# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 61 Fed. Reg. 10920 1996
Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Dec 8 13:30:09 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. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

meeting will be included in the Administrative Record.
Executive Order12291

On March 30, 1992, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) granted the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) an exemption from sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 ofExecutive Order 12291 for actions related to approval or disapproval of State and tribal abandoned mine land reclamation plans and revisions thereof. Therefore, preparation ofa regulatory impact analysis is not necessary and OMB regulatory review is notrequired.
Executive Order12778

The Department ofthe Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 2 ofExecutive Order 12778 and has determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the applicable standards ofsubsections (a) and (b) ofthat section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language ofState and Tribal abandoned mine land reclamation plans and revisions thereof since each such plan is drafted and adopted by a specific State or Tribe, not by OSM. Decisions

on proposed State and Tribal abandoned mine land reclamation plans and revisions thereof submitted by aState or Tribe arebased on a determination of whether the submittal meets the requirements ofTitle IV ofthe Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (30 U.S.C. 1231-1243) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFRParts 884 and 888.
NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct

No environmental impact statement is required for thisrule since agency decisions on proposed State and Tribal abandoned mine land reclamation plans and revisions thereof are categorically excluded from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.4332) by the Manual ofthe Department ofthe Interior [5616 DM 6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)]. PaperworkReductionAct

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3507 etseq. RegulatoryFlexibilityAct

The Department ofthe Interior has determined that this rule will nothave

a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.).The State submittal which is the subject ofthis rule is based upon Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. Hence, this rule will

ensure that existing requirements established by SMCRA or previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented bythe State. In making the determination asto whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions in the analyses for the corresponding Federal regulations.
Listof Subjects in 30 CFRPart914

Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 8, 1996. Allen D. Klein, RegionalDirector, AppalachianRegional Coordinating Center. [FR Doc. 96 6443Filed 3 15 96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52 [CA114-1-7280; FRL-5439-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; CaliforniaOzone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTIONS: Notice ofproposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone for 7 nonattainment areas: South Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, and Santa Barbara, submitted in order to comply with the November 1994 deadline under the Clean Air Act (CAA).In addition, EPAproposes to approve specific local and statewide air pollution controlmeasures, including the California enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program.

EPA proposes to approve these revisions to the California SIP under provisions ofthe CAA regardingEPA action on SIP submittals for nonattainment areas.

EPA proposes to establish a consultative process on thepotential for additional mobile source controls that

can contribute to attainment in the South Coast. DATES: Written comments on the proposed EPA actions must be received by EPA at the address below on or before May 2, 1996. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed to: Regional Administrator, Attention: Office ofFederal Planning (A-1-2),Air and Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

Copies ofthe SIP submittal and materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in Docket No. A-96-13, which is available for viewing during normalbusiness hours atthe address shown above.

Copies ofthe SIP materials are also available for inspection at the addresses listed below: Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102),401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, California In addition, copies ofthe relevant local plan, the State plan (1994 California Ozone SIP), and EPA's technical support documents for this rulemaking are available atthe following locations: Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control

District, 26 Castilian Drive B-23, Goleta, California San Diego Air Pollution Control District,

9150 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego, California San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, 1999 Tuolumne Street, Fresno, California Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District, 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, California Mojave Desert AirQuality Management

District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite 200, Victorville, California South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California
Electronic Availability

This document and EPA's technical support documents are available at Region 9's site on the Internet's World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/ region09/air/sip/. FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Barrow, Director, Office ofFederal Planning (A-1-2), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-2434
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table ofContents I.Background

A. Summary B.Requirements oftheAct C.Affected Areas 

## 10920

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10920 1996

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

D. The California OzonePlans 1.SIP Submittals 2. EPACompleteness Findings E. Related SIP Approvals II. Review ofthe State Submittal

A. StateMeasures 1.Mobile Source Measures
a. Introduction b. Review ofMeasures (i)M1 (ii)M2 (iii)M3 (iv)M4 (v)M5 34 (vi)M7 (vii)M8 39 (viii)M9 (ix)M11 (x)AdditionalNew ControlTechnologies
c. EPA Action 2. I/M
a. Review ofProgram b. Emission Reductions
c. EPA Action 3. Consumer Products
a. Introduction b. Adopted Consumer Products Rules (i)Measure CP 1 (ii)Measure CP 3 (AerosolPaints)
c. Mid-Term Committal Measure (CP 2) d. Long-Term Committal Measure (CP 4)
e. Alternative Compliance Plans (ACPs) f.Emission Reductions g.EPA Action 4. Pesticides
a. Review ofMeasure b. Emission Reductions
c. EPA Action B. Federal Measures 1.StateApproach 2. EPAAction C. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and

Measures 1.Introduction and Common Elements
a.Emission Inventories (1) 1990Base Year Inventories (2)Inventory Projections b. Rate ofProgress
c. NOx Substitution d. Modeling (1)Introduction (2)Uncertainty and Model Performance (3)Number ofEpisodes (4)Attainment Test (5)Transport 2. Santa Barbara
a. Identification ofPlan b. 1990Base Year Inventories
c. SIPControl Measures (1)Description (2)EPAAction d. ROPProvisions (1)ROP Emission Targets (2)ROP Control Strategy (3)EPAAction
e. Demonstration ofAttainment (1)Control Strategy (2)Modeling andAttainment

Demonstration (3)EPAAction f.Overall EPAAction 3. San Diego
a. Identification ofPlan b. 1990Base Year Inventories
c. SIPControl Measures (1)Description (2)EPAAction d. ROPProvisions (1)ROP Emission Targets (2)ROP Control Strategy (3)EPAAction
e. Demonstration ofAttainment (1)Control Strategy (2)Modeling andAttainment

Demonstration (3)EPAAction f. Overall EPAAction 4. San Joaquin Valley
a. Identification ofPlan b. 1990Base Year Inventories
c. SIPControl Measures (1)Description (2)EPAAction d. ROPProvisions (1)ROP Emission Targets (2) 15% ROPControl Strategy (3)Post-1996 ROPControl Strategy (4)EPAAction
e. Demonstration ofAttainment (1)Control Strategy (2)Modeling andAttainment

Demonstration (3)EPAAction f. Overall EPAAction 5. Sacramento
a. Identification ofPlan b. 1990Base Year Inventories
c. SIPControl Measures (1)Description (2)EPAAction d. ROPProvisions (1)ROP Emission Targets (2) 15% ROPControl Strategy (3)Post-1996 ROPControl Strategy (4)EPAAction
e. Demonstration ofAttainment (1)Control Strategy (2)Modeling andAttainment

Demonstration (3)EPAAction f. Overall EPAAction 6. Ventura
a. Identification ofPlan b. 1990Base Year Inventories
c. SIPControl Measures (1)Description (2)EPAAction d. ROPProvisions (1)ROP Emission Targets (2) 15% ROPControl Strategy (3)Post-1996 ROPControl Strategy (4)EPAAction
e. Demonstration ofAttainment (1)Control Strategy (2)Modeling andAttainment

Demonstration (3)EPAAction f. Overall EPAAction 7. South Coast
a. Identification ofPlan b. 1990Base Year Inventories
c. SIPControl Measures (1)Description (2)EPAAction d. ROPProvisions (1)ROP Emission Targets (2) 15% ROPControl Strategy (3)Post-1996 ROPControl Strategy (4)EPAAction
e. Demonstration ofAttainment (1)Control Strategy (2)Modeling andAttainment

Demonstration (3)EPA Action f.Overall EPAAction 8.Southeast Desert
a.Identification ofPlans b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP ControlMeasures (1)Description (2)EPA Action d. ROP andAttainment Provisions (1)ROPand Attainment Emission Targets (2) StateApproach (3)Modeling and Attainment

Demonstration (4)EPA Action
e. Overall EPAAction III. Summary ofEPAActions IV. Regulatory Process V.Unfunded Mandates Appendix: Status ofEPA's Activities Relating tothe "Federal Measures" in the California SIPSubmittal
I. Background
A. Summary

Air pollution remains a significant public health concern in many parts of the country, including many areas in California. The Clean Air Act requires states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs) that lay out how areas will reduce pollution and attain the healthbased air quality standards for a number ofpollutants, including ground level

ozone.

On the Clean Air Act deadline for

ozone SIP submittals, November 15, 1994, the California AirResources Board (CARB) submitted to EPA the State's ozone plans, including State and local measures and regulations, emission inventories, modeling analyses, rate-of-progress (ROP) plans, and attainment demonstrations. This material was followed by several supplementary SIP submissions and technical documentation over the past year, addressing in still greater detail and more completely the critical ozone planning requirements ofthe Act.

Together these submissions present a road map ofhow the State ofCalifornia envisions meeting the health-based

ozone air quality standards in 7 distinct geographic areas within the State by the dates specified in the Clean Air Act. The submittals represent the culmination of years ofwork and collaboration among stakeholders at the local,regional, State, national, and even international level. The plans were carefully tailored to meet the clean air goals ofCalifornians, reflecting the social and economic priorities ofeach affected area within the State as well asthe legitimate

concerns ofnational and international

commerce.

In the last 30 years, California has significantly improved air quality in its cities through efforts by businesses and 

## 10921

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10921 1996

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

communities to reduce ground level

ozone pollution. California faces additional challenges in its fight for clean air because ofrapid growth in population and motor vehicle use as well as meteorological conditions conducive to ozone formation. Nevertheless, there are still several areas where air pollution continues to threaten publichealth, including Southern California, which violates the standard on almost one out ofevery three days-25 times more frequently than the next most polluted urban areas. The current plans build on California's pioneering air pollution control efforts to make progress against, and eventually eliminate, one ofthe most severe and intractable environmental and public health problems in the Country.

The Clean Air Act guarantees to all Americans healthy air to breathe. Unfortunately, approximately onequarter ofAmericans nationwide and

more than three-quarters ofall Californians are currently exposed to health-threatening levels ofair pollution. Ofthe top ten U.S. urban

areas with the most violations ofthe national ambient air quality standard for ozone, nine are located in California.

Ozone is ahighly reactive chemical compound which, at ground level, can affect both biological tissues and manmade materials. Ozone exposure causes
arange ofhuman pulmonary and respiratory health effects. While ozone's effects on thepulmonary function of sensitive individuals (e.g., asthmatics)

are ofprimary concern, evidence indicates that high ambient levels of

ozone can cause respiratory symptoms in healthy adults and children as well. For example, exposure to ozone for several hours at moderate concentrations, especially during outdoor work and exercise, has been found to decrease lung function, increase airway inflammation, increase sensitivity to other irritants, and impair lung defenses against infections in otherwise healthy adults and children. Other symptoms include chest pain, coughing, and shortness ofbreath.

There are also public health consequences from direct exposure to the twoprincipal pollutants that cause
ozone formation: oxides ofnitrogen (or NOx) and volatile organic compounds (orVOCs). Since attainment ofthe

ozone standard requires reductions in these two precursor pollutants, successful implementation ofthe ozone SIPs will yield additional health benefits. Exposure to nitrogen dioxide (a major component ofNOx)can reduce breathing efficiency and increase lung and airway irritation even in healthy adults; elevated NO2 levels also increase symptoms ofrespiratory illness, lung congestion, wheeze, and increased bronchitis in children. VOCs include many air toxics (such as benzene), which can cause respiratory, immunological, neurological, reproductive, developmental, and mutagenic problems. Some VOCs are also probable or known human carcinogens.

Finally, the conversion ofNOxinto fine particulate matter is a serious health concern, especially in Southern California. Studies have shown that high concentrations offine particulate matter are associated with major human health problems, including deleterious effects on breathing and therespiratory system, aggravation ofexisting respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alternations in the body's defense mechanisms against foreign materials, and damage to lung tissue resulting in fibrosis, carcinogenesis, and premature death.

In addition to impacts on public health, ozone damages vegetation and NOx emissions, in the form ofacid deposition, both harms plants and

causes eutrophication oflakes and streams. Estimates based on experimental studies ofthe major commercial crops in the U.S. suggests that ozone may be responsible for significant agricultural crop yield losses. In addition, ozone causes noticeable leaf damage in many crops, which reduces their marketability and value.

Efforts to clean the airrequire significant resources, but the benefits

are substantial. While itis easier to put
aprice tagon aregulation to limit air pollution than it is to assign a dollar value to being able to breathe without losing lung capacity or to see mountains that are a few miles away, weknow that impacts on individuals' health associated with air pollution have considerable physiological, psychological, and purely financial costs. Similarly, lower crop yields, decreased forest production, and accelerated building deterioration due to airpollution also have financial costs that will be reduced by attainment of the clean air standards.

At the same time, clean airhas benefits even beyond healthy breathing. The technologies and industries that will make air pollution aproblem ofthe past can also be the growth industries that bring to Californiajobs and dollars from markets all around the world. A recent World Bank study projects a $300 billion worldwide marketplace for clean technologies bythe year 2000. Innovative technologies offer the promise ofcontinued economic growth in concert with strong environmental protection.

To achieve public health progress
over thepast 30 years, California has already adopted uniquely stringent controls on a vast array ofindustrial sources, consumerproducts, and motor vehicles. As developed by California and Californians, these existing regulations and the SIP'sproposed enhancements to them promote technological advances while meeting the economic and environmental needs ofthe State. The credit for this achievement is shared bythe State's air pollution professionals, regulated industry, and citizens, who continue to explore new and innovative ways to minimize pollution associated with theirproducts and activities.
PlanApprovals

When a state submits a SIP to EPAthe Clean Air Actrequires the Agency to review the plan to determine ifitmeets the Act's requirements and environmental goals. California's 1994 Ozone SIP included, forboth the State and local agencies, fully adopted regulations and control measures for which regulations mustbe written. Since November 1994, EPAhas already completed approval ofall but one ofthe State's fully adopted regulations and most ofthe State's commitments to adopt regulations in the future. The State submitted its enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance(I/ M) regulations on January 22, 1996. EPA is proposing today approval ofthe I/M regulations, which should help to assure the maximum benefits from the California motor vehicle emissions standards.

EPA believes that this SIP represents
an important blueprint forclean air in California. By today's actions, the Federal government signals its intention to concur with these plans. California's commitments, when implemented, will improve air quality and protect public health. Now it is incumbent on California to meet those commitments. EPA is today generally proposing to approve in fullthe critical components ofall ofthe plans for all ofthe areas.

EPA is proposing approval of: * The emission inventories and modeling analyses in all ofthe affected areas;

* The 15% rate-of-progress plans for the period 1990-1996 in the South Coast (theLos Angeles basin), Ventura, San Joaquin, San Diego, and Santa Barbara;

* The post-1996 rate-of-progress plans in the South Coast, Ventura, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and San Diego; 

### 10922

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10922 1996

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

* The attainment demonstrations for the South Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura, Sacramento, San Joaquin, San Diego, and Santa Barbara;

* All ofthe individual local measures included with the plans. EPA will take action separately on the 15% progress plan for Sacramento and the progress plans for the Southeast Desert.

The South Coast ozone attainment demonstration raises aunique issue. In the SIP, California assumes thatEPA will issue specific national mobile

source emission reduction rules to help the South Coast reach attainment. While

some additional mobile source standards may be feasible and desirable, EPA believes that it is important to examine and discuss these standards because they have far-reaching implications. As new national and international standards arebeing discussed, EPA commits to support rather than hinder State and local progress in implementing and updating the ozone attainment demonstration for the South Coast.

To achieve this objective and allow for approval ofthe South Coast attainment demonstration at this time, EPA proposes an approach which the Agency believes is consistent with EPA's guiding principle for implementing its statutory responsibilities: accomplish environmental goals through innovative approaches that are collaborative rather than adversarial, and that provide flexibility while requiring accountability.

The South Coast attainment demonstration isbased primarily on those State and local components (enumerated in thetext ofthe notice) that make up the vast majority of reductions needed for attainment in the South Coast. EPA has already approved most ofthe State and local adopted regulations and many ofthe State's new commitments made as part of California's 1994 Ozone SIP.EPA proposes in this document to approve the enforceable State and local commitments that make up the remainder ofthe plan. These State and local regulations and commitments, together with creditable national controls which EPA has promulgated or proposed, account for well over 90% of the reductions needed for attainment.

To address the small remaining shortfall which the State has assigned to the Federal government, EPA proposes to conduct apublic consultative process
on future mobile source controls. The Agency also commits to undertake rulemaking, after the consultative process, on any controls which are determined to be appropriate for EPA. Finally, EPAis proposing to require that the State submit, before EPA's final action on the South Coastplan, an enforceable commitment to submit a revised South Coast attainment demonstration and gap-filling State or local control measures, if needed, after the consultative process.

In assigningEPA responsibility for issuing Federal emission standards for various mobile sources, the State argued that attainment in Southern California depends upon emission reductions from national and international mobile

sources which could not legally or practically be regulated at the State or local level. EPA and the State havebeen working together for the past several years to evaluate thepotential for additional national emission controls on mobile sources. EPA hasrecently proposed orfinalized national emission controls for construction, farm, and lawn and garden equipment; pleasure craft and some categories ofmarine vessels; and potential new controls on heavy-duty truck emissions. The proposed nationwide heavy-duty truck controls, in fact, are an outgrowth ofan EPA-Californiajoint initiative, developed in consultation with heavyduty engine manufacturers, which also extends to possible future controls on heavy-duty nonroad engines. Other assignments by the Statepresent unique challenges, such as the establishment of stringent engine emission standards for aircraft and ocean-going vesselssources which aretoday regulated by treaty principally at the international level.

EPA proposes to continue to consult with the State and other stakeholders to examine the potential for additional mobile source controls that can contribute to attainment in the South Coast. This period provides an opportunity to agree on a set ofemission reductions without adverse consequences to the State or the environment, whether those additional reductions come from national and international emission standards or from new State and local measures. At the conclusion ofthis consultation, in June 1997, EPA expects that the State and local agencies will be able to amend the attainment demonstration appropriately, based on the final mix of national, State, and local mobile source control responsibilities. During the consultative process, the State and local agencies need to proceed aggressively with implementing other parts ofthe SIP in order to maintain progress towards cleaning the air. As mentioned, EPA isproposing to approve all ofthe local agency commitments to adopt and implement rules by scheduled dates to achieve specified emission reductions. In some cases, most notably the South Coast, scheduled adoption dates have already been missed. It is critically important that these adoption schedules be amended, that the local agency staffand governing board's commit themselves to reasonable and aggressive schedules for rule development and adoption, and that the affected agencies proceed successfully with plan implementation to fulfill their public commitments to deliver clean air.EPA will work with the local agencies, the regulated community, and thepublic to help the government boards and officials to meet theirpublic health obligations. Implementation failures willprolong the unacceptable current levels of pollution and will expose the areas to potential sanctions under the Clean Air Act.

Section 182(e)(5) ofthe Clean Air Act authorizes inclusion ofconceptual, new-technology measures in the attainment demonstration for the South Coast, the Country's only "extreme"

ozone nonattainment area. In this 1990 amendment, Congress recognized that the South Coast's enormous emission reduction requirementsjustified giving

more time to allow for the completion ofresearch and development phases that must precede the successful commercialization ofpractically zeroemittingproducts, industrial processes, and means oftransportation. A large portion ofthe remaining needed reductions in the 1994 South Coast plan is now assigned to conceptual measures. Ifthese measures are to contribute to the solution ofthe South Coast's ozone problem in lateryears, all responsible governmental agencies and private industry must now increase their

resource commitments and cooperative efforts to develop the clean technologies and innovative market approaches that willbe the basis for the area's economic and environmental progress.

EPA is solicitingpublic comments on the proposed SIP actions. The Addresses section ofthis document provides information on the public comment process and opportunities to inspect the SIP and related materials. EPA hopes to take final action soon so that California can continue to make progress in implementing the challenging strategies in the plans.

In transmitting the 1994California Ozone SIP, the Chairwoman ofthe California Air Resources Board stated that "The SIP provides a firm guarantee to citizens ofCalifornia that clean air 

### 10923

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10923 1996

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

goals willbe met within thetime frames setout in the CAA." Indeed, the goal of the sweeping 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments has been not simply to sustain the historic progress in reducing air pollution, but instead to honor the underlying promise oftheAct: clean, healthy air for all Americans. We believe that California's achievement in these plans for the most polluted areas ofthe nation proves that the Clean Air Act is effective when citizens and public officials worktogether to focus technical expertise and common sense to protect themselves, the health oftheir children, and the welfare offuture generations. The Federal government is committed to playing its part in this final effort to deliver clean air to all Californians.
B. RequirementsoftheAct

Title I ofthe 1990 Amendments to the CAA (CAAA) completely revised the Part Dnonattainment provisions for

areas which had not attained the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone. In addition, Congress made numerous changes governing EPA'sprocessing ofSIPs, as well as the repercussions ofState failures to meet the various SIP requirements.

Section 110 ofPart A ofTitle I contains general requirements applicable to allSIP revisions. Section 110(k) describes theAgency's actions on SIPrevisions, including findings as to whether submissions are complete (section 110(k)(1)), deadlines forEPA actions (section 110(k)(2)), types of actions the Agency may take on complete submittals (110(k) (3) and (4)), and sanctions which may be applied to
areas which fail to meet the Act's requirements (sections 179 and 110(m))

or fail to implement approved SIPs (sections 113(a)(5), 173(4), and 179).

The requirements addressed bythis proposal are generally those ofPart D of Title I, pertaining to nonattainment

areas. Such areas are designated under section 107 ofthe Act (codified at 40 CFRPart 81). While Subpart 1 ofPart D (sections 171 to 179 CAA) describes general requirements for nonattainment areas, Subpart 2 (sections 181 to 185B) lists additional provisions added under the 1990 CAAA for ozone nonattainment areas.

Under this subpart, ozone nonattainment areas are classified accordingto the severity ofthe nonattainment problem, and become subject to a graduated series of requirements. The classification scheme for ozone nonattainment areas is listed under section 181, which also establishes deadlines for attainment. The nonattainment classifications and applicable attainment deadlines are: marginal (November 15, 1993), moderate (November 15, 1996), serious (November 15, 1999), severe (November 15, 2005 or 2007), and extreme (November 15, 2010). Section 181(a) further provides that the attainment date shall be "as expeditiously as practicable but not later than" these deadlines.

EPA has issued preliminary interpretations ofthe amended Act's provisions applicable to these SIP obligations. See, for example, the "General Preamble for the Implementation ofTitle I ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," (57 FR 13498 [April 16, 1992]). In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is applyingthese policies to theproposed California ozone SIP, taking into consideration the specific factual issues presented.

The central SIP requirements for

ozone nonattainment areas are demonstrations ofreasonable further progress (or "rate ofprogress") and attainment. Section 182(b)(1) requires, for areas classified as moderate or above, submission byNovember 15, 1993 ofa SIP revision providing for reasonable further progress, defined as a reduction from 1990baseline emissions ofat least 15% actual emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), taking into account growth, during the first 6 years following enactment ofthe 1990 CAAA (i.e., up to November 15, 1996).

Baseline emissions for calculating the required ROP reduction aredefined at section 182(b)(1)(B). Baseline emissions

arerelative to aparticular year for which the ROP reduction is calculated, and differ from the 1990 base year emissions primarily in excluding reductions for certain Federal programs which were already required prior to the 1990 CAAA. Section 182(b)(1)(C) describes anumber ofexclusions from creditability forthe purposes ofmeeting the ROP requirement.

For moderate areas, section 182(b)(1) requires submission ofa plan revision by November 15, 1993, that provides an attainment demonstration including sufficient annual reductions in VOC and NOx to attain the ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1996. The attainment demonstration requirement can be met through applyingEPA-approved modeling techniques. Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires, for serious and above areas, submission by November 15, 1994, ofreasonable further progress and attainment plans. For these areas, the CAA defines reasonable further progress as an additional ROP reduction above and beyond the required 1996 reductions, of 3% per year ofbaseline VOC emissions, averaged over each consecutive 3-year period from November 15, 1996 until attainment. Section 182(c)(2)(A) also requires attainment plans, based on photochemical grid modeling, to be submitted by November 15, 1994, for serious and above areas.

Section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for actual NOx emissions reductions (after accounting for growth) that occur after the base year of 1990to be used to meet post-1996 ROPemission reduction requirements. The reader isreferred to section II.C.1.c. below for a discussion ofthe Agency's NOx substitution criteria.

Sections 182(g)(3) and 182(g)(5) specify requirements for areas which failto submit a ROP milestone compliance demonstration under section 182(g)(2) within the required period or if the Administrator determines that the area has not met any applicable milestone. The first ozone ROPmilestone compliance demonstration is due April 1997, for the period 1990-1996. Among the options discussed in section 182(g) for curing a ROP shortfallis the use ofan economic incentiveprogram (EIP). Under section 182(g)(4)(B), EPApromulgated requirements for EIPs at 40CFR Part51, Subpart U (see 40 CFR 51.490 through 40 CFR 51.494-"EIP Rules and Guidance"). These EIPrules also serve
aspolicy guidance to determine the approvability ofSIP measures that rely

on economic incentives (see 40 CFR 51.490(b)).

Under section 182(b)(4) oftheAct, basic motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs are required in all moderate ozone nonattainment areas. Under section 182(c)(3), ozone nonattainment areas designated as serious and worse with 1980 populations of200,000 ormore are required to meet EPAregulations for "enhanced" IM programs. As required by section 182(a)(2)(B) ofthe Act, EPA published updated requirements for IM programs on November 5, 1992 (40CFR part 51, Subpart S, see also 57 FR 52950).On September 18, 1995, EPA issued flexibility amendments to these IM rules, allowing for an additional, less stringent enhanced I/M performance standard for areas that can meet the ROP and attainment requirements with an IM program that fallsbelow the originally promulgated enhanced IM performance standard (see 60 FR48029). On November 28, 1995, the National Highway System Designation Act (Public Law 104-59)

was enacted. Section 348 ofthis legislation modifies the I/M provisions 

### 10924

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10924 1996

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

ofthe Clean Air Act, providing a mechanism for approval with full credit for decentralized or test-and-repair enhanced I/Mprograms under certain circumstances. The legislation also establishes an 18-month evaluation period to verify thatthe assigned credits have a basis in fact, prior to permanent program approval.

Part D oftheAct includes other ozone SIPrequirements. EPA has previously acted upon some SIP revisions addressing these requirements; others will be addressed in future actions. Moreover, the ozone ROP and attainment plans depend upon the successful adoption and implementation ofwell over 100 State and local rules. EPA will approve or disapprove individual rules relating to each local plan after the State submits the rules and EPA deems them complete.

