10920 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

meeting will be included in the

Administrative Record.

Executive Order 12291

On March 30, 1992, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) granted

the Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) an

exemption from sections 3, 4, 7 and 8

of Executive Order 12291 for actions

related to approval or disapproval of

State and tribal abandoned mine land

reclamation plans and revisions thereof.

Therefore, preparation of a regulatory

impact analysis is not necessary and

OMB regulatory review is not required.

Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778 and

has determined that, to the extent

allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State and Tribal

abandoned mine land reclamation plans

and revisions thereof since each such

plan is drafted and adopted by a specific

State or Tribe, not by OSM. Decisions

on proposed State and Tribal abandoned

mine land reclamation plans and

revisions thereof submitted by a State or

Tribe are based on a determination of

whether the submittal meets the

requirements of Title IV of the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act

(SMCRA) (30 U.S.C. 1231–1243) and the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR Parts 884

and 888.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since agency

decisions on proposed State and Tribal

abandoned mine land reclamation plans

and revisions thereof are categorically

excluded from compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (42

U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the

Department of the Interior [5616 DM 6,

appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)].

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon Federal regulations for which an

economic analysis was prepared and

certification made that such regulations

would not have a significant economic

effect upon a substantial number of

small entities. Hence, this rule will

ensure that existing requirements

established by SMCRA or previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions in the analyses for

the corresponding Federal regulations.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 8, 1996.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 96–6443 Filed 3–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA114–1–7280; FRL–5439–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California—

Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTIONS: Notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone for

7 nonattainment areas: South Coast,

Southeast Desert, Ventura, Sacramento,

San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, and

Santa Barbara, submitted in order to

comply with the November 1994

deadline under the Clean Air Act

(CAA). In addition, EPA proposes to

approve specific local and statewide air

pollution control measures, including

the California enhanced motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance program.

EPA proposes to approve these

revisions to the California SIP under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals for

nonattainment areas.

EPA proposes to establish a

consultative process on the potential for

additional mobile source controls that

can contribute to attainment in the

South Coast.

DATES: Written comments on the

proposed EPA actions must be received

by EPA at the address below on or

before May 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

proposed action should be addressed to:

Regional Administrator, Attention:

Office of Federal Planning (A–1–2), Air

and Toxics Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105–3901

Copies of the SIP submittal and

materials relevant to this rulemaking are

contained in Docket No. A–96–13,

which is available for viewing during

normal business hours at the address

shown above.

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), and EPA’s

technical support documents for this

rulemaking are available at the

following locations:

Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control

District, 26 Castilian Drive B–23,

Goleta, California

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 EPA’s technical

support documents are available at

Region 9’s site on the Internet’s World

Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/

region09/air/sip/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia

Barrow, Director, Office of Federal

Planning (A–1–2), Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105–3901, (415) 744–2434

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. Summary

B. Requirements of the Act

C. Affected Areas
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10921

D. The California Ozone Plans

1. SIP Submittals

2. EPA Completeness Findings

E. Related SIP Approvals

II. Review of the State Submittal

A. State Measures

1. Mobile Source Measures

a. Introduction

b. Review of Measures

(i) M1

(ii) M2

(iii) M3

(iv) M4

(v) M5 34

(vi) M7

(vii) M8 39

(viii) M9

(ix) M11

(x) Additional New Control Technologies

c. EPA Action

2. I/M

a. Review of Program

b. Emission Reductions

c. EPA Action

3. Consumer Products

a. Introduction

b. Adopted Consumer Products Rules

(i) Measure CP–1

(ii) Measure CP–3 (Aerosol Paints)

c. Mid-Term Committal Measure (CP–2)

d. Long-Term Committal Measure (CP–4)

e. Alternative Compliance Plans (ACPs)

f. Emission Reductions

g. EPA Action

4. Pesticides

a. Review of Measure

b. Emission Reductions

c. EPA Action

B. Federal Measures

1. State Approach

2. EPA Action

C. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and

Measures

1. Introduction and Common Elements

a. Emission Inventories

(1) 1990 Base Year Inventories

(2) Inventory Projections

b. Rate of Progress

c. NOX Substitution

d. Modeling

(1) Introduction

(2) Uncertainty and Model Performance

(3) Number of Episodes

(4) Attainment Test

(5) Transport

2. Santa Barbara

a. Identification of Plan

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories

c. SIP Control Measures

(1) Description

(2) EPA Action

d. ROP Provisions

(1) ROP Emission Targets

(2) ROP Control Strategy

(3) EPA Action

e. Demonstration of Attainment

(1) Control Strategy

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

(3) EPA Action

f. Overall EPA Action

3. San Diego

a. Identification of Plan

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories

c. SIP Control Measures

(1) Description

(2) EPA Action

d. ROP Provisions

(1) ROP Emission Targets

(2) ROP Control Strategy

(3) EPA Action

e. Demonstration of Attainment

(1) Control Strategy

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

(3) EPA Action

f. Overall EPA Action

4. San Joaquin Valley

a. Identification of Plan

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories

c. SIP Control Measures

(1) Description

(2) EPA Action

d. ROP Provisions

(1) ROP Emission Targets

(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy

(4) EPA Action

e. Demonstration of Attainment

(1) Control Strategy

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

(3) EPA Action

f. Overall EPA Action

5. Sacramento

a. Identification of Plan

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories

c. SIP Control Measures

(1) Description

(2) EPA Action

d. ROP Provisions

(1) ROP Emission Targets

(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy

(4) EPA Action

e. Demonstration of Attainment

(1) Control Strategy

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

(3) EPA Action

f. Overall EPA Action

6. Ventura

a. Identification of Plan

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories

c. SIP Control Measures

(1) Description

(2) EPA Action

d. ROP Provisions

(1) ROP Emission Targets

(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy

(4) EPA Action

e. Demonstration of Attainment

(1) Control Strategy

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

(3) EPA Action

f. Overall EPA Action

7. South Coast

a. Identification of Plan

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories

c. SIP Control Measures

(1) Description

(2) EPA Action

d. ROP Provisions

(1) ROP Emission Targets

(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy

(4) EPA Action

e. Demonstration of Attainment

(1) Control Strategy

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

(3) EPA Action

f. Overall EPA Action

8. Southeast Desert

a. Identification of Plans

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories

c. SIP Control Measures

(1) Description

(2) EPA Action

d. ROP and Attainment Provisions

(1) ROP and Attainment Emission Targets

(2) State Approach

(3) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

(4) EPA Action

e. Overall EPA Action

III. Summary of EPA Actions

IV. Regulatory Process

V. Unfunded Mandates

Appendix: Status of EPA’s Activities Relating

to the ‘‘Federal Measures’’ in the California

SIP Submittal

I. Background

A. Summary

Air pollution remains a significant

public health concern in many parts of

the country, including many areas in

California. The Clean Air Act requires

states to develop state implementation

plans (SIPs) that lay out how areas will

reduce pollution and attain the healthbased air quality standards for a number

of pollutants, including ground level

ozone.

On the Clean Air Act deadline for

ozone SIP submittals, November 15,

1994, the California Air Resources

Board (CARB) submitted to EPA the

State’s ozone plans, including State and

local measures and regulations,

emission inventories, modeling

analyses, rate-of-progress (ROP) plans,

and attainment demonstrations. This

material was followed by several

supplementary SIP submissions and

technical documentation over the past

year, addressing in still greater detail

and more completely the critical ozone

planning requirements of the Act.

Together these submissions present a

road map of how the State of California

envisions meeting the health-based

ozone air quality standards in 7 distinct

geographic areas within the State by the

dates specified in the Clean Air Act. The

submittals represent the culmination of

years of work and collaboration among

stakeholders at the local, regional, State,

national, and even international level.

The plans were carefully tailored to

meet the clean air goals of Californians,

reflecting the social and economic

priorities of each affected area within

the State as well as the legitimate

concerns of national and international

commerce.

In the last 30 years, California has

significantly improved air quality in its

cities through efforts by businesses and
10922 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

communities to reduce ground level

ozone pollution. California faces

additional challenges in its fight for

clean air because of rapid growth in

population and motor vehicle use as

well as meteorological conditions

conducive to ozone formation.

Nevertheless, there are still several areas

where air pollution continues to

threaten public health, including

Southern California, which violates the

standard on almost one out of every

three days—25 times more frequently

than the next most polluted urban areas.

The current plans build on California’s

pioneering air pollution control efforts

to make progress against, and eventually

eliminate, one of the most severe and

intractable environmental and public

health problems in the Country.

The Clean Air Act guarantees to all

Americans healthy air to breathe.

Unfortunately, approximately onequarter of Americans nationwide and

more than three-quarters of all

Californians are currently exposed to

health-threatening levels of air

pollution. Of the top ten U.S. urban

areas with the most violations of the

national ambient air quality standard for

ozone, nine are located in California.

Ozone is a highly reactive chemical

compound which, at ground level, can

affect both biological tissues and manmade materials. Ozone exposure causes

a range of human pulmonary and

respiratory health effects. While ozone’s

effects on the pulmonary function of

sensitive individuals (e.g., asthmatics)

are of primary concern, evidence

indicates that high ambient levels of

ozone can cause respiratory symptoms

in healthy adults and children as well.

For example, exposure to ozone for

several hours at moderate

concentrations, especially during

outdoor work and exercise, has been

found to decrease lung function,

increase airway inflammation, increase

sensitivity to other irritants, and impair

lung defenses against infections in

otherwise healthy adults and children.

Other symptoms include chest pain,

coughing, and shortness of breath.

There are also public health

consequences from direct exposure to

the two principal pollutants that cause

ozone formation: oxides of nitrogen (or

NOX) and volatile organic compounds

(or VOCs). Since attainment of the

ozone standard requires reductions in

these two precursor pollutants,

successful implementation of the ozone

SIPs will yield additional health

benefits. Exposure to nitrogen dioxide (a

major component of NOX) can reduce

breathing efficiency and increase lung

and airway irritation even in healthy

adults; elevated NO2 levels also increase

symptoms of respiratory illness, lung

congestion, wheeze, and increased

bronchitis in children. VOCs include

many air toxics (such as benzene),

which can cause respiratory,

immunological, neurological,

reproductive, developmental, and

mutagenic problems. Some VOCs are

also probable or known human

carcinogens.

Finally, the conversion of NOX into

fine particulate matter is a serious

health concern, especially in Southern

California. Studies have shown that

high concentrations of fine particulate

matter are associated with major human

health problems, including deleterious

effects on breathing and the respiratory

system, aggravation of existing

respiratory and cardiovascular disease,

alternations in the body’s defense

mechanisms against foreign materials,

and damage to lung tissue resulting in

fibrosis, carcinogenesis, and premature

death.

In addition to impacts on public

health, ozone damages vegetation and

NOX emissions, in the form of acid

deposition, both harms plants and

causes eutrophication of lakes and

streams. Estimates based on

experimental studies of the major

commercial crops in the U.S. suggests

that ozone may be responsible for

significant agricultural crop yield losses.

In addition, ozone causes noticeable leaf

damage in many crops, which reduces

their marketability and value.

Efforts to clean the air require

significant resources, but the benefits

are substantial. While it is easier to put

a price tag on a regulation to limit air

pollution than it is to assign a dollar

value to being able to breathe without

losing lung capacity or to see mountains

that are a few miles away, we know that

impacts on individuals’ health

associated with air pollution have

considerable physiological,

psychological, and purely financial

costs. Similarly, lower crop yields,

decreased forest production, and

accelerated building deterioration due

to air pollution also have financial costs

that will be reduced by attainment of

the clean air standards.

At the same time, clean air has

benefits even beyond healthy breathing.

The technologies and industries that

will make air pollution a problem of the

past can also be the growth industries

that bring to California jobs and dollars

from markets all around the world. A

recent World Bank study projects a $300

billion worldwide marketplace for clean

technologies by the year 2000.

Innovative technologies offer the

promise of continued economic growth

in concert with strong environmental

protection.

To achieve public health progress

over the past 30 years, California has

already adopted uniquely stringent

controls on a vast array of industrial

sources, consumer products, and motor

vehicles. As developed by California

and Californians, these existing

regulations and the SIP’s proposed

enhancements to them promote

technological advances while meeting

the economic and environmental needs

of the State. The credit for this

achievement is shared by the State’s air

pollution professionals, regulated

industry, and citizens, who continue to

explore new and innovative ways to

minimize pollution associated with

their products and activities.

Plan Approvals

When a state submits a SIP to EPA the

Clean Air Act requires the Agency to

review the plan to determine if it meets

the Act’s requirements and

environmental goals. California’s 1994

Ozone SIP included, for both the State

and local agencies, fully adopted

regulations and control measures for

which regulations must be written.

Since November 1994, EPA has already

completed approval of all but one of the

State’s fully adopted regulations and

most of the State’s commitments to

adopt regulations in the future. The

State submitted its enhanced motor

vehicle inspection and maintenance(I/

M) regulations on January 22, 1996. EPA

is proposing today approval of the I/M

regulations, which should help to assure

the maximum benefits from the

California motor vehicle emissions

standards.

EPA believes that this SIP represents

an important blueprint for clean air in

California. By today’s actions, the

Federal government signals its intention

to concur with these plans. California’s

commitments, when implemented, will

improve air quality and protect public

health. Now it is incumbent on

California to meet those commitments.

EPA is today generally proposing to

approve in full the critical components

of all of the plans for all of the areas.

EPA is proposing approval of:

• The emission inventories and

modeling analyses in all of the affected

areas;

• The 15% rate-of-progress plans for

the period 1990–1996 in the South

Coast (the Los Angeles basin), Ventura,

San Joaquin, San Diego, and Santa

Barbara;

• The post-1996 rate-of-progress

plans in the South Coast, Ventura,

Sacramento, San Joaquin, and San

Diego;
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10923

• The attainment demonstrations for

the South Coast, Southeast Desert,

Ventura, Sacramento, San Joaquin, San

Diego, and Santa Barbara;

• All of the individual local measures

included with the plans.

EPA will take action separately on the

15% progress plan for Sacramento and

the progress plans for the Southeast

Desert.

The South Coast ozone attainment

demonstration raises a unique issue. In

the SIP, California assumes that EPA

will issue specific national mobile

source emission reduction rules to help

the South Coast reach attainment. While

some additional mobile source

standards may be feasible and desirable,

EPA believes that it is important to

examine and discuss these standards

because they have far-reaching

implications. As new national and

international standards are being

discussed, EPA commits to support

rather than hinder State and local

progress in implementing and updating

the ozone attainment demonstration for

the South Coast.

To achieve this objective and allow

for approval of the South Coast

attainment demonstration at this time,

EPA proposes an approach which the

Agency believes is consistent with

EPA’s guiding principle for

implementing its statutory

responsibilities: accomplish

environmental goals through innovative

approaches that are collaborative rather

than adversarial, and that provide

flexibility while requiring

accountability.

The South Coast attainment

demonstration is based primarily on

those State and local components

(enumerated in the text of the notice)

that make up the vast majority of

reductions needed for attainment in the

South Coast. EPA has already approved

most of the State and local adopted

regulations and many of the State’s new

commitments made as part of

California’s 1994 Ozone SIP. EPA

proposes in this document to approve

the enforceable State and local

commitments that make up the

remainder of the plan. These State and

local regulations and commitments,

together with creditable national

controls which EPA has promulgated or

proposed, account for well over 90% of

the reductions needed for attainment.

To address the small remaining

shortfall which the State has assigned to

the Federal government, EPA proposes

to conduct a public consultative process

on future mobile source controls. The

Agency also commits to undertake

rulemaking, after the consultative

process, on any controls which are

determined to be appropriate for EPA.

Finally, EPA is proposing to require that

the State submit, before EPA’s final

action on the South Coast plan, an

enforceable commitment to submit a

revised South Coast attainment

demonstration and gap-filling State or

local control measures, if needed, after

the consultative process.

In assigning EPA responsibility for

issuing Federal emission standards for

various mobile sources, the State argued

that attainment in Southern California

depends upon emission reductions from

national and international mobile

sources which could not legally or

practically be regulated at the State or

local level. EPA and the State have been

working together for the past several

years to evaluate the potential for

additional national emission controls on

mobile sources. EPA has recently

proposed or finalized national emission

controls for construction, farm, and

lawn and garden equipment; pleasure

craft and some categories of marine

vessels; and potential new controls on

heavy-duty truck emissions. The

proposed nationwide heavy-duty truck

controls, in fact, are an outgrowth of an

EPA-California joint initiative,

developed in consultation with heavyduty engine manufacturers, which also

extends to possible future controls on

heavy-duty nonroad engines. Other

assignments by the State present unique

challenges, such as the establishment of

stringent engine emission standards for

aircraft and ocean-going vessels—

sources which are today regulated by

treaty principally at the international

level.

EPA proposes to continue to consult

with the State and other stakeholders to

examine the potential for additional

mobile source controls that can

contribute to attainment in the South

Coast. This period provides an

opportunity to agree on a set of emission

reductions without adverse

consequences to the State or the

environment, whether those additional

reductions come from national and

international emission standards or

from new State and local measures. At

the conclusion of this consultation, in

June 1997, EPA expects that the State

and local agencies will be able to amend

the attainment demonstration

appropriately, based on the final mix of

national, State, and local mobile source

control responsibilities. During the

consultative process, the State and local

agencies need to proceed aggressively

with implementing other parts of the

SIP in order to maintain progress

towards cleaning the air.

As mentioned, EPA is proposing to

approve all of the local agency

commitments to adopt and implement

rules by scheduled dates to achieve

specified emission reductions. In some

cases, most notably the South Coast,

scheduled adoption dates have already

been missed. It is critically important

that these adoption schedules be

amended, that the local agency staff and

governing board’s commit themselves to

reasonable and aggressive schedules for

rule development and adoption, and

that the affected agencies proceed

successfully with plan implementation

to fulfill their public commitments to

deliver clean air. EPA will work with

the local agencies, the regulated

community, and the public to help the

government boards and officials to meet

their public health obligations.

Implementation failures will prolong

the unacceptable current levels of

pollution and will expose the areas to

potential sanctions under the Clean Air

Act.

Section 182(e)(5) of the Clean Air Act

authorizes inclusion of conceptual,

new-technology measures in the

attainment demonstration for the South

Coast, the Country’s only ‘‘extreme’’

ozone nonattainment area. In this 1990

amendment, Congress recognized that

the South Coast’s enormous emission

reduction requirements justified giving

more time to allow for the completion

of research and development phases

that must precede the successful

commercialization of practically zeroemitting products, industrial processes,

and means of transportation. A large

portion of the remaining needed

reductions in the 1994 South Coast plan

is now assigned to conceptual measures.

If these measures are to contribute to the

solution of the South Coast’s ozone

problem in later years, all responsible

governmental agencies and private

industry must now increase their

resource commitments and cooperative

efforts to develop the clean technologies

and innovative market approaches that

will be the basis for the area’s economic

and environmental progress.

EPA is soliciting public comments on

the proposed SIP actions. The

Addresses section of this document

provides information on the public

comment process and opportunities to

inspect the SIP and related materials.

EPA hopes to take final action soon so

that California can continue to make

progress in implementing the

challenging strategies in the plans.

In transmitting the 1994 California

Ozone SIP, the Chairwoman of the

California Air Resources Board stated

that ‘‘The SIP provides a firm guarantee

to citizens of California that clean air
10924 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

goals will be met within the time frames

set out in the CAA.’’ Indeed, the goal of

the sweeping 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments has been not simply to

sustain the historic progress in reducing

air pollution, but instead to honor the

underlying promise of the Act: clean,

healthy air for all Americans. We

believe that California’s achievement in

these plans for the most polluted areas

of the nation proves that the Clean Air

Act is effective when citizens and

public officials work together to focus

technical expertise and common sense

to protect themselves, the health of their

children, and the welfare of future

generations. The Federal government is

committed to playing its part in this

final effort to deliver clean air to all

Californians.

B. Requirements of the Act

Title I of the 1990 Amendments to the

CAA (CAAA) completely revised the

Part D nonattainment provisions for

areas which had not attained the

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for ozone. In addition,

Congress made numerous changes

governing EPA’s processing of SIPs, as

well as the repercussions of State

failures to meet the various SIP

requirements.

Section 110 of Part A of Title I

contains general requirements

applicable to all SIP revisions. Section

110(k) describes the Agency’s actions on

SIP revisions, including findings as to

whether submissions are complete

(section 110(k)(1)), deadlines for EPA

actions (section 110(k)(2)), types of

actions the Agency may take on

complete submittals (110(k) (3) and (4)),

and sanctions which may be applied to

areas which fail to meet the Act’s

requirements (sections 179 and 110(m))

or fail to implement approved SIPs

(sections 113(a)(5), 173(4), and 179).

The requirements addressed by this

proposal are generally those of Part D of

Title I, pertaining to nonattainment

areas. Such areas are designated under

section 107 of the Act (codified at 40

CFR Part 81). While Subpart 1 of Part D

(sections 171 to 179 CAA) describes

general requirements for nonattainment

areas, Subpart 2 (sections 181 to 185B)

lists additional provisions added under

the 1990 CAAA for ozone

nonattainment areas.

Under this subpart, ozone

nonattainment areas are classified

according to the severity of the

nonattainment problem, and become

subject to a graduated series of

requirements. The classification scheme

for ozone nonattainment areas is listed

under section 181, which also

establishes deadlines for attainment.

The nonattainment classifications and

applicable attainment deadlines are:

marginal (November 15, 1993),

moderate (November 15, 1996), serious

(November 15, 1999), severe (November

15, 2005 or 2007), and extreme

(November 15, 2010). Section 181(a)

further provides that the attainment date

shall be ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable

but not later than’’ these deadlines.

EPA has issued preliminary

interpretations of the amended Act’s

provisions applicable to these SIP

obligations. See, for example, the

‘‘General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ (57 FR

13498 [April 16, 1992]). In this

proposed rulemaking action, EPA is

applying these policies to the proposed

California ozone SIP, taking into

consideration the specific factual issues

presented.

The central SIP requirements for

ozone nonattainment areas are

demonstrations of reasonable further

progress (or ‘‘rate of progress’’) and

attainment. Section 182(b)(1) requires,

for areas classified as moderate or

above, submission by November 15,

1993 of a SIP revision providing for

reasonable further progress, defined as a

reduction from 1990 baseline emissions

of at least 15% actual emissions of

volatile organic compounds (VOC),

taking into account growth, during the

first 6 years following enactment of the

1990 CAAA (i.e., up to November 15,

1996).

