# + 2

(,1 1/,1(
Citation: 62 Fed. Reg. 1150 1997 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Apr 21 21:44:59 2011 -- 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.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52 [CA114-0023;FRL-5665-8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; CaliforniaOzone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTIONS: Finalrule. SUMMARY: EPA is approvingrevisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone for6nonattainment
areas: South Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Joaquin Valley. In addition, EPAis approving specific local and statewide airpollution control measures, including the California enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted these SIPrevisions toEPA onNovember 14, 1994, November 15, 1994, December 28, 1994, December 29, 1994, February 7, 1995, March 30, 1995, January 22, 1996, April 4, 1996, May 17, 1996, June 13, 1996, July 10, 1996, and July 12, 1996.

EPA is approving theserevisions to the California SIPunder provisions of the Clean AirAct (CAA) regardingEPA action on SIP submittals for nonattainment areas.

EPA is also establishing aconsultative process on thepotential foradditional mobile source controls thatcan contribute to attainment in theSouth Coast, and theAgency iscommittingto undertake rulemaking on those controls deemed tobe appropriate forEPA. EFFECTIVE DATE: This approvalis effective on February 7, 1997. ADDRESSES: Materials relevant tothis rulemaking are contained in Docket No. A-96-13, which is available forviewing duringnormal business hours at the following location: AirDivision, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Copies ofthe SIPmaterials are also available forinspection at the addresses listed below: Environmental Protection Agency, Air

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

Street, Sacramento, California In addition, copies oftherelevant localplan, the Stateplan (1994 California Ozone SIP),public comments, and EPA's technical support documents for this rulemaking are available at the following locations: San Diego Air Pollution Control District,

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

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

District, 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, California Mojave Desert Air Quality Management

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

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California ElectronicAvailability

This document and related materials
are available at Region 9's site on the World Wide Web athttp:// www.epa.gov/region09 (please look under Air Programs). The Federal Register is also available on the Internet by pointing aweb browser at: http:// www.access.gpo.gov/su docs/ or by telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Barrow, Chief,Office ofPlanning, Air Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; (415) 744-1230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table ofContents I.Background

A Summary B. General SIP Issues 1. "Federal Assignments"
a. Importance ofFederal Contribution and

Difficulty ofFurther Local Controls b. Public Consultative Process
c. Legal and Policy Issues d. Comments Specific to Source Categories (1)Military Exemption (2)Locomotives (3)Ships and Shipping Channel
e. EPAAction 2. EPAApproval ofAttainment

Demonstrations thatRely, in Part, on Commitments 3.Additional CAA Issues
a. Attainment asExpeditiously as

Practicable b. Contingency Measures
c. Adequacy ofSIP's Technical

Foundations (1)Modeling and Treatment ofTransport (2)Impact ofChanges to theZEV Program (3)Control Measures d. Consistency ofLocal Nonroad Measures

with CAA Preemption 4. Future SIPUpdates and Improvements 5. Overall Approvability ofPlans 6. Importance ofSIPImplementation C. SIP Submittals 1.SIP Submittals and Previous EPA

Approvals 2. SIP Submittals afterEPA's Proposal 3.EPA Completeness Findings 4. Rationale for EPAApproval ofMinor SIP Changes withoutFurther Opportunity for PublicComment II.Review ofthe State Submittal and Responseto Comments on Specific SIP Issues A. StateMeasures 1.General Comments 2.Mobile Source Measures
a.Review ofMeasures (1)M1 (2)M2 (3)M3 (4)M4 (5) M5 (6)M7 (7) M8 (8)M9 (9) Ml 1 (10) Additional New Control Technologies b.EPAAction 3. IM
a.Review ofProgram b.Response to Comments
c. Emission Reductions d. EPAAction 4. Consumer Products
a.Introduction b.Review ofMeasures (1)Measure CP 1 (2)Measure CP 3(Aerosol Paints) (3)Mid-Term Committal Measure (CP 2) (4)Long-Term Committal Measure (CP 4) (5) Alternative Control Plans (ACPs)
c. Emission Reductions d. EPAAction 5.Pesticides
a.Review ofMeasures b.Response to Comments
c. Emission Reductions d. EPAAction B.Local ROP and Attainment Plans and