EPA believes thatthe law requires and the public expects that the responsible California State and local agencies will honor all oftheir clean air commitments in these ozone plans, and will consistently pursue reasonable and aggressive plan implementation until the clean air goals are reached. Nevertheless, the Act does allow the State to amend the SIPs in the future, both with respect to the technical foundations ofthe demonstrations and the specific mix ofcontrol measures chosen for achieving progress and attainment. State and local agencies have the flexibility to make changes as necessary and appropriate to improve the plans, but EPA will fulfill the Agency's responsibilities under section 110(1) ofthe CAA, which provides that "the Administrator shall not approve a revision ofaplan ifthe revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress * * * or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act."
C.Affected A reas

When California's ozone nonattainment areas were first classified under the 1990 CAAA, 9 areas were classified as moderate and above, and therefore subject to the progress and attainment requirements. The San Francisco Bay Area was later redesignated to attainment (60 FR 27028, May 22, 1995). CARB has also submitted arequest to redesignate the Monterey Bay Area to attainment. EPA will act on the Monterey redesignation in the near future.

This proposal addresses ROP and attainment plans submitted for all ofthe remaining nonattainment areas. These

areas are the South Coast (classified as extreme), the Southeast Desert (comprisingthe Mojave, Coachella/San Jacinto, and Antelope Valley areas, severe-17), Ventura (severe-15), Sacramento (severe-15), San Diego (serious), San Joaquin Valley (serious), and Santa Barbara (moderate). The boundaries for these areas are setforth at40 CFR 81.305.

Since a number ofthe State's

measures apply throughout California and thus contribute both toward attainment and maintenance ofthe

ozone NAAQS, the SIP submittal and EPA's proposed approval actions affect all areas in the State.
D. The CaliforniaOzonePlans
1. SIP Submittals

On November 15, 1993, in response to the 15% ROP requirements of section 182(b)(1)(A) ofthe Act, CARB submitted plans for allofthe areas addressed in this notice. These submittals have been superseded byrevised ROP plans submitted one year later.

On November 15, 1994, CARB submitted arevision to the "State of California Implementation Plan for Achieving and Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (SIP) under cover letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia Marcus (EPA). This SIP revision includes documentation that the public involvement and adoption requirements ofthe CAA have been met atboth the State and local level.

The revision itselfconsists of: (a) The State's comprehensive ozone plan, including the State's own measures and the State's summaries of,and revisions to, the local plans; (b) the State's previously adopted regulations for

consumer products and reformulated gasoline and diesel fuels; and (c) local plans addressingthe ozone attainment demonstration and ROP requirements.

The ozone SIP submittal includes the following separate documents: (a)The State's ComprehensiveOzone Plan
"The 1994California State Implementation Plan for Ozone," volumes I-IV.The November 15, 1994, submittal letter refers to other submittals, described below, as completing the 1994California Ozone SIP. Volume Iprovides an overview of the entire submittal; Volumes II and III include the State's measures for mobile sources, consumer products, and pesticides; and Volume IV treats the local plans. On December 29, 1994 and February 7, 1995, the State submitted updates to these documents, incorporating changes made by CARB at the time ofadoption, and providing other technical and editorial corrections. (b) The State'sAdoptedRegulations

(1) The California Antiperspirants and Deodorants regulations and Consumer Products regulations, as contained in Title 17 ofthe California Code of Regulations, Sections 94507-94517, adopted on December 27, 1990, August 14, 1991, and September 21, 1992.

(2) The California Diesel Fuel regulations, as contained in Title 13 of the California Code ofRegulations, Sections 2281 and 2282, adopted on August 22, 1989, June 21, 1990, April 15, 1991, October 15, 1993, and August 24, 1994.

(3) The California Reformulated Gasoline regulations, as contained in Title 13, ofthe California Code of Regulations, Sections 2250, 2252, 2253.4, 2254, 2257, 2260, 2262.1, 

### 2262.2, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.7, 2263, 2264, 2266-2272, 2296, and 2297, initially adopted by CARB on November 17, 1988, and formally adopted on August 22, 1989, June 21, 1990, April 15, 1991, October 15, 1993, and August 24, 1994. (c)Local OzoneProgressand AttainmentPlans (1) "1994 Clean Air Plan for Santa Barbara County." The submittal letter for thisplan is from James Boyd to Regional Administrator Felicia Marcus and is dated November 14, 1994.

(2) "1994 Ozone Attainment and Rateof-Progress Plans for San Diego County."

(3) "San Joaquin Valley Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans." On December 28, 1994, the State submitted the "Rate-of-Progress and Attainment Demonstration Plans for the Kern County Air Pollution Control District," applicable to the Kern desert portion of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment

area.

(4) "Sacramento Area Proposed Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans." On December 29, 1994, the State replaced this with the "Sacramento Area Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans."

(5) "1994 Air Quality Management Plan for Ventura County."

(6) "Rate-of Progress and Attainment Demonstration Plans for the Mojave Desert."

(7) "1994 Air Quality Management Plan for South CoastAir Basin, Antelope Valley and Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area."

On December 29, 1994, the State submitted the "Rate-of-Progress Plan Revision: South CoastAir Basin & 

### 10925

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10925 1996

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

Antelope Valley &Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area." I

On March 30, 1995, CARB submitted revised 1990 base year emission inventories for each ofthe California

ozone nonattainment areas.

On June 30, 1995, CARB submitted descriptive materials relating to the State's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program, adopted by the California Bureau ofAutomotive Repair.

On January 22, 1996, CARB submitted the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance regulations adopted by the California Bureau ofAutomotive Repair.
2. EPA Completeness Findings

On January 30, 1995, EPA issued a finding ofcompleteness under Section 110(k)(1) ofthe Act for the following portions ofthe California ozone SIP submittal: Diesel Fuel Regulations; Reformulated Gasoline Regulations; CARB Measures M2, M3, M5, M8, M9, MIl, CP-2, CP-3, CP-4, Additional Measures; and SCAQMD LongTerm Measures ADV-CTS-01/02, ADV-FUG, ADV-PRC, ADV-UNSP. These elements oftherevision were found complete based on EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V.2

On April 18, 1995 the EPA issued a finding ofcompleteness for the remaining portions ofthe November and December 1994 submittals with regard to: (1) attainment and post-1996 RFP requirements at section 182(c)(2) ofthe Act; (2) 15% ROPrequirement of section 182(b)(1)(A); (3) attainment requirement for moderate areas (Santa Barbara) as described at Section 182(b)(1)(A); and (4) 1990 base year inventory requirements ofsection 182(a)(1).

On June 30, 1995, EPA issued a finding ofcompleteness for the State's submittal ofrevisions to the State's I/M program.

On February 5, 1996, EPAissued a finding ofcompleteness for the State's I/ M regulations.
E.RelatedSIPApprovals

On February 14, 1995, the EPA Administrator signed documents taking the following approval actions relating to the California ozone SIP:

(1) Final approval ofthe CARB Antiperspirants and Deodorants

1Antelope Valley and Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area areportions of the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

2EPA adopted the completeness criteriaon 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). regulations, Consumer Products regulations, Diesel Fuel regulations, and Reformulated Gasoline regulations, as submitted on November 15, 1994.

(2) Interim final approval ofCARB and SCAQMD New-Technology Measures, submitted aspart ofthe South Coast ozone SIP on November 15, 1994. The measures were approved under the provisions ofsection 182(e)(5) ofthe CAA, which authorizes the Administrator to approve fully and credit as part ofan extreme ozone area SIP conceptual measures dependent upon new control technologies or new control techniques. The specific

measures approved are: (a) CARB Measure M2, Improved Control Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles, for adoption in the year 2000 and implementation in 2004-5.

(b) CARB Measure M9, Off-Road Diesel Equipment, 2.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr)NOx standard, for adoption in 2001 and implementation in 2005. (c) CARB Measure CP-4, Consumer Products Advanced Technology and Market Incentives, for adoption in 2005 and implementation in 2009.

(d) CARB Additional Measures, for adoption and implementation by 2009- 2010. (e) SCAQMD Measure ADV-CTS-01, Advance Technology-CTS (Coating Technologies), for adoption in 2003. (f)SCAQMD Measure ADV-FUG, Advanced Technology-Fugitives, for adoption in 2003.

(g) SCAQMD Measure ADV-PRC, Advance Technology-Process Related Emissions, for adoption in 2003. (h) SCAQMD Measure ADV-UNSP, Advance Technology-Unspecified, Stationary Sources, for adoption in 2003. (i) SCAQMD Measure ADV-CTS-02, Advance Technology-CTS (Coatings Technologies). (3) Proposed approval ofCARB's midterm control measures: Measures M3, Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV)requirement for Medium-Duty Vehicles, for adoption in 1997 and implementation in 1998; M5, HeavyDuty Vehicle NOxregulations, for adoption in 1997 and implementation in 2002; M8, Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles lower emissions standards, for adoption in 1997 and implementation in 1998; MI1, Industrial Equipment, Gas and LPG, for adoption in 1997 and implementation in 2000; and CP2, MidTerm Consumer Products, for adoption in July 1997.

These actions were taken in conjunction with issuance ofozone Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)for the South Coast, Ventura, and Sacramento, and a carbon monoxide FIP for the South Coast. Prior to publication oftheFIP and SIP actions in the Federal Register,legislation was enacted mandating that these FIPs "shall be rescinded and shall have no further force and effect" (PublicLaw 104-6, Defense Supplemental Appropriation, H.R. 889, enacted April 10, 1995).

On August 21, 1995, EPA announced the rescission ofthe FIPs (60 FR43468), and reissued the final and interim final SIP approvals (60 FR43379) and the proposed SIP approvals (60 FR43421) referenced above. On December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126),EPA issued the final SIP approval ofthe State's midterm control measures (M3, M5, M8, M11, and CP-2).
II. Review ofthe State Submittal

On October 7, 1994 the State published apublic noticeregarding its adoption hearings, to begin on November 9, 1994. Those hearings were extended to November 14 and 15, at which time CARB adopted and submitted the documents listed above (section I.C.).

The local elements ofthe State plan

were theproduct ofplan development, public review and adoption processes conducted in each nonattainment area. Following adoption by the local air pollution controlboards, the local plans

were submitted to CARB, which amended the plans and incorporated them into the overall California Ozone SIP.

This document discusses the State's submittal in terms of3 broad categories:

measures which the State has adopted,

or enforceably committed to adopt (section II.A.); measures assigned by the State to theFederal government (section II.B.); and local ROP and attainment plans and measures (section II.C.).
A. StateMeasures Statewide elements ofthe ozone progress and attainment plans include

measures to control mobile sources,
consumerproducts, and pesticides. These control measures consist of existing adopted rules, commitments to adopt rules between 1995 and 1997, and long-term measures scheduled for regulatory adoption in the year 2000 or later.
1.Mobile Sources Measures

a. Introduction. According to data from CARB, mobile sources (on-road and non-road) account for more than 60 percent ofozoneprecursor emissions in California. Therefore, furtherreductions in mobile source emissions are essential ifattainment ofthe NAAQS for ozone is to be achieved. 

### 10926

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10926 1996

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

CARB has an existing statewide control program for mobile source emissions, which is expected to achieve significant reductions in emissions in the ozone nonattainment areas ofthe State. A key element ofthis existing control program is theLow-Emission Vehicle/Clean Fuels (LEV)program which was originally adopted in 1990 and has been amended several times since. The LEVprogram aims to reduce emissions from future light- and medium-duty vehicles. The program contains several categories ofvehicle emission requirements. Increasingly stringent fleet average requirements must be met by vehicle manufacturers beginning in 1994. In addition, the LEV program requires manufacturers to introduce increasingpercentages of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), beginning with two percent in 1998 (Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 1960.1).

Other CARB-adopted mobile source control measures include the California Diesel Fuel Regulations and the California Reformulated Gasoline regulations. Both ofthese fuel regulations were originally adopted in 1989 and frequently amended. As discussed above, EPA approved the diesel and reformulated gasoline regulations on August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379).

Beginning in 1988, CARB also adopted the following important sets of mobile source regulations:

(1) Emission standards for diesel farm and construction equipment over 175 hp;

(2) revised evaporative emission test procedures; (3) Phase 2 on-board diagnostics (OBD)provisions;

(4) Revised emission standards for medium-duty vehicles (MDVs) and light-heavy-duty vehicles (LHDVs); and (5) Requirements for utility engines and off-highway recreational vehicles/ engines.

In addition to the adopted measures, the State has committed in the 1994 California Ozone SIP to future adoption ofa series ofmobile source measures. The commitments fall chronologically into two categories with regard to the adoption schedule: mid-term commitments to be adopted during the 1995-1997 time frame, and long-term

measures scheduled for adoption in the year 2000 or later.

The long-term measures arerelied upon only in the South Coast Air Basin. The South Coast is the only area in the country classified asextreme for ozone, and is subject to section 182(e)(5) ofthe Act, which authorizes EPAto credit conceptual measures using new technologies or control techniques if they are not needed for meeting the first 10 years ofROP (see section 

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

The following is adescription ofthe State's mobile source measures, orM Measures, and EPA's approval actions

on the measures. b. Review ofMeasures (i) M1-Accelerated Retirement of Light-Duty Vehicles. The SIP commits to adopt this measure in 1996 and implement itfrom 1996 to 2010. Responsibility for implementing this

measure may be shared between CARB and regional air districts. In this measure, CARB commits to the annual retirement (scrappage orremoval) ofup to 75,000 older,high-emitting vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin only, beginning in 1999. A smaller number of vehicles will be retired between 1996 and 1998 in order to gain experience with theprogram. CARB estimates that $1,000 per car willbe required to cover costs associated with vehicle purchase and program administration. CARB committed in the SIP to secure a financing mechanism for theprogram by the end of 1995, and legislative efforts to do so have been partially successful. While all critical near-term revenues should be obtained now, the State also should begin to pursue long-term support for the program. CARB must also ensure that implementation and monitoring ofthe measure prevents double-counting ofreduction credits, since scrappage is also afeature ofthe State's I/Mprogram and emission reduction credits from scrappage may be claimed as emission reduction credits in tradingprograms.3

While MI is acommitment to implement an accelerated vehicle retirement program only in the South Coast, the SIP states that "implementation oflight-duty vehicle retirement programs in other nonattainment areas will be considered as a
means offurther reducing emissions" (Vol. II,p. B-2).

The emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast by the

measure are displayed by year in the table below, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure MI."

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M1 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN [Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG

......................................................................................................................................................... 5 8 11 12 13 14 NOx .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 6 9 10 10 11

(ii) M2-Improved Control Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 2000 and begin implementation in 2004-2005. This measure will achieve emission reductions from LDVs through the use ofone or more market-based and/ortechnology-forcing approaches. Emission reductions may be achieved through: (1) cost-effective gasoline

3These concerns were expressed in aletter from David P. Howekamp, Director,Air &Toxics Division, USEPA Region 9, to James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, CARB, dated June 15, 1995, on engine control technology to meet or exceed Ultra Low-Emission Vehicle (ULEV) standards in the post-2003 time frame; (2) ZEV sales in excess ofthe 10% requirement beyond 2003; and/or (3) availability ofadvanced hybrid electric vehicles with emissions substantially lower than ULEVs. The SIP indicates that market forces (e.g., incentives) and/oremission standards

follow-up issuestoaJune9,1995 meeting between CARB, USEPA,and theWestern StatesPetroleum Association (WSPA). maybe used to achieve the emission reductions. Emission reductions associated with this measure are relied upon in the South Coast only. The emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast by the measure are displayed by year in the table below, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M2." 

### 10927

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10927 1996

## 10928 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M2 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN [Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG

......................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 3 7 6 10 NOx .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 5 9 9 15

On August 21, 1995, EPA approved an increase in the fraction ofMDV allowing other mixes ofvehicles and this measure under the provisions of ULEVs from 10 percent ofsales ofnew technologies that generate equivalent section 182(e)(5) ofthe Act. MDVs in the 1998 model year to 100 emission reductions. The emission

(iii) M3-Accelerated Ultra-Low percent in the 2002 and later model reductions to be achieved by the Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Requirement years. CARB believes that the emission measure are displayed by nonattainment for Medium-Duty Vehicles (MDVs). reductions associated with this measure area and milestone/attainment year in CARB commits in the SIP to adopt can be achieved by applying the tablebelow, labeled "Reductions regulations for this measure in 1997, advancements in LDV emission control from California Mobile Source Measure with implementation occurring from technologies to the medium-duty fleet. M3." 1998 to 2002. This measure commits to This measure offers some flexibilityby
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE 

### M3 [Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx

So.Coast

...................................... 0 1 1 10 2 21

. ......... . ..........2 27 3 33 SE Desert

...................................... 0 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.2 3.5 0.3 4.1 Ventura

.......................................... 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 1.0 Sacramento

................................... 0 0.2 0 1.7 0.4 3.9 S

.Joaquin

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

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

EPA proposed to approve M3 on provide equivalent emission reductions 2002. CARB commits to achieve August 21, 1995, and finalized approval could be implemented. The emission emission reductions through adoption

on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). reductions to be achieved in the South ofa 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOx emissions

(iv) M4-Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Coast by the measure are displayed by standard for new HDDV engines sold in (HDDV); Early Introduction of2.0 g/ year in the tablebelow, labeled California beginningin 2002,or by bhp-hr NOxengines. The SIP commits "Reductions from California Mobile implementation ofalternative measures to implementation ofthis measure Source Measure M4." which achieve equivalent or greater beginning in 1996. CARB and the reductions. Alternatives under Districts share responsibility for this REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA 

## MO- consideration include expanded

measure. M4 is a commitment to BILE SOURCE MEASURE 

### M4 (IN introduction ofalternative-fueled and increase the use ofexisting low- SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN IN TONS low-emission HDDV engines through emission engines among on-road PER DAY OF 

### NOx) demand-side programs and incentives, HDDVs through locally implemented Pemadfid rograms dicenties, demand-side programs and market 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010 retrofit of aerodynamic devices, reduced incentives. This program is intended to I idling, and speed reduction. The result in a5% sales penetration of2.0 2.17 3.90 2.93 2.34 1.36 emission reductions to be achieved by g/bhp-hr NOxengines through the the measure are displayed by period 1996-1999, and a 10% sales (v) MS-Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles nonattainment area and milestone/ penetration ofthese enginesbetween (HDDVs); Additional NOx Reductions. attainment year in the tablebelow, 2000 and 2002. Other combinations of The SIP commits to adopt this measure labeled "Reductions from California penetrations and emission levels that in 1997 and begin implementation in Mobile Source Measure M5."
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE 

### M5 [Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx
So. Coast

...................................... 0 0 0.2 1.7 1.8 22.0

.......... .......... 3.1 37.6 4.8 56.2 SE Desert

...................................... 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 3.9 0.4 5.1 Ventura

.......................................... 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 1.0 Sacramento

................................... 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 2.7 S

.Joaquin

..................................... 0 0 S

.Diego

........................................ 0.7 8.3

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10928 1996

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

This measure is designed to achieve emission reductions prior to the introduction ofa potential national 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOx standard in 2004. The 1994 California Ozone SIP ("Federal Measure" M6) assigns to EPA responsibility for adopting such a national standard (see discussion in section II.B.).

Significant progress toward fulfilling the M5 and M6 commitments has been made by CARB, EPA, and truck and engine manufacturers. On March 30, 1995, EPA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with CARB to undertake

ajoint effort to develop a national program for controlling NOx, PM, and HC emissions from onroad and nonroad heavy-duty engines. Thisjoint effort will involve sharing technology development and information, resources, and expertise.

Further, on July 11, 1995, CARB, EPA, and members ofthe Engine Manufacturers Association signed a Statement ofPrinciples (SOP) detailing their agreement on future NOx, HC, and PM standards for heavy-duty engines. The goal ofthe SOP is to reduce NOx emissions from onroad HDEs to approximately 2 g/bhp-hr beginningin 2004. This will be achieved by giving manufacturers the flexibility to choose between two options: (1) A combined non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus NOx standard of2.4 g/bhp-hr and (2) a combined NMHC plus NOx standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr together with aNMHC cap of.5 g/bhp-hr. Signatories will work to achieve low emissions throughout the life ofthe engine. EPA expects thatthis combined standard will result in NOx reductions comparable to those achieved with a2 g/bhp-hr standard and significant reductions in HCemissions.

With respect to California standards, the SOP included the following provision: "Both EPA and California recognize the benefits ofharmonizing state and federal regulations. California confirms its intent to notice apublic hearing to consider actions to harmonize its regulations * * * with the federal regulations adopted under this SOP, provided such action would not compromise California's obligations to comply with state and federal law including the SIP."

On August 31, 1995, EPA published the SOP in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM invited public comment on national controls for onroad heavy-duty engines consistent with the SOP, and also described EPA's plans to work cooperatively with engine and equipment manufacturers to consider additional reductions from nonroad heavy-duty engines (see 60 FR45580- 45604). EPA proposed to approve M5 on August 21, 1995, and finalized approval

on December 14, 1995 (60 FR64126).

(vi) M7-Accelerated Retirement of Heavy-Duty Vehicles. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 1996 and begin implementation in the same year. This

measure involves the annual retirement (scrappingor removal) ofabout 1600 of the oldest, high emitting trucks in the South Coast Air Basin, beginning in 1999. A smaller number oftrucks would be scrapped in 1996 to 1998 in order to gain experience with the program and determine the impacts on the used truck market. Incentives are expected to be provided to operators ofoldertrucks in return for retirement and purchase ofa newer, lower-emitting model. The incentives may take the form of guaranteed low interest loans, subsidies,

orboth. The SIP commits to secure a financing mechanism for this measure by the end of 1995. While the SIP commits only to implement this

measure in the South Coast, the State indicates that consideration isbeing given to establishing a truck retirement program in Sacramento and other nonattainment areas. The emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coastby the measure aredisplayed by year in the tablebelow, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M7."

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M7 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN [Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG

......................................................................................................................................................... 0 1 1 1 1 1 NOx .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 6 7 8 9 1 0

(vii) M8 Heavy-Duty Gasoline through the adoption ofa LEV/ULEV measure are displayed by nonattainment Vehicles (HDGVs), LowerEmission program for HDGV engines to obtain area and milestone/attainment year in Standards. The SIP commits to adoption 50% reductions ofNOx and ROG the tablebelow, labeled "Reductions ofthis measure by 1997 and emissions through the application of3- from California Mobile Source Measure implementation beginningin 1998. This way catalyst technology. The emission M8."

measure generates emission reductions reductions to be achieved by the
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE 

### M8 [Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx
So. Coast

...................................... 0 0 0 0.8 0.1 1.8

.......... .......... 0.2 2.3 0.3 3.0 SE Desert

...................................... 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.4 Ventura

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

................................... 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.4 S

.Joaquin

..................................... 0 0 S

.Diego

........................................ 0.1 0.5 

## 10929

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10929 1996

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

EPA proposed to approve M8 on August 21, 1995, and finalized approval

on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).

(viii) M9-Off-road Diesel Equipment; 2.5 g/bhp-hr Nox Standard, California. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 2001 and begin implementation in 2005. The measure requires CARB to adopt a 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOx standard effective in the 2005 model year for new off-road industrial equipment diesel engines not primarily used in construction and farm equipment. California ispreempted from adoptingor enforcing any standard

or other requirement relating to the control ofemissions from new construction and farm equipment or vehicles which are smaller than 175 hp (see section 209(e) ofthe Act). The SIP anticipates that this emissions standard

can be achieved through the transfer of cost-effective on-road diesel engine control technology to new off-road engines. These control technologies include improved engine design (especially in fuel/air management and delivery), exhaust gas recirculation, and exhaust gas aftertreatment. The technology used to meet the 2.5 g/bhphr NOx standard will also further reduce ROG emissions frompost-2005

new engines. The SIP only relies on this

measure in the South Coast. The emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast are displayed byyear in the tablebelow, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure 

### M9."1

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M9 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN [Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG

......................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 4 1 3 NOx .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 4 35 14 34

On August 21, 1995, EPA approved requires CARB to adopt emission construction equipment smaller than M9 under the provisions ofsection standards for new gas and liquid 175 hp). The standards will be phased182(e)(5). petroleum gas (LPG)engines 25 to 175 in 2000 and will be based on theuse of

(ix) M 1-Industrial Equipment; Gas horsepower that are not primarily used closed-loop 3-way catalyst systems. The and LPG-California; 3-way catalyst in construction or farm equipment. As catalyst systems are expected to reduce technology. CARB commits to adopt this noted above, California is preempted ROGemissions by 75% and NOxby at
measure in 1997 and implement it from regulating new farm and least 50%. beginning in 2000. The measure
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE 

### M1 1 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN [Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

ROG

......................................................................................................................................................... 0 4 9 

### [ ] 15 23 NOx .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 2 4 [ ] 8 12

EPA proposed to approve MIl on August 21, 1995, and finalized approval

on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).