Baseline emissions for calculating the

required ROP reduction are defined at

section 182(b)(1)(B). Baseline emissions

are relative to a particular year for

which the ROP reduction is calculated,

and differ from the 1990 base year

emissions primarily in excluding

reductions for certain Federal programs

which were already required prior to the

1990 CAAA. Section 182(b)(1)(C)

describes a number of exclusions from

creditability for the purposes of meeting

the ROP requirement.

For moderate areas, section 182(b)(1)

requires submission of a plan revision

by November 15, 1993, that provides an

attainment demonstration including

sufficient annual reductions in VOC and

NOX to attain the ozone NAAQS by

November 15, 1996. The attainment

demonstration requirement can be met

through applying EPA-approved

modeling techniques.

Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires, for

serious and above areas, submission by

November 15, 1994, of reasonable

further progress and attainment plans.

For these areas, the CAA defines

reasonable further progress as an

additional ROP reduction above and

beyond the required 1996 reductions, of

3% per year of baseline VOC emissions,

averaged over each consecutive 3-year

period from November 15, 1996 until

attainment. Section 182(c)(2)(A) also

requires attainment plans, based on

photochemical grid modeling, to be

submitted by November 15, 1994, for

serious and above areas.

Section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for actual

NOX emissions reductions (after

accounting for growth) that occur after

the base year of 1990 to be used to meet

post-1996 ROP emission reduction

requirements. The reader is referred to

section II.C.1.c. below for a discussion

of the Agency’s NOX substitution

criteria.

Sections 182(g)(3) and 182(g)(5)

specify requirements for areas which

fail to submit a ROP milestone

compliance demonstration under

section 182(g)(2) within the required

period or if the Administrator

determines that the area has not met any

applicable milestone. The first ozone

ROP milestone compliance

demonstration is due April 1997, for the

period 1990–1996. Among the options

discussed in section 182(g) for curing a

ROP shortfall is the use of an economic

incentive program (EIP). Under section

182(g)(4)(B), EPA promulgated

requirements for EIPs at 40 CFR Part 51,

Subpart U (see 40 CFR 51.490 through

40 CFR 51.494—‘‘EIP Rules and

Guidance’’). These EIP rules also serve

as policy guidance to determine the

approvability of SIP measures that rely

on economic incentives (see 40 CFR

51.490(b)).

Under section 182(b)(4) of the Act,

basic motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) programs are

required in all moderate ozone

nonattainment areas. Under section

182(c)(3), ozone nonattainment areas

designated as serious and worse with

1980 populations of 200,000 or more are

required to meet EPA regulations for

‘‘enhanced’’ I/M programs. As required

by section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA

published updated requirements for I/M

programs on November 5, 1992 (40 CFR

part 51, Subpart S, see also 57 FR

52950). On September 18, 1995, EPA

issued flexibility amendments to these

I/M rules, allowing for an additional,

less stringent enhanced I/M

performance standard for areas that can

meet the ROP and attainment

requirements with an I/M program that

falls below the originally promulgated

enhanced I/M performance standard

(see 60 FR 48029). On November 28,

1995, the National Highway System

Designation Act (Public Law 104–59)

was enacted. Section 348 of this

legislation modifies the I/M provisions
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10925

of the Clean Air Act, providing a

mechanism for approval with full credit

for decentralized or test-and-repair

enhanced I/M programs under certain

circumstances. The legislation also

establishes an 18-month evaluation

period to verify that the assigned credits

have a basis in fact, prior to permanent

program approval.

Part D of the Act includes other ozone

SIP requirements. EPA has previously

acted upon some SIP revisions

addressing these requirements; others

will be addressed in future actions.

Moreover, the ozone ROP and

attainment plans depend upon the

successful adoption and

implementation of well over 100 State

and local rules. EPA will approve or

disapprove individual rules relating to

each local plan after the State submits

the rules and EPA deems them

complete.

EPA believes that the law requires

and the public expects that the

responsible California State and local

agencies will honor all of their clean air

commitments in these ozone plans, and

will consistently pursue reasonable and

aggressive plan implementation until

the clean air goals are reached.

Nevertheless, the Act does allow the

State to amend the SIPs in the future,

both with respect to the technical

foundations of the demonstrations and

the specific mix of control measures

chosen for achieving progress and

attainment. State and local agencies

have the flexibility to make changes as

necessary and appropriate to improve

the plans, but EPA will fulfill the

Agency’s responsibilities under section

110(l) of the CAA, which provides that

‘‘the Administrator shall not approve a

revision of a plan if the revision would

interfere with any applicable

requirement concerning attainment and

reasonable further progress * * * or any

other applicable requirement of the

Act.’’

C. Affected Areas

When California’s ozone

nonattainment areas were first classified

under the 1990 CAAA, 9 areas were

classified as moderate and above, and

therefore subject to the progress and

attainment requirements. The San

Francisco Bay Area was later

redesignated to attainment (60 FR

27028, May 22, 1995). CARB has also

submitted a request to redesignate the

Monterey Bay Area to attainment. EPA

will act on the Monterey redesignation

in the near future.

This proposal addresses ROP and

attainment plans submitted for all of the

remaining nonattainment areas. These

areas are the South Coast (classified as

extreme), the Southeast Desert

(comprising the Mojave, Coachella/San

Jacinto, and Antelope Valley areas,

severe-17), Ventura (severe-15),

Sacramento (severe-15), San Diego

(serious), San Joaquin Valley (serious),

and Santa Barbara (moderate). The

boundaries for these areas are set forth

at 40 CFR 81.305.

Since a number of the State’s

measures apply throughout California

and thus contribute both toward

attainment and maintenance of the

ozone NAAQS, the SIP submittal and

EPA’s proposed approval actions affect

all areas in the State.

D. The California Ozone Plans

1. SIP Submittals

On November 15, 1993, in response to

the 15% ROP requirements of section

182(b)(1)(A) of the Act, CARB submitted

plans for all of the areas addressed in

this notice. These submittals have been

superseded by revised ROP plans

submitted one year later.

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’’ (SIP)

under cover letter from James Boyd

(CARB) to Felicia Marcus (EPA). This

SIP revision includes documentation

that the public involvement and

adoption requirements of the CAA have

been met at both the State and local

level.

The revision itself 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.

The ozone SIP submittal includes the

following separate documents:

(a) The State’s Comprehensive Ozone

Plan

‘‘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.

(b) The State’s Adopted Regulations

(1) The California Antiperspirants and

Deodorants regulations and Consumer

Products regulations, as contained in

Title 17 of the California Code of

Regulations, Sections 94507–94517,

adopted on December 27, 1990, August

14, 1991, and September 21, 1992.

(2) The California Diesel Fuel

regulations, as contained in Title 13 of

the California Code of Regulations,

Sections 2281 and 2282, adopted on

August 22, 1989, June 21, 1990, April

15, 1991, October 15, 1993, and August

24, 1994.

(3) The California Reformulated

Gasoline regulations, as contained in

Title 13, of the California Code of

Regulations, Sections 2250, 2252,

2253.4, 2254, 2257, 2260, 2262.1,

2262.2, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6,

2262.7, 2263, 2264, 2266–2272, 2296,

and 2297, initially adopted by CARB on

November 17, 1988, and formally

adopted on August 22, 1989, June 21,

1990, April 15, 1991, October 15, 1993,

and August 24, 1994.

(c) Local Ozone Progress and

Attainment Plans

(1) ‘‘1994 Clean Air Plan for Santa

Barbara County.’’ The submittal letter

for this plan is from James Boyd to

Regional Administrator Felicia Marcus

and is dated November 14, 1994.

(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 &
10926 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1Antelope Valley and Coachella/San Jacinto

Planning Area are portions of the Southeast Desert

Modified Air Quality Management Area under the

jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality

Management District.

2EPA 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).

Antelope Valley & Coachella/San

Jacinto Planning Area.’’ 1

On March 30, 1995, CARB submitted

revised 1990 base year emission

inventories for each of the California

ozone nonattainment areas.

On June 30, 1995, CARB submitted

descriptive 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. 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.2

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); (3) attainment

requirement for moderate areas (Santa

Barbara) as described at Section

182(b)(1)(A); and (4) 1990 base year

inventory requirements of section

182(a)(1).

On June 30, 1995, EPA issued a

finding of completeness for the State’s

submittal of revisions to the State’s I/M

program.

On February 5, 1996, EPA issued a

finding of completeness for the State’s I/

M regulations.

E. Related SIP Approvals

On February 14, 1995, the EPA

Administrator signed documents taking

the following approval actions relating

to the California ozone SIP:

(1) Final approval of the CARB

Antiperspirants and Deodorants

regulations, Consumer Products

regulations, Diesel Fuel regulations, and

Reformulated Gasoline regulations, as

submitted on November 15, 1994.

(2) Interim final approval of CARB

and SCAQMD New-Technology

Measures, submitted as part of the

South Coast ozone SIP on November 15,

1994. The measures were approved

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 specific

measures approved are:

(a) CARB Measure M2, Improved

Control Technology for Light-Duty

Vehicles, for adoption in the year 2000

and implementation in 2004–5.

(b) CARB Measure M9, Off-Road

Diesel Equipment, 2.5 grams per brake

horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) NOX

standard, for adoption in 2001 and

implementation in 2005.

(c) CARB Measure CP–4, Consumer

Products Advanced Technology and

Market Incentives, for adoption in 2005

and implementation in 2009.

(d) CARB Additional Measures, for

adoption and implementation by 2009–

2010.

(e) SCAQMD Measure ADV–CTS–01,

Advance Technology-CTS (Coating

Technologies), for adoption in 2003.

(f) SCAQMD Measure ADV–FUG,

Advanced Technology-Fugitives, for

adoption in 2003.

(g) SCAQMD Measure ADV–PRC,

Advance Technology-Process Related

Emissions, for adoption in 2003.

(h) SCAQMD Measure ADV–UNSP,

Advance Technology-Unspecified,

Stationary Sources, for adoption in

2003.

(i) SCAQMD Measure ADV–CTS–02,

Advance Technology-CTS (Coatings

Technologies).

(3) Proposed approval of CARB’s midterm control measures: Measures M3,

Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle

(ULEV) requirement for Medium-Duty

Vehicles, for adoption in 1997 and

implementation in 1998; M5, HeavyDuty Vehicle NOX regulations, for

adoption in 1997 and implementation in

2002; M8, Heavy-Duty Gasoline

Vehicles lower emissions standards, for

adoption in 1997 and implementation in

1998; M11, Industrial Equipment, Gas

and LPG, for adoption in 1997 and

implementation in 2000; and CP2, MidTerm Consumer Products, for adoption

in July 1997.

These actions were taken in

conjunction with issuance of ozone

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for

the South Coast, Ventura, and

Sacramento, and a carbon monoxide FIP

for the South Coast. Prior to publication

of the FIP and SIP actions in the Federal

Register, legislation was enacted

mandating that these FIPs ‘‘shall be

rescinded and shall have no further

force and effect’’ (Public Law 104–6,

Defense Supplemental Appropriation,

H.R. 889, enacted April 10, 1995).

On August 21, 1995, EPA announced

the rescission of the FIPs (60 FR 43468),

and reissued the final and interim final

SIP approvals (60 FR 43379) and the

proposed SIP approvals (60 FR 43421)

referenced above. On December 14,

1995 (60 FR 64126), EPA issued the

final SIP approval of the State’s midterm control measures (M3, M5, M8,

M11, and CP–2).

II. Review of the State Submittal

On October 7, 1994 the State

published a public notice regarding its

adoption hearings, to begin on

November 9, 1994. Those hearings were

extended to November 14 and 15, at

which time CARB adopted and

submitted the documents listed above

(section I.C.).

The local elements of the State plan

were the product of plan development,

public review and adoption processes

conducted in each nonattainment area.

Following adoption by the local air

pollution control boards, the local plans

were submitted to CARB, which

amended the plans and incorporated

them into the overall California Ozone

SIP.

This document discusses the State’s

submittal in terms of 3 broad categories:

measures which the State has adopted,

or enforceably committed to adopt

(section II.A.); measures assigned by the

State to the Federal government (section

II.B.); and local ROP and attainment

plans and measures (section II.C.).

A. State Measures

Statewide elements of the ozone

progress and attainment plans include

measures to control mobile sources,

consumer products, and pesticides.

These control measures consist of

existing adopted rules, commitments to

adopt rules between 1995 and 1997, and

long-term measures scheduled for

regulatory adoption in the year 2000 or

later.

1. Mobile Sources Measures

a. Introduction. According to data

from CARB, mobile sources (on-road

and non-road) account for more than 60

percent of ozone precursor emissions in

California. Therefore, further reductions

in mobile source emissions are essential

if attainment of the NAAQS for ozone is

to be achieved.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10927

3These concerns were expressed in a letter from

David P. Howekamp, Director, Air & Toxics

Division, USEPA Region 9, to James D. Boyd,

Executive Officer, CARB, dated June 15, 1995, on

follow-up issues to a June 9, 1995 meeting between

CARB, USEPA, and the Western States Petroleum

Association (WSPA).

CARB has an existing statewide

control program for mobile source

emissions, which is expected to achieve

significant reductions in emissions in

the ozone nonattainment areas of the

State. A key element of this existing

control program is the Low-Emission

Vehicle/Clean Fuels (LEV) program

which was originally adopted in 1990

and has been amended several times

since. The LEV program aims to reduce

emissions from future light- and

medium-duty vehicles. The program

contains several categories of vehicle

emission requirements. Increasingly

stringent fleet average requirements

must be met by vehicle manufacturers

beginning in 1994. In addition, the LEV

program requires manufacturers to

introduce increasing percentages of

zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs),

beginning with two percent in 1998

(Title 13, California Code of

Regulations, Section 1960.1).

Other CARB-adopted mobile source

control measures include the California

Diesel Fuel Regulations and the

California Reformulated Gasoline

regulations. Both of these fuel

regulations were originally adopted in

1989 and frequently amended. As

discussed above, EPA approved the

diesel and reformulated gasoline

regulations on August 21, 1995 (60 FR

43379).

Beginning in 1988, CARB also

adopted the following important sets of

mobile source regulations:

(1) Emission standards for diesel farm

and construction equipment over 175

hp;

(2) revised evaporative emission test

procedures;

(3) Phase 2 on-board diagnostics

(OBD) provisions;

(4) Revised emission standards for

medium-duty vehicles (MDVs) and

light-heavy-duty vehicles (LHDVs); and

(5) Requirements for utility engines

and off-highway recreational vehicles/

engines.

In addition to the adopted measures,

the State has committed in the 1994

California Ozone SIP to future adoption

of a series of mobile source measures.

The commitments fall chronologically

into two categories with regard to the

adoption schedule: mid-term

commitments to be adopted during the

1995–1997 time frame, and long-term

measures scheduled for adoption in the

year 2000 or later.

The long-term measures are relied

upon only in the South Coast Air Basin.

The South Coast is the only area in the

country classified as extreme for ozone,

and is subject to section 182(e)(5) of the

Act, which authorizes EPA to credit

conceptual measures using new

technologies or control techniques if

they are not needed for meeting the first

10 years of ROP (see section

II.C.7.e.(1).).

The following is a description of the

State’s mobile source measures, or M

Measures, and EPA’s approval actions

on the measures.

b. Review of Measures

(i) M1—Accelerated Retirement of

Light-Duty Vehicles. The SIP commits

to adopt this measure in 1996 and

implement it from 1996 to 2010.

Responsibility for implementing this

measure may be shared between CARB

and regional air districts. In this

measure, CARB commits to the annual

retirement (scrappage or removal) of up

to 75,000 older, high-emitting vehicles

in the South Coast Air Basin only,

beginning in 1999. A smaller number of

vehicles will be retired between 1996

and 1998 in order to gain experience

with the program. CARB estimates that

$1,000 per car will be required to cover

costs associated with vehicle purchase

and program administration. CARB

committed in the SIP to secure a

financing mechanism for the program by

the end of 1995, and legislative efforts

to do so have been partially successful.

While all critical near-term revenues

should be obtained now, the State also

should begin to pursue long-term

support for the program. CARB must

also ensure that implementation and

monitoring of the measure prevents

double-counting of reduction credits,

since scrappage is also a feature of the

State’s I/M program and emission

reduction credits from scrappage may be

claimed as emission reduction credits in

trading programs.3

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 nonattainment areas will be considered as a

means of further reducing emissions’’

(Vol. II, p. B–2).

The emission reductions to be

achieved in the South Coast by the

measure are displayed by year 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 2007 2008 2010

ROG ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 8 11 12 13 14

NOX .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 6 9 10 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 may be achieved

through: (1) cost-effective gasoline

engine control technology to meet or

exceed Ultra Low-Emission Vehicle

(ULEV) standards in the post-2003 time

frame; (2) ZEV sales in excess of the

10% requirement beyond 2003; and/or

(3) availability of advanced hybrid

electric vehicles with emissions

substantially lower than ULEVs. The

SIP indicates that market forces (e.g.,

incentives) and/or emission standards

may be used to achieve the emission

reductions. Emission reductions

associated with this measure are relied

upon in the South Coast only. The

emission reductions to be achieved in

the South Coast by the measure are

displayed by year in the table below,

labeled ‘‘Reductions from California

Mobile Source Measure M2.’’
10928 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M2 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 3 7 6 10

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

On August 21, 1995, EPA approved

this measure under the provisions of

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

(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. CARB believes that the emission

reductions associated with this measure

can be achieved by applying

advancements in LDV emission control

technologies to the medium-duty fleet.

This measure offers some flexibility by

allowing other mixes of vehicles and

technologies that generate equivalent

emission 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 Mobile Source Measure

M3.’’

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M3

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

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

So. Coast ...................................... 0 1 1 10 2 21 .......... .......... 2 27 3 33

SE Desert ...................................... 0 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.2 3.5 0.3 4.1

Ventura .......................................... 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 1.0

Sacramento ................................... 0 0.2 0 1.7 0.4 3.9

S. Joaquin ..................................... 0 0.4

S. Diego ........................................ 0.9 6.5

EPA proposed to approve M3 on

August 21, 1995, and finalized approval

on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).

(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 lowemission 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. The emission

reductions to be achieved in the South

Coast by the measure are displayed by

year in the table below, labeled

‘‘Reductions from California Mobile

Source Measure M4.’’

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M4 (IN

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN IN TONS

PER DAY OF NOX)

1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

2.17 3.90 2.93 2.34 1.36

(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. Alternatives under

consideration include expanded

introduction of alternative-fueled and

low-emission HDDV engines through

demand-side programs and incentives,

retrofit of aerodynamic devices, reduced

idling, and speed reduction. 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

Mobile Source Measure M5.’’

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

S. Diego ........................................ 0.7 8.3
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10929

This measure is designed to achieve

emission reductions prior to the

introduction of a potential national 2.0

g/bhp-hr NOX standard in 2004. The

1994 California Ozone SIP (‘‘Federal

Measure’’ M6) assigns to EPA

responsibility for adopting such a

national standard (see discussion in

section II.B.).

Significant progress toward fulfilling

the M5 and M6 commitments has been

made by CARB, EPA, and truck and

engine manufacturers. On March 30,

1995, EPA signed a Memorandum of

Understanding with CARB to undertake

a joint effort to develop a national

program for controlling NOX, PM, and

HC emissions from onroad and nonroad

heavy-duty engines. This joint effort

will involve sharing technology

development and information,

resources, and expertise.

Further, on July 11, 1995, CARB, EPA,

and members of the Engine

Manufacturers Association signed a

Statement of Principles (SOP) detailing

their agreement on future NOX, HC, and

PM standards for heavy-duty engines.

The goal of the SOP is to reduce NOX

emissions from onroad HDEs to

approximately 2 g/bhp-hr beginning in

2004. This will be achieved by 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. Signatories will work to

achieve low emissions throughout the

life of the engine. EPA expects that this

combined standard will result in NOX

reductions comparable to those

achieved with a 2 g/bhp-hr standard and

significant reductions in HC emissions.

With respect to California standards,

the SOP included the following

provision: ‘‘Both EPA and California

recognize the benefits of harmonizing

state and federal regulations. California

confirms its intent to notice a public

hearing to consider actions to

harmonize its regulations * * * with

the federal regulations adopted under

this SOP, provided such action would

not compromise California’s obligations

to comply with state and federal law

including the SIP.’’

On August 31, 1995, EPA published

the SOP in an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The

ANPRM invited public comment on

national controls for onroad heavy-duty

engines consistent with the SOP, and

also described EPA’s plans to work

cooperatively with engine and

equipment manufacturers to consider

additional reductions from nonroad

heavy-duty engines (see 60 FR 45580–

45604).

EPA proposed to approve M5 on

August 21, 1995, and finalized approval

on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).

(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. Incentives are expected to be

provided to operators of older trucks in

return for retirement and purchase of a

newer, lower-emitting model. The

incentives may take the form of

guaranteed low interest loans, subsidies,

or both. 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 emission

reductions to be achieved in the South

Coast by the measure are displayed by

year 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 1 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. 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 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

S. Diego ........................................ 0.1 0.5
10930 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

EPA proposed to approve M8 on

August 21, 1995, and finalized approval

on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).

(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 not

primarily used in construction and farm

equipment. 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). The SIP

anticipates that this emissions standard

can be achieved through the transfer of

cost-effective on-road diesel engine

control technology to new off-road

engines. These control technologies

include improved engine design

(especially in fuel/air management and

delivery), exhaust gas recirculation, and

exhaust gas aftertreatment. The

technology used to meet the 2.5 g/bhphr NOX standard will also further

reduce ROG emissions from post-2005

new engines. The SIP only relies on this

measure in the South Coast. The

emission reductions to be achieved in

the South Coast are displayed by 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 4 1 3

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

On August 21, 1995, EPA approved

M9 under the provisions of section

182(e)(5).

(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 phasedin 2000 and will be based on the use of

closed-loop 3-way catalyst systems. The

catalyst systems are expected to reduce

ROG emissions by 75% and NOX by at

least 50%.

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M11 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN

[Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 4 9 [ ] 15 23

NOX .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 2 4 [ ] 8 12

EPA proposed to approve M11 on

August 21, 1995, and finalized approval

on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).

