the South Coast, the State indicates that consideration is being

given to establishing a truck retirement program in Sacramento and other nonattainment areas.

The Environmental Defense Center notes that M7 relies on an enforceable funding mechanism to be secured by

the end of 1995. EDC comments that it is capricious to fail to identify the secure, enforceable funding source for

this speculative scrappage program. State funding legislation has been prepared to establish the Accelerated Vehicle

Replacement Program, and the State is continuing to pursue viable funding options. EPA will monitor program implementation and ensure that the State and involved parties meet the SIP’s schedule for program adoption and implementation

in 1996.

CARB requested that the ROG emission reductions shown for the South Coast in the year 2002 be reduced from

1 to zero (0.21). EPA is doing so at this time.

Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final action to approve M7, its implementation schedule,

and the emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast, as displayed in the table below, labeled ‘‘Reductions

from California Mobile Source Measure M7.’’

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M7—SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG .......................... 0 0 1 1 1 1

NOX ........................... 3 6 7 8 9 10

(vii) M8—Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (HDGVs), Lower Emission Standards. The SIP commits to adoption of this

measure by 1997 and implementation beginning in 1998. This measure generates emission reductions through the adoption

of a LEV/ULEV program for HDGV engines to obtain 50% reductions of NOX and ROG emissions through the application

of 3-way catalyst technology.

EPA approved M8 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA

here takes final action to approve the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by nonattainment

area and milestone/attainment year in the table below, labeled ‘‘Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure

M8.’’

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M8

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX

So. Coast .................. 0 0 0 0.8 0.1 1.8 ............ ............ 0.2 2.3 0.3 3.0

SE Desert .................. 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.4 ............ ............ ............ ............

Ventura ...................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

Sacramento ............... 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.4 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

S. Joaquin ................. 0 0 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

(viii) M9—Off-road Diesel Equipment; 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOX Standard, California. CARB commits to adopt this measure

in 2001 and begin implementation in 2005. The measure requires CARB to adopt a 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOX standard effective

in the 2005 model year for new off-road industrial equipment diesel engines that are not preempted from California

authority. California is preempted from adopting or enforcing any standard or other requirement relating to the control

of emissions from new construction and farm equipment or vehicles which are smaller than 175 hp (see section 209(e)

of the Act).

CARB requested that the ROG emission reductions shown for the South Coast in the year 2005 be increased from

zero to 0.5. EPA is doing so at this time.

On August 21, 1995, EPA approved M9 and assigned it SIP credit in the South Coast under the provisions of

section 182(e)(5) of the Act. Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final action to approve
1164 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast by milestone year in the table below, labeled ‘‘Reductions

from California Mobile Source Measure M9.’’

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M9—SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN

[tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG ................................... 0 0 0.5 4 1 3

NOX .................................... 0 0 4 35 14 34

(ix) M11—Industrial Equipment; Gas and LPG-California; 3-way catalyst technology. CARB commits to adopt this

measure in 1997 and implement it beginning in 2000. The measure requires CARB to adopt emission standards for

new gas and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) engines 25 to 175 horsepower that are not primarily used in construction

or farm equipment. As noted above, California is preempted from regulating new farm and construction equipment

smaller than 175 hp. The standards will be phased-in beginning in 2000, and are intended to reduce ROG emissions

by 75% and NOx by at least 50%.

CEPA commented that the NPRM omits SIP credits for this measure in Ventura, Sacramento, and the Southeast

Desert. EPA agrees to include the State’s M11 reductions for these areas. The credits for these areas are taken from

tables provided by CARB in Attachment C to a June 13, 1996 letter from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp. Since

the reductions in these areas are all considerably less than one ton per day and EPA’s proposal showed credits only

for whole number reductions in the South Coast, EPA is also amending the reductions for the South Coast by showing

estimated reductions to the nearest tenth of a ton.

EPA approved M11 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA

here takes final action to approve the emission reductions associated with the measure by milestone/attainment year

for each area in the table below, labeled ‘‘Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M11.’’

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M11

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX

So. Coast .................. 0 0 4.2 2.0 8.8 4.4 ............ ............ 15.1 7.7 23.0 11.6

SE Desert .................. 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

Ventura ...................... 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

Sacramento ............... 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

(x) Additional New Control

Technologies. In addition to the new

control technologies described above in

measures M2 and M9, CARB has

committed to the implementation of

additional innovative measures to

achieve the emission reductions needed

in the South Coast to reach attainment

by 2010. CARB anticipates that these

additional measures will include a

combination of market-based and

technology-based measures. CARB has

committed to adoption of these

measures no later than 2006 to ensure

the needed emissions reductions (55 tpd

of ROG and 20 tpd of NOX) are achieved

by 2009.

The Environmental Defense Center

commented that these new-technology

measures jeopardize the efficacy of the

entire SIP. EDC stated that many of the

State’s example controls are unrealistic

(speed controls) or illegal (episodic

controls).

On August 21, 1995, EPA approved

CARB’s additional new control

technologies measure under the

provisions of section 182(e)(5), with

2010 emission reduction credits of 79

tpd ROG and 60 tpd NOX in the South

Coast. CARB has subsequently clarified

that the emissions reductions associated

with this measure are 55 tpd ROG and

20 tpd NOX.

CARB has also furnished additional

information regarding the State’s

approach to developing the control

measure. A September 19, 1996 letter

from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow

provides the following description of

the State’s proposed schedule: ‘‘We

anticipate kicking off development of

this measure in 1997 with an

international symposium on clean

transportation to solicit ideas for new

technologies and approaches. We intend

to follow up with technical work

(including any appropriate research

contracts), meetings, and workshops on

the most promising ideas through 2000.

At that point, we expect to develop

regulatory concepts for discussion in

2001–2003, followed by release of

specific proposals in 2004–2005, and

adoption of appropriate regulations by

2006.’’ EPA remains eager to work with

the State to ensure that progress is made

to develop approvable mobile source

controls as necessary in the South Coast

to meet the SIP’s progress and

attainment goals.

c. EPA Action. As described above,

EPA has already approved most of the

State’s M Measure commitments. On

August 21, 1995, EPA approved the

CARB new-technology measures M2,

M9, and Additional New Technology

Mobile Source Measures (described

above), and assigned credit in the South

Coast ozone attainment demonstration

to the measures. At the same time, EPA

proposed approval of the State’s control

measure commitments for M3, M5, M8,

and M11. EPA issued final approval of

the measures on December 14, 1995 (60

FR 64126). Because EPA was at that

time not acting on the State’s ROP and

attainment demonstrations, EPA’s

approval of the State’s commitments did

not include assignment of specific

emission reduction credits associated

with the measures. EPA is here

approving the ROP and attainment

demonstrations of California ozone

nonattainment area plans which rely, in

part, on the M Measure commitments.

Therefore, under sections 110(k)(3) and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1165

301(a) of the Act, EPA now takes final

action to assign credit to the State’s

enforceable commitments to achieve the

specific emission reductions associated

with M3, M5, M8, and M11, and

displayed in the tables above for each

measure.

EPA is also approving, under sections

110(a)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and

assigning credit to measures M1, M4,

and M7 as part of the ROP and

attainment demonstrations for

appropriate nonattainment areas, as

shown in the tables above. EPA believes

that CARB is making significant

progress toward the development and

adoption of regulations to fulfill the M

measure commitments. EPA therefore

takes final action to approve and credit

CARB’s enforceable commitments to

these M measures under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, as part

of the demonstrations of ROP and

attainment in the California ozone

nonattainment areas.

2. I/M

a. Review of Program. CARB initially

submitted its motor vehicle inspection

and maintenance (I/M) program, known

as the Smog Check program, as a

revision to its SIP on June 30, 1995. The

submittal was made to fulfill EPA’s

requirements for basic and enhanced I/

M programs as set forth in 40 CFR Part

51, Subpart S. EPA found the submittal

complete on June 30, 1995. A revised

and final revision was submitted by the

State on January 22, 1996 and found

complete on February 5, 1996. Section

348 of the National Highway System

Designation Act (Public Law 104–59),

hereafter referred to as the Highway Act,

which was enacted on November 28,

1995, modified EPA’s I/M regulation. In

this notice EPA is finalizing approval of

California’s basic program as meeting

the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 51,

Subpart S as amended (see 60 FR 48029,

September 18, 1995) and approval of

California’s enhanced I/M program as

meeting the high enhanced performance

standard requirements of 40 CFR Part

51, Subpart S, as amended and section

348(c) of the Highway Act.

The table labeled ‘‘California I/M

Program Coverage by County’’ shows for

every county in the State whether the I/

M program is implemented as enhanced

or basic, or is required only upon

change of ownership. For many

counties, the type of I/M program in

effect varies depending upon air quality

designations and whether the area is

urbanized. The State has established

these I/M program boundaries within

counties based upon ZIP code. The

reader may contact the Bureau of

Automotive Repair (BAR) to obtain

specific program applicability

information by ZIP code.

CALIFORNIA I/M PROGRAM COVERAGE BY COUNTY

County Enhanced Basic Change of

ownership

Alameda ................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Alpine ........................................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... x

Amador ..................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... x

Butte ......................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Calaveras ................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... x

Colusa ...................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Contra Costa ............................................................................................................................................ .................... x ....................

Del Norte .................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... x

El Dorado ................................................................................................................................................. .................... x x

Fresno ...................................................................................................................................................... x x ....................

Glenn ........................................................................................................................................................ .................... x ....................

Humboldt .................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... x

Imperial ..................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... x

Inyo ........................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... x

Kern .......................................................................................................................................................... x x ....................

Kings ......................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Lake .......................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... x

Lassen ...................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... x

Los Angeles .............................................................................................................................................. x .................... ....................

Madera ..................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Marin ......................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Mariposa ................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... x

Mendocino ................................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... x

Merced ...................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Modoc ....................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... x

Mono ......................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... x

Monterey ................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Napa ......................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Nevada ..................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Orange ...................................................................................................................................................... x .................... ....................

Placer ....................................................................................................................................................... x x x

Plumas ...................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... x

Riverside ................................................................................................................................................... x x x

Sacramento .............................................................................................................................................. x x ....................

San Benito ................................................................................................................................................ .................... x ....................

San Bernardino ........................................................................................................................................ x x x

San Diego ................................................................................................................................................. x x x

San Francisco .......................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

San Joaquin ............................................................................................................................................. x x ....................

San Luis Obispo ....................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

San Mateo ................................................................................................................................................ .................... x ....................

Santa Barbara .......................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Santa Clara .............................................................................................................................................. .................... x ....................

Santa Cruz ............................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................
1166 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

CALIFORNIA I/M PROGRAM COVERAGE BY COUNTY—Continued

County Enhanced Basic Change of

ownership

Shasta ...................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Sierra ........................................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... x

Siskiyou .................................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... x

Solano ...................................................................................................................................................... x x ....................

Sonoma .................................................................................................................................................... .................... x x

Stanislaus ................................................................................................................................................. x x ....................

Sutter ........................................................................................................................................................ .................... x ....................

Tehama .................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Trinity ........................................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... x

Tulare ....................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

Tuolumne .................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... x

Ventura ..................................................................................................................................................... x x ....................

Yolo .......................................................................................................................................................... x x ....................

Yuba ......................................................................................................................................................... .................... x ....................

The SIP revision submitted to EPA by

CARB includes the Laws and

Regulations relating to California’s I/M

program which comprises pertinent

sections of the California Business and

Professions Code, the Health and Safety

Code, the Vehicle Code, and the

California Code of Regulations. Included

in the supplemental submittal are final

regulations for the mandatory exhaust

emissions inspection standards and test

procedures for the enhanced program

and for the licensing of I/M stations and

technicians which became legally

effective on December 1, 1995 and

December 5, 1995, respectively. Other

documents in the submittal are: The

Request for Conceptual Design for Testonly Networks and Referee Services; the

BAR–90 Test Analyzer System

Specifications (June 1995); the

California Smog Check Inspection

Manual; the Quality Assurance

Operations Manual, Chapter 27 of the

Department of Motor Vehicles Manual

of Registration Procedures; the Smog

Check Diagnostic and Repair Manual;

the Request for Proposal for On-Road

Emissions Measurement Systems

Services, and the Radian Report entitled

‘‘Evaluation of the California Pilot

Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)

Program.’’

EPA’s I/M regulation establishes

minimum performance standards for

basic and enhanced I/M programs as

well as requirements for the following:

Network type and program evaluation;

adequate tools and resources; test

frequency and convenience; vehicle

coverage; test procedures and standards;

test equipment; quality control; waivers

and compliance via diagnostic

inspection; motorist compliance

enforcement program oversight; quality

assurance; enforcement against

contractors, stations and inspectors;

data collection; data analysis and

reporting; inspector training and

licensing or certification; public

information and consumer protection;

improving repair effectiveness;

compliance with recall notices; on-road

testing; SIP revisions; and

implementation deadlines. The

performance standard for basic I/M

programs remains the same as it has

been since initial I/M policy was

established in 1978, pursuant to the

1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act.

The high performance standard for

enhanced I/M programs is based on

high-technology loaded mode exhaust

testing for HC, CO, and NOX and testing

of the integrity and performance of the

evaporative control system.

California’s basic program is a testand-repair program utilizing two-speed

idle testing. California’s enhanced

program is a hybrid program in which

15% of the dirtiest vehicles, based upon

high-emitter profile and remote sensing

results as well as other factors, are

targeted for test-only inspection. All

vehicles in the enhanced areas will be

subject to loaded mode testing. More

stringent requirements apply to

technicians licensed in the enhanced

areas. The two programs are essentially

the same in all other respects, excepting

that frequency of enforcement related

activities such as remote sensing will be

much greater in the enhanced areas. (A

more detailed discussion of how the

elements of California’s I/M programs

address the requirements of EPA’s I/M

regulations is contained in the TSD for

the NPRM.) The SIP submittal includes

modeling which demonstrates that the

program design for California’s basic

program will meet EPA’s performance

standard for basic programs. EPA is,

therefore, approving this revision to

California’s SIP for the basic I/M

program.

The Highway Act prohibits the

Administrator from disapproving or

applying an automatic discount of

emission reduction credits to a SIP

revision because the I/M program is

decentralized or a test-and-repair

program. The Highway Act directs the

Administrator to propose approval of

the program for the full credit proposed

by the state if the proposed credits

reflect good faith estimates by the state

and the revision is otherwise in

compliance with the Clean Air Act. The

approval remains effective for up to 18

months after the date of final

rulemaking. After the 18-month period,

permanent approval of the SIP revision

based on the credits proposed by the

state shall be granted if the data

collected on the operation of the

program demonstrates that the credits

are appropriate and the program is

otherwise in compliance with the Act.

EPA issued guidance regarding

approval of I/M plans under the

Highway Act on December 12, 1995.

The Highway Act is clear that approval

under its provisions shall last for only

18 months, and that the program

evaluation is due to EPA at the end of

that period. Therefore, EPA believes

Congress intended for these programs to

start-up as soon as possible, which EPA

believes should be at the latest, 12

months after the effective date of the

approval, so that at least 6 months of

operational program data can be

collected to evaluate the performance of

the program. ‘‘Start-up’’ is defined as a

fully operational program which has

begun regular, mandatory inspections

and repairs, using the final test strategy

and covering each of the state’s required

areas. If the state fails to start its

program on this schedule, the approval

granted under the provisions of the

Highway Act will convert to a

disapproval after a finding letter is sent

to the state.

As mentioned above, the Highway Act

specifies that EPA grant approval if

good faith estimates of credits are made.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1167

The Conference Report states that good

faith estimates may be based on

previous I/M program performance,

remote sensing programs, or other

evidence relevant to effectiveness of I/

M programs. EPA has further suggested

that good faith estimates could be based

on innovative program designs.

The program evaluation to be used by

the state during the 18-month period

must be acceptable to EPA. EPA

anticipates that such a program

evaluation process will be developed by

the Environmental Council of State

(ECOS) group that is convening now

and that was organized for this purpose.

California is an active participant in the

ECOS group. EPA further expects that in

addition to the interim, short term

evaluation to be conducted within 18

months, the state will conduct a long

term, ongoing evaluation of its I/M

program as required by the I/M Rule in

sections 51.353 and 51.366.

