# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 64 Fed. Reg. 1770 1999
Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Dec 8 13:47:52 2009
-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules

(12) Ifspace is not adequate to list the required information as shown in the sample labels inparagraph (e)(1 1) of this section, the list maybe split and continued to the right as longas the headings are repeated. The listto the right shall be set offby a line that distinguishes itand sets it apart from the dietary ingredients and percent of Daily Value information given to the left. The following sample label illustrates this display:

Dated: January 4, 1999. William K.Hubbard, Associate CornmissionerforPolicy Coordination. [FRDoc. 99 564 Filed 1 11 99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F



### DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 126 [USCG-1998-4302] 

### RIN2115-AE22 HandlingofClass 1(Explosive) Materials orOther Dangerous Cargoes within orContiguous toWaterfront Facilities

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking; reopening ofcomment period.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is reopening the comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Handling ofClass 1 (Explosive) Materials or Other Dangerous Cargoes within or Contiguous to Waterfront Facilities to March 1, 1999 to allow additional time for public comment. DATES: Comments mustreach the Coast Guard on or before March 1, 1999. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to the DocketManagement Facility [USCG-1998-4302], U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or deliver them to room PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the same address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366- 9329.

The DocketManagement Facility maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments willbecome part ofthis docket and willbe available for inspection or copying atroom PL-401, located on the Plaza Level ofthe Nassif Building at the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also electronically access the public docket for this rulemaking on the Internet athttp://dms.dot.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the NPRM provisions, contact LCDR John Farthing, Project Manager, Vessel and Facility Operating Standards Divisions, Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-6451, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For information on the public docket,
contact Dorothy Walker, Chief,Dockets, telephone 202-366-9329. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Ifyou submit comments, you should include your name and address, identify this notice (USCG1998-4302) and the specific section or question in this document to which your comments apply, and give the

reason for each comment. Please submit allcomments and attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filingto the DOT Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. Ifyou want acknowledgment ofreceipt ofyour comments, you should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the comment period.

The Coast Guard plans no public meeting. Persons may request apublic meeting by writing to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. The request must identify this docket [USCG-1998-4302] and should include the reasons why a public meeting would be helpful to this rulemaking. Ifwe determine that a meeting should be held, we will

announce the time and place in a later notice in the Federal Register. Background and Purpose

The regulations in 33 CFRpart 126 prescribing requirements for designated waterfront facilities thathandle, store, and transfer hazardous materials to and from vessels were written in the 1950s and have never been significantly updated. On October 29, 1998 (63 FR 57964), we published a NPRM proposing to amend part 126 by updating therequirements to meet current industry standards for containerized hazardous material cargoes. The closing datefor the original comment period was scheduled for December 28, 1998.

During the original NPRM comment period we received several comments requesting an extension ofthe comment period. One comment from an industry group potentially affected by these regulations stated that it is meeting in mid-December and needs more time to develop comments. Another comment indicated difficulty meeting the December 28, 1998 deadline because the shippingindustry is typically very busy during the holiday season. We accept these as reasonable requests and we are reopening the NPRM comment period by 60 days. The new NPRM comment period will close March 1, 1999.

Dated:January 5, 1999. Joseph J.Angelo, ActingAssistant CommandantforMarine SafetyandEnvironmentalProtection. [FR Doc. 99 536Filed 1 11 99;8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40CFR Part 52
[CA-189-0128; FRL-6217-8] Approvaland Promulgation ofState Implementation Plans;CaliforniaSouth Coast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA isproposing to approve in part and disapprove in part a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State ofCalifornia to provide for attainment ofthe ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Los Angeles-South Coast AirBasin Area (South Coast). EPA is proposing the approval and disapproval ofthe SIP revisions under provisions ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA) regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, and plan requirements for nonattainment areas. DATES: Written comments must be received byFebruary 11, 1999. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to DaveJesson, AirPlanning Office (AIR2),Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

The rulemaking docket for this notice is available forpublic inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal 

### 1770

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1770 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules

business hours. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying parts ofthe docket.

Copies ofthe SIP materials are also available for inspection at the following locations: California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, California South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson at (415) 744-1288. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### 1.Background

A. Summary
1.Introduction

This proposed action relates to a 1997 revision to the 1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast.' The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the revision within weeks ofEPA's approval ofthe 1994

ozone SIP. The 1997 proposed revision
to the ozone SIP was not federally required, but was adopted to address, in

acomprehensive and consistent fashion, federal and staterequirements for particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide, and state requirements for an ozone plan update. In order to understand thebasis for EPA's proposed disapproval ofthe 1997 revision, itis necessary to understand the 1994 ozone SIP, several aspects of which are unique. An overview ofthe 1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast appears below, followed by a description ofthe 1997 proposed revision.

2. 1994 South Coast Ozone SIP

On November 15, 1994, the State of California submitted the 1994 ozone plan for the South. The plan was subsequently amended and we approved the plan on September 25, 1996, asthe first fully approved and federally enforceable ozone SIP for the South Coast.

The 1994 plan was built on 4 decades ofState and local leadership in researching, developing, adopting, and implementing new air pollution control strategies. By that date, the California and South Coast air quality agencies and industry had a world-wide reputation for pushing technological progress to achieve the world's cleanest cars, fuels,

consumer products, industrial controls, and paints and coatings.

As a direct result ofthis extraordinary effort by elected officials, governmental

1For a description ofthe boundaries ofthe Los Angeles-South Coast AirBasin, see 40 CFR 81.305. The nonattainment area includes all of Orange County andthemore populated portions ofLos Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. agencies, industry, and the residents of Southern California, air pollution levels had been dramatically reduced: the number ofdays per year with dirty air and the peak concentrations had dropped bymore than 60 percent, and

severe episode days (where health warnings are issued to allresidents and pollution-generating activities must be curtailed) had been completely eliminated. This accomplishment is

more remarkable in view ofSouthern California's extraordinary growth during these years and the continued dependence ofthe area on private vehicle use.

Despite the State and local achievements, however, Southern California in 1994 continued to have by far the dirtiest air in the country. For example, the South Coast in 1994 recorded 1-hour levels at or above 0.120 parts per million (ppm) for ozone, or smog, on 107 days in the Los AngelesLong Beach area and 123 days in the Riverside-San Bernardino area, while other major metropolitan areas had values ator above 0.120 ppm on far fewer days: Houston 32, New York 9, Detroit 6, Philadelphia 5, Atlanta 4, and Chicago 2.2 Similarly, the South Coast has recorded particulate matter or (soot) and carbon monoxide pollution levels greater than other urban areas in the U.S., and was the only area ofthe country in violation ofthe nitrogen dioxide NAAQS under the 1990CAA Amendments.

Recognizing that all residents have a right to clean air and that clean air investments have a high benefit-cost ratio, 3 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD cooperated in the adoption ofa 1994 plan laying out the strategies that would bring clean air bythe federal deadline of2010.