(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 are

achieved by 2009. Table 5 (on page I–

21) of Volume II of the 1994 California

Ozone SIP lists the following strategies

that may be pursued to meet the

emission reduction targets:

A. Possible New Control Technologies

• Introduction in fleets of ultra-low

emitting heavy-duty trucks, post-2003

B. Possible Market-Incentive Measures

• Incentives to purchase or produce

‘‘cleaner’’ technology/vehicles

• Incentives to encourage retrofits of

emission control technology

• Incentives for alternative fuel

conversions

• Incentives to promote the

development of alternative fuel

infrastructure

• Revise tax rate structure to promote

investment in low-emission technology

• Provide opportunity for low-interest

loans

• Preferred state vendor/contract bid

status

• Company emission averages

• Air basin emission averages

• Mobile source emission reduction

credit/trading programs

C. Possible Operational Measures

Applicable to Heavy-Duty Vehicles

• Longer combination vehicles on

selected routes

• Increased gross vehicle weight

• Better enforcement of the 55 mileper-hour speed limit

• Reduced idling time

• Reexamine trailer package concept

for local deliveries

• Aerodynamic devices for all power

units and trailers

• Other (intermodal transportation,

advanced traffic control/tracking

technology, alternative fuel for existing

fork lifts)

The SIP states that this list of new

control technologies is not exhaustive

and indicates that other new control

technologies and techniques are

possible and will be considered as

potential sources of emission

reductions. Additional control options

mentioned in the SIP include: pricing to

affect the amount of travel and related

emissions (such as congestion pricing or

an emission index based on per mile

emissions and VMT); retrofit

technologies which reduce emissions;

additional use of alternative fuels; and

episodic controls such as speed

reduction and idling curtailment. CARB

has committed to further define and

quantify these measures and to adopt

them by 2006 for implementation by
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10931

2009. On August 21, 1995, EPA

approved CARB’s additional new

control technologies measure under the

provisions of section 182(e)(5).

c. EPA Action. As described in

section I.D. above, EPA has already

approved or proposed to approve many

of the State’s M Measure commitments.

On August 21, 1995, EPA approved the

CARB new-technology measures M2,

M9, and Additional New Technology

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 finalized 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. As discussed below

in section II.C., EPA is here proposing

to approve the ROP and attainment

demonstrations of California ozone

nonattainment area plans, which rely, in

part, on the M Measure commitments.

Therefore, EPA now proposes 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 proposing to approve,

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

the Act, and assign 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. In several cases,

regulations have already been adopted

or are expected to be adopted prior to

EPA’s final action on the ozone SIPs.

EPA therefore proposes to approve and

credit CARB’s enforceable commitments

to the 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

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

supplemental revision to the SIP 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 proposing 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 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
10932 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

CALIFORNIA I/M PROGRAM COVERAGE BY COUNTY—Continued

County Enhanced Basic Change of

ownership

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 ........................

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 is comprised of pertinent

sections of the California Business and

Profession Code, the Civil Code, the

Health and Safety Code, the Penal Code,

the Revenue and Taxation Code, the

Welfare and Institutions Code, the

Vehicle Code, and the 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

targetted 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

this notice.) 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, proposing to approve 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,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10933

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.

EPA believes that at least six months of

program operation are needed in order

to evaluate the performance of the

program. Thus programs must start no

later than 12 months after EPA takes

final rulemaking action. EPA proposes

that 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.

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. In order

to evaluate the program EPA believes

that a continuous sample collection

technique should provide sufficient data

to determine program effectiveness.

Samples may be taken in a variety of

ways including roadside pullovers and

randomized call-in programs. EPA plans

to issue detailed guidance on data

collection and analysis after

consultation with states and other

experts. At the end of the 18-month

approval period, EPA will 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.

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 program, 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 targetting

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 be comprised of likely

high-emitters as identified through use

of the HEP and remote sensing,

previously identified high emitters

which must undergo annual testing for

2 to 5 years, high emitters identified by

test-and-repair stations, high mileage

fleet vehicles, vehicles for hire, a 2%

random sample, and motorists

voluntarily choosing to go to test-only

stations.

California’s program includes an

electronic transmission program. A

central Vehicle Information Database

will be created and an electronic

network enabling the test analyzer

system units to connect automatically to

the database will be 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 will also be phasing in a

high-visibility remote sensing program.

California plans to identify as least

200,000 high emitting vehicles annually

in the enhanced program areas. Data

collected from the program will be use

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. EPA will work with

California to further define California’s

data collection protocols and analysis as

EPA’s guidance on program evaluation

is developed.

b. 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 I/M

Program.’’

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA ENHANCED I/M PROGRAM

[Tons per pay]

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 35.5 32.5 33.0 .......... .......... 30.2 34.8 26.2 31.1

SE Desert .............................................. 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.8

Ventura .................................................. 1.6 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.9

Sacramento ........................................... 5.4 5.7 6.3 6.5 5.1 6.4

S. Joaquin ............................................. 4.3 4.9

S. Diego ................................................ 0 0

c. EPA Action. EPA is proposing to

approve 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.
10934 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

EPA is also proposing to approve

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

the Act the California I/M program

submitted on June 30, 1995, and the I/

M 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.

Finally, under section 348(c) of the

Highway Act, EPA is proposing to grant

approval for a period of 18 months to

the California I/M submittals of June 30,

1995, and 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. 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 the State fails to start its program

within 12 months of approval, EPA

proposes to have the approval convert to

a disapproval after a finding letter is

sent to the State. If the required State

demonstration is not completed within

18 months 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 section

182(c)(3). In that event, 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. ‘‘Consumer products’’

are a variety of products generally

purchased from a retail establishment

for household use by the end user.

These products include: cleaning

products, insecticides, toiletries, aerosol

paints (non-architectural paints are not

considered consumer products under

California environmental law),

adhesives, air fresheners, cooking

sprays, disinfectants, and other common

household articles that contain volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) and are

considered ‘‘consumption goods’’. The

term does not refer to consumer

electronics, furniture, appliances,

cooking or serving utensils, furnishings,

or other items that are considered

‘‘durable goods’’, nor does the term refer

to food items (except cooking sprays),

beverages, or tobacco products.

In its 1994 ozone SIP submittal, CARB

presents a discussion of the State’s

current and anticipated measures for

controlling the VOC content of

consumer products, and sets forth the

claimed emissions reductions. 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 are

comprised 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

reductions are expected to be adopted

by July 1, 1997 and implemented by the

year 2005, and will cover 150 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

technology.

CARB has committed to obtaining

further reductions (as compared to the

near- and mid-term measures) from

consumer products after 2000. These

reductions would not rely on available

technology, but would currently be

considered technology forcing. 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. Adopted Consumer Products Rules

i. Measure CP–1. Measure CP–1 is

comprised of 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 approved these rules into the

SIP on August 21, 1995 (see 60 FR

43379).

ii. 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, which is due to take

effect January 1, 1996, aerosol coatings’

VOC content will have 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 may not submit

the 1999 limits to EPA as a SIP revision

until after the Board has determined

that they are technologically and

commercially feasible, and is prohibited

from doing so by 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.

c. Mid-Term Committal Measure CP–

2. Measure CP–2 is a mid-term

commitment to adopt additional

regulations prior to 1997 to further

reduce VOC emissions from household

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 proposed to

approve CP–2 on August 21, 1995, and

finalized approval on December 14,

1995 (60 FR 64126).

d. 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. The control strategies

committed to in CP–4 depend on
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10935

4 James Wells (DPR) to James Boyd (CARB), dated

November 15, 1994.

5May 9, 1995 letter from Wells to Boyd under a

May 11, 1995 cover letter from Boyd to Felicia

Marcus (EPA).

6 In a March 31, 1995 letter from Wells to David

Howekamp (EPA), California clarified its

commitment to limit future VOC emissions from

pesticides to the target percentages of the 1990 base

year emissions, regardless of future growth in

emissions that might otherwise occur. ‘‘Therefore,

the proposed 20 percent reduction goal could be

considered to be greater than 20 percent if one

includes growth in pesticidal VOC emissions.’’

(March 31 letter, page 2.)

advancement of manufacturing

technology for consumer products and

aerosols. On August 21, 1995, EPA

approved CARB’s Measure CP–4 as

meeting the requirements of section

182(e)(5).

e. Alternative Compliance Plans

(ACPs). In order to provide industry

with flexibility in meeting the VOC

content limits for aerosol paints, CARB

has adopted regulations that will allow

manufacturers to meet the VOC

standards on an average basis. The

regulations, CARB’s Alternate 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.

f. Emission Reductions. The following

table 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

ROP and attainment demonstrations for

San Diego, San Joaquin Valley or Santa

Barbara do not rely on reductions from

the consumer products measures,

although real reductions will occur in

those areas. Credits for consumer

products and aerosol paints (near-term

and long-term) are combined. Credit for

CP–4 is claimed only for South Coast.

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 0.4 3.5 4.0

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

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

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

San Diego ................................................................................................................................................. 16.6

g. 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

proposing to approve CP–3 under

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

and assign 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). However, since CARB

has overall responsibility for developing

the SIP, California’s pesticide

commitment is described in a letter

from DPR to CARB,4 which CARB then

submitted to EPA with the balance of

the 1994 SIP. In May 1995, California

used a similar mechanism to clarify

technical details of the pesticide

commitment.5 This clarification is

considered part of California’s SIP.

b. 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

specific percentages of the 1990 base

year emissions,6 by specific years, and

in specific nonattainment areas as listed

in the table labeled, ‘‘Reductions from

1990 Pesticide Emissions Baselines.’’

The table labeled ‘‘Reductions from

Pesticides Measure’’ shows reductions

counted toward the ROP milestones and

attainment in each area.

REDUCTIONS FROM 1990 PESTICIDE EMISSIONS BASELINES

Ozone nonattainment area 1996 (percent) 1999 (percent) 2002 (percent) 2005 (percent)

Sacramento Metro ............................................................................................ 8 12 16 20

San Joaquin Valley .......................................................................................... 8 12 16 20

South Coast ..................................................................................................... 8 12 16 20

Southeast Desert ............................................................................................. 8 12 16 20

Ventura ............................................................................................................. 8 12 16 20

REDUCTIONS FROM PESTICIDES MEASURE

[Tons per day of ROG]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

South Coast .................................................................................................................. 1.5 1.6 1.3 ............ 1.6 1.7

Southeast Desert .......................................................................................................... 0 0 1.2 1.5 ............ ............
10936 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

7Note that for purposes of ROP and attainment

demonstrations in the SIPs, California has not

claimed emission reduction credit for the 8%

pesticide emission reductions planned for 1996.

8This policy (January 30, 1996 memorandum

from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

& Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, on

‘‘SIP Credits for Federal Nonroad Engine Emissions

Standards and Certain Other Mobile Source

Programs’’) supersedes EPA’s prior policy,

expressed in a November 23, 1994 memorandum

from Mary Nichols on the same subject. The earlier

memorandum allowed SIP credit for national

mobile source measures required but not yet

promulgated ‘‘provided states also commit to adopt

gap-filling measures to account for any shortfalls,

identified later, between currently anticipated and

actual final rule benefits.’’ EPA is now eliminating

the requirement for state commitments. If the final

national measure delivers less than credited in the

SIP, EPA may issue a call for plan revision under

section 110(k)(5) if the SIP for an area becomes, as

a result, substantially inadequate to comply with

any requirement of the Act, including the

provisions relating to demonstrations of ROP and

attainment.

REDUCTIONS FROM PESTICIDES MEASURE—Continued

[Tons per day of ROG]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

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

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

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

San Diego ..................................................................................................................... 0.2 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............

The pesticide component of

California’s SIP also describes education

and outreach programs intended to

achieve these emission reductions

voluntarily. EPA strongly encourages

these programs, and hopes to work with

DPR and the affected industries to make

them successful. In the event, however,

that additional control strategies are

needed, California’s commitment to

adopt and submit any necessary

pesticide regulations is sufficient to

ensure those emission reductions

described in the table labeled,

‘‘Reductions from 1990 Pesticide

Emissions Baselines.’’ 7

c. EPA Action. EPA is proposing to

approve the Pesticides measure under

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

and assign credit to the measure as part

of the ROP and 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. Federal Assignments

1. State Approach

In addition to, and in association

with, the State’s mobile source control

measures, the 1994 California Ozone SIP

sets forth a group of 7 specific mobile

source control measures that the State

would not be responsible for adopting

and implementing.

These new ‘‘Federal assignments’’ and

the adoption and implementation dates

in the California SIP are as follows:

M6—Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles: a

national standard of 2.0 g/bhp-hr, to be

adopted in 1997 and implemented in

2004. M10—Off-Road Diesel Equipment:

a national standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr, to

be adopted in 2001 and implemented in

2005. M12—Industrial Equipment, Gas

and LPG: a national standard reflecting

application of three-way catalyst

systems, to be adopted in 1997 and

implemented from 2000 to 2004.

M13—Marine Vessels: national and

international standards to reduce NOX

emissions from new engines by 30

percent, and operational controls,

including shipping lane changes and

vessel speed reduction, to be adopted in

1996 and implemented from 1998 to

2001.

M14—Locomotives: national

standards for new and rebuilt

locomotive engines, along with

provisions to ensure that by 2010

locomotive fleets in the South Coast Air

Basin will emit on average no more than

the 2005 emission level for new

locomotives, to be adopted in 1995 and

implemented from 2000 to 2010.

M15—Aircraft: national standards to

effect a 30 percent reduction in ROG

and NOX emissions, to be adopted in

1999 and implemented in 2000.

M16—Pleasure Craft: national

standards (both Phase I and II).

CARB’s decision to place

responsibility on the Federal

government for these controls rests on

the State’s conclusion that: (1) State and

local agencies lack the legal authority or

practical ability to control these source

categories; (2) the reductions

contributed by the new Federal

assignments are essential for progress

and attainment in California; and (3)

there are no feasible alternative sources

of reductions that are available to the

State, given the stringent level of control

of all other source categories reflected in

the SIPs.

2. EPA Action

While EPA does not believe that the

CAA authorizes a state to assign

responsibility to the Federal government

for meeting SIP requirements, the

Agency agrees that it has both the

authority and responsibility under the

Act for regulating certain national

sources of air pollution. The 1990 Clean

Air Act Amendments, in fact, extended

EPA’s authority to regulate nonroad

vehicles and engines and expressly

required EPA to evaluate nonroad

engine emissions, determine whether

these emissions contribute significantly

to ozone or CO in areas which have

failed to attain the ozone or CO NAAQS,

and regulate these emissions categories

if found to be significant. Under this

authority, EPA completed a Nonroad

Engine and Vehicle Emission Study and

issued an affirmative determination of

significance (59 FR 31306, June 17,

1994). EPA has also proposed, and in

some cases finalized, rules for various

nonroad vehicles and engines, including

several of the California SIP ‘‘Federal

measure’’ source categories. The current

status of EPA’s actions on each of the

‘‘Federal measure’’ categories is

summarized in the Appendix to this

document.

EPA recently established a new policy

that allows States to incorporate into

their ROPs and attainment

demonstrations the estimated emission

reductions associated with courtordered or statutorily-mandated

measures prior to final promulgation of

the Federal regulations.8 Consistent

with this policy, EPA is proposing to

assign to the California Ozone SIPs

emissions reduction credit for

nonocean-going marine vessels,

locomotives, and pleasure craft, based

on EPA’s current estimates of the

reductions that will be achieved by

these national measures. These credits

are sufficient, in conjunction with those

attributed by California to the State and

local measures, to demonstrate progress

and attainment of the ozone NAAQS in

all of the California ozone

nonattainment areas except for the

South Coast.

Additionally, EPA has been

evaluating other potential future

‘‘Federal measures,’’ including controls

for most categories of mobile sources.

These measures have significance in the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10937

South Coast. EPA’s evaluation of these

possible national controls has been

ongoing from the period of FIP

preparation through the present, and

has evolved into a consultative process.

In the area of onroad controls, EPA’s

heavy-duty vehicle initiative, developed

in cooperation with CARB, is one aspect

of this process. This consultative

initiative, which is consistent with the

State’s measure M6, has already shown

success and recently culminated in a

Statement of Principles (SOP) signed by

EPA, individual members of the heavyduty engine industry, and CARB

regarding future national standards for

on-highway heavy-duty engines. The

goal of the SOP is to reduce NOX

emissions from on-highway heavy-duty

engines to levels approximating 2.0

g/bhp-hr beginning in model year 2004,

while also achieving reductions in HC.

For further details on the SOP and

initiative, see EPA’s Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (60 FR 45580,

August 31, 1995). EPA is also engaged

in cooperative efforts with the State of

California to discuss with affected

industry a similar heavy-duty nonroad

initiative.

As discussed more fully in section

II.C.7.e., below, setting forth EPA’s

proposed approval of the South Coast

attainment demonstration, EPA agrees

with the State that national and

international mobile source emissions

are increasingly significant contributors

to ozone pollution, particularly in the

South Coast. EPA also agrees with the

State that CARB and EPA share

responsibility for controlling new

mobile sources. To address this

challenge cooperatively, the CARB

Board, in its resolution of adoption of

the 1994 California Ozone SIP, included

specific direction to the CARB

Executive Officer to continue to meet

and confer with EPA regarding the

federal assignments (CARB Resolution

No. 94–60, November 15, 1994).

Following adoption of the 1994

California Ozone SIP, EPA and CARB

have discussed the affected mobile

source control categories and, while the

agencies have not reached consensus on

difficult issues of jurisdiction and

responsibility, the two agencies share a

strong mutual interest in further

consultation on and collaboration in

identifying and developing the most

effective and least disruptive

approaches to achieving further

reductions in air emissions from the

various categories of mobile sources.

Building on this interagency

cooperation, EPA proposes to continue

and expand the ongoing consultative

process with California and other

appropriate parties to examine the

potential for additional mobile source

controls that can contribute to progress

and attainment, and that are compatible

with other important regulatory

considerations, including those

associated with interstate and

international commerce. EPA proposes

that this consultative process conclude

in June 1997 with a decision on those

additional measures that are appropriate

for each party to pursue. EPA further

proposes to make an enforceable

commitment to undertake rulemakings,

after the consultative process, on control

measures needed to achieve the

emission reductions which are

determined to be appropriate for EPA.

Finally, EPA proposes to approve the

South Coast attainment demonstration if

CARB submits, before EPA’s final

action, an enforceable SIP commitment

to adopt and submit as a SIP revision:

(a) by December 31, 1997, a revised

attainment demonstration for the South

Coast as appropriate after the

consultative process; and (b) by

December 31, 1999, enforceable

emission limitations and other control

measures needed to achieve the

emission reductions which are

determined to be appropriate for the

State.

C. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and

Measures

1. Introduction and Common Elements

This section discusses the progress

and attainment plans for each area,

including local, state and Federal

measures, and describes EPA’s proposed

action on those plans with regard to the

ROP requirements of sections

182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(B), and the

attainment requirements of sections

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

As described earlier, following local

adoption of the plans, the State took

further action on the plans, adding a

statewide measure component and, in

some cases, modifying the locally

adopted plan. Volume IV of the 1994

California Ozone SIP presents CARB’s

adjustments to the local plans, and

summarizes the ROP and attainment

demonstrations. CARB also supplied

detailed spreadsheets delineating

projected emissions reductions in each

area, by State measure and milestone

year, to complete the technical

documentation of each area’s ROP and

attainment demonstrations.

a. Emission Inventories.

(1) 1990 Base Year Inventories

Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires

that a comprehensive, accurate, and

current base year inventory of actual

emissions be submitted to EPA as a SIP

revision for each area designated as

nonattainment and classified marginal

and higher for ozone. The 1990

emissions inventory is defined as the

base year inventory and provides a

benchmark for ROP and attainment

planning.

Annual and ozone season weekday

inventories of actual emissions are

required for VOC, NOX, and CO for each

ozone nonattainment area. These

inventories detail emissions for all

categories of stationary point sources,

area sources, onroad vehicles, offroad

engines, and biogenics (for VOC). The

inventories use the best available

emission factors and activity indicators

representative of the ozone season.

The 1990 base year inventories were

initially submitted by CARB in

November 1992 and improved

inventories were submitted again as part

of the 1994 California Ozone SIP. On

March 30, 1995, CARB submitted

revised 1990 base year inventories

which further refined the inventory

estimates. EPA is proposing approval of

the March 30, 1995, inventory

submittal.

Annual emission inventory estimates

are adjusted to represent the ozone

season weekday inventory (the

‘‘planning inventory’’). Seasonal

throughput, seasonal activity factors,

and temperature considerations are

used, as appropriate, to develop the

planning inventory. Although EPA

recommends a 3 month peak ozone

season as the basis for the planning

inventory estimates, because of the

persistence of ozone violations in

California from May through October,

the CARB uses a 6 month average

operating day emissions estimate.

Stationary sources are broadly

grouped into point and area sources.

Point sources typically include

permitted equipment located at a fixed,

identifiable establishment (e.g., a

refinery). Actual emissions are reported

annually to local air pollution agencies

as a part of an ongoing operating permit

renewal and emission statement

processes. Operating permit

requirements generally pertain to

sources emitting at least 10 tons per

year, with lower limits in some areas.

This information is used by the local air

district to periodically update inventory

estimates for stationary sources.

Area sources generally include small

point sources (e.g., gasoline dispensing

facilities) and ubiquitous emissions not

associated with a permit (e.g., consumer

products). CARB and the local air

pollution control districts share the

responsibility for calculating emissions

from the over 200 area source categories.

The emission and activity factors used
10938 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

9 Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions in

California (CARB, September 1991 and updates).

10EPA policy memorandum from OAQPS to

Regional Air Division Directors (April 27, 1995).

to develop area source inventories are

described in CARB guidance.9

Mobile source estimates are divided

into on-road and off-road categories. Onroad emissions are estimated by vehicle

class, roadway type and vehicle age.

Caltrans, CARB, local government

agencies, and the Department of Motor

Vehicles supply the data necessary to

estimate emissions from on-road mobile

sources. On-road mobile source

emissions inventories for SIP purposes

are generally developed using the latest

version of MOBILE, EPA’s mobile

source emission factor model, but in

California, CARB has developed its own

on-road mobile source emission factor

model, EMFAC. Together with CARB’s

WEIGHT model, which estimates

accumulated mileage and activities by

vehicle year, and BURDEN model,

which estimates vehicle trips and

vehicle miles travelled by vehicle type,

CARB develops the on-road mobile

source emissions inventories for the

nonattainment areas. The version of

EMFAC used for the November 15, 1994

and March 30, 1995 submittals was

EMFAC7F version 1.1.