At the end of the 18-month approval

period, EPA will review the state’s final

I/M SIP revision, which will include the

state’s program evaluation, and take

action to make the approval of the I/M

program permanent, if the program

evaluation data collected by the state

demonstrates that the I/M program is

achieving the emission reduction credits

claimed in the SIP.

According to the schedule submitted

by California test-only inspection began

in Sacramento in August 1995. The

program is expected to be fully

operational in Fresno, Bakersfield and

San Diego by the fall of 1996, and in the

South Coast areas in early 1997.

Although this schedule appears to be

slipping, EPA anticipates that California

will start its program within 12 months

of this approval.

California has made a good faith

estimate that its hybrid enhanced I/M

program will meet EPA’s high

performance standard based on the

California Pilot Program and innovative

program features including an electronic

transmission project with a trigger

program used for enforcement, a high

visibility remote sensing program, and

stringent licensing and training

requirements.

The pilot program conducted as part

of the Memorandum of Agreement

between EPA and California provided

data on the effectiveness of targeting

high emitting vehicles through the use

of the high-emitter profile (HEP) and

remote sensing combined with the HEP,

and the use of Acceleration Simulation

Mode (ASM) testing. The vehicles

required to go to test-only facilities for

inspection will comprise likely highemitters as identified through use of the

HEP and remote sensing, previously

identified high emitters which must

undergo annual testing for 2 to 5 years,

high emitters identified by test-andrepair stations, high mileage fleet

vehicles, vehicles for hire, a 2% random

sample, and motorists voluntarily

choosing to go to test-only stations.

California’s program includes an

electronic transmission program. A

central Vehicle Information Database

has been created and an electronic

network enabling the test analyzer

system units to connect automatically to

the database has been established. The

central database will be able to restrict

the issuance of certificates under certain

circumstances, e.g., if a test-only

inspection is required, when the vehicle

is identified as a high emitter, or when

an enhanced test is required. The

database will also furnish a real-time

communications link to vehicle

emissions data which will provide

information to BAR enforcement teams

to help immediately identify illicit

activity. The database will also be used

to develop a trigger program to identify

shops that are performing improper

inspections and to track the location

and performance of licensed smog check

technicians.

The State is also phasing in a highvisibility remote sensing program.

California plans to identify as least

200,000 high emitting vehicles annually

in the enhanced program areas. Data

collected from the program will be used

as a target parameter for the

enforcement program. The program will

also serve as a visible reminder to both

motorists and test-and-repair stations

that improper inspections and/or

program avoidance may be detected.

Stringent licensing and training

requirements are being required for testand-repair stations and repair

technicians, respectively.

California has committed to

performing quarterly evaluations of its

program to determine if EPA’s

performance standard is being met and

the credits taken for the program are

being achieved. California plans to

adjust the number of vehicles sent to

test-only stations based on these

evaluations.

b. Response to Comments. The

Environmental Defense Center

commented that the State’s I/M program

must be bolstered to return the

emissions reduction necessary to meet

attainment. California has committed to

performing quarterly program

evaluations to determine whether SIP

emission reduction requirements and

EPA’s performance standard are being

met. EPA’s approval under section

348(c) of the Highway Act requires the

State to collect data on the operation of

the program to demonstrate with an 18

month period that the I/M credits are

valid and the program is otherwise in

compliance with the CAA. EPA will

work with the State to help ensure that

data are timely collected and that the

program delivers SIP-required

reductions or is promptly modified to

do so.

c. Emissions Reductions. The

emission reductions to be achieved by

the measure are displayed by

nonattainment area and milestone/

attainment year in the table below,

labeled ‘‘Reductions from California

Enhanced I/M Program.’’ The table

reflects the revisions to the estimated

reductions shown in the NPRM. These

changes were requested by CARB in

Attachment A to a letter dated June 13,

1996 (James D. Boyd to David

Howekamp). South Coast 2002 NOX is

changed from 35.5 to 35.6; Southeast

Desert 2005 ROG is changed from 2.9 to

2.6; Southeast Desert 2007 NOX is

changed from 2.8 to 2.7; Sacramento

2005 ROG is changed from 5.1 to 5.2;

and San Joaquin Valley 1999 NOX is

changed from 4.9 to 5.0. The emission

reductions claimed for the San Joaquin

Valley are based on implementation of

the enhanced I/M program in

Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, and

Modesto.

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA ENHANCED I/M PROGRAM

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX

So. Coast 34.8 32.4 40.3 35.6 32.5 33.0 .............. .............. 30.2 34.8 26.2 31.1

SE Desert 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.7

Ventura ... 1.6 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.9
1168 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

22The January 22, 1996 SIP submittal includes

and supersedes materials contained in the State’s

earlier submittal of June 30, 1995.

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA ENHANCED I/M PROGRAM—Continued

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX

Sacramento 5.4 5.7 6.3 6.5 5.2 6.4

S. Joaquin 4.3 5.0

S. Diego .. 0 0

c. EPA Action. EPA is finalizing

approval of the California I/M

regulations submitted on January 22,

1996, under sections 110(k)(3) and

301(a) of the Act as strengthening the

SIP and contributing specific emission

reductions toward the progress,

attainment, and maintenance

requirements of the Act.

EPA is also finalizing, under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, approval

of the California I/M program and

regulations submitted on January 22,

1996, as meeting the requirements of

section 182(b)(4) of the Act for basic I/

M in applicable areas of the State

classified as moderate for ozone.22 By

mistake EPA’s proposed approval was

limited to ozone. In this final action

EPA is also approving the California I/

M program as meeting the requirements

of section 187(a)(4) of the Act for basic

I/M for the following areas of the State

classified as moderate for CO with

design values less than 12.7: Fresno,

Sacramento, Modesto, Chico, Stockton

and San Diego.

Under section 348(c) of the Highway

Act, EPA is finalizing, for a period of 18

months, approval of the California I/M

submittal of January 22, 1996, as

meeting the requirements of section

182(c)(3) of the CAA for enhanced I/M

in applicable areas of the State classified

as serious and above for ozone. In

addition, EPA is approving the I/M

submittals as meeting the requirements

of section 187(a)(6) of the Act for

enhanced I/M for the South Coast which

is classified as a serious nonattainment

area for carbon monoxide; by mistake,

this aspect of EPA’s approval of the I/

M program was also omitted from the

NPRM. Finally, EPA is finalizing, for a

period of 18 months, approval of the

emission reductions to be achieved by

the enhanced I/M program, as displayed

in the table above, labeled ‘‘Reductions

from California Enhanced I/M

Program.’’ Section 348(c)(3) of the

Highway Act provides that EPA will

take regulatory action to make the

approval permanent if, at the expiration

of the 18-month period or at an earlier

time, the data collected on the operation

of the State program demonstrates that

‘‘the credits are appropriate and the

revision is otherwise in compliance

with the Clean Air Act.’’

If EPA finds that California has failed

to start its program within 12 months

from the effective date of this notice, or

by February 9, 1998, and issues a letter

so informing California, then this

approval will convert to a disapproval

as of the date of such letter. If the

required State demonstration is not

completed within 18 months and

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision or

does not show that the credits are

appropriate and that the program is

otherwise in compliance with the CAA,

EPA will take regulatory action to

disapprove the program for purposes of

compliance with the enhanced I/M

requirements of sections 182(c)(3) and

187(a)(6). After 18 months have elapsed,

unless and until EPA approves a new

SIP submittal, the SIP will no longer

meet the specific requirements of the

Act relating to enhanced I/M, but the

State’s regulations will continue in the

SIP as contributing to progress,

attainment, and maintenance of the

NAAQS.

3. Consumer Products.

a. Introduction. As discussed in the

NPRM, CARB classifies the emissions

reductions resulting from regulations on

consumer products regulations into 3

main categories: near-term, mid-term,

and long-term with regard to date of

promulgation and implementation.

CARB’s near-term measures consist of

rules adopted prior to May 1995. The

existing consumer products regulations,

antiperspirant and deodorant

regulations, and the 1996 and 1999 VOC

content standards of the recently

adopted aerosol paints rule comprise

the near-term measures.

CARB’s mid-term measures consist of

anticipated regulations from categories

of consumer products for which

regulations had not yet been adopted at

the time of the submittal. These

regulations are expected to be adopted

by July 1, 1997 and implemented by the

year 2005, and will cover various

consumer product categories which are

currently not regulated by the State of

California. These mid-term measures are

needed for attainment demonstrations

in the Sacramento Metropolitan and

Ventura County air basins. In the SIP,

CARB asserts that these measures, like

the near-term measures, rely on

available or reasonably foreseeable

technology. CARB has also committed

to investigating the feasibility of

incorporating reactivity considerations

into the mid-term measures to reduce

ozone-forming potential while

providing additional flexibility at

reduced costs to industry and

consumers.

CARB has committed to obtaining

further reductions (as compared to the

near- and mid-term measures) from

consumer products after 2000. These

reductions may rely on available or inthe-pipeline technology, and may also

rely on various combinations of

traditional control strategies,

technology-forcing standards,

innovative market-based approaches,

and consumer education programs.

These long-term measures would be

enforced on a statewide basis, but only

the South Coast plan relies on the

emissions reductions to demonstrate

attainment.

CARB has further categorized their

emission reduction commitments into 4

classifications, or ‘‘measures’’: CP–1,

CP–2, CP–3, and CP–4. These measures

are either adopted rules or commitments

to adopt rules to reduce VOC emissions

from consumer products and aerosol

paints. A description of each of these

measures follows.

b. Review of Measures. (1) Measure

CP–1. Measure CP–1 includes two rules,

both adopted prior to November 1994,

that are designed to control VOC

emissions from commercial products.

One rule controls VOC emissions from

antiperspirants and deodorants; the

other rule controls emissions from

household products, such as air

fresheners, shaving cream, and

hairsprays. Both rules were submitted to

EPA on November 15, 1994. EPA
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1169

approved these rules into the SIP on

August 21, 1995 (see 60 FR 43379).

(2) Measure CP–3 (Aerosol Paints).

Measure CP–3 is a near term

commitment to adopt and implement

VOC content standards in aerosol

paints. Regulations meeting these

commitments were adopted in mid1995. These regulations limit the VOC

content of aerosol paints by establishing

sets of VOC content standards for

various coating types. These standards

establish the maximum percentage of

VOC by weight allowed in the various

types of aerosol coatings. The coating

standards are divided into two phases.

In the first phase, effective January 1,

1996, aerosol coatings’ VOC content

must comply with limits that range from

60 percent to 95 percent, depending on

the coating.

In the second phase, currently due to

take effect December 31, 1999, aerosol

coatings’ VOC content limits will range

from 30 percent to 80 percent,

depending on the type of coating. Before

the second phase of content limits can

be implemented, CARB must conduct a

public hearing to determine if the limits

are commercially and technologically

feasible. If the Board determines that

they are not feasible, the

implementation of some or all of the

limits may be postponed for up to 5

years. However, CARB must ensure that

the 1999 limits do not become federally

enforceable prior to the final effective

date, including any extension, according

to section 41712 (f)(3) of the California

Health and Safety Code.

EPA approval action on both phases

of the aerosol paint rules will be taken

in separate rulemakings following SIP

submittal of the rules.

(3) Mid-Term Committal Measure CP–

2. Measure CP–2 is a mid-term

commitment to adopt additional

regulations in 1997 to further reduce

VOC emissions from currently

unregulated household, industrial and

institutional, and commercial consumer

products. These reductions are

anticipated to result from the further

regulation of new categories of

consumer products through technology

that is currently feasible and

commercially viable. EPA approved CP–

2 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).

(4) Long-Term Committal Measure

CP–4. Measure CP–4 is a long-term

measure to further reduce emissions

after measures CP–1, CP–2, and CP–3

are implemented. On August 21, 1995,

EPA approved CARB’s Measure CP–4 as

meeting the requirements of section

182(e)(5).

(5) Alternative Control Plans (ACPs).

In order to provide industry with

flexibility in meeting the VOC content

limits, CARB has adopted regulations

that will allow manufacturers to meet

the VOC standards on an emissions

average basis. The regulations, CARB’s

Alternative Control Plan (ACP) for

consumer products and aerosol

coatings, require that manufacturers

carefully track sales and VOC content of

all products being averaged together in

order to determine total VOC emissions

from their products and compliance

with the rule. EPA will act on the ACP

regulations following submittal by the

State.

c. Emission Reductions. The following

table, ‘‘Reductions from California

Consumer Products and Aerosol Paint

Program,’’ describes the ROG emission

reductions in terms of tons per day, as

identified in the SIP submittal. Credits

for near-term consumer products (CP–1)

are not included, since they were

presumed in baseline emissions

projections as adopted regulations. The

table combines credits for consumer

products and aerosol paints. Credit for

CP–4 is claimed only for South Coast.

The ROP and attainment

demonstrations for San Diego and San

Joaquin Valley do not rely on reductions

from the consumer products measures.

The State has submitted for SIP

approval no emissions reductions for

these areas associated with consumer

products and aerosol paints measures,

although real reductions will occur in

those areas. San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD requested that EPA identify a 1.1

tpd VOC emissions reduction in the San

Joaquin Valley area from these

measures. Since the State does not wish

to claim SIP credit for these measures in

the San Joaquin Valley, EPA is not

assigning the credits to San Joaquin

Valley.

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND AEROSOL PAINT PROGRAM [REDUCTIONS BEYOND THOSE

ACHIEVED BY CP–1]

[Tons per day of ROG]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

South Coast .................................................................... 0 8 39.2 .................... 42.2 89.2

SE Desert ........................................................................ 0 0.6 3.5 3.9 .................... ....................

Ventura ............................................................................ 0 0.4 2.2 .................... .................... ....................

Sacramento ..................................................................... 0 1.1 5.6 .................... .................... ....................

San Joaquin .................................................................... 0 ...................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

San Diego ....................................................................... 0 ...................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

d. EPA Action. As discussed above,

EPA has already fully approved all of

the State’s consumer products rules and

committal measures with the exception

of CP–3 (Aerosol Paints). EPA is now

approving CP–3 under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and

assigning credit to this measure, as well

as to the previously approved consumer

products measures, as part of the ROP

and attainment demonstrations for

appropriate nonattainment areas. EPA

will take regulatory action on the

recently adopted ACP and Aerosol

Paints regulations themselves in

separate rulemakings.

4. Pesticides

a. Review of Measure. California’s

1994 SIP submittal includes a

commitment to reduce VOC emissions

from the application of agricultural and

structural pesticides. The submittal

describes relevant authority in Section

6220 of Title 3 of the California Code of

Regulations that has been granted to the

California Department of Pesticide

Regulation (DPR).

b. Response to Comments. The

Environmental Defense Center (EDC)

questioned whether the pesticides

measure should be granted credit. EDC

stated that pest management research

alone will not create any reductions and

the SIP is entirely vague as to how these

air quality benefits will be

accomplished. While the NPRM refers

to a June 1997 date for promulgation of

regulations should the voluntary

measures fail, the SIP itself recites a

possible, not obligatory, 1998 date.

Finally, EDC recommends that the

pesticides rule that was included in

EPA’s 1995 Federal Implementation
1170 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Plan (or some comparable rule) must be

included in the SIP.

On May 11, 1995, CARB submitted a

clarification by the California

Department of Pesticide Regulation

(Memo from James W. Wells to James D.

Boyd) to the pesticide element of the

SIP, submitted on November 15, 1994.

This SIP clarification, which was cited

in the NPRM, states, in part, that ‘‘The

Department of Pesticide Regulation

commits to adopt and submit to U.S.

EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations

necessary to reduce volatile organic

compound emissions from agricultural

and commercial structural pesticides by

specific percentages of the 1990 base

year emissions, by specific years, and in

specific nonattainment areas * * * as

listed in the following table * * *.’’