The State committed to implement 9

new mobile source control measures, an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (or Smog Check) program, and incremental regulatory reductions in the smog-forming constituents of

consumer products and pesticides, and
to develop advanced, long-term controls

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

3The SocioeconomicAssessmentReport forthe 1994 AirQualityManagementPlan (SCAQMD, August 1994) calculated total benefits ofclean air achieved under the plan to exceed total plan costs by between $0.9 and $1.5 billion per year. This calculation applies to ozone,PM, and visibility benefits, but does notinclude unquantifiable benefits such as reduction in chronic illness, reduction in lung function in human beings, reduced damage to livestock and plantlife, and erosion ofbuilding materials. Furthermore, 75% of the costs ofthe plan are associated with measure TCM 04 (transportation improvements). 

### for onroad and nonroad vehicles and engines.

The Governing Board ofthe SCAQMD and the Southern California Association ofGovernments (SCAG)committed to implement 60 new specific controls, and SCAQMD alsobound itselfto achieve additional emission reductions in thefuture from advanced technology

measures.

Together these State and local

measures would reduce the 1990 emissions level of2878 tons perday (tpd)to 1032 tpd. Modeling analyses by the SCAQMD estimated, however, that the smogproblem could not be solved without an additional 156 tpd reduction inpollutants. The State determined that

we should achieve these remaining reductions bypromulgating national mobile source controls in accordance with our new authorities under the 1990 CAA Amendments.

We concluded thatCalifornia had no authority under theU.S. Constitution or the Clean Air Act torequire us to contributeparticular measures and emissions reductions tothe SIP forthe South Coast. We appreciated, however, the significant levelofcommitment by the State and SCAQMD reflected in the 1994 ozone plan and we wished to do

ourshare in contributing further mobile

source controls consistent with our national authorities and responsibilities. We also saw meritin the State's desire to cooperate with us in negotiating with affected industry consistent Federal and California mobile source standards.

We therefore approved the 1994

ozone SIPbased upon commitments by the State and EPAto participate in a public consultative process on mobile

source controls, leadingto a decision in mid-1997 on what furtherreductions needed tobe achieved and which entity should have responsibility forthem. We and California further committed to adopt any additional controls, as necessary and appropriate, to achieve the emission reductions required for attainment ofthe ozone standard in the South Coast.

Webelieve that wehave now achieved, orhave rulemaking in progress to accomplish, almost allofthe reductions the Statepurported to assign tous in the 1994 ozone SIPapproximately 145 tpd out ofa 156 tpd "assignment." This is theresult ofclose coordination between California and EPA and cooperation by manufacturers and users ofmobile source engines and equipment, culminating in agreements
on aggressive new standards for trucks andbuses and mostcategories of nonroad mobile sources, ranging from forklifts to outboard engines, and from locomotives totractors. Webelieve that 

### 1771

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1771 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules

these aggressive Federal controls will have clean air benefits nationally, and that the stringent new standards will

ensure that all sources ofthe pollution problem contribute their share to needed emission reductions.

California's plan assumed, however, that stringent new emissions standards would be set for aircraft engines and ocean-going vessels. Unfortunately, the international standard-setting process for commercial aircraft engines and ocean-going vessels has not resulted in standards that will benefit the South Coast appreciably by 2010, especially in view ofthe longlife-span ofthese engines. Moreover, the State assumed an unrealistically rapid turnover rate for harbor craft, and therefore overestimated reductions that would be achieved in 2010, even by avery stringent federal standard.

While we and the State continue to work with the ports, shippers, airports, and airlines to achieve reductions from their operations, we now expect that there willremain a small shortfall in the "federal" category. Unfortunately, the SCAQMD has filed a suit against us to promulgate the aircraft and ocean-going vessel standards postulated by the State, although all parties are now aware that the standards are set internationally and that the international standards recently adopted will not, in fact, achieve the reductions anticipated by the State in its 1994 SIP submittal.

The SCAQMD has also sued us to end the public consultative process by making specific additional federal commitments to adoptregulations for allremaining emission reduction assignments. In response to a suit from environmental groups, we have already negotiated a settlement that requires us by June 1, 1999, to conclude the public consultative process, determine remaining responsibilities ofthe State and EPA, and schedule adoption of controls to fulfill those responsibilities.

Thus, we believe that both District suits are awaste ofpublic resources, and we conclude that itwould be inconsistent with ourpending obligations to resolve thepublic consultative process forus to approve a
new South Coast SIP that includes Federal assignments to undertake discretionary controls.
3. 1997 South Coast Ozone Plan

As we finalized our approval ofthe 1994 ozone SIP, the SCAQMD unveiled

areplacement plan. This revised plan abandoned, relaxed, or postponed approximately 30 measures in the ozone SIP. The revised plan employed new growth projections, new inventories, and new modeling analyses to support the proposition that the area could meet the minimum statutoryprogress requirements and eventually attain the

ozone NAAQS despite the extensive rollback in near-term controls.

When the revised plan was announced, we indicated our serious

concerns about the direction ofthe plan, particularly its backsliding at the very time we were issuing revised ozone NAAQS and new fine particulate matter (PM-2.5)NAAQS that would require still greater levels ofcontrol than were reflected in the 1994 ozone SIP.We noted that the extremely high ozone and PM levels in the South Coast continued to represent one ofour country's most

severe environmental and public health problems-problems highlighted bythe hundreds ofscientific studies that formed the basis ofthe new and revised NAAQS. We encouraged the District to focus on implementation ofthe newly approved SIP and, ifmeasures proved to be infeasible or ineffective, to adopt replacement measures in order to sustain progress.

The SCAQMD nevertheless adopted the revised plan in November 1996, and the State submitted theplan as a proposed SIP revision in early February 1997. We continued to express our
concerns and to remind the SCAQMD that the District, responsible forpublic health in the most polluted area ofthe country, had an obligation to increase its efforts rather than regress. Wehave repeatedly indicated that we support the District's flexibility to amend or replace any measure when it is determined to be infeasible or ineffective, but we cannot support the significant relaxation ofthe SIP represented bythe 1997 plan.

After adopting a plan revision that postponed or eliminated most ofthe near-term measures in the 1994 ozone SIP, the District has since failed to meet most ofits implementation commitments in the 1997 ozone plan. This is consistent with the District's record over the past4 years, during which the SCAQMD has adopted and revised credit and trading rules and has amended existing prohibitory rules to postpone compliance dates, but has adopted only ahandful ofnew measures designed to reduce pollution levels.

On September 26, 1997, environmental groups sued the SCAQMD and CARB in federal district court, seeking acourt order to compel the agencies to meet their federally enforceable commitments to adopt and implement control measures in the 1994

ozone SIP.We urged the parties to attempt settlement and we provided a facilitator for the sessions. Negotiations began in the early Springof 1998, and

aproposed settlement was drafted in 

### lateJune. The SCAQMD Governing Board, however,rejected the proposed settlement in June 1998.

On November 4, 1998, the SCAQMD filed suit against us to compel our action on the 1997plans, repeating the argument that theplan should be approved. Wehave been consistent in expressingourcontrary view, that the Clean AirActgives us authority to approverevised SIPs butdoes not allow

us to approve revisions thatrepresent a significantretreat from the approved SIP.We believe thatitwould be particularly ill-advised to approve major relaxations inthe South Coast,where thepublic suffers byfar theworst pollution levels in the country.

