+(,121/,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) If space is not adequate to list the

required information as shown in the

sample labels in paragraph (e)(1 1) of

this section, the list may be split and

continued to the right as long as the

headings are repeated. The list to the

right shall be set off by a line that

distinguishes it and 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,

A ssociate Corn mission erfor Policy

Coordination.

[FR Doc. 99 564 Filed 1 11 99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 126

[USCG-1998-4302]

RIN 2115-AE22

Handling of Class 1 (Explosive)

Materials or Other Dangerous Cargoes

within or Contiguous to Waterfront

Facilities

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is reopening

the comment period for the notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for

Handling of Class 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 must reach the Coast

Guard on or before March 1, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

the Docket Management 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 Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments will become part

of this docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room PL-401,

located on the Plaza Level of the 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 at http://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. If you 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

all comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing to the DOT Docket

Management Facility at the address

under ADDRESSES. If you want

acknowledgment of receipt of your

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 a public

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. If we 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 CFR part 126

prescribing requirements for designated

waterfront facilities that handle, 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 the requirements to meet

current industry standards for

containerized hazardous material

cargoes. The closing date for the original

comment period was scheduled for

December 28, 1998.

During the original NPRM comment

period we received several comments

requesting an extension of the 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

shipping industry 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

Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 99 536 Filed 1 11 99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-189-0128; FRL-6217-8]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; CaliforniaSouth Coast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

in part and disapprove in part a state

implementation plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of California to

provide for attainment of the ozone

national ambient air quality standard

(NAAQS) in the Los Angeles-South

Coast Air Basin Area (South Coast). EPA

is proposing the approval and

disapproval of the SIP revisions under

provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

regarding EPA action on SIP submittals,

SIPs for national primary and secondary

ambient air quality standards, and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by February 11, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Dave Jesson, Air Planning Office (AIR2), Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

The rulemaking docket for this notice

is available for public 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 of the docket.

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the following

locations:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, California

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, California

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 of EPA's approval of the 1994

ozone SIP. The 1997 proposed revision

to the ozone SIP was not federally

required, but was adopted to address, in

a comprehensive and consistent fashion,

federal and state requirements for

particulate matter, carbon monoxide,

and nitrogen dioxide, and state

requirements for an ozone plan update.

In order to understand the basis for

EPA's proposed disapproval of the 1997

revision, it is necessary to understand

the 1994 ozone SIP, several aspects of

which are unique. An overview of the

1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast

appears below, followed by a

description of the 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, as the first fully approved and

federally enforceable ozone SIP for the

South Coast.

The 1994 plan was built on 4 decades

of State 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 of this extraordinary

effort by elected officials, governmental

1

For a description of the boundaries of the Los

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, see 40 CFR 81.305.

The nonattainment area includes all of Orange

County and the more populated portions of Los

Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.

agencies, industry, and the residents of

Southern California, air pollution levels

had been dramatically reduced: the

number of days per year with dirty air

and the peak concentrations had

dropped by more than 60 percent, and

severe episode days (where health

warnings are issued to all residents and

pollution-generating activities must be

curtailed) had been completely

eliminated. This accomplishment is

more remarkable in view of Southern

California's extraordinary growth during

these years and the continued

dependence of the 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 at or 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 of the

country in violation of the nitrogen

dioxide NAAQS under the 1990 CAA

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 of a 1994 plan laying

out the strategies that would bring clean

air by the federal deadline of 2010.

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 Socioeconomic Assessm ent Report for the

1994 Air Quality Managem ent Plan (SCAQMD,

August 1994) calculated total benefits of clean 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 not include unquantifiable

benefits such as reduction in chronic illness,

reduction in lung function in human beings,

reduced damage to livestock and plant life, and

erosion of building materials. Furthermore, 75% of

the costs of the plan are associated with measure

TCM 04 (transportation improvements).

for onroad and nonroad vehicles and

engines.

The Governing Board of the SCAQMD

and the Southern California Association

of Governments (SCAG) committed to

implement 60 new specific controls,

and SCAQMD also bound itself to

achieve additional emission reductions

in the future from advanced technology

measures.