California assigns to the pesticides

measure less emission reductions than

were associated with EPA’s proposed

FIP rule but the SIP reductions are

sufficient to meet progress and

attainment requirements in each area for

this control category.

c. Emission Reductions As described

in the SIP, California has committed to

adopt and submit to U.S. EPA by June

15, 1997, any regulations necessary to

reduce VOC emissions from agricultural

and commercial structural pesticides by

20 percent of the 1990 base year

emissions in the attainment years for

Sacramento, Ventura, Southeast Desert,

and the South Coast, and by 12 percent

in 1999 for the San Joaquin Valley. The

table labeled ‘‘Reductions from

Pesticides Measure’’ shows reductions

counted toward attainment in each area.

EPA has revised the table to reflect

CEPA’s request that emission reductions

for interim years be excluded from the

SIP, since CARB elects not to assign

credit to the pesticides measure except

for purposes of attainment. If reductions

from the measure are, in the future,

needed to meet ROP milestones, CARB

must resubmit the measure and interim

reduction estimates as an SIP revision.

REDUCTIONS FROM PESTICIDES MEASURE

[Tons per day of ROG]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

South Coast .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 1.7

Southeast Desert .......................................................... 0 0 0 1.5

Ventura .......................................................................... 0 0 2.4

Sacramento ................................................................... 0 0 2.8

San Joaquin .................................................................. 13

d. EPA Action. EPA is approving the

Pesticides measure under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and

assigning credit to the measure as part

of the attainment demonstrations for

appropriate nonattainment areas. EPA

will take regulatory action on the State’s

Pesticides regulations, if any regulations

are required and are submitted, in

separate rulemakings.

B. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and

Measures

1. Emission Inventories

a. Response to Comments. The Engine

Manufacturers Association (EMA)

commented that EPA has not provided

all of the data or documented all of the

assumptions that were part of

California’s inventory and modeling

analyses. EMA added that it has serious

concerns that the baseline emissions

inventories include potentially

significant overestimates of growth in

VMT, trips, and vehicle and equipment

sales and usage. EMA indicated that

these estimates do not accurately reflect

the emissions reductions that will result

from the imposition of current and

future national and state regulations.

Finally, EMA noted that EPA

acknowledged that its baseline and

projected emissions are uncertain, and

EMA requested that EPA should not

take final action on the proposed

inventories but should require that

appropriate adjustments be made in

order to provide accurate and

reasonable inventory calculations on

which to base California’s proposed

measures.

EPA does not believe that it is

necessary or practical for the Agency to

set forth the complete emission

inventory data and documentation. This

information is available from the State

and local agencies, and amounts to

thousands of pages of emissions and

activity data, emissions factors,

calculations, and quality assurance

programs.

The commenter provided no specific

information relating to inaccuracies in

the SIP emission inventories. EPA

recognizes that, in general, the accuracy

of inventories for any area can be

improved. If EMA has specific

corrections to suggest, they should be

provided to the State, EPA, and local

agencies for review and possible

inclusion in future SIP revisions.

However, EPA has determined that the

existing inventories meet applicable SIP

requirements and provide reasonable

foundations for the SIP.

The City of Los Angeles commented

that the South Coast is preparing a 1997

AQMP update, which will improve the

inventory. EPA recognizes that the

improved inventory in progress may

allow for SIP refinement. If and when

inventory updates and improvements

are submitted as SIP revisions for any of

the nonattainment areas, EPA will

consider them.

b. EPA Action. EPA is finalizing

approval of the emission inventories for

each of the nonattainment areas as

meeting the requirements of section

182(a)(1) of the Act.

2. San Diego

a. SIP Control Measures. Only one

comment was received on the San Diego

plan. As discussed above in Section

II.A.1, CEPA asked EPA to exclude from

the San Diego SIP those emission

reductions that will result from

implementation of State measures M3,

M5, M8, and CP–2/CP–3, since these

reductions are not needed for purposes

of progress or attainment. EPA is

deleting these credits from the emission

reduction tables for State measures in

Section II.A.

EPA is not approving any new State

or local measures as part of the San

Diego ozone SIP, since none were

included in the State’s submittal. The

State demonstrated that the ROP and

attainment demonstration provisions of

the Act could be met with pre-existing

regulations.

b. ROP Provisions. EPA is finalizing

approval of the ROP plan as meeting the

15% ROP requirements of section

182(b)(1) and the post-1996 ROP

requirements of section 182(c)(2) of the

Act. The ROP VOC targets, projected

VOC emissions, and creditable VOC and

NOX reductions are shown below in the

table labeled ‘‘San Diego ROP Forecasts

and Targets.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1171

SAN DIEGO ROP FORECASTS AND

TARGETS

[Tons per summer day]

Milestone Year 1996 1999

1990 Base Year VOC

Inventory .................. 312.6 312.6

VOC Projections

(Adopted Measures) 236.1 232.0

ROP VOC Target ........ 241.2 212.2

VOC Shortfall .............. 0 19.8

NOX Substitution in

VOC Equivalents ..... 0 19.8

c. Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration. EPA is approving the

State’s modeling analysis and

attainment demonstration under section

182(c)(2)(A) of the Act. A summary of

the emission reductions needed to attain

the standard and reductions projected

from the SIP control strategy is provided

below in the table labeled ‘‘San Diego

Attainment Demonstration.’’

SAN DIEGO ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION

[Tons per summer day]

VOC NOX

1990 Baseline Emissions

Inventory ........................ 313 238

Carrying Capacity ............. 232 175

Reductions Needed .......... 81 63

Reductions from Adopted

Measures ....................... 81 63

SAN DIEGO ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION—Continued

[Tons per summer day]

VOC NOX

Reductions from Committed Local Measures ....... 0 0

Reductions from Committed State Measures ....... 1 1

Total SIP Reductions ........ 82 64

Remaining Emissions in

1999 ............................... 231 174

d. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves

the San Diego ozone SIP with respect to

the Act’s requirements for emission

inventories, control measures,

modeling, and demonstrations of 15%

ROP, post-1996 ROP, and attainment.

3. San Joaquin Valley

a. Control Measures. The San Joaquin

Valley Unified APCD commented that

no reductions are tied to any of the

transportation control measures (TCMs)

individually, but rather to the overall

TCM package, since the overall

emission reductions target is expected

to be achieved but it is not anticipated

that all of the measures would be

implemented. EPA’s table of control

measures is consistent with the APCD’s

position in both the proposal and final

action.

On April 4, 1996, CARB submitted a

SIP revision (letter from James D. Boyd

to Felicia Marcus, attaching CARB

Executive Order G–125–203). This

submittal requests EPA to delete from

the existing SIP an obsolete TCM that

was originally adopted by the Fresno

County APCD as part of a 1982 ozone

SIP. (The Fresno County APCD has

since been absorbed into the San

Joaquin Valley Unified APCD). The

1994 San Joaquin Valley AQMP does

not assume emission reductions from

this TCM, but rather substitutes a TCM

package listed among the local measures

in the table labeled ‘‘San Joaquin Local

Control Measures.’’ In this document,

EPA is taking final action to delete the

obsolete measure, which is entitled

‘‘Exclusive High Occupancy Vehicle

Lanes on Freeway 41.’’

The table labeled ‘‘San Joaquin Local

Control Measures’’ indicates the dates of

rule adoption and implementation and

the emission reductions presumed to

occur by 1999, the applicable

attainment deadline. These measures

are relied upon in meeting the

attainment requirements of the Act.

Accordingly, and because the measures

strengthen the SIP, EPA is approving,

under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of

the Act, the enforceable commitments to

adopt and implement the control

measures by the dates specified to

achieve the emission reductions shown.

EPA also is assigning credit to the

measures for purposes of attainment.

EPA approval of the adopted regulations

will be completed in separate

rulemakings in the future.

SAN JOAQUIN LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES

Rule No. Control Measure Title Implementing

Agency

Adoption

Date

Implementation Date

Reductions

VOC NOX

1999 Emission Reductions

4403

(VOC).

Components Serving Gas Production ....................... SJVUAPCD 2Q/91 ....... 2Q/91 ....... 4.55 ......................

4703 ........ Stationary Gas Turbine Engines ............................... SJVUAPCD 3Q/94 ....... 3Q/2000 ... ...................... 11.92

4653 ........ Adhesives .................................................................. SJVUAPCD 1Q/94 ....... 1Q/95 ....... 1.3 ......................

4623 ........ Organic Liquid Storage .............................................. SJVUAPCD 2Q/91 ....... 2Q/96 ....... 13.2 ......................

TCMs ......................................................................... Ongoing ... Ongoing ... 1.8 1.5

4601 ........ Architectural Coatings ............................................... SJVUAPCD 1Q/96 ....... 1Q/98 ....... 1.51 ......................

4692 ........ Commercial Charbroiling ........................................... SJVUAPCD 2Q/96 ....... 2Q/98 ....... 0.39 ......................

4354 ........ Glass Melting Furnaces ............................................. SJVUAPCD 1Q/96 ....... 4Q/99 ....... ...................... 2.87

4607 ........ Graphic Arts ............................................................... SJVUAPCD 4Q/95 ....... 4Q/97 ....... 0.84 ......................

4642 ........ Landfill Gas Control ................................................... SJVUAPCD 1Q/95 ....... 4Q/99 ....... 1.41 ......................

4412 ........ Oil Workover Rigs ..................................................... SJVUAPCD 2Q/96 ....... 2Q/98 ....... ...................... 0.87

4623 ........ Organic Liquid Storage .............................................. SJVUAPCD 3Q/95 ....... 3Q/98 ....... 3.0 ......................

4662 ........ Organic Solvent Degreasing ..................................... SJVUAPCD 1Q/96 ....... 1Q/98 ....... 2.44 ......................

4663 ........ Organic Solvent Waste .............................................. SJVUAPCD 2Q/96 ....... 2Q/98 ....... 0.19 ......................

4306 ........ Small Boilers, Process Heaters and Steam Generators.SJVUAPCD 3Q/95 ....... 3Q/99 ....... ...................... 7.6

4611 ........ Smaller Printer Operations ........................................ SJVUAPCD 4Q/95 ....... 4Q/97 ....... 0.30 ......................

4702 ........ Stationary IC Engines ................................................ SJVUAPCD 2Q/95 ....... 4Q/99 ....... ...................... 12.44

4621 and

4622.

Stationary Storage Tanks/Fuel Transfer into Vehicle

Tanks.

SJVUAPCD 2Q/96 ....... 2Q/98 ....... 0.41 ......................

Waste Burning ........................................................... ND ND ........... ND ........... ...................... ......................

4411 ........ Well Cellars ............................................................... SJVUAPCD 2Q/96 ....... 2Q/98 ....... 0.56 ......................
1172 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

b. ROP Provisions. On July 12, 1996,

CARB submitted a revised post-1996

ROP plan for San Joaquin Valley (letter

from James D. Boyd to Felicia Marcus,

attaching CARB Executive Order G–

125–200). The revised ROP, which was

adopted on September 20, 1995,

excludes NOX reductions from specified

controls at facilities located west of

Interstate 5 in Fresno, Kings, and Kern

Counties. This change is consistent with

the 1994 San Joaquin Valley Ozone

Attainment Demonstration Plan. EPA is

taking final action on this substitute

plan, as requested by CARB and by the

San Joaquin Valley APCD (letter from

David L. Crow to Regional

Administrator, dated May 2, 1996).

EPA is finalizing approval of the ROP

plans (the original 1994 submittal for

15% ROP requirements and the Kern

District portion of the San Joaquin

Valley, and the 1996 substitute

submittal for post-1996 requirements) as

meeting the 15% ROP requirements of

section 182(b)(1) and the post-1996 ROP

requirements of section 182(c)(2) of the

Act. The ROP VOC targets, projected

VOC emissions, and creditable VOC and

NOX reductions are shown below in the

tables labeled ‘‘San Joaquin Valley ROP

Forecasts and Targets’’ and ‘‘San

Joaquin Valley (Kern District) ROP

Forecasts and Targets.’’

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS

[Tons per summer day]

Milestone Year 1996 1999

VOC Emissions to Meet ROP Target .............................................................................................................................. 433 383

VOC Emissions with Plan Reductions ............................................................................................................................. 430 430

NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents ............................................................................................................................. 0 47

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY (KERN DISTRICT) ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS

[Tons per summer day]

Milestone Year 1996 1999

VOC Emissions to Meet ROP Target .............................................................................................................................. 13.2 11.7

VOC Emissions with Plan Reductions ............................................................................................................................. 13.2 13.3

NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents ............................................................................................................................. 0 1.6

c. Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration. San Joaquin Valley

Unified APCD commented that the area

was modeled as a single domain, with

3 areas of special study modeled on a

finer scale. The APCD further stated that

the air basin is not separated into

subregions, and the carrying capacities

referenced should not be considered

separable targets in lieu of properly

constructed modeling analyses. EPA’s

tables should not be divided into

subregions. All references to carrying

capacity should be deleted since the

concept is not effective or accurate for

a domain as large as the San Joaquin

Valley and carrying capacities fail to

account for the influence of spatial

location of reductions or transport from

one area to another. Finally, the APCD

commented that the reductions in the

attainment demonstration table do not

add up and do not correspond to those

in the District’s adopted plan. The

APCD stated that CARB would make the

needed changes.

EPA agrees that the State’s tables in

the 1994 California Ozone SIP that

display carrying capacities for the 3

subregions may be less accurate than

reliance on basinwide modeling

information, but there are also benefits,

from a planning perspective, in dividing

the area into subregions. The State has

not employed a single, unified

attainment analysis summary, and EPA

is, in the final action, continuing to use

the subregion information contained in

the State’s SIP summary document

(1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV,

Tables G–1, G–3, and G–5). EPA

believes that the data included in the

‘‘San Joaquin Valley Attainment and

Rate-of-Progress Plans’’ is also helpful

in characterizing, from both a

subregional and basinwide perspective,

the attainment requirements for, and

emission reduction contributions from,

each area.

The San Joaquin Valley

Transportation Planning Agencies

Directors Association commented that

the San Joaquin Valley motor vehicle

emission and activity projections are

outdated. The Association asked EPA to

approve them but state that conformity

demonstrations be allowed to be made

with models or assumptions consistent

with those used in the plan. The

Association asked EPA to commit to

rapidly expediting development of a SIP

revision to reflect the new information

for the development of the emission

budget.

EPA will continue to work with the

agencies involved in the update and

refinement of the activity, emissions,

and modeling data used in the SIP. EPA

agrees that models and assumptions

consistent with the plan should be used,

in the interim, for purposes of

conformity determinations.

Improvements to the technical

foundations of the plan’s attainment

demonstration are underway and should

be substituted in the SIP when they are

completed. Nevertheless, EPA believes

that the existing plan adequately

addresses applicable Clean Air Act

requirements relating to emission

inventories, projected inventories, and

modeling analyses.

EPA is therefore taking final action to

approve the State’s modeling analysis

and attainment demonstration under

section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Act. A

summary of the emission reductions

needed to attain the standard and

reductions projected from the SIP

control strategy is provided below in the

table labeled ‘‘San Joaquin Valley

Attainment Demonstration.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1173

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

[Tons per summer day]

North Central South

ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX

1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory .................................. 129 124 126 115 217 367

Carrying Capacity ............................................................. >129 >124 88 90 145 165

Reductions Needed .......................................................... 0 0 38 25 72 202

Adopted measures ..................................................... 15 8 27 9 58 164

Committed Local Measures ....................................... 5 5 8 6 22 20

Committed State Measures ....................................... 8 2 4 2 3 1

Total Reductions ............................................................... 28 15 39 17 83 185

Remaining Emissions ....................................................... 101 109 87 98 134 182

For purposes of the attainment

demonstration, the Kern District portion

of the San Joaquin Valley was not

separately modeled, under the

assumption that attainment in this area

should result primarily from upwind

reductions achieved in the South San

Joaquin sub-region.

d. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves

the San Joaquin Valley ozone SIP with

respect to the Act’s requirements for

emission inventories, control measures,

modeling, and demonstrations of 15%

ROP and post-1996 ROP and attainment.

EPA also approves SJVAPCD’s

commitments to adopt and implement

the listed control measures to achieve

the specified emissions reductions.

4. Sacramento

a. Control Measures. CEPA

commented that EPA’s proposal listed a

measure that was not in the SIP

submittal: Placer County’s Woodwaste

Boilers measure. EPA is deleting the

measure in this final approval action.