(x) Additional New Control Technologies. In addition to the new control technologies described above in

measures M2 and M9, CARB has committed to the implementation of additional innovative measures to achieve the emission reductions needed in the South Coast to reach attainment by 2010. CARB anticipates that these additional measures will include a combination ofmarket-based and technology-based measures. CARB has committed to adoption ofthese

measures no later than 2006 to ensure the needed emissions reductions are achieved by 2009. Table 5 (on page I21) ofVolume II ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP lists the following strategies that may be pursued to meet the emission reduction targets:
A. Possible New Control Technologies

* Introduction in fleets ofultra-low emitting heavy-duty trucks, post-2003 B. Possible Market-Incentive Measures * Incentives to purchase or produce "cleaner" technology/vehicles

* Incentives to encourage retrofits of emission control technology * Incentives for alternative fuel conversions * Incentives to promote the development ofalternative fuel infrastructure * Revise tax rate structure to promote investment in low-emission technology * Provide opportunity for low-interest loans * Preferred state vendor/contract bid status

* Company emission averages * Air basin emission averages * Mobile source emission reduction credit/trading programs C. Possible Operational Measures Applicable to Heavy-Duty Vehicles
* Longer combination vehicles on selected routes

* Increased gross vehicle weight * Better enforcement ofthe 55 mileper-hour speed limit * Reduced idling time * Reexamine trailerpackage concept for local deliveries

* Aerodynamic devices for allpower units and trailers * Other (intermodal transportation, advanced traffic control/tracking technology, alternative fuel for existing fork lifts)

The SIP states that this list ofnew control technologies is notexhaustive and indicates that other new control technologies and techniques are possible and will be considered as potential sources ofemission reductions. Additional control options mentioned in the SIP include: pricing to affect the amount oftravel and related emissions (such as congestion pricing or
an emission index based onper mile emissions and VMT); retrofit technologies which reduce emissions; additional use ofalternative fuels; and episodic controls such as speed reduction and idling curtailment. CARB has committed to furtherdefine and quantify these measures and to adopt them by 2006 for implementation by 

## 10930

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10930 1996

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

2009. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's additional new control technologies measure under the provisions ofsection 182(e)(5).

c. EPA Action. As described in section I.D. above, EPA has already approved orproposed to approve many ofthe State's MMeasure commitments. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved the CARB new-technology measures M2, M9, and Additional New Technology Measures (described above), and assigned credit in the South Coast ozone attainment demonstration to the

measures. At the same time, EPA proposed approval ofthe State's control

measure commitments for M3, M5, M8, and Mll. EPA issued finalized approval ofthe measures on December 14, 1995 (60FR 64126). Because EPA was at that time not acting on the State's ROP and attainment demonstrations, EPA's approval ofthe State's commitments did not include assignment ofspecific emission reduction credits associated with the measures. As discussed below in section II.C., EPA ishere proposing to approve the ROP and attainment demonstrations ofCalifornia ozone nonattainment area plans, which rely, in part, on theM Measure commitments. Therefore, EPA now proposes to assign credit to the State's enforceable commitments to achieve the specific emission reductions associated with M3, M5, M8, and Mll, and displayed in the tables above for each measure.

EPA is also proposing to approve, under sections 110(a)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and assign credit to measures MI, M4, and M7 aspart ofthe ROP and attainment demonstrations for appropriate nonattainment areas, as shown in the tables above. EPAbelieves that CARB is making significant progress toward the development and adoption ofregulations to fulfill the M

measure commitments. In several cases, regulations have already been adopted

or areexpected to be adopted prior to EPA's final action on the ozone SIPs. EPA therefore proposes to approve and credit CARB's enforceable commitments to theM measures under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, aspart ofthe demonstrations ofROP and attainment in the California ozone nonattainment areas. 2. I/M

a. Review ofProgram. CARB submitted its motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)program, known

asthe Smog Check program, as a revision to its SIP on June 30, 1995. The submittal was made to fulfillEPA's requirements forbasic and enhanced I! M programs as setforth in 40 CFRPart 51, Subpart S. EPA found the submittal complete on June 30, 1995. A supplemental revision to the SIP was submitted by the State on January 22, 1996 and found complete on February 5, 1996. Section 348 ofthe National Highway System Designation Act (PublicLaw 104-59), hereafter referred to as the Highway Act, which was enacted on November 28, 1995, modified EPA's I/Mregulation. In this noticeEPA is proposing approval of California's basic program as meeting the requirements of40 CFR,Part 51, Subpart S as amended (see 60 FR48029, September 18, 1995) and approval of California's enhanced I/M program as meeting the requirements of40CFRPart 51, Subpart S, as amended and section 348(c) ofthe Highway Act.

The table labeled "California I/M Program Coverageby County" shows for every county in the State whether the I/ M program is implemented as enhanced

orbasic, or is required only upon change ofownership. For many counties, the type ofI/Mprogram in effect varies depending upon air quality designations and whether the area is urbanized. The State has established these I/Mprogram boundaries within counties based upon ZIP code. The reader may contact the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR)to obtain specific program applicability information byZIP code.

CALIFORNIA I/M PROGRAM COVERAGE BY COUNTY 

### S e B 

### i Change of County 

# ]Enhanced Basic ownership

Alameda ....................................................................................................................................... Alp in

e ........................................................................................................................................... Amador ......................................................................................................................................... Butte
............................................................................................................................................. Calaveras ..................................................................................................................................... Colusa .......................................................................................................................................... Contra Cos ta
................................................................................................................................ DelN orte

...................................................................................................................................... E

lD orado ..................................................................................................................................... Fresno .......................................................................................................................................... Glenn ............................................................................................................................................ Humboldt
...................................................................................................................................... Imperial

........................................................................................................................................ Iny o .............................................................................................................................................. K

ern .............................................................................................................................................. K

in

gs ............................................................................................................................................ L

ake ............................................................................................................................................. L

as

s e n .......................................................................................................................................... L

osAngeles ................................................................................................................................. Madera ......................................................................................................................................... Marin

............................................................................................................................................ Ma rip

o

s a ...................................................................................................................................... Mendocino .................................................................................................................................... Merced

......................................................................................................................................... Mo d

oc .......................................................................................................................................... Mono ............................................................................................................................................ Monterey ...................................................................................................................................... Napa ............................................................................................................................................. Ne v

ad

a ......................................................................................................................................... Orange ......................................................................................................................................... Placer ........................................................................................................................................... Plumas ......................................................................................................................................... ........................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

........................ X

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

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

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

........................ X

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

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

........................ X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

........................ X X

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

### x



### x

x x

x x x

x x

x

x

x

x x x

x x x

x

x x

x x x

x x

x x

x x

x x 

## 10931

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10931 1996

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

CALIFORNIA I/M PROGRAM COVERAGE BY COUNTY-Continued

County Enhanced Basic Change of ownership

Riv erside ...................................................................................................................................... X X X Sacramento
.................................................................................................................................. X X

........................ San Benito

................................................................................................................................... . ........................ X San Bernardin o ............................................................................................................................ X X X San Diego .................................................................................................................................... X X X San Francisco .............................................................................................................................. . ........................ X

........................ San Joaquin

................................................................................................................................. X X

........................ San L uis Obispo .......................................................................................................................... . ........................ X

........................ San M ateo .................................................................................................................................... . ........................ X

........................ Santa Barbara .............................................................................................................................. . ........................ X

........................ Santa Clara .................................................................................................................................. . ........................ X

........................ Santa Cruz ................................................................................................................................... . ........................ X

........................ Shasta
.......................................................................................................................................... . ........................ X Sierra............................................................................................................................................ ................... ..... . .......... ............. . X Siskiy ou ........................................................................................................................................ ................... ..... . ........... ............ . X Solano .......................................................................................................................................... X X Sonoma ........................................................................................................................................ . ........................ X X Stanislaus ..................................................................................................................................... X X

........................ Sutter ............................................................................................................................................ . ........................ X

........................ Tehama ........................................................................................................................................ . ........................ X Trinity

........................................................................................................................................... ................. ....... ........ .............. X Tulare ........................................................................................................................................... . ........................ X Tuolumne ..................................................................................................................................... ................. ....... ........ . ............. X V

entura ......................................................................................................................................... X X

........................ Y

olo

.............................................................................................................................................. X X

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

### Y

u

b

a ............................................................................................................................................. ......................... X
........................

The SIP revision submitted to EPA by CARB includes the laws and regulations relating to California's I/M program which is comprised ofpertinent sections ofthe California Business and Profession Code, the Civil Code, the Health and Safety Code, the Penal Code, the Revenue and Taxation Code, the Welfare and Institutions Code, the Vehicle Code, and the Code of Regulations. Included in the supplemental submittal are final regulations for the mandatory exhaust emissions inspection standards and test procedures for the enhanced program and for the licensing ofI/M stations and technicians which became legally effective on December 1, 1995 and December 5, 1995, respectively. Other documents in the submittal are: the Request for Conceptual Design for Testonly Networks and Referee Services; the BAR-90 Test Analyzer System Specifications (June 1995); the California Smog Check Inspection Manual; the Quality Assurance Operations Manual, Chapter 27 ofthe Department ofMotorVehicles Manual ofRegistration Procedures; the Smog Check Diagnostic and Repair Manual; the Request forproposal for On-Road Emissions Measurement Systems Services, and the Radian Report entitled "Evaluation ofthe California Pilot Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program."

EPA's I/Mregulation establishes minimum performance standards for basic and enhanced I/M programs as well as requirements for the following: network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; testprocedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance; enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors; data collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection; improving repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road testing; SIP revisions; and implementation deadlines. The performance standard forbasic I/M programs remains the same as ithas been since initial I/Mpolicy was established in 1978, pursuant to the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The high performance standard for enhanced I/Mprograms is based on high-technology loaded mode exhaust testing for HC, CO, and NOx and testing ofthe integrity and performance ofthe evaporative control system.

California's basic program is atestand-repair program utilizingtwo-speed idle testing.California's enhanced program is a hybrid program in which 15% ofthe dirtiest vehicles, based upon high-emitter profile and remote sensing results as well as other factors, are targetted for test-only inspection. All vehicles in the enhanced areas will be subject to loaded mode testing.More stringent requirements apply to technicians licensed in the enhanced

areas. The two programs are essentially the same in allother respects, excepting that frequency ofenforcement related activities such asremote sensing will be much greater in the enhanced areas. (A

more detailed discussion ofhow the elements ofCalifornia's I/M programs address the requirements ofEPA's I/M regulations is contained in the TSDfor this notice.) The SIP submittal includes modeling which demonstrates that the program design for California's basic program will meet EPA's performance standard forbasicprograms. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve this revision to California's SIP for the basic I/Mprogram.

The Highway Actprohibits the Administrator from disapproving or applying an automatic discount of emission reduction credits to a SIP revision because the I/Mprogram is decentralized or a test-and-repair program. The Highway Act directs the Administrator to propose approval of the program for the full credit proposed by the state ifthe proposed credits reflect good faith estimates bythe state and the revision is otherwise in compliance with the Clean Air Act. The approval remains effective for up to 18 months after the date offinal rulemaking. After the 18-month period, 

### 10932

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10932 1996

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

permanent approval ofthe SIP revision based on the credits proposed by the state shall be granted ifthe data collected on the operation ofthe program demonstrates thatthe credits

are appropriate and theprogram is otherwise in compliance with the Act.

EPA issued guidance regarding approval ofI/Mplans under the Highway Act on December 12, 1995. EPA believes that at least six months of program operation areneeded in order to evaluate theperformance ofthe program. Thus programs must start no later than 12 months after EPA takes final rulemaking action. EPA proposes that ifthe State fails to start its program
on this schedule, the approval granted under the provisions ofthe Highway Act will convert to adisapproval after

afinding letter is sent to the state.As mentioned above, the Highway Act specifies that EPA grant approval if good faith estimates ofcredits are made. The Conference Report states that good faith estimates maybe based on previous I/M program performance, remote sensingprograms, or other evidence relevant to effectiveness ofI/ M programs. EPA has further suggested that good faith estimates could be based

on innovative program designs. In order to evaluate theprogram EPAbelieves that a continuous sample collection technique should provide sufficient data to determine program effectiveness. Samples maybe taken in a variety of ways includingroadside pullovers and randomized call-in programs. EPA plans to issue detailed guidance on data collection and analysis after consultation with states and other experts. At the end ofthe 18-month approval period, EPA will take action to make the approval oftheI/Mprogram permanent, ifthe program evaluation data collected by the state demonstrates that the I/M program is achieving the 

### emission reduction credits claimed in the SIP.

According to the schedule submitted by California test-only inspection began in Sacramento in August 1995. The program is expected to be fully operational in Fresno, Bakersfield and San Diego by the fall of 1996, and in the South Coast areas in early 1997. California has made agood faith estimate that its hybrid enhanced I/M program will meet EPA's high performance standard based on the California Pilot Program and innovative program features including an electronic transmission program, ahigh visibility remote sensing program, and stringent licensing and training requirements.

The pilot program conducted as part oftheMemorandum ofAgreement between EPA and California provided data on the effectiveness oftargetting high emitting vehicles through the use ofthehigh-emitter profile (HEP) and remote sensing combined with the HEP, and the useofAcceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) testing.The vehicles required to go to test-only facilities for inspection will be comprised oflikely high-emitters as identified through use ofthe HEP and remote sensing, previously identified high emitters which must undergo annual testing for 2 to 5 years, high emitters identified by test-and-repair stations, high mileage fleet vehicles, vehicles for hire, a 2% random sample, and motorists voluntarily choosing to go to test-only stations.

California's program includes an electronic transmission program. A central Vehicle Information Database will be created and an electronic network enabling the test analyzer system units to connect automatically to the database willbe established. The central database will be able to restrict the issuance ofcertificates under certain circumstances, e.g., if a test-only inspection is required, when the vehicle 

### isidentified as a high emitter,orwhen
an enhanced test isrequired. The database will alsofurnish a real-time communications linkto vehicle emissions data which willprovide information to BARenforcement teams tohelp immediately identify illicit activity. Thedatabase will also beused to develop atrigger program to identify shops that areperforming improper inspections and totrack thelocation andperformance oflicensed smogcheck technicians.

The State will also bephasingin a high-visibility remote sensingprogram. California plans to identify asleast 200,000high emittingvehicles annually in theenhanced program areas. Data collected from theprogram will be use as a targetparameter for the enforcementprogram. Theprogram will also serve as a visiblereminder toboth motorists and test-and-repair stations thatimproper inspections and/or program avoidance may be detected. Stringent licensing and training requirements arebeingrequired for testand-repair stations andrepair technicians, respectively.

California has committed to performing quarterly evaluations ofits program to determine ifEPA's performance standard is beingmet and thecredits taken for theprogram are being achieved. California plans to adjustthe numberofvehicles sent to test-only stations based on these evaluations. EPA will workwith California to further define California's data collection protocols and analysis as EPA's guidance onprogram evaluation isdeveloped.

b. Emissions Reductions. The emission reductions tobe achieved by themeasure are displayed by nonattainment area and milestone/ attainment year in thetablebelow, labeled "Reductions from California I/M Program."

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA ENHANCED I/M PROGRAM [Tons per pay]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx
So. Coast

.............................................. 34.8 32.4 40.3 35.5 32.5 33.0

.......... .......... 30.2 34.8 26.2 31.1 SE Desert

.............................................. 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.8 Ventura

.................................................. 1.6 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.9 Sacramento

........................................... 5.4 5.7 6.3 6.5 5.1 6.4 S

.Joaquin

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

. Diego

................................................ 0 0

c. EPA Action. EPA is proposing to approve the California I/M regulations submitted on January 22, 1996, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act reductions toward the progress,
as strengtheningthe SIP and attainment, and maintenance contributing specific emission requirements ofthe Act. 

## 10933

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10933 1996

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

EPA is also proposing to approve under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act the California I/M program submitted on June 30, 1995, and the I/ M regulations submitted on January 22, 1996, asmeeting therequirements of section 182(b)(4) ofthe Act forbasic I/ M in applicable areas ofthe State classified as moderate for ozone.

Finally, under section 348(c) ofthe Highway Act, EPA is proposing to grant approval for a period of 18 months to the California I/M submittals ofJune 30, 1995, and January 22, 1996, as meeting the requirements ofsection 182(c)(3) of the CAA for enhanced I/M in applicable

areas ofthe State classified as serious and above for ozone. Section 348(c)(3) ofthe Highway Actprovides thatEPA will take regulatory action to make the approval permanent if, atthe expiration ofthe 18-month period or at an earlier time, the data collected on the operation ofthe State program demonstrates that "the credits are appropriate and the revision is otherwise in compliance with the Clean Air Act."

Ifthe State fails to start its program within 12 months ofapproval, EPA proposes to have the approval convert to

adisapproval after a finding letter is sent to the State. Iftherequired State demonstration is not completed within 18 months or does not show that the credits are appropriate and that the program is otherwise in compliance with the CAA, EPA will take regulatory action to disapprove the program for purposes ofcompliance with the enhanced I/Mrequirements ofsection 182(c)(3). In that event, the SIP will no longer meet the specific requirements of the Act relating to enhanced I/M, but the State's regulations will continue in the SIP as contributing to progress, attainment, and maintenance ofthe NAAQS.
3. Consumer Products

a. Introduction. "Consumer products"

are a variety ofproducts generally purchased from a retail establishment for household useby the end user. These products include: cleaning products, insecticides, toiletries, aerosol paints (non-architectural paints arenot considered consumer products under California environmental law), adhesives, air fresheners, cooking sprays, disinfectants, and other common household articles that contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and are considered "consumption goods". The term does not refer to consumer electronics, furniture, appliances, cooking or serving utensils, furnishings,

or other items that are considered "durable goods", nor does the term refer to food items (except cooking sprays), beverages, or tobacco products.

In its 1994 ozone SIP submittal, CARB presents adiscussion ofthe State's current and anticipated measures for controlling the VOC content of

consumer products, and sets forth the claimed emissions reductions. CARB classifies the emissions reductions resulting from regulations on consumer products regulations into 3 main categories: near-term, mid-term, and long-term with regard to date of promulgation and implementation.

CARB's near-term measures are comprised ofrules adopted prior to May 1995. The existing consumer products regulations, antiperspirant and deodorant regulations, and the 1996 and 1999 VOC content standards ofthe recently adopted aerosol paints rule comprise the near-term measures.

CARB's mid-term measures consist of anticipated regulations from categories ofconsumer products for which regulations had not yet been adopted at the time ofthe submittal. These reductions are expected to be adopted by July 1, 1997 and implemented by the year 2005, and will cover 150 consumer product categories which arecurrently not regulated by the State ofCalifornia. These mid-term measures areneeded for attainment demonstrations in the Sacramento Metropolitan and Ventura County air basins. In the SIP, CARB asserts that these measures, like the near-term measures, rely on available technology.

CARB has committed to obtaining further reductions (as compared to the

near- and mid-term measures) from

consumer products after2000. These reductions would not rely on available technology, but would currently be considered technology forcing. These long-term measures would be enforced

on a statewide basis, but only the South Coast plan relies on the emissions reductions to demonstrate attainment.

CARB has further categorized their emission reduction commitments into 4 classifications, or "measures": CP-1, CP-2, CP-3, and CP-4. These measures
are either adopted rules or commitments to adopt rules to reduce VOC emissions from consumer products and aerosol paints. A description ofeach ofthese

measures follows.
b. Adopted Consumer Products Rules

i. Measure CP-1. Measure CP-1 is comprised oftwo rules, both adopted prior to November 1994, that are designed to control VOC emissions from commercial products. One rule controls VOC emissions from antiperspirants and deodorants; the other rule controls emissions from household products, such as air fresheners, shaving cream, and hairsprays. Both rules were submitted to EPA on November 15, 1994. EPA approved these rules intothe SIP on August 21, 1995 (see 60 FR 43379).

ii. Measure CP-3 (Aerosol Paints). Measure CP-3 is anear term commitment to adopt and implement VOCcontent standards in aerosol paints. Regulations meeting these commitments were adopted in mid1995. Theseregulations limit the VOC content ofaerosol paints by establishing sets ofVOC content standards for various coating types. These standards establish the maximum percentage of VOCby weight allowed in the various types ofaerosol coatings. The coating standards are divided intotwo phases. In the first phase, which is due to take effectJanuary 1, 1996, aerosol coatings' VOCcontent will have limits that range from 60 percent to 95 percent, depending on the coating.

In the second phase, currently due to take effect December 31, 1999, aerosol coatings' VOC content limits willrange from 30 percent to 80 percent, depending on the type ofcoating. Before the second phase ofcontent limits can be implemented, CARB must conduct a public hearing to determine ifthe limits

are commercially and technologically feasible. Ifthe Board determines that they are not feasible, the implementation ofsome or all ofthe limits may be postponed for up to 5 years. However, CARB may not submit the 1999 limits to EPA as a SIP revision until after the Board has determined that they aretechnologically and commercially feasible, and is prohibited from doing so by section 41712(f)(3) of the California Health and Safety Code.

EPA approval action on both phases ofthe aerosol paint rules will be taken in separate rulemakings following SIP submittal ofthe rules.

c. Mid-Term Committal Measure CP2.Measure CP-2 is amid-term commitment to adopt additional regulations prior to 1997 to further reduce VOC emissions from household

consumerproducts. These reductions

are anticipated to result from the further regulation ofnew categories of

consumerproducts through technology that is currently feasible and commercially viable. EPA proposed to approve CP-2 on August 21, 1995, and finalized approval on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).

d. Long-Term Committal Measure CP4. Measure CP-4 is along-term measure to further reduce emissions after

measures CP-1, CP-2, and CP-3 are implemented. The control strategies committed to in CP-4 depend on 

## 10934

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10934 1996

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

advancement ofmanufacturing technology for consumer products and aerosols. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's Measure CP-4 as meeting therequirements ofsection 182(e)(5).

e. Alternative Compliance Plans (ACPs). In order to provide industry with flexibility in meeting the VOC content limits for aerosol paints, CARB has adopted regulations that will allow manufacturers to meet the VOC standards on an averagebasis. The regulations, CARB's Alternate Control Plan (ACP)for consumer products and aerosol coatings, require that manufacturers carefully track sales and VOC content ofall products being averaged together in order to determine total VOC emissions from their products and compliance with the rule.EPA will act on theACP regulations following submittal by the State.

f.Emission Reductions. The following table describes the ROG emission reductions in terms oftons per day, as identified in the SIP submittal. Credits for near-term consumer products (CP-1) arenot included, since they were presumed in baseline emissions projections as adopted regulations. The ROP and attainment demonstrations for San Diego, San Joaquin Valley or Santa Barbara do notrely on reductions from the consumer products measures, although real reductions will occur in those areas. Credits for consumer products and aerosolpaints (near-term and long-term) are combined. Credit for CP-4 is claimed only for South Coast.

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND AEROSOL PAINT PROGRAM [Reductions beyond those achieved by CP-1] [tons per day of ROG]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

South Coast
.............................................................................................................................................. 0 8 39.2

........ 42.2 89.2 SED esert
................................................................................................................................................. 0 0.4 3.5 4.0 V

entura ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 0.4 2.2 Sacramento
.............................................................................................................................................. 0 1.1 5.6 SanJoaquin

............................................................................................................................................. 0 SanDiego ................................................................................................................................................. 16.6

g. EPA Action. As discussed above, 4. Pesticides technical details ofthe pesticide EPA has already fully approved all of a. Review ofMeasure. California's commitment. 5This clarification is the State's consumer products rules and 1994 SIP submittal includes a considered part ofCalifornia's SIP. committal measures with the exception commitment to reduce VOC emissions b. Emission Reductions. As described ofCP-3 (Aerosol Paints).EPA is now from the application ofagricultural and in the SIP, California has committed to proposing to approve CP-3 under structural pesticides. The submittal adopt and submitto U.S. EPAby June sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, describes relevant authority in Section 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to and assign credit to this measure, as 6220 ofTitle 3 ofthe California Code of reduce VOC emissions from agricultural well as to thepreviously approved Regulations that hasbeen granted to the and commercial structural pesticides by

consumer products measures, aspart of California Department ofPesticide specific percentages ofthe 1990base the ROP and attainment demonstrations Regulation (DPR).However, since CARB year emissions, 6by specific years, and for appropriate nonattainment areas. has overall responsibility for developing in specific nonattainment areas aslisted EPA will take regulatory action on the the SIP, California's pesticide in the table labeled, "Reductions from recently adopted ACP and Aerosol commitment is described in aletter 1990 Pesticide Emissions Baselines." Paints regulations themselves in from DPR to CARB, 4 which CARB then The table labeled "Reductions from submitted to EPA with thebalance of Pesticides Measure" shows reductions sepdrdte rulemdkings, the 1994 SIP. In May 1995, California counted toward the ROP milestones and
used a similar mechanism to clarify attainment in each area.
REDUCTIONS FROM 

### 1990 PESTICIDE EMISSIONS BASELINES

Ozone nonattainment area 1996 (percent) 1999 (percent) 2002 (percent) 2005 (percent)
Sacramento M etro

............................................................................................ 8 12 16 20 SanJoaquin Valley

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

.................................................................................................. 8 12 16 20 Southeast D esert

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

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

REDUCTIONS FROM PESTICIDES MEASURE [Tons per day of ROG]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

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

............ 1.6 1.7 Sou theas t D esert

.......................................................................................................... 0 0 1.2 1.5

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

4James Wells (DPR) to James Boyd (CARB), dated 6In aMarch 31, 1995 letter from Wells to David emissions that mightotherwise occur. "Therefore, November 15, 1994. Howekamp (EPA), California clarified its theproposed 20 percent reduction goal couldbe

5May 9, 1995 letter from Wells to Boyd under a commitment to limit future VOC emissions from considered to begreater than 20 percent if one May 11, 1995 cover letterfrom Boyd to Felicia pesticides to the targetpercentages ofthe 1990 base includes growth in pesticidal VOC emissions." Marcus (EPA). year emissions, regardless offuture growth in (March 31 letter, page2.) 

## 10935

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10935 1996

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

REDUCTIONS FROM PESTICIDES MEASURE-Continued [Tons per day of ROG]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010

V

entura ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 2.4

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

............ ............ ............ SanJ o aq

uin
................................................................................................................. 1

3 .............. ............ ............ ..

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

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

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

The pesticide component of California's SIP also describes education and outreach programs intended to achieve these emission reductions voluntarily. EPA strongly encourages these programs, and hopes to work with DPR and the affected industries to make them successful. In the event, however, that additional control strategies are needed, California's commitment to adopt and submit any necessary pesticide regulations is sufficient to
ensure those emission reductions described in thetable labeled, "Reductions from 1990 Pesticide Emissions Baselines." 7

c. EPA Action. EPA is proposing to approve the Pesticides measure under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, and assign credit to the measure as part ofthe ROP and attainment demonstrations for appropriate nonattainment areas. EPA will take regulatory action on the State's Pesticides regulations, if any regulations

arerequired and are submitted, in separate rulemakings.
B. Federal Assignments
1. State Approach

In addition to, and in association with, the State's mobile source control measures, the 1994 California Ozone SIP sets forth a group of7 specific mobile

source control measures that the State would not be responsible for adopting and implementing.

These new "Federal assignments" and the adoption and implementation dates in the California SIP are as follows:

M6-Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles: a national standard of2.0 g/bhp-hr, to be adopted in 1997 and implemented in 2004. M10-Off-Road Diesel Equipment:

anational standard of2.5 g/bhp-hr, to be adopted in 2001 and implemented in 2005. M12-Industrial Equipment, Gas and LPG: a national standard reflecting application ofthree-way catalyst systems, to be adopted in 1997 and implemented from 2000 to 2004.