Measures 1.Emission Inventories
a.Response toComments b.EPAAction 2.San Diego
a. Control Measures b.ROP Provisions
c. Modelingand Attainment Demonstration d. Overall EPAAction 3.San Joaquin Valley
a. Control Measures b.ROP Provisions
c. Modelingand Attainment Demonstration d. Overall EPAAction 4. Sacramento
a. Control Measures b.ROP Provisions
c. Modelingand Attainment Demonstration d. Overall EPAAction 5.Ventura
a. 1995 AQMP Update b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. Control Measures d. ROP Provisions
e. Modelingand Attainment Demonstration f.Overall EPAAction 6.South Coast
a. Control Measures (1)Updated Rule Adoption Schedule (2) TCM Substitution (3)Near-Term Control Measures (4)New-Technology Measures (5)EPA Action b.ROP Provisions

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1150 1997

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

c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration d. Overall EPAAction 7. Southeast Desert
a. ControlMeasures b. ROP Provisions
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration d. Overall EPAAction III. Summary ofEPAActions IV. Regulatory Process

A. Executive Order 12886 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Unfunded Mandates D. Submission toCongress and the General

Accounting Office E. Petitions forJudicial Review Appendix A: Current Status ofEPA's Activities Relating tothe 

### "Federal Assignments" in the California SIP Submittal Appendix B: Schedule forPublic Consultative Process 

### I. Background

A. Summary



### EPA isfinalizing approval ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP.' This action was proposed on March 18, 1996 (61 FR 10920-10962). The reader isreferred to that notice for additional detail on the affected areas and the SIP submittals, as well as a summary ofrelevant Clean Air Act requirements and EPA 

### interpretations ofthose requirements.

Specifically, EPA isapproving in this document:

* The emission inventories in San Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, the Southeast Desert, and the South Coast; 2

* The 15% rate-of-progress plans for San Diego, San Joaquin, Ventura, and the South Coast;

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

* The modeling and attainment demonstrations in San Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, the Southeast Desert, and the South Coast;

* All ofthe individual local control
measures and the State control measures not previously approved; and

* The State's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program and regulations.

This approval indicates EPA's belief that this SIP, iffaithfully implemented, will achieve clean air for California. The health ofall Californians now depends

1EPA will take action on the Santa Barbara SIP separately. AfterEPA's proposed approval was issued, ozone violations wererecorded, which prevent the SantaBarbara area from meeting its attainment goals this year.

2Therespective Federal ozone nonattainment
areas are: San Diego Area, San Joaquin ValleyArea, Sacramento Metro Area, Ventura County Area, Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area, and Los Angeles-South Coast AirBasin Area. The boundaries ofthese areas are set forth at 40 CFR 81.305. 

### on the dedication ofthe Stateto seethat the plans are carried out. Whilethe Statemay submitrevisions to change individual strategies, EPAintends to hold itaccountable for timely delivery ofthecommitments in the plans approved today.

An important aspect ofEPA's approvalinvolves theestablishment ofa public consultative process intended to identify the future mobile source strategies to providethe remaining emission reductions needed for attainment inthe South Coast, which remains theNation's only extreme ozone nonattainment area.

In submittingits 1994 SIP, the State maintained that achievement ofclean airgoalsin the South Coastrequired further emission reductions from national and international mobile sources, as asupplement tothe State's own aggressive mobile source control program and the massive contribution made by locally adopted regulations and control measures. The State argued that California lacked the legal authority or practical ability to control these sources, and that theFederal efforts were essential forprogress and attainment in the South Coast because there are no feasible alternatives, in light ofthe stringent State and local controls on all other sources.

The State identified in theproposed SIP specific mobile sources requiring future Federal controls: onroad and nonroad vehicles and engines, pleasure craft, marine vessels, aircraft, and locomotives. For each source,the State specified adesired level ofemission reductions and theyears for Federal adoption and implementation.