CARB provided minor corrections to the

list of adoption and implementation

dates. All of these changes have been

incorporated in the final action.

The table labeled ‘‘Sacramento Local

Control Measures’’ indicates the dates of

rule adoption and implementation and

the emission reductions presumed to

occur by the 1999 and 2002 milestone

years and by 2005, the applicable

attainment deadline. The proposal

contained a typographical error, in

labeling as ‘‘1996’’ the column for 1999

emission reductions.

These measures are relied upon in

meeting the attainment and post-1996

ROP requirements of the Act.

Accordingly, and because the measures

strengthen the SIP, EPA is approving,

under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of

the Act, the enforceable commitments to

adopt and implement the control

measures by the dates specified to

achieve the emission reductions shown.

EPA also is assigning credit to the

measures for purposes of ROP and

attainment. EPA approval of the

adopted regulations will be completed

in separate rulemakings in the future.

SACRAMENTO LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES

[Tons per day]

VOC control measure title Implementing agency Adoption date

Implementation

date

Emission reductions

1999 2002 2005

ROG Control Measures

Adhesives ........................... ECAPCD ............................ 2/95 .................................... 1996 ........ 1.2 1.3 1.4

PCAPCD ............................ 2/95.

SMAQMD ........................... 5/95.

YSAPCD ............................ Adopted ’94.

Architectural Coatings ........ ECAPCD ............................ Adopted 4/95 ..................... 1996 ........ 0.9 1.3 1.6

PCAPCD ............................ Adopted 3/95.

Amendment to existing rule

SMAQMD YSAPCD.

Adopted 3/95.

Auto Refinishing ................. ECAPCD ............................ Adopted ’94 ....................... 1996 ........ 2.1 2.6 3.2

PCAPCD ............................ Adopted ’94.

SMAQMD ........................... 5/95.

YSAPCD ............................ Adopted ’94.

Fugitive HC Emissions ....... ECAPCD ............................ 4/95 .................................... 1999 ........ 1.4 1.4 1.4

PCAPCD ............................ Adopted.

SMAQMD ........................... Adopted.

YSAPCD ............................ Adopted 4/94.

Graphic Arts ....................... ECAPCD ............................ Adopted 9/94 ..................... June 1995 0.4 0.5 0.5

PCAPCD ............................ 11/94.

SMAQMD ........................... ’81, ’93.

YSAPCD ............................ Adopted 5/94.

Landfill Gas Control ........... ECAPCD ............................ 11/95 .................................. 1996 ........ 1.2 1.2 1.2

PCAPCD ............................ Adopted ............................. 1996.

SMAQMD ........................... 2/95 .................................... 1997.

YSAPCD ............................ Adopted ............................. 1996.

Pleasure Craft Coating Operations.ECAPCD ............................ 4/96 .................................... 1996–1999 0.2 0.2 0.2

PCAPCD ............................ 12/94.
1174 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

SACRAMENTO LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES—Continued

[Tons per day]

VOC control measure title Implementing agency Adoption date

Implementation

date

Emission reductions

1999 2002 2005

SMAQMD ........................... 1998.

YSAPCD ............................ 4/95.

Pleasure Craft Refueling .... ECAPCD ............................ 1998 ................................... 1999 ........ 0.1 0.1 0.2

PCAPCD ............................ 1998.

SMAQMD ........................... 1998.

YSAPCD ............................ 1998.

Polyester Resin Operations ECAPCD ............................ 2/96 .................................... 1997 ........ 0.2 0.2

PCAPCD ............................ 1/96 .................................... 1997.

SMAQMD ........................... 1998 ................................... 1999.

YSAPCD ............................ Adopted ’93.

Semiconductor Mfg. ........... PCAPCD others? ............... 2/95 .................................... 1996 ........ 0.1 0.2 0.2

SOCMI Distillation/Reactors SMAQMD others? ............. 9/95 .................................... 1997 ........ 1.4 1.5 1.6

Surface Preparation &

Cleanup.

ECAPCD ............................ 2/95 .................................... 1996 ........ 3.0 3.3 3.6

PCAPCD ............................ 2/95.

SMAQMD ........................... 2/95.

YSAPCD ............................ Adopted 5/94.

Vents on Underground

Gasoline Storage Tanks.

SMAQMD ........................... 2/95 .................................... 1996 ........ 0.1 0.2 0.2

YSAPCD (both amend current rules).1/95.

Wood Products Coatings ... ECAPCD ............................ 4/95 .................................... 1996 ........ 0.5 0.5 0.5

PCAPCD ............................ Adopted 11/94 ................... 1996.

SMAQMD ........................... 2/95 .................................... 1996.

YSAPCD ............................ 2/95.

Regional NOX Control Measures

Boilers & Steam Generators.ECAPCD ............................ Adopted ’94 ....................... 1996–1997 0.8 0.9 1.0

PCAPCD ............................ Adopted ’94.

SMAQMD ........................... 2/95.

YSAPCD ............................ Adopted ’94.

Gas Turbines ..................... PCAPCD ............................ Adopted 10/94 ................... 1997 ........ 0.2 0.3 0.3

SMAQMD ........................... 2/95.

YSAPCD ............................ Adopted 7/94.

Internal Combustion Engines.ECAPCD ............................ Adopted ’94 ....................... Phased in

1997.

0.3 0.4 0.5

PCAPCD ............................ 12/95.

SMAQMD ........................... 2/95.

YSAPCD ............................ Adopted ’94.

Residential Water Heaters ECAPCD ............................ 1996 ................................... 1995–1997 0.3 0.4 0.5

PCAPCD ............................ 12/95.

SMAQMD ........................... 1996.

YSAPCD ............................ Adopted 11/94.

Mobile NOX Measures 1.

Off-Road Heavy Duty

Vehicles 2. On-Road

Heavy Duty Vehicles.

All ....................................... 12/95 .................................. 1/97 ......... 2.0 3.0 5.0

b. ROP Provisions. EPA is finalizing

approval of Sacramento area’s post-1996

ROP plan under section 182(b)(2) of the

Act. EPA will act on Sacramento’s 15%

ROP Plan in separate rulemaking. The

ROP VOC targets, projected VOC

emissions, and creditable VOC and NOX

reductions are shown in the table below

labeled ‘‘Sacramento ROP Forecasts and

Targets.’’

SACRAMENTO ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS

[Tons per summer day]

Milestone Year 1996 1999 2002 2005

1990 Base Year VOC Inventory ....................................................................................... 211 211 211 211

VOC Inventory Projection ................................................................................................. 175 167 163 159

ROP VOC Target ............................................................................................................. 162 142 124 107

Preliminary VOC Shortfall ................................................................................................ 13 25 39 52

VOC Reductions from Committal Measures .................................................................... 0 19 23 14
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1175

SACRAMENTO ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS—Continued

[Tons per summer day]

Milestone Year 1996 1999 2002 2005

Total VOC Shortfall .......................................................................................................... 13 6 16 38

NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents .............................................................................. 13 6 16 38

c. Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration. The Environmental

Defense Center commented that

Sacramento’s attainment demonstration

must be disapproved because CARB has

rescinded the ZEV program, which was

relied upon to produce emissions

reductions necessary to demonstrate

Sacramento’s timely attainment. As

discussed in Section I.B.3.c.(3) above,

EPA strongly supports the State’s ZEV

program and, while CARB’s March 1996

amendments to the ZEV mandate

eliminates the ZEV production

requirements for the 1998 through 2002

model years, the State’s 10% production

requirement for 2003 and later years

remains in place and some new

compensating reductions are expected

from the national LEV program. EPA

does not have information to support

the commenter’s contention that the

ZEV amendments invalidate

Sacramento’s attainment demonstration.

EPA is taking final action to approve

the modeling analysis and attainment

demonstration under section

182(c)(2)(A) of the Act. A summary of

the emission reductions needed to attain

the standard and reductions projected

from the SIP control strategy is provided

below in the table labeled ‘‘Sacramento

Attainment Demonstration.’’

Sacramento attainment

demonstration (tons per

summer day)

VOC NOX

1990 Baseline Emissions

Inventory ........................ 222 164

Attainment Inventory ......... 137 98

Reductions Needed .......... 85 66

From Adopted Measures 55 40

From Committed Local

Measures ................... 17 7

From Committed State

Measures ................... 15 14

From National Measures 1 .......................... 1.6 4.3

Total .................................. 88.6 65.3

Remaining Emissions ....... 133.4 98.7

1 Credit shown is EPA’s estimate of reductions from statutorily-mandated national rules.

d. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves

the Sacramento ozone SIP with respect

to the Act’s requirements for emission

inventories, control measures,

modeling, and demonstrations of post1996 ROP and attainment. EPA also

approves the local agencies’

commitments to adopt and implement

the listed control measures to achieve

the specified emissions reductions by

the dates shown.

5. Ventura.

a. 1995 AQMP Update. Ventura’s

1994 Air Quality Management Plan

(AQMP), adopted on November 8, 1994,

was submitted as part of the 1994

California Ozone SIP. On December 19,

1995, Ventura adopted a 1995 AQMP

revision, with slightly revised emission

inventories, control measures, modeling

analyses, and attainment demonstration.

At the time of the proposed action,

CARB had not yet submitted this

updated plan as a replacement for the

1994 AQMP, but the State indicated that

it would do so in the near future and

requested EPA to act upon portions of

the 1995 AQMP in the final approval

action. On July 12, 1996, CARB

submitted the previously agreed upon

portions of the 1995 AQMP intended to

replace portions of the 1994 AQMP.

EPA’s proposal addressed much of the

new information from the 1995 AQMP,

and EPA is now finalizing approval of

the 1994 AQMP as modified by portions

of the 1995 AQMP. The specific

modifications submitted by CARB are

the ‘‘Revised Rule Adoption and

Implementation Schedule’’ (Table 4–2)

and Appendix E–95 (revised emissions

from architectural coatings in Tables E–

43 and E–45) from the 1995 AQMP.

In their comment letters, the District

and Environmental Defense Center

(EDC) requested that EPA rulemaking

reflect the 1995 AQMP revision. EPA is

not acting on the entire 1995 AQMP

revision at this time because the entire

revision has not been submitted by the

State. EPA is only acting on the portions

of the 1995 AQMP which have been

submitted by the State. In their SIP

submittal, the State indicated that the

remaining updates ‘‘will be submitted at

a later date after revisions to CARB’s

mobile source inventory are

incorporated by the District.’’ After the

remaining portions of the 1995 AQMP

are submitted, EPA intends to act

expeditiously to take action on the

submittal.

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories.

Ventura County APCD requested in

their comment letter that the Ventura

County SIP emissions inventory used in

the NPRM be revised by excluding OCS

emissions, since these OCS emissions

are outside the District’s nonattainment

area. EPA is not proposing to change the

inventory estimates because CARB has

not requested this change, and the totals

are consistent with their SIP submittal.

EPA will continue to work with the

District and CARB regarding the

District’s comment.

1990 VENTURA SIP INVENTORIES

[Tons per summer day]

Category ROG NOX

Stationary ...................... 44 17

Mobile ............................ 41 56

Outer Continental Shelf 2 8

Total ................... 87 81

c. Control Measures. EPA’s proposal

addressed the 1995 AQMP updates to

the control measures, with slightly

revised adoption dates, implementation

dates, and reductions for numerous

district measures already contained in

the 1994 SIP. After EPA’s proposal,

Ventura adopted very minor further

revisions to the rule adoption schedule

for 5 measures (N–102, R–317, R–410,

R–421, and R–425). No change was

made to the implementation dates for

the measures. Ventura adopted these

minor changes on January 9, 1996. If the

changes are submitted as a further

revision to the SIP rule adoption

schedule, EPA intends to approve them

since they do not adversely affect rateof-progress or attainment. Because the

changes have not been submitted at the

time of this action, however, EPA is

finalizing approval of the schedule as

revised by Ventura on December 19,

1995, and submitted by CARB on July

12, 1996.

Also subsequent to EPA’s proposal,

the State and Ventura County APCD

indicated that measures R–303,

Architectural Coatings, and R–700/N–

700, Transportation Control Measures,

should be included in the list of control

measures. The addition of these two

measures and minor adjustments to the

adoption and implementation schedules

and estimates of emission reductions for

some of the control measures are

reflected in the table of measures below,

labeled ‘‘Ventura Local Control

Measures.’’ EPA’s proposed approval
1176 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

stated: ‘‘If a SIP revision with the

revised reduction estimates and

measure R–303 is submitted before

EPA’s final action, EPA proposes to

approve it without further opportunity

for public comment.’’ EPA’s proposal

also indicated the following finding:

‘‘Overall, the revised reduction

estimates do not negatively impact ROP

or attainment.’’

The State and Ventura County APCD

both requested that EPA approve in the

final action measure R–700/N–700,

Transportation Control Measures, and

delete from the existing SIP prior

transportation measures. Measure R–

700/N–700 was included in the 1994

Ventura AQMP but mistakenly omitted

by the State from the list of measures in

the State’s SIP. No emission reductions

from any prior transportation measures

were assumed in the 1994 or 1995

Ventura AQMP. In this document, EPA

is taking final action to approve measure

R–700/N–700, Transportation Control

Measures, and rescind from the existing

SIP all prior transportation control

measures.

The table labeled ‘‘Ventura Local

Control Measures’’ indicates the dates of

rule adoption and implementation and

the emission reductions presumed to

occur by each ROP milestone year and

by 2005, the applicable attainment

deadline. At the request of CARB and

the District, EPA has deleted from this

table the 1996 column of reductions,

since no reductions from new local

measures were used to demonstrate

compliance with the 1996 ROP target.

The Environmental Defense Center

commented that Ventura’s measures are

not fully articulated, that this violates

the Administrative Procedures Act, and

that the measures should be

disapproved or conditionally approved.

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s

characterization of the Ventura control

measures. The commenter does not give

any examples of what it perceives as

ambiguities or vagueness. The measures

are set forward with sufficient detail to

understand the control category, the

type of emission standard expected to

be adopted, likely compliance options,

scheduled adoption and

implementation dates, base year

emissions for the category, and expected

emission reductions from the measure

by milestone year. As discussed in

section I.B.2., EPA also disagrees with

the commenter’s conclusion that EPA

may not fully approve specific

enforceable commitments to adopt

control measures.

The Ventura control measures are

relied upon in meeting the post-1996

ROP and attainment requirements of the

Act. Accordingly, and because the

measures strengthen the SIP, EPA is

approving, under sections 110(k)(3) and

301(a) of the Act, the enforceable

commitments to adopt and implement

the control measures by the dates

specified to achieve the emission

reductions shown. EPA also is assigning

credit to the measures for purposes of

post-1996 ROP and attainment.

Some of the measures have been

adopted in regulatory form. These

include N–101, adopted 3/14/95; R–105,

adopted 12/13/94; R–403, adopted 5/9/

95; R–419, adopted 11/8/94; R–424,

adopted 5/9/95; and R–606, adopted 10/

10/95. EPA has already approved R–

105, and EPA approval of the remaining

regulations will be completed in

separate rulemakings in the future.