The off-road mobile source inventory

includes emissions from categories

ranging from lawn mowers to oceangoing vessels. Emission estimates are a

function of emission factors, activity

rates, and control factors. Emission

factors and methodologies used to

calculate emissions are based on

information compiled by EPA, CARB,

and the local districts.

The CARB base year inventory

includes biogenic emission estimates.

EPA’s biogenic emission estimation

software, Biogenic Emission Inventory

System, was used in conjunction with

temperature inputs representative of the

area of concern, consistent with EPA

guidance. This software is used to

estimate emissions from natural sources

(e.g., trees, crops, etc.). Although

biogenic emissions represent an

uncontrollable source, these potentially

significant emissions are included in the

attainment demonstration modeling.

Because the CARB inventories

represent actual emissions, the

inventories already reflect excess,

noncompliant emissions and, consistent

with EPA’s guidance 10, they do not

require further adjustment by the 80%

rule effectiveness discount.

While CAA requirements and EPA

guidance are stated in terms of VOC,

some California District plans estimate

their inventories in terms of either

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) or

Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC).

The Santa Barbara, San Joaquin Valley,

and Sacramento area plans use ROG

while Ventura uses ROC. The only

difference between VOC and ROG/ROC

is the inclusion of ethane in the ROG/

ROC inventory estimates.

EPA has concluded that the VOC,

NOX, and CO inventories of actual

emissions for the ozone nonattainment

areas satisfy the requirements of the Act

and EPA’s associated approval criteria.

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

Act, EPA is proposing to approve the

1990 base year inventories for each of

the ozone nonattainment areas

addressed in this document.

(2) Inventory Projections

Future year inventories are needed to

estimate milestone and attainment year

inventories. These estimates are then

used in projecting and calculating ROP

and attainment. Future year inventories

are developed using base year inventory

estimates adjusted using growth and

control factors. Growth factors are

developed using socioeconomic

forecasts (i.e., population, housing,

employment, and motor vehicle

activity) and Standard Industrial

Classification data. Growth rates for

motor vehicles consider projected

changes in vehicle miles traveled, trips,

and vehicles in use. Control factors are

used to adjust future year inventory

estimates to account for reductions from

adopted and scheduled measures. EPA

proposes to approve the inventory

projections for each of the

nonattainment areas, since the

projections meet all applicable

requirements.

b. ROP Targets. The CAA outlines and

EPA guidance details the method for

calculating the ROP requirements for

the milestone years. Section

182(b)(1)(A) requires a 15% VOC

reduction by November 15, 1996, from

the adjusted 1990 base year inventory

(i.e., 3% per year reduction from 1990

to 1996). Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires

that after 1996, an additional 3% per

year VOC (or NOX equivalent) emission

reduction be achieved (in 3 year

increments) until the attainment date.

The percent reduction requirements by

milestone year and by area classification

are shown below in the table labeled

‘‘ROP Requirements.’’

ROP REQUIREMENTS

Classification Year Reduction

(percent)

Moderate and above .... 1996 15

Serious and above ....... 1999 24

ROP REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Classification Year Reduction

(percent)

Severe I and above ...... 2002 33

2005 42

Severe II and above ..... 2007 48

Extreme ........................ 2008 51

2010 57

Section 182(b)(1) requires that ROP

reductions: (1) Be in addition to those

needed to offset any growth in

emissions between the base year and the

milestone year; (2) exclude emission

reductions from 4 prescribed Federal

programs (i.e., the Federal motor vehicle

control program (FMVCP), the Federal

Reid vapor pressure (RVP)

requirements, any Reasonably Available

Control Technology corrections

previously specified by EPA, and any I/

M program corrections necessary to

meet the basic I/M level); and (3) be

calculated from an ‘‘adjusted’’ baseline

relative to the year for which the

reduction is applicable. The adjusted

ROP base year inventory excludes the

emission reductions from fleet turnover

between 1990 and 1996 and from

Federal RVP regulations promulgated by

November 15, 1990 or required under

section 211(h) of the Act.

The net effect of these adjustments is

that states are not able to take credit for

emissions reductions that would result

from fleet turnover of current Federal

standard cars and trucks, or from

already existing Federal fuel

regulations. However, the SIP can take

full credit for the benefits of any new

(i.e., post-1990) vehicle emissions

standards, as well as any other new

Federal or State motor vehicle or fuel

program that will be implemented in the

nonattainment area, including Tier I

exhaust standards, new evaporative

emissions standards, reformulated

gasoline, enhanced I/M, California low

emissions vehicle program,

transportation control measures, etc.

When compared to the national

tailpipe and fuel standards promulgated

by EPA, California has had more

stringent standards for some time. The

methodology used in the November

1993 15% ROP submittals was not

necessarily the most appropriate way to

model the exclusions, in light of the

effects of these differing standards.

Therefore, CARB recalculated the

exclusions for Federal RVP and FMVCP

for its adjusted base year inventories

and submitted revised ROP plans in

November 1994. The resulting ROP

targets conform to applicable

requirements and EPA proposes to
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10939

11 ‘‘NOX Substitution Guidance,’’ OAQPS,

USEPA, December, 1993; ‘‘Guidance on the Post1996 Rate-of Progress Plan and the Attainment

Demonstration,’’ EPA–452/R–93–015, OAQPS,

USEPA, January, 1994.

approve them as part of the approval of

the ROP demonstrations.

c. NOX Substitution. Section

182(c)(2)(C) allows for NOX reductions

(after accounting for growth) which

occur after 1990 to be used to meet the

post-1996 ROP emission reduction

requirements, provided that such NOX

reductions meet the criteria outlined in

EPA’s NOX substitution guidance.11 The

criteria require that: (1) the sum of all

creditable VOC and NOX reductions

must meet the 3% per year ROP

requirement; (2) substitution is on a

percent-for-percent of adjusted base year

emissions for the relevant pollutant; and

(3) the sum of all substituted NOX

reductions cannot be greater than the

cumulative NOX reductions required by

the modeled attainment demonstration.

While the Act and the guidance do

allow use of 1990–1996 NOX reductions

for substitution in the post-1996 period,

the amount of NOX reductions available

for substitution is subject to the same

creditability exclusions described

above. As discussed below in the review

of the individual plans, the California

ozone areas relying on NOX substitution

in post-1996 ROP demonstrations (San

Joaquin, San Diego, Sacramento, and

Ventura) meet applicable requirements

pertaining to NOX substitution.

The term ‘‘VOC equivalents’’ is used

in the ROP tables for the areas relying

on NOX substitution. This term was

taken from CARB’s November 1994 SIP.

VOC equivalents is not meant to imply

that NOX reductions were substituted

for VOC reductions on a one-for-one

basis. The amount of NOX substitution

was determined by calculating the VOC

shortfall percentage, and then

converting the percentage into an

equivalent reduction of NOX. For the

areas relying on NOX substitution,

CARB and the districts have

demonstrated that the NOX reductions

are creditable and not in excess of what

is necessary for attainment. A

companion EPA technical support

document provides a more detailed

description of the calculations and

amount of NOX reduction used to

represent the VOC equivalents.

d. Modeling.

(1) Introduction

An attainment demonstration is a key

part of a State Implementation Plan:

using air quality modeling, it shows that

the proposed emission control measures

are sufficient for the NAAQS to be

attained by the applicable deadline. For

ozone nonattainment areas classified

serious, severe, or extreme, section

182(c)(2)(A) requires an attainment

demonstration based on photochemical

grid modeling, for which the Urban

Airshed Model (UAM) is the EPAapproved model. (See Appendix W of

40 CFR Part 51.)

The modeling portions of the SIP

submittals were generally reviewed in

terms of technical accuracy, and for

consistency with EPA modeling

guidelines. The guidelines are the

Guideline for Regulatory Application of

the Urban Airshed Model (EPA, 7/91),

Guideline for Regulatory Application of

the Urban Airshed Model for Areawide

Carbon Monoxide (EPA, 6/92), and

Guidance on Urban Airshed Model

(UAM) Reporting Requirements for

Attainment Demonstration (EPA, 3/94).

Thus, the review covered the

appropriateness of data sources,

appropriateness of technical judgements

and procedures followed in input

preparation, performance of quality

assurance and diagnostic procedures,

adequacy of model base case

performance, consistency of control

measure simulation inputs with the

submitted control measures, adequacy

of the demonstration of attainment of

the NAAQS, and consistency and

completeness of documentation. EPA’s

confidence in the conclusions reached

in the review is enhanced because of

EPA’s participation in technical

committees and meetings for each area,

and other communications with State

and local technical staff, as the model

applications were being developed.

The UAM model uses an inventory of

pollutant emissions, together with air

quality and meteorological data, as

input to a system of algorithms

incorporating chemistry and dispersion,

in order to simulate an observed

pollution episode. Once a ‘‘base case’’ is

developed that meets the minimum

performance criteria, projected future

emissions are used as input to simulate

air quality in the attainment deadline

year. Various combinations of

geographically uniform emission

reductions are simulated to determine

approximate attainment reduction

targets. Planners design a control

strategy to meet these targets, and then

simulate it with UAM, including the

spatially and temporally varying effects

of the selected controls. Attainment is

demonstrated when the modeled air

quality with emission controls in effect

is below the NAAQS throughout the

geographical modeling domain.

(2) Uncertainty and Model Performance

A modeling attainment demonstration

is subject to several uncertainties. The

meteorological and air quality inputs

have their own associated uncertainties,

both in measurement and in

representativeness. In addition, not all

variables can be measured for all hours,

so default and interpolated values must

be used. Processes such as chemical

reaction and advection necessarily

appear in the model in simplified form.

The selected episodes may not represent

all conditions conducive to high

pollutant levels. Finally, base case and

projected emissions are uncertain.

Biogenic emission inventory

methodologies are in a state of flux. In

spite of these sources of uncertainty,

photochemical grid modeling is the best

tool that is available for determining the

emission reductions that are needed for

NAAQS attainment. The Guideline

procedures are meant to ensure that

inputs are set in a scientifically sound

manner, and to uncover compensating

errors that can be present even when the

model predicts ozone well.

As explained in the Guideline,

episodes are chosen for modeling based

on their high ozone levels, data

availability, and other criteria.

Generally, episodes should be chosen

that are approximately as severe as the

area’s design value, which is based on

the historical ozone highs. During a

particular episode, the observed ozone

peak may be higher or lower than the

design value; but as long as it is

relatively close, that episode can be

accepted for use in an attainment

demonstration. See also the discussion

of the attainment test, below.

Once an episode is chosen, modelers

attempt to simulate it with UAM.

Various performance statistics and

diagnostic tests are available to gauge

their success. Three of the statistics are

presented in the table in this notice. The

most commonly stated one is the peak

accuracy, since it is the ozone peak that

is ultimately to be reduced to the

NAAQS level. However, it uses only one

place and time out of all those

simulated. In judging model

performance to be acceptable,

predictions at many places and times

are examined. Also, the overall pattern

of ozone and other chemical species are

evaluated, in light of the changing

emissions and meteorology occurring

during the episode. Sometimes a

lengthy process of diagnostic testing and

refinement of inputs is required. Thus,

the finally accepted base case may show

some bias (e.g., simulated ozone peak

not matching the observed), and yet be

fully adequate as a simulation of the

episode, and for use in an attainment

demonstration. Except where noted, all

of the submitted California modeling
10940 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

12November 14, 1994 letter from James Boyd

(CARB) to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the

Santa Barbara SIP and CARB Executive Order No.

G–125–163 approving the Santa Barbara Plan. The

Santa Barbara submittal includes a November 3,

1994 letter from Douglas Allard (SBAPCD) to James

Boyd (CARB) forwarding the 1994 Santa Barbara

CAP.

13More detailed summaries of this inventory can

be found in the 1994 CAP, Table 3–3.

episodes had acceptable performance,

meeting EPA Guideline criteria.

(3) Number of Episodes

The Guideline calls for a minimum of

3 primary episode days to be modeled.

EPA elected to allow areas to use just

two if they were based on a field study,

since this provides substantially more

complete data, and so more confidence

in model development procedures and

results. The tradeoff of higher quality

modeling for fewer episodes is deemed

by EPA to be a reasonable one.

Unfortunately, due to problems of

model performance or transport, some

areas were only able to develop

modeling for a single ozone episode.

The Guideline is silent on what should

be done in cases where, in spite of an

area’s best effort, the model simply

cannot be made to perform for a given

ozone episode. EPA is electing to accept

the California efforts as adequate.

(4) Attainment Test

Recently, questions have arisen over

what test an area has to meet to

demonstrate attainment; this has been

thought of as showing that every

geographical point within the model

domain is reduced to .12 ppm ozone for

every hour, for every episode modeled.

However, the statistical nature of the

ozone NAAQS allows each point in

space to have one NAAQS exceedance

per year (3 year average). Adding this to

the uncertainties in model inputs and in

the model itself, the above test may be

overly conservative. In borderline cases,

the overall weight of evidence of

modeling, emissions and meteorological

characteristics of an area may provide a

useful adjunct to the attainment test,

though this was not used in the

California SIP submittal.

(5) Transport

Pollutant transport between areas is

an issue of continuing concern for the

areas of Sacramento, San Diego, San

Joaquin Valley, Santa Barbara, South

Coast, and Ventura. For Sacramento and

for the portions of southern California

downwind of South Coast, attainment

has not been demonstrated under

transport conditions. The ozone

episodes modeled either did not include

high levels of transported pollutants,

were found to be dominated by

transport and then abandoned as not

representative, or the model did not

perform particularly well. Ideally,

upwind and downwind areas would be

included within a single modeling

domain; this was done in the SARMAP

study centered on the San Joaquin

Valley, but thus far the model does not

perform well for the Sacramento area.

Only a limited number of episodes have

so far been modeled, some of them

having little transported pollution.

Nevertheless, EPA accepts the

modeling done so far as adequate,

because it is the best modeling

available, and does show attainment of

the NAAQS for locally generated days.

However, the emission reductions

indicated as required by the modeling to

date must be viewed as valid for this

stage of planning only; additional

reductions may be necessary in these

nonattainment areas or in other areas

upwind (such as the San Francisco Bay

Area) to guarantee attainment of the

NAAQS. EPA expects that this will be

determined by the modeling additional

transport episodes over the next few

years; this effort was not feasible for the

November 15, 1994 deadline because of

constraints on available data, funds and

staff. In part because of the California

Clean Air Act with its more stringent

ozone standards, modeling will

continue in these areas; for example, a

Southern California Transport study is

currently being planned. SIP revisions

may become necessary should such

future modeling indicate the need for

additional emissions controls.

EPA proposes to approve the

modeling in all of the ozone plans acted

on in this notice, as meeting the

requirements for attainment

demonstrations in sections 182(b)(1)(A)

and 182(c)(2)(A).

2. Santa Barbara

a. Identification of Plan. On

November 3, 1994, the Santa Barbara

County Air Pollution Control Board

adopted Santa Barbara’s 1994 Clean Air

Plan (CAP). On November 14, 1994,

CARB submitted the plan to EPA to

comply with ROP and attainment

demonstration requirements of the

Act.12

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The

SIP provides detailed estimates of the

actual VOC and NOX emissions that

occurred in Santa Barbara in 1990.

These base year inventories are

summarized in the table labeled ‘‘1990

Santa Barbara SIP Inventories.’’ 13 A

discussion of these inventories and of

EPA’s proposed action on them can be

found in section II.C.1.a. of this notice.

1990 SANTA BARBARA SIP

INVENTORIES

[tons per summer day]

Category ROG NOX

Stationary ................................. 32 12

Mobile ....................................... 25 36

OCS .......................................... 6 22

Total ............................... 63 70

c. SIP Control Measures.

(1) Description

The submittal describes a series of

rules that have been adopted in order to

reduce ROG and NOX emissions in

Santa Barbara. Chapters 4 and 5 of the

CAP describes the control measures

relied upon for demonstrating

compliance with the Act’s progress and

attainment requirements. With the

exception of contingency measure T–21,

Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance

Program, all required measures

identified in Chapters 4 and 5 of the

CAP have been adopted. Because the

Santa Barbara area will not achieve

attainment of the ozone NAAQS by

November 1996 with currently adopted

controls, as described later under

section II.C.2.f., EPA expects that

measure T–21 will be adopted in 1996

and implemented in 1997 as described

in the CAP. Reductions of

approximately .6 tons per day (tpd) of

ROG and NOX are expected from the

implementation of T–21.

Table 5–1 describes the plan’s

transportation control measures (TCMs),

which, collectively, supersede the TCM

list in the previously approved 1982 Air

Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP). The

TCMs are projected to result in net

emissions reductions for the 1996 target

attainment year of .3 tpd ROG and .2 tpd

NOX.

(2) EPA Action

EPA proposes to approve, under

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

the control measures portion of the

plan, including the enforceable

commitment to adopt contingency

measure T–21.

EPA approval of the applicable State

and local fully-adopted and SIPsubmitted regulations either has already

occurred or will be completed in

separate rulemaking in the future. As

requested by the State, EPA also

proposes to delete from the current SIP

the 1982 transportation control

measures.

d. ROP Provisions.

(1) ROP Emission Targets

The submittal describes the ROG

emission reductions needed to meet
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10941

ROP requirements based on Santa

Barbara’s adjusted 1990 base year

inventories. The SIP also provides

emission estimates for 1996, the only

applicable ROP milestone year, by

determining the impacts of the control

strategy and calculating anticipated

changes in emissions resulting from

projected levels of population,

industrial activity, motor vehicle use,

etc. A summary of the ROP targets and

the projected ROG emissions is

provided below in the Table labeled

‘‘Santa Barbara ROP Forecasts and

Targets’’ (see 1994 CAP, Tables 9–2 and

9–5). The plan provides for achievement

of the ROP target emission levels for

1996, the only applicable milestone year

for a moderate ozone area.

SANTA BARBARA ROP FORECASTS

AND TARGETS 14

[In tons of ROG per summer day]

1990 Base Year Inventory ........ 57

1996 Projections (Adopted

Measures) ............................. 41

1996 ROP Target ..................... 42

14For the ROP determination, OCS emissions were not included.

(2) ROP Control Strategy

In general, only adopted measures

may be relied upon in meeting the 15%

ROP requirement. This requirement is

met, since the plan relies only on

adopted regulations to achieve the

required ROP reductions. A detailed

description of Santa Barbara’s 15% ROP

demonstration is provided in Chapter 9

of the CAP.

(3) EPA Action

The Santa Barbara 1994 CAP meets

the ROP requirements of the Act,

including the requirement to achieve by

1996 a minimum of 15% of creditable

VOC emission reductions from the 1990

base year. EPA therefore proposes to

approve Santa Barbara’s ROP plan

under section 182(b)(1) of the Act.

e. Demonstration of Attainment. Santa

Barbara is classified as a moderate

nonattainment area for ozone. As a

result, the SIP must contain adequate

control measures and commitments to

demonstrate attainment of the ozone

NAAQS by 1996.

(1) Control Strategy

The control strategy for Santa

Barbara’s SIP attainment demonstration

incorporates all of the measures

identified in Chapters 4 and 5 of the

CAP. The demonstration presumes the

measures, which are already fully

adopted as regulations, will be

implemented as shown in the plan,

resulting in the emission reductions

indicated in the CAP.

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed

modeling analysis performed to

demonstrate that the control strategy

identified above will result in NAAQS

attainment. A summary of the emission

reductions needed to attain the standard

is provided below in the table labeled

‘‘Emission Reductions Needed in Santa

Barbara,’’ which is derived from

information in the 1994 CAP.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN

SANTA BARBARA

[Tons per summer day]

ROG NOX

1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory .................................. 63 70

Carrying Capacity ..................... 44 56

Reductions Needed .................. 19 14

A summary of the emission

reductions projected from the SIP

control strategy is provided below in the

table labeled ‘‘Santa Barbara Attainment

Demonstration,’’ which is derived from

the information in the 1994 CAP.

SANTA BARBARA ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION

[Tons per summer day]

ROG NOX

Reductions from adopted

measures .............................. 19 14

Committed local measures ....... 0 0

Committed State measures ...... 0 0

Total ............................... 19 14

The Santa Barbara area was classified

as a moderate ozone nonattainment area

based on a design value of .14 ppm,

recorded at the Carpenteria site. This

was based on 1987–1989 data. The

attainment demonstration for Santa

Barbara is based on Urban Airshed

Modeling even though use of

photochemical modeling is not a

specific Clean Air Act requirement for a

moderate area. Modeling for the Santa

Barbara area is discussed in two

documents: the ‘‘Santa Barbara County

Photochemical Modeling Investigation

(May, 1994)’’ and in the 1994 CAP

(Chapter 7 and Appendix D:

Photochemical Modeling

Documentation).

In the Santa Barbara County

Photochemical Modeling Investigation,

a county-wide assessment of the July

29–31, 1991 episode was analyzed. The

peak ozone concentration measured

during this period was .13 ppm at the

Paradise Road Monitoring station. The

model performance statistics did not

meet EPA performance requirements as

the peak ozone concentrations were

underpredicted by approximately 50%.

Because of the lack of performance, an

attainment demonstration was not

performed with this episode.

Santa Barbara APCD and Ventura

County APCD collaborated on a joint

modeling effort to satisfy the attainment

demonstration requirements of the

Clean Air Act. This collaborative effort

is summarized in the 1994 CAP. Two

1984 episodes were selected for the joint

modeling effort: September 5–7 and

September 16–17. The episodes and

modeling statistics are discussed further

in the accompanying technical support

document. Using 1996 emission

forecasts, the photochemical modeling

demonstrated attainment of the ozone

standard, although attainment for the

September 5–7 episode required

removal of the in-transit shipping

channel emissions.

Although the modeling does not fully

meet EPA’s performance criteria, EPA

believes that the modeling is sufficient

to propose approval of the attainment

plan.