We continueto hope that the SCAQMD will decide to meet its difficultresponsibilities toprotect public health and, in so doing,will both strengthen the plan and begin fully to implement theplan to fulfill the 1994 plan's promise ofclean airprogress. B. The South CoastOzoneProblem

Ground-level ozoneis formed when nitrogen oxides (NOx),volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and oxygen react in thepresence ofsunlight, generally at elevated temperatures.4

### Strategies for reducing smogtypically require reductions in both VOC and NOx emissions.

Ozone causes serious health problems by damaging lungtissue and sensitizing thelungs toother irritants. When inhaled, even at verylow levels, ozone
can cause acute respiratory problems; aggravate asthma; cause temporary decreases inlung capacity of 15 to 20 percent in healthy adults, cause inflammation oflung tissue;lead to hospital admissions and emergency
room visits; and impair the body's immune system defenses, making people more susceptible torespiratory illnesses, includingbronchitis and pneumonia. Children aremost at risk fromexposure toozone because they breathe more airperpound ofbody weightthan adults; their respiratory systems are still developing and thus

more susceptible to environmental threats; and children exercise outdoors

morethan adults in thehigh-ozone months ofsummer.

Direct exposure toNOxand VOCs alsohas adverse public health consequences. Exposure to elevated NOx concentrations canreduce breathing efficiency, increase lungand airway irritation, and exacerbate symptoms ofrespiratory illness,lung

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

### 1772

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1772 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules

congestion, wheeze, and increased bronchitis in children. VOCs include many toxic compounds (such as benzene), which can cause respiratory, immunological, neurological, reproductive, developmental, and mutagenic problems. Some VOCs have been identified as probable orknown human carcinogens.

Since the strategies in the 1994 ozone SIP and 1997 ozone plan address VOC and NOx, the primary precursor of particulate matter in the South Coast, the plans also affect PM concentrations.

Particulate matter is associated with a number ofsignificant respiratory and cardiovascular-related effects, including premature death, increased hospitalization, increased emergency
room visits, increased respiratory symptoms, increased disease (especially amongchildren and people with lung disease such as asthma), and decreased lung function.

Both ozone and PM damage vegetation. Experimental studies on the major commercial crops in the U.S. suggest that ozone may be responsible for significant agricultural crop yield losses.

Under section 109 ofthe CAA, EPA established primary, health-related NAAQS for ozone: 0.12ppm averaged

over a 1-hour period. See44 FR 8220 (February 8, 1979). EPA also set NAAQS for particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter (PM-10): 150 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) averaged over
a24-hour period, and 50 ug/m3 as an annual arithmetic average ofthe 24-hour samples. See 52 FR24672 (July 1, 1987).

On July 18, 1997, EPA reaffirmed the annual PM-10 standard and slightly revised the 24-hour standard (62 FR 38651). At the same time, EPA also established two new standards for PM, both applying only to particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5). Finally, on July 18, 1997, EPA also revised the ozone NAAQS, replacing the 1-hour standard with a standard of0.08 ppm averaged over an 8-hourperiod (62 FR 38855). EPA has not yet issued specificplan and controlrequirements for the new and revised NAAQS.

The South Coast has continuously had by farthe worst 1-hour ozone concentrations in the country, both in terms ofpeak concentrations and number ofviolations. While the South Coast ozone levels have greatly improved over the years, the trend is not continuous. For example, in 1998 there have been 12 Stage I Alerts (which are triggered by ozone concentrations at or above 0.20ppm), compared to only 1in 1997.

The South Coast typically has among the worst PM-10 annual mean and 24- hour concentration in the country. Last year, the South Coast had the second worst PM-10 annual mean concentration ofU.S. urbanized areas, with only Phoenix recording aworse level.

C. CleanA irActRequirements

The Federal CAA was substantially amended in 1990to establish new planning requirements and attainment deadlines for the NAAQS. Under section 107(d)(1)(C) ofthe Act, areas designated nonattainment prior to enactment ofthe 1990 amendments, including the South Coast, were designated nonattainment by operation oflaw.

Under section 181(a) ofthe Act, each

ozone area designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by operation oflaw as either marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, depending on the 1986-1988 design value for the area. An ozone area with

adesign value at and above 0.280 ppm
was classified as extreme. The South Coast was the only area so classified. Section 181(a) sets attainment deadlines for each class ofarea. The attainment date for an extreme area is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than November 15, 2010. Section 172ofthe Act contains general requirements applicable to SIPs for nonattainment areas. Section 182of the Act set out additional air quality planning requirements for ozone nonattainment areas.

The most fundamental ofthese nonattainment area provisions applicable to the South Coast is the requirement that the State submitby November 15, 1994, a SIP demonstrating attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS. This demonstration must be based upon enforceable measures to achieve emission reductions leading to emissions at or below the level predicted to result in attainment ofthe NAAQS throughout the nonattainment

area. The measures must be implemented expeditiously and must

ensure attainment no later than the applicable CAA deadline.

EPA has issued a "General Preamble" describing the Agency's preliminary views on how EPA intends to act on SIPs submitted under Title Iofthe Act. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992. The reader should refer to the General Preamble for amore detailed discussion ofEPA's preliminary interpretations of Title I requirements. In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA applies these policies to the South Coast ozone SIP submittal, taking into consideration the specific factual issues presented. D. SIPSubm ittalsMustMeet Requirementsofthe Pre-Existing NAAQS

Before the SCAQMD adopted the 1997

ozone plan, EPAhad already announced its intention to issue new and revised

ozone and PM NAAQS. The SCAQMD included in Chapter 10 ofthe 1997 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) an initial analysis ofthe emission reductions that might be needed to attain the anticipated new and revised ozone and PM NAAQS. The SCAQMD concluded that significantly greater reductions would be required to attain the new and revised NAAQS that

were under consideration. However, the SCAQMDprepared the plans to address onlythe NAAQS then in effect.

Although EPAhas now promulgated revised ozone NAAQS, EPA is not evaluating theplan based upon the NAAQS issued in 1997. The Agency will notrequire states to submit SIPs to address the revised NAAQS for several years. The pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS remain in effect in each nonattainment area untilthe area attains NAAQS. Thus, the 1-hour NAAQS of 0.12ppm will not be revoked in the South Coast until the area has recorded 3 years with no more than 3 concentrations at or above 0.125 ppm at any monitor. State and local agencies remain under an obligation to adopt and implement SIPs to attain the preexisting ozone NAAQS until the EPA revokes the NAAQS for the area.5

E. EPAActionson Prior South Coast Ozone SIPRevisions

The SCAQMD adopted an ozone plan

on September 9, 1994. This plan, which

was included in the 1994 South Coast AQMP, was supplemented by State

measures adopted by CARB and was submitted as aproposed revision to the California SIP on November 15, 1994. On July 10, 1996, CARB submitted an extensive revision to the South Coast control measure adoption schedule, to adjust for slippage in theplan's initial implementation. On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150), EPA finalized approval ofthe South Coast ozone plan, including the

ozone portions ofthe 1994 South Coast

5EPA has determined that subpart 2 ofpart D of Title I ofthe CAA should continue to apply as a matter oflaw for the purposes ofachieving attainment ofthe current 1-hour ozone standard until an area attains the standard. See the final rule promulgating therevised ozone NAAQS (July 18, 1997, at 62FR 38873 for ozone), "Implementation Plan forRevised Air Quality Standards" (July 18, 1997, at 62FR 38424), and "Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone andPre-Existing PM1O NAAQS" (memo from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator forAir and Radiation, dated December 29, 1997). 