Under the Constitution and the Clean Air Act, EPAdoes notbelieve thata state has authority to assign emission reduction responsibilities tothe Federal government. Nevertheless, EPA believes that theFederal government should help speed clean air, not only in California buton a nationalbasis. Since theClean AirAct Amendments of 1990, EPAhas already issued 30 national regulations to help reduce emissions from mobile sources. Examples ofimportant recent national controls include: (1)The heavy duty truck and bus rules for NOxand PM issued in May 1993; (2) theNOx standards for nonroad diesel engines 37kW and above promulgated in 1994; (3)the smallnonroad gasoline engine standards (primarilyfor lawn and garden equipment) finalized in July 1995; and (4)thepleasurecraft engine standards issued in August 1996.

EPA will issue further national controls for remaining mobile source categories. In doing so,the Agency must set controlsbased on national considerations and criteria established by Congress in the applicable sections of TitleII ofthe Act.

Since the 1994 California Ozone SIP
was submitted, EPA hasbeen working cooperatively with California and other stakeholders to develop more stringent controls forboth onroad and nonroad vehicles and engines. These constructive, consensus-building activities have received widespread national support fromthe affected industries, states, and the environmental community, and have alreadyresulted in agreement on stringentnew national controls for highway trucks and buses, proposed on June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33421-33469), and for nonroad compression-ignition engines (agreement signed byEPA, California, and industry, on September 13, 1996). Theproposed controls achieve California's reduction targets for these source categories while atthe
same time avoidingthe inefficiencies and dislocation that would result from different andpossibly conflicting Federal and California standards.

As a result ofsuch successes, EPAis optimistic thatthe year-long consultativeprocess will succeed and provide emission reductions that complement the California State and localcontrols contained inthe South Coast SIP. Thecurrent status ofEPA's activities in developing further mobile
source controls ispresented in Appendix Aofthis document.

In orderto allow time toevaluate what additional mobile source reductions can contribute to ozone attainment inthe South Coast, EPA intends to continue andbroaden the consultation with the State and other affected parties through June 1997. As stated in theproposal, the Agency believes thatthis period provides the opportunityto agree on future mobile
source reductions that will meetour environmental goals expeditiously and without adverse consequences to the State and the South Coast,whether the controls come from national and international standards orfrom new State and local measures.

On July 19, 1996, EPA held the first ofseveral meetings in Los Angeles to describe thepublic consultative process and stimulate auseful exchange ofideas
on innovative and ambitious approaches to achieve ourpollution reduction targets. AppendixB tothis document givesmore details on the public consultativeprocess and proposed future meetings.

At the conclusion oftheconsultative process, EPA believes thatthe State will have the information it needs to amend 

### 1151

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1151 1997

### 1152 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the South Coast attainment demonstration appropriately, based on the finalmix ofinternational, national, State, and localmobile source controls. The Statehas agreed, and has committed to submit arevised attainment demonstration byDecember 1997, and to adopt and submit any needed State measures by December 1999. As proposed, EPA ismaking a comparable enforceable commitment to undertake rulemakings, after the consultative process, on any controls which are determined tobe appropriate for EPA.

EPA believes that,byworking together with the State, local government, affected industry, environmental groups, and the general public, wecan identify approaches to fulfill ourpublic health obligations in ways thatsupport progress in other
areas ofpublic concern.

The data collected and analyses performed as part ofEPA's forthcoming report toCongress on theBenefits and Costs ofthe Clean AirAct demonstrate that airpollution control activities, while costly, havereturned fargreater economic benefits.3 

### Similarly, California-specific studies haverecently underscored the State's historic success in reconciling economic growth with air quality progress.4



### Ifsuccessfully implemented, the 1994 California Ozone SIP will succeed even more completely than previous clean air plans in harmonizingpublic health progress with the social and economic goals ofthe State's citizens. Federal approval ofthe 1994 SIP will help to provide theregulatory certainty needed to sustain and accelerate California's progress in achieving State and Federal clean airobjectives. EPA will continue to worktogether with California to achieve the clean airthatour citizen's deserve. B. Response toPublicCommentson GeneralSIPIssues 1.Federal Assignments.

a.ImportanceofFederalContribution andDifficultyofFurther LocalControls. As discussed in theproposal, the 1994

3 See The Benefitsand Costsofthe CleanAirAct, 1970 to 1990,USEPA report prepared for US Congress under section 812 ofthe Clean AirAct, Draft report issued May 3, 1996. USEPA expects to issue the final report in the near future, along with
a similarprospective analysis on benefits and costs of the 1990 Clean AirAct Amendments.