M13-Marine Vessels: national and international standards to reduce NOx

7Note that forpurposes ofROP and attainment demonstrations in the SIPs, California has not claimed emission reduction credit for the 8% pesticide emission reductions planned for 1996. emissions from new engines by30 percent, and operational controls, including shipping lane changes and vessel speed reduction, to be adopted in 1996 and implemented from 1998 to 2001.

M14-Locomotives: national standards for new and rebuilt locomotive engines, alongwith provisions to ensure thatby 2010 locomotive fleets in the South Coast Air Basin will emit on average no more than the 2005 emission level for new locomotives, to be adopted in 1995 and implemented from 2000 to 2010.

M15-Aircraft: national standards to effect a 30 percent reduction in ROG and NOx emissions, to be adopted in 1999 and implemented in 2000.

M16-Pleasure Craft: national standards (both Phase I and II).

CARB's decision to place responsibility on the Federal government for these controls rests on the State's conclusion that: (1) State and local agencies lack the legal authority or practical ability to control these source categories; (2) thereductions contributed bythe new Federal assignments areessential forprogress and attainment in California; and (3) there are no feasible alternative sources ofreductions that are available to the State, given the stringent level ofcontrol ofall other source categories reflected in the SIPs.
2. EPA Action

While EPA does not believe thatthe CAA authorizes a state to assign responsibility to the Federal government for meeting SIP requirements, the Agency agrees that it hasboth the authority and responsibility under the Act for regulating certain national

sources ofair pollution. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, in fact, extended EPA's authority to regulate nonroad vehicles and engines and expressly required EPAto evaluate nonroad engine emissions, determine whether these emissions contribute significantly to ozone or CO in areas which have failed to attain the ozone or CO NAAQS, and regulate these emissions categories if found to be significant. Under this authority, EPA completed a Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study and issued an affirmative determination of significance (59 FR31306, June 17, 1994). EPA has also proposed, and in

some cases finalized, rules for various nonroad vehicles and engines, including several ofthe California SIP "Federal measure" source categories. The current status ofEPA's actions on each ofthe "Federal measure" categories is summarized in the Appendix to this document.

EPA recently established a new policy that allows States to incorporate into theirROPs and attainment demonstrations the estimated emission reductions associated with courtordered or statutorily-mandated

measures prior to final promulgation of the Federal regulations. 8 Consistent with this policy, EPA is proposing to assign to the California Ozone SIPs emissions reduction credit for nonocean-going marine vessels, locomotives, and pleasure craft, based

on EPA's current estimates ofthe reductions that will be achieved by these national measures. These credits

are sufficient, in conjunction with those attributed by California to the State and local measures, to demonstrate progress and attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS in all ofthe California ozone nonattainment areas except forthe South Coast.

Additionally, EPA hasbeen evaluating other potential future "Federal measures," including controls for most categories ofmobile sources. These measures have significance in the

8This policy (January 30, 1996 memorandum fromMary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air &Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, on "SIP Credits for Federal Nonroad Engine Emissions Standards and Certain Other Mobile Source Programs") supersedes EPA's prior policy, expressed in aNovember 23, 1994memorandum fromMary Nichols on the same subject. Theearlier memorandum allowed SIP credit fornational mobile sourcemeasures required but notyet promulgated "provided states also commit to adopt gap-fillingmeasures to account for any shortfalls, identified later, between currently anticipated and actual final rulebenefits." EPA is now eliminating therequirement for statecommitments. Ifthe final national measure delivers less than credited in the SIP, EPA may issue a call for plan revision under section 110(k)(5) if the SIP for an area becomes, as
aresult, substantially inadequate to comply with any requirement ofthe Act, including the provisions relating to demonstrations ofROP and attainment. 

### 10936

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10936 1996

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

South Coast. EPA's evaluation ofthese possible national controls has been ongoing from theperiod ofFIP preparation through the present, and has evolved into a consultative process.

In the area ofonroad controls, EPA's heavy-duty vehicle initiative, developed in cooperation with CARB, is one aspect ofthisprocess. This consultative initiative, which is consistent with the State's measure M6, has already shown

success and recently culminated in a Statement ofPrinciples (SOP) signed by EPA, individual members oftheheavyduty engine industry, and CARB regarding future national standards for on-highway heavy-duty engines. The goal ofthe SOP is to reduce NOx emissions from on-highway heavy-duty engines to levels approximating 2.0 g/bhp-hr beginningin model year 2004, while also achieving reductions in HC. For further details on the SOP and initiative, see EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (60 FR45580, August 31, 1995). EPA is also engaged in cooperative efforts with the State of California to discuss with affected industry a similar heavy-duty nonroad initiative.

As discussed more fully in section II.C.7.e., below, setting forth EPA's proposed approval ofthe South Coast attainment demonstration, EPA agrees with the State that national and international mobile source emissions

areincreasingly significant contributors to ozone pollution, particularly in the South Coast. EPA also agrees with the State that CARB and EPA share responsibility for controlling new mobile sources. To address this challenge cooperatively, the CARB Board, in its resolution ofadoption of the 1994 California Ozone SIP, included specific direction to the CARB Executive Officer to continue to meet and confer with EPAregarding the federal assignments (CARB Resolution No. 94-60, November 15, 1994).

Following adoption ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP, EPA and CARB have discussed the affected mobile

source control categories and, while the agencies have notreached consensus on difficult issues of jurisdiction and responsibility, the two agencies share a strongmutual interest in further consultation on and collaboration in identifying and developing the most effective and least disruptive approaches to achieving further reductions in air emissions from the various categories ofmobile sources.

Building on this interagency cooperation, EPA proposes to continue and expand the ongoingconsultative process with California and other appropriate parties to examine the potential for additional mobile source controls that can contribute to progress and attainment, and that are compatible with other important regulatory considerations, including those associated with interstate and international commerce. EPAproposes that this consultative process conclude in June 1997 with adecision on those additional measures that are appropriate for each party to pursue. EPA further proposes to make an enforceable commitment to undertake rulemakings, afterthe consultative process, on control

measures needed to achieve the emission reductions which are determined to be appropriate for EPA.

Finally, EPAproposes to approve the South Coast attainment demonstration if CARB submits, before EPA's final action, an enforceable SIP commitment to adopt and submit as a SIP revision: (a) by December 31, 1997, arevised attainment demonstration for the South Coast as appropriate after the consultative process; and (b)by December 31, 1999, enforceable emission limitations and other control

measures needed to achieve the emission reductions which are determined to be appropriate for the State.
C.LocalROPandAttainmentPlansand Measures
1. Introduction and Common Elements

This section discusses the progress and attainment plans for each area, including local, state and Federal measures, and describes EPA's proposed action on those plans with regard to the ROP requirements ofsections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(B), and the attainment requirements ofsections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(A).

As described earlier, following local adoption ofthe plans, the State took further action on the plans, adding a statewide measure component and, in

some cases, modifying the locally adopted plan. Volume IV ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP presents CARB's adjustments to the local plans, and summarizes the ROP and attainment demonstrations. CARB also supplied detailed spreadsheets delineating projected emissions reductions in each area, by State measure and milestone year, to complete the technical documentation ofeach area's ROP and attainment demonstrations.

a. Emission Inventories. (1) 1990 Base Year Inventories

Section 182(a)(1) ofthe CAA requires that a comprehensive, accurate, and current base year inventory ofactual emissions be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision for each area designated as nonattainment and classified marginal and higher for ozone. The 1990 emissions inventory is defined as the base year inventory and provides a benchmark for ROP and attainment planning.

Annual and ozone season weekday inventories ofactual emissions are required for VOC,NOx, and CO for each

ozone nonattainment area. These inventories detail emissions for all categories ofstationary point sources,
area sources, onroad vehicles, offroad engines, and biogenics (forVOC). The inventories use the best available emission factors and activity indicators representative ofthe ozone season.

The 1990base year inventories were initially submitted by CARB in November 1992 and improved inventories were submitted again aspart ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP. On March 30, 1995, CARB submitted revised 1990base year inventories which further refined the inventory estimates. EPAis proposing approval of the March 30, 1995, inventory submittal.

Annual emission inventory estimates

are adjusted to represent the ozone
season weekday inventory (the "planning inventory"). Seasonal throughput, seasonal activity factors, and temperature considerations are used, as appropriate, to develop the planning inventory. Although EPA recommends a 3 month peak ozone
season as the basis for the planning inventory estimates, because ofthe persistence ofozone violations in California from May through October, the CARB uses a 6 month average operating day emissions estimate.

Stationary sources are broadly grouped into point and area sources. Point sources typically include permitted equipment located at a fixed, identifiable establishment (e.g., a refinery). Actual emissions arereported annually to local air pollution agencies

as apart ofan ongoing operating permit renewal and emission statement processes. Operating permit requirements generally pertain to
sources emitting at least 10 tons per year, with lowerlimits in some areas. Thisinformation is used by the local air district to periodically update inventory estimates for stationary sources.

Area sources generally include small point sources (e.g., gasoline dispensing facilities) and ubiquitous emissions not associated with a permit (e.g., consumer products). CARB and the local air pollution control districts share the responsibility for calculating emissions from the over 200 area source categories. The emission and activity factors used 

## 10937

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10937 1996

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

to develop area source inventories are described in CARB guidance. 9

Mobile source estimates are divided into on-road and off-road categories. Onroad emissions are estimated by vehicle class, roadway type and vehicle age. Caltrans, CARB, local government agencies, and the Department ofMotor Vehicles supply the data necessary to estimate emissions from on-road mobile

sources. On-road mobile source emissions inventories for SIP purposes
are generally developed using the latest version ofMOBILE, EPA's mobile

source emission factor model, but in California, CARB has developed its own on-road mobile source emission factor model, EMFAC. Together with CARB's WEIGHT model, which estimates accumulated mileage and activities by vehicle year, and BURDEN model, which estimates vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled by vehicle type, CARB develops the on-road mobile

source emissions inventories for the nonattainment areas. The version of EMFAC used for the November 15, 1994 and March 30, 1995 submittals was EMFAC7F version 1.1.

The off-road mobile source inventory includes emissions from categories ranging from lawn mowers to oceangoing vessels. Emission estimates are a function ofemission factors, activity rates, and control factors. Emission factors and methodologies used to calculate emissions are based on information compiled byEPA, CARB, and the local districts.

The CARB base year inventory includes biogenic emission estimates. EPA's biogenic emission estimation software, Biogenic Emission Inventory System, was used in conjunction with temperature inputsrepresentative ofthe

area ofconcern, consistent with EPA guidance. This software is used to estimate emissions from natural sources (e.g., trees, crops, etc.). Although biogenic emissions represent an uncontrollable source, these potentially significant emissions are included in the attainment demonstration modeling.

Because the CARB inventories represent actual emissions, the inventories already reflect excess, noncompliant emissions and, consistent with EPA's guidance 10, they do not require further adjustment by the 80% rule effectiveness discount.

While CAA requirements and EPA guidance are stated in terms ofVOC,

some California Districtplans estimate their inventories in terms ofeither

9Methods forAssessingArea SourceEmissionsin California(CARB, September 1991 and updates).

10EPA policy memorandum from OAQPS to Regional AirDivision Directors (April27, 1995). Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) or Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC). The Santa Barbara, San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento area plans useROG while Ventura uses ROC. The only difference between VOC and ROG/ROC is the inclusion ofethane in the ROG/ ROC inventory estimates.

EPA has concluded that the VOC, NOx, and CO inventories ofactual emissions for the ozone nonattainment

areas satisfy therequirements ofthe Act and EPA's associated approval criteria. Therefore, under section 182(a)(1) ofthe Act, EPAis proposing to approve the 1990 baseyear inventories for each of the ozone nonattainment areas addressed in this document. (2) Inventory Projections

Future year inventories areneeded to estimate milestone and attainment year inventories. These estimates are then used in projecting and calculating ROP and attainment. Future year inventories

are developed usingbase year inventory estimates adjusted using growth and control factors. Growth factors are developed using socioeconomic forecasts (i.e., population, housing, employment, and motor vehicle activity) and Standard Industrial Classification data. Growth rates for motor vehicles consider projected changes in vehicle miles traveled, trips, and vehicles in use. Control factors are used to adjust future year inventory estimates to account for reductions from adopted and scheduled measures. EPA proposes to approve the inventory projections for each ofthe nonattainment areas, since the projections meet allapplicable requirements.

b. ROP Targets. The CAA outlines and EPA guidance details the method for calculating the ROP requirements for the milestone years. Section 182(b)(1)(A) requires a 15% VOC reduction byNovember 15, 1996, from the adjusted 1990 base year inventory (i.e., 3% per year reduction from 1990 to 1996). Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires that after 1996, an additional 3% per year VOC (orNOx equivalent) emission reduction be achieved (in 3 year increments) untilthe attainment date. The percent reduction requirements by milestone year and by area classification

are shown below in thetable labeled "ROP Requirements."



### ROP REQUIREMENTS

Reduction Classification Year (percent)

Moderate and above

.... 1996 15 Serious and above 1999 24 

### ROP REQUIREMENTS-Continued

Classification Year Reduction (percent)
Severe Iand above

...... 2002 33 2005 42 Severe IIand above

..... 2007 48 Extreme

........................ 2008 51 2010 57

Section 182(b)(1) requires that ROP reductions: (1) Be in addition to those needed to offset any growth in emissions between thebase year and the milestone year; (2) exclude emission reductions from 4prescribed Federal programs (i.e., the Federal motor vehicle controlprogram (FMVCP),the Federal Reid vapor pressure (RVP) requirements, any Reasonably Available Control Technology corrections previously specified byEPA, and any I/ M program corrections necessary to meet thebasic I/M level); and (3) be calculated from an "adjusted" baseline relative to the year for which the reduction is applicable. The adjusted ROPbase year inventory excludes the emission reductions from fleet turnover between 1990 and 1996 and from Federal RVP regulations promulgated by November 15, 1990 or required under section 211(h) oftheAct.

The net effect ofthese adjustments is that states arenot able to take credit for emissions reductions that would result from fleet turnover ofcurrent Federal standard cars and trucks, or from already existing Federal fuel regulations. However, the SIP can take full credit for the benefits ofany new (i.e., post-1990) vehicle emissions standards, as well as any other new Federal or State motor vehicle orfuel program that will be implemented in the nonattainment area, including TierI exhaust standards, new evaporative emissions standards, reformulated gasoline, enhanced I/M, California low emissions vehicle program, transportation controlmeasures, etc.

When compared to the national tailpipe and fuel standards promulgated by EPA, California has had more stringent standards for some time. The methodology used in the November 1993 15% ROP submittals was not necessarily the most appropriate way to model the exclusions, in light ofthe effects ofthese differing standards. Therefore, CARB recalculated the exclusions for Federal RVP and FMVCP for its adjusted base year inventories and submitted revised ROP plans in November 1994. The resulting ROP targets conform to applicable requirements and EPA proposes to 

## 10938

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10938 1996

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

approve them aspart ofthe approval of the ROP demonstrations.

c. NOxSubstitution. Section 182(c)(2)(C) allows forNOx reductions (after accounting for growth) which

occur after 1990 to beused to meet the post-1996 ROP emission reduction requirements, provided that such NOx reductions meet the criteria outlined in EPA's NOx substitution guidance." The criteria require that: (1) the sum ofall creditable VOC and NOx reductions must meet the 3% per year ROP requirement; (2) substitution is on a percent-for-percent ofadjusted base year emissions for the relevant pollutant; and (3) the sum ofall substituted NOx reductions cannot be greater than the cumulative NOx reductions required by the modeled attainment demonstration. While theAct and the guidance do allow use of 1990-1996 NOx reductions for substitution in the post-1996 period, the amount ofNOxreductions available for substitution is subject to the same creditability exclusions described above. As discussed below in the review ofthe individual plans, the California

ozone areas relyingon NOx substitution in post-1996 ROP demonstrations (San Joaquin, San Diego, Sacramento, and Ventura) meet applicable requirements pertaining to NOxsubstitution.

The term "VOC equivalents" is used in the ROP tables for the areas relying

on NOx substitution. This term was taken from CARB's November 1994 SIP. VOC equivalents is not meant to imply that NOxreductions were substituted for VOC reductions on a one-for-one basis. The amount ofNOx substitution

was determined bycalculating the VOC shortfall percentage, and then converting thepercentage into an equivalent reduction ofNOx. For the

areasrelying on NOx substitution, CARB and the districts have demonstrated that theNOx reductions

are creditable and not in excess ofwhat is necessary for attainment. A companion EPA technical support document provides a more detailed description ofthe calculations and amount ofNOxreduction used to represent the VOC equivalents.

d. Modeling. (1) Introduction

An attainment demonstration is a key part ofa State Implementation Plan: using air quality modeling, it shows that the proposed emission control measures
are sufficient for the NAAQS to be attained by the applicable deadline. For

11

"NOx Substitution Guidance," OAQPS, USEPA, December, 1993; "Guidance on thePost1996 Rate-ofProgress Plan and the Attainment Demonstration," EPA 452/R 93 015, OAQPS, USEPA, January, 1994. 

### ozone nonattainment areas classified serious, severe, or extreme, section 182(c)(2)(A) requires an attainment demonstration based on photochemical grid modeling, for which theUrban Airshed Model (UAM) istheEPAapproved model. (See Appendix Wof 40 CFRPart 51.)

The modelingportions ofthe SIP submittals were generally reviewed in terms oftechnical accuracy, and for consistency with EPAmodeling guidelines. The guidelines arethe Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model (EPA, 7/91), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model forAreawide Carbon Monoxide (EPA, 6/92), and Guidance on Urban Airshed Model (UAM)Reporting Requirements for Attainment Demonstration (EPA, 3/94). Thus, the review covered the appropriateness ofdata sources, appropriateness oftechnicaljudgements and procedures followed in input preparation, performance ofquality
assurance and diagnostic procedures, adequacy ofmodel basecase performance, consistency ofcontrol
measure simulation inputs with the submitted control measures, adequacy ofthedemonstration ofattainmentof the NAAQS, and consistency and completeness ofdocumentation. EPA's confidence in the conclusionsreached in the review is enhanced because of EPA's participation in technical committees and meetings foreach area, and other communications with State and local technical staff,as themodel applications were beingdeveloped.

The UAM modeluses an inventory of pollutant emissions, together with air quality and meteorological data, as input to a system ofalgorithms incorporating chemistry and dispersion, in order to simulate an observed pollution episode. Once a "base case" is developed thatmeets theminimum performance criteria, projected future emissions are used as input to simulate airquality in the attainment deadline year. Various combinations of geographically uniform emission reductions are simulated to determine approximate attainment reduction targets. Planners design acontrol strategy tomeet these targets, and then simulate it with UAM, includingthe spatially andtemporally varyingeffects ofthe selected controls. Attainment is demonstrated when themodeled air quality with emission controls in effect is below the NAAQS throughout the geographical modeling domain. (2) Uncertainty andModel Performance

A modeling attainment demonstration is subject to several uncertainties. The meteorological and air quality inputs have their own associated uncertainties, both in measurement and in representativeness. In addition, not all variables can be measured for allhours,

so default and interpolated values must be used. Processes such as chemical reaction and advection necessarily appear in the model in simplified form. The selected episodes may not represent all conditions conducive to high pollutant levels. Finally, base case and projected emissions are uncertain. Biogenic emission inventory methodologies are in a state offlux. In spite ofthese sources ofuncertainty, photochemical grid modeling is the best tool that is available fordetermining the emission reductions that are needed for NAAQS attainment. The Guideline procedures are meant to ensure that inputs are setin a scientifically sound manner, and to uncover compensating

errors that can be present even when the model predicts ozone well.

As explained in the Guideline, episodes are chosen formodeling based

on theirhigh ozone levels, data availability, and other criteria. Generally, episodes should be chosen that are approximately as severe as the area's design value, which isbased on the historical ozone highs. During a particular episode, the observed ozone peak may be higher or lower than the design value; but as long as itis relatively close, that episode can be accepted for use in an attainment demonstration. See also the discussion ofthe attainment test,below.

Once an episode is chosen, modelers attemptto simulate it with UAM. Various performance statistics and diagnostic tests are available to gauge their success. Three ofthe statistics are presented in the table in this notice. The most commonly stated one is the peak accuracy, since it is the ozone peak that is ultimately to be reduced to the NAAQS level. However, ituses only one place and time out ofallthose simulated. In judgingmodel performance to be acceptable, predictions at many places and times

are examined. Also, the overall pattern ofozone and other chemical species are evaluated, in light ofthe changing emissions and meteorology occurring during the episode. Sometimes a lengthy process ofdiagnostic testing and refinement ofinputs is required. Thus, the finally accepted base case may show

somebias (e.g., simulated ozone peak notmatching the observed), and yet be fully adequate as a simulation ofthe episode, and foruse in an attainment demonstration. Except where noted, all ofthe submitted California modeling 

## 10939

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10939 1996

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

episodes had acceptable performance, meeting EPA Guideline criteria. (3) Number ofEpisodes

The Guideline calls for a minimum of 3 primary episode days to be modeled. EPA elected to allow areas to usejust two if they were based on a field study, since this provides substantially more complete data, and so more confidence in model development procedures and results. The tradeoff ofhigher quality modeling for fewer episodes is deemed by EPAto be a reasonable one. Unfortunately, due to problems of model performance or transport, some
areas were only able to develop modeling for a single ozone episode. The Guideline is silent on what should be done in cases where, in spite ofan area's best effort, the model simply cannot be made to perform for a given

ozone episode. EPA is electing to accept the California efforts as adequate. (4) Attainment Test

Recently, questions have arisen over what test an area has to meet to demonstrate attainment; this has been thought ofas showing that every geographical point within the model domain is reduced to .12 ppm ozone for every hour, for every episode modeled. However, the statistical nature ofthe

ozone NAAQS allows each point in space to have one NAAQS exceedance per year (3 year average). Addingthis to the uncertainties in model inputs and in the model itself, the above test maybe overly conservative. In borderline cases, the overall weight ofevidence of modeling, emissions and meteorological characteristics ofan area mayprovide a useful adjunct to the attainment test, though this was not used in the California SIP submittal. (5) Transport

Pollutant transportbetween areas is

an issue ofcontinuing concern for the

areas ofSacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, Santa Barbara, South Coast, and Ventura. For Sacramento and for the portions ofsouthern California downwind ofSouth Coast, attainment has not been demonstrated under transport conditions. The ozone episodes modeled either did not include high levels oftransported pollutants,

were found to be dominated by transport and then abandoned as not representative, or the model did not perform particularly well. Ideally, upwind and downwind areas would be included within a single modeling domain; this was done in the SARMAP study centered on the San Joaquin Valley, but thus far the model does not perform well for the Sacramento area. Only alimited number ofepisodes have

so farbeen modeled, some ofthem having little transported pollution.

Nevertheless, EPA accepts the modeling done so far as adequate, because itis the best modeling available, and does show attainment of the NAAQS for locally generated days. However, the emission reductions indicated as required by the modeling to date must be viewed as valid for this stage ofplanningonly; additional reductions may be necessary in these nonattainment areas or in other areas upwind (such as the San Francisco Bay Area) to guarantee attainment ofthe NAAQS. EPA expects that this will be determined by the modeling additional transport episodes over the next few years; this effort was not feasible for the November 15, 1994 deadline because of constraints on available data, funds and staff.In part because ofthe California Clean Air Act with its more stringent

ozone standards, modeling will continue in these areas; for example, a Southern California Transport study is currently being planned. SIP revisions may become necessary should such future modeling indicate the need for additional emissions controls.

EPA proposes to approve the modeling in all ofthe ozone plans acted

on in this notice, as meeting the requirements for attainment demonstrations in sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(A).
2. Santa Barbara

a. Identification ofPlan. On November 3, 1994, the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control Board adopted Santa Barbara's 1994 Clean Air Plan (CAP). On November 14, 1994, CARB submitted the plan to EPAto comply with ROP and attainment demonstration requirements ofthe Act.' 2

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates ofthe actual VOC and NOxemissions that occurred in Santa Barbara in 1990. These base year inventories are summarized in thetable labeled "1990 Santa Barbara SIP Inventories." 13 A discussion ofthese inventories and of EPA's proposed action on them can be found in section II.C.1.a. ofthis notice.

12November 14, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the Santa Barbara SIP and CARB Executive Order No. G 125 163 approving the Santa Barbara Plan. The Santa Barbara submittal includes a November 3, 1994 letterfrom Douglas Allard (SBAPCD) to James Boyd (CARB) forwarding the 1994 Santa Barbara CAP.

13More detailed summaries ofthis inventory can be found in the 1994 CAP, Table 3 3. 

### 1990 SANTA BARBARA SIP INVENTORIES [tons persummer day] Category ROG NOx Stationary

................................. 32 12 M

o

bile

....................................... 25 3 6 OC S

.......................................... 6 2 2
Total

............................... 63 70

c. SIP Control Measures. (1)Description

The submittal describes a series of rules thathavebeen adopted in orderto reduce ROGand NOxemissions in Santa Barbara. Chapters4 and 5 ofthe CAPdescribes thecontrol measures relied upon for demonstrating compliance with theAct'sprogress and attainmentrequirements. With the exception ofcontingency measure T-21, Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program, all required measures identified in Chapters 4 and 5ofthe CAPhavebeen adopted. Because the Santa Barbara area will not achieve attainment ofthe ozoneNAAQS by November 1996 with currently adopted controls, as described laterunder section II.C.2.f.,EPA expects that
measure T-21 will be adopted in 1996 and implemented in 1997 asdescribed in theCAP. Reductions of approximately .6tons perday (tpd)of ROGand NOx are expected from the implementation ofT-21.

Table 5-1 describes the plan's transportation controlmeasures (TCMs), which, collectively, supersede theTCM listin thepreviously approved 1982 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP).The TCMs areprojected to resultin net emissions reductions for the 1996target attainment year of.3tpd ROGand .2tpd NOx. (2) EPAAction

EPA proposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, thecontrol measures portion ofthe plan, including theenforceable commitment to adopt contingency
measure T-21.