VENTURA LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES

[tons per day]

Rule No. Control measure Adoption

date

Implementation date 1999 2002 2005

N–101 ...... Gas Turbines .................................................................. 3/95 4/97 0.45 0.47 0.49

N–102 ...... Boilers, Steam generators, Heaters, <1 mmbtu ............. 12/96 1/97 0.05 0.06 0.06

R–105 ...... Glycol Dehydrators ......................................................... 12/94 7/96 0.73 0.65 0.57

R–303 ...... AIM Architectural Coatings ............................................. 12/96 12/97 0.0 0.0 0.89

R–317 ...... Clean-up Solvents and Solvent Wastes ......................... 6/96 7/96 1.57 1.67 1.76

R–322 ...... Painter Certification Program ......................................... 6/97 12/97–12/98 0.48 0.51 0.53

R–324 ...... Screen Printing Operations ............................................ 6/96 7/97 0.29 0.30 0.31

R–327 ...... Electronic Component Manufacture ............................... 6/96 7/97 0.07 0.07 0.08

R–403 ...... Vehicle Gas Dispensing—Phase II ................................ 5/95 1/96 0.22 0.22 0.23

R–410 ...... Marine Tanker Loading ................................................... 9/96 7/97 0.0 0.0 0.0

R–419 ...... Tank Degassing Operations ........................................... 11/94 3/95 0.03 0.03 0.02

R–420 ...... Pleasure Craft Fuel Transfer .......................................... 6/97 7/98 0.08 0.08 0.08

R–421 ...... Utility Engine Refueling Operations ................................ 12/96 9/97 0.19 0.20 0.20

R–424 ...... Gasoline Transfer/Dispensing ........................................ 5/95 1/96 0.03 0.04 0.04

R–425 ...... Enhanced Fugitive I/M Program ..................................... 9/96 5/97 1.21 1.07 0.95

R–606 ...... Soil Decontamination ...................................................... 10/95 4/96 0.10 0.10 0.11

R–700 ...... Transportation ................................................................. 96–05 1996–2005 0.0 0.0 0.58

N–700 ...... Control Measures ........................................................... .................... ........................ 0.0 0.0 0.50

1 ‘‘R’’ refers to ROG control measures, ‘‘N’’ refers to NOX control measures.

d. ROP Provisions. CARB and the

District commented that the Ventura

ROP Forecasts and Targets table in the

NPRM contained erroneous information

in the line titled ‘‘VOC Inventory

Including Committals.’’ EPA concurs

and has deleted the line from the table

below labeled ‘‘Ventura ROP Forecasts

and Targets.’’

EPA is finalizing approval of

Ventura’s ROP plan as meeting the 15%

ROP requirements of section 182(b)(1)

and the post-1996 ROP requirements of

section 182(c)(2) of the Act. The ROP

VOC targets, projected VOC emissions,

and creditable VOC and NOX reductions

are shown in the table below labeled

‘‘Ventura ROP Forecasts and Targets.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1177

VENTURA ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS

[Tons per summer day]

Milestone Year 1996 1999 2002 2005

1990 Base Year VOC Inventory ....................................................................................... 85 85 85 85

VOC Inventory after Adopted Measures .......................................................................... 64 60 57 55

ROP VOC Target ............................................................................................................. 68 60 53 45

VOC Shortfall .................................................................................................................... 0 0 4 10

NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents .............................................................................. 0 0 4 10

e. Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration. EPA’s proposal reflected

the additional modeling refinements

and technical clarifications made in the

1995 AQMP, as requested by the State

and Ventura County APCD.

The Environmental Defense Center

(EDC) commented that, ‘‘Assuming the

competence of the Ventura County

model, EDC is concerned that the 2005

prediction of a .12 ppm peak ozone

concentration provides virtually no

buffer or room for error. Any relaxation,

slippage or difficulties in adopting each

of the control measures, local, state and

federal jeopardizes Ventura County’s

timely attainment. Already CARB has

rescinded the bulk of the ZEV program,

thereby impairing Ventura County’s

prospects for attainment.’’ The Act does

not require SIPs to overcontrol and,

under the current ozone NAAQS, a .12

ppm ozone concentration is not treated

as a violation. With respect to CARB’s

amendments to the ZEV program, see

the discussion in section I.B.3.c.(2).

EDC also commented that ‘‘EDC does

not believe that the Ventura County

AQMP and attendant state and national

control measures are sufficient to

provide for timely attainment of the

ozone NAAQS in Ventura County. EDC

questions the validity of the model,

including its assumptions.’’ The

commenter provided no new

information or rationale for its

assertions, and EPA continues to

conclude that the attainment

demonstration is approvable.

On June 13, 1996, CARB provided

supplemental information to EPA which

clarified the ROG reductions needed for

attainment in Ventura. EPA has

incorporated this minor change in the

attainment demonstration shown below.

This minor change affects ROG

reductions from ‘‘Committed Local

Measures’’ (increased from 5 tpd to 6

tpd) and the ROG ‘‘TOTAL’’ column

(increased from 42 tpd to 43 tpd ROG).

VENTURA ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION

[In tons per summer day]

ROG NOX

1990 Baseline Emissions

Inventory ........................ 87 81

Carrying Capacity ............. 45 52

Reductions Needed .......... 42 29

Reductions from Adopted Measures .............. 30 24

Committed Local Measures ............................ 6 1

Committed State Measures ............................ 6 4

Reductions from National Measures1 ........ 1 1

Total ....................... 43 30

1 Credit shown is EPA’s estimate of reductions from statutorily-mandated national rules.

f. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves

the Ventura ozone SIP with respect to

the Act’s requirements for emission

inventories, control measures,

modeling, and demonstrations of 15%

ROP and post-1996 ROP and attainment.

EPA also approves the Ventura County

APCD’s commitments to adopt and

implement the listed control measures

to achieve the specified emissions

reductions by the dates shown.

7. South Coast

a. SIP Control Measures. (1) Updated

Rule Adoption Schedule. EPA’s

proposal discussed the failure of the

SCAQMD to adopt regulations on the

schedule contained in the 1994 Ozone

SIP, and asked the SCAQMD to adopt

and submit a revised schedule that is

‘‘reasonable and aggressive.’’ EPA

indicated its intention to approve

substitute dates if the revision would

not interfere with any applicable

requirement of the Act.

On April 12, 1996, the SCAQMD

adopted an updated rule schedule for

the South Coast. On July 10, 1996,

CARB submitted the schedule as a SIP

revision. In submitting the revision,

CARB summarized the State’s findings

regarding impacts of the delayed

adoption dates:

As stated in the Notice, the 1990–1996

rate-of-progress requirement for the South

Coast was met with previously adopted state

and local rules and regulations. Although the

revised schedule may delay by a year or two

the implementation dates of a few control

measures and the associated emission

reductions, all of the planned emission

reductions will be on track by the year 2000.

This will not affect compliance with the

Act’s progress requirement since the 1994

Ozone SIP currently accounts for 68 tons per

day of volatile organic compound emission

reductions above and beyond the minimum

progress requirement through 1999. Finally,

because the 2010 emission reductions from

the control measures remain unchanged, the

attainment demonstration will not be affected

by this revised schedule.

EPA concludes that the revision

would not violate applicable provisions

of the Act, including ROP and

attainment, assuming that the SCAQMD

adheres to the new schedule. EPA

therefore takes final action to approve

the revised adoption dates as listed in

the table labeled ‘‘South Coast Local

Control Measures.’’

(2) TCM Substitution. The State and

the Southern California Association of

Governments both requested that EPA’s

final approval of the South Coast TCMs

and Indirect Source control measures be

accompanied by deletion of prior TCMs

approved as part of previous SIPs and

replaced by these new measures. The

previously approved TCMs have

become outdated, and were not assumed

in the current attainment

demonstration. The request for TCM

deletion was included in the 1994 SIP

submittal as one of the elements of the

SCAQMD’s resolution of adoption of the

1994 AQMP. In this document, EPA is

taking final action to rescind from the

applicable SIP all previously approved

TCMs—an action which was mistakenly

omitted from the proposal.

(3) Near-Term Control Measures. The

State submitted comments making

minor adjustments to the dates and

emission reductions associated with the

control measures. EPA is making those

changes in this final action, as reflected

in revisions to the table labeled ‘‘South

Coast Local Control Measures.’’

The State also requested several

adjustments to the table of measures.

First, EPA’s proposal included 12

SCAQMD measures which the State did

not intend to submit as part of the ozone
1178 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

23Measure M–3, Congestion Pricing, was

inadvertently omitted from the proposal.

24Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions

for review of EPA’s action in approving the

measures would need to have been properly filed

within 60 days of this final action. Since new

information has been provided relating to the

section 182(e)(5) new-technology measures,

however, EPA is addressing most of the comments

that apply to EPA’s prior approval action.

25Letter from Lynn Terry, Assistant Executive

Officer, CARB, to Julia Barrow, Chief, Planning

Office, Air & Radiation Division, USEPA, dated

September 19, 1996; letter from Barry Wallerstein,

Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Dave

Howekamp, Division Director, Air & Toxics

Division, Region IX USEPA, dated September 18,

1996. This correspondence is part of EPA’s

rulemaking docket.

SIP on the grounds that they are not

needed for ozone attainment: CMB–01A,

CMB–01B, CMB–01C, CMB–01D, CMB–

01E, CMB–02A, CMB–02B, CMB–02C,

CMB–06, CMB–10, CMB–11, and MON–

07. The State requested deletion of the

measures in the final action. EPA is

correcting the mistake in the NPRM and

eliminating these measures from the

table.

Second, the State requested that EPA

amend the table of measures to

substitute for VOC RECLAIM the

‘‘Substitute Measures for CTS–01 VOC

RECLAIM’’ listed in Table A–10 of

Volume IV of the 1994 California Ozone

SIP, along with the reductions originally

associated with the VOC RECLAIM

program. After submittal of the 1994

SIP, the SCAQMD decided not to adopt

the VOC RECLAIM program, but to

pursue instead these alternative sources

of equivalent reductions. To correct the

mistake in the proposal, EPA has

revised the table to incorporate this list

of substitute measures from the 1994

submittal, along with the reductions

originally assigned to VOC RECLAIM.

Third, the State requested that EPA

amend the table to list the South Coast

transportation control measures (TCM–

01, ATT–01, ATT–02, ATT–03, ATT–

04, and ATT–05) under measure RME–

01, which was intended to subsume

them. In the final action, EPA has

rearranged the table to display more

accurately this relationship.

Fourth, the State asked EPA to clarify

that the South Coast’s market-based

measures (MKT–01, MKT–02, and

MKT–03 23) are intended as possible

alternatives to the 7 indirect source

(ISR) measures in the SIP. In the final

action, EPA has added a footnote and

rearranged the table to place the 3

market-based measures under the ISR

measures as potential replacements for

them.

Finally, the State requested that EPA

not make part of the SIP any emission

reductions from new local measures for

the 1996 ROP milestone year, since the

15% ROP plan assumes reductions only

from adopted State and local rules. In

the final action, EPA has deleted the

1996 column from the table of local

measures.

Environmental groups commented on

EPA’s proposed approval of the control

measures portion of the plan. NRDC and

the Coalition for Clean Air commented

extensively on the issue of whether EPA

should approve the South Coast

commitments to adopt control measures

and a SIP that is based on those

commitments rather than fully adopted

rules. EPA has responded to these

comments in section I.B.2.

The Environmental Defense Center

(EDC) stated that the South Coast plan

lacks potentially applicable controls and

fails the ‘‘as expeditiously as

practicable’’ standard. The commenter

provided no examples of controls that

were either not included in the South

Coast SIP or were not scheduled for

expeditious adoption and

implementation. EPA believes that the

SCAQMD and CARB adopted control

measures and enforceable schedules for

adoption and implementation of

additional measures together represent a

thorough list of control measures in

light of currently available control

technologies and control techniques.

EPA further believes that the schedules

for developing and adopting measures

in the future reflects expeditious

progress. CARB’s adopted and

scheduled mobile source, consumer

product, and pesticides measures all go

beyond (in many cases, they go

considerably beyond) existing control

requirements applicable elsewhere in

the Country. SCAQMD’s existing

regulations generally represent the most

complete and stringent controls for each

subject source category in the Country.

EPA believes that SCAQMD’s

schedule for adopting rules meets any

reasonable test for expeditious action,

given the complexity of most of the

pending regulations and the fact that

most of the controls are for source

categories previously unregulated or

never yet controlled to the extent

contemplated. SCAQMD’s rate-ofprogress demonstration exceeds the

Clean Air Act 3% per year requirement.

Finally, both SCAQMD and CARB

supplemented their comprehensive lists

of near-term measures with newtechnology measures. The SCAQMD’s

advanced control technology research

and development activities attract

worldwide interest as the most

significant air pollution control

technology development program of any

local air pollution control agency, and

CARB’s programs for investigating new

technologies and fuels, particularly for

motor vehicle emission reductions,

receives similar acclaim.

(4) New-Technology Measures. NRDC

and the Coalition for Clean Air (CCA)

had extensive comments on EPA’s

proposed approval of the newtechnology measures submitted by

CARB and the SCAQMD for inclusion in

the SIP under provisions of section

182(e)(5) of the Act. As discussed in the

proposal, this CAA section authorizes

EPA to approve conceptual measures

that rely on new technologies or new

control techniques as part of the

attainment demonstration for the South

Coast, the only ‘‘extreme’’ ozone

nonattainment area. The Act requires

that the measures not be needed to meet

progress requirements for the first 10

years and that the submittal be

accompanied by a commitment to adopt

contingency measures 3 years before the

new-technology measures are scheduled

for implementation. EPA approved the

CARB and SCAQMD new-technology

measures on August 21, 1995 (60 FR

43379).24

NRDC and CCA asked that EPA

include adoption dates for all section

182(e)(5) measures in the table of South

Coast Local Control Measures. EPA

agrees and has inserted the applicable

dates, which were inadvertently omitted

from the proposal.

NRDC and CCA commented that the

SIP does not include adequate

schedules and resource commitments

for the measures. Both CARB and the

SCAQMD have provided further

information as updates to and

elaboration on the development

approach for the new-technology

measures.25

Joint NRDC-CCA comments argued

that the SIP does not include an

adequate commitment from the State to

adopt contingency measures at least 3

years before proposed implementation

of the measures, as required by section

182(e)(5)(B). In a letter from Lynn Terry

to Julia Barrow dated September 19,

1996, CARB has clarified that the State’s

‘‘commitment in the SIP with respect to

the contingency measure requirement is

intended to provide the commitment

required by the Clean Air Act.’’

NRDC and CCA argued that the South

Coast SIP cannot be approved because it

over-relies on speculative section

182(e)(5) new technologies, which the

SIP fails to define adequately. EPA does

not believe that the Act provides a

quantitative limit on the extent to which

the attainment demonstration may rely

on new-technology measures. Moreover,

the majority of needed reductions in the

South Coast attainment demonstration

(roughly 75% of the required VOC and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1179

NOX reductions) derive from currently

adopted rules or enforceable

commitments to adopt rules in the near

future.

Nevertheless, EPA agrees with the

commenters that all the responsible

parties should work together to reduce

the size of the new-technology

component of the SIP by expeditiously

converting these measures first into

carefully defined control development

projects and then into feasible

regulations. EPA commits to do its share

to support the needed research and

development activities of CARB and the

SCAQMD.

Measures which the 1994 South Coast

Ozone SIP scheduled for near-term

adoption and implementation, or any

portion of the emissions reductions

scheduled to be achieved as a result of

implementation of those near-term

measures, may not be converted, at

some future time, into section 182(e)(5)

new-technology measures or moved into

emissions reductions associated with

section 182(e)(5) new technology

measures, without a convincing

showing in a SIP revision that the

technologies relied upon in the nearterm rules have been found to be

technologically infeasible or ineffective

in achieving emissions reductions in the

near-term. The near-term measures in

the 1994 SIP have not been determined

to ‘‘anticipate development of new

control techniques or improvement of

existing control technologies’’ (section

182(e)(5)). On the contrary, they were

evidently determined by the SCAQMD

and CARB to be both available and

necessary for expeditious progress in

reducing emissions in the near term in

the South Coast. Should either CARB or

the SCAQMD determine that new

information requires a reconsideration

of the near-term feasibility of the 1994

SIP near-term measures, the agencies

must submit a SIP revision

demonstrating convincingly that the

standard defined in this paragraph

above for conversion of near-term

measures to section 182(e)(5) new

technology measures has been met.

Absent such a convincing showing, a

SIP revision will not be approved by

EPA.

In view of continuing progress in the

development and successful application

of control technologies and control

techniques, the amount and relative

proportion of reductions from measures

scheduled for long-term adoption under

section 182(e)(5), as compared to

measures already adopted in regulatory

form or scheduled for near-term

adoption, should clearly decrease in any

future SIP update. EPA will not approve

a SIP revision that contains an increase

in the amount and relative proportion of

reductions scheduled for long-term

adoption under section 182(e)(5) that is

inconsistent with the standard defined

in the preceding paragraph. Further, to

the extent new modeling performed in

any subsequent SIP revision

demonstrates that there is an increase in

the year 2010 carrying capacity for ROG

and NOX, this change shall not be used

to decrease the amount of emissions

reductions scheduled to be achieved by

any near-term measure from the 1994

SIP unless CARB or the SCAQMD make

the convincing showing required by the

preceding paragraph.