(3) EPA Action

EPA believes that the Santa Barbara

attainment demonstration satisfies CAA

requirements. EPA therefore proposes to

approve Santa Barbara’s attainment

demonstration under section

182(b)(1)(A) of the Act.

f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes

to approve fully the Santa Barbara ozone

SIP with respect to the Act’s

requirements for emission inventories,

control measures, and demonstrations of

ROP and attainment.

The November 14, 1994, SIP submittal

included an ozone redesignation request

and maintenance plan for the Santa

Barbara nonattainment area. During

1994–5, however, the Santa Barbara area

recorded a number of exceedances of

the ozone standard. This will prevent

the area from attaining the ozone

standard in 1996, since attainment of

the ozone NAAQS requires no more

than three exceedances over a three year

period.

On July 18, 1995, the State agreed to

withdraw its request for EPA action on

the redesignation request and the

maintenance plan. As a result, EPA is

not taking action on the redesignation

request and maintenance plan at this

time. However, even though the 1994–

5 exceedances will prevent Santa

Barbara from achieving the ozone

standard by 1996, EPA is proposing to

approve Santa Barbara’s 1994 CAP. If
10942 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

15November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd

(CARB) to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the San

Diego component of the SIP and CARB Board

Resolution No. 94–63 approving the San Diego plan

revision. The San Diego submittal includes a

November 3, 1994 letter from Richard Sommerville

(SDAPCD) to James Boyd (CARB) forwarding the

1994 San Diego plan and the SDAPCD Board

Resolution approving the SIP revision.

the Santa Barbara area experiences no

more than one exceedance during the

1996 ozone season and the state has

complied with all requirements and

commitments in the Santa Barbara SIP,

section 181(a)(5) of the Act authorizes

EPA to grant a one-year extension of the

attainment date upon request by the

State. Up to two extensions can be

granted. Therefore, disapproval of the

1994 CAP and a reclassification of the

area to serious for failure to attain is not

yet warranted.

3. San Diego

a. Identification of Plan. On

November 1, 1994, the Board of the San

Diego Air Pollution Control District

(SDAPCD) adopted the ‘‘1994 Ozone

State Implementation Plan Revision’’.

On November 15, 1994, CARB adopted

the SIP revision as the local element of

the 1994 California Ozone SIP, which

CARB then submitted to EPA 15 to

comply with ROP and attainment

demonstration requirements.

b. 1990 Base year Inventories. The SIP

provides detailed estimates of the actual

VOC and NOX emissions that occurred

in San Diego in 1990. These base year

inventories are summarized in the table

below, labeled ‘‘1990 San Diego SIP

Inventories.’’ A more specific

breakdown of 1990 base year emissions

can be found on page 9 of the plan, and

further inventory information is

provided in the appendices to the plan.

A discussion of these inventories and of

EPA’s proposed action on them can be

found in section II.C.1.a., above.

1990 SAN DIEGO SIP INVENTORIES

[Tons per summer day]

Category VOC NOX

Stationary .............................. 100.0 28.0

Mobile ................................... 212.5 209.9

Total ........................... 312.5 237.9

c. SIP Control Measures.

(1) Description

The plan lists the VOC and NOX

control measures relied upon for

demonstrating compliance with the

Act’s progress and attainment

requirements, all of which had been

adopted at the time of the plan

submittal (see Table 4, ‘‘1999

Attainment Demonstration Control

Measures’’ on p. 29 of the SIP).

(2) EPA Action

EPA proposes to approve, under

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

the control measures portion of the

plan. EPA approval of the adopted

regulations has already occurred or will

be completed in separate rulemakings in

the future.

d. ROP Provisions.

(1) ROP Emission Targets

The 1994 SIP describes the VOC

emission reductions needed to meet

ROP requirements based on San Diego’s

adjusted 1990 base year inventories (see

pp. 33 and 35). The SIP also provides

emission estimates for the ROP

milestone years by projecting the

impacts of the control strategy and of

anticipated changes in population,

industrial activity, and other socioeconomic factors. A summary of the

ROP VOC targets and the projected VOC

emissions is provided below in the table

labeled ‘‘San Diego ROP Forecasts and

Targets.’’

As the table shows, VOC reductions

alone were not projected to be sufficient

to meet the ROP target levels for

milestone years after 1996. Section

182(c)(2)(C) of the Act and EPA

guidance allows reductions in NOX

emissions to be substituted for post1996 VOC reductions so long as certain

conditions are met (see discussion

above in section II.C.1.c.). The San

Diego plan meets those conditions and

the corresponding NOX reductions as

substituted for VOC reductions are also

shown in the table. EPA concludes that

the plan provides for achievement of the

ROP target emission levels for all years.

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

SAN DIEGO ROP FORECASTS AND

TARGETS—Continued

[Tons per summer day]

Milestone year 1996 1999

NOX Substitution in VOC

Equivalents 16 ................ 0 19.8

16The term ‘‘VOC equivalents’’ is not meant

to imply that NOX reductions were substituted

for VOC reductions on a one-for-one basis.

The amount of NOX substitution was determined by calculating the VOC shortfall percentage, and then converting the percentage

into an equivalent reduction of NOX. CARB

and the district have demonstrated that the

NOX reductions are creditable and not in excess of what is necessary for attainment. A

companion TSD provides a more detailed description of the calculations and amount of

NOX reduction used to represent the VOC

equivalents.

(2) ROP Control Strategy

In general only adopted measures may

be relied upon in meeting the 15% ROP

requirement in section 182(b)(1) of the

Act. Since the plan relies only on

adopted regulations, this requirement is

met. According to the submitted plan,

the post-1996 ROP control strategy

includes all those VOC measures relied

upon for the 15% ROP demonstration,

as well as fully adopted NOX

regulations.

(3) EPA Action

The San Diego SIP meets the CAA

requirements for ROP. EPA therefore

proposes to approve San Diego’s 15%

and post-1996 ROP plans under sections

182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2) of the Act.

e. Demonstration of Attainment. San

Diego County is classified as a serious

nonattainment area for ozone (see 40

CFR 81.305). As a result, the SIP must

contain adequate control measures to

demonstrate attainment of the ozone

NAAQS by 1999.

(1) Control Strategy

The San Diego SIP attainment

demonstration includes all of the

measures described earlier. The

demonstration presumes the measures

will continue to be implemented,

resulting in the emission reductions

shown.

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed

modeling analysis performed to

demonstrate that the control strategy

described in above will result in

NAAQS attainment. A summary of the

emission reductions needed to attain the

standard is provided below in the table

labeled ‘‘Emission Reductions Needed

in San Diego,’’ which is taken from the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10943

17November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd

(CARB) to Felicia Marcus, EPA forwarding the San

Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment Demonstration

Plan and CARB Board Resolution no. 94–65

approving the San Joaquin Valley revised 1993

Rate-of-Progress Plan, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress

Plan and the Attainment Demonstration Plan as

revisions to the SIP. The San Joaquin Valley

submittal includes a November 14, 1994 letter from

David Crow (SJVUAPCD) to James Boyd (CARB),

forwarding the San Joaquin Valley Ozone

Attainment Demonstration Plan and the SJVUAPCD

Board Resolution (94–11–02a) approving the plan.

1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV,

Table F–1.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN

SAN DIEGO

[Tons per summer day]

VOC NOX

1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory .................................. 313 238

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

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

A summary of the emission

reductions projected from the SIP

control strategy is provided below in the

table labeled ‘‘San Diego Attainment

Demonstration,’’ which is taken from

the 1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume

IV, Table F–2.

SAN DIEGO ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION

[Tons per summer day]

VOC NOX

Reductions from Adopted

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

Committed Local Measures ...... 0 0

Committed State Measures ...... 1 1

Total ................................... 82 64

The San Diego area was originally

classified as a severe ozone

nonattainment area based on a rounded

1987–1989 design value of .19 ppm,

recorded at the Del Mar station. This

was later changed to serious, since the

actual value was .185 ppm, which is

within 5 percent of the cutoff for serious

(.180 ppm), as allowed under section

181(a)(4) of the Act (see 60 FR 3771,

January 19, 1995). Exceedances of the

ozone NAAQS typically occur in the

San Diego area more than 20 times per

year. Most of these exceedances are

classified by the SDAPCD as due to

transport of pollutants from the South

Coast. Locally generated ozone episodes

are more in the neighborhood of .15

ppm.

In order to simulate air quality for the

SIP and other planning needs, San

Diego contracted with Radian

Corporation to conduct the San Diego

Area Air Quality Study (SDAQS) study

during the summer of 1989, and to

perform subsequent modeling

(summarized in draft report, November

1991). That work was later extended by

SDAPCD staff, with participation by

CARB. The field study involved a

network of air quality and

meteorological instruments, including

airplanes, to measure ozone and its

precursors and the meteorological

inputs needed for UAM.

Two episodes were selected for

modeling from among those recorded

during the field study. The August 28–

29, 1989 episode had a monitored

maximum of .154 ppm, at Alpine. After

diagnostic simulations and refinement

of model inputs, a base case was

developed for the August episode,

representing a locally generated ozone

exceedance. The model performance

statistics were within the goals set in

EPA guidance, and the episode

simulation was judged adequate for

determining emission reduction targets.

A second episode, September 20–22,

1989, having a .156 ppm peak, was

strongly affected by upper air transport

of pollutants from the Los Angeles area.

Only limited data was available on this

transported pollution. While the

model’s performance for NOX was poor,

and the expected phenomenon of a

transported ozone cloud aloft mixing

down to the ground was not simulated

well, the model met EPA statistical

performance goals for ozone.

Significant uncertainties remain, but

the modeling does show the beneficial

effect on San Diego of the upwind Los

Angeles area’s emissions reductions.

EPA expects that additional study of

transport, to be conducted over the next

few years, may result in the revisiting of

San Diego’s air quality problems. The

District is an active participant in the

planning of this study. Since San Diego

has demonstrated that such high levels

are due primarily to pollutants

transported from the South Coast,

additional San Diego emission

reductions are not required for

attainment (see 60 FR 3771–2). Finally,

the impact of adopted State and

SCAQMD reductions in the 1999

attainment year further support

assumptions that transport of ozone and

ozone precursors into the San Diego

area will decline significantly in future

years.

Using 1999 boundary conditions and

a projected emission inventory

including the effect of already-adopted

local and state emission control

measures, the ozone peaks were

simulated to be .111 ppm and .116 ppm

for the August and September episodes,

respectively, thus demonstrating

attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

(3) EPA Action

EPA believes that the San Diego

component of the 1994 SIP fulfills the

CAA attainment demonstration

requirements. EPA is therefore

proposing to approve the San Diego

attainment demonstration under section

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

f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes

to approve fully the San Diego ozone

SIP with respect to the Act’s

requirements for emission inventories,

control measures, and demonstrations of

ROP and attainment.

4. San Joaquin Valley

a. Identification of Plan. On

November 14, 1994, the Board of the

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

adopted the Ozone Attainment

Demonstration Plan for the San Joaquin

Valley. On November 15, 1994, CARB

modified the plan and adopted it as the

local element of the 1994 California

Ozone SIP, which CARB then submitted

to EPA to comply with the ROP and

attainment demonstration requirements

of the Act.17

b. 1990 Base year Inventories. The SIP

provides detailed estimates of the actual

VOC and NOX emissions that occurred

in San Joaquin in 1990. These base year

inventories are summarized in the table

below, labeled ‘‘1990 San Joaquin

Valley SIP Inventories.’’ A discussion of

the inventories and of EPA’s proposed

action on them can be found in section

II.C.1.a. of this notice.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 1990 SIP

INVENTORIES

[In tons per summer day]

Category VOC NOX

Stationary ...................... 325.64 382.56

Mobile ........................... 218.28 327.80

On-Road ................ 170.86 228.53

Non-Road .............. 47.44 99.28

Total ................... 543.9 710.4

c. SIP Control Measures.

(1) Description

The State of California and

SJVUAPCD have already adopted many

measures which will contribute to the

necessary emissions reductions for

meeting 15% ROP, post-1996 ROP and

attainment requirements. In addition,

the SIP describes a series of rules that

SJVUAPCD has recently adopted or

committed to adopt in order to reduce

VOC and NOX emissions (SJVUAPCD

Attainment Demonstration Plan, table

4–1 & 1994 California Ozone SIP,
10944 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Volume IV, Table G–9. 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.

No reductions from local measures are

assumed in the 15% ROP plan for 1996.

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 Staorage ......................................................... 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 ....... 3q98 ........ 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 & 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 ..............

(2) EPA Action

According to the State’s submissions,

these measures are relied upon in

meeting the ROP and attainment

requirements of the Act. Accordingly,

and because the measures strengthen

the SIP, EPA proposes to approve, 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

proposes to assign 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.

d. ROP Provisions.

(1) ROP Emission Targets

The SIP describes the VOC emissions

to meet the ROP target and the VOC

emissions with plan reductions (see the

1994 California Ozone SIP, Table G–7).

Additional information regarding the

ROP provisions is presented in the 1994

San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment

Demonstration Plan, Table 2–1. A

summary of the ROP VOC targets and

the projected VOC emissions is

provided below in the table labeled

‘‘San Joaquin Valley ROP Forecasts and

Targets.’’

As the table shows, VOC reductions

alone were not projected to be sufficient

to meet the ROP target levels for

milestone year 1999. Section

182(c)(2)(C) of the Act and EPA

guidance allows reductions in NOX

emissions to be substituted for post1996 VOC reductions so long as certain

conditions are met (see discussion

above in section II.C.1). The San Joaquin

Valley plan meets those conditions and

the corresponding NOX reductions as

substituted for VOC reductions are also

shown in the table.

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 18 ........................ 0 47

18See footnote 16.

The SIP includes a separate ROP

analysis for the Kern District portion of

the San Joaquin Valley.

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

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY (KERN DISTRICT)

ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS—

Continued

[Tons per summer day]

Milestone year 1996 1999

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

NOX Substitution in VOC

Equivalents ............................ 0 1.6

(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

In general, only adopted measures

may be relied upon in meeting the 15%

ROP requirement. The San Joaquin

Valley control strategy for the 15% ROP

requirements, therefore, excluded all

committed control measures listed in

the table labeled ‘‘Control Strategy for

San Joaquin Valley.’’ The description of

adopted measures relied upon in

providing for this requirement is in the

San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment

Demonstration Plan in Tables 4–1 and

3–2.

(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy

According to the submitted plan, the

post-1996 ROP control strategy includes

all those measures relied upon for the

15% ROP demonstration, plus any

measures for which emissions

reductions are shown for milestones

occurring after 1996, excluding
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10945

projected reductions from Federal

measures.

(4) EPA Action

The San Joaquin Valley SIP meets the

CAA requirements for 15% ROP and

post-1996 ROP, including the

requirement that the plan provide for

achievement of the ROP target emission

levels for all years. EPA therefore

proposes to approve San Joaquin

Valley’s 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP

plans under sections 182(b)(1) and

182(c)(2) of the Act.

e. Demonstration of Attainment. The

San Joaquin Valley is classified as a

serious nonattainment area for ozone

(see 40 CFR 81.305). As a result, the SIP

must contain adequate control measures

to demonstrate attainment of the ozone

NAAQS by 1999.

(1) Control Strategy

The San Joaquin Valley attainment

demonstration includes all of the

measures described earlier. The

demonstration presumes the measures

will be adopted and implemented as

scheduled, resulting in the emission

reductions shown.

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

The 1994 SIP describes the urban

airshed modeling analysis performed to

demonstrate that the control strategy

described above will result in

attainment. The attainment analysis is

based on the model developed as part of

the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality

Study, and divides the nonattainment

area into three subregions, and the Kern

District portion. CARB notes that the

model is being further refined and

appropriate changes in the SIP may be

made in the future.

The area was classified as serious

based on a design value of .17 ppm,

recorded at the Edison site. This was

based on 1987–1989 data.

CARB applied the SARMAP Air

Quality Model to develop the

attainment demonstration for the San

Joaquin Valley SIP. The SARMAP

model is a nonhydrostatic version of the

Regional Acid Deposition Model, with

several modifications. The EPA

approved UAM version IV was also

applied to the domain for performance

comparison. The SARMAP field study,

conducted during the summer of 1990,

provided an enhanced database of air

quality and meteorological data, both at

the surface level and aloft.

The model has been applied to one

episode from the study period, August

5–6, 1990. The episode was chosen

because it represents a typical regime

conducive to relatively high ozone

peaks. The peak ozone concentration for

the episode was .16 ppm, compared to

the design concentration of .17 ppm.

The EPA recommended statistical

criteria for ozone were met for the

episode using the SARMAP model. The

predicted peak for the episode for the

southern portion of the domain was .14

ppm, as compared to the measured

concentration of .16 ppm, an

underprediction of 13%. The predicted

peak for the central portion of the

domain was .152 ppm, compared to the

predicted peak of .131 ppm, an

overprediction of 16%. For the northern

portion of the domain, a value of .137

ppm was predicted compared to the

measured value of .150 ppm, an

underprediction of 9%.

A summary of the emission

reductions needed to attain the standard

is provided below in the table labeled

‘‘Emission Reductions Needed in the

San Joaquin Valley,’’ which is taken

from the 1994 California Ozone SIP,

Volume IV, Tables G–1, G–3, and G–5.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

[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 .......................................................... .................... .................... 38 25 72 202

CARB’s preliminary attainment calculations for the 3 subregions are provided below in the table labeled ‘‘San Joaquin

Valley Attainment Demonstration,’’ which is taken from the 1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Tables G–2, G–

4, and G–6.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

[Tons per summer day]

North Central South

ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX

Reductions from Adopted Measures ................................ 15 8 27 9 58 164

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

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

Total ....................................................................... 28 11 39 16 83 185

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.

(3) EPA Action

EPA believes that the San Joaquin

Valley component of the 1994 SIP

fulfills the CAA attainment

demonstration requirements. EPA is

therefore proposing to approve the San

Joaquin attainment demonstration under

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

f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes

to approve fully the San Joaquin ozone

SIP with respect to the Act’s
10946 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

19More detailed summaries of this inventory can

be found in the 1994 Sacramento Area Regional

Ozone Attainment Demonstration, tables C–1 and

C–2.

requirements for emission inventories,

control measures, and demonstrations of

ROP and attainment.

5. Sacramento

a. Identification of Plans. The

Sacramento Metropolitan Area

nonattainment area includes 6 counties

(whole and in part) and jurisdiction is

divided among 5 local air pollution

control agencies: the Sacramento Metro

Air Quality Management District

(SMAQMD), the Yolo-Solano Air

Pollution Control District (YSAPCD),

the Feather River Air Quality

Management District (FRAQMD), the

Placer County Air Pollution Control

District (PCAPCD), and the El Dorado

County Air Pollution Control District

(ECAPCD). Each local air pollution

control agency adopted and submitted

the Sacramento Area Regional Ozone

Attainment Demonstration Plan which

was transmitted to CARB. On December

29, 1994, CARB then submitted the plan

to EPA.

SACRAMENTO OZONE SIP ADOPTIONS

Agency Date of adoption Resolution

No.

SMAQMD ..... Dec. 1, 1994 ..... 94–0014

YSAPCD ...... Dec. 14, 1994 ... 94–28

FRAQMD ..... Dec. 12, 1994 ... 1994–13

PCAPCD ...... Dec. 20, 1994 ... 94–07

ECAPCD ...... Dec. 13, 1994 ... 321–94

b. 1990 Base Year and Projected

Inventories. The Sacramento Area ozone

attainment plan provides detailed

estimates of 1990 emissions from all

VOC and NOX sources in the

Sacramento nonattainment area in 1990.

These base year inventories are

summarized in the table labeled ‘‘1990

Sacramento Area SIP Inventories.’’ 19 A

discussion of these inventories and of

EPA’s proposed action can be found in

section II.C.1.c. of this notice.

1990 SACRAMENTO AREA SIP

INVENTORIES

[Tons per summer day]

Category ROG NOX

Stationary ................................. 88 12

Mobile ....................................... 134 151

On-road ............................. 110 118

Off-road ............................. 24 34

Total ............................... 222 164

c. SIP Control Measures.

(1) Description

The State of California and the local

air districts in Sacramento Area have

already adopted many measures which

will contribute to the necessary

emissions reductions for meeting 15%

ROP, post-1996 ROP, and attainment

requirements. In addition, the 1994 SIP

describes a series of rules that the

Sacramento Area air pollution control

districts have committed to adopt in

order to reduce VOC and NOX emissions

in the Sacramento Area. The table

labeled ‘‘Sacramento Local Control

Measures’’ describes the dates by which

the plans presume adoption and

implementation, and the emission

reductions presumed to occur by each

milestone, from 1999 through the

attainment year (2005), to the extent that

information was available in the

submitted plan.

SACRAMENTO LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES

[Tons per day]

VOC control measure title Implementing

agency Adoption date Implementation date

Emission reductions

1996 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 ............ 1996 ............ 0.9 1.3 1.6

PCAPCD .......... 4/95

Amendment to

existing rule

SMAQMD.

Adopted

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

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

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

SMAQMD ......... ’81, ’93

YSAPCD ........... Adopted 5/94
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10947

SACRAMENTO LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES—Continued

[Tons per day]

VOC control measure title Implementing

agency Adoption date Implementation date

Emission reductions

1996 2002 2005

Landfill Gas Control ...................................................... ECAPCD .......... 12/94 ................ 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

SMAQMD ......... 1998

YSAPCD ........... Adopted

Pleasure Craft Refueling .............................................. ECAPCD .......... 3/98 .................. 1999 ............ 0.1 0.1 0.2

PCAPCD .......... 3/98

SMAQMD ......... 3/98

YSAPCD ........... 3/98

Polyester Resin Operations .......................................... ECAPCD .......... 2/96 .................. 1997 ............ 0.2 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 and 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 .................. 1995 ............ 0.1 0.2 0.2

YSAPCD ........... 1/95

(Both amend

current rules).

Wood Products Coatings .............................................. ECAPCD .......... 2/95 .................. 1996 ............ 0.5 0.5 0.5

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

SMAQMD ......... Adopted 11/94 .. 1996.

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

Regional NOX Control Measures

Boilers and 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 ......... 2/97

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

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

Woodwaste Boilers ....................................................... PCAPCD .......... 5/95 .................. ??? .............. ??? ? ?