EPA approval ofthe applicable State and localfully-adopted and SIPsubmitted regulations eitherhas already occurred or willbecompleted in separate rulemaking in thefuture. As requested by the State, EPA also proposes to delete from thecurrent SIP the 1982 transportation control
measures.

d. ROP Provisions. (1)ROP Emission Targets

The submittal describes theROG emission reductions needed tomeet 

## 10940

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10940 1996

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

ROP requirements based on Santa Barbara's adjusted 1990 base year inventories. The SIP also provides emission estimates for 1996, the only applicable ROP milestone year, by determining the impacts ofthe control strategy and calculating anticipated changes in emissions resulting from projected levels ofpopulation, industrial activity, motor vehicle use, etc. A summary ofthe ROP targets and the projected ROG emissions is provided below in the Table labeled "Santa Barbara ROP Forecasts and Targets" (see 1994 CAP, Tables 9-2 and 9-5). The plan provides for achievement ofthe ROP target emission levels for 1996, the only applicable milestone year for amoderate ozone area.

SANTA BARBARA ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS 14 [In tons of ROG per summer day]

1990 BaseYear Inventory

........ 57 1996 Projections (Adopted

Measures)

..................... ..... 41 1996 ROP Target

..................... 42

1 4For the ROP determination, OCS emissionswere not included. (2) ROP Control Strategy

In general, only adopted measures may be relied upon in meeting the 15% ROP requirement. This requirement is met, since the plan relies only on adopted regulations to achieve the required ROPreductions. A detailed description ofSanta Barbara's 15% ROP demonstration isprovided in Chapter 9 ofthe CAP. (3) EPAAction

The Santa Barbara 1994 CAP meets the ROP requirements ofthe Act, including the requirement to achieve by 1996 a minimum of 15% ofcreditable VOC emission reductions from the 1990 base year. EPA therefore proposes to approve Santa Barbara's ROP plan under section 182(b)(1) ofthe Act.

e. Demonstration ofAttainment. Santa Barbara is classified as a moderate nonattainment area for ozone. As a result, the SIP must contain adequate control measures and commitments to demonstrate attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS by 1996. (1) Control Strategy

The control strategy for Santa Barbara's SIP attainment demonstration incorporates allofthe measures identified in Chapters 4 and 5 ofthe CAP. The demonstration presumes the measures, which are already fully adopted as regulations, will be implemented as shown in theplan, resulting in the emission reductions indicated in the CAP. (2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed modeling analysis performed to demonstrate that the control strategy identified above will result in NAAQS attainment. A summary ofthe emission reductions needed to attain the standard is provided below in the table labeled "Emission Reductions Needed in Santa Barbara," which is derived from information in the 1994 CAP.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN
SANTA BARBARA [Tons per summer day]

ROG NOx
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory

.................................. 63 70 Carrying Capacity

..................... 44 56 Reductions Needed

.................. 19 14

A summary ofthe emission reductions projected from the SIP control strategy is provided below in the table labeled "Santa Barbara Attainment Demonstration," which is derived from the information in the 1994 CAP.

SANTA BARBARA ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION [Tons per summer day]

ROG NOx

Reductions from adopted

measures

.............................. 19 14 Committed local measures ....... 0 0 Committed State measures 0 0
Total

............................... 19 14

The Santa Barbara area was classified

as amoderate ozone nonattainment area based on adesign value of.14 ppm, recorded atthe Carpenteria site. This

was based on 1987-1989 data. The attainment demonstration for Santa Barbara is based on Urban Airshed Modeling even though useof photochemical modeling is not a specific Clean Air Act requirement for a moderate area. Modeling for the Santa Barbara area is discussed in two documents: the "Santa Barbara County Photochemical Modeling Investigation (May, 1994)" and in the 1994 CAP (Chapter7 and Appendix D: Photochemical Modeling Documentation).

In the Santa Barbara County Photochemical Modeling Investigation,

acounty-wide assessment oftheJuly 29-31, 1991 episode was analyzed. The peak ozone concentration measured during thisperiod was .13 ppm at the Paradise Road Monitoring station. The model performance statistics did not meet EPAperformance requirements as the peak ozone concentrations were underpredicted by approximately 50%. Because ofthe lack ofperformance, an attainment demonstration was not performed with this episode. Santa Barbara APCD and Ventura County APCD collaborated on ajoint modeling effort to satisfy the attainment demonstration requirements ofthe Clean Air Act. This collaborative effort is summarized in the 1994CAP. Two 1984 episodes were selected for thejoint modeling effort: September 5-7 and September 16-17. The episodes and modeling statistics are discussed further in the accompanying technical support document. Using 1996 emission forecasts, the photochemical modeling demonstrated attainment ofthe ozone standard, although attainment forthe September 5-7 episode required removal ofthe in-transit shipping channel emissions.

Although the modeling does not fully meet EPA's performance criteria, EPA believes that the modeling is sufficient to propose approval ofthe attainment plan. (3) EPAAction

EPA believes that the Santa Barbara attainment demonstration satisfies CAA requirements. EPA therefore proposes to approve Santa Barbara's attainment demonstration under section 182(b)(1)(A) ofthe Act.

f. Overall EPA Action. EPAproposes to approve fully the Santa Barbara ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control measures, and demonstrations of ROP and attainment.

The November 14, 1994, SIP submittal included an ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Santa Barbara nonattainment area. During 1994-5, however, the Santa Barbara area recorded anumber ofexceedances of the ozone standard. This will prevent the area from attainingthe ozone standard in 1996, since attainment of the ozone NAAQS requires no more than three exceedances over athree year period.

On July 18, 1995, the State agreed to withdraw its request for EPA action on the redesignation request and the maintenance plan. As a result,EPA is nottaking action on the redesignation request and maintenance plan atthis time. However, even though the 1994- 5 exceedances will prevent Santa Barbara from achieving the ozone standard by 1996, EPA is proposing to approve Santa Barbara's 1994 CAP. If 

### 10941

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10941 1996

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

the Santa Barbara area experiences no
more than one exceedance during the 1996 ozone season and the state has complied with all requirements and commitments in the Santa Barbara SIP, section 181(a)(5) ofthe Act authorizes EPA to grant aone-year extension ofthe attainment date upon request by the State. Up to two extensions can be granted. Therefore, disapproval ofthe 1994 CAP and a reclassification ofthe

area to serious for failure to attain is not yet warranted.
3. San Diego

a. Identification ofPlan. On November 1, 1994, the Board ofthe San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) adopted the "1994 Ozone State Implementation Plan Revision". On November 15, 1994, CARB adopted the SIP revision as the local element of the 1994 California Ozone SIP, which CARB then submitted to EPA 15to comply with ROP and attainment demonstration requirements.

b. 1990 Base year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates ofthe actual VOC and NOx emissions that occurred in San Diego in 1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table below, labeled "1990 San Diego SIP Inventories." A more specific breakdown of 1990base year emissions

can be found on page 9 ofthe plan, and further inventory information is provided in the appendices to theplan. A discussion ofthese inventories and of EPA's proposed action on them can be found in section II.C.1.a., above.



### 1990 SAN DIEGO SIP INVENTORIES [Tons per summer day] Category VOC NOx Stationary

.............................. 100.0 28.0 Mobile

................................... 212.5 209.9
Total

........................... 312.5 237.9

c. SIP Control Measures. (1) Description

The plan lists the VOC and NOx control measures relied upon for demonstrating compliance with the Act's progress and attainment requirements, all ofwhich had been adopted atthe time ofthe plan submittal (see Table 4, "1999

15November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the San Diego component ofthe SIP and CARB Board Resolution No. 94 63 approving the San Diego plan revision. The San Diego submittal includes a November 3, 1994 letterfrom Richard Sommerville (SDAPCD)to James Boyd (CARB) forwarding the 1994 San Diego plan and the SDAPCD Board Resolution approving the SIP revision. Attainment Demonstration Control Measures" on p. 29 ofthe SIP). (2) EPAAction

EPA proposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, the control measures portion ofthe plan. EPA approval ofthe adopted regulations has already occurred or will be completed in separate rulemakings in the future.

d. ROP Provisions. (1) ROP Emission Targets

The 1994 SIP describes theVOC emission reductions needed to meet ROP requirements based on San Diego's adjusted 1990 base year inventories (see pp. 33 and 35). The SIP also provides emission estimates for theROP milestone years by projecting the impacts ofthe control strategy and of anticipated changes in population, industrial activity, and other socioeconomic factors. A summary ofthe ROP VOC targets and theprojected VOC emissions is provided below in thetable labeled "San Diego ROPForecasts and Targets."

As thetable shows, VOC reductions alone were not projected to be sufficient to meet the ROP target levels for milestone years after 1996. Section 182(c)(2)(C) ofthe Act and EPA guidance allows reductions in NOx emissions to be substituted for post1996 VOC reductions so long ascertain conditions are met (see discussion above in section II.C.1.c.). The San Diego plan meets those conditions and the corresponding NOxreductions as substituted for VOC reductions are also shown in the table. EPA concludes that the plan provides for achievement ofthe ROP target emission levels for all years.


### SAN DIEGO ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS [Tons per summer day]


### Milestone year 1 1996 1 1999

1990 BaseYear VOC Inventory .......................... VOC Projections (Adopted

Measures)

..................... ROP VOC Target

............. VOC Shortfall

.................... 312.6

236.1 241.2

0 312.6

232.0 212.2

19.8 

### SAN DIEGO 

### ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS-Continued

[Tons persummer day]

Milestone year 1996 1999

NOx Substitution in VOC

Equivalents 16

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

The term "VOC equivalents" is not meant to implythat NOx reductions were substituted for VOC reductions on a one-for-one basis. The amount of NOx substitution was determined by calculating the VOC shortfall percentage, and then converting the percentage into an equivalent reduction of NOx. CARB and the district have demonstrated that the NOx reductions are creditable and not in ex- cess of what is necessary for attainment. A companion TSD provides a more detailed description of the calculations and amount of NOx reduction used to represent the VOC equivalents. (2) ROP Control Strategy

In general only adopted measures may be relied upon in meeting the 15% ROP requirement in section 182(b)(1) ofthe Act. Since the plan relies only on adopted regulations, this requirement is met. According to the submitted plan, the post-1996 ROP control strategy includes allthose VOC measures relied upon for the 15% ROP demonstration,

as well as fully adopted NOx regulations. (3) EPAAction

The San Diego SIP meets the CAA requirements for ROP. EPA therefore proposes to approve San Diego's 15% and post-1996 ROPplans under sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2) ofthe Act.

e. Demonstration ofAttainment. San Diego County is classified as a serious nonattainment area for ozone (see 40 CFR 81.305). As aresult, the SIP must contain adequate controlmeasures to demonstrate attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS by 1999. (1) Control Strategy

The San Diego SIP attainment demonstration includes all ofthe

measures described earlier. The demonstration presumes the measures will continue to be implemented, resulting in the emission reductions shown. (2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed modeling analysis performed to demonstrate that the control strategy described in above willresult in NAAQS attainment. A summary ofthe emission reductions needed to attain the standard isprovided below in thetable labeled "Emission Reductions Needed in San Diego," which is taken from the 

### 10942

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10942 1996

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

1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Table F-1.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN SAN DIEGO [Tons per summer day]

VOC NOx
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory

.................................. 313 238 Carrying Capacity

..................... 232 175 Reductions Needed

.................. 81 63

A summary ofthe emission reductions projected from the SIP control strategy is provided below in the table labeled "San Diego Attainment Demonstration," which is taken from the 1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Table F-2.

SAN DIEGO ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION [Tons per summer day]

VOC NO×

Reductions fromAdopted

M

easures

.............................. 81 63 Committed Local Measures

...... 0 0 Committed State Measures

...... 1 1

Total

................................... . 82 64

The San Diego area was originally classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area based on a rounded 1987-1989 design value of .19 ppm, recorded at the DelMar station. This

was later changed to serious, since the actual value was .185 ppm, which is within 5 percent ofthe cutofffor serious (.180 ppm), as allowed under section 181(a)(4) ofthe Act (see 60 FR3771, January 19, 1995). Exceedances ofthe

ozone NAAQS typically occur in the San Diego area more than 20 timesper year. Most ofthese exceedances are classified by the SDAPCD as due to transport ofpollutants from the South Coast. Locally generated ozone episodes

aremore in the neighborhood of.15 ppm.

In order to simulate air quality for the SIP and otherplanning needs, San Diego contracted with Radian Corporation to conduct the San Diego Area Air Quality Study (SDAQS) study during the summer of 1989, and to perform subsequent modeling (summarized in draftreport, November 1991). That work was later extended by SDAPCD staff,with participation by CARB. The field study involved a network ofair quality and meteorological instruments, including airplanes, to measure ozone and its precursors and the meteorological inputs needed for UAM. Two episodes were selected for modeling from among those recorded during the field study. The August 28- 29, 1989 episode had a monitored maximum of.154 ppm, atAlpine. After diagnostic simulations and refinement ofmodel inputs, a base case was developed for the August episode, representing alocally generated ozone exceedance. The model performance statistics were within the goals setin EPA guidance, and the episode simulation wasjudged adequate for determining emission reduction targets.

A second episode, September 20-22, 1989, having a .156 ppm peak, was strongly affected by upper air transport ofpollutants from the Los Angeles area. Only limited data was available on this transported pollution. Whilethe model's performance for NOx was poor, and the expected phenomenon ofa transported ozone cloud aloft mixing down to the ground was not simulated well, the model met EPA statistical performance goals for ozone. Significant uncertainties remain, but the modeling does show the beneficial effect on San Diego ofthe upwind Los Angeles area's emissions reductions. EPA expects that additional study of transport, to be conducted over the next few years, may result in the revisiting of San Diego's air quality problems. The District is an active participant in the planning ofthis study. Since San Diego has demonstrated that such high levels

are due primarily to pollutants transported from the South Coast, additional San Diego emission reductions are not required for attainment (see 60 FR 3771-2). Finally, the impact ofadopted State and SCAQMDreductions in the 1999 attainment year further support assumptions that transport ofozone and

ozone precursors into the San Diego

area will decline significantly in future years.

Using 1999 boundary conditions and

aprojected emission inventory including the effect ofalready-adopted local and state emission control measures, the ozone peaks were simulated to be .111 ppm and .116 ppm for the August and September episodes, respectively, thus demonstrating attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS. (3) EPAAction

EPA believes that the San Diego component ofthe 1994 SIP fulfills the CAA attainment demonstration requirements. EPAis therefore proposing to approve the San Diego attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2)(A) ofthe Act.

f.Overall EPA Action. EPAproposes to approve fully the San Diego ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control measures, and demonstrations of ROP and attainment.
4. San Joaquin Valley

a. Identification ofPlan. On November 14, 1994, the Board ofthe San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) adopted the Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan for the San Joaquin Valley. On November 15, 1994, CARB modified the plan and adopted it asthe local element ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP, which CARB then submitted to EPA to comply with the ROP and attainment demonstration requirements ofthe Act. 17

b. 1990 Base year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates ofthe actual VOC and NOx emissions that occurred in San Joaquin in 1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table below, labeled "1990 San Joaquin Valley SIP Inventories." A discussion of the inventories and ofEPA's proposed action on them can be found in section II.C.1.a. ofthis notice.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 

### 1990 SIP INVENTORIES [In tons per summer day] Category VOC NOx Stationary

...................... 325.64 382.56 Mobile

........................... 218.28 327.80 On-Road

................ 170.86 228.53 Non-Road

.............. 47.44 99.28

Total

................... 543.9 710.4

c. SIP Control Measures. (1) Description

The State ofCalifornia and SJVUAPCD have already adopted many
measures which will contribute to the necessary emissions reductions for meeting 15% ROP, post-1996 ROP and attainment requirements. In addition, the SIP describes a series ofrules that SJVUAPCD hasrecently adopted or committed to adopt in order to reduce VOC and NOx emissions (SJVUAPCD Attainment Demonstration Plan, table 4-1 & 1994 California Ozone SIP,

1 November 15, 1994 letter fromJames Boyd (CARB) toFelicia Marcus, EPA forwarding the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan and CARB Board Resolution no. 94 65 approving the San Joaquin Valley revised 1993 Rate-of-Progress Plan, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan and the Attainment Demonstration Plan as revisions to the SIP. The San Joaquin Valley submittal includes a November 14, 1994 letter from David Crow (SJVUAPCD) to James Boyd (CARB), forwarding the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan and the SJVUAPCD Board Resolution (94 11 02a) approving the plan. 

## 10943

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10943 1996

## 10944 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Volume IV, Table G-9. The table labeled implementation and the emission No reductions from local measures are "San Joaquin Local Control Measures" reductions presumed to occurby 1999. assumed in the 15% ROP plan for 1996. indicates the dates ofrule adoption and

SAN JOAQUIN LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES
Rule No. Control measure title Implementing Adoption Implemen- Reductions
agency date tation date VOC NOx

1999 Emission Reductions

4403 (VOC)

....... Components Serving Gas Production

.................................... SJVUAPCD

. 2Q/91

....... 2Q/91

....... 4.55

.............. 4703

.................. Stationary Gas Turbine Engines

............................................. SJVUAPCD 3Q/94

....... 3Q/2000

... .............. 11.92 4653

.................. Adhesives

................................................................................ SJVU AP CD 1Q/94

....... 1Q /95

....... 1.3

.............. 4623

.................. Organic Liquid Staorage

......................................................... SJVUAPCD 2Q/91

....... 2Q /96

....... 13.2

.............. TCM s ....................................................................................... ..................... On going ... Ongoing

... 1 .8 1.5 4601

.................. Architectural Coatings

............................................................. SJVU APCD 1Q/96

....... 1Q /98

....... 1.51

.............. 4692

.................. Commercial Charbroiling

......................................................... SJVUAPCD 2Q/96

....... 2Q /98

....... 0.39

.............. 4354

.................. Glass Melting Furnaces

.......................................................... SJVUAPCD 1Q/96

....... 4Q /99

....... .............. 2.87 4607

.................. Graphic Arts

............................................................................ SJVU AP CD 4Q/95

....... 4Q /97

....... 0.84

.............. 4642

.................. Landfill Gas Control

................................................................ SJVU APCD 1 Q/95

....... 4Q /99

....... 1.41

.............. 4412

.................. OilWorkover Rigs

................................................................... SJVUAPCD 2Q/96

....... 2q/98

....... ............ 0.87 4623

.................. Organic Liquid Storage

........................................................... SJVUAPCD 3Q/95

....... 3q98

........ 3.0

.............. 4662

.................. Organic Solvent Degreasing

................................................... SJVUAPCD 1Q/96

....... 1Q /98

....... 2.44

.............. 4663

.................. Organic SolventWaste

........................................................... SJVUAPCD 2Q/96

....... 2Q /98

....... 0.19

.............. 4306

.................. Small Boilers, Process Heaters and Steam Generators

........ SJVUAPCD 3Q/95

....... 3Q/99

....... .............. 7.6 4611

.................. Smaller Printer Operations

...................................................... SJVUAPCD 4Q/95

....... 4Q /97

....... 0.30

.............. 4702

.................. Stationary IC Engines

............................................................. SJVUAPCD 2Q/95

....... 4Q /99

....... .............. 12.44 4621 &4622

..... Stationary Storage Tanks/Fuel Transfer into Vehicle Tanks

.. SJVUAPCD 2Q/96

....... 2Q/98

....... 0.41

.............. Waste Burning

......................................................................... ND

...... .... ND

.... .... N D

......................... 4411

.................. WellCellars

............................................................................. SJVUAPCD

. 2Q/96

....... 2Q /98

....... 0.56

........

(2) EPAAction

According to the State's submissions, these measures are relied upon in meeting the ROP and attainment requirements ofthe Act. Accordingly, and because the measures strengthen the SIP,EPA proposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, the enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the control measures by the dates specified to achieve the emission reductions shown. EPA also proposes to assign credit to the

measures for purposes ofROP and attainment. EPA approval ofthe adopted regulations will be completed in separate rulemakings in the future.

d. ROP Provisions. (1) ROPEmission Targets

The SIP describes the VOC emissions to meet the ROP target and the VOC emissions with plan reductions (see the 1994 California Ozone SIP, Table G-7). Additional information regarding the ROP provisions is presented in the 1994 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, Table 2-1. A summary ofthe ROP VOC targets and the projected VOC emissions is provided below in thetable labeled "San Joaquin Valley ROP Forecasts and Targets."

As thetable shows, VOCreductions alone were notprojected to be sufficient to meet the ROP target levels for milestone year 1999. Section 182(c)(2)(C) ofthe Act and EPA guidance allows reductions in NOx emissions to be substituted for post1996 VOC reductions so long ascertain conditions are met (see discussion above in section II.C.1). The San Joaquin Valley plan meets those conditions and the corresponding NOxreductions as substituted for VOC reductions are also shown in the table.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 

### ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS [Tons per summer day]

Milestone year 1996 1999
VOC Emissions to Meet ROP

Target

.................................... 433 383 VOC Emissions with Plan Reductions

................................. 430 430 NOx Substitution inVOC

Equivalents 18

......... 0 47
18See footnote 16.

The SIP includes a separate ROP analysis for the Kern District portion of the San Joaquin Valley.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY (KERN DISTRICT) 

### ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS [Tons per summer day]

Milestone year 1996 1999
VOC Emissions to Meet ROP

Target

.................................... 13.2 11.7 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY (KERN DISTRICT) 

### ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS

### Continued [Tons persummer day]

Milestone year 1996 1999
VOC Emissions with Plan Reductions

................................. 13.2 13.3 NOx Substitution in VOC

Equivalents

............................ 0 1.6
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

In general, only adopted measures maybe relied upon in meeting the 15% ROPrequirement. The San Joaquin Valley control strategy for the 15% ROP requirements, therefore, excluded all committed control measures listed in the table labeled "Control Strategy for San Joaquin Valley." The description of adopted measures relied upon in providing forthis requirement is in the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan in Tables 4-1 and 3-2. (3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy

According to the submitted plan, the post-1996 ROPcontrol strategy includes all those measures relied upon for the 15% ROP demonstration, plus any
measures for which emissions reductions are shown for milestones occurring after 1996, excluding

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10944 1996

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

projected reductions from Federal

measures. (4) EPAAction

The San Joaquin Valley SIP meets the CAA requirements for 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP, including the requirement that theplan provide for achievement ofthe ROP target emission levels for all years. EPA therefore proposes to approve San Joaquin Valley's 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP plans under sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2) ofthe Act.

e. Demonstration ofAttainment. The San Joaquin Valley is classified as a serious nonattainment area for ozone (see 40 CFR 81.305). As a result, the SIP must contain adequate control measures to demonstrate attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS by 1999. (1) Control Strategy

The San Joaquin Valley attainment demonstration includes all ofthe

measures described earlier. The demonstration presumes the measures will be adopted and implemented as scheduled, resulting in the emission reductions shown. (2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

The 1994 SIP describes theurban airshed modeling analysis performed to demonstrate that the control strategy described above will result in attainment. The attainment analysis is based on the model developed aspart of the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Study, and divides the nonattainment

area into three subregions, and the Kern District portion. CARB notes that the model isbeing further refined and appropriate changes in the SIP may be made in the future.

The area was classified as serious based on adesign value of.17 ppm, recorded atthe Edison site. This was based on 1987-1989 data.

CARB applied the SARMAP Air Quality Model to develop the attainment demonstration for the San Joaquin Valley SIP.The SARMAP model is anonhydrostatic version ofthe Regional Acid Deposition Model, with several modifications. The EPA approved UAM version IV was also applied to the domain for performance comparison. The SARMAP field study, conducted during the summer of 1990, provided an enhanced database ofair quality and meteorological data, both at the surface level and aloft. The model has been applied to one episode from the study period, August 5-6, 1990. The episode was chosen because itrepresents a typical regime conducive to relatively high ozone peaks. The peak ozone concentration for the episode was .16 ppm, compared to the design concentration of.17 ppm.

The EPArecommended statistical criteria forozone were met for the episode using the SARMAP model. The predicted peak for the episode forthe southern portion ofthe domain was .14 ppm, ascompared to the measured concentration of.16 ppm, an underprediction of 13%. The predicted peak for the central portion ofthe domain was .152 ppm, compared to the predicted peak of.131 ppm, an overprediction of 16%. For the northern portion ofthe domain, a value of .137 ppm was predicted compared to the measured value of.150 ppm, an underprediction of9%.

A summary ofthe emission reductions needed to attain the standard is provided below in the table labeled "Emission Reductions Needed in the San Joaquin Valley," which is taken from the 1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Tables G-1, G-3, and G-5.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY [Tons per summer day]

North Central South

ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory

................................. 129 124 126 115 217 367 Carrying Capacity

............................................................. >129 >124 88 90 145 165 Reductions N eeded

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

CARB's preliminary attainment calculations for the 3 subregions are provided below in the table labeled "San Joaquin Valley Attainment Demonstration," which is taken from the 1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Tables G-2, G4, and G-6.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION [Tons per summer day]

North Central South

ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx
Reductions fromAdopted Measures

................................ 15 8 27 9 58 164 Committed Local Measures

.................................. 5

.................... 8 6 22 20 Committed State M easures

.............................................. 8 2 4 2 3 1

Total

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

For purposes ofthe attainment reductions achieved in the South San demonstration, the Kern District portion Joaquin sub-region. ofthe San Joaquin Valley was not (3) EPA Action separately modeled, under the assumption that attainment in this area EPA believes that the San Joaquin should result primarily from upwind Valley component ofthe 1994 SIP fulfills the CAA attainment demonstration requirements. EPA is therefore proposing to approve the San Joaquin attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2)(A) ofthe Act.

f. Overall EPA Action. EPAproposes to approve fully the San Joaquin ozone SIP with respect to the Act's 

### 10945

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10945 1996

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

requirements for emission inventories, control measures, and demonstrations of ROP and attainment.
5. Sacramento

a. Identification of Plans. The Sacramento Metropolitan Area nonattainment area includes 6 counties (whole and in part) andjurisdiction is divided among 5 local air pollution control agencies:the Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), the Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District (YSAPCD), the Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD), the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), and the El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District (ECAPCD). Each local air pollution control agencyadopted and submitted the Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan which
was transmitted to CARB. On December 29, 1994, CARB then submitted the plan to EPA. SACRAMENTO OZONE 

### SIP ADOPTIONS

Agency Date ofadoption Resolution No.