Together these State and local

measures would reduce the 1990

emissions level of 2878 tons per day

(tpd) to 1032 tpd. Modeling analyses by

the SCAQMD estimated, however, that

the smog problem could not be solved

without an additional 156 tpd reduction

in pollutants. The State determined that

we should achieve these remaining

reductions by promulgating national

mobile source controls in accordance

with our new authorities under the 1990

CAA Amendments.

We concluded that California had no

authority under the U.S. Constitution or

the Clean Air Act to require us to

contribute particular measures and

emissions reductions to the SIP for the

South Coast. We appreciated, however,

the significant level of commitment by

the State and SCAQMD reflected in the

1994 ozone plan and we wished to do

our share in contributing further mobile

source controls consistent with our

national authorities and responsibilities.

We also saw merit in 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 SIP based upon commitments by

the State and EPA to participate in a

public consultative process on mobile

source controls, leading to a decision in

mid-1997 on what further reductions

needed to be achieved and which entity

should have responsibility for them. We

and California further committed to

adopt any additional controls, as

necessary and appropriate, to achieve

the emission reductions required for

attainment of the ozone standard in the

South Coast.

We believe that we have now

achieved, or have rulemaking in

progress to accomplish, almost all of the

reductions the State purported to assign

to us in the 1994 ozone SIPapproximately 145 tpd out of a 156 tpd "assignment." This is the result of close

coordination between California and

EPA and cooperation by manufacturers

and users of mobile source engines and

equipment, culminating in agreements

on aggressive new standards for trucks

and buses and most categories of

nonroad mobile sources, ranging from

forklifts to outboard engines, and from

locomotives to tractors. We believe 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 of the 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 of the long life-span of these

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 a very

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 will remain 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 adopt regulations for

all remaining 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 of the State

and EPA, and schedule adoption of

controls to fulfill those responsibilities.

Thus, we believe that both District

suits are a waste of public resources,

and we conclude that it would be

inconsistent with our pending

obligations to resolve the public

consultative process for us 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 of the

1994 ozone SIP, the SCAQMD unveiled

a replacement 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 statutory progress

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 of the 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 of control 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 of our country's most

severe environmental and public health

problems-problems highlighted by the

hundreds of scientific studies that

formed the basis of the new and revised

NAAQS. We encouraged the District to

focus on implementation of the newly

approved SIP and, if measures 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 the plan as a

proposed SIP revision in early February

1997. We continued to express our

concerns and to remind the SCAQMD

that the District, responsible for public

health in the most polluted area of the

country, had an obligation to increase

its efforts rather than regress. We have

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 of the

SIP represented by the 1997 plan.

After adopting a plan revision that

postponed or eliminated most of the

near-term measures in the 1994 ozone

SIP, the District has since failed to meet

most of its implementation

commitments in the 1997 ozone plan.

This is consistent with the District's

record over the past 4 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 a handful of new measures

designed to reduce pollution levels.

On September 26, 1997,

environmental groups sued the

SCAQMD and CARB in federal district

court, seeking a court 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 Spring of 1998, and

a proposed settlement was drafted in

late June. 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 1997 plans, repeating the

argument that the plan should be

approved. We have been consistent in

expressing our contrary view, that the

Clean Air Act gives us authority to

approve revised SIPs but does not allow

us to approve revisions that represent a

significant retreat from the approved

SIP. We believe that it would be

particularly ill-advised to approve major

relaxations in the South Coast, where

the public suffers by far the worst

pollution levels in the country.

We continue to hope that the

SCAQMD will decide to meet its

difficult responsibilities to protect

public health and, in so doing, will both

strengthen the plan and begin fully to

implement the plan to fulfill the 1994

plan's promise of clean air progress.

B. The South Coast Ozone Problem

Ground-level ozone is formed when

nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), and oxygen react in

the presence of sunlight, generally at

elevated temperatures. 4 Strategies for

reducing smog typically require

reductions in both VOC and NOx

emissions.