Mobile NOX Measures:

1. Off-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles ......................... All ..................... 12/95 ................ 1/97 ............. 2.0 3.0 5.0

2. On-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles

(2) EPA Action

According to the State’s submissions,

these 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 proposes to

approve, 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 proposes to

assign credit to the measures for

purposes of post-1996 ROP and

attainment. EPA approval of the

adopted regulations will be completed

in separate rulemakings in the future.

d. Rate of Progress.

(1) ROP Emission Targets

The 1994 SIP describes the VOC

emission reductions needed to meet

ROP requirements based on

Sacramento’s adjusted 1990 base year
10948 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

20See the Sacramento Area Regional Ozone

Attainment Plan, Tables G–1, G–2 and G–3 for ROP

targets and lists of measures included in meeting

those targets.

inventories.20 The SIP also provides

emission estimates for the ROP

milestone years by projecting the impact

of the control strategy and of anticipated

changes in population, industrial

activity, and other socio-economic

factors. A summary of the ROP VOC

targets and the projected VOC emissions

is provided below in the table labeled

‘‘Sacramento ROP Forecasts and

Targets.’’

As the table shows, VOC reductions

alone were not projected to be sufficient

to meet the ROP target levels for

milestone years after 1996. As discussed

earlier (section II.C.1.c.), the Clean Air

Act allows substitution of reductions in

NOX emissions for VOC reductions so

long as certain conditions are met. The

Sacramento Area plan meets those

conditions and the corresponding NOX

reductions are also 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

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

NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents 21 .......................................................................... 13 6 16 38

21See footnote 16.

(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

On November 15, 1993, CARB

submitted to EPA a ROP plan intended

to demonstrate that VOC emissions

would be reduced by 15% by 1996. EPA

determined that this ROP plan was

incomplete because it relied on controls

not yet adopted in regulatory form.

Appendix G of the 1994 SIP submittal

updates Sacramento’s 1993 ROP plan.

EPA has deemed this plan complete.

EPA will act on the Sacramento Area’s

15% ROP submittal in separate

rulemaking.

(3) Post-1996 ROP

Appendix G of the Sacramento Area

Regional Ozone Attainment Plan

provides detailed information on the

ROP emissions reductions from 1996 to

2005. The following summary can be

found at Table G–1 of the Sacramento

Area Regional Ozone Attainment Plan

and provides a general summary of how

the expected ROP reductions will be

met.

(4) EPA Action

EPA believes that the Sacramento area

component of the 1994 SIP meets the

CAA requirements for post-1996 ROP.

EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve

the 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.

e. Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS.

The Sacramento Area is classified as a

severe nonattainment area for ozone. As

a result, the SIP must contain adequate

control measures and commitments to

demonstrate attainment of the ozone

NAAQS by 2005.

(1) Control Strategy

The control strategy for the

Sacramento Area’s SIP attainment

demonstration includes all of the State

measures and the local measures

identified in the Table labeled

‘‘Sacramento Local Control Measures.’’

The demonstration presumes the

measures will be adopted and

implemented by the dates shown,

resulting in the emission reductions

shown.

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed

modeling analysis performed to

demonstrate that the control strategy

will result in ozone NAAQS attainment.

A summary of the emission reductions

needed to attain the standard is

provided below in the table labeled

‘‘Emission Reductions Needed in

Sacramento,’’ taken from Table D–1 in

Volume IV of the 1994 California Ozone

SIP.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN

SACRAMENTO

[Tons per summer day]

ROG NOX

1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory .................................. 222 164

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

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

A summary of the emission

reductions projected from the SIP

control strategy is provided below in the

table labeled ‘‘Sacramento Attainment

Demonstration,’’ which is based on

Table D–2 from Volume IV of the 1994

California Ozone SIP.

SACRAMENTO ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION

[Tons per summer day]

VOC NOX

Reductions from Adopted

Measures .......................... 55 40

Committed Local Measures .. 17 7

Committed State Measures .. 15 14

Reductions from National

Measures 1 ........................ 1.6 4.3

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

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

Based on the Sacramento Area’s

classification as a severe ozone

nonattainment area and the results of an

Urban Airshed Modeling analysis,

Sacramento must reduce its 2005

emissions inventory to 137 tons per day

of VOC and 98 tons per day of NOX in

order to demonstrate attainment of the

NAAQS. The expected emissions

reductions from the combination of

adopted measures and commitments to

adopt measures listed above and in the

Sacramento’s 1994 Regional Ozone

Attainment Plan will achieve the

necessary reductions to meet the

attainment targets.

The Sacramento area was classified as

a serious ozone nonattainment area

based on a design value of .16 ppm,

recorded at the Folsom station. This was

based on 1987–1989 data; the 1990–

1992 value was also .16 ppm.

Exceedances of the ozone NAAQS occur

in the Sacramento area about 6 to 10

times per year.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10949

22November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd

(CARB) to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the

Ventura AQMP and CARB Board Resolution No.

94–62 approving the Ventura plan. The Ventura

submittal includes a November 8, 1994 letter from

Richard Baldwin (VCAPCD) to James Boyd (CARB)

forwarding the 1994 Ventura AQMP and the

VCAPCD Board Resolution approving the AQMP.

In order to simulate air quality for the

SIP and other planning needs, CARB

and the Sacramento local agencies

started planning the Sacramento Area

Ozone Study (SAOS) early in 1989, with

intensive data collection performed

during the summer of 1990. This

involved an extended network of air

quality and meteorological instruments,

including on airplanes, to measure

ozone and its precursors and the

meteorological inputs needed for UAM.

The Sacramento Modeling Advisory

Committee (SMAC) was established for

technical oversight of the modeling

effort, and included regulatory,

industry, and environmental group

participants. CARB and its contractor,

Systems Applications International,

prepared a modeling protocol which

was accepted by EPA as meeting EPA

Guideline requirements.

Two episodes were selected for

modeling from those recorded during

the field study. Ozone maxima occurred

in the Interstate 50 and in the Interstate

80 corridors, downwind (east and

northeast) of Sacramento. While the

observed ozone peaks were less than the

design value of .16 ppm, they were high

enough to meet EPA guidelines for

episode selection, especially

considering the excellent database

available for analysis. They had features

typical of urban ozone episodes,

including temperatures exceeding 100

°F, low wind speeds, and a temperature

inversion that tended to trap pollutants

near the ground. After extensive

diagnostic simulations and refinement

of model inputs, a base case was

developed for the July 11–13, 1990

episode. While not outstanding, the

model performance statistics were well

within the goals set in EPA’s Guideline.

This episode’s performance was judged

adequate for determining emission

reduction targets.

A second episode, August 8–10, 1990,

was strongly affected by upper air

transport of pollutants into the area.

Only limited data was available on this

transported pollution, so it was difficult

to set boundary conditions for the

model. In addition, the source areas

were not certain; the San Francisco Bay

Area, the San Joaquin Valley, and

recirculation from Sacramento itself are

all possible sources for the pollutant

influx. For these reasons, an attainment

demonstration using this episode would

be of little value and, after consultation

with EPA, the State did not pursue it.

Sacramento and the San Francisco

Bay area are included within the

modeling domain of the SARMAP

study, conducted for the San Joaquin

Valley nonattainment area. Ideally,

modeling of transport should be

performed with both upwind and

downwind areas in the same modeling

domain, as was the case here. Although

the SARMAP episodes were not chosen

with a Sacramento attainment

demonstration in mind, there is

significant transport to Sacramento in

the San Joaquin Valley modeling. Since

that modeling showed attainment

throughout the whole domain,

including Sacramento, EPA deems that

attainment under transport conditions

has been addressed for Sacramento.

Should additional information analyses

be performed for these areas, the issue

of transport to Sacramento will need to

be revisited.

Using 2005 and boundary conditions

and a projected emission inventory

without additional emission controls,

the ozone peak was simulated to be .134

ppm. Additional controls, giving

reductions relative to the 1990 baseline

of 34% VOC and 40% NOX, brought

emissions under the carrying capacity of

137 tpd of VOC and 98 tpd of NOX, and

brought the ozone peak down to .124

ppm, thus demonstrating attainment of

the ozone NAAQS.

(3) EPA Action

EPA believes that the Sacramento

Area component of the 1994 SIP fulfills

the CAA attainment demonstration

requirements. EPA is therefore

proposing to approve, under section

182(c)(2)(A) of the Act, the Sacramento

Area attainment demonstration.

f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes

to approve fully the Sacramento Area

ozone SIP with respect to the Act’s

requirements for emission inventories,

control measures, and demonstrations of

post-1996 ROP and attainment. EPA

will take action separately on

Sacramento’s 15% ROP provisions.

6. Ventura

a. Identification of Plan. On

November 8, 1994, the Ventura County

Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)

adopted Ventura’s 1994 Air Quality

Management Plan (AQMP). On

November 15, 1994, CARB modified the

AQMP and adopted it as the local

element of the 1994 California Ozone

SIP, which CARB then submitted to

EPA to comply with ROP and

attainment demonstration requirements

of the Act.22

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The

SIP provides detailed estimates of the

actual VOC and NOX emissions that

occurred in Ventura in 1990. These base

year inventories are summarized in the

table below, labeled ‘‘1990 Ventura SIP

Inventories.’’ A more specific

breakdown of 1990 base year emissions

can be found in Tables 9–3 and 9–4 of

the 1994 AQMP. A discussion of these

inventories and of EPA’s proposed

action on them can be found in section

II.C. of this notice.

1990 VENTURA SIP INVENTORIES

[Tons per summer day]

Category ROG NOX

Stationary ................................. 44 18

Mobile ....................................... 41 55

Outer Continental Shelf 23 ........ 2 8

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

23OCS emissions are included because

they are included in the modeled attainment

demonstration.

c. SIP Control Measures.

(1) Description

The 1994 AQMP (Tables 6–1 and 6–

2) and 1994 California Ozone SIP

(Volume IV, Table E–6) describe a series

of rules that the VCAPCD has adopted

or committed to adopt in order to

reduce ROG and NOX emissions in

Ventura. Control measures not already

adopted at the time of the plan

submittal are listed below in the table

labeled ‘‘Ventura Local Control

Measures.’’ The table describes not only

the dates by which the plans presume

adoption and implementation, but the

emission reductions presumed to occur

by each milestone, to the extent that

information was available in the

submitted plan. The information

contained in the table below reflects

revisions in Ventura’s recently adopted

1995 Air Quality Management Plan,

adopted on December, 19, 1995. The

1995 Plan slightly revised adoption

dates, implementation dates, and

reductions for numerous district

measures already contained in the 1994

SIP. These revisions will have no

adverse impact on ROP or attainment.

Although these revisions have not been

formally submitted from CARB to EPA

at this time, CARB has indicated to EPA

that they intend to submit the revised

adoption and implementation dates

prior to EPA’s final action on the plan.
10950 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

24See 1994 SIP, Tables 11–3 through 11–14, and

California Ozone SIP, page IV–33. 25See footnote 16.

VENTURA LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES

[Tons per day]

Rule No. Control measure Adoption date Implementation

date

ROG/NOX reductions 1

1996 1999 2002 2005

N–101 .......... Gas Turbines .............................................. 3/95 4/97 0.0 0.45 0.47 0.49

N–102 .......... Boilers, Steam generators, Heaters, <1

mmbtu.

6/96 1/97 0.0 0.05 0.06 0.06

R–105 .......... Glycol Dehydrators ..................................... 12/94 7/96 0.41 0.73 0.65 0.57

R–317 .......... Clean-up Solvents and Solvent Wastes ..... 12/95 7/96 1.45 1.57 1.67 1.76

R–322 .......... Painter Certification .................................... 6/97 12/97–12/98 0.0 0.48 0.51 0.53

R–324 .......... Screen Printing Operations ........................ 6/96 6/97 0.0 0.29 0.30 0.31

R–327 .......... Electronic Component Manufacture ........... 6/96 7/97 0.0 0.07 0.07 0.08

R–403 .......... Vehicle Gas Dispensing—Phase II ............ 5/95 1/96 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.23

R–410 .......... Marine Tanker Loading .............................. 6/96 7/97 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

R–419 .......... Tank Degassing Operations ....................... 11/94 3/95 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02

R–420 .......... Pleasure Craft Fuel Transfer ...................... 6/97 7/98 0.0 0.08 0.08 0.08

R–421 .......... Utility Engine Refueling Operations ........... 9/96 9/97 0.0 0.19 0.20 0.20

R–424 .......... Gasoline Transfer/Dispensing .................... 5/95 1/96 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04

R–425 .......... Enhanced Fugitive I/M Program ................. 12/95 5/97 1.45 1.21 1.07 0.95

R–606 .......... Soil Decontamination .................................. 9/95 9/95 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11

1 ‘‘R’’ refers to ROG control measures, ‘‘N’’ refers to NOX control measures. The reduction estimates were taken from the 1994 Ventura County AQMP (Tables 11–1 and 11–2). The reductions do not reflect the most recent estimates in the 1995 AQMP revision. In addition, the table

does not include measure R–303, Architectural Coatings. Overall, the revised reduction estimates do not negatively impact ROP or attainment. If

a SIP revision with the revision reduction estimates and measure R 303 is submitted before EPA’s final action, EPA proposes to approve it without further opportunity for public comment.

(2) EPA Action. According to the

State’s submissions, these measures are

relied upon in meeting the ROP and

attainment requirements of the Act.

Accordingly, and because the measures

strengthen the SIP, EPA proposes to

approve, 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 proposes to

assign 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.

d. ROP Provisions.

(1) ROP Emission Targets

The 1994 AQMP (Chapter 11) and

Volume IV of the CA SIP (Table E–3)

describe the VOC emission reductions

needed to meet ROP requirements based

on Ventura’s adjusted 1990 base year

inventories. The SIP also provides

emission estimates for the ROP

milestone years by projecting the

impacts of the control strategy and of

anticipated changes in population,

industrial activity, and other socioeconomic factors. A summary of the

ROP VOC targets and the projected VOC

emissions is provided below in the table

labeled ‘‘Ventura ROP Forecasts and

Targets.’’ 24

The VOC reductions alone were not

projected to be sufficient to meet the

ROP target levels for milestone years

after 1996. As discussed earlier (section

II.B.1.b.iii.), reductions in NOX

emissions may be substituted for VOC

reductions so long as certain conditions

are met. The Ventura plan meets those

conditions and the corresponding NOX

reductions substituted for VOC

reductions are also shown in the table.

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 61 58 56

ROP VOC Target .................. 69 60 53 46

VOC Inventory

Including

Committals ..... 64 61 58 56

VOC Shortfall .... 0 1 5 10

NOX Substitution

in VOC

Equivalents 25 . 0 1 5 10

(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

In general only adopted measures may

be relied upon in meeting the 15% ROP

requirement. The Ventura control

strategy for the 15% ROP requirement,

therefore, excluded all committed

control measures listed in the table

above labeled ‘‘Ventura Local Control

Measures.’’ The description of adopted

measures relied upon in providing for

this requirement is in the 1994 AQMP

in Tables 6–1, 6–2, 11–1, and 11–2.

(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy

According to the submitted plan, the

post-1996 ROP control strategy includes

all those measures relied upon for the

15% ROP demonstration, plus any

measures for which emissions

reductions are shown for milestones

after 1996.

(4) EPA Action

EPA believes that the Ventura

component of the 1994 SIP meets the

CAA requirements for 15% ROP and

post-1996 ROP. EPA is, therefore,

proposing to approve Ventura’s ROP

plan under sections 182(b)(1) and

182(c)(2) of the Act.

e. Demonstration of Attainment.

Ventura County is classified as a severe

nonattainment area for ozone. As a

result, the SIP must contain adequate

control measures and commitments to

demonstrate attainment of the ozone

NAAQS by 2005.

(1) Control Strategy

The control strategy for Ventura’s SIP

attainment demonstration includes the

State and local measures identified

above. The demonstration presumes the

measures will be adopted and

implemented by the dates shown,

resulting in the emission reductions

shown.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10951

26Prior to the February 6, 1996 CARB letter, EPA,

CARB, and Ventura County APCD agreed on the

need to clarify the attainment demonstration and

federal assignments in the 1994 SIP submittal. This

clarification was necessary because of two principle

factors. Recent modeling indicated that moving the

shipping channel was no longer essential for

attainment of the ozone NAAQS in Ventura County

and, on December 19, 1995, Ventura County

adopted revisions to their AQMP which removed

the measure requiring movement of the shipping

channel.

27November 15, 1994 letter from Jacqueline

Schafer, CARB, to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding

1994 California SIP. The SIP includes a November

15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia

Marcus, EPA, forwarding the South Coast AQMP

component of the SIP and CARB Board Resolution

No. 94–61 approving the South Coast component.

The South Coast component includes an October 6,

1994 letter from James M. Lents (SCAQMD) to

James Boyd (CARB) forwarding the 1994 South

Coast AQMP and the SCAQMD Board Resolution

94–36 approving the AQMP.

28On November 15, 1993, CARB submitted to

EPA a rate-of-progress plan intended to demonstrate

that 1990 VOC emissions would be reduced by at

least fifteen percent by 1996 pursuant to Section

182(b)(1) of the Act. On April 13, 1994, EPA

determined that this ROP plan was incomplete

because it relied on controls not yet adopted in

regulatory form. The 1994 SIP updates South

Coast’s 1993 ROP plan in order to correct this

deficiency.

29More detailed summaries of this inventory can

be found in Appendices III–A and III–B of the 1994

AQMP.

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

The UAM analysis described below

demonstrates that the control strategy

discussed above will result in

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. A

summary of the emission reductions

needed to attain the standard is

provided below in the table labeled

‘‘Emission Reductions Needed in

Ventura,’’ derived from the 1994

California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Table

E–1. Since the November 1994

submittal, additional modeling

refinements and technical clarifications

have resulted in a revised estimate of

the reductions needed for attainment.

These technical clarifications to the

1994 SIP were submitted to EPA by

CARB on February 6, 1996.26 The

summary table below reflects the

revised reductions needed for

attainment.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN

VENTURA

[Tons per summer day]

ROG NOX

1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory .................................. 87 81

Attainment Inventory ................ 45 52

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

A summary of the emission

reductions projected from the SIP

control strategy is provided below in the

table labeled ‘‘Ventura Attainment

Demonstration,’’ taken from the 1994

California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Table

E–2. As described above, the table

below reflects the revised estimate of

the reductions needed.

VENTURA ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION

[In tons per summer day]

ROG NOX

Reductions from Adopted

Measures .............................. 30 24

Committed Local Measures ...... 5 1

Committed State Measures ...... 6 4

Reductions from National

Measures 1 ............................ 1 1

VENTURA ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION—Continued

[In tons per summer day]

ROG NOX

Total ............................... 42 30

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

The Ventura area is classified as a

Severe ozone nonattainment area based

on a design value of .174 ppm, recorded

at the Simi Valley and based on 1987–

1989 data.

Ventura’s photochemical modeling

analysis was based on two episodes,

September 5–7, 1984 and September

16–17, 1984. The episodes were selected

from the period for which an enhanced

database was available from the 1984

South Central Coast Cooperative

Aerometric Monitoring Program. The

peak measured concentration for the

September 5–7 episode was .18 ppm,

measured at the Casitas Pass site. The

episode was representative of

widespread, high ozone. The peak

measured concentration for the

September 16–17 episode was .14 ppm,

also measured at Casitas Pass. The

episode represents an episode with less

transport of ozone and precursors from

the South Coast Air Basin.

For the 1994 AQMP, VCAPCD and

their contractor used the UAM Version

IV for the photochemical modeling

exercise. The Diagnostic Wind model

was used to generate meteorological

input to the model. A discussion of the

modeling can be found in Chapter 10 of

the 1994 AQMP. The modeling was

submitted as part of the November 1994

SIP.

In 1994–5, CARB staff refined the

modeling application by reviewing and

modifying the input files to better reflect

the most accurate information for the

Ventura nonattainment area. These

refinements and improvements are

detailed in CARB’s report, ‘‘Revisions to

the Base Case and Future Year Urban

Airshed Model Simulations for Ventura

County in Support of the 1994 State

Implementation Plan.’’ The report

reflects improvements made to the

previous modeling submitted as part of

the 1994 SIP. The modeling

improvements were submitted by CARB

on February 6, 1996. The TSD contains

information regarding the performance

of the improved model application for

the peak days of the episode. The

performance of the model meets EPA

criteria.

The revised model application

predicted peak ozone concentrations in

the year 2005 of .12 ppm for the

September 5–7 episode and .11 ppm for

the September 16–17 episode.

(3) EPA Action

EPA has determined that the Ventura

attainment demonstration meets CAA

requirements. EPA is therefore

proposing to approve the Ventura

modeling and attainment demonstration

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

f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes

to approve 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.

7. South Coast

a. Identification of Plans. On

September 9, 1994, the SCAQMD

Governing Board adopted the South

Coast 1994 Air Quality Management

Plan (AQMP). On November 15, 1994,

CARB modified the AQMP and adopted

the ozone attainment, ozone ROP, and

particulate matter (PM–10) Best

Available Control Measures (BACM)

component of the AQMP, which CARB

then submitted to EPA to comply with

ROP, attainment demonstration, and

other requirements of the Act.27 On

December 9, 1994, CARB submitted

further revisions to the 15% ROP plan.28

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The

SIP provides detailed estimates of the

VOC and NOX emissions that occurred

in the South Coast in 1990. These base

year inventories are summarized in the

table below labeled, ‘‘1990 South Coast

SIP Inventories.’’ 29 A discussion of

these inventories and of EPA’s proposed

action on them can be found in section

II.C.1.a. of this notice.
10952 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

30 1994 CARB Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Table A–

5; CARB Ozone SIP Emission Reductions for South

Coast; 1994 AQMP, Appendix I–C, Post-1996

Federal Clean Air Act Requirements—Detailed

Calculations.

1990 SOUTH COAST SIP INVENTORIES

[Tons per summer day]

Category VOC NOX

Stationary .................................. 666 245

Mobile ....................................... 851 1116

Total ............................... 1517 1361

c. SIP Control Measures.

(1) Description

The State of California and the South

Coast have already adopted many

measures which will contribute to the

necessary emissions reductions for

meeting the 15% ROP and post-1996

ROP and attainment requirements. In

addition, the 1994 SIP describes a series

of rules that the South Coast has

committed to adopt in order to reduce

VOC and NOX emissions in the area.