EPA also agrees with the commenters

that, as part of California’s 1997 SIP

revision, the SCAQMD should provide

greater specificity in the description of

the South Coast Air Basin long-term

control measures. In order to help

ensure that the measures are

successfully developed and adopted

pursuant to the requirements of section

182(e)(5), the 1997 SIP and a summary

from publicly available budget

documents submitted to EPA must

define the long-term measures more

precisely with respect to the affected

source categories, expected reductions

from each category (or as many

categories as may be feasible), the most

likely control technologies and control

techniques to be employed, the agency’s

working schedule for each phase in the

development and adoption of the

control measures, evidence of adequate

resources committed to the activities,

and opportunities for the public to be

informed and involved in the process.

Furthermore, to ensure approvability of

the 1997 SIP, the revision must contain

a level of specificity for the nonbudgetary items noted above at least

containing the level of detail in the

clarification to draft Appendix IV to the

1997 Air Quality Management Plan,

which further defines the section

182(e)(5) measures, attached as

Attachment 2 to the letter from Barry

Wallerstein to Dave Howekamp, dated

September 18, 1996. The level of

specificity in the Long-Term Control

Measure for Miscellaneous VOC Sources

should be enhanced as additional

information becomes available. EPA

understands that this clarification to

draft Appendix IV is being made

available for public review and will be

formally considered for adoption by the

SCAQMD Governing Board.

(5) EPA Action. EPA concludes that

the control measures should be

approved in the final action. The South

Coast control measures are relied upon

in meeting the post-1996 ROP and

attainment requirements of the Act.

Accordingly, and because the measures

strengthen the SIP, EPA is approving,

under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of

the Act, the enforceable commitments to

adopt and implement the near-term

control measures by the dates specified

to achieve the emission reductions

shown. EPA also is assigning credit to

the near-term and new-technology

measures for purposes of post-1996 ROP

and attainment.

SOUTH COAST LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES

[Tons per day of VOC/NOX]

Control measure No. Control measure title Implementing

agency

Adoption

date

Implementation dates 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

CTS–01 ........... Substitute Measures for VOC

RECLAIM (12 rules listed immediately below).

SCAQMD ........ .................... 1998–2010 22.5/0 29.9/0 37.4/0 44.9/0 49.9/0

CTS–A ............ Electronic Components ............. SCAQMD ........ 1996

CTS–B ............ Petroleum Cold Cleaning .......... SCAQMD ........ 1996

CTS–C ............ Solvent Cleaning Operations ..... SCAQMD ........ 7/96

CTS–D ............ Marine/Pleasure Craft Coatings SCAQMD ........ 1996

CTS–E ............ Adhesives .................................. SCAQMD ........ 1996

CTS–F ............. Motor Vehicle Non-Assembly

Coating.

SCAQMD ........ 12/96

CTS–G ............ Paper/Fabric/Film Coatings ....... SCAQMD ........ 9/96

CTS–H ............ Metal Parts/Products Coatings .. SCAQMD ........ 10/96

CTS–I .............. Graphic Arts/Screen Printing ..... SCAQMD ........ 1996

CTS–J ............. Wood Products Coatings ........... SCAQMD ........ 6/96

CTS–K ............ Aerospace/Component Coatings SCAQMD ........ 11/96
1180 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

SOUTH COAST LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES—Continued

[Tons per day of VOC/NOX]

Control measure No. Control measure title Implementing

agency

Adoption

date

Implementation dates 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

CTS–L ............. Automotive Assembly Operations.SCAQMD ........ 1997

CTS–02 ........... Emission Reductions from Solvents and Coatings at NonRECLAIM Sources.

SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2005 25.0/0 58.1/0 80.9/0 88.3/0 92.8/0

CTS–03 ........... Consumer Product Labeling

Program.

SCAQMD ........ .................... 1998–2005 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

CTS–04 ........... Public Awareness/Education

Programs—Area Sources.

SCAQMD ........ .................... 1997–1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

CTS–05 ........... Further Emission Reductions

from Perchloroethylene Dry

Cleaning Operations.

SCAQMD ........ 1994 1996–1996 2.49/0 2.73/0 2.9/0 2.99/0 2.99/0

CTS–07 ........... Further Emission Reductions

from Architectural Coatings

(Rule 1113).

SCAQMD ........ 8/96 2001–2006 0/0 27.49/0 40.5/0 60.65/0 62.26/0

FUG–01 .......... Emission Reductions from Organic Liquid Transfer.SCAQMD ........ 1995 1996–1996 4.96/0 5.11/0 5.01/0 4.98/0 4.98/0

FUG–02 .......... Emission Reductions from Active Draining of Liquid Products.

SCAQMD ........ 7/96 1996–1996 5.52/0 5.73/0 5.49/0 5.05/0 4.76/0

FUG–03 .......... Further Emission Reductions

from Floating Roof Tanks.

SCAQMD ........ 1996 1998–1998 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

FUG–04 .......... Further Emission Reductions of

Fugitive Emissions.

SCAQMD ........ 10/96 2000–2010 0/0 .75/0 .75/0 .75/0 .75/0

RFL–01 ........... Emission Reductions from Utility

Engine Refueling Operations.

SCAQMD ........ 1997 2000–2010 0/0 .04/0 .04/0 .05/0 .06/0

RFL–02 ........... Further Emission Reductions

from Gasoline Dispensing Facilities.

SCAQMD ........ 1995 1996–2000 4.94/0 5.06/0 5.2/0 5.44/0 5.58/0

RFL–03 ........... Emission Reductions from

Pleasure Boat Fueling Operations.

SCAQMD ........ 1996 1996–1996 .77/0 .80/0 .83 .86/0 .88/0

CMB–02F ........ Further Controls of Emissions

from Internal Combustion Engines.

SCAQMD ........ 11/96 1998–2008 1.52/6.83 1.74/6.62 1.99/5.43 2.19/3.67 2.29/2.20

CMB–03 .......... Area Source Credits for Commercial and Residential Combustion Equipment.

SCAQMD ........ 11/96 1997–2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

CMB–04 .......... Area Source Credits for Energy

Conservation.

SCAQMD ........ 11/96 1997–2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

CMB–05 .......... Clean Stationary Fuels .............. SCAQMD ........ 1996 1996–2008 1.22/1.01 2.27/1.76 3.53/2.84 3.99/2.71 4.09/2.41

CMB–07 .......... Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery Flares.SCAQMD ........ 1997 1999–1999 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

MSC–01 .......... Promotion of Lighter Color

Roofing and Road Materials

and Tree Planting.

SCAQMD/local

govts.

.................... 1996–1998 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

MSC–02 .......... In-Use Compliance Program for

Air Pollution Control Equipment.

SCAQMD ........ 12/96 1997–1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

PRC–02 .......... Further Emission Reductions

from Bakeries.

SCAQMD ........ 1996 1998–2001 .24/0 .64/0 .68/0 .72/0 .75/0

PRC–03 .......... Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations.SCAQMD ........ 10/96 1996–2001 8.55/0 10.77/0 11.14/0 11.49/0 11.7/0

PRC–04 .......... Emission Reductions from Rubber Products Manufacturing.SCAQMD ........ 1996 1997–1997 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0

PRC–05 .......... Emission Reductions from Malt

Beverage Production Facilities and Wine or Brandy Making Facilities.

SCAQMD ........ 1996 1997–1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

SIP–01 ............ SIP Amendments—for Miscellaneous Sources.SCAQMD ........ Various 1998–1998 .06/0 .06/0 .06/0 .05/0 .05/0

WST–01 .......... Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste.SCAQMD ........ 12/96 1996–2003 8.39/0 8.86/0 9.31/0 9.77/0 10.07/0

WST–02 .......... Emission Reductions from

Composting of Dewatered

Sewage Sludge.

SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

WST–03 .......... Waste Burning ........................... SCAQMD ........ 1996 1998–1998 .07/0 .07/0 .06/0 .06/0 .06/0

WST–04 .......... Disposal of Materials Containing

Volatile Organic Compounds.

SCAQMD ........ 1996 1998–2001 .8/0 2.12/0 2.21/0 2.31/0 2.37/0

RME–01 .......... Regional Mobility Adjustment

(subsumes next 6 measures

in table).

......................... .................... .................... 11.3/1.15 15.98/6.58 18.5/13.74 20.64/21.77 22.26/27.67

TCM–01 .......... Transportation Improvements .... SCAG .............. 1997 2000–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

ATT–01 ........... Telecommunications .................. SCAQMD/

SCAG/local

govts.

.................... 1995–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

ATT–02 ........... Advanced Shuttle Transit .......... SCAQMD/

SCAG/local

govts.

.................... 1995–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1181

SOUTH COAST LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES—Continued

[Tons per day of VOC/NOX]

Control measure No. Control measure title Implementing

agency

Adoption

date

Implementation dates 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

ATT–03 ........... Zero Emission Vehicles/Infrastructure.Partnership ...... .................... 1995–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

ATT–04 ........... Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Infrastructure.Partnership ...... .................... 1995–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

ATT–05 ........... Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems.SCAQMD/

SCAG/local

govts.

.................... 1995–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

ISR–01 ............ Special Event Centers (SCAG

Measure TCM #10).

SCAQMD/local

govts.

1996 1997–2010 .77/.84 1.4/1.67 1.07/1.43 .81/1.26 1.33/2.2

ISR–02 ............ Shopping Centers (SCAG

Measure TCM #11).

SCAQMD/local

govts.

1996 1997–2010 1.36/1.5 2.3/2.73 1.75/2.35 1.34/2.07 1.69/2.89

ISR–03 ............ Registration and Commercial

Vehicles (SCAG Measure

TCM #12).

SCAQMD ........ 1996 1997–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

ISR–04 ............ Airport Ground Access (SCAG

Measure TCM #13).

SCAQMD/local

govts.

1996 1997–2010 .38/.42 .77/.92 .59/.79 .45/.7 .38/.65

ISR–05 ............ Trip Reduction for Schools

(SCAG Measure TCM #14).

SCAQMD/local

govts.

1996 1997–2010 .21/.24. .47/.63 .46/.72 .35/.64 .38/.74

ISR–06 ............ Enhanced Rule 1501 (SCAG

Measure TCM #15).

SCAQMD/local

govts.

1996 1997–2010 2.86/3.15 3.01/3.59 2.30/3.08 1.75/2.72 1.48/2.51

ISR–07 ............ Parking Cash-Out (SCAG

Measure TCM #16).

SCAQMD/local

govts.

1995 1997–2010 .17/.17 .13/.14 .10/.12 .08/.11 .06/.1

MKT–01 .......... Emission/VMT ............................ SCAG .............. * 2000–2010 * * * * *

MKT–02 .......... At-the-Pump Fee ....................... SCAG .............. * 2000–2010 * * * * *

MKT–03 .......... Congestion Pricing .................... SCAG .............. * 2000–2010 * * * * *

MON–01 .......... Emission Reduction Credits for

Low-Emission Retrofit Fleet

Vehicles.

SCAQMD/

CARB.

1996 1996–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

MON–02 .......... Eliminate Excessive Car Dealership Vehicle Starts; Educational.

SCAQMD/local

govts.

1996 .................... 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

MON–04 .......... Eliminate Excessive Curb Idling;

Educational.

SCAQMD/local

govts.

1996 .................... 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

MON–05 .......... Emissions Reduction Credit for

Heavy-Duty Buses.

SCAQMD ........ 1995 1995–2010 0/0 0/0 .12/.65 .11/.65 .11/.65

MON–06 .......... Emissions Reduction Credit for

Heavy-Duty Trucks.

SCAQMD ........ 1995 .................... 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

MOF–03 .......... Emission Reduction Credits for

Leaf Blowers.

SCAQMD/local

govts.

5/96 1996–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

MOF–04 .......... Off-Road Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credit Programs.

SCAQMD ........ 1995 1996–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

FSS–01 ........... Stage I Episode Plans ............... SCAQMD ........ .................... 2005–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

ADV–CTS–01 Advanced Technology—Coating

Technologies.

SCAQMD ........ 2003–2005 2006–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 14.35/0 23.88/0

ADV–FUG ....... Advanced Technology—Fugitive

Emission Controls.

SCAQMD ........ 2003–5 2006–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 14.13/0 23.11/0

ADV–PRC ....... Advanced Technology—Process

Related Emissions.

SCAQMD ........ 2003–5 2006–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 7.55/0 12.27/0

ADV–UNSP ..... Advanced Technology—Unspecified Stationary Source

Controls.

SCAQMD ........ 2003–5 2006–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 39.45/0 66.97/0

ADV–CTS–02 Advanced Technology—Coating

Technologies.

SCAQMD ........ 1996–2000 1997–2010 0/0 20.44/0 32.37/0 45.38/0 54.69/0

*Alternative to ISR measures above.

c. ROP Provisions. EPA is finalizing

approval of the South Coast ROP plan

as meeting the 15% ROP requirements

of section 182(b)(1) and the post-1996

ROP requirements of section 182(c)(2) of

the Act. The ROP VOC targets, projected

VOC emissions, and creditable VOC and

NOX reductions are shown in the table

below labeled ‘‘South Coast ROP

Forecasts and Targets.’’ The table

reflects CARB’s request that the State’s

ROP forecasts be substituted for the

SCAQMD plan forecasts, which EPA

erroneously displayed in the proposal.

SOUTH COAST ROP FORECASTS

[In tons per summer day]

1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

VOC emissions to meet ROP target ................................ 1181 1019 890 767 647 568

VOC emissions with plan reductions ................................ 1144 951 818 686 530 323

e. Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration. The Environmental

Defense Center (EDC) commented that

EPA should reject the South Coast’s

attainment demonstration because

CARB has abandoned the ZEV program.
1182 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

26The State has recently changed the names of

the respective air basins. Under State law, the

Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area is now part of

the Salton Sea Air Basin, and Antelope Valley is

part of the Mojave Desert Air Basin. In its 1996

session, the California State Legislature passed

legislation that would establish a new air agency to

have the responsibility for local air pollution plans

and measures in the Antelope Valley area.

EPA does not have information to

support the commenter’s contention

that the ZEV amendments invalidate the

attainment demonstration. See

discussion in section I.B.3.c.(2).

As discussed above in the proposal

and in section I.B.1., EPA’s proposed

approval of the South Coast attainment

demonstration was based, in part, on the

State’s submission of an enforceable SIP

commitment to adopt and submit as a

SIP revision:

(a) a revised attainment

demonstration for the South Coast as

appropriate after a consultative process

on future mobile source controls. This

SIP revision would be due December 31,

1997; and

(b) enforceable emission limitations

and other control measures needed to

achieve the emission reductions which

are determined to be appropriate for the

State. This SIP revision would be due

no later than December 31, 1999.

On May 17, 1996, CARB submitted

this commitment in the form of

Executive Order G–96–03, attached to a

letter from John D. Dunlap, III, to Felicia

Marcus. The Executive Order includes

the following language:

Now, Therefore, it is Ordered that pursuant

to Board Resolution 94–60, ARB hereby

commits to participate in the consultative

process described above, and to adopt and

submit as a SIP revision: (a) By December 31,

1997, a revised attainment demonstration for

the South Coast Air Basin as appropriate after

the consultative process, and (b) by

December 31, 1999, control measures needed

to achieve any additional emission

reductions which are determined to be

appropriate.

EPA is taking final action to approve

this commitment under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a), and the modeling

analysis and attainment demonstration

under section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Act. A

summary of the emission reductions

needed to attain the standard and

reductions projected from the SIP

control strategy is provided below in the

table labeled ‘‘South Coast Attainment

Demonstration.’’