### 1773

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1773 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules

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

F. South Coast1997PlanRevision

On February 5, 1997, CARB submitted

as a revision to the California SIP the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), Antelope Valley, and Coachella Valley, adopted by the SCAQMD on November 15, 1996. This submittal addressed all four pollutants for which the South Coast was designated nonattainment:
ozone, PM-10, carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

EPA has previously acted on two components ofthe 1997 AQMP. On April 21, 1998, EPA granted interim final approval to the 1997 South Coast CO plan (63 FR 19661).7EPA has also fully approved the 1997 South Coast N02 attainment and maintenance plan and the State's request on March 4, 1998, to redesignate the South Coast to attainment for N02 (63 FR 39747, July 24, 1998).

The ozone and PM-10 portions ofthe South Coast 1997 AQMP became complete by operation oflaw on August 5, 1997.8 SCAQMD and CARB intend the 1997 ozone plan to supersede completely the 1994 ozone SIP with respect to the SCAQMD portion ofthe plan. As discussed, EPA has not yet

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

7EPA approved the CO plan with respect to the CAA requirements for notice and adoption, baseline and projected emissions inventory, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecasts. EPA granted interim approval to the CO attainment demonstration, quantitative milestones, and reasonable further
progress, since theseplan elements depend, in part,

on emission reductions from the State's enhanced
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The I/M program was given interim approval in EPA's final action on the 1994 ozone SIP (see62 FR 1165 1168, January 8,1997) under section 187(a)(6) ofthe CAA and section 348c of the National Highway System Designation Act (Pub. L. 104 59).

8EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) ofthe CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56FR 42216). issued its interpretation ofCAA section 172(e) to prevent backsliding in PM-10 nonattainment areas. EPA intends to propose action on the South Coast 1997 PM-10 plan in separate rulemaking.

The State hasrevised several ofits

own measures that arepart ofthe South Coast plan, but at this time CARB has submitted as a SIPrevision only one of these changes. On April 15, 1998, CARB submitted new Measure M17 (Additional Emission Reductions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles) as a replacement for Measure M7 (Accelerated Retirement ofHeavy-Duty Vehicles). EPA will take action on Measure M17 in separate rulemaking.

The 1997 ozone plan includes, among other things, attainment demonstrations based on updated VMT projections reflecting new forecasts prepared by SCAG, an amended Regional Mobility Element adopted by SCAG,revised
motor vehicle emissions estimates using California's EMFAC7G and BURDEN7G program, new stationary and area source emission inventories, amended SCAQMD control measure commitments, and revised Urban Airshed Modeling (UAM), using the

new inventories and changes to other modeling inputs.

II. Review ofthe PlanSubmittal and Proposed EPA Action

A. Summary ofProposed Action
In this document, EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part the 1997 ozone plan. The ozone plan for the South Coast depends on commitments by SCAQMD to adopt and implement various VOC and NOx control measures by particular dates to achieve specific emission reductions needed for progress and attainment. EPA proposes to disapprove the control

measure portion ofthe plan for the

reasons discussed in section II.D., below. EPA proposes also to disapprove the progress and attainment demonstrations in the plan, since these plan elements depend upon the control

measure provisions.

B. Procedural Requirements
Both SCAQMD and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption ofthe plan and each ofthe plan amendments. SCAQMD conducted

numerous public workshops and public hearings prior to the adoption hearing

on November 15, 1996, at which the 1997 AQMP was adopted bythe SCAQMD Governing Board (Resolution No. 96-23). On January 23, 1997, the CARB Governing Board adopted the plan (Resolution No. 97-1). The plan

was submitted to EPA byMichael P. Kenny,Executive Officer ofCARB, on February 5, 1997. The SIP submittal includes proofofpublication for notices ofSCAQMD and CARB public hearings,

as evidence that allhearings were properly noticed. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the 1997 ozone plan as meeting the procedural requirements ofsection 110(a)(1) ofthe CAA.

C.BaselineandProjectedEm issions Inventory

The revised and updated emissions inventory included in the 1997 AQMP conforms to EPA's guidance documents. 9 ThisEPA guidance allows approval ofCalifornia's motor vehicle emissions factors in place ofthe corresponding federal emissions factors. The motor vehicle emissions factors used in the plan were generated by the CARB EMFAC7G and BURDEN7G program. The gridded inventory for
motorvehicles was then produced using

an updated Caltrans Direct Travel Impact Model (DTIM2) (Systems Applications International, 1994) to combine EMFAC7G data with transportation modeling performed by SCAG.

SCAGprovided the baseline socioeconomic dataused in the plan. These forecasts include the following predicted growth through the ozone attainment year.

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

### 1774

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1774 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules



### 1997 AQMP BASELINE SOCIOECONOMIC FORECASTS [In millions]
Category 1993 2000 2010

Popula tion ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13.8 14.8 16.7 Daily Vehicle MilesTraveled (VMT)

................................................................................................................................. 293.3 317.9 377.9 Daily Vehicle Trips

........................................................................................................................................................... 31.2 33.2 37.9

EPA notes that thesepredictions

assume that the area's growth will increase atrates considerably below long-term historic trends.'0 This makes it particularly important for transportation agencies to track actual VMT and trip numbers carefully, and to trigger remedial actions, ifnecessary, before the plan fails to meet scheduled reduction targets. The growth projections for industrial categories are also generally lower than past trends, and EPA strongly encourages the SCAQMD to revise the emission inventories and adopt additional control
measures, as may be necessary, if information suggests that growth will exceed the SIP projections.

The plan includes interpolated inventories for all milestone years for

ozone precursors. The methodologies used to prepare thebase year and projected emissions inventories, as described in Chapter 3 and Appendix 3 ofthe AQMP, are acceptable. Accordingly, EPAproposes to approve the 1997 ozone plan with respect to the emissions inventory requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) ofthe CAA.

D. ControlMeasures

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) require that all measures and other elements in the SIP be enforceable. As discussed atlength in EPA's approval ofthe 1994 California

ozone SIPs, EPAhas interpreted these provisions to allow for approval of attainment demonstrations thatrely, in part, on commitments to adopt and implement rules in the future, so long

as the commitments are specific and enforceable (see 57 FR 13556 and 13568, April 16, 1992; and 62 FR 1155-1157, January 8, 1997).