The table labeled ‘‘South Coast Local

Control Measures’’ describes the dates

by which the plan presumes adoption

and implementation, and the emission

reductions presumed to occur by each

milestone, every 3 years from 1996

through the attainment year (2010), to

the extent that information was

available in the submitted plan.30 No

reductions from local measures are

assumed in the 15% ROP plan for 1996.

The SCAQMD committed to adopt

specific enforceable measures by the

date specified in the table, or within 1

year after the date of approval of the

ozone plan, whichever is earlier.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10953

SOUTH

COAST LOCAL

CONTROL

MEASURES

[Tons per day of VOC/NOX]

Control measure No. Control measure title Implementing agency Adop- tion date Implementa- tion dates 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

CTS–01 ........... VOC RECLAIM ............................................................................ SCAQMD ........ 1995 1998–2010 ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ ........................CTS–02 ........... Emission Reductions from Solvents and Coatings at Non-RECLAIM Sources. SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2005 0/0 25.0/0 58.1/0 80.9/0 88.3/0 92.8/0CTS–03 ........... Consumer Product Labeling Program ......................................... SCAQMD ........ .......... 1998–2005 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0CTS–04 ........... Public Awareness/Education Programs—Area Sources ............. SCAQMD ........ .......... 1997–1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0CTS–05 ........... Further Emission Reductions from Perchloroethylene Dry

Cleaning Operations.

SCAQMD ........ 1994 1996–1996 2.14/0 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 ........ 1997 2001–2006 0/0 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 4.42/0 4.96/0 5.11/0 5.01/0 4.98/0 4.98/0FUG–02 .......... Emission Reductions from Active Draining of Liquid Products ... SCAQMD ........ 1995 1996–1996 5.08/0 5.52/0 5.73/0 5.49/0 5.05/0 4.76/0FUG–03 .......... Further Emission Reductions from Floating Roof Tanks ............ SCAQMD ........ 1996 1998–1998 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0FUG–04 .......... Further Emission Reductions of Fugitive Emissions ................... SCAQMD ........ 1997 2000–2010 0/0 0/0 .75/0 .75/0 .75/0 .75/0RFL–01 ........... Emission Reductions from Utility Engine Refueling Operations . SCAQMD ........ 1997 2000–2010 0/0 0/0 .04/0 .04/0 .05/0 .06/0RFL–02 ........... Further Emission Reductions from Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. SCAQMD ........ 1995 1996–1997 1.96/0 4.94/0 5.06/0 5.2/0 5.44/0 5.58/0RFL–03 ........... Emission Reductions from Pleasure Boat Fueling Operations ... SCAQMD ........ 1995 1996–1996 .74/0 .77/0 .80/0 .83 .86/0 .88/0CMB–01A ........ Control of Emissions from Miscellaneous Combustion ............... SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2000 0/0 0/.75 0/.79 0/.87 0/.89 0/.97CMB–01B ........ Control of Emissions from Small Boilers and Process Heaters .. SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2000 0/0 0/.12 0/.26 0/.26 0/.28 0/.28CMB–01C ....... Control of Emissions from Curing and Drying Ovens ................. SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2000 0/0 0/.45 0/.47 0/.52 0/.53 0/.57CMB–01D ....... Control of Emissions from Afterburners ...................................... SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2000 0/0 0/0 0/.52 0/.55 0/.60 0/.65CMB–01E ........ Control of Emissions from Metal Melting Furnaces .................... SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2000 0/0 0/0 0/.06 0/.06 0/.06 0/.08CMB–01F ........ Further Emission Reductions from Internal Combustion Engines SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2008 0/0 3.36/4.91 3.79/4.64 4.31/3.78 4.71/2.46 4.81/1.4CMB–02A ........ Control of Emissions from Miscellaneous Combustion ............... SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2000 0/0 0/3.87 0/4.21 0/4.56 0/4.92 0/5.16CMB–02B ........ Control of Emissions from Small Boilers and Process Heaters .. SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2000 0/0 0/1.34 0/2.98 0/3.19 0/3.40 0/3.55CMB–02C ....... Control of Emissions from Curing and Drying Ovens ................. SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2000 0/0 0/1.11 0/1.08 0/1.15 0/1.21 0/1.26CMB–02F ........ Further Controls of Emissions from Internal Combustion Engines. SCAQMD ........ 1997 1998–2008 0/0 1.52/6.83 1.74/6.62 1.99 2.19 2.29/2.20CMB–03 .......... Area Source Credits for Commercial and Residential Combustion Equipment. SCAQMD ........ 1995 1997–2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0 0CMB–04 .......... Area Source Credits for Energy Conservation ............................ SCAQMD ........ 1995 1997–2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0 0CMB–05 .......... Clean Stationary Fuels ................................................................ SCAQMD ........ 1995 1996–2008 0/0 1.22/1.01 2.27/1.76 3.53 3.99 4.09CMB–06 .......... Emission Standard for New Residential and Commercial Water

Heaters.

SCAQMD/ .......localgovts

1994 1996–2002 0/.56 0/2.28 0/7.21 0 0 0

CMB–07 .......... Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery Flares ................ SCAQMD ........ 1997 1999–1999 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0 0CMB–10 .......... Emission Reductions from Glass Melting Furnaces (Non-RECLAIM). SCAQMD ........ 1995 1998–1998 0/0 0/.41 0/.42 0 0 0CMB–11 .......... Emission Reductions from Non-RECLAIM Incinerators .............. SCAQMD ........ 1995 1996 0/.64 0/.72 0/.68 0 0 0MSC–01 .......... Promotion of Lighter Color Roofing and Road Materials and

Tree Planting.

SCAQMD/ .......localgovts

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

MSC–02 .......... In-Use Compliance Program for Air Pollution Control Equipment. SCAQMD ........ 1996 1997–1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0PRC–02 .......... Further Emission Reductions from Bakeries ............................... SCAQMD ........ 1996 1998–2001 0/0 .24/0 .64/0 .68/0 .72/0 .75/0PRC–03 .......... Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations ..................... SCAQMD ........ 1994 1996–2001 1.23/0 8.55/0 10.77/0 11.14/0 11.49/0 11.7/0PRC–04 .......... Emission Reductions from Rubber Products Manufacturing ....... SCAQMD ........ 1996 1997–1997 0/0 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0PRC–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 0/0

SIP–01 ............ SIP Amendments—for Miscellaneous Sources ........................... SCAQMD ........ (1) 1998–1998 0/0 .06/0 .06/0 .06/0 .05/0 .05/0WST–01 .......... Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste ............................... SCAQMD ........ 1995 1996–2003 5.63/0 8.39/0 8.86/0 9.31/0 9.77/0 10.07/0WST–02 .......... Emission Reductions from Composting of Dewatered Sewage

Sludge.

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

WST–03 .......... Waste Burning ............................................................................. ......................... 1996 1998–1998 .7/0 .7/0 .7/0 .6/0 .06/0 .06/0WST–04 .......... Disposal of Materials Containing Volatile Organic Compounds .. ......................... 1996 1998–2001 0/0 .8/0 2.12/0 2.21/0 2.31/0 2.37/0TCM–01 .......... Transportation Improvements ...................................................... SCAG .............. 1997 2000–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0ISR–01 ............ Special Event Centers (SCAG Measure TCM #10) .................... SCAQMD/ .......

localgovts

1995 1997–2010 .9/1.03 .77/.84 1.4/1.67 1.07/1.43 .81/1.26 1.33/2.2

7
10954 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

SOUTH

COAST LOCAL

CONTROL

MEASURES—Continued

[Tons per day of VOC/NOX]

Control measure No. Control measure title Implementing agency Adop- tion date Implementa- tion dates 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

ISR–02 ............ Shopping Centers (SCAG Measure TCM #11) ........................... SCAQMD/ .......

localgovts

1996 1997–2010 0/0 1.36/1.5 2.30/2.73 1.75/2.35 1.34/2.07 1.69/2.8

9

ISR–03 ............ Registration and Commercial Vehicles (SCAG Measure TCM

#12).

SCAQMD ........ 1995 1997–2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

ISR–04 ............ Airport Ground Access (SCAG Measure TCM #13) .................... SCAQMD/ .......

localgovts

1997 1999–2010 0/0 .38/.42 .77/.92 .59/.79 .45/.7 .38/.65

ISR–05 ............ Trip Reduction for Schools (SCAG Measure TCM #14) ............. SCAQMD/ .......

localgovts

1995 1997–2010 0/0 .21/.24 .47/.63 .46/.72 .35/.64 .38/.74

ISR–06 ............ Enhanced Rule 1501 (SCAG Measure TCM #15) ...................... SCAQMD/ .......

localgovts

1996 1997–2000 0/0 2.86/3.15 3.01/3.59 2.30/3.08 1.75/2.72 1.48/2.5

1

ISR–07 ............ Parking Cash-Out (SCAG Measure TCM #16) ........................... SCAQMD/ .......

localgovts

1995 1995–1997 .2/.22 .17/.17 .13/.14 .10/.12 .08/.11 .06/.1

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 0/0MON–02 .......... Eliminate Excessive Car Dealership Vehicle Starts; Educational SCAQMD/ .......

localgovts

.......... .................... 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

MON–04 .......... Eliminate Excessive Curb Idling; Educational ............................. SCAQMD/ .......

localgovts

.......... .................... 0/0 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 0/0 .12/.65 .11/.65 .11/.65MON–06 .......... Emissions Reduction Credit for Heavy-Duty Trucks ................... SCAQMD ........ 1995 .................... 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0MON–07 .......... Emission Reductions for High Emitters ....................................... SCAQMD ........ 1995 1996–1999 25.54/0 5.15/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0RME–01 .......... Regional Mobility Adjustment ...................................................... ......................... .......... .................... 2.37/0 11.3/1.15 15.98/6.58 18.5/13.74 20.64/21.77 22.26/27.67MOF–03 .......... Emission Reduction Credits for Leaf Blowers ............................. SCAQMD/ .......

localgovts

1995 1996–2010 0/0 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 0/0ATT–01 ........... Telecommunications .................................................................... SCAQMD/ .......

SCAG/ .............localgovts

.......... 1995–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0.0

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

SCAG/ .............localgovts

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

ATT–03 ........... Zero Emission Vehicle/Infrastructure ........................................... Partnership ...... .......... 1995–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0ATT–04 ........... Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Infrastructure ....................................... Partnership ...... .......... 1995–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0ATT–05 ........... Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems ........................................... SCAQMD/ .......

SCAG/localgovts

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

MKT–01 .......... Emission/VMT .............................................................................. SCAG .............. .......... 2008–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0MKT–02 .......... At-the-Pump Fee .......................................................................... SCAG .............. .......... 2008–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0FSS–01 ........... Stage I Episode Plans ................................................................. SCAQMD ........ .......... 2005–2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0ADV–CTS–01 . Advanced Technology—Coating Technologies ........................... SCAQMD ........ .......... .................... 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 14.35/0 23.88/0ADV–FUG ....... Advanced Technology—Fugitive Emission Controls ................... SCAQMD ........ .......... .................... 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 14.13/0 23.11/0ADV–PRC ....... Advanced Technology—Process Related Emissions .................. SCAQMD ........ .......... .................... 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 7.55/0 12.27/0ADV–UNSP ..... Advanced Technology—Unspecified Stationary Source Controls SCAQMD ........ .......... .................... 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 39.45/0 66.97/0ADV–CTS–02 . Advanced Technology—Coating Technologies ........................... SCAQMD ........ .......... .................... 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 54.69/0

1Various.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10955

31See 1994 AQMP, Appendix I–C.

32See 1994 AQMP, Appendix I–C, Table 3–4, and

Attachment A. The AQMP also calculates a ROP

target for NOX and computes ROP emissions

reductions for NOX, but the AQMP depends upon

NOX substitution only for the 1999, 2002, and 2005

ROP milestones.

(2) EPA Action

EPA proposes to approve, under

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

the control measures, including the

commitment of the SCAQMD to adopt

and implement rules by scheduled dates

to achieve specified emission

reductions. EPA action on the

SCAQMD’s adopted regulations will be

taken in separate rulemakings following

their submittal as SIP revisions.

The SCAQMD is currently

considering adoption of a revised

regulatory agenda that shifts to 1996 all

rule adoption dates that have lapsed. In

the final action on the South Coast SIP,

EPA intends to approve substitute dates

if adopted by the SCAQMD and

submitted as a SIP revision before EPA’s

final action on the ozone SIP. The

amended schedule must be

accompanied by a demonstration that

this revision would not interfere with

any applicable requirement of the Act.

Unless the amended schedule and

demonstration are submitted, EPA

cannot approve and credit the measures

whose adoption dates have passed.

EPA wishes to encourage the

SCAQMD to pursue the most aggressive

possible implementation of the AQMP,

which remains an otherwise valid and

critically important blueprint for

progress and eventual attainment of the

ozone NAAQS. EPA emphasizes that the

failure of the SCAQMD to adopt most of

the rules scheduled for adoption in 1995

is not evidence either that the AQMP is

impractical or that the SCAQMD has

failed in meeting its overall

commitment to air quality progress. The

AQMP needs amendment at this time

only to replace the initial AQMP

adoption dates with an updated

timetable for rule adoption.

d. ROP Provisions.

(1) ROP Emission Targets

The 1994 SIP describes the VOC

emission reductions needed to meet

ROP requirements based on South

Coast’s adjusted 1990 base year

inventories.31 The SIP also provides

emission estimates for the ROP

milestone years by projecting the

impacts of adopted control measures

and of anticipated changes in

population, industrial activity, and

other socio-economic factors. A

summary of the ROP VOC targets and

the projected VOC emissions is

provided below in the table labeled,

‘‘South Coast ROP Forecasts.’’ 32

SOUTH COAST ROP FORECASTS

[In tons per summer day]

1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

VOC emissions to meet ROP target ................................ 1074.4 976.6 846.6 732.2 617.6 544.1

VOC emissions with plan reductions ............................... 1066.4 976.6 846.6 732.2 470.0 312.8

(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

In general only adopted measures may

generally be credited towards the 15%

ROP requirement. In addition, pre-1990

Federal motor vehicle emission

controls, Federal RVP limits on

gasoline, and several other existing

measures cannot be credited in ROP

plans. The control strategy for the 15%

ROP requirement, therefore, includes all

VOC control measures listed above,

except for those showing no emission

reductions in the 1996 column.

(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy

The post-1996 ROP control strategy

includes all those measures listed in

above, except for those showing no

emissions for the ROP milestone years.

As discussed, the SIP identifies no

surplus measures for the post-1996 ROP

requirements. Therefore, all of the VOC

emission reductions in the post-1996

ROP control strategy are needed to meet

the post-1996 ROP requirements.

(4) EPA Action

EPA believes that the South Coast

component of the 1994 SIP meets the

CAA requirements for ROP. EPA is,

therefore, proposing to approve South

Coast’s 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP

plans under sections 182(b)(1) and

182(c)(2) of the Act.

e. Demonstration of Attainment. The

Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area

is classified as an extreme

nonattainment area for ozone. As a

result, the SIP must contain adequate

control measures and commitments to

demonstrate attainment of the ozone

NAAQS by 2010.

(1) Control Strategy

The control strategy for South Coast’s

SIP attainment demonstration includes

all of the State and local measures

identified above. Among those measures

are several ‘‘new-technology’’ measures,

which are needed to achieve reductions

beyond what could be accomplished

with existing control technologies or

control techniques.

The 1990 Amendments to the Act

added section 182(e)(5), which applies

exclusively to extreme ozone areas. This

provision authorizes the State to use

conceptual, as yet unadopted measures

for its ozone attainment demonstration

and ROP after the year 2000, if these

measures anticipate new or improved

technology or control techniques, the

measures are not needed to meet the

progress requirements for the first 10

years, and the State commits to submit

contingency measures to be

implemented if the anticipated

technologies do not achieve planned

reductions.

CARB and the SCAQMD included

with their new-technology measures

commitments to submit contingency

measures and a demonstration that

reductions from the CARB and

SCAQMD new-technology measures are

not needed to achieve the first 10 years

of required progress. Because the

section 182(e)(5) approval criteria are

met by both the CARB and SCAQMD

submittals, EPA issued final approval of

the new-technology measures on August

21, 1995. See 60 FR 43379 for further

details on the new-technology control

measures and EPA’s action on them.

EPA has therefore already approved and

credited the following SCAQMD and

CARB new-technology provisions.

Because much of the needed

reductions in the 1994 South Coast plan

is now assigned to these conceptual

measures, air quality progress in future

years requires substantial State and

local staff and resource investment at

this time to lay the foundations for the

necessary advances in control

technology or control techniques. EPA

urges both CARB and the SCAQMD to

set out the timing and stages of

projected control measure development,

and to involve the public and the
10956 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

regulated community in a process by

which they can understand and

contribute to the Agency’s steady

progress in developing the control

approaches. The SCAQMD’s annual

report to the California Legislature is

one mechanism for displaying the

District’s technology advancement

projects and ensuring that necessary

resource needs are identified.

Finally, EPA also encourages both

CARB and the SCAQMD to reduce the

dimensions of the section 182(e)(5)

component of the plan by substituting

near-term control regulations as soon as

these controls can be identified,

developed, and adopted. Such action

not only comports with the Act’s

requirements for attainment ‘‘as

expeditiously as practicable’’ (see, for

example, section 181(a)(1)) but also

accelerates air quality progress in the

interim, both within the SCAB and in

downwind nonattainment areas.

SCAQMD New-Technology Measures

Advance Tech–CTS (Coating

Technologies), ADV–CTS–01, adoption

2003, 23.9 tpd ROG;

Advanced Tech-Fugitives, ADV–FUG,

adoption 2003, 23.1 tpd ROG;

Advance Tech-Process Related

Emissions, ADV–PRC, adoption 2003,

12.3 tpd ROG;

Advance Tech-Unspecified,

Stationary Sources, ADV–UNSP,

adoption 2003, 67 tpd ROG;

Advance Tech–CTS (Coatings

Technologies), ADV–CTS–02, 54.7 tpd

ROG.

CARB New-Technology Measures

Improved Control Technology for

LDVs, M–2, adoption 2000,

implementation 2004–5, 2010 emission

reductions—10 tpd ROB, 15 tpd NOX;

Off-road diesel equipment—2.5 g/

bhp-hr NOX standard, M–9, adoption

2001, implementation 2005, 2010

emission reductions—3 tpd ROG, 31 tpd

NOX;

Consumer products advanced

technology and market incentives

measures, CP–4, adoption 2005,

implementation 2009, 2010 emission

reductions 46 tpd ROG;

Additional measures, 2010 emission

reductions 79 tpd ROG, 60 tpd NOX.

The measures include possible marketincentive measures and possible

operational measures applicable to

heavy-duty vehicles.

(2) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed

modeling analysis performed to

demonstrate that the control strategy

described above will result in NAAQS

attainment. A summary of the emission

reductions needed to attain the standard

is provided below in the table labeled,

‘‘Emission Reductions Needed in South

Coast.’’

EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN

SOUTH COAST

[Tons per summer day]

VOC NOX

1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory .................................. 1517 1361

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

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

A summary of the emission

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

Reductions from Adopted

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

Committed Local measures ...... 453 43

Committed State measures ...... 231 227

Assigned Federal measures ..... 47 109

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

The SIP attainment demonstration

was based on a modeling simulation of

4 episodes of high ozone from the 1987

intensive air quality study. In addition,

one episode of very high ozone (.36

ppm) on June 5–7, 1985 was selected.

The September 5–7, 1987 episode

represents typical high ozone episode,

with a peak concentration of .33 ppm.

The Urban Airshed Model was used to

model air quality. The wind field were

generated using the EPA Diagnostic

Wind Model.

The model application does not meet

all EPA performance criteria with the

unadjusted mobil source inventory. The

base case indicates a bias of -25% to

-71%, indicating that the model tends to

underpredict the peak ozone

concentration. In the sensitivity analysis

with the motor vehicle emission

inventory increased by a factor of two,

the model performance is enhanced.

The model predicts higher ozone values

for both the base and future years.

Under the proposed emission reduction

strategy but with the grown motor

vehicle inventory, the model still

predicts attainment of the standard by

2010.

Key uncertainties in the modeling

analysis include mobile source and

biogenic emission inventory

uncertainties. A 1997 field study

designed to study air quality in the

Southern portion of the state of

California should improve the

performance of the model. The model

inputs and performance are discussed in

greater detail in the TSD.

(3) EPA Action

Despite the stringent existing State

and local regulations and the ambitious

commitments by CARB and SCAQMD,

the ozone attainment demonstration for

the SCAB is insufficient as submitted by

the State since, without any fall back

State commitments, it depends upon

additional reductions, stemming from

assignments to EPA to establish specific

future controls on national and

international mobile sources and EPA is

not obligated by statute or court order to

do so. As discussed above, EPA has

concluded that, while credit may be

taken for those national rules that are

statutorily mandated, EPA does not

propose to credit the California SIP with

Federal controls that are discretionary.

With respect to the South Coast SIP, the

table titled ‘‘Federal Assignments in the

California SIP for the South Coast’’

indicates what emission reductions are

assigned by the State to EPA for

discretionary rules.

FEDERAL ASSIGNMENTS IN THE CALIFORNIA SIP FOR THE SOUTH COAST

[Reductions from discretionary national

measures]

SIP measure

SIP 2010

reductions

ROG NOX

M6—heavy-duty diesel vehicles

(2.0 g/bhp-hour NOX standard) ........................................ 1.5 15.5

M10—nonroad diesel equipment (2.5 g/bhp-hour NOX

standard) ............................... 5.3 44.2

M12—industrial equipment, gas

and LPG ................................ 25.1 12.6

M13—marine vessels 1 ............. 0 1.7

M14—trains 2 ............................ 0 7.2

M15—planes ............................ 2.7 4.1

Total Reductions ............ 34.6 85.3

1SIP Measure M13 includes both the statutorily-mandated ship controls and discretionary

controls on ocean-going ships. The emissions

reductions shown are those beyond what EPA

estimates from the statutorily-mandated ship

controls, which were proposed on November

9, 1994 (59 FR 55930).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10957

2The SIP includes in Measure M14 both the

statutorily-mandated national locomotive emission standards and additional reductions to be

achieved in the South Coast through a provision that requires that by 2010 the locomotive

fleet in the SCAB will emit on average no

more than the 2005 emissions level for new

locomotives. The emission reductions shown

are those specific to the South Coast, in excess of reductions that would result from the

national standards alone.