SMAQMD

..... Dec. 1, 1994

..... 94-0014 YSAPCD

...... Dec. 14, 1994

... 94-28 FRAQMD

..... Dec. 12, 1994

... 1994-13 PCAPCD

...... Dec. 20, 1994

... 94-07 ECAPCD

...... Dec. 13, 1994

... 321-94

b. 1990 Base Year and Projected Inventories. The Sacramento Area ozone attainment plan provides detailed estimates of 1990emissions from all VOC and NOx sources in the Sacramento nonattainment area in 1990. These base year inventories are summarized in thetable labeled "1990 Sacramento Area SIP Inventories." 19 A discussion ofthese inventories and of EPA's proposed action can be found in section II.C.L.c. of this notice. 

### 1990 SACRAMENTO AREA SIP INVENTORIES [Tons persummer day] Category ROG NOx Stationary

................................. 88 12 Mobile

....................................... 134 151 On-road

............................. 110 118 Off-road

............................. 24 34
Total

............................... 222 164

c. SIP Control Measures. (1) Description

The State of California and the local air districts in Sacramento Area have already adopted many measures which will contributeto the necessary emissions reductions for meeting 15% ROP, post-1996 ROP, and attainment requirements. In addition, the 1994 SIP describes aseries ofrules thatthe Sacramento Area air pollution control districtshave committed to adopt in orderto reduce VOC and NOx emissions in the Sacramento Area. The table labeled "Sacramento Local Control Measures" describes the dates by which the plans presume adoption and implementation, and the emission reductions presumed to occurby each milestone, from 1999 through the attainment year (2005), to the extent that information was available in the submitted plan.

SACRAMENTO LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES [Tons per day]

Implementing Implementa- Emission reductions VOC control measure title agency Adoption date tion date 1996 2002 2005

ROG Control Measures

Adh esiv es .....................................................................

Architectural Coatings

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

Au

to Refinish ing ............................................................

Fugitive HC Emissions

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

Graphic Arts

.................................................................. ECAPCD .......... PCAPCD .......... SMAQMD ......... YSAPCD ........... ECAPCD .......... PCAPCD .......... Amendmentto

existing rule SMAQMD. YSAPCD ........... ECAPCD .......... PCAPCD .......... SMAQMD ......... YSAPCD ........... ECAPCD .......... PCAPCD .......... SMAQMD ......... YSAPCD ........... ECAPCD .......... PCAPCD .......... SMAQMD ......... YSAPCD ........... 2/95

.................. 2/95 5/95 Adopted '94 Adopted

............ 4/95 Adopted

3/95 Adopted '94

...... Adopted '94 5/95 Adopted '94 4/95

.................. Adopted Adopted Adopted 5/94 Adopted 9/94

.... 11/94 '81, '93 Adopted 5/94

Ozone Attainment Demonstration, tables C 1and C-2. 19More detailed summaries ofthisinventory can be foundin the 1994 Sacramento AreaRegional 1996
............

1996
............

1996
............

1999 ............

June 1995 ... 

### 10946

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10946 1996

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

## 10947

SACRAMENTO LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES-Continued [Tons per day]

VOC control measure title Implementing Adoption date Implementa- Emission reductions agency tion date 1996 2002 2005

Landfill Gas Control

...................................................... E CAP CD

.......... 12/94

................ 1996

............ 1.2 1.2 1.2 PCAPCD

.......... Adopted

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

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

.................. 1997. YSAPCD

........... Adopted

............ 1996. Pleasure Craft Coating Operations

.............................. ECAPCD

.......... 4/96

.................. 1996-1999

.. 0.2 0.2 0.2 PCAPCD

.......... 12/94 SMAQMD

......... 1998 YSAPCD

........... Adopted Pleasure Craft Refueling

.............................................. ECAPCD

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

.................. 1999

............ 0.1 0.1 0.2 PCAPCD

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

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

........... 3/98 Polyester Resin Operations

.......................................... ECAPCD

.......... 2/96

.................. 1997

............ 0.2 0.2 0.2 PCAPCD

........ 1/96

.................. 1997. SMAQMD

......... 1998

................. 1999. YSAPCD

........... Adopted '93 Semiconductor M fg

....................................................... PCAPCDoth- 2/95

.................. 1996

............ 0.1 0.2 0.2 ers?. SOCMI Distillation/Reactors

......................................... SMAQMDoth- 9/95

.................. 1997

............ 1.4 1.5 1.6 ers?. Surface Preparation and Cleanup

................................ ECAPCD

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

.................. 1996

............ 3.0 3.3 3.6 PCAPCD

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

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

........... Adopted 5/94 Vents on Underground Gasoline Storage Tanks

......... SMAQMD

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

.................. 1995

............ 0.1 0.2 0.2 YSAPCD

........... 1/95 (Both amend

current rules). Wood Products Coatings

.............................................. ECAPCD

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

.................. 1996

............ 0.5 0.5 0.5 PCAPCD

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

.. 1996. SMAQMD

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

.. 1996. YSAPCD

........... Adopted 11/94
Regional NOxControl Measures

Boilers and Steam Generators

..................................... ECAPCD

.......... Adopted '94

...... 1996-1997

.. 0.8 0.9 1.0 PCAPCD

.......... Adopted '94 SMAQMD

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

........... Adopted '94 Gas Turbines

................................................................ PCAPCD

.......... Adopted 10/94

.. 1997

............ 0.2 0.3 0.3 SMAQMD

......... 2/97 YSAPCD

........... 5/94 Internal Combustion Engines

....................................... ECAPCD

.......... Adopted '94

...... Phased in 0.3 0.4 0.5 1997. PCAPCD

.......... 12/95 SMAQMD

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

........... Adopted '94 Residential Water Heaters

............................................ ECAPCD

.......... 1996

................. 1995-1997

.. 0.3 0.4 0.5 PCAPCD

.......... 12/95 SMAQMD

......... 1996 YSAPCD

........... Adopted 11/94 Woodwaste Boilers

....................................................... PCAPCD

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

.................. ???

.............. ??? ? ? Mobile NOx Measures: 1.Off-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles

......................... All

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

................ 1/97

............. 2.0 3.0 5.0 2. On-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles



### (2) EPAAction

According tothe State's submissions, these measures are relied upon in meeting thepost-1996 ROP and attainmentrequirements oftheAct. Accordingly, andbecause the measures strengthen the SIP, EPAproposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a)oftheAct, theenforceable commitments to adopt and implement the control measures bythe dates specified to achieve theemission reductions shown. EPA also proposesto assign credit tothe measures for purposes ofpost-1996 ROP and attainment. EPA approval ofthe adopted regulations will becompleted in separate rulemakings in the future.

d. Rate ofProgress. (1)ROP Emission Targets

The 1994 SIPdescribes theVOC emission reductions needed tomeet ROPrequirements based on Sacramento's adjusted 1990 base year

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10947 1996

## 10948 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules

inventories. 20 The SIP also provides is provided below in the table labeled Act allows substitution ofreductions in emission estimates for the ROP "Sacramento ROP Forecasts and NOx emissions for VOCreductions so milestone years by projecting the impact Targets." longas certain conditions aremet. The ofthe control strategy and ofanticipated As thetable shows, VOC reductions Sacramento Area plan meets those changes inpopulation, industrial alone were not projected to be sufficient conditions and the corresponding NOx activity, and other socio-economic to meet the ROP target levels for reductions are also shown in the table factors. A summary ofthe ROP VOC milestone years after 1996. As discussed below labeled "Sacramento ROP targets and theprojected VOC emissions earlier (section II.C.1.c.), the Clean Air Forecasts and Targets."

SACRAMENTO 

### ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS [Tons per summer day]

Milestone year 1996 1999 2002 2005

1990 BaseYear VOC Inventory

...................................................................................... 211 211 211 211 VOC Inventory Projection

................................................................................................ 175 167 163 159 ROP V OCTarget
............................................................................................................. 162 142 124 107 Preliminary VOC Shortfall

................................................................................................ 13 25 39 52 VOC Reductionsfrom Committal Measures

.................................................................... 0 19 23 14 TotalVOCShortfa ll

.......................................................................................................... 13 6 16 38 NO

### x Substitution inVOC Equivalents 21

........................... ............................................... 13 6 16 38

21Seefootnote 16.

(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

On November 15, 1993, CARB submitted to EPA a ROP plan intended to demonstrate that VOC emissions would be reduced by 15% by 1996. EPA determined that this ROPplan was incomplete because it relied on controls not yet adopted in regulatory form. Appendix G ofthe 1994 SIP submittal updates Sacramento's 1993 ROP plan. EPA has deemed this plan complete. EPA will act on the Sacramento Area's 15% ROP submittal in separate rulemaking. (3) Post-1996 ROP

Appendix G ofthe Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Plan provides detailed information on the ROP emissions reductions from 1996 to 2005. The following summary can be found at Table G-1 ofthe Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Plan and provides a general summary ofhow the expected ROP reductions willbe met. (4) EPAAction

EPA believes thatthe Sacramento area component ofthe 1994 SIP meets the CAA requirements forpost-1996 ROP. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve the Sacramento area's post-1996 ROP plan under section 182(b)(2) ofthe Act. EPA will act on Sacramento's 15% ROP Plan in separate rulemaking.

e. Attainment ofthe Ozone NAAQS. The Sacramento Area is classified as a
severe nonattainment area for ozone. As

aresult, the SIP must contain adequate control measures and commitments to

20See the Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Plan, Tables G 1,G 2and G 3for ROP targets and lists ofmeasures included in meeting those targets. 

### demonstrate attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS by 2005. (1)Control Strategy

The control strategy forthe Sacramento Area's SIP attainment demonstration includes all ofthe State
measures and the localmeasures identified in the Tablelabeled "Sacramento Local Control Measures." The demonstration presumes the
measures willbe adopted and implemented bythe dates shown, resultingin the emission reductions shown. (2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed modeling analysis performed to demonstrate thatthe control strategy will result in ozone NAAQS attainment. A summary ofthe emission reductions needed to attain the standard is provided below in thetable labeled "Emission Reductions Needed in Sacramento," taken from TableD-1 in Volume IVofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP.
EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN SACRAMENTO [Tons persummerday]

ROG NOx 

### 1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory

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

................ 137 98 Reductions Needed

.................. 85 66

A summary ofthe emission reductions projected from the SIP control strategy isprovided below in the table labeled "Sacramento Attainment Demonstration," which isbased on Table D-2 from Volume IV ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP.

SACRAMENTO ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION [Tons persummer day]

VOC NO×

Reductionsfrom Adopted

Measures .......................... 55 40 Committed Local Measures 17 7 Committed State Measures 15 14 Reductionsfrom National

Measures1

........................ 1.6 4.3

Total

........................... 88.6 65.3
1Credit shown is EPA's estimate of reductions from statutorily-mandated national rules.

Based on the Sacramento Area's classification as a severe ozone nonattainment area and theresults ofan Urban Airshed Modeling analysis, Sacramento must reduce its 2005 emissions inventory to 137 tonsper day ofVOC and 98 tons per day ofNOx in order to demonstrate attainment ofthe NAAQS. The expected emissions reductions from the combination of adopted measures and commitments to adopt measures listed above and in the Sacramento's 1994 Regional Ozone Attainment Plan will achieve the necessary reductions to meet the attainment targets.

The Sacramento area was classified as
a serious ozone nonattainment area based on adesign value of.16 ppm, recorded at the Folsom station. This was based on 1987-1989 data; the 1990- 1992 value was also .16 ppm. Exceedances ofthe ozone NAAQS occur in the Sacramento area about 6 to 10 timesper year.

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10948 1996

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

In order to simulate air quality for the SIP and otherplanning needs, CARB and the Sacramento local agencies started planningthe Sacramento Area Ozone Study (SAOS) early in 1989, with intensive data collection performed during the summer of 1990. This involved an extended network ofair quality and meteorological instruments, including on airplanes, to measure
ozone and its precursors and the meteorological inputs needed for UAM. The Sacramento Modeling Advisory Committee (SMAC) was established for technical oversight ofthe modeling effort, and included regulatory, industry, and environmental group participants. CARB and its contractor, Systems Applications International, prepared a modeling protocol which

was accepted by EPA as meeting EPA Guideline requirements.

Two episodes were selected for modeling from those recorded during the field study. Ozone maxima occurred in the Interstate 50 and in the Interstate 80 corridors, downwind (east and northeast) ofSacramento. While the observed ozone peaks were less than the design value of .16 ppm, they were high enough to meet EPA guidelines for episode selection, especially considering the excellent database available for analysis. They had features typical ofurban ozone episodes, including temperatures exceeding 100 0F, low wind speeds, and a temperature inversion that tended to trap pollutants

near the ground. After extensive diagnostic simulations and refinement ofmodel inputs, abase case was developed for theJuly 11-13, 1990 episode. While not outstanding, the model performance statistics were well within the goals set in EPA's Guideline. This episode's performance wasjudged adequate for determining emission reduction targets.

A second episode, August 8-10, 1990,

was strongly affected by upper air transport ofpollutants into the area. Only limited data was available on this transported pollution, so it was difficult to setboundary conditions for the model. In addition, the source areas
were not certain; the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley, and recirculation from Sacramento itselfare allpossible sources for thepollutant influx. For thesereasons, an attainment demonstration using this episode would be oflittle value and, after consultation with EPA, the State did notpursue it.

Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area are included within the

22November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the Ventura AQMP and CARB Board Resolution No. modeling domain ofthe SARMAP study, conducted for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area. Ideally, modeling oftransport should be performed with both upwind and downwind areas in the same modeling domain, as was the case here. Although the SARMAP episodes were not chosen with a Sacramento attainment demonstration in mind, there is significant transport to Sacramento in the San Joaquin Valley modeling. Since that modeling showed attainment throughout the whole domain, including Sacramento, EPA deems that attainment under transport conditions has been addressed for Sacramento. Should additional information analyses be performed for these areas, the issue oftransport to Sacramento will need to be revisited.

Using 2005 and boundary conditions and aprojected emission inventory without additional emission controls, the ozone peak was simulated to be .134 ppm. Additional controls, giving reductions relative to the 1990 baseline of34% VOC and 40% NOx, brought emissions under the carrying capacity of 137 tpd ofVOC and 98 tpd ofNOx, and brought the ozone peak down to .124 ppm, thus demonstrating attainment of the ozone NAAQS. (3) EPAAction

EPA believes that the Sacramento Area component ofthe 1994 SIP fulfills the CAA attainment demonstration requirements. EPAis therefore proposing to approve, under section 182(c)(2)(A) ofthe Act, the Sacramento Area attainment demonstration.

f.Overall EPA Action. EPAproposes to approve fully the Sacramento Area

ozone SIP with respect to theAct's requirements for emission inventories, control measures, and demonstrations of post-1996 ROP and attainment. EPA will take action separately on Sacramento's 15% ROP provisions.
6. Ventura

a. Identification ofPlan. On November 8, 1994, the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) adopted Ventura's 1994 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). On November 15, 1994, CARB modified the AQMP and adopted it asthe local element ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP, which CARB then submitted to EPA to comply with ROP and attainment demonstration requirements ofthe Act.22

94 62 approving the Ventura plan. TheVentura submittal includes aNovember 8, 1994 letter from Richard Baldwin (VCAPCD) to James Boyd (CARB) b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates ofthe actual VOC and NOx emissions that occurred in Ventura in 1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table below, labeled "1990 Ventura SIP Inventories." A more specific breakdown of 1990 base year emissions

can be found in Tables 9-3 and 9-4 of the 1994 AQMP. A discussion ofthese inventories and ofEPA's proposed action on them can be found in section II.C.ofthisnotice.



### 1990 VENTURA SIP INVENTORIES [Tons persummer day]
Category ROG NOx Stationary

................................. 44 18 Mobile

....................................... 41 55 Outer Continental Shelf23

........ 2 8

Total

............................... 87 81
230CS emissions are included because they are included in the modeled attainment demonstration.

c. SIP Control Measures. (1) Description

The 1994 AQMP (Tables 6-1 and 6- 2) and 1994California Ozone SIP (Volume IV, Table E-6) describe a series ofrules that the VCAPCD has adopted

or committed to adopt in order to reduce ROG and NOx emissions in Ventura. Control measures not already adopted atthe time ofthe plan submittal are listed below in thetable labeled "Ventura Local Control Measures." The table describes not only the dates bywhich the plans presume adoption and implementation, but the emission reductions presumed to occur by each milestone, to the extent that information was available in the submitted plan. The information contained in the table below reflects revisions in Ventura's recently adopted 1995 Air Quality Management Plan, adopted on December, 19, 1995. The 1995 Plan slightly revised adoption dates, implementation dates, and reductions for numerous district

measures already contained in the 1994 SIP. Theserevisions willhave no adverse impact on ROPor attainment. Although these revisions have not been formally submitted from CARB to EPA atthis time, CARB has indicated to EPA that they intend to submit the revised adoption and implementation dates prior to EPA's final action on the plan.

forwarding the 1994Ventura AQMP and the VCAPCDBoard Resolution approving the AQMP. 

## 10949

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10949 1996

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

VENTURA LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES [Tons per day]

Rule No. Control measure Adoption date Implementation ROG/NO reductions date 1996 1999 2002 2005

N-101

.......... Gas Turbines

.............................................. 3/95 4/97 0.0 0.45 0.47 0.49 N-102

.......... Boilers, Steam generators, Heaters, <1 6/96 1/97 0.0 0.05 0.06 0.06

mmbtu. R-105

.......... Glycol Dehydrators

..................................... 12/94 7/96 0.41 0.73 0.65 0.57 R-317

.......... Clean-up Solvents and SolventWastes

..... 12/95 7/96 1.45 1.57 1.67 1.76 R-322

.......... Painter Certification

.................................... 6/97 12/97-12/98 0.0 0.48 0.51 0.53 R-324

.......... Screen Printing Operations

........................ 6/96 6/97 0.0 0.29 0.30 0.31 R-327

.......... ElectronicComponent Manufacture

........... 6/96 7/97 0.0 0.07 0.07 0.08 R-403

.......... Vehicle Gas Dispensing-Phase II
............ 5/95 1/96 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.23 R-410

.......... Marine Tanker Loading

.............................. 6/96 7/97 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R-419

.......... Tank Degassing Operations

....................... 11/94 3/95 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 R-420

.......... Pleasure Craft Fuel Transfer

......................6/97 7/98 0.0 0.08 0.08 0.08 R-421

.......... Utility Engine Refueling Operations

........... 9/96 9/97 0.0 0.19 0.20 0.20 R-424

.......... Gasoline Transfer/Dispensing

.................... 5/95 1/96 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 R-425

.......... Enhanced Fugitive I/M Program

................. 12/95 5/97 1.45 1.21 1.07 0.95 R-606

.......... Soil Decontamination

.................................. 9/95 9/95 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 1"R" refers to ROG control measures, "N" refers to NOx control measures. The reduction estimates were taken from the 1994 Ventura County AQMP (Tables 11-1 and 11-2). The reductions do not reflect the most recent estimates in the 1995 AQMP revision. In addition, the table does not include measure R-303, Architectural Coatings. Overall, the revised reduction estimates do not negativelyimpact ROP or attainment. If a SIP revision with the revision reduction estimates and measure R 303 is submitted before EPA's final action, EPA proposes to approve itwithout further opportunityfor public comment.

(2) EPA Action. According to the State's submissions, these measures are relied upon in meeting the ROP and attainment requirements ofthe Act. Accordingly, and because the measures strengthen the SIP, EPAproposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, the enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the control measures by the dates specified to achieve the emission reductions shown. EPA also proposes to assign credit to the measures for purposes ofROP and attainment. EPA approval ofthe adopted regulations will be completed in separate rulemakings in the future.

d. ROP Provisions. (1) ROPEmission Targets

The 1994 AQMP (Chapter 11) and Volume IV ofthe CA SIP (Table E-3) describe the VOC emission reductions needed to meet ROP requirements based

on Ventura's adjusted 1990 base year inventories. The SIP also provides emission estimates for theROP milestone years by projecting the impacts ofthe control strategy and of anticipated changes in population, industrial activity, and other socio economic factors. A summary ofthe ROP VOC targets and theprojected VOC emissions is provided below in the table labeled "Ventura ROP Forecasts and Targets." 24

The VOC reductions alone were not projected to be sufficient to meet the

24See 1994 SIP,Tables 11 3 through 11 14, and California Ozone SIP,page IV 33. ROP target levels for milestone years after 1996. As discussed earlier (section II.B.1.b.iii.), reductions in NOx emissions may be substituted for VOC reductions so long as certain conditions

aremet. The Ventura plan meets those conditions and the corresponding NOx reductions substituted for VOC reductions are also shown in thetable.

VENTURA 

### ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS [Tons per summer day]

Milestoneyear 1996 1999 2002 2005

1990 BaseYear

VOC Inventory 85 85 85 85 VOC Inventory

after Adopted Measures

....... 64 61 58 56 ROP VOC Target

.................. 69 60 53 46 VOC Inventory

Including Committals

..... 64 61 58 56 VOC Shortfall

.... 0 1 5 10 NOx Substitution

in VOC Equivalents25 0 1 5 10
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

In general only adopted measures may be relied upon in meeting the 15% ROP requirement. The Ventura control strategy for the 15% ROP requirement, therefore, excluded all committed control measures listed in the table above labeled "Ventura Local Control Measures." The description ofadopted

25Seefootnote 16. measures relied upon in providing for thisrequirement is in the 1994 AQMP in Tables 6-1, 6-2, 11-1, and 11-2. (3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy

According to the submitted plan, the post-1996 ROPcontrol strategy includes all those measures relied upon for the 15% ROP demonstration, plus any
measures for which emissions reductions are shown for milestones after 1996. (4) EPAAction

EPA believes that the Ventura component ofthe 1994 SIP meets the CAA requirements for 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP. EPAis, therefore, proposing to approve Ventura's ROP plan under sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2) ofthe Act.

e. Demonstration ofAttainment. Ventura County is classified as a severe nonattainment area for ozone. As a result, the SIP must contain adequate control measures and commitments to demonstrate attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS by 2005. (1) Control Strategy

The control strategy for Ventura's SIP attainment demonstration includes the State and local measures identified above. The demonstration presumes the

measures willbe adopted and implemented bythe dates shown, resulting in the emission reductions shown. 

## 10950

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10950 1996

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

(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

The UAM analysis described below demonstrates that the control strategy discussed above willresult in attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS. A summary ofthe emission reductions needed to attain the standard is provided below in thetable labeled "Emission Reductions Needed in Ventura," derived from the 1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Table E-1. Since the November 1994 submittal, additional modeling refinements and technical clarifications have resulted in a revised estimate of the reductions needed for attainment. These technical clarifications to the 1994 SIP were submitted to EPA by CARB on February 6, 1996.26 The summary table below reflects the revised reductions needed for attainment.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN VENTURA [Tons per summer day]

ROG NOx
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory

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

................ 45 52 Reductions Needed

.................. 42 29

A summary ofthe emission reductions projected from the SIP control strategy is provided below in the table labeled "Ventura Attainment Demonstration," taken from the 1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Table E-2. As described above, the table below reflects therevised estimate of the reductions needed.

VENTURA ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION [In tons per summer day]

IROG
Reductions fromAdopted

M

easures .............................. Committed Local Measures

...... Committed State Measures

...... Reductions from National

M

easures 1

........ ..............
...... 1 1

26prior to the February 6, 1996 CARB letter,EPA, CARB, and Ventura County APCD agreed on the need to clarify the attainment demonstration and federal assignments in the 1994 SIP submittal. This clarification was necessary because oftwo principle factors. Recent modelingindicated that moving the shipping channel was no longer essential for attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS in Ventura County and, on December 19, 1995, Ventura County adopted revisions to theirAQMP which removed the measure requiring movement of the shipping channel. 

### VENTURA ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION-Continued [In tons per summer day]

ROG NOx

Total

............................... 42 30
'Credit shown is EPA's estimate of reductions from statutorily-mandated national rules.

The Ventura area is classified as a Severe ozone nonattainment area based

on adesign value of.174 ppm, recorded atthe Simi Valley and based on 1987- 1989 data.

Ventura's photochemical modeling analysis was based on two episodes, September 5-7, 1984 and September 16-17, 1984. The episodes were selected from the period for which an enhanced database was available from the 1984 South Central Coast Cooperative Aerometric Monitoring Program. The peak measured concentration for the September 5-7 episode was .18 ppm, measured at the Casitas Pass site. The episode was representative of widespread, high ozone. The peak measured concentration for the September 16-17 episode was .14 ppm, also measured at Casitas Pass. The episode represents an episode with less transport ofozone and precursors from the South Coast Air Basin.

For the 1994 AQMP, VCAPCD and their contractor used theUAM Version IV for the photochemical modeling exercise. The Diagnostic Wind model

was used to generate meteorological input to the model. A discussion ofthe modeling can be found in Chapter 10 of the 1994AQMP. The modeling was submitted aspart oftheNovember 1994 SIP.

In 1994-5, CARB staffrefined the modeling application by reviewing and modifying the input files to better reflect the most accurate information for the Ventura nonattainment area. These refinements and improvements are detailed in CARB's report, "Revisions to the Base Case and Future Year Urban Airshed Model Simulations for Ventura County in Support ofthe 1994 State Implementation Plan." The report reflects improvements made to the previous modeling submitted aspart of the 1994 SIP. The modeling improvements were submitted byCARB

on February 6, 1996. The TSD contains information regarding the performance ofthe improved model application for the peak days ofthe episode. The performance ofthe model meets EPA criteria.

The revised model application predicted peak ozone concentrations in the year 2005 of.12 ppm for the September 5-7 episode and .11 ppm for the September 16-17 episode. (3) EPAAction

EPA has determined that the Ventura attainment demonstration meets CAA requirements. EPA is therefore proposing to approve the Ventura modeling and attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2)(A) ofthe Act.

f. Overall EPA Action. EPAproposes to approve the Ventura ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, controlmeasures, modeling, and demonstrations of 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP and attainment.

7. South Coast

a. Identification ofPlans. On September 9, 1994, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the South Coast 1994 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). On November 15, 1994, CARB modified the AQMP and adopted the ozone attainment, ozone ROP, and particulate matter (PM-10)Best Available Control Measures (BACM) component ofthe AQMP, which CARB then submitted to EPAto comply with ROP, attainment demonstration, and otherrequirements ofthe Act.27 On December 9, 1994, CARB submitted furtherrevisions to the 15% ROP plan. 28

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates ofthe VOC and NOx emissions that occurred in the South Coast in 1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table below labeled, "1990 South Coast SIP Inventories." 29A discussion of these inventories and ofEPA's proposed action on them can be found in section II.C.1.a. ofthis notice.