4See Alan Gordon, Myths ofJobs vs.Resources: EnvironmentalProtectionsandEconomic Growth, March 1996 (reportprepared for the California Senate Office ofResearch), and Anil Pur, SignificanceofCaliforniaAirPollutionControl Regulations forBusinessLocationDecisions,May 1995 (reportprepared for the California Air Resources Board Research Division). California Ozone SIP includes 7 specific mobile source control measures assigned to the Federal government. These measures, which were in addition to those already promulgated by EPA, comprised amore stringent heavy-duty diesel vehicle standard, an off-road diesel equipment standard, a standard for gasoline- and LPG-fueled industrial equipment, national and international standards for marine vessels, national standards for locomotives with a South Coast clean locomotive fleet program, national standards for aircraft, and standards for pleasurecraft.

EPA received many comments underscoring the critical need for reductions from additional national regulations ifCalifornia areas, particularly the South Coast, areto achieve healthy air quality. Most of these comments added acorollary: Further State and local controls could not reasonably be expected, given the comprehensiveness and stringency of existing regulations and committal
measures in the SIP. As stated in the proposal, EPA recognizes that national and international mobile sources are increasingly significant components of the ozone problem, especially in the South Coast, and EPA is committing at this time to undertake the rulemaking
on those controls that are determined to be appropriate. The increased Federal contribution that will come from ongoing national mobile source control measures, plus the State and local control measures in the SIP, add up to almost allofthe needed emission reductions. EPA is confident that a small shortfall, ifit still exists at the end ofthepublic consultative process, will be addressed by cooperative Federal, State, and local strategies, without adverse impacts.

b. PublicConsultativeProcess.The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) commented that the proposed consultative process is much like the participatory approach California has used for many years to develop new environmental programs. CEPA stated that CARB's staffare prepared to begin work right away with EPA and other stakeholders to develop appropriate controls.

The American Association of Railroads (AAR)commented in support ofEPA's proposed consultative process as an innovative and useful method to help assure that the SIP's goals are met.

Over twenty years ofefforts to clean the air in Southern California have taught that cooperation and innovation by all parties are essential if attainment is to be achieved whileretaining a healthy economy. The proposed consultative process builds on that experience, and in that manner provides
areasonable basis for EPA approval of the South Coast attainment demonstration.

The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) supported the continuation and expansion ofthe collaborative process. WRCOG asked that a formal participation program should be developed as part ofthe consultative process, to provide a framework in which local governments and business communities could participate, since local agencies are required to implement whatever control
measures are adopted from thisprocess and success depends upon local government "buy-in." The City ofLos Angeles also requested that EPA establish alist ofkey stakeholders and begin seeking input through a formal process.

EPA agrees that local government participation in the design and review ofcontrol measures is critically important to ensure that the measures are efficient, acceptable to the affected communities, and successfully implemented. The Agency hopes that the process can be an open and informal exchange ofideas from the community atlarge. EPA believes that thisis the most efficient structure and approach, in the limited amount oftime, to share and receive important information that willhelp allparticipants to understand the issues involved and the opportunities to achieve the remaining emissions reductions needed from mobile sources.

c. LegalandPolicyIssues.The Environmental Defense Center opposed EPA's proposed public consultative process to resolve the SIP's future mobile source component. EDC expressed perplexity at EPA's reliance
on and endorsement ofCalifornia's assignment ofemissions reductions to meet California's shortfall in attainment demonstration for the South Coast:

Thenovel "consultative" process is without basisin law or proprietyunder the facts. EPA should not accept "assignment" of California's shortfall; this action violates the Act, perverts the local air qualityplanning process, andrewards California's unwillingness to address its own air quality problems. The precedentis highly disfavorable toclean air andjeopardizes the health and wellbeingofeveryone in the United States.

As stated in the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM),EPA believes that California does nothave the authority to assign SIP responsibility to theFederal government. However,EPA recognizes that massive furtherreductions are needed for attainment in the South Coast and that attainment may be either

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1152 1997

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

very costly and disruptive or impossible if furtherreductions are not achieved from national and international sources.