The attainment demonstration in the 1997 ozone plan rests on emission reductions derived from adopted regulations and from rules and programs which SCAQMD commits to adopt. The plan measures that are scheduled for

1 0The 1997AQMP's growthprojections arealso considerably reduced fromthoseused in the 1994

ozone SIP, which used 2010 projectionsof17.4 million forpopulation, 413.9million miles for daily VMT, and45.7 million 

### vehicletripsper day. adoption in the future are commonly referred to as "committal measures." In the case ofthe South Coast, the committal measures are further divided into near-term measures and long-term (ornew-technology) measures, which

are authorized for extreme ozone nonattainment areas under CAA section 182(e)(5). The 1994 ozone SIP contains 66 near-term control measures for adoption by SCAQMD, SCAG, or local governments, and 5 long-term measures for adoption by SCAQMD. The 1997

ozone plan includes 36 near-term control measures for adoption by SCAQMD, SCAG, or local governments, and 6 long-term measures for adoption by SCAQMD. Both plans contain the

same group ofnear-term and long-term

measures assigned to the State or to the Federal government (see discussion below in Section II.D.3.)

EPA proposes to disapprove the SCAQMD's committal measures for 4

reasons.
1. SCAQMD Is Already in Default of Many Control Measure Commitments

Although theplan schedules SCAQMD adoption of23 VOC/NOx regulations or programs bythe end of 1998, the SCAQMD has adopted less than 10, and no additional measures are scheduled for adoption bythe end ofthe year. EPA does not believe there is a basis for approving commitments to adopt rules and programs or to approve
an attainment demonstration based, in part, on reductions from these rules and programs, ifthe adoption dates have passed and the rules or programs have
not been adopted. The SCAQMD's faithful implementation ofthe plan would cure this deficiency.

2. The Control Measures Are an Impermissible Relaxation ofthe SIP

The commitments in the 1997 ozone plan to adopt VOC and NOx control

measures represent backsliding from the 1994 ozone SIP. The 1997 plan abandons, relaxes, or postpones approximately 30 control measures in the approved South Coast ozone SIP. Specifically, SCAQMDremoved, postponed, relaxed, or shifted to a "further evaluation" category the following control measures, which were scheduled for near-term adoption in the 1994 ozone SIP: CTS-A Electronic Components, CTS-C Solvent Cleaning, CTS-DMarine/Pleasure Craft Coatings, CTS-EAdhesives, CTS-F Motor Vehicle Non-Assembly Coating, CTS-G Paper/ Fabric/Film Coatings, CTS-HMetal Parts/Product Coatings, CTS-I Graphic Arts/Screen Printing, CTS-JWood Products Coatings, CTS-KAerospace/ Component Coatings, CTS-L Automotive Assembly Operations, CTS02 Solvents and Coatings at NonRECLAIM Sources, CTS-07 Architectural Coatings, FUG-01 Organic Liquid Transfer, FUG-02 Active Draining ofLiquid Products, FUG-04 Fugitive Emissions ofVOCs, RFL-02 Gasoline DispensingFacilities, RFL-03 Pleasure-Boat Fueling Operations, CMB-02F Internal Combustion Engines, CMB-05 Clean Stationary Fuels, PRC02 Bakeries, PRC-03 Restaurant Operations, WST-01 Livestock Waste, WST-03 Waste Burning,WST-04 Disposal ofMaterials Containing VOCs, ISR-01 Special Events Centers, ISR-02 Shopping Centers, ISR-04 Airport Ground Access, ISR-05 Trip Reduction for Schools, ADV-CTS-02 Advanced Technology-Coatings. This list does
notinclude controlmeasures approved

aspart ofthe 1994 ozone SIP but without assigned emission reduction credits.

The scale ofthe SIP relaxation may be

seen in the table below, "South Coast 1994 Ozone SIP and 1997 Ozone Plan VOCEmission Reductions from SCAQMD/SCAG Local Rules forEach Rate-of-Progress Milestone Year." 11

liThe table is not adjusted to harmonize the control category baseline emission inventories. A small number ofnear-term control measures in the 1994 ozone SIP were adopted as regulations before the 1997 plan was issued. The emission reductions from these adopted regulations were treated as "baseline" emissions in the 1997plan, rather than

as near-term emission reductions. In addition, the 1997 plan revises the emissions inventory in the 1994 ozone SIP and reduces the emissions inventory for the control categories and the emission reductions associated with some ofthe 1994 ozone SIP's near-term control measures.

### 1775

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1775 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules

SOUTH COAST 

### 1994 OZONE SIP AND 

### 1997 OZONE PLANVOC EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 

### SCAQMD/SCAG LOCAL RULES FOR EACH RATE-OF-PROGRESS MILESTONE YEAR [In tons per day rounded to nearest ton]

1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

1994 Ozone SIP

Nea r-Te rm ......................................................................................................................................... 104 186 23 3 26 8 28 5 L on

g-T erm ........................................................................................................................................ 0 20 3 2 1 21 1 8

0 T otal
........................................................................................................................................... 1

04 2 07 26 6 38 9 46 5

1997 Ozone Plan

Nea r-Te rm ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1 41 6 7 8 6 91 L

on

g-Term ........................................................................................................................................ 0 0 3 54 89 T otal

........................................................................................................................................... 11 41 70 140 180

Section 110(1) ofthe Act provides that EPA may not approve a SIP revision if the revision will interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act. Based on the

measures relaxed or deleted and the associated loss ofemissions reductions, EPA concludes that the 1997 ozoneplan constitutes an unapprovable relaxation ofthe ozone SIP.12 The Statehas not demonstrated why it is notreasonable

or feasible for the SCAQMD to adopt

measures sufficient to achieve emission reductions on the 1994 ozone SIP schedule, thus potentially expediting attainment ofthe standard.

EPA believes thatthe SCAQMD can identify and adopt substitute near-term

measures. In fact, the SCAQMD has already adopted or scheduled for nearterm adoption somemeasures not included in the 1997 plan. 13 Thus, this deficiency in the 1997 plan could be cured if the SCAQMD submits commitments to adopt additional control measures alongwith a demonstration that the amended plan

12TheSCAQMD has argued that CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) authorizes states to amend their SIPs as

new information becomes available, provided the resulting plan is adequate to attain the NAAQS it implements and it otherwise continues to comply with the CAA. Section l0(a)(2)(H) ofthe CAA actually requires that a SIP "provide for revision of such plan from time to time as may benecessary to take account of* * * the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such [NAAQS] * * *." This CAA provision clearly contemplates that states should revise their plans to provide for greater ormore expeditious emission reductions. In contrast, the District has elected to relax its plan, and the governing provision ofthe Act forrelaxations is section 110(1).

13For example, SCAQMD's June 13, 1997 amendment to Rule 1171 Solvent Cleaning Operations contributes VOC reductions not specifically called forin the 1997plan. As an example of another feasible control option that could achieve significant VOC reductions, EPA has encouraged SCAQMD implementation ofmore stringent requirements for spray booths. provides for attainment on a schedule that is as expeditious as practical.

3. The Plan Includes Unlawful Assignments ofControl Measure Responsibility to EPA

The plan relies in part on reductions from control measures assigned to EPA
to adopt in the future. In acting on the 1994 ozone SIP, which also included these "federal measures," EPA stated that the Agency does not accept California's proposition that a state can, under the CAA, assign SIP responsibilities to the Federal government (61 FR 10936, March 18, 1996, 62 FR 1151, January 8, 1997).