Ozone causes serious health problems

by damaging lung tissue and sensitizing

the lungs to other irritants. When

inhaled, even at very low levels, ozone

can cause acute respiratory problems;

aggravate asthma; cause temporary

decreases in lung capacity of 15 to 20

percent in healthy adults, cause

inflammation of lung tissue; lead to

hospital admissions and emergency

room visits; and impair the body's

immune system defenses, making

people more susceptible to respiratory

illnesses, including bronchitis and

pneumonia. Children are most at risk

from exposure to ozone because they

breathe more air per pound of body

weight than adults; their respiratory

systems are still developing and thus

more susceptible to environmental

threats; and children exercise outdoors

more than adults in the high-ozone

months of summer.

Direct exposure to NOx and VOCs

also has adverse public health

consequences. Exposure to elevated

NOx concentrations can reduce

breathing efficiency, increase lung and

airway irritation, and exacerbate

symptoms of respiratory illness, lung

4 The South Coast plan sometimes substitutes the

term Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. 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 or known

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 of significant respiratory and

cardiovascular-related effects, including

premature death, increased

hospitalization, increased emergency

room visits, increased respiratory

symptoms, increased disease (especially

among children 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 of the CAA, EPA

established primary, health-related

NAAQS for ozone: 0.12 ppm averaged

over a 1-hour period. See 44 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

a 24-hour period, and 50 ug/m3 as an

annual arithmetic average of the 24-hour

samples. See 52 FR 24672 (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 of 0.08

ppm averaged over an 8-hour period (62

FR 38855). EPA has not yet issued

specific plan and control requirements

for the new and revised NAAQS.

The South Coast has continuously

had by far the worst 1-hour ozone

concentrations in the country, both in

terms of peak concentrations and

number of violations. 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 0.20 ppm), compared to only 1 in

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 of U.S. urbanized areas,

with only Phoenix recording a worse

level.

C. Clean A irA ct Requirements

The Federal CAA was substantially

amended in 1990 to establish new

planning requirements and attainment

deadlines for the NAAQS. Under

section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, areas

designated nonattainment prior to

enactment of the 1990 amendments,

including the South Coast, were

designated nonattainment by operation

of law.

Under section 181(a) of the Act, each

ozone area designated nonattainment

under section 107(d) was also classified

by operation of law as either marginal,

moderate, serious, severe, or extreme,

depending on the 1986-1988 design

value for the area. An ozone area with

a design 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 of area. The attainment

date for an extreme area is as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than November 15, 2010.

Section 172 of the Act contains

general requirements applicable to SIPs

for nonattainment areas. Section 182 of

the Act set out additional air quality

planning requirements for ozone

nonattainment areas.

The most fundamental of these

nonattainment area provisions

applicable to the South Coast is the

requirement that the State submit by

November 15, 1994, a SIP demonstrating

attainment of the 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 of the

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 I of the 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 a more detailed discussion

of EPA'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. SIP Subm ittals Must Meet

Requirements of the Pre-Existing

NAAQS

Before the SCAQMD adopted the 1997

ozone plan, EPA had already announced

its intention to issue new and revised

ozone and PM NAAQS. The SCAQMD

included in Chapter 10 of the 1997

South Coast Air Quality Management

Plan (AQMP) an initial analysis of the

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

SCAQMD prepared the plans to address

only the NAAQS then in effect.

Although EPA has now promulgated

revised ozone NAAQS, EPA is not

evaluating the plan based upon the

NAAQS issued in 1997. The Agency

will not require 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 until the area attains

NAAQS. Thus, the 1-hour NAAQS of

0.12 ppm 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. EPA Actions on Prior South Coast

Ozone SIP Revisions

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 a proposed 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 the plan's initial

implementation. On January 8, 1997 (62

FR 1150), EPA finalized approval of the

South Coast ozone plan, including the

ozone portions of the 1994 South Coast

5

EPA has determined that subpart 2 of part D of

Title I of the CAA should continue to apply as a

matter of law for the purposes of achieving

attainment of the current 1-hour ozone standard

until an area attains the standard. See the final rule

promulgating the revised ozone NAAQS (July 18,

1997, at 62 FR 38873 for ozone), "Implementation

Plan for Revised Air Quality Standards" (July 18,

1997, at 62 FR 38424), and "Guidance for

Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing

PM1O NAAQS" (memo from Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 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 Coast 1997 Plan Revision

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 of the 1997 AQMP. On

April 21, 1998, EPA granted interim

final approval to the 1997 South Coast

CO plan (63 FR 19661).7 EPA 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 of the

South Coast 1997 AQMP became

complete by operation of law 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 of the

plan. As discussed, EPA has not yet

6

Some of the State and SCAQMD measures in the

plan had been approved in prior rulemakings. See,

particularly, 60 FR 43379 (August 21, 1995),

approving CARB regulations relating to

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 these plan 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 (see 62

FR 1165 1168, January 8,1997) under section

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

National Highway System Designation Act (Pub. L.