EPA therefore established the public consultative process to resolve the complex issues associated with national and international sources and to determine what combination ofcontrols atvarious levels are appropriate to contribute to the remaining emission reduction needs in the South Coast. Both EPA and the State have made enforceable commitments to prepare the controls that are determined, afterthe public consultation process, to be appropriate for them. Under these commitments, any new Federal or State rules both can and will be adopted before they arerequired to meet progress or attainment requirements in the South Coast. EPA also believes that those national or international controls that issue from the public consultative process willbenefit, rather than disfavor, clean air elsewhere in the United States.

The "Federal Assignments" portion of the SIP is approvable because it is consistent, in the overall context ofthe California SIP, with the Clean Air Act requirements. The California SIP as a whole is approvable aslong as, among other things, it includes "[a] demonstration that the plan* * * will provide for attainment" ofthe NAAQS. CAA section 182(c)(2)(A). As set forth in the proposal and below in section II.B.6., the South Coast SIP regulations and commitments, coupled with promulgated Federal measures, provide the great bulk ofreductions needed for attainment. The amount ofreductions expected from the consultative process is a smallpercentage ofthe overall amount ofreductions needed for attainment. In addition, granting additional time for identifying and adoptingthe remaining measures is consistent with the statutory scheme because the time delays arerelatively brief,in the context ofthe SCAB attainment process, and thus do not interfere with the deadline for ROP and attainment.

EPA counts towards the attainment demonstration reductions from
measures resulting from the consultative process, even though those measures have not yet been determined, inpart because ofthe practical and technical challenges ofproviding for attainment in the South Coast. The SIP provisions for the South Coast already include control requirements that, in general,
are more expensive and technologically advanced, and apply to smaller emitters, than any other SIP in the nation. 5 Generating additional emissions reductions from additional SIP
measures presents ahigh magnitude of complexity. Such additional SIP reductions may prove unnecessary depending on whether and how many additional reductions from other Federal measures will occur.

Both EPA and the State are committing to undergo the consultative process described above, and to promulgate controls determined bythat process to be appropriate. Those EPA and State commitments areenforceable by citizens. Based on these commitments, EPA will assure that the gap in emissions reductions represented by the consultative process, and needed to attain, will be closed. Forexample, at the close ofthe consultative process, EPA may promulgate arulemaking that identifies (i) additional SIPreductions that EPA considers appropriate for California to undertake, and additional Federal measures that EPA intends to promulgate; aswell as (ii) schedules for the adoption or promulgation and implementation ofboth sets of
measures.

For these reasons, EPAhas concluded that the SIP for the South Coast, with its limited reliance on additional reductions to be determined through a consultative process, "provide[s] for" attainment, under section 182(c)(2)(A) ofthe Act.

EPA believes that CAA section 172(c)(6) supports its conclusion that the California SIP,including the consultative process commitments, "provide[s] for" attainment under section 182(c)(2)(A). Section 172(c)(6) of the Act requires, as arule generally applicable to nonattainment SIPs, that the SIP "include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques * * * as

5See, for example, SCAQMD rules 1111 (Nox from Gas Fired Furnaces), 1109 (Refinery Boilers & Process Heaters), 1134 (Noxfrom Stationary Gas Turbines), 1135 (Now from Electric Power Generating Systems), 431.2 (Liquid Fuel Sulfur Content), 1142 (MarineTank Vessel Operations), 1113 (Architectural Coatings), 1128 (Paper,Fabric &Film Coating Operations), 1106.1 (PleasureCraft Coating Operations), 1130.1 (Screen Printing Operations), 1168 (VOCs from Adhesive Applications), 1175 (Polymeric CellularProducts Blowing Foam), 1146 and 1146.1 (Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Generators, & Heaters), 1162 (Polyester Resin Operation), 1110.1 &1110.2 (Emissions from Internal Combustion Engines), 1151 (MotorVehicle Non-Assembly Line Coatings), 1124 (Aerospace Assembly &Component Manufacturing Operations), 1153 (Commercial Bakery Ovens), 462 (Organic Liquid Loading, 461 (GasTransfer and Dispensing), 1136 (Wood Products Coatings), andRegulation XX (Nox/Sox RECLAIM program). See also the CARB rules for motor vehicles and fuels (generally),off-highway recreational vehicles and engines, consumer products (generally), and aerosol coating products. may be necessaryorappropriateto provide for attainment * * * by the applicable attainment date * * *." (Emphasis added.) The emphasized terms mean that enforceable emission limitations and other control measures do notnecessarily need to generate reductions in the full amount needed to attain. Rather, the emissions limitations and other control measures maybe supplemented with other SIP rules-for example, the commitments EPAis approving today-as long as the entire package ofmeasures and rules provides for attainment. Under these circumstances, the emission limitations and control measures generate reductions in an amount that falls short ofthe amount needed to attain; yet those limitations and measures are all that is necessary or appropriate to attain in light ofthe additional SIP rules for commitments.