Rather than disapprove the 1994plan, EPA elected to establish a brief "public consultative process" to identify the best options for achieving further emission reductions from mobile source controls to contribute to attainment of the NAAQS in the South Coast. EPA indicated that atthe conclusion ofthis process, in June 1997, EPA expected that the State would be able to amend the South Coast attainment demonstration based on the final mix of national, State and local controls. See 61 FR 10923 (March 18, 1996) and 62 FR 1151-1153 (January 8, 1997).

As part ofthe final SIP approval, EPA approved CARB's commitment to amend the South Coast ozone SIP by December 31, 1997, and to adopt additional mobile source measures, as appropriate, by December 31, 1999, to resolve SIP shortfalls remaining atthe end ofthepublic consultative process. See 40 CFR 52.220(C)(235)(I)(A)(1). In taking final action to approve the 1994

ozone SIP,EPA also made a commitment to adopt additional federal mobile source measures which are determined to be appropriate for EPA and needed for ozone attainment in the South Coast. See 40CFR 52.241.

EPA has not yet concluded the public consultative process, but has been sued by environmental groups to do so (Coalition forCleanAir,et.al.vs. South Coast Air QualityManagementDistrict, California AirResourcesBoard,and U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, No. CV 97-6916 HLH (C.D. Cal.)). Subsequently, the SCAQMD also sued EPA for failing to adopt certain ofthe Federal Measures included in California's 1994 ozone SIP and to resolve thepublic consultative process and adopt measures determined to be appropriate for the Agency.

EPA has recently entered into a Consent Decree with the environmental plaintiffs to conclude the public consultative process and to determine by June 1, 1999, the respective responsibilities ofEPA and the State for adopting measures to achieve the remaining emission reduction requirements. This Consent Decree was lodged with the U.S. District Court on November 13, 1998. EPA sought public
comment on the Consent Decree on December 9, 1998 (63 FR 67879).

In light ofthe imminent conclusion of the public consultative process provided for in EPA's final approval of the 1994 ozone SIP, the Agency has determined that itis not appropriate to approve another South Coastplan that includes emission reductions associated with specific Federal Measures assigned by the Stateto EPA, much less aplan that increases the illegal emission reduction assignment to the Federal government, as the 1997 plan does for several source categories.14 EPA reiterates its position that states do not have the authority under the Clean Air Act orthe Constitution to assign SIP responsibility to the Federal government.

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

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

### 1776

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1776 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules

through an amendment to the SIP providing specific enforceable commitments, ifappropriate, by responsible agencies to adopt mobile

source control measures sufficient to eliminate any shortfall in emissions reductions that might remain at the end ofthepublic consultative process.
4. Section 182(e)(5)

As noted above, CAA section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to approve long-term, conceptual measures that rely on new technologies or new control techniques as part ofthe attainment demonstration for the South Coast, the only extreme ozone nonattainment area. This CAA provision recognizes the difficulty faced by CARB, SCAQMD, and SCAG in fully developing and adopting in the near-term all ofthe controls that are needed to achieve attainment by the 2010 deadline.

There is no evidence, however, that CAA section 182(e)(5) was enacted to provide abroad excuse for postponing the adoption ofavailable near-term controls because they are difficult or unpopular. Moreover, the progressive
nature ofcontrol technology development is evidently abasic assumption behind the CAA section 182(e)(5) provision. It would not be consistent with that assumption to authorize agencies to amend their approved SIP to replace numerous nearterm control measures and emission reductions with long-term commitments. On the contrary, later revisions to the SIP should reduce, rather than increase, the long-term

measure element.

EPA's proposed approval ofthe 1994

ozone SIP for the South Coast elicited extensive comments from environmental groups. These commenters felt that the SIP should be disapproved because it relied too extensively on speculative and poorly defined long-term measures. The commenters argued thatthese measures should be replaced by more near-term controls and better defined and supported long-term measures.

In response to these comments and based on further discussions with CARB and the SCAQMD, EPA included in the final approval the following interpretation ofthe section 182(e)(5) provisions ofthe CAA as they apply to the 1994 ozone SIP and any subsequent revisions to the South Coast ozone SIP.

Measures which the 1994 South Coast Ozone SIP scheduled for adoption and implementation, or anyportion ofthe emissions reductions scheduled to be achieved as aresult ofimplementation of those near-term measures, maynotbe converted, at some future time, into section 182(e)(5) new-technology measures or moved into emissions reductions associated with section 182(e)(5) new technology measures, without a convincing showing in aSIP revision that the technologies relied upon in the near-term rules have been found tobe technologically infeasible or ineffective in achieving emissions reductions in the nearterm. The near-term measures in the 1994 SIP have notbeen determined to "anticipate development ofnew control techniques or improvement ofexistingcontrol technologies" (section 182(e)(5)). On the contrary, they were evidently determined by the SCAQMD and CARB tobe both available and necessary for expeditious progress in reducing emissions in thenearterm inthe South Coast. Should eitherCARB or the SCAQMD determine that new information requires areconsideration ofthenear-term feasibility ofthe 1994 SIP near-term measures, the agencies must submitaSIP revision demonstrating convincingly thatthe standards defined in this paragraph above for conversion ofnear-term measures to section 182(e)(5) new technology measures has been met. Absent such aconvincing showing, a SIP revision will notbe approved by EPA.

In view ofcontinuingprogress inthe development and successful application of control technologies and control techniques, the amount and relative proportion of reductions from measures scheduled for long-term adoption under section 182(e)(5),

as compared to measures already adopted in regulatory form or scheduled for near-term adoption, should clearly decrease in any future SIPupdate. EPA willnot approve a SIP revision that contains an increase in the amount andrelative proportion ofreductions scheduled for long-term adoption under section 182(e)(5) thatis inconsistent with the standard defined in thepreceding paragraph. Further, to theextent new modeling performed in any subsequent SIPrevision demonstrates thatthere is an increase inthe year 2010 carrying capacityfor ROG and NOx, this change shall notbeused to decrease the amount ofemissions reductions scheduled to beachieved by anynear-term
measure from the 1994 SIPunless CARBor the SCAQMDmake the convincing showing required by thepreceding paragraph. (62 FR 1179)

As mentioned, the 1997 ozone plan deletes or relaxes some 30 VOC/NOx
near-term measures in the 1994 ozone SIP, shifts others to the contingency/ further study category or to the longterm measure category, and decreases the proportion ofVOC emission reductions from near-term measures, while increasing the carrying capacity for VOC. 15

15The 1997 ozone plan adds several new
measures: FLX 01 Intercredit TradingProgram, FLX 02Air Quality Investment Program, andMSC 03 Promotion ofCatalyst-Surface Coating Technology Programs for AirConditioning Units, MON 09In-UseVehicle Emission Mitigation, MON 10 Emissions Reduction Credit forTruck Stop Electrification, and MOF 07Credits for the Replacement ofExistingPleasure CraftEngines with New LowerPollutingEngines. All ofthese Chapter 9 ofthe 1997 plan addresses the SIP approval criteria quoted above by briefdiscussions and by labelling those 1994 SIP measures that are deleted (14 VOC/NOx measures) or placed in acontingency/further study category (17 VOC/NOx measures) as "not cost-effective," "technically infeasible," "minimal emission reduction potential," "low public acceptability," and "economic concerns, implementation authority."