104 59). 8 EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 1 10(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

issued its interpretation of CAA 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 has revised several of its

own measures that are part of the South

Coast plan, but at this time CARB has

submitted as a SIP revision 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

of Heavy-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 of the Plan Submittal and

Proposed EPA Action

A. Summary of Proposed 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 of the 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 of the plan and each of the

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 by the

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 by Michael P.

Kenny, Executive Officer of CARB, on

February 5, 1997. The SIP submittal

includes proof of publication for notices

of SCAQMD and CARB public hearings,

as evidence that all hearings were

properly noticed. Therefore, EPA

proposes to approve the 1997 ozone

plan as meeting the procedural

requirements of section 1 10(a)(1) of the

CAA.

C. Baseline and Projected Em issions

Inventory

The revised and updated emissions

inventory included in the 1997 AQMP

conforms to EPA's guidance

documents. 9 This EPA guidance allows

approval of California's motor vehicle

emissions factors in place of the

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

motor vehicles 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.

SCAG provided the baseline

socioeconomic data used in the plan.

These forecasts include the following

predicted growth through the ozone

attainment year.

9

See, for example, Procedures for the Preparation

of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and

Precursors of Ozone, Volume I: General Guidance

for Stationary 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

P o p u la tio n ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 3 .8 1 4 .8 1 6 .7

Daily Vehicle M iles Traveled (VM T) ................................................................................................................................. 293.3 317.9 377.9

Daily Vehicle Trips ........................................................................................................................................................... 31.2 33.2 37.9

EPA notes that these predictions

assume that the area's growth will

increase at rates 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, if necessary,

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 the base year and

projected emissions inventories, as

described in Chapter 3 and Appendix 3

of the AQMP, are acceptable.

Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve

the 1997 ozone plan with respect to the

emissions inventory requirements of

sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the

CAA.

D. Control Measures

CAA sections 1 10(a)(2)(A) and

172(c)(6) require that all measures and

other elements in the SIP be

enforceable. As discussed at length in

EPA's approval of the 1994 California

ozone SIPs, EPA has interpreted these

provisions to allow for approval of

attainment demonstrations that rely, 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

10

The 1997 AQMP's growth projections are also

considerably reduced from those used in the 1994

ozone SIP, which used 2010 projections of 17.4

million for population, 413.9 million miles for daily

VMT, and 45.7 million vehicle trips per day.

adoption in the future are commonly

referred to as "committal measures." In

the case of the South Coast, the

committal measures are further divided

into near-term measures and long-term

(or new-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 of near-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 the plan schedules

SCAQMD adoption of 23 VOC/NOx

regulations or programs by the end of

1998, the SCAQMD has adopted less

than 10, and no additional measures are

scheduled for adoption by the end of the

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, if the adoption dates have

passed and the rules or programs have

not been adopted. The SCAQMD's

faithful implementation of the plan

would cure this deficiency.

2. The Control Measures Are an

Impermissible Relaxation of the 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, SCAQMD removed,

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-D Marine/Pleasure Craft Coatings,

CTS-E Adhesives, CTS-F Motor Vehicle

Non-Assembly Coating, CTS-G Paper/

Fabric/Film Coatings, CTS-H Metal

Parts/Product Coatings, CTS-I Graphic

Arts/Screen Printing, CTS-JWood

Products Coatings, CTS-K Aerospace/

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 of Liquid Products, FUG-04

Fugitive Emissions of VOCs, RFL-02

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, 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 of Materials 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

not include control measures approved

as part of the 1994 ozone SIP but

without assigned emission reduction

credits.