EPA finds further support for its action in the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kamp v. Hernandez,752 F.2d 1444 (1985). There, the court upheld EPA's full approval ofa SIP that relied on a State's agreement to submit afugitive emission control plan in the future. Although recognizing that lack ofany controls on fugitive emissions would prevent attainment, the court justified its holdingon the grounds that the plan
was substantially complete, and that the remaining shortfall would be covered under the state's future submission. The court also interpreted the predecessor provision to section 172(c)(6) in a mannerconsistent with EPA's interpretation ofsection 172(c)(6) above.

EDC commented that it is unclear how the "meet and confer" commitments meet the minimal requirements ofthe Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and thepublic participation elements ofthe CAA.

EPA believes that theserequirements willbe met and intends a process with
more than the legally-mandated public opportunities for input. All Federal mobile source measures will be issued through rulemaking that complies with the CAA and APAprovisions. EPA will
ensure that all other future SIP measures go through a fullypublic process that complies with applicable APA and CAA requirements for public involvement. Finally, any necessary revisions to the South Coast attainment demonstration must comply with all applicable public notification, public hearing, and public participation requirements.

EDC commented that the practical and legalinsufficiency ofthe "Federal Assignments" portion ofthe SIP is reflected in EPA's proposal to make enforceable commitments to undertake additional rulemakings after a 

## 1153

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1153 1997

### 1154 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

consultative process (which EDC described as "secret") on control
measures necessary to achieve the emissions reductions determined to be appropriate forEPA. EDC added: "This promise to make future promises provides no certainty, specificity or meaning, and violates the spirit and letter ofthe CAA."

In today's action, EPA finalizes its commitment to undertake rulemaking
on any measures which are determined to be EPA's responsibility, and EPA finalizes its approval ofCalifornia's enforceable commitment to adopt
measures determined to be the State's responsibility. These enforceable commitments, in conjunction with the other SIP measures and other sources of emissions reductions, constitute the required demonstration ofattainment and ROP. As noted in the discussion of the "Federal Assignments" (see Appendix A), significant progress has already occurred or is expected in the
near future with respect to accomplishing, in enforceable form, specificregulations (such as EPA's recently proposed national standards for heavy-duty onroad vehicles) that achieve the vast majority ofrequired reductions.

EPA has authority to commit itselfto promulgate additional Federal measures determined through the consultative process to be appropriate, under CAA section 301. This provision authorizes the Administrator to "prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under [the Clean Air Act]." In title Iofthe Act, Congress set out what amounts to a "blueprint" by which nonattainment areas will attain the NAAQS. This blueprint couples SIP reductions with reductions from various Federal measures, such as reductions from mobile source measures promulgated by EPAunder Title II of the Act. The EPA commitment prescribed in today's rulemaking is necessary to carry out EPA's functions both in promulgating mobile source regulations under Title II and in fulfilling its share ofthe "blueprint" reductions needed for attainment.

EPA proposed apublic, not a secret, consultative process, and the Agency sets forth in Appendix Bto this document more details on opportunities for the public to be involved in the difficult decisionmaking on what additional controls on mobile sources need to be adopted at theFederal, State, and local level.EPA's commitment, finalized in this action, is as specific and enforceable aspossible, prior to the completion ofcritically important public input and consultation. After the consultative process is completed, in June 1997, responsibility for the small increment ofnecessary additional emission reductions should be fully resolved.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) submitted joint comments opposing EPA's proposed resolution ofthe "Federal Assignments." The environmental groups stated that EPA's proposed approval violates the CAA byproviding full credit toward attainment for "Federal Assignments" in the SIP. Although NRDC and CCA encouraged federal-state cooperation to achieve healthful airin the South Coast, they felt that the consultative process combined merely with gap-filling commitments cannot be used to circumvent the November 1994 deadline in the CAA for the State to provide evidence that ithas the legal authority to implement and enforce all SIP provisions. NRDC and CCA commented that EPA cannot approve a SIP which relies for ROP and attainment
on prospective federal measures over which CARB has no control and which have neither been formally proposed
nor promulgated.