27November 15, 1994 letter from Jacqueline Schafer, CARB, to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding 1994 California SIP. The SIP includes a November 15, 1994 letterfrom James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the South Coast AQMP component ofthe SIP and CARB Board Resolution No. 94 61 approving the South Coast component. The South Coast component includes an October 6, 1994 letter from James M. Lents (SCAQMD)to James Boyd (CARB) forwarding the 1994 South Coast AQMP and the SCAQMD Board Resolution 94 36 approving the AQMP.

28On November 15, 1993, CARB submitted to EPA a rate-of-progress plan intended to demonstrate that 1990 VOC emissions would bereduced by at leastfifteen percent by 1996 pursuant to Section 182(b)(1) ofthe Act. On April 13, 1994, EPA determined that this ROP plan was incomplete because it relied on controls notyet adopted in regulatory form. The 1994 SIP updates South Coast's 1993ROP plan in order to correct this deficiency.

2 9More detailed summaries ofthis inventory can be found in Appendices III Aand III B ofthe 1994 AQMP. 

## 10951

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10951 1996

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

1990 SOUTH COAST SIP INVENTORIES [Tons per summerday] Category VOC NO, Stationary

.................................. 666 245 M

o

bile

....................................... 851 1116
Total

............................... 1517 1361

c. SIP Control Measures. (1)Description

The State ofCalifornia and the South Coast have already adopted many measures which will contribute tothe necessary emissions reductions for meeting the 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP and attainment requirements. In addition, the 1994 SIP describes a series ofrules that the South Coast has committed to adopt in order to reduce VOC and NOx emissions in the area. The table labeled "South Coast Local Control Measures" describes the dates by which the plan presumes adoption and implementation, and the emission reductions presumed to occurby each milestone, every 3 years from 1996 through the attainment year (2010), to 

### theextent that information was available in the submitted plan. 30 No reductions from local measures are assumed in the 15% ROP plan for 1996. The SCAQMD committed to adopt specific enforceable measures by the date specified in the table, or within 1 year afterthe date ofapproval ofthe

ozoneplan, whichever is earlier.

301994 CARB Ozone SIP, Volume IV, TableA 5;CARB Ozone SIP Emission Reductions for South Coast; 1994 AQMP, Appendix I C, Post-1996 Federal Clean AirActRequirements Detailed Calculations. 

### 10952

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10952 1996

### Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Proposed Rules 10953

(0 0CO (00 NN o) N oO

- ) CMCN r-M C

CM CM 0) CM) 0) Of) OD CM 0 co00 00 ( 0o o ) oM ooCMo L f)'t ) ) N m ,2 , r- 0 D c

:co m q o)

- - ';t oo - -q o)- rl- 't rl 0(D a

CC (D
- OD

- (0

"3 00" 000 0 QJ°W CJ.o-0 0 0 00O0
,

oDc N 000 UD c)fOUU c00 0,O O) 0 0) 0 0 M)O fN 0-, 603)

80

L 0 N o 8 3 )co co 0 )oN , OD ( 0

03, CM 0 ofl co) o) CM( ) 0 0 Nt (0 Do N; (CM Cf(0 o N o N D

-- 0 000) o ooooo (o rO O

- O o O 00 0 0 0D 0o o oooo ooo (0,

: co o) o) o C03 0- 0) (D (,-,- 0(0 CMO0

N,00C (0,- c N CM 0 000 0 000000 o 0 0 NCM lo 000 000,-

uN

... o(0

- .o NtqLo N-t co co Oco

0) 0: 000) 0 OOCOOOO NOOOOOOOOCMO O CM 0 0 Ll0 0) 0O

D CM Nt o) 0 . .. -

DLo Lf-,i D (

-Dco D Dr- ( o c oN o o ( o r- r-r- c co c D

(0 0) o ) 0D I o LUo 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 oU 0 o 0 0 00 0 ,

0D ND NO O 

## ~ O cococococo co c cm 

## ~ ~jcjNc jc\ .\ N 0) a ) a a0 o) 

## ~ 0 ) o)300( o) 0D 000 00 00 0D 0(00 0(0 No)a

0 0 O 0o ) N) o o CM o) o( a) E CM

- - - f)

_j L _, O'O" r- r- O" ) O" ) (Dr-r- O" )

O )" " " " " " " " r- r- O" ) O" ) O") ';t r- Lf)O O") (D" (DNt (D(DO " (D(Dr" O" < ,-o 00)0) ) o) ))M) a) )a)0 )) 0 0 0)G 000 mmo0)0) )o) ) o)) 0) )a)00 ) ) ) a)a)o) o)



# << o)< o)o)<< <<<< << << < o I-

_ E ODO ODN0
, (OO ODO OOOO( (O000000000 N (( 0)03o(0ON 03(0N 0(00 O DOO 

### o o 2 

## ~C

' 0 <

.:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ,'
. . . .:. . . . . C/- . : . : o. . . . . . . . . . . . .-. -- . . . . 

## <o ... .. . .. . . . . . . o . . . .0 . . . . cj0

0) E)

co <E < < < < < < <<<<<<<<<< << 0)C w ))C www w )))CCC wwwwww))CC))CC w) C)C ) C) C)C/) w' oC)w C)CC)C C) ) CC) o 0) 

# o g m .g: : : : gm~g : 0om 

## ~ (lf~l (lfm m u w LU ao Lw a T) E 0o ED :Z 0 a) 0

-LL 

### CO

. 0 :_: . . . - T
- T.o
- 0 

### a 

## .o : - o : + L+u

o 00 Co ) i 0 

### o 

### C) +.-o.- .. . . .. .. 

## ~0 ) . .. 

### E

. .- - -- 

### 0 S

- - o o )

. o o ,L w E~w0E 

## ~ ~ Co m 06 E 

## ~~% 6

: 

### )

- 

### w.m LLC) ,+, E n
- .- _aC '-o 015 °E o2 , o--5) , MD- 0 S oO 0~a F -- a) o-- t o Poo'o m > Eo 0 o >)~C) E0 .Lofl-LLE C

0 o E) a) r rE 2 o c o U) o 0 -0 c Q 0 o 

### C o 2ooP oP o

a o:E E-J q_ a) Ea_ o o o o o o

0 0 o C) oE0 0 0 E)0 S < Lu oE co oL milooo cc c c o a) -o co 0. i

_ , : -oO0 o 

## ~ o o' 

### I

0 am o > co 0 o o o (00 0-L 0p (DW0 0 00 0o m,0 w, _j Q)m o p

O_ o ._ )._E E CEEHE EEEEEEEm cO a >rr09 5 ZL i wE r -ri E Er E w www-ww

Cc E 2-ow w wn o E w- w mww CI.-

._

'-CM1 o0f N) ?C:~,C Z CMMCC (0,)0 N

- C CE(~f CCM _j 

## ~ 0 00 0 0 0 0 000 0,- o E0 0000 E-OO 0 0,- ._jw

. W

a) wm w- r moo ° C w)o) o) o o wa w w -H w w w > 

### E< o CE CE o . . . . . Ewc oE o_

S mmm = =
. 00 o o o 0 c c or
- c2 1 nn c= -E c)

o a )o

. . 0

- - c cc)c c 0E wE w......
.... - - 6 -_ 0E o -o- w w E o w C) co Eo cL w ooooooooo o-o o- <w o nL d- WWLoWL EO O O L L E:E WW WE w- w w EE ma0wE E o 0 m m o a)_-

. . . : u : u : : LO n w L L: LL

. . . .. .. 6 a 

## Luo o. .. E EEoo E o c o ofoE oE o oE0000~~~ Lu00 o0

c/)c~ o, o o o oo Eo ouuuucc o o o ooo o oo -5o oo 0 0 0-0-_ E o)

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10953 1996

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

No~

o o(0 No~

03' CM0) (0

oNooo oooooo

. . .M

- 0U

N- CMj N 

### ° r- o o o(D. . . ... . . .

't L o) N 0 , o CM 't. m- r-m f) t CM ,- - o)

.f) o oo m 

## ~ 0) CM 0 j CMf)

CM N f o L

.j o- of 't oom oo ooo o o OL

o 0o) 0o

- CM m9 Lf) 't Lf)

0M C 0 0 .O O 00 00 00 0 0 0 

### O 

## ° o oD o 

## o o .... . . . 0 09 N 00 0)

.. .. Lf) Oj t )
o) CM O N o m 

### CM o0 0 0 

### oooo


## - 00 0 00 00000000

0)~Lf m90 M 0

Lf)CM CM
0:r 0. 0 .0.0 

### N 0 0 

### 0) 0.0. .0 0.0

E oo 

### 0) 0 

### 0 00 0 0 0 o) 0) ) o0) o) o) o ) 0) 0) 0) 0)0) 0) 0 ) 00o0 2- o) 0 ) 0 ) o) o) o) o) o) o)0o) 0) ))) 0 0

(0 Lf) N- Lf Lf Lf) (0 ) L f)U Lf) Lf). . .. . . . . . . . o , o) o) o) 0) o) o) o) o)o)0) o) o). . . . . . . . . . . 00o o) o) o) o) o) o) 0) .))0 0) .0) . . .

<.. . .. . . . .


### D-

D-.~ . . . . . . . E,

E, co) ,- 00 o0 O0 oO0 ob0 ob0o 8 0 <O0oO6Q0oOQO0O O0o o 0 0 o O0o o c, 0 0oOOOOOOOO0

. . . c o



## _ ~ ~~ ~~~~ . . ... ,. . . .. _€
. ,, : - _S- 0-C) 0 

# Lu. . ..0 w Eo , ' 

### 0 , : : 0 o L w OD 0- 0 E c a) o oc OD 6

H- "-

. .. , ._ , o o a) 0)0 o > 0 -o m) H :5 D a)o 16

! M -o

. - : E c

_ > 

### , a) o !E ,, a) ,) , E, a 

### HwmEI_a E o) 0u 0 

## 2~~ o > o 0 C O

cn 

## ~ 0 C-0 0,, -~0DcC <n CDwn D

< E o U) < 

## I

0n 0E ' 0 0 U) 0, !EC MC H o o o o~ 0o 0- Df -.-- 0 > , l 0 E~ o~ D -[ -o 0~ 0 0---2o 152oE, E L dEE 

### a) oo DD Q- i C o 0' Co C u L D Uc ) > > - 00E 0o E 0oa a) E C 0o > D,, D--o -od 0o,0o0 S0 0, a)oo N EE E wCEE) C 00oo WO ow -6E 1 ) wo o E E E E o o)7h
- i A WWWo WW CE 0 m

oa E'- a a) -o -9 E, ->o-> o >o-> U) CE < F- a_ fl W u W u W u WWu m OHC

- N < C w<w<<<<<

I I I 0O 't 0fO

C/ C/ C/ I I

0 0 o5 o5 0f (0 N05 0 000005 C : 0O 't Lf) I I I HHHI- - HHHI- - C/M

< < < < 

## 10954

o0 ) 0o 0 03,- (0 't 0

0

0

C/)

LU

cj 0

0- 0



### z m

<C

-)

0 C-)

D 0 C)

0,

0 0

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10954 1996

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

(2) EPAAction

EPA proposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, the control measures, including the commitment ofthe SCAQMD to adopt and implement rules by scheduled dates to achieve specified emission reductions. EPA action on the SCAQMD's adopted regulations will be taken in separate rulemakings following their submittal as SIP revisions.

The SCAQMD is currently considering adoption ofa revised regulatory agenda that shifts to 1996 all rule adoption dates that have lapsed. In the final action on the South Coast SIP, EPA intends to approve substitute dates if adopted bythe SCAQMD and submitted as a SIPrevision before EPA's final action on the ozone SIP. The amended schedule must be accompanied by ademonstration that this revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement ofthe Act. Unless the amended schedule and demonstration are submitted, EPA cannot approve and credit the measures whose adoption dates havepassed.

EPA wishes to encourage the SCAQMD to pursue the most aggressive possible implementation ofthe AQMP, which remains an otherwise valid and critically important blueprint for progress and eventual attainment ofthe

ozone NAAQS. EPA emphasizes that the failure ofthe SCAQMD to adopt most of the rules scheduled for adoption in 1995 is not evidence either that the AQMP is impractical or that the SCAQMD has failed in meeting its overall commitment to air quality progress. The AQMP needs amendment at this time 

### onlyto replacethe initialAQMP adoption dates with an updated timetable forrule adoption.

d. ROP Provisions. (1)ROP Emission Targets

The 1994 SIPdescribes theVOC emission reductions needed tomeet ROPrequirements based on South Coast's adjusted 1990 baseyear inventories.3

### ' The SIP also provides emission estimates for the ROP milestone yearsby projecting the impacts ofadopted control measures and ofanticipated changes in population, industrial activity, and other socio-economic factors. A summary ofthe ROPVOC targets and theprojected VOC emissions is provided below in thetable labeled, "South CoastROP Forecasts." 32

SOUTH COAST 

### ROP FORECASTS [In tons per summer day]

1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
VOC emissionsto meet ROP target

................................ 1074.4 976.6 846.6 732.2 617.6 544.1 VOC emissionswith plan reductions

............................... 1066.4 976.6 846.6 732.2 470.0 312.8

(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy

In general only adopted measures may generally be credited towards the 15% ROP requirement. In addition, pre-1990 Federal motor vehicle emission controls, Federal RVP limits on gasoline, and several other existing

measures cannot be credited in ROP plans. The control strategy for the 15% ROP requirement, therefore, includes all VOC control measures listed above, except for those showing no emission reductions in the 1996 column. (3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy

The post-1996 ROP control strategy includes allthose measures listed in above, except for those showing no emissions for the ROP milestone years. As discussed, the SIP identifies no surplus measures for thepost-1996 ROP requirements. Therefore, all ofthe VOC emission reductions in the post-1996 ROP control strategy are needed to meet the post-1996 ROP requirements. (4) EPAAction

EPA believes thatthe South Coast component ofthe 1994 SIP meets the CAA requirements for ROP. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve South Coast's 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP

31See 1994AQMP, Appendix I C. 32See 1994 AQMP, Appendix I C,Table 3 4, and Attachment A.TheAQMP also calculates aROP target for NOx and computesROP emissions plans under sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2) ofthe Act.

e. Demonstration ofAttainment. The Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area is classified as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone. As a result, the SIP must contain adequate control measures and commitments to demonstrate attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS by 2010. (1) Control Strategy

The control strategy for South Coast's SIP attainment demonstration includes allofthe State and local measures identified above. Among those measures
are several "new-technology" measures, which are needed to achieve reductions beyond what could be accomplished with existing control technologies or control techniques.

The 1990Amendments to theAct added section 182(e)(5), which applies exclusively to extreme ozone areas. This provision authorizes the State to use conceptual, as yet unadopted measures for its ozone attainment demonstration and ROP afterthe year 2000, ifthese

measures anticipate new or improved technology or control techniques, the

measures arenot needed to meet the progress requirements for the first 10 years, and the State commits to submit contingency measures to be

reductions forNOx, but theAQMP depends upon NOx substitution onlyfor the 1999, 2002, and 2005 ROP milestones. implemented if the anticipated technologies do not achieve planned reductions.

CARB and the SCAQMD included with their new-technology measures commitments to submit contingency

measures and a demonstration that reductions from the CARB and SCAQMD new-technology measures are notneeded to achieve the first 10years ofrequired progress. Because the section 182(e)(5) approval criteria are metby both the CARB and SCAQMD submittals, EPA issued final approval of the new-technology measures on August 21, 1995. See 60 FR43379 for further details on the new-technology control

measures and EPA's action on them. EPA has therefore already approved and credited the following SCAQMD and CARB new-technology provisions.

Because much ofthe needed reductions in the 1994 South Coast plan is now assigned to these conceptual
measures, air quality progress in future years requires substantial State and local staffand resource investment at this timeto lay the foundations for the necessary advances in control technology or control techniques. EPA urges both CARB and the SCAQMD to set out the timing and stages of projected control measure development, and to involve the public and the

## 10955

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10955 1996

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

regulated community in a process by which they can understand and contribute to the Agency's steady progress in developing the control approaches. The SCAQMD's annual report to the California Legislature is

one mechanism for displaying the District's technology advancement projects and ensuring that necessary
resource needs are identified.

Finally, EPA also encourages both CARB and the SCAQMD to reduce the dimensions ofthe section 182(e)(5) component oftheplan by substituting near-term control regulations as soon as these controls can be identified, developed, and adopted. Such action not only comports with the Act's requirements for attainment "as expeditiously as practicable" (see, for example, section 181(a)(1)) but also accelerates air quality progress in the interim, both within the SCAB and in downwind nonattainment areas. SCA QMDNew-Technology Measures

Advance Tech-CTS (Coating Technologies), ADV-CTS-01, adoption 2003, 23.9 tpd ROG;

Advanced Tech-Fugitives, ADV-FUG, adoption 2003, 23.1 tpd ROG;

Advance Tech-Process Related Emissions, ADV-PRC, adoption 2003, 12.3 tpd ROG;

Advance Tech-Unspecified, Stationary Sources, ADV-UNSP, adoption 2003, 67 tpd ROG;

Advance Tech-CTS (Coatings Technologies), ADV-CTS-02, 54.7 tpd ROG.
CARB New-Technology Measures

Improved Control Technology for LDVs, M-2, adoption 2000, implementation 2004-5, 2010 emission reductions-10 tpd ROB, 15 tpd NOx;

Off-road diesel equipment-2.5 g/ bhp-hr NOxstandard, M-9, adoption 2001, implementation 2005, 2010 emission reductions-3 tpd ROG, 31 tpd NOx;

Consumer products advanced technology and market incentives
measures, CP-4, adoption 2005, implementation 2009, 2010 emission reductions 46 tpd ROG;

Additional measures, 2010 emission reductions 79 tpd ROG, 60 tpd NOx. The measures includepossible marketincentive measures and possible operational measures applicable to heavy-duty vehicles. (2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed modeling analysis performed to demonstrate that the control strategy described above will result in NAAQS attainment. A summary ofthe emission reductions needed to attain the standard is provided below in the table labeled, "Emission Reductions Needed in South Coast."


### EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED IN SOUTH COAST [Tons per summer day]

1990 Baseline Emissions Inven tory .................................. Carrying Capacity

..................... Reductions Needed

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

A summary ofthe emissio reductions projected from th control strategy is provided table labeled, "South Coast Demonstration."

SOUTH COAST ATTAII 

### DEMONSTRATIOI [Tons persummer d

Reductions fromAdopted

measures .............................. Committed Local measures ...... Committed State measures ...... Assigned Federal measures ..... Total

...............................
The SIP attainment demoi

was based on a modeling sir 4 episodes ofhigh ozone fro intensive air quality study. I uncertainties. A 1997 field study designed to study air quality in the Southern portion ofthe state of California should improve the performance ofthe model. The model inputs and performance are discussed in greater detail in the TSD. (3) EPAAction

V Despite the stringent existing State VOC NOx and local regulations and the ambitious
commitments by CARB and SCAQMD, 1517 1361 the ozone attainment demonstration for 323 553 the SCAB is insufficient as submitted by 1194 808 the State since, without any fall back State commitments, it depends upon [e Sadditional reductions, stemmingfrom below in the assignments to EPA to establish specific Attawine future controls on national and international mobile sources and EPA is notobligated by statute or court order to NMENT do so. As discussed above, EPAhas N concluded that, while credit may be taken forthose national rules that are ay) statutorily mandated, EPA does not

VOC NOx propose to credit the California SIP with

- Federal controls that are discretionary. With respect to the South Coast SIP,the 463 429 table titled "Federal Assignments in the 453 43 California SIP for the South Coast" 

### 231 227 47 109 indicates what emission reductions are assigned by the State to EPAfor 1194 808 discretionary rules.

istration FEDERAL ASSIGNMENTS IN THE CALInulation of FORNIA SIP FOR THE SOUTH COAST
mathe 1987 [Reductions from discretionary national 

### Inaddition, measures]

one episode ot very high ozone (.30 ppm) on June 5-7, 1985 was selected. The September 5-7, 1987 episode represents typical high ozone episode, with a peak concentration of.33 ppm. The Urban Airshed Model was used to model air quality. The wind field were generated using the EPA Diagnostic Wind Model.

The model application does not meet allEPA performance criteria with the unadjusted mobil source inventory. The base case indicates a bias of-25% to -71%, indicating that the model tends to underpredict thepeak ozone concentration. In the sensitivity analysis with the motor vehicle emission inventory increased by afactor oftwo, the model performance is enhanced. The model predicts higher ozone values for both the base and future years. Under theproposed emission reduction strategy but with the grown motor vehicle inventory, the model still predicts attainment ofthe standard by 2010.

Key uncertainties in the modeling analysis include mobile source and biogenic emission inventory SIP 2010 reductions SIP measure ROG NOx
M6-heavy-duty diesel vehicles

(2.0 g/bhp-hour NOxstandard)

........................................ 1.5 15.5 M10-nonroad diesel equipment (2.5 g/bhp-hour NOx standard)

............................... 5.3 44.2 M12-industrial equipment, gas

and LPG

................................ 25.1 12.6 M13- marine vessels1

............. 0 1.7 M14- trains2

......... ................... 0 7.2 M15- planes

............................ 2.7 4.1

Total Reductions

............ 34.6 85.3 SIP Measure M13 includes both the statutorily-mandated ship controls and discretionary controls on ocean-going ships. The emissions reductions shown are those beyond what EPA estimates from the statutorily-mandated ship controls, which were proposed on November 9, 1994 (59 FR 55930). 

### 10956

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10956 1996

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

2The SIP includes in Measure M14 both the statutorily-mandated national locomotive emission standards and additional reductionsto be achieved in the South Coast through a provision that requires that by 2010 the locomotive fleet in the SCAB will emit on average no more than the 2005 emissions level for new locomotives. The emission reductions shown are those specific to the South Coast, in ex- cess of reductions that would result from the national standards alone.

The unusually high emissions associated with these sources in the SCABis in part areflection ofthe South Coast's dominant role as a Pacific Rim trade center, heavily dependent upon every form ofgoods transportation. For example, the Ports ofLong Beach and Los Angeles, now the busiest ports in the nation, annually move goods valued at almost $150 billion, using a complex intermodal network ofships, trains, trucks, airplanes, and every variety of loading and handling equipment.

While stationary, area source, and light- and medium-duty vehicle emissions areprojected to decline very significantly as a result ofState and local control measures applicable in the SCAB, emissions from the remaining mobile source categories arepredicted to increase substantially through the attainment year in the absence offurther controls.

EPA and CARB are already engaged in

acooperative process involving engine manufacturers and other stakeholders to review the potential for establishing standards for new heavy-duty motor vehicle engines, heavy-duty nonroad engines, and controls orprohibitions on fuels and fuel additives, in accordance with theterms ofEPA's authority in sections 202(a)(3), 213, and 211(c) ofthe Act. Thisprocess ofevaluating the appropriateness ofnew national standards and issuing standards in formal rulemaking is not expected to be concluded until mid-1997.

Moreover, international standard settingis now in progress under the jurisdiction ofthe International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization relating to ocean-going ships and commercial aircraft, respectively. Again, by mid-1997 greater certainty is expected regarding any new international emissions control standards and the degree to which these standards would affectpredicted levels ofSCAB emissions in 2010.

In view ofthe unique relevance to the SCAB ofthese ongoing standard-setting projects, EPAbelieves that itis appropriate to examine further the extent to which specific additional mobile source controls might contribute to ozone attainment in the SCAB. Through June 1997, EPA will continue to engage in aconsultative process with CARB, the SCAQMD, and other stakeholders to examine the potential for additional mobile source controls that can contribute to progress and attainment. This review will focus not only on unilateral Federal controls but also on the potential for cooperative and community-based controls that reconcile, to the greatest extent practicable, State/local interests and the legitimate concerns ofinterstate and international commerce. EPA expects that the Agency and the State entities will continue to work cooperatively to identify additional measures that are appropriate and feasible for each party to pursue. As discussed above in section II.B.2., EPA proposes to make an enforceable commitment to undertake rulemakings, afterthe consultative process, on control measures needed to achieve the emission reductions which

are determined to be appropriate for EPA.

EPA proposes to approve the South Coast attainment demonstration ifCARB submits, before EPA's final action, an enforceable SIP commitment to adopt and submit as a SIP revision:

(a) A revised attainment demonstration for the South Coast as appropriate after the consultative process. This SIP revision would be due December 31, 1997; and (b) Enforceable emission limitations and other control measures needed to achieve the emission reductions which

are determined to be appropriate for the State. This SIP revision would be due

no later than December 31, 1999.

EPA believes that this gap-filling commitment and schedule for additional SIP submissions for the SCABis a reasonable application ofthe Clean Air Act requirements for SIP submissions to the current circumstances. EPA is mindful ofthe requirement in Clean Air Act section 182(c)(2)(A) for submission ofan attainment demonstration byNovember 15, 1994. The SCAB has submitted modeling coupled with SIP measures and commitments that provide the great bulk ofreductions needed for attainment. Granting additional time, as described above, for the remaining

measures is consistent with the statutory scheme because the time delays arebrief, in the context ofthe SCAB attainment process, and EPA intends to ensure that there willbe no adverse impact on progress, attainment,

or any other Part Drequirement as a result ofthe extended deadlines. EPA wishes to emphasize that the South Coast attainment demonstration is clearly dependant on the ability ofthe State and local agencies to faithfully adhere to their rule adoption schedule. Their failure to do so will clearly jeopardize the attainment demonstration

no matter whatresolutions are achieved through the consultative process.

The South Coast attainment demonstration relies, in part, on reductions from a fully-enhanced I/M program. As discussed in EPA's proposed approval ofCalifornia's enhanced I/Mprogram (see section II.A.2.c.), credits associated with this control measure will become permanent following the State's submission ofthe required analysis demonstrating that the enhanced I/Mprogram is achieving the emission reductions claimed in the attainment demonstration. At thatpoint, EPA's approval ofthe South Coast attainment demonstration will also become permanent.