The scale of the SIP relaxation may be

seen in the table below, "South Coast

1994 Ozone SIP and 1997 Ozone Plan

VOC Emission Reductions from

SCAQMD/SCAG Local Rules for Each

Rate-of-Progress Milestone Year." 11

liThe table is not adjusted to harmonize the

control category baseline emission inventories. A

small number of near-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 1997 plan, 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 of the

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 PLAN VOC 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

N e a r-T e rm .............................................................................................................10 4 18 6 2 3 3 2 6 8 2 8 5

L o n g -T e rm .............................................................................................................0 2 0 3 2 1 2 1 1 8 0

T o ta l ..............................................................................................................

1 0 4 2 0 7 2 6 6 3 8 9 4 6 5

1997 Ozone Plan

N e a r-T e rm .............................................................................................................1 1 4 1 6 7 8 6 9 1

L o n g -T e rm ........................................................................................................................................ 0 0 3 5 4 8 9

T o ta l ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1 4 1 7 0 1 4 0 1 8 0

Section 110(1) of the 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 of the Act. Based on the

measures relaxed or deleted and the

associated loss of emissions reductions,

EPA concludes that the 1997 ozone plan

constitutes an unapprovable relaxation

of the ozone SIP.12 The State has not

demonstrated why it is not reasonable

or feasible for the SCAQMD to adopt

measures sufficient to achieve emission

reductions on the 1994 ozone SIP

schedule, thus potentially expediting

attainment of the standard.

EPA believes that the SCAQMD can

identify and adopt substitute near-term

measures. In fact, the SCAQMD has

already adopted or scheduled for nearterm adoption some measures 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 along with a

demonstration that the amended plan

12 The SCAQMD 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) of the CAA

actually requires that a SIP "provide for revision of

such plan from time to time as may be necessary

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 or more expeditious emission

reductions. In contrast, the District has elected to

relax its plan, and the governing provision of the

Act for relaxations is section 110(1). 13 For example, SCAQMD's June 13, 1997

amendment to Rule 1171 Solvent Cleaning

Operations contributes VOC reductions not

specifically called for in the 1997 plan. As an

example of another feasible control option that

could achieve significant VOC reductions, EPA has

encouraged SCAQMD implementation of more

stringent requirements for spray booths.

provides for attainment on a schedule

that is as expeditious as practical.

3. The Plan Includes Unlawful

Assignments of Control 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 1994 plan,

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 at the conclusion of this

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 of the 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 at the

end of the public 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 40 CFR 52.241.

EPA has not yet concluded the public

consultative process, but has been sued

by environmental groups to do so

(Coalition for Clean Air, et. al. vs. South

Coast Air Quality Management District,

California Air Resources Board, and

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

No. CV 97-6916 HLH (C.D. Cal.)).

Subsequently, the SCAQMD also sued

EPA for failing to adopt certain of the

Federal Measures included in

California's 1994 ozone SIP and to

resolve the public 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 of EPA 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 of the imminent conclusion of

the public consultative process

provided for in EPA's final approval of

the 1994 ozone SIP, the Agency has

determined that it is not appropriate to

approve another South Coast plan that

includes emission reductions associated

with specific Federal Measures assigned

by the State to EPA, much less a plan

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 or the Constitution to assign SIP

responsibility to the Federal

government.

EPA expects that this particular SIP

deficiency will be resolved in the future

14 For example, the 1997 plan increases the

emission reduction assignment for measures M13

(Marine Vessels), 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, if appropriate, by

responsible agencies to adopt mobile

source control measures sufficient to

eliminate any shortfall in emissions

reductions that might remain at the end

of the public 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 of the 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 of the

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 a broad excuse for postponing

the adoption of available near-term

controls because they are difficult or

unpopular. Moreover, the progressive

nature of control technology

development is evidently a basic

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 of the 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 that these 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 of the section 182(e)(5)

provisions of the 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 any portion of the

emissions reductions scheduled to be

achieved as a result of implementation of

those near-term measures, may not be

converted, at some future time, into section

182(e)(5) new-technology measures or moved

into emissions reductions associated with

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

without a convincing showing in a SIP

revision that the technologies relied upon in

the near-term rules have been found to be

technologically infeasible or ineffective in

achieving emissions reductions in the nearterm. The near-term measures in the 1994 SIP

have not been determined to "anticipate

development of new control techniques or

improvement of existing control

technologies" (section 182(e)(5)). On the

contrary, they were evidently determined by

the SCAQMD and CARB to be both available

and necessary for expeditious progress in

reducing emissions in the near term in the

South Coast. Should either CARB or the

SCAQMD determine that new information

requires a reconsideration of the near-term

feasibility of the 1994 SIP near-term

measures, the agencies must submit a SIP

revision demonstrating convincingly that the

standards defined in this paragraph above for

conversion of near-term measures to section

182(e)(5) new technology measures has been

met. Absent such a convincing showing, a

SIP revision will not be approved by EPA.