EPA believes that the 1997 ozone plan revision violates the intent ofCAA section 182(e)(5). This section ofthe Act

was intended to allow an extreme ozone nonattainment area additional time, if necessary, beyond the November 15, 1994 ozone SIP submittal deadline, to develop, adopt, and submit some ofthe specific regulations and programs needed to achieve attainment. EPA finds

no indication that theprovision was designed to allow a state to design SIP revisions that progressively postpone SIP commitments to adopt regulations and programs in the near-term, and in

so doing to shiftthe balance ofthe SIP increasingly toward vague and undocumented future commitments. EPA therefore is inclined to consider the increased reliance ofthe 1997 ozone plan on long-term, conceptual measures to be a basis for disapproval ofthe control measure portion oftheplan. However, the Agency particularly solicits public comment on whether the proposed 1997 revision can be reconciled with the purpose and language ofCAA section 182(e)(5) or should be disapproved, in part,because the South Coast's substitute plan is inconsistent with this section ofthe Act.

As discussed in Section II.D.2 above, EPA believes that the SCAQMD recognizes that additional near-term

measures can be added to avoid increasingthe proportion ofemission reductions assigned to the long-term

measure category. SCAQMD adoption and submittal ofreplacement near-term

measures could ensure that the plan complies with the Act's provisions relating to inclusion oflong-term

measures in the attainment demonstration.
E.A ttainmentDem onstration

The attainment demonstration was conducted using the Urban Airshed Model. The UAM analysis uses 4 episodes in 1987, including a September 7-9 episode with a peak concentration of0.33 ppm.

measures, however, are designed to enhance compliance flexibility and none contributes emissionsreductions. 

### 1777

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1777 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules

Previous SCAQMD modeling analyses alsoused a more challenging episode, June 5-7, 1985, which had apeak concentration of0.36 ppm. For the 1997 plan, theSCAQMD modeled the 1985 episode but did not show attainment with all control measures, and the episode was dropped forpurposes ofthe attainment demonstration. SCAQMD based its decision not touse the 1985 episode on theage ofthe episode and the District's contention that theepisode reflects meteorological conditions that rarely occurin the South Coast. Current EPA modelingguidelines allow use ofa "weight ofevidence" analysis tojustify abandonment ofepisodes with extremely raremeteorological conditions. 16

### On November 18, 1998, the SCAQMD submitted a weight of evidence analysis for theJune 1985 episode. 1 7

### A copyofthis analysishas been placed in the docket forthis rulemaking. The analysis addresses EPA's current modelingguidance and argues forelimination ofthe 1985 episode under a weight ofevidence approach. Attachment Bto the November 18, 1998, SCAQMD correspondence addresses the acceptability oftheremaining 4 episodes as a basis foran attainment demonstration. The SCAQMD provides evidence thatthe episodes are representative ofthetypes of meteorological episodes expected in the South Coast AirBasin when high ozone concentrations occur. Theevidence examines the episodes based on the deviation index (HorieCART analysis) and the Chu-Cox methodology for assessing episode frequency.

The modelperformance for the 1987 episodes shows ahigh systematic bias (forexample, ozone underprediction of 44% forJune 24and 40% forJune 25; 47% for September 8 and 38% for September 9). This underprediction is significantly reduced ifmotor vehicle VOC emissions are doubled. For example, the underprediction becomes 24% forJune 24and 19% forJune 25; and 2% for September 8 and 3% for September 9.

The SCAQMD contends thatthis inventory adjustment is warranted, sinceit is generally conceded thatmotor vehicle VOC emissions were substantially underestimated in the 1987historical episode emissions calculations. Ifthis inventory adjustment isvalid, modelperformance

16U.S.E.P.A., Guidance on Use ofModeled
Results toDemonstrate Attainment ofthe Ozone NAAQS, EPA 454/B 95 007 (1996).

1Letterfrom Barry R.Wallerstein, SCAQMD
Executive Officer, to FeliciaMarcus, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, Attachment A. for the UAM simulation is within EPA's acceptable range ofaccuracy.

The 1997 ozone plan's modeling analysis predicts attainment with VOC emissions are reduced to 413 tons per day (tpd) and NOx emissions are reduced to 530 tpd. For comparison purposes, the 1994 ozone SIP projected attainment with carrying capacities of 323 tpd VOC and 553 tpd NOx,while the final 1994 AQMP identifies the carrying capacities as 313 tpd VOC and 274 tpd NOx.

The ozone plan's modeled attainment demonstration isbased on emission reductions from the 1997 ozone plan's suite ofcontrol measures. As discussed in section II.D., EPAproposes to disapprove these control measures for the 3 reasons discussed in section II.D. The 1997 ozone plan therefore does not meet the CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requirement that the plan include "(a) demonstration that the plan, as revised, will provide for attainment ofthe ozone national ambient air quality standard by the applicable attainment date." EPA proposes to disapprove the ozone plan with respect to the attainment demonstration requirements ofCAA section 182(c)(2)(A), because ofthe deficiencies in the control measure portions oftheplan.

E. Quantitativemilestonesand reasonable further progress(RFP)
1. Clean Air Act Provisions

CAA section 182(c)(2) requires that

ozone SIPs include quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every 3 years untilthe area is redesignated attainment and that demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment bythe applicable date. CAA section 171(a) ofthe Act defines RFP as "such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required bythe Administrator for the purpose ofensuring attainment ofthe applicable national ambient air quality standard bythe applicable date."

For ozone areas classified as serious

or above, CAA section 182(c)(2) requires that the SIP mustprovide for reductions in ozone season, weekday VOC emissions ofatleast 3 percent per year net ofgrowth averaged over each consecutive 3-year period beginning in 1996 untilthe attainment date. This is in addition to the 15percent reduction

over the first 6-year period required by CAA section 182(b)(1) for moderate

areas. EPA believes that "(by) meeting the specific 3 percent reduction requirements (ofCAA section 182(c)(2)), the State will also satisfy the general RFP requirements ofsection 172(c)(2) for the time period discussed." (General Preamble, April 16, 1992, 57 FR 13518.)

The 1997 ozone plan shows reductions consistent with the 3 percent per year rate ofprogress requirement for 1999 through use ofVOC emission reductions alone. Beginning in 2002, however, the plan does not have enough creditable VOC reductions to meet the milestones, and must substitute NOx reductions, as allowed byCAA section 182(c)(2)(C). The schedule for these milestone years in the 1997 ozone plan is 6 percent VOC and 3 percent NOxin 2005; 0.5percent VOC and 8.5 percent NOx in 2008; and 0.5 percent VOC and 5.5percent NOx in 2010. The rate of progress schedule in the 1994 ozone SIP far exceeds the CAA progress requirements for each milestone year using VOCemission reductions alone (see EPA's final approval ofthe 1994

ozone SIP,January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1181, table entitled "South Coast ROP Forecasts").

Compliance with the milestone and RFP requirements ofthe Act requires that all ofthe creditable emission reductions be approved as enforceable parts ofthe SIP (General Preamble, April 16, 1992, at 57 FR 13517). Because EPA proposes to disapprove the control

measure provisions in the ozone plan, EPA also proposes to disapprove the plan with respect to the CAA section 182(c)(2) quantitative milestone and reasonable further progress requirements.