NRDC and CCA observed that some of what they describe as the "nonexistent" federal measures are given credit as early as 1999, but CARB is not required to submit replacement measures until the end of 1999. NRDC and CCA argued that the State should cover the "Federal Assignments" emissions in its 1994 SIP, which could then be revised to decrease the State's responsibilities asEPA adopts new federal regulations. The environmental groups stated that there is no reason why CARB cannot immediately begin development ofthese rules concurrent with the consultative process. Finally, NRDC and CCA commented that EPA should require that CARB immediately adopt rules, scheduled for implementation in the year 2000 or later, asbackstop measures which will go into effect to the extent necessary to make up a shortfall that remains after the consultative process.

EPA's responses to EDC's comments address many ofthese concerns. EPA believes that the public consultative process for resolvingmobile source emission reductions is appropriate to the unique facts ofthe South Coast attainment demonstration. The 1994 SIP submittal includes massive reductions achieved bycombined State and local regulations and commitments, covering every significant source category. It is not clear what feasible measures could be adopted by the State and local agencies at this time to cover the entire emission reductions included in the "Federal Assignments." The additional timewhich EPAis allowing for the evaluation and development offuture Federal controls, revision to the SIP's attainment demonstration, and then adoption, ifnecessary, ofany gap-filling measures, isjustified bythe magnitude and complexity ofthe issues involved in regulating sources that have never previously been subject to emission standards and sources that are critical components ofinterstate and, in some cases, international commerce.

Furthermore, for the larger emission reduction categories in the "Federal Assignments," CARB has matched the national controls with its own measures to adopt and implement atleast equivalent State controls under the State's unique CAA authorities to regulate mobile sources. The success of this enterprise to develop cooperative and consistent Federal-State mobile
source emission standards would eliminate for manufacturers and users the costs ofcompliance with conflicting standards and test procedures.

d. CommentsSpecificto Source Categories.(1) Military Exemption.

The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard expressed concern about any reconsideration ofthe exempt status of military aircraft as part ofthe exploration ofmore stringent standards for aircraft engines, and both agencies expressed a desire to be involved in future discussions. EPAhopes that these agencies will participate fully in the public consultative process to help in Federal, State, and local cooperative efforts to identify viable strategies for achieving our air quality goals.

(2) Locomotives. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) commented that the consultative process should not be used as aroute to develop any State
or local regulations imposing locomotive controls for thepurpose of reducing emissions. AARexpressed
concern that SIP measure M14 indicates that CARB "will also consider operational controls, such asreduced idling and use ofCalifornia diesel fuel, if* * * additional emission reductions
are needed." AARargued that these types ofstate and local standards and requirements must be avoided in order to avert adverse effects on interstate
commerce. AARrecommended that the consultative process be used to devise ways to maintain the competitiveness of railroads and improve their volume of intercity, long-haul freight, given the significant emissions advantages ofrail transportation over trucks. AAR further requested that EPA work with the railroads and other stakeholders to design mechanisms to properly account

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1154 1997

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

in the SIP for the NO, benefits ofrail transportation.

EPA trusts that the rail industry will raise these important issues in the public consultative process.

AAR also raised legal issues regarding the authority ofStates to adopt and implement any type ofemission-related standard or other requirement for locomotives. These issues are more germane to EPA's forthcoming rulemaking to establish national locomotive regulations and to clarify the extent to which States are preempted from adopting or implementing locomotive controls.

(3) Ships and Shipping Channel. The U.S. Coast Guard reiterated its concerns expressed at the time ofEPA's proposed Federal Implementation Plan for California areas regarding any operational controls on marine vessels, including international legal implications. The U.S. Navy supported EPA's position that recommendations regarding movement ofthe shipping channel should await the results of ongoing studies. The Navy opposed any strategy that would increase traffic in the Pt. Mugu Sea Test Range.