In view of continuing progress in the

development and successful application of

control technologies and control techniques,

the amount and relative proportion of

reductions from measures scheduled for

long-term adoption under section 182(e)(5),

as compared to measures already adopted in

regulatory form or scheduled for near-term

adoption, should clearly decrease in any

future SIP update. EPA will not approve a

SIP revision that contains an increase in the

amount and relative proportion of reductions

scheduled for long-term adoption under

section 182(e)(5) that is inconsistent with the

standard defined in the preceding paragraph.

Further, to the extent new modeling

performed in any subsequent SIP revision

demonstrates that there is an increase in the

year 2010 carrying capacity for ROG and

NOx, this change shall not be used to

decrease the amount of emissions reductions

scheduled to be achieved by any near-term

measure from the 1994 SIP unless CARB or

the SCAQMD make the convincing showing

required by the preceding paragraph.

(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 of VOC emission

reductions from near-term measures,

while increasing the carrying capacity

for VOC. 15

15

The 1997 ozone plan adds several new

measures: FLX 01 Intercredit Trading Program,

FLX 02 Air Quality Investment Program, and MSC

03 Promotion of Catalyst-Surface Coating

Technology Programs for Air Conditioning Units,

MON 09 In -Use Vehicle Emission Mitigation,

MON 10 Emissions Reduction Credit for Truck

Stop Electrification, and MOF 07 Credits for the

Replacement of Existing Pleasure Craft Engines

with New Lower Polluting Engines. All of these

Chapter 9 of the 1997 plan addresses

the SIP approval criteria quoted above

by brief discussions and by labelling

those 1994 SIP measures that are

deleted (14 VOC/NOx measures) or

placed in a contingency/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 of CAA

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

specific regulations and programs

needed to achieve attainment. EPA finds

no indication that the provision 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 shift the balance of the SIP

increasingly toward vague and

undocumented future commitments.

EPA therefore is inclined to consider the

increased reliance of the 1997 ozone

plan on long-term, conceptual measures

to be a basis for disapproval of the

control measure portion of the plan.

However, the Agency particularly

solicits public comment on whether the

proposed 1997 revision can be

reconciled with the purpose and

language of CAA section 182(e)(5) or

should be disapproved, in part, because

the South Coast's substitute plan is

inconsistent with this section of the 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

increasing the proportion of emission

reductions assigned to the long-term

measure category. SCAQMD adoption

and submittal of replacement near-term

measures could ensure that the plan

complies with the Act's provisions

relating to inclusion of long-term

measures in the attainment

demonstration.

E. A ttainm ent Dem 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

of 0.33 ppm.

measures, however, are designed to enhance

compliance flexibility and none contributes

emissions reductions.

1777

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1777 1999
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 7/Tuesday, January 12, 1999/Proposed Rules

Previous SCAQMD modeling analyses

also used a more challenging episode,

June 5-7, 1985, which had a peak

concentration of 0.36 ppm. For the 1997

plan, the SCAQMD modeled the 1985

episode but did not show attainment

with all control measures, and the

episode was dropped for purposes of the

attainment demonstration. SCAQMD

based its decision not to use the 1985

episode on the age of the episode and

the District's contention that the episode

reflects meteorological conditions that

rarely occur in the South Coast. Current

EPA modeling guidelines allow use of a "weight of evidence" analysis to justify

abandonment of episodes with

extremely rare meteorological

conditions. 16 On November 18, 1998,

the SCAQMD submitted a weight of

evidence analysis for the June 1985

episode. 17 A copy of this analysis has

been placed in the docket for this

rulemaking. The analysis addresses

EPA's current modeling guidance and

argues for elimination of the 1985

episode under a weight of evidence

approach. Attachment B to the

November 18, 1998, SCAQMD

correspondence addresses the

acceptability of the remaining 4

episodes as a basis for an attainment

demonstration. The SCAQMD provides

evidence that the episodes are

representative of the types of

meteorological episodes expected in the

South Coast Air Basin when high ozone

concentrations occur. The evidence

examines the episodes based on the

deviation index (Horie CART analysis)

and the Chu-Cox methodology for

assessing episode frequency.