EPA believes that the current modeled attainment demonstration is valid insofar as itprojects attainment bythe statutory attainment date. EPAproposes to approve the modeling analysis at this time.

f. Overall EPA Action. EPAproposes to approve the South Coast ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories and demonstrations of 15% ROP and post1996 ROP. EPA also proposes to approve the State and local control

measures and the modeling analysis. With respect to the attainment demonstration, EPA proposes to approve the attainment demonstration portion ofthe SIP ifthe State submits, before EPA's final action on the ozone SIP, a commitment to adopt a revised attainment demonstration and gapfillingmeasures, if any arenecessary afterEPA's consultative process. 8. Southeast Desert

a. Identification ofPlans. The Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area ("Southeast Desert") is classified as a severe-17 area based on
a .24ppm ozone design value measured in Banning. Section 181(a)(2) ofthe Act 

### 10957

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10957 1996

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

establishes a severe-17 classification for

severe areas with a 1988 ozone design value between .19 ppm and .28 ppm, allowing these areas 17 years (rather than 15 years) to attain the ozone NAAQS. The Southeast Desert covers the Victor Valley/Barstow region in San Bernardino County ("Mojave"), the Coachella Valley/San Jacinto region in Riverside County ("Coachella"), and the Antelope Valleyregion in Los Angeles County ("Antelope"). The first ofthese

areas is the responsibility ofthe Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD).The second and third areas
arethe responsibility ofthe SCAQMD. Separate ROP and attainment demonstrations were prepared for each ofthe areas. Air quality in all three areas is overwhelmingly impacted by transport ofozone and ozone precursors from the South Coast Air Basin.

On September 9, 1994, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the 1994 Air Quality Management Plan for the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area (Appendix I-B ofthe South Coast 1994 AQMP) and the 1994 Air Quality Management Plan for Antelope Valley (Appendix I-A ofthe South Coast 1994 AQMP). 33 On October 26, 1994, the MDAQMD Board adopted the post-1996 Attainment Demonstration and Reasonable Further Progress Plan for the San Bernardino County Portion ofthe Southeast Desert AQMA, and the Rateof-Progress Plan for the San Bernardino County Portion ofthe Southeast Desert AQMA.34

b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates ofthe actual VOC and NOx emissions that occurred in 1990 in each ofthe three portions ofthe Southeast Desert. These base year inventories are summarized in the table labeled "1990 Southeast Desert SIP Inventories." More detailed inventory breakdowns appear in Chapter 3 ofAppendix I-B ofthe South Coast 1994 AQMP (Coachella), Chapter 3 ofAppendix I-A ofthe South Coast 1994 AQMP (Antelope), and Appendix A ofthe Mojave RFP Plan.


### 1990 SOUTHEAST DESERT SIP INVENTORIES [Tons persummerday]
Coachella Antelope Mojave Category 

### VOC NO× VOC NO× VOC NO× S

tationary

......................................................................... 12.4 3.1 15.7 1.9 20.0 51.6 M

obile

............................................................................... 36.9 41.1 19.2 26.2 26.5 62.0
Total

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

c. SIP Control Measures. (1) Description

The SCAQMD's existing rules and committal measures apply not only throughout the South Coast Air Basin but also in the SCAQMD's portions of the Southeast Desert. The SIP includes the State measures and a subset ofthe SCAQMD measures discussed above in sections II.A. and II.C.7., but does not add to that list any unique State or local controls for the Coachella and Antelope regions. The MDAQMD included in the Mojave Plan the measures listed below

as well as several mobile source
measures taken from EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the South Coast. CARB eliminated theFIP

measures from the State's submittal.

33November 15, 1994 letter from Jacqueline Schafer, CARB, to FeliciaMarcus, EPA, forwarding the 1994 California Ozone SIP. TheSIP includes a November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the South Coast AQMP component ofthe SIP and CARB Board Resolution No. 94 61 approving the South Coast component. The South Coast component includes

an October 6, 1994 letterfrom James M. Lents (SCAQMD)to James Boyd (CARB) forwarding the 1994 South Coast AQMP and the SCAQMDBoard MOJAVE SIP CONTROL MEASURES AND 

### VOC/NO× REDUCTIONS [In Tons/day for 1996]
MDAQMD measure VOC NOx

Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings

........................................ 0.92

........ Rule 1160 Internal Combustion

Engines

................................. 0.23 6.08 Rule 461 Gasoline Transfer

Dispensing

............................ 3.74

........ (2) EPAAction

EPA proposes to approve the control

measures portion ofthe Mojave plan under sections l10(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act as strengthening the SIP.

d. ROP and Attainment Provisions. (1) ROP and Attainment Emission Targets

CARB's summary ofROP targets in Volume IVofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP identifies the following 15% ROP targets for the three subregions within the Southeast Desert: Coachella 38 tpd

Resolution 94 36 approving the AQMP. On November 15, 1993, CARB submitted to EPA arateof-progress plan intended to demonstrate that 1990 VOC emissions would bereduced by at leastfifteen percent by 1996 pursuantto Section 182(b)(1) ofthe Act. On April 13, 1994, EPA determined that this ROP plan was incomplete because it relied on controls not yet adopted in regulatory form. The 1994 SIPupdates South Coast's 1993 ROP plan in order to correct this deficiency. VOC, Antelope 29 tpd VOC, Mojave 36 tpd VOC. CARB did notprovide similar information with respect to post-1996 ROPor attainment. (2) State Approach

The SIP submittal for the three subregions includes detailed information relating to compliance with the 15% ROPplan requirements. With respect to the post-1996 ROP requirements, CARB and the SCAQMD requested a waiver from the requirements for the Coachella and Antelope subregions, based on the provisions ofsection 182(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, which allows the Administrator to approve post-1996 ROP plans that achieve less than the 3% per year required reductions ifthe State demonstrates thatthe plan includes all

measures that can be feasibly implemented in the area, including all

measures achieved in practice by

sources in the same source category in nonattainment areas ofthe next higher classification. CARB also asserted that

34November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) toFelicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the MDAQMD portion ofthe SDMAQMA ozone SIP and CARB Resolution No. 94 64 approving the Mojave Desert Plan. Among otherthings, this submittal modifies an earlier 15% Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration, adopted on March 23, 1994.EPA deemed this earlier SIP submittal incomplete on April 13, 1994. 

## 10958

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10958 1996

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

the post-1996 ROP requirements should be waived in all three subregions based simply on the overwhelming transport into the Southeast Desert (1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV,pp. IV-16 and IV-17).

In submittingthe ROP and attainment demonstration plans for the Southeast Desert, CARB asserted that "the stringency ofthe NOx and VOC precursor control strategy necessary for the district to meet the 1994 ozone planningrequirements for attainment and rate ofprogress demonstrations is primarily dependent upon the severity oftheproblem in the South Coast, as well as the mix and location ofsources which contribute to ozone precursor concentrations and thetiming and stringency ofpreviously adopted controls in that area." (CARB Resolution No. 94-64, 4)

The three local plans provide further documentation ofthe overwhelming transport from the South Coast Air Basin. In the case ofthe Coachella area,
ozone and ozone precursors are transported by the prevailing sea breeze through San Gorgonio (or Banning)pass. The Antelope area is impacted by polluted air masses passing northward through the Newhall and Soledad pass. The Mojave portion ofthe nonattainment area is avast, sparselypopulated high desert region, at a greater distance from, but still strongly affected by, SCAB emissions to the west and southwest.

CARB and the local agencies believe that the Southeast Desert will attain the NAAQS by the 2007 deadline by virtue ofthe successful implementation ofthe South Coast plan. The Mojave plan includes further information to support MDAQMD's conclusion that opportunities for further VOC and NOx reductions within the area are greatly limited bythe absence ofsignificant

sources ofanthropogenic emissions in the area, and the current degree of control imposed upon those sources. (3) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration

Photochemical grid modeling was required for the attainment demonstration for the Southeast Desert Basin, because ofthe area's severe-2 classification. Because ofthe relatively important role ofthe western boundary conditions, it was determined that modeling the SEDAB basin along with the South Coast Air Basin was preferable to modeling the SEDAB basin alone.

Therefore, the attainment demonstration was performed by the SCAQMD,using a domain that includes the South Coast Air Basin, much ofthe Southeast Desert Basin, and Ventura County. The SCAQMD did not enlarge the domain to include the entire Southeast Desert Basin. Ideally, the domain would cover the entire nonattainment area. However, the portions ofthe nonattainment area not covered by the domain were expected to be below theNAAQS, when the other portions ofthe area are able to demonstrate compliance with the standard.

The air quality results for the year 2007 projected inventories were determined for the purpose ofanalyzing the ability ofthe Southeast Desert to attain by the severe-2 attainment date. Five episodes were modeled for the attainment demonstration. The episode selection process was determined bythe availability ofan enhanced data base of air quality and meteorological data, generated primarily by the 1987 South Coast Air Quality Study. Since the modeling was performed for the SCAB, the primary criteria for episode selection was the presence ofhigh

ozone in the SCAB, rather than high

ozone in the Southeast Desert. The highest level ofozone recorded in the Mojave Desert for the five episodes was .15 ppm, compared to adesign value of .24ppm. Because ofthe high level of

resources required to compile the necessary air quality, emissions inventory, and meteorological data for each episode, EPA accepts the decision not to model an additional episode with higher levels ofozone in the Southeast Desert.

Using the emission reductions from proposed controlmeasures, including South Coast Air Basin emission reductions, the modeling results show that peak predicted ozone concentrations for the year 2007 are below the ozone NAAQS.

In order to improve understanding of the formation ofozone in the SCAB and transport between the South Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura, and San Diego air basins, ajoint study is being planned bythe local, State, and Federal agencies, aswell as the National Weather Service and the Department of Defense. The purpose ofthe study isto provide an enhanced data base ofair quality and meteorological measurements, both at the surface level and aloft, to allow modeling ofmore recent episodes and a larger domain than is currently possible. (4) EPAAction

EPA agrees with the State that attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS in the Southeast Desert isheavily dependent upon reductions in the South Coast. Modeling information, based on the South Coast UAM analysis, supports the State's contention thatreductions from the South Coast SIP (alongwith SIP reductions within the area) will bring the Southeast Desert into attainment by the statutory deadline. EPA therefore proposes to approve the Southeast Desert modeling and attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2) ofthe Act.

e. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes to approve fully the Southeast Desert

ozone SIP with respect to theAct's requirements for emission inventories, control measures, and demonstration of attainment. EPA will take action on the 15% ROP and the post-1996 ROP plan elements for the three Southeast Desert subregions in separate rulemakings. 

### III.Summary ofEPAActions

EPA proposes to approve the following elements ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP for the listed areas,
as meeting applicable CAA requirements: (1) Emission Inventories for Santa Barbara, San Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, South Coast, and Southeast Desert,under section 182(a)(1) ofthe CAA.

(2) 15% ROPPlans for Santa Barbara, San Diego, San Joaquin, Ventura, and South Coast, under section 182(b)(1).

(3) Post-1996 ROP Plans for San Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, and South Coast, under section 182(c)(2)(B) ofthe CAA.

(4) Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations for Santa Barbara, San Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, Southeast Desert, and South Coast, under section 182(c)(2) ofthe CAA.

(5) All ofthe local control measures listed above in section II.C., for each of the nonattainment areas, including the specific emissions reductions for each milestone year, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe CAA. In the case of delinquent control measures in the South Coast, EPAproposes approval onlyif a revised adoption schedule is submitted.

(6) All ofthe State's control measures contained in the 1994 California Ozone SIP thatEPA has not previously approved: M -Accelerated Retirement ofLDVs, M4-Early Introduction of2g/ bhp-hr Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles, M7-Accelerated Retirement ofHDVs, CP3-Aerosol Paints, and Pesticides). EPA also proposes to assign specific emissions reductions by nonattainment

area and milestone year (as displayed in the tables in section II.A.) for all ofthe State control measures, including those previously approved under sections 110(k)(3), 182(e)(5), and 301(a) ofthe 

## 10959

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10959 1996

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

CAA. All ofthese actions are proposed under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.

EPA proposes to approve California's I/Mregulations under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). EPA also proposes to approve the State's basic I/Mprogram under section 182(b)(4) ofthe CAA and the enhanced I/M program, including the assignment ofspecific emissions reductions identified in section II.A.2. above, under section 182(c)(3) ofthe CAA and section 348(c) ofthe Highway Act.

EPA will take separate regulatory action on the 15% ROP Plans for Sacramento and the Southeast Desert, and the post-1996 ROP Plan for the Southeast Desert.

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare
aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPAmay certify that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include small business, small not-for-profit enterprises and government entities with jurisdiction overpopulations ofless than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act, do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, it does not have

a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature ofthe Federal/state relationship under the Act, preparation ofa regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofstate action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by aJuly 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
V. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act") signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of$100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.

Through submission ofthese SIP revisions, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have elected to adopt the program provided for under sections 110 and 182 ofthe CAA. These rules may bind State, local, and tribal governments to perform certain actions and also require the private sectorto perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules being approved today will impose any mandate upon the State, local, or tribal governments either as the

owner or operator ofa source or as a regulator, or would impose any mandate upon the private sector, EPA's action will impose no new requirements; such

sources are already subject to these requirements under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. EPAhas also determined that this action does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million ormore to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides ofnitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority:42U.S.C. 7401 7671q. Dated: March 4, 1996. Felicia Marcus, RegionalAdministrator. Appendix: StatusofEPA'S Activities Relating to the "FederalMeasures" in the California SIP Submittal

The information below represents the current status ofEPA's activities, including ongoingrulemaking, with respect to each ofthe mobile source categories identified as "Federal Measures" in the 1994 California Ozone SIP. Heavy DutyDieselVehicles

Measure M6 ofthe 1994California 

### Ozone StateImplementation Plan ("the SIP")provides for adoption byEPA of

aFederal oxides ofnitrogen (NOx) standard for new heavy-duty diesel onhighway vehicles. The NOx standard called for in the SIP is 2.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), to be 

### implemented beginning in2004. A Federal standard would help reduce emissions from the large number ofout

### of-state trucks which operate in California.

EPA is fulfilling its commitment to propose tighter NOx emission standards 

### forFederal on-highway heavy-duty vehicles as part ofthe NOx/PM (particulate matter)Initiative. On July 

### 11, 1995, EPA, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the leadingmanufacturers ofheavy-duty engines signed a Statement ofPrinciples 

### (SOP) thatestablished aconsensus plan to substantially reduce emissions from future trucks and buseson anationwide basis. The goal ofthe SOP is to ensure 

### cleaner airin amanner which isboth realistic for the heavy-duty engine industry and responds to environmental needs as well. As aresult ofthe SOP, EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on August 31, 1995. The ANPRM 

### announced plans topropose a nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC)plus NOx standard of2.4 g/bhp-hr, or a combined NMHC plusNOx standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr with an NMHC cap of.5 g/ 

### bhp-hr. Engines meetingthese future standards are expected to be over 80 

### percent cleaner thanpre-control engines. EPAis currently preparing a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

### and expects topublish the NPRM late in the spring of1996. TheFinal Rulehas
a targetpublication date ofwinter 1996- 1997. The new standards would be 

### implemented beginning in2004 and would apply to all on-highway heavyduty engines.

CARB played a very important role in the achievement ofthe Statement of Principles (SOP). In addition, CARB has given EPA tremendous support in the development ofthe ANPRM and the NPRM. As a result ofthe SOP and rulemaking processes, EPA and CARB 

### willhave harmonized programs fornew heavy-duty engines, an advantage for engine manufacturers. Off-RoadIndustrial Equipment(Diesel)
Measure MIO ofthe SIP provides for 

### adoption byEPA ofaFederal NOx standard for, at aminimum, new farm 

## 10960

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10960 1996

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

and construction equipment with diesel engines rated at less than 175 hp (130 kw). These are the engines which California is preempted from regulating under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The NOx standard called for in the SIP is 2.5 g/bhp-hr (3.3 g/kwhr), to be implemented beginning in 2005.

In its 1991 Nonroad Study, EPA determined that nonroad diesel engines rated at 37 kw and more, including those covered in SIP measure M10, emit

a substantialportion ofthe nation's NOx inventory. In response, EPA set a 9.2 g/ kw-hr NOx standard for these engines in 1994, to be phased-in beginning in 1996. The Agency also expressed its intent to undertake a second tierofstandard settingto further control these emissions. The Clean Air Actprovides for this as a discretionary effort and contains no requirements or guidance regarding the level or timingofthe standards.

Initial work on this second tier of standard setting is currently underway

as part ofthe NOx/PM Initiative. The NOx/PM Initiative has been ajoint program ofboth EPA and CARB. EPA and CARB recognize that harmonizing Federal and California standards would help to achieve air quality goals in all states byeliminating the potential for equipment with higher-emitting engines being transported across stateborders. Harmonized standards would also have obvious advantages for manufacturers. The participation ofCARB staffon this initiative has been invaluable.

At this time, no decisions have been made regarding the level ofthe second tier ofFederal standards. Although substantialNOx reductions arebeing pursued, there is no assurance that setting a standard as low as 3.3 g/kw-hr in the 2005 timeframe willbe the most appropriate approach nationwide. A number ofissues are likely to make it difficult to set standards at such a level. Among these issues is the strong desire by engine manufacturers for harmonization with European nonroad equipment standards which are considerably less stringent than the levels contained in the SIP. Another issue is the effect that significant engine technology changes due to standards could have on equipment designs. In order to fitredesigned engines into their equipment, manufacturers may need to modify many oftheir products to meet visibility, safety and performance specifications which may require additional leadtime. Regardless ofthese issues, EPA is committed to pursuing a second tierofstandards for theheavyduty diesel nonroad engines covered by this measure. GasandLPGEquipment25-175 Horsepower

Measure M12 ofthe SIP provides for adoption byEPA ofaFederal program that will implement three-way catalyst technology on new nonroad equipment powered bygasoline or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)enginesrated at between 25 hp (18 kw) and 175 hp (130 kw). The goal ofthis measure is to reduce NOxemissions by atleast 50 percent and hydrocarbon emissions by 75 percent. This is a complementary

measure to measure M1O and much of the discussion ofthatmeasure applies here as well.

EPA does not currently have any emission standards for gasoline or LPG engines in this category. However, under aconsent decree signed by EPA with the Sierra Club on June 10, 1993, EPA agreed to determine by November 30, 1996 whether or not to regulate large gasoline nonroad engines and, if so, by what schedule. At this time, the Agency is considering setting standards for these engines aspart ofthe NOx/PM Initiative. However, no decisions have been made regarding thepossible level ofany standards. Although substantial emission reductions may be pursued, there is no assurance that setting standards as low as those soughtby CARB would be the most appropriate approach nationwide. The same issues that are likely to make it difficult to achieve stringent standards for diesel nonroad engines also apply to gasoline and LPGnonroad engines.
Marine Vessels

Measure M13 ofthe SIP provides for adoption byU.S. EPA and bythe International Maritime Organization (IMO) ofemissions standards that would reduce NOxemissions from new diesel engines used in ocean-going vessels by 30 percent. M12 also assumes that EPA will issue standards for nonocean going vessels that willreduce NOx emissions by at least 65 percent.

The IMO, a special agency ofthe United Nations, is developing guidelines for thereduction ofNOx and sulfuroxides (SOx) from ships under a
new Annex to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL73/78). These guidelines would address the control ofair pollution from ships. An IMO committee is scheduled to finalize

adraft Annex in July 1996. After the committee's action, adiplomatic conference will be held in the spring of 1997 to review and approve the Annex. Each national will then consider the Annex and its associated guidelines for implementation and enforcement on vessels carrying its flag and on vessels entering its waters. Before the Annex could be enforced within US waters, the Congress would have to adopt it and its guidelines and then provide appropriate authority to agovernment agency.

While itis true that the new Annex is intended to provide for a 30 percent reduction in NOxemissions, that reduction applies only to ships beginning construction after acertain time (tentatively,January 1998). It should be noted that there is a provision for application to existing ships that undergo a major modification or whose engines' power outputis changed by 10 percent or more. Beyond that, the Annex does not address existing engines. Furthermore, achieving the target of30 percent, would require full implementation ofthe Annex worldwide.

The NOx emission requirements in the new Annex would apply to all engines over 100kW installed on ships

over 400 gross tons or which have a totalinstalled power of 1500 kW. The guidelines are composed oftwo parts: Part A addresses guidelines for the implementation ofNOx limits for marine diesel engines; Part B addresses guidelines for diesel engine test, survey, and certification for compliance with the NOx emission limits.

Numerous studies are underway to further investigate issues relating to marine vessels and the Santa Barbara channel. EPA is involved in these efforts, along with theUnited States Navy, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and CARB.

The United States Navy's ongoing studies are intended to better characterize ship traffic and its impact

on ozone exceedances in Ventura County. These include investigating air trajectory and transport mechanisms, inventorying ship traffic, collecting

ozone measurement data, and collecting weather parameters for modeling. This on-going study is not complete at this time. Another study, sponsored by SCAQMD, will improve the marine vessel emission inventory and briefly discusspotential control strategies. The SCAQMD study should be completed by June 1996. A third study, the Southern California Transport Study, being led by CARB, is intended to better understand air pollution transport in Southern California. The study willprovide an enhanced air quality and meteorological database for Southern California, which willprovide the basis forimproved modeling. Data willbe collected at the surface and aloft, as well as over water.

Collectively, these studies will help the EPA and other interested parties furtherunderstand and discuss 

### 10961

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10961 1996

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

potential strategies forreducing emissions from the shipping channel if needed for attainment.
Locomotives

In Measure M14, CARB assumed locomotive emission reductions from two EPA programs. The first ofthese programs was the statutorily required EPA national regulation for locomotives and locomotive engines, (national locomotive regulation). EPA expects that the planned national locomotive regulation willprovide allofthe CARB SIP credits with the exception ofthe 67% reduction in NOx emissions in the South Coast by 2010.

To address the South Coast's need for further emission reductions EPAhas considered a special locomotive program for the South Coast. This program would require that all locomotives operating in the South Coast achieve on average, an emission level equal to EPA national locomotive regulation tier2 standards. Since these standards are technology forcing, the practical requirement would be to require an accelerated fleet turnover in the South Coast such that only the newest engines meeting the EPAtier 2 standards would operate in the South Coast. This program would provide a 66% reduction in locomotive NOx emissions in the South Coast by 2010 and result in a NOx emission level of 12 tons/day in the South Coast. The railroads that operate in the South Coast voluntarily agreed to thisprogram. EPA is continuing to explore innovative approaches to establish the South Coast clean locomotive fleet program aspart ofthe SIP. Aircraft

Measure M15 calls for U.S. EPA to adopt standards to effect a30 percent reduction in reactive organic gases (ROG)and NOx emissions beginning in 2000. M15 apparently applies to new commercial aircraft engines, but also suggests reconsideration ofthe exempt status ofmilitary aircraft.

The Federal Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emission standards for aircraft engines. In recognition ofthis preemptive authority, the SIP assigns

new nationwide emission standards for commercial aircraft engines to EPA that would reduce ROG and NOx emissions from this source by 30 percent beginning in 2000. The SIP also correctly acknowledges that military aircraft engines are currently exempt from emission standards, which otherwise apply to commercial aircraft engines. In thisregard, the SIP recommends that the exempt status of these aircraft be reconsidered. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is the most appropriate forum for establishing commercial aircraft engine emission standards due to the international nature ofthe aviation industry. EPAhas actively participated in considering

more stringent NOx standards as part of ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP)in the intervening period since the FIP. In December 1995, CAEP recommended a 16 percent increase in stringency for the NOx standard that applies to medium and large turbine engines used on commercial aircraft. The revised standard would affect newly certified engines (i.e., engine models produced for the first time)beginning in 2000, and allnewly manufactured engines (i.e., engines already being produced) in 2008. The revised standard would not affect engines already in air service. No revision ofthehydrocarbon emission standard was considered by CAEP at the time, principally because modern turbine engines are considered very "clean" in this regard.

The CAEP recommendation will now
move through the ICAO hierarchy for consideration. Initially, the ICAO Council will act on the recommendation. Ifthe Council finds it acceptable, the revision moves to the full ICAO Assembly for final action. This process may notbe complete until the spring of 1998.

The emission benefits ofany new NOx standard will occur worldwide. These benefits, however, will gradually

accrue over an extended period oftime. More specifically, the full benefits ofthe revised standard will not occur until well after 2010, because ofthe 2008 date for full implementation ofthe standard and the slow fleet turnover to new, cleaner engines (e.g., aircraft last about 25 years in active service.) Therefore, very few ofthe potential benefits willbe realized by the SIP's attainment date. Turning to the exemption for military engines, EPA agrees with the SIP recommendation that such ablanket exemption should be reconsidered. The Agency ispreparing a notice of proposed rulemaking to formally adopt the existing ICAO NOx and CO standards, and will request comment on the need for and feasibility ofapplying emission standards to military engines. This notice is currently scheduled for publication during fiscal year 1997, due to competing budgetary priorities.

EPA has also continued to explore other ways to reduce the environmental effects ofair travel in California and throughout the nation in the intervening period since theFIP. More specifically, the Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are working cooperatively to encourage continuing progress in reducing emissions from ground service equipment and aircraft auxiliary powerunits. EPA has sponsored additional work to compile technical data and emission inventory methods. This information will be used by the Federal Aviation Administration to develop an Advisory Circular for use by airlines and airport authorities interested in reducing the emissions from these sources. Pleasurecraft

Measure M16 assumes that U.S. EPA finalizes proposed national ROG and NOx standards for various categories of

new enginesused in watercraft.

EPA has not yetfinalized the rulemaking on emission standards for spark-ignition marine engines. The court ordered deadline for signature of the final rulemaking is May 31, 1996. EPA has issued guidance to states on the amount ofcredit that will be allowed due to this rulemaking. These emission standards will apply to new marine engines beginning in model year 1998. There is no second phase rulemaking planned.

EPA has not yetfinalized the rulemaking on emission standards for compression-ignition marine engines. The court ordered deadline for signature ofthe final rulemaking is May 31, 1996. EPA has notyet issued guidance to states on the amount ofcredit that will be allowed due to this rulemaking. These emission standards will apply to
new marine engines beginningin model year 1999. The emission standards will achieve an approximate 30% reduction in new engine emissions. The inventory willbe reduced as the fleet turns over. [FR Doc. 96 6011 Filed 3 15 96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



### 40CFR Part 52 [MO-001-1001(b); FRL-5442-3] Approvaland Promulgation of Implementation Plans;Stateof Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The EPAproposes to disapprove revisions to the air pollution control State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state ofMissouri. The SIP pertains to the St. Louis vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. These revisions require the implementation ofan enhanced motor vehicle I/M program in the St. Louis 

### 10962

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 10962 1996