SOUTH COAST ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION

[Tons per summer day]

VOC NOX

1990 Baseline Emissions

Inventory ........................ 1517 1361

Carrying Capacity ............. 323 553

Reductions Needed .......... 1194 808

Reductions from Adopted

measures ....................... 463 429

Committed Local measures ................................ 453 43

Committed State measures ................................ 231 227

SOUTH COAST ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION—Continued

[Tons per summer day]

VOC NOX

‘‘Federal Assignments’’ ..... 47 109

Total ....................... 1194 808

The South Coast attainment

demonstration relies, in part, on

reductions from a fully-enhanced I/M

program. As discussed in EPA’s

proposed approval of California’s

enhanced I/M program and above in

section II.A.3., credits associated with

this control measure will become

permanent following the State’s

submission of the required analysis

demonstrating that the enhanced I/M

program is achieving the emission

reductions claimed in the attainment

demonstration. At that point, EPA’s

approval of the South Coast attainment

demonstration will also become

permanent.

f. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves

the South Coast ozone SIP with respect

to the Act’s requirements for emission

inventories, control measures,

modeling, and demonstrations of 15%

ROP, post-1996 ROP, and attainment.

EPA approves SCAQMD’s commitments

to adopt and implement the near-term

control measures to achieve the

specified emission reductions by the

dates shown. EPA also approves CARB’s

commitments relating to the public

consultative process and future SIP

revisions.

7. Southeast Desert

(a) Control Measures. As discussed in

EPA’s proposal, the Southeast Desert

Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area

(‘‘Southeast Desert’’) covers the Victor

Valley/Barstow region in San

Bernardino County (‘‘Mojave’’), the

Coachella Valley/San Jacinto region in

Riverside County (‘‘Coachella’’), and the

Antelope Valley region in Los Angeles

County (‘‘Antelope’’).26 The first of these

areas is the responsibility of the Mojave

Desert Air Quality Management District

(MDAQMD). The second and third areas

are currently the responsibility of the

SCAQMD. Separate control measures,

ROP and attainment demonstrations

were prepared for each of the areas.

The SCAQMD’s existing rules and

committal measures apply not only

throughout the South Coast Air Basin

but also in the SCAQMD’s portions of

the Southeast Desert. The SIP includes

the State measures and a subset of the

SCAQMD measures approved above in

sections II.A. and II.B.6., but does not

add to that list any unique State or local

controls for the Coachella and Antelope

regions.

The MDAQMD included in the

Mojave Plan 7 measures, all of which

have now been adopted in regulatory

form. Three of the rules have been

approved as part of the SIP: 461

Gasoline Transfer Dispensing, 1103

Asphalt Paving, and 1160 Internal

Combustion Engines. The table labeled

‘‘Mojave SIP Control Measures and

VOC/NOX Reductions lists the rules that

have not yet been approved. This table

includes Rules 1157, 1158, and 1159,

which were mistakenly omitted from

the proposal.

The MDAQMD control measures are

relied upon in meeting the attainment

requirements of the Act. Accordingly,

and because the measures strengthen

the SIP, EPA is approving, under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act,

the enforceable commitments to adopt

and implement the control measures to

achieve the emission reductions shown.

EPA also is assigning credit to the

measures for purposes of attainment.

MOJAVE SIP CONTROL MEASURES AND

VOC/NOX REDUCTIONS

[In Tons/Day for 1996]

MDAQMD Measure VOC NOX

Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings ............ 0.92 0

Rule 1157 Boilers/

Process Heaters ........ 0 0.04

Rule 1158 Electric

Power Generation ..... 0 0.13

Rule 1159 Gas Turbines .......................... 0 0.13

b. ROP Provisions. EPA will take

action on the ROP provisions for the

Southeast Desert in separate

rulemakings.

c. Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration. As discussed in the

proposal, the SIP includes modeling

information, based on the South Coast

UAM analysis, demonstrating that

reductions from the South Coast SIP

(along with SIP reductions within the

area) will bring the Southeast Desert

into attainment by the statutory

deadline. EPA therefore proposes to

approve the Southeast Desert modeling

and attainment demonstration under

section 182(c)(2) of the Act.

d. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves

the Southeast Desert ozone SIP with
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1183

respect to the Act’s requirements for

emission inventories, control measures,

modeling, and demonstration of

attainment. EPA also approves

MDAQMD’s commitments to adopt and

implement the listed control measures

to achieve the specified emissions

reductions. EPA will take action on the

15% ROP and the post-1996 ROP plan

elements for the three Southeast Desert

subregions in separate rulemakings.

III. Summary of EPA Actions

EPA approves the following elements

of the 1994 California Ozone SIP for the

listed areas, as meeting applicable CAA

requirements:

(1) Emission Inventories for San

Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento,

Ventura, South Coast, and Southeast

Desert, under section 182(a)(1) of the

CAA.

(2) 15% ROP Plans for San Diego, San

Joaquin, Ventura, and South Coast,

under section 182(b)(1).

(3) Post-1996 ROP Plans for San

Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento,

Ventura, and South Coast, under section

182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA.

(4) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstrations for San Diego, San

Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura,

Southeast Desert, and South Coast,

under section 182(c)(2) of the CAA.

(5) All of the local control measures

listed above in section II.B., for each of

the nonattainment areas, including the

specific emissions reductions for each

milestone year, under sections 110(k)(3)

and 301(a) of the CAA.

(6) All of the State’s control measures

contained in the 1994 California Ozone

SIP that EPA has not previously

approved: M1—Accelerated Retirement

of LDVs, M4—Early Introduction of 2g/

bhp-hr Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles,

M7—Accelerated Retirement of HDVs,

CP3— Aerosol Paints, and Pesticides,

under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a).

EPA approval includes assignment of

specific emissions reductions by

nonattainment area and milestone year

(as displayed in the tables in section

II.A.) for all of the State control

measures, including those previously

approved under sections 110(k)(3),

182(e)(5), and 301(a) of the CAA. Under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act,

EPA approves CARB’s commitments to

revise the South Coast attainment

demonstration and adopt appropriate

measures following the conclusion of

the public consultative process. Under

section 301 of the Act, EPA issues the

Agency’s commitment to undertake

rulemaking to promulgate additional

Federal measures determined to be

appropriate.

EPA approves California’s I/M

regulations under sections 110(k)(3) and

301(a). EPA also approves the State’s

basic I/M program under sections

182(b)(4) and 187(a)(4) of the CAA and

the enhanced I/M program, including

the assignment of specific emissions

reductions identified in section II.A.3.

above, under sections 182(c)(3) and

187(a)(6) of the CAA and section 348(c)

of the Highway Act.

In final action, EPA deletes from the

applicable SIP all transportation control

measures included in prior SIPs for

Ventura and the South Coast, and

Fresno measure ‘‘Exclusive High

Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Freeway

41.’’

EPA will take separate regulatory

action on the 15% ROP Plans for

Sacramento and the Southeast Desert

and the post-1996 ROP Plan for the

Southeast Desert.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Regulatory Process

A. Executive Order 12886

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

business, small not-for-profit enterprises

and government entities with

jurisdiction over populations of less

than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301 and subchapter I, part D of the

Clean Air Act, do not create any new

requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not impose

any new requirements, it does not have

a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal/state relationship

under the Act, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Act forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, EPA submitted a report containing

this rule and other required information

to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2) of the APA as amended.
1184 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by March 10, 1997.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

Appendix A: Current Status of EPA’s

Activities Relating to the ‘‘Federal

Assignments’’ in the California SIP

Submittal

Note: The 1994 California Ozone SIP

includes ‘‘Federal’’ mobile source

assignments (SIP Measures M6, M10, M12,

M13, M14, M15, and M16). In so doing, the

State not only asked EPA to complete

statutorily mandated responsibilities but also

to undertake discretionary regulations to

achieve specific mobile source emission

reductions needed for the California

attainment demonstrations, particularly for

the South Coast. This fact sheet summarizes

the current status of Federal activities

relating to the source categories covered by

each of the State’s ‘‘Federal Assignments.’’

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles

Measure M6 of the 1994 California Ozone

State Implementation Plan (‘‘the SIP’’)

provides for adoption by EPA of a Federal

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) standard for new

heavy-duty diesel on-highway vehicles. The

NOX standard called for in the SIP is 2.0

grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr),

to be implemented beginning in 2004. A

Federal standard would help reduce

emissions from the large number of out-ofstate trucks which operate in California.

EPA is fulfilling its commitment to propose

tighter NOX emission standards for Federal

on-highway heavy-duty vehicles as part of

the NOX/PM (particulate matter) Initiative.

On July 11, 1995, EPA, the California Air

Resources Board (CARB), and the leading

manufacturers of heavy-duty engines signed

a Statement of Principles (SOP) that

established a consensus plan to substantially

reduce emissions from future trucks and

buses on a nationwide basis. The goal of the

SOP is to ensure cleaner air in a manner

which is both realistic for the heavy-duty

engine industry and responds to

environmental needs as well. As a result of

the SOP, EPA published an Advanced Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on August

31, 1995. The ANPRM announced plans to

propose a choice of standards for combined

non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus

NOX: 2.4 g/bhp-hr, or 2.5 g/bhp-hr with an

NMHC cap of 0.5 g/bhp-hr. Engines meeting

these future standards are expected to be over

80 percent cleaner than pre-control engines.

EPA formally proposed these standards and

related provisions in a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) published on June 27,

1996 (61 FR 33421–33469). The Final Rule

has a target publication date of winter 1996–

1997. The new standards would be

implemented beginning in 2004 and would

apply to all on-highway heavy-duty engines.

CARB played a very important role in the

achievement of the Statement of Principles

(SOP). In addition, CARB has given EPA

tremendous support in the development of

the ANPRM and the NPRM. As a result of the

SOP and rulemaking processes, EPA and

CARB will have harmonized programs for

new heavy-duty engines, an advantage for

engine manufacturers.

Off-Road Industrial Equipment (Diesel)

Measure M10 of the SIP provides for

adoption by EPA of a Federal NOX standard

for, at a minimum, new farm and

construction equipment with diesel engines

rated at less than 175 hp (130 kw). These are

the engines which California is preempted

from regulating under the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments. The NOX standard called for in

the SIP is 2.5 g/bhp-hr (3.3 g/kw-hr), to be

implemented beginning in 2005.

In its 1991 Nonroad Study, EPA

determined that nonroad diesel engines rated

at 37 kw and more, including those covered

in SIP measure M10, emit a substantial

portion of the nation’s NOX inventory. In

response, EPA set a 9.2 g/kw-hr NOX

standard for these engines in 1994, to be

phased-in beginning in 1996. The Agency

also expressed its intent to undertake a

second tier of standard setting to further

control these emissions. The Clean Air Act

provides for this as a discretionary effort and

contains no requirements or guidance

regarding the level or timing of the standards.

Initial work on this second tier of standard

setting is currently underway as part of the

NOX/PM Initiative. The NOX/PM Initiative

has been a joint program of both EPA and

CARB. EPA and CARB recognize that

harmonizing Federal and California

standards would help to achieve air quality

goals in all states by eliminating the potential

for equipment with higher-emitting engines

being transported across state borders.

Harmonized standards would also have

obvious advantages for manufacturers. The

participation of CARB staff on this initiative

has been invaluable.

EPA, CARB, and all key nonroad diesel

engine and equipment manufacturers signed

an SOP on September 13, 1996, similar in

many ways to the SOP signed in 1995

relating to highway heavy-duty engines. EPA

expects to propose standards for diesel

engines used in most land-based nonroad

equipment and in some marine applications.

The proposed standards will represent

second and third tiers of control for larger

engines and will also include Tier 1 and Tier

2 standards for small diesel engines. These

standards are expected to result in major

reductions in this very large class of emission

sources, with NOX reductions ranging from

40–75%, depending on engine size. Also

based on the SOP, EPA expects to propose

special provisions which provide

implementation flexibility to manufacturers

of the nonroad equipment in which these

engines are used to account for engine

modifications which the engine

manufacturers may choose to make. In

addition to resulting in a common set of

standards for this category for EPA and

CARB, these standards will essentially

achieve harmonization of standards between

the U.S. and Europe.

Gas and LPG Equipment 25–175 Horsepower

Measure M12 of the SIP provides for

adoption by EPA of a Federal program that

will implement three-way catalyst

technology on new nonroad equipment

powered by gasoline or liquefied petroleum

gas (LPG) engines rated at between 25 hp (18

kw) and 175 hp (130 kw). The goal of this

measure it to reduce NOX emissions by at

least 50 percent and hydrocarbon emissions

by 75 percent. This is a complementary

measure to measure M10 and much of the

discussion of that measure applies here as

well.

EPA does not currently have any emission

standards for gasoline or LPG engines in this

category. However, under a consent decree

signed by EPA with the Sierra Club on June

10, 1993, EPA agreed to determine by

November 30, 1996 whether or not to

regulate large gasoline nonroad engines and,

if so, by what schedule. At this time, the

Agency is considering setting standards for

these engines as part of the NOX/PM

Initiative and has begun discussions about a

possible SOP. Although substantial emission

reductions may be pursued, there is no

assurance that setting standards as low as

those sought by CARB would be the most

appropriate approach nationwide.

Marine Vessels

Measure M13 of the SIP assumes that the

U.S. EPA and International Maritime

Organization (IMO) will adopt emission

standards that will reduce NOX emissions

from new marine diesel engines by 30

percent. M13 also assumes that EPA will

issue standards for new marine diesel

engines used in vessels operated primarily in

domestic waters that will reduce NOX

emissions by at least 65 percent.

The IMO, a special agency of the United

Nations, is developing regulations for the

reduction of NOX and sulfur oxides (SOX)

from ships. These regulations are part of a

new Annex VI to the International

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution

from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), which

addresses the control of air pollution from

ships. An IMO committee, the Marine

Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC)

is scheduled to finalize the draft Annex in

March 1997. A diplomatic conference will be

held in September 1997 to review and adopt

the Annex. After adoption, each signatory

country will consider the Annex for

ratification and, after the ratification

requirements specified in the Annex are met,

it will go into effect. Before the Annex can

be enforced within U.S. waters, Congress will

have to ratify it and provide appropriate

authority to a government agency to

implement it.

The emission requirements set out in the

Annex will apply only to engines larger than
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1185

130 kW (175 hp) installed on ships

constructed on or after January 1, 2000;

engines installed on ships constructed before

that date are exempt. However, the standards

will apply to any replacement engine

installed on any ship beginning January 1,

2000, as well as to engines that undergo

‘‘substantial modification’’ or whose power is

increased by 10 percent. Because existing

engines are not covered by the standards,

achieving the target 30 percent reduction will

require considerable time (turnover of ships

is estimated to be about 30 years). Also, it

will be necessary for the annex to achieve

full implementation by flag states.

Only one-third of the commercial marine

fleet will have turned over by 2010; therefore,

the full 30 percent emission reduction from

marine vessels will not be realized. To

achieve greater reductions more quickly, it

will be necessary to explore operational

controls on ocean-going commercial marine

vessels that operate off California’s coasts,

particularly in the South Coast region. Three

studies are underway to investigate issues

relating to the contribution of these marine

vessels to air quality in the South Coast area

and along the Santa Barbara channel.

Collectively, these studies will help EPA and

other interested parties understand and

explore potential operational control

strategies needed for further emissions

reductions from marine sources. EPA is

involved in all of these efforts, along with the

United States Navy, the United States Coast

Guard, the South Coast Air Quality

Management District, and CARB.

The largest of these studies is sponsored by

the United States Navy. This goal of this

study is to better characterize ship traffic and

its impact on ozone exceedances in Ventura

County. It will investigate air trajectory and

transport mechanisms, clarify ship traffic

patterns, collect ozone measurement data,

and collect weather parameters for modeling.

This on-going study is not complete at this

time. A second study, sponsored by

SCAQMD, will measure the marine vessel

emission inventory and explore potential

control strategies. The SCAQMD study

should be completed by June 1996. A third

study, the Southern California Transport

Study, led by CARB, will examine air

pollution transport in Southern California.

This study will provide an enhanced air

quality and meteorological database for

Southern California, which will provide the

basis for improved modeling. Data will be

collected at the surface and aloft, as well as

over water.