The model performance for the 1987

episodes shows a high systematic bias

(for example, ozone underprediction of

44% for June 24 and 40% for June 25;

47% for September 8 and 38% for

September 9). This underprediction is

significantly reduced if motor vehicle

VOC emissions are doubled. For

example, the underprediction becomes

24% for June 24 and 19% for June 25;

and 2% for September 8 and 3% for

September 9.

The SCAQMD contends that this

inventory adjustment is warranted,

since it is generally conceded that motor

vehicle VOC emissions were

substantially underestimated in the

1987 historical episode emissions

calculations. If this inventory

adjustment is valid, model performance

16 U.S.E.P.A., Guidance on Use of Modeled

Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone

NAAQS, EPA 454/B 95 007 (1996).

1Letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, SCAQMD

Executive Officer, to Felicia Marcus, Regional

Administrator, EPA Region IX, Attachment A.

for the UAM simulation is within EPA's

acceptable range of accuracy.

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 is based on emission

reductions from the 1997 ozone plan's

suite of control measures. As discussed

in section II.D., EPA proposes 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 of the 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 of CAA

section 182(c)(2)(A), because of the

deficiencies in the control measure

portions of the plan.

E. Quantitative milestones and

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 until the area is redesignated

attainment and that demonstrate

reasonable further progress (RFP)

toward attainment by the applicable

date. CAA section 171(a) of the 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 by the Administrator for the

purpose of ensuring attainment of the

applicable national ambient air quality

standard by the applicable date."

For ozone areas classified as serious

or above, CAA section 182(c)(2) requires

that the SIP must provide for reductions

in ozone season, weekday VOC

emissions of at least 3 percent per year

net of growth averaged over each

consecutive 3-year period beginning in

1996 until the attainment date. This is

in addition to the 15 percent 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 (of CAA section 182(c)(2)),

the State will also satisfy the general

RFP requirements of section 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 of progress requirement for

1999 through use of VOC 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 by CAA section

182(c)(2)(C). The schedule for these

milestone years in the 1997 ozone plan

is 6 percent VOC and 3 percent NOx in

2005; 0.5 percent VOC and 8.5 percent

NOx in 2008; and 0.5 percent VOC and

5.5 percent NOx in 2010. The rate of

progress schedule in the 1994 ozone SIP

far exceeds the CAA progress

requirements for each milestone year

using VOC emission reductions alone

(see EPA's final approval of the 1994

ozone SIP, January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1181,

table entitled "South Coast ROP

Forecasts").

Compliance with the milestone and

RFP requirements of the Act requires

that all of the creditable emission

reductions be approved as enforceable

parts of the 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 of Proposed EPA Actions

EPA proposes the following actions

on elements of the South Coast ozone

plan, as submitted on February 5, 1997:

(1) Approval of procedural

requirements, under sections 110(a)(1)

and 1 10(k)(3) of the CAA;

(2) Approval of baseline and projected

emission inventories, under sections

1 10(a)(1), 1 10(k)(3), 172(c)(3) and

182(a)(1) of the CAA;

(3) Disapproval of the VOC and NOx

control measure provisions, under CAA

sections 110(k)(3), 110(1), 172(c)(6), and

182(e)(5);

(4) Disapproval of the attainment

demonstration, under CAA sections

110(k)(3) and 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA;

and

(5) Disapproval of quantitative

milestones and reasonable further

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

182(c)(2) of the CAA.

As discussed above, the partial

disapproval of the ozone SIP revision

does not trigger mandatory sanctions

under CAA section 179, since EPA's

approval of the 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 for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a

regulation that is not required by statute

and that creates a mandate upon a State,

local or tribal government, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of

affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments "to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates."

Today's rule does not create a mandate

on State, local or tribal governments.