F. Summary ofProposedEPAActions

EPA proposes the following actions

on elements ofthe South Coast ozone plan, as submitted on February 5, 1997: (1) Approval ofprocedural requirements, under sections 110(a)(1) and 110(k)(3) ofthe CAA;

(2) Approval ofbaseline and projected emission inventories, under sections 110(a)(1), 110(k)(3), 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) ofthe CAA;

(3) Disapproval ofthe VOC and NOx control measure provisions, under CAA sections 110(k)(3), 110(1), 172(c)(6), and 182(e)(5);

(4) Disapproval ofthe attainment demonstration, under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 182(c)(2)(A) ofthe CAA; and

(5) Disapproval ofquantitative milestones and reasonable further progress, under sections 110(k)(3) and 182(c)(2) ofthe CAA.

As discussed above, thepartial disapproval ofthe ozone SIP revision does not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179, since EPA's approval ofthe 1994 South Coast ozone 

### 1778

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1778 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules

plan with respect to the same requirements remains in force.

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

III.Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order12866

The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB)has exempted thisregulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order12875

Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is notrequired by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office ofManagement and Budget a description ofthe extent ofEPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature oftheir
concerns, copies ofany written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue theregulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives ofState, local and tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates." Today's rule does not create a mandate

on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) ofE.O. 12875 do not apply to thisrule.

C.Executive Order13045

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

D.Executive Order13084

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

E. RegulatoryFlexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct

aregulatory flexibility analysis ofany rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, Icertify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due
to the nature ofthe Federal-State relationship under the Clean AirAct, preparation offlexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry intothe economic reasonableness ofstate action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.7410(a)(2).

F. UnfundedMandates

Under section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare abudgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed orfinal rule that includes a Federal mandate that mayresult in estimated annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of$100 million or more.Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives oftherule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA
to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that maybe significantly oruniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this action does not include a Federal mandate that mayresult in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to theprivate sector. This Federal action proposes to approve and disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,or tribal governments, orto the private sector, result from this action.

List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart 52

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

### 1779

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1779 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63and 302 [FRL-6216-8]
RIN2060-AI08

Redefinition ofthe Glycol Ethers Category Under Section 112(b)(1) of the Clean AirActand Section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The proposed rule, upon promulgation, will amend the Clean Air Act (CAA) list ofhazardous air pollutants (HAP) in section 112(b)(1). Under section 112(b)(3)(D), EPA may delete specific substances from listed categories. This proposed rule modifies the definition ofthe glycol ethers category in a manner to exclude each of the compounds known as surfactant alcohol ethoxylates and their derivatives (SAED). This delisting action is being proposed byEPA in response to an analysis ofpotential exposure and hazards ofSAED that was prepared by the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) and submitted to EPA. Based on this information, EPA has made an initial determination that there are adequate data on thehealth and environmental effects ofthese substances to determine that emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation, or deposition ofthese substances may not reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse human health or environmental effects. By today's document, EPA is also proposing to make conforming changes in the definition ofglycol ethers with respect to designation ofhazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). DATES: Written comments must be received byEPA on orbefore March 15, 1999. The EPA will hold apublic hearing ifEPA receives a written request for such a hearing on orbefore February 11, 1999. Ifa hearing isrequested in a timely manner, EPA will publish an additional document in the Federal Register advising interested persons of the date, time, and location ofthe hearing. Moreover, if ahearing is held, EPA will keep the record open for 30 days after such hearingto receive rebuttal or supplementary information. ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on both ofthe proposed actions discussed in this notice should be submitted (in duplicate ifpossible) to the EPA's Air and Radiation and Information Docket (6101),Attention Docket Number A-98- 39, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Docket.Docket No. A-98-39, which includes a copy of the submission by the SDA, and an EPA analysis ofthat submission, will be available for inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, atthe EPA's Air and Radiation and Information Docket, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Roy L. Smith, Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (MD-15),Research Triangle Park, NC27711; (919) 541- 5362. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Listing andDelisting ofHAP
Section 112ofthe CAA contains a mandate for EPA to evaluate and control emissions ofHAP. Section 112(b)(1) includes an initial list ofHAP that is composed ofspecific chemical compounds and groups ofcompounds. This list is used to identify source categories for which the EPA will subsequently promulgate emissions standards.

Section 112(b)(2) requires EPA to conduct periodic reviews ofthe initial list ofHAP set forth in section 112(b)(1) and outlines criteria to be applied in deciding whether to add or delete particular substances. Section 112(b)(2) identifies pollutants that should be added to the list as:

* * *pollutants which present, or may present, through inhalation or otherroutes of exposure, athreat ofadverse human health effects (including,butnotlimited to, substances which are known to be, ormay reasonably be anticipated to be, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, which

cause reproductive dysfunction, or which are acutely or chronically toxic) or adverse environmental effects whether through ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation, deposition, or otherwise * * *
Section 112(b)(3) establishes general requirements for petitioning EPA to modify the HAP listby adding or deleting a substance. In general, the burden is on a petitioner to include sufficient information to support the requested addition or deletion under the substantive criteria set forth in section 112(b)(3)(B) and (C). The Administrator must either grant ordeny apetition within 18 months ofreceipt. Ifthe Administrator decides to grant a petition, the Agency publishes awritten explanation ofthe Administrator's decision, along with a proposed rule to add ordelete the substance. Ifthe Administrator decides to deny the petition, the Agency publishes awritten explanation ofthe basis for denial. A decision to deny apetition is final Agency action subject to review in the D.C. CircuitCourt ofAppeals under section 307(b).

To promulgate a final rule deleting a substance from the HAP list, section 112(b)(3)(C) provides that the Administrator must determine that:

* * *there is adequate dataon thehealth andenvironmental effects ofthe substance to determine that emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation, or deposition ofthe substance may not reasonably be anticipated tocause any adverse effects tothehuman health or adverse environmental effects. The EPA will grant a petition to delete

a substance and publish aproposed rule to delete that substance ifit makes an initial determination thatthis criterion has been met. After affording an opportunity for comment and for a hearing, EPA will make afinal determination whether the criterion has been met.

The Administrator may also act to add

or delete a substance on her own initiative. In this instance, the EPAhas been engaged in a substantive dialogue with the SDA, a national trade association representing manufacturers ofcleaning products and ingredients, concerning the toxicity ofand exposure to SAED, agroup ofcompounds which is within the current definition ofthe glycol ethers category as listed in section 112(b)(1). At the request ofEPA, the SDA compiled information on this class ofcompounds needed byEPA to apply the statutory criteria for delisting under section 112(b)(3). The SDA submitted theresulting report to EPA. Although the SDA has elected not to formally petition EPAto delete SAED compounds from the HAP list, EPAhas made an initial determination based on the SDA report that the statutory criteria for delisting SAED are satisfied, and is, therefore, issuing thisproposal.

EPA does not interpret section 112(b)(3)(C) to require absolute certainty that a pollutant will not cause adverse effects on human health or the environment before it maybe deleted 

## 1780

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1780 1999