As originally drafted, the standards set out

in MARPOL Annex VI would apply to any

engine larger than 130 kW installed on a

vessel that operates in the ‘‘marine

environment.’’ This means that the Annex

would apply to vessels operating in domestic

as well as international waters. To preserve

the ability to set more stringent standards for

engines installed on vessels that operate in

U.S. domestic waters, the U.S. sought to limit

the application of the Annex. Specifically, at

the July 1996 MEPC meeting, the U.S.

succeeded in obtaining an exemption to the

Annex for high speed engines installed on

vessels that are not engaged in international

voyages. This exemption gives EPA the

ability to pursue more stringent national

emission control for high speed diesel marine

engines on vessels that operate primarily in

domestic waters. EPA is currently preparing

an NPRM to set standards for these engines.

Locomotives

In Measure M14, CARB assumed

locomotive emission reductions from two

EPA programs. The first of these programs

was the statutorily required EPA national

regulation for locomotives and locomotive

engines, (national locomotive regulation).

EPA expects that the planned national

locomotive regulation will provide all of the

CARB SIP credits with the exception of the

67% reduction in NOX emissions in the

South Coast by 2010.

To address the South Coast’s need for

further emission reductions EPA has

considered a special locomotive program for

the South Coast. This program would ensure

that all locomotives operating in the South

Coast achieve on average, an emission level

equal to EPA national locomotive regulation

tier 2 standards. Since these standards are

technology forcing, the practical requirement

would be to require an accelerated fleet

turnover in the South Coast such that only

the newest engines meeting the EPA tier 2

standards would operate in the South Coast.

This program would provide an

approximately two-thirds reduction in

locomotive NOX emissions in the South

Coast by 2010 and result in a NOX emission

level of 12 tons/day in the South Coast. The

railroads that operate in the South Coast have

indicated support for this program. EPA is

continuing to explore innovative approaches

to establish the South Coast clean locomotive

fleet program as part of the SIP.

Aircraft

Measure M15 calls for U.S. EPA to adopt

standards to effect a 30 percent reduction in

reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOX

emissions beginning in 2000. M15 apparently

applies to new commercial aircraft engines,

but also suggests reconsideration of the

exempt status of military aircraft.

The federal Clean Air Act authorizes EPA

to establish emission standards for aircraft

engines. In recognition of this preemptive

authority, the SIP assigns new nationwide

emission standards for commercial aircraft

engines to EPA that would reduce ROG and

NOX emissions from this source by 30

percent beginning in 2000. The SIP also

correctly acknowledges that military aircraft

engines are currently exempt from emission

standards, which otherwise apply to

commercial aircraft engines. In this regard,

the SIP recommends that the exempt status

of these aircraft be reconsidered.

The International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO) is the most appropriate

forum for establishing commercial aircraft

engine emission standards due to the

international nature of the aviation industry.

EPA is currently preparing a direct final rule

to formally adopt the existing ICAO NOX and

CO standards.

EPA has actively participated in

considering more stringent NOX standards as

part of ICAO’s Committee on Aviation

Environmental Protection (CAEP) in the

intervening period since the FIP. In

December 1995, CAEP recommended a 16

percent increase in stringency for the NOX

standard that applies to medium and large

turbine engines used on commercial aircraft.

The revised standard would affect newly

certified engines (i.e., engine models

produced for the first time) beginning in

2000, and all newly manufactured engines

(i.e., engines already being produced) in

2008. The revised standard would not affect

engines already in air service. No revision of

the hydrocarbon emission standard was

considered by CAEP at the time, principally

because modern turbine engines are

considered very ‘‘clean’’ in this regard.

The CAEP recommendation will now move

through the ICAO hierarchy for

consideration. Initially, the ICAO Council

will act on the recommendation. If the

Council finds it acceptable, the revision

moves to the full ICAO Assembly for final

action. This process may not be complete

until the spring of 1998.

The emission benefits of any new NOX

standard will occur worldwide. These

benefits, however, will gradually accrue over

an extended period of time. More

specifically, the full benefits of the revised

standard will not occur until well after 2010,

because of the 2008 date for full

implementation of the standard and the slow

fleet turnover to new, cleaner engines (e.g.,

aircraft last about 25 years in active service.)

Therefore, very few of the potential benefits

will be realized by the SIP’s attainment date.

Turning to the exemption for military

engines, EPA agrees with the SIP

recommendation that such a blanket

exemption should be reconsidered in the

consultative process. EPA hopes to address

the feasibility of applying emission standards

to military engines in the public consultative

process.

EPA has also continued to explore other

ways to reduce the environmental effects of

air travel in California and throughout the

nation in the intervening period since the

FIP. More specifically, the Agency and the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are

working cooperatively to encourage

continuing progress in reducing emissions

from ground service equipment and aircraft

auxiliary power units. EPA has sponsored

additional work to compile technical data

and emission inventory methods. This

information will be used by the Federal

Aviation Administration to develop an

Advisory Circular for use by airlines and

airport authorities interested in reducing the

emissions from these sources.

Pleasurecraft

Measure M16 assumes that U.S. EPA

finalizes proposed national ROG and NOX

standards for various categories of new

engines used in watercraft.

EPA has finalized its proposed emission

standards for spark-ignition marine engines.

The final rule is expected to reduce by about

75% the HC emissions from outboard motors,

personal watercraft, and jet boats beginning

in model year 1998. EPA has issued guidance

to states on the amount of credit that will be

allowed due to this rulemaking. There is no

second phase rulemaking planned.
1186 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

EPA has not yet finalized the proposed

emission standards for compression-ignition

marine engines. The court ordered deadline

for completion of this action is December

1996. EPA has not yet issued guidance to

states on the amount of credit that will be

allowed due to this rulemaking.

Appendix B: Schedule for Public

Consultative Process

Background: The Need to Achieve Our

Public Health Goals

Air pollution remains a significant public

health concern in many parts of the country,

including many areas of California. The

Clean Air Act requires states to develop state

implementation plans (SIPs) that lay out how

areas will reduce pollution and attain the

health-based air quality standards for a

number of pollutants including ground level

ozone—smog.

Despite the dramatic progress that

aggressive air quality regulations have made

in reducing smog levels, residents of the

South Coast continue to experience by far the

worst air pollution in the United States. The

1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast shows the

need for massive additional reductions to

reach target emission levels of VOC and

NOX—volatile organic compounds and

nitrogen oxides, the pollutants that react with

sunlight to form ozone.

The South Coast SIP includes federal, state

and local regulations and commitments to

achieve the emission reductions needed to

attain the national ozone health standard by

2010. U.S. EPA has already issued or is in the

process of issuing stringent national controls

on most categories of mobile sources,

including heavy-duty trucks and buses;

construction, farm, and lawn and garden

equipment; pleasure craft; some categories of

marine vessels; and locomotives.

Purpose of the Public Consultative Process on

Future Mobile Source Controls

Through a public process, we hope

together to identify the best options for

achieving further emission reductions from

mobile source controls, at least to the extent

they are needed for attainment of the ozone

health standard in the South Coast, and to

ensure that appropriate parties accept

responsibility for adopting and implementing

the controls expeditiously.

Schedule

July 19, 1996—Los Angeles public meeting

to introduce to the general public the

consultative process and to allow California

stakeholders an opportunity to provide input

to the proposed national truck and bus rules

during the public comment period.

November 1996—Los Angeles public

meeting to discuss pending national and

international ship controls, possible

reductions from port measures, pending

national and international aircraft controls,

and possible reductions from airport

measures.

November 1996 to May 1997—Los Angeles

informal workshops to provide further input

on desirable control measures for airports/

aircraft and (separately) ports/ships.

February 1997—Los Angeles public

meeting to continue discussions of

opportunities for reductions from future

mobile source measures and to allow

California stakeholders to provide informal

input to the proposed national nonroad rules

during the public comment period.

June 1997—Los Angeles public meeting or

public hearing to summarize findings during

the consultative process, identifying SIP

reductions from specific new measures and

setting out an approach for dealing with the

remaining shortfall (if any).

Future Updates to the Schedule

Information on the date and location of

public meetings will be placed on EPA

Region 9’s site on the Internet’s World Wide

Web at http://www.epa.gov/region09 (go to

Air Programs). Those wishing to be placed on

EPA’s mailing list for public consultative

process meeting announcements should

write or phone Julia Barrow (see the

Addresses portion of this document).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: September 25, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(204)(i)(A)(6),

(c)(204)(i)(B)(2), (c)(204)(i)(C) through

(F), (c)(205)(i)(A), (c)(213), and (c)(233)

through (238) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(204) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(6) State control measures:

Accelerated Retirement of LDV’s

(Measure M1), Early Introduction of 2g/

bhp-hr Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles

(Measure M4), Accelerated Retirement

of Heavy-Duty Vehicles (Measure M7),

Aerosol Paints (Measure CP3), and

California Department of Pesticide

Regulation’s Pesticide Plan, as

contained in ‘‘The California State

Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume

II: The Air Resources Board’s Mobile

Source and Consumer Products

Elements,’’ adopted on November 15,

1994, and tables of local agency control

measures and revisions to local Rate-ofProgress plan elements as contained in

‘‘The California State Implementation

Plan for Ozone, Volume IV: ‘‘Local

Plans,’’ adopted on November 15, 1994.

(B) * * *

(2) Control measures, emissions

inventory, modeling, and ozone

attainment demonstration, as contained

in ‘‘1994 Air Quality Management

Plan,’’ adopted on September 9, 1994.

(C) San Diego Air Pollution Control

District.

(1) Emissions inventory, 15% Rate-ofProgress plan, Post-1996 Rate-ofProgress plan, modeling, and ozone

attainment demonstration, as contained

in ‘‘1994 Ozone Attainment and Rate-ofProgress Plans for San Diego County,’’

adopted on November 1, 1994.

(D) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Control measures, emissions

inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress plan,

Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan,

modeling, and ozone attainment

demonstration, as contained in ‘‘San

Joaquin Valley Attainment and Rate-ofProgress Plans,’’ adopted on November

14, 1994.

(E) Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Control measures, emissions

inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress plan,

Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan,

modeling, and ozone attainment

demonstration, as contained in ‘‘1994

Air Quality Management Plan for

Ventura County,’’ adopted on November

8, 1994.

(F) Mojave Desert Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Control measures, emissions

inventory, modeling, and ozone

attainment demonstration, as contained

in ‘‘Rate-of-Progress and Attainment

Demonstration Plans for the Mojave

Desert,’’ adopted on October 26, 1994.

(205) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) Kern County Air Pollution Control

District.

(1) Emissions inventory, modeling,

and ozone attainment demonstration, as

contained in ‘‘Rate-of-Progress and

Attainment Demonstration Plans for the

Kern County Air Pollution Control

District,’’ adopted on December 1, 1994.

* * * * *

(213) California Statewide Emission

Inventory submitted on March 30, 1995,

by the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) California Air Resources Board.

(1) 1990 Base-Year Emission

Inventory for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas in California.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1187

(i) Sacramento, San Diego, San

Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Southeast

Desert, Ventura.

* * * * *

(233) New and amended plans for the

following agencies were submitted on

December 29, 1994, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) South Coast Air Quality

Management District.

(1) 15% Rate-of-Progress plan and

Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan for the

Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin

Area, as contained in the ‘‘Rate-ofProgress Plan Revision: South Coast Air

Basin & Antelope Valley & Coachella/

San Jacinto Planning Area,’’ adopted on

December 9, 1994.

(B) Sacramento Metropolitan Air

Quality Management District.

(1) Emissions inventory, Post-1996

Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling, and

ozone attainment demonstration, as

contained in ‘‘Sacramento Area

Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans,’’

adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan

Air Quality Management District on

December 1, 1994; by Feather River Air

Quality Management District on

December 12, 1994; by El Dorado

County Air Pollution Control District on

December 13, 1994; by Yolo-Solano Air

Pollution Control District on December

14, 1994; and by Placer County Air

Pollution Control District on December

20, 1994.

(234) The California Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Program

was submitted on January 22, 1996, by

the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) California Air Resources Board.

(1) Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program adopted on

January 22, 1996.

(i) Health and Safety Code: Division

26, Part 5 § 39032.5; Chapter 5. Motor

Vehicle Inspection Program, Article 1,

Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, Article 5,

Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, Article 9.

(ii) Business and Professions Code,

Chapter 20.3, Automotive Repair,

Article 4, § 9886, § 9886.1, § 9886.2,

§ 9886.4.

(iii) Vehicle Code § 4000.1, § 4000.2,

§ 4000.3, § 4000.6.

(iv) Title 16, California Code or

Regulations, Division 33, Bureau of

Automotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor

Vehicle Inspection Program, § 3340.1,

§ 3340.5, § 3340.6, § 3340.10, § 3340.15,

§ 3340.16, § 3340.16.5, § 3340.16.6,

§ 3340.17, § 3340.18, § 3340.22,

§ 3340.22.1, § 3340.22.2, § 3340.22.3,

§ 3340.23, § 3340.24, § 3340.28,

§ 3340.29, § 3340.30, § 3340.31,

§ 3340.32, § 3340.32.1, § 3340.33,

§ 3340.33.1, § 3340.35, § 3340.35,

§ 3340.36, § 3340.41, § 3340.41.3,

§ 3340.41.5, § 3340.42, § 3340.42.1.,

§ 3340.50, § 3340.50.1, § 3340.50.3,

§ 3340.50.4, § 3340.50.5.

(235) New and amended plans for the

following agencies were submitted on

May 17, 1996, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) California Air Resources Board.

(1) Executive Order G–96–031, dated

May 17, 1996, State commitment to

participate in public consultative

process, submit a revised attainment

demonstration for the South Coast as

appropriate by December 31, 1997, and

submit control measures to achieve

emission reductions determined to be

appropriate, if any, by December 31,

1999.

(236) New and amended plans for the

following agencies were submitted on

June 13, 1996, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) California Air Resources Board.

(1) Letter dated June 13, 1996, from

James D. Boyd to David Howekamp,

including ‘‘Corrections to State and

Local Measures’’ (Attachment A) and

‘‘Summary Emission Reduction

Spreadsheets’’ (Attachment C).

(237) New and amended plans for the

following agencies were submitted on

July 10, 1996, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) South Coast Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Revised rule adoption schedule,

adopted on April 12, 1996.

(238) New and amended plans for the

following agencies were submitted on

July 12, 1996, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) ‘‘Revised Rule Adoption and

Implementation Schedule’’ (Table 4–2)

and ‘‘Architectural Coatings’’ (Appendix

E–95, Tables E–43 and E–45) contained

in ‘‘Ventura County 1995 Air Quality

Management Plan Revision,’’ adopted

on December 19, 1995.

(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, as

contained in ‘‘San Joaquin Valley

Revised Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress

Plans,’’ adopted on September 20, 1995.

3. 40 CFR part 52 is amended by

adding a new section 52.238 to read as

follows:

§ 52.238 Commitment to undertake

rulemaking.

(a) The Administrator shall undertake

rulemaking, after the South Coast

mobile source public consultative

process, to promulgate any VOC and

NOX mobile source controls which are

determined to be appropriate for EPA

and needed for ozone attainment in the

Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin

Area.

4. 40 CFR part 52 is amended by

adding a new section 52.241 to read as

follows:

§ 52.241 Interim approval of enhanced

inspection and maintenance program.

(a) Under section 348(c) of the

National Highway Systems Designation

Act (Pub. L. 104–59), the California SIP

is approved as meeting the provisions of

section 182(c)(3) for applicable ozone

areas and section 187(a)(6) for

applicable carbon monoxide areas with

respect to the requirements for

enhanced motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance. This approval expires on

August 7, 1998, or earlier if by such

earlier date the State has submitted as

a SIP revision the required

demonstration that the credits are

appropriate and that the program is

otherwise in compliance with the Clean

Air Act and EPA takes final action

approving that revision.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–144 Filed 1–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR PART 52

[CA114–0025; FRL–5665–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California;

Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to

the California State Implementation

Plan (SIP) for ozone for Santa Barbara

County. Specifically, EPA is approving

the emissions inventory, control

measures, and 15% rate-of-progress

plan. The California Air Resources

Board (CARB) submitted this SIP

revision to EPA on November 14, 1994.

EPA is approving this revision to the

California SIP under provisions of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals for

nonattainment areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This approval is

effective on February 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

rulemaking are contained in Docket No.