The rule does not impose any

enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply

to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be "economically

significant" as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

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 Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA's

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments "to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities." Today's rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this action

does not include a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This

Federal action proposes to approve 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, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Oxides of nitrogen, 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, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 99 666 Filed 1 11 99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63 and 302

[FRL-6216-8]

RIN 2060-AI08

Redefinition of the Glycol Ethers

Category Under Section 11 2(b)(1) of

the Clean Air Act and Section 101 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The proposed rule, upon

promulgation, will amend the Clean Air

Act (CAA) list of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) in section 1 12(b)(1).

Under section 112(b)(3)(D), EPA may

delete specific substances from listed

categories. This proposed rule modifies

the definition of the 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 by EPA in response to an

analysis of potential exposure and

hazards of SAED 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 the health and

environmental effects of these

substances to determine that emissions,

ambient concentrations,

bioaccumulation, or deposition of these

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 of glycol ethers with

respect to designation ofhazardous

substances under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA).

DATES: Written comments must be

received by EPA on or before March 15,

1999. The EPA will hold a public

hearing ifEPA receives a written request

for such a hearing on or before February

11, 1999. If a hearing is requested in a

timely manner, EPA will publish an

additional document in the Federal

Register advising interested persons of

the date, time, and location of the

hearing. Moreover, if a hearing is held,

EPA will keep the record open for 30

days after such hearing to receive

rebuttal or supplementary information.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on

both of the proposed actions discussed

in this notice should be submitted (in

duplicate if possible) 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 of that submission, will be

available for inspection and copying

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, at the 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 of Air Quality Planning

and Standards (MD-15), Research

Triangle Park, NC 27711; (919) 541-

5362.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Listing and Delisting of HAP

Section 112 of the CAA contains a

mandate for EPA to evaluate and control

emissions of HAP. Section 112(b)(1)

includes an initial list of HAP that is

composed of specific chemical

compounds and groups of compounds.

This list is used to identify source

categories for which the EPA will

subsequently promulgate emissions

standards.

Section 1 12(b)(2) requires EPA to

conduct periodic reviews of the initial

list of HAP set forth in section 1 12(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 other routes of

exposure, a threat of adverse human health

effects (including, but not limited to,

substances which are known to be, or may

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 1 12(b)(3) establishes general

requirements for petitioning EPA to

modify the HAP list by 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 or deny a petition

within 18 months of receipt. If the

Administrator decides to grant a

petition, the Agency publishes a written

explanation of the Administrator's

decision, along with a proposed rule to

add or delete the substance. If the

Administrator decides to deny the

petition, the Agency publishes a written

explanation of the basis for denial. A

decision to deny a petition is final

Agency action subject to review in the

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals under

section 307(b).

To promulgate a final rule deleting a

substance from the HAP list, section

1 12(b)(3)(C) provides that the

Administrator must determine that:

* * * there is adequate data on the health

and environmental effects of the substance to

determine that emissions, ambient

concentrations, bioaccumulation, or

deposition of the substance may not

reasonably be anticipated to cause any

adverse effects to the human health or

adverse environmental effects.

The EPA will grant a petition to delete

a substance and publish a proposed rule

to delete that substance if it makes an

initial determination that this criterion

has been met. After affording an

opportunity for comment and for a

hearing, EPA will make a final

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 EPA has

been engaged in a substantive dialogue

with the SDA, a national trade

association representing manufacturers

of cleaning products and ingredients,

concerning the toxicity of and exposure

to SAED, a group of compounds which

is within the current definition of the

glycol ethers category as listed in

section 112(b)(1). At the request of EPA,

the SDA compiled information on this

class of compounds needed by EPA to

apply the statutory criteria for delisting

under section 112(b)(3). The SDA

submitted the resulting report to EPA.

Although the SDA has elected not to

formally petition EPA to delete SAED

compounds from the HAP list, EPA has

made an initial determination based on

the SDA report that the statutory criteria

for delisting SAED are satisfied, and is,

therefore, issuing this proposal.

EPA does not interpret section

1 12(b)(3)(C) to require absolute certainty

that a pollutant will not cause adverse

effects on human health or the

environment before it may be deleted

1780

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 1780 1999