The unusually high emissions

associated with these sources in the

SCAB is in part a reflection of the South

Coast’s dominant role as a Pacific Rim

trade center, heavily dependent upon

every form of goods transportation. For

example, the Ports of Long Beach and

Los Angeles, now the busiest ports in

the nation, annually move goods valued

at almost $150 billion, using a complex

intermodal network of ships, trains,

trucks, airplanes, and every variety of

loading and handling equipment.

While stationary, area source, and

light- and medium-duty vehicle

emissions are projected to decline very

significantly as a result of State and

local control measures applicable in the

SCAB, emissions from the remaining

mobile source categories are predicted

to increase substantially through the

attainment year in the absence of further

controls.

EPA and CARB are already engaged in

a cooperative process involving engine

manufacturers and other stakeholders to

review the potential for establishing

standards for new heavy-duty motor

vehicle engines, heavy-duty nonroad

engines, and controls or prohibitions on

fuels and fuel additives, in accordance

with the terms of EPA’s authority in

sections 202(a)(3), 213, and 211(c) of the

Act. This process of evaluating the

appropriateness of new national

standards and issuing standards in

formal rulemaking is not expected to be

concluded until mid-1997.

Moreover, international standard

setting is now in progress under the

jurisdiction of the International

Maritime Organization and the

International Civil Aviation

Organization relating to ocean-going

ships and commercial aircraft,

respectively. Again, by mid-1997 greater

certainty is expected regarding any new

international emissions control

standards and the degree to which these

standards would affect predicted levels

of SCAB emissions in 2010.

In view of the unique relevance to the

SCAB of these ongoing standard-setting

projects, EPA believes that it is

appropriate to examine further the

extent to which specific additional

mobile source controls might contribute

to ozone attainment in the SCAB.

Through June 1997, EPA will continue

to engage in a consultative process with

CARB, the SCAQMD, and other

stakeholders to examine the potential

for additional mobile source controls

that can contribute to progress and

attainment. This review will focus not

only on unilateral Federal controls but

also on the potential for cooperative and

community-based controls that

reconcile, to the greatest extent

practicable, State/local interests and the

legitimate concerns of interstate and

international commerce. EPA expects

that the Agency and the State entities

will continue to work cooperatively to

identify additional measures that are

appropriate and feasible for each party

to pursue. As discussed above in section

II.B.2., EPA proposes to make an

enforceable commitment to undertake

rulemakings, after the consultative

process, on control measures needed to

achieve the emission reductions which

are determined to be appropriate for

EPA.

EPA proposes to approve the South

Coast attainment demonstration if CARB

submits, before EPA’s final action, an

enforceable SIP commitment to adopt

and submit as a SIP revision:

(a) A revised attainment

demonstration for the South Coast as

appropriate after the consultative

process. 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.

EPA believes that this gap-filling

commitment and schedule for

additional SIP submissions for the

SCAB is a reasonable application of the

Clean Air Act requirements for SIP

submissions to the current

circumstances. EPA is mindful of the

requirement in Clean Air Act section

182(c)(2)(A) for submission of an

attainment demonstration by November

15, 1994. The SCAB has submitted

modeling coupled with SIP measures

and commitments that provide the great

bulk of reductions needed for

attainment. Granting additional time, as

described above, for the remaining

measures is consistent with the

statutory scheme because the time

delays are brief, in the context of the

SCAB attainment process, and EPA

intends to ensure that there will be no

adverse impact on progress, attainment,

or any other Part D requirement as a

result of the extended deadlines. EPA

wishes to emphasize that the South

Coast attainment demonstration is

clearly dependant on the ability of the

State and local agencies to faithfully

adhere to their rule adoption schedule.

Their failure to do so will clearly

jeopardize the attainment demonstration

no matter what resolutions are achieved

through the consultative process.

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 (see section

II.A.2.c.), 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.

EPA believes that the current modeled

attainment demonstration is valid

insofar as it projects attainment by the

statutory attainment date. EPA proposes

to approve the modeling analysis at this

time.

f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes

to approve the South Coast ozone SIP

with respect to the Act’s requirements

for emission inventories and

demonstrations of 15% ROP and post1996 ROP. EPA also proposes to

approve the State and local control

measures and the modeling analysis.

With respect to the attainment

demonstration, EPA proposes to

approve the attainment demonstration

portion of the SIP if the State submits,

before EPA’s final action on the ozone

SIP, a commitment to adopt a revised

attainment demonstration and gapfilling measures, if any are necessary

after EPA’s consultative process.

8. Southeast Desert

a. Identification of Plans. The

Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality

Maintenance Area (‘‘Southeast Desert’’)

is classified as a severe-17 area based on

a .24 ppm ozone design value measured

in Banning. Section 181(a)(2) of the Act
10958 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

33November 15, 1994 letter from Jacqueline

Schafer, CARB, to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding

the 1994 California Ozone SIP. The SIP includes a

November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB)

to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the South Coast

AQMP component of the SIP and CARB Board

Resolution No. 94–61 approving the South Coast

component. The South Coast component includes

an October 6, 1994 letter from James M. Lents

(SCAQMD) to James Boyd (CARB) forwarding the

1994 South Coast AQMP and the SCAQMD Board

Resolution 94–36 approving the AQMP. On

November 15, 1993, CARB submitted to EPA a rateof-progress plan intended to demonstrate that 1990

VOC emissions would be reduced by at least fifteen

percent by 1996 pursuant to Section 182(b)(1) of the

Act. On April 13, 1994, EPA determined that this

ROP plan was incomplete because it relied on

controls not yet adopted in regulatory form. The

1994 SIP updates South Coast’s 1993 ROP plan in

order to correct this deficiency.

34November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd

(CARB) to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the

MDAQMD portion of the SDMAQMA ozone SIP

and CARB Resolution No. 94–64 approving the

Mojave Desert Plan. Among other things, this

submittal modifies an earlier 15% Reasonable

Further Progress Demonstration, adopted on March

23, 1994. EPA deemed this earlier SIP submittal

incomplete on April 13, 1994.

establishes a severe-17 classification for

severe areas with a 1988 ozone design

value between .19 ppm and .28 ppm,

allowing these areas 17 years (rather

than 15 years) to attain the ozone

NAAQS. The 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’’). The first of these

areas is the responsibility of the Mojave

Desert Air Quality Management District

(MDAQMD). The second and third areas

are the responsibility of the SCAQMD.

Separate ROP and attainment

demonstrations were prepared for each

of the areas. Air quality in all three areas

is overwhelmingly impacted by

transport of ozone and ozone precursors

from the South Coast Air Basin.

On September 9, 1994, the SCAQMD

Governing Board adopted the 1994 Air

Quality Management Plan for the

Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area

(Appendix I–B of the South Coast 1994

AQMP) and the 1994 Air Quality

Management Plan for Antelope Valley

(Appendix I–A of the South Coast 1994

AQMP).33 On October 26, 1994, the

MDAQMD Board adopted the post-1996

Attainment Demonstration and

Reasonable Further Progress Plan for the

San Bernardino County Portion of the

Southeast Desert AQMA, and the Rateof-Progress Plan for the San Bernardino

County Portion of the Southeast Desert

AQMA.34

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The

SIP provides detailed estimates of the

actual VOC and NOX emissions that

occurred in 1990 in each of the three

portions of the Southeast Desert. These

base year inventories are summarized in

the table labeled ‘‘1990 Southeast Desert

SIP Inventories.’’ More detailed

inventory breakdowns appear in

Chapter 3 of Appendix I–B of the South

Coast 1994 AQMP (Coachella), Chapter

3 of Appendix I–A of the South Coast

1994 AQMP (Antelope), and Appendix

A of the Mojave RFP Plan.

1990 SOUTHEAST DESERT SIP INVENTORIES

[Tons per summer day]

Category

Coachella Antelope Mojave

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Stationary ......................................................................... 12.4 3.1 15.7 1.9 20.0 51.6

Mobile ............................................................................... 36.9 41.1 19.2 26.2 26.5 62.0

Total ....................................................................... 49.4 44.3 34.9 28.1 46.5 113.6

c. SIP Control Measures.

(1) Description

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 discussed above in

sections II.A. and II.C.7., 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 the measures listed below

as well as several mobile source

measures taken from EPA’s Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) for the South

Coast. CARB eliminated the FIP

measures from the State’s submittal.

MOJAVE SIP CONTROL MEASURES AND

VOC/NOX REDUCTIONS

[In Tons/day for 1996]

MDAQMD measure VOC NOX

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

Rule 1160 Internal Combustion

Engines ................................. 0.23 6.08

Rule 461 Gasoline Transfer

Dispensing ............................ 3.74 ........

(2) EPA Action

EPA proposes to approve the control

measures portion of the Mojave plan

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

the Act as strengthening the SIP.

d. ROP and Attainment Provisions.

(1) ROP and Attainment Emission

Targets

CARB’s summary of ROP targets in

Volume IV of the 1994 California Ozone

SIP identifies the following 15% ROP

targets for the three subregions within

the Southeast Desert: Coachella 38 tpd

VOC, Antelope 29 tpd VOC, Mojave 36

tpd VOC. CARB did not provide similar

information with respect to post-1996

ROP or attainment.

(2) State Approach

The SIP submittal for the three

subregions includes detailed

information relating to compliance with

the 15% ROP plan requirements. With

respect to the post-1996 ROP

requirements, CARB and the SCAQMD

requested a waiver from the

requirements for the Coachella and

Antelope subregions, based on the

provisions of section 182(c)(2)(B)(ii) of

the Act, which allows the Administrator

to approve post-1996 ROP plans that

achieve less than the 3% per year

required reductions if the State

demonstrates that the plan includes all

measures that can be feasibly

implemented in the area, including all

measures achieved in practice by

sources in the same source category in

nonattainment areas of the next higher

classification. CARB also asserted that
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10959

the post-1996 ROP requirements should

be waived in all three subregions based

simply on the overwhelming transport

into the Southeast Desert (1994

California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, pp.

IV–16 and IV–17).

In submitting the ROP and attainment

demonstration plans for the Southeast

Desert, CARB asserted that ‘‘the

stringency of the NOX and VOC

precursor control strategy necessary for

the district to meet the 1994 ozone

planning requirements for attainment

and rate of progress demonstrations is

primarily dependent upon the severity

of the problem in the South Coast, as

well as the mix and location of sources

which contribute to ozone precursor

concentrations and the timing and

stringency of previously adopted

controls in that area.’’ (CARB Resolution

No. 94–64, ¶ 4)

The three local plans provide further

documentation of the overwhelming

transport from the South Coast Air

Basin. In the case of the Coachella area,

ozone and ozone precursors are

transported by the prevailing sea breeze

through San Gorgonio (or Banning) pass.

The Antelope area is impacted by

polluted air masses passing northward

through the Newhall and Soledad pass.

The Mojave portion of the

nonattainment area is a vast, sparselypopulated high desert region, at a

greater distance from, but still strongly

affected by, SCAB emissions to the west

and southwest.

CARB and the local agencies believe

that the Southeast Desert will attain the

NAAQS by the 2007 deadline by virtue

of the successful implementation of the

South Coast plan. The Mojave plan

includes further information to support

MDAQMD’s conclusion that

opportunities for further VOC and NOX

reductions within the area are greatly

limited by the absence of significant

sources of anthropogenic emissions in

the area, and the current degree of

control imposed upon those sources.

(3) Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration

Photochemical grid modeling was

required for the attainment

demonstration for the Southeast Desert

Basin, because of the area’s severe-2

classification. Because of the relatively

important role of the western boundary

conditions, it was determined that

modeling the SEDAB basin along with

the South Coast Air Basin was

preferable to modeling the SEDAB basin

alone.

Therefore, the attainment

demonstration was performed by the

SCAQMD, using a domain that includes

the South Coast Air Basin, much of the

Southeast Desert Basin, and Ventura

County. The SCAQMD did not enlarge

the domain to include the entire

Southeast Desert Basin. Ideally, the

domain would cover the entire

nonattainment area. However, the

portions of the nonattainment area not

covered by the domain were expected to

be below the NAAQS, when the other

portions of the area are able to

demonstrate compliance with the

standard.

The air quality results for the year

2007 projected inventories were

determined for the purpose of analyzing

the ability of the Southeast Desert to

attain by the severe-2 attainment date.

Five episodes were modeled for the

attainment demonstration. The episode

selection process was determined by the

availability of an enhanced data base of

air quality and meteorological data,

generated primarily by the 1987 South

Coast Air Quality Study. Since the

modeling was performed for the SCAB,

the primary criteria for episode

selection was the presence of high

ozone in the SCAB, rather than high

ozone in the Southeast Desert. The

highest level of ozone recorded in the

Mojave Desert for the five episodes was

.15 ppm, compared to a design value of

.24 ppm. Because of the high level of

resources required to compile the

necessary air quality, emissions

inventory, and meteorological data for

each episode, EPA accepts the decision

not to model an additional episode with

higher levels of ozone in the Southeast

Desert.

Using the emission reductions from

proposed control measures, including

South Coast Air Basin emission

reductions, the modeling results show

that peak predicted ozone

concentrations for the year 2007 are

below the ozone NAAQS.

In order to improve understanding of

the formation of ozone in the SCAB and

transport between the South Coast,

Southeast Desert, Ventura, and San

Diego air basins, a joint study is being

planned by the local, State, and Federal

agencies, as well as the National

Weather Service and the Department of

Defense. The purpose of the study is to

provide an enhanced data base of air

quality and meteorological

measurements, both at the surface level

and aloft, to allow modeling of more

recent episodes and a larger domain

than is currently possible.

(4) EPA Action

EPA agrees with the State that

attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the

Southeast Desert is heavily dependent

upon reductions in the South Coast.

Modeling information, based on the

South Coast UAM analysis, supports the

State’s contention 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.

e. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes

to approve fully the Southeast Desert

ozone SIP with respect to the Act’s

requirements for emission inventories,

control measures, and demonstration of

attainment. 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 proposes to approve the

following elements of the 1994

California Ozone SIP for the listed areas,

as meeting applicable CAA

requirements:

(1) Emission Inventories for Santa

Barbara, San Diego, San Joaquin,

Sacramento, Ventura, South Coast, and

Southeast Desert, under section

182(a)(1) of the CAA.

(2) 15% ROP Plans for Santa Barbara,

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 Santa Barbara, 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.C., 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. In the case of

delinquent control measures in the

South Coast, EPA proposes approval

only if a revised adoption schedule is

submitted.

(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).

EPA also proposes to assign 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
10960 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

CAA. All of these actions are proposed

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

the CAA.

EPA proposes to approve California’s

I/M regulations under sections 110(k)(3)

and 301(a). EPA also proposes to

approve the State’s basic I/M program

under section 182(b)(4) of the CAA and

the enhanced I/M program, including

the assignment of specific emissions

reductions identified in section II.A.2.

above, under section 182(c)(3) of the

CAA and section 348(c) of the Highway

Act.

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

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).

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.

V. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’)

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of these SIP

revisions, the State and any affected

local or tribal governments have elected

to adopt the program provided for under

sections 110 and 182 of the CAA. These

rules may bind State, local, and tribal

governments to perform certain actions

and also require the private sector to

perform certain duties. To the extent

that the rules being approved today will

impose any mandate upon the State,

local, or tribal governments either as the

owner or operator of a source or as a

regulator, or would impose any mandate

upon the private sector, EPA’s action

will impose no new requirements; such

sources are already subject to these

requirements under State law.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action. EPA has also determined that

this action does not include a mandate

that may result in estimated costs of

$100 million or more to State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate or to

the private sector.

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.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 4, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Appendix: Status of EPA’S Activities

Relating to the ‘‘Federal Measures’’ in

the California SIP Submittal

The information below represents the

current status of EPA’s activities,

including ongoing rulemaking, with

respect to each of the mobile source

categories identified as ‘‘Federal

Measures’’ in the 1994 California Ozone

SIP.

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 onhighway 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 outof-state trucks which operate in

California.

EPA is fulfilling its commitment to

propose tighter NOX emission standards

for Federal on-highway heavy-duty

vehicles as part of the NOX/PM

(particulate matter) Initiative. On July

11, 1995, EPA, the California Air

Resources Board (CARB), and the

leading manufacturers of heavy-duty

engines signed a Statement of Principles

(SOP) that established a consensus plan

to substantially reduce emissions from

future trucks and buses on a nationwide

basis. The goal of the SOP is to ensure

cleaner air in a manner which is both

realistic for the heavy-duty engine

industry and responds to environmental

needs as well. As a result of the SOP,

EPA published an Advanced Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on

August 31, 1995. The ANPRM

announced plans to propose a nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus

NOX standard of 2.4 g/bhp-hr, or a

combined NMHC plus NOX standard of

2.5 g/bhp-hr with an NMHC cap of .5 g/

bhp-hr. Engines meeting these future

standards are expected to be over 80

percent cleaner than pre-control

engines. EPA is currently preparing a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

and expects to publish the NPRM late in

the spring of 1996. 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 heavyduty 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10961

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/kwhr), 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.

At this time, no decisions have been

made regarding the level of the second

tier of Federal standards. Although

substantial NOX reductions are being

pursued, there is no assurance that

setting a standard as low as 3.3 g/kw-hr

in the 2005 timeframe will be the most

appropriate approach nationwide. A

number of issues are likely to make it

difficult to set standards at such a level.

Among these issues is the strong desire

by engine manufacturers for

harmonization with European nonroad

equipment standards which are

considerably less stringent than the

levels contained in the SIP. Another

issue is the effect that significant engine

technology changes due to standards

could have on equipment designs. In

order to fit redesigned engines into their

equipment, manufacturers may need to

modify many of their products to meet

visibility, safety and performance

specifications which may require

additional leadtime. Regardless of these

issues, EPA is committed to pursuing a

second tier of standards for the heavyduty diesel nonroad engines covered by

this measure.

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 is 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. However, no decisions have

been made regarding the possible level

of any standards. 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. The same issues

that are likely to make it difficult to

achieve stringent standards for diesel

nonroad engines also apply to gasoline

and LPG nonroad engines.

Marine Vessels

Measure M13 of the SIP provides for

adoption by U.S. EPA and by the

International Maritime Organization

(IMO) of emissions standards that

would reduce NOX emissions from new

diesel engines used in ocean-going

vessels by 30 percent. M12 also assumes

that EPA will issue standards for nonocean going vessels that will reduce

NOX emissions by at least 65 percent.

The IMO, a special agency of the

United Nations, is developing

guidelines for the reduction of NOX and

sulfur oxides (SOx) from ships under a

new Annex to the International

Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78).

These guidelines would address the

control of air pollution from ships. An

IMO committee is scheduled to finalize

a draft Annex in July 1996. After the

committee’s action, a diplomatic

conference will be held in the spring of

1997 to review and approve the Annex.

Each national will then consider the

Annex and its associated guidelines for

implementation and enforcement on

vessels carrying its flag and on vessels

entering its waters. Before the Annex

could be enforced within US waters, the

Congress would have to adopt it and its

guidelines and then provide appropriate

authority to a government agency.

While it is true that the new Annex

is intended to provide for a 30 percent

reduction in NOX emissions, that

reduction applies only to ships

beginning construction after a certain

time (tentatively, January 1998). It

should be noted that there is a provision

for application to existing ships that

undergo a major modification or whose

engines’ power output is changed by 10

percent or more. Beyond that, the

Annex does not address existing

engines. Furthermore, achieving the

target of 30 percent, would require full

implementation of the Annex

worldwide.

The NOX emission requirements in

the new Annex would apply to all

engines over 100 kW installed on ships

over 400 gross tons or which have a

total installed power of 1500 kW. The

guidelines are composed of two parts:

Part A addresses guidelines for the

implementation of NOX limits for

marine diesel engines; Part B addresses

guidelines for diesel engine test, survey,

and certification for compliance with

the NOX emission limits.

Numerous studies are underway to

further investigate issues relating to

marine vessels and the Santa Barbara

channel. EPA is involved in these

efforts, along with the United States

Navy, the South Coast Air Quality

Management District, and CARB.

The United States Navy’s ongoing

studies are intended to better

characterize ship traffic and its impact

on ozone exceedances in Ventura

County. These include investigating air

trajectory and transport mechanisms,

inventorying ship traffic, collecting

ozone measurement data, and collecting

weather parameters for modeling. This

on-going study is not complete at this

time. Another study, sponsored by

SCAQMD, will improve the marine

vessel emission inventory and briefly

discuss potential control strategies. The

SCAQMD study should be completed by

June 1996. A third study, the Southern

California Transport Study, being led by

CARB, is intended to better understand

air pollution transport in Southern

California. The 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.

Collectively, these studies will help

the EPA and other interested parties

further understand and discuss
10962 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

potential strategies for reducing

emissions from the shipping channel if

needed for attainment.

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 require 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 a

66% 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

voluntarily agreed to 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 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. The

Agency is preparing a notice of

proposed rulemaking to formally adopt

the existing ICAO NOX and CO

standards, and will request comment on

the need for and feasibility of applying

emission standards to military engines.

This notice is currently scheduled for

publication during fiscal year 1997, due

to competing budgetary priorities.

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 not yet finalized the

rulemaking on emission standards for

spark-ignition marine engines. The

court ordered deadline for signature of

the final rulemaking is May 31, 1996.

EPA has issued guidance to states on the

amount of credit that will be allowed

due to this rulemaking. These emission

standards will apply to new marine

engines beginning in model year 1998.

There is no second phase rulemaking

planned.

EPA has not yet finalized the

rulemaking on emission standards for

compression-ignition marine engines.

The court ordered deadline for signature

of the final rulemaking is May 31, 1996.

EPA has not yet issued guidance to

states on the amount of credit that will

be allowed due to this rulemaking.

These emission standards will apply to

new marine engines beginning in model

year 1999. The emission standards will

achieve an approximate 30% reduction

in new engine emissions. The inventory

will be reduced as the fleet turns over.

[FR Doc. 96–6011 Filed 3–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[MO–001–1001(b); FRL–5442–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to

disapprove revisions to the air pollution

control State Implementation Plan (SIP)

submitted by the state of Missouri. The

SIP pertains to the St. Louis vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program. These revisions require the

implementation of an enhanced motor

vehicle I/M program in the St. Louis