EPA welcomes the involvement of these agencies in thepublic consultative process. EPA willparticularly appreciate the assistance ofthe Coast Guard in clarifying international issues
as they affect potential controls on the emissions or operations ofocean-going vessels, and the continued constructive involvement ofthe Navy in studies to help assess the air quality benefits of moving the shippingchannel.

e. EPAAction. EPA approves the State's commitments to revise the South Coast attainment demonstration and adopt appropriate measures following the conclusion ofthe public consultative process, and EPA finalizes its commitment to undertake rulemaking on any controls which are determined to be appropriate for EPA.

2. EPA Approval ofAttainment Demonstrations that Rely, in Part, on Commitments. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Coalition for Clean Air (NRDC/CCA), in ajoint comment letter, contended thatEPA cannot approve the California ozone SIP because the majority ofemission reductions in the plan are in the form ofcommitments and not adopted rules
as required by the CAA. NRDC/CCA also asserted that approval ofsuch committal SIP provisions would lead to
an inappropriate delay in the statutory SIP submittal deadline. To support these propositions, NRDC/CCA cite the holding ofNatural ResourcesDefense Councilv. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994); the alleged effect ofEPA's interpretation ofthe conditional approval provision ofthe CAA, section 110(k)(4); and the language ofEPA's regulation at 40 CFR 51.281. 6

In theNRDCcase, the Court addressed the merits ofEPA's interpretation, as setforth in various policy memoranda, thatin certain circumstances section 110(k)(4) ofthe CAA allows conditional approval of commitments unaccompanied by regulatory measures. 7 In these policy memoranda, EPA provided that it would consider conditional approval ofSIP submittals, which were meant to fulfill certain specific SIP requirements and which consisted entirely ofa commitment letter to submit the required measure by adate certain, but
no later than one year after conditional approval. In reviewingthese policies, the Court concluded, based on the express language ofsection 110(k)(4), the CAA's general SIP approval scheme, and the legislative history ofsection 110(k)(4), that:

* * * the conditional approval mechanism was intended toprovide the EPAwith an alternative todisapproving substantive, but not entirely satisfactory, SIPs submitted by the statutory deadlines and not,as theEPA has used it,a means ofcircumventingthose deadlines. 22F.3d at 1134 35.

The Court found that on its face the language ofsection 110(k)(4) "seems to authorize conditional approval ofa substantive SIP or SIP revision which, though not approvable in its present form, can be made so by adopting specific EPA-required changes within the prescribed conditional period." 22 F.3d at 1134. The Court also noted that the CAA requires EPA to make completeness determinations on required plan submittals and that such determinations could not reasonably be made unless the submittal contains "something more than amere promise to take appropriate butunidentified
measures in the future." Id. Finally, the Court determined from the legislative history ofsection 110(k)(4) thatthe

6NRDC/CCA also claim that the SIP inappropriately relies on a September 1994 EPA memorandum, "November 1994 Ozone SIP's Rulemaking Policy," to support the inclusion of commitments in the plan. As NRDC/CCA correctly point out, this memorandum was rescinded in 1995. Because EPA is notrelying on the 1994 memorandum to support its approval of California's SIP commitments, it is irrelevant to this rulemaking and is therefore not addressed further in thisnotice.

7Section 1I0(k)(4) ofthe CAA provides: (4) Conditional approval The Administrator may approve aplan revision based on a commitment ofthe State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1year after the date ofapproval of the plan revision. Any such conditional approval shall betreated as a disapproval if the State fails to comply with such commitment. contemplated specific and enforceable
measures are to be additional to some specific enforceable measures already in 

### the SIP. Id.

NRDC/CCA apparently interpret the NRDCholding as precludingEPA from accepting in a SIP submittal any commitments to adopt rules at a future date, even where that submittal includes
a significant quantity ofemission reductions in adopted form. We believe that such an interpretation is fartoo broad areading ofthe NRDCcase and that the circumstances presented by today's action arereadily distinguishable from those in theNRDC
case.

First, and most importantly, EPAis not approving the California SIP commitments under section 110(k)(4), but rather under sections 301 and 110(k)(3), as discussed below. Thus the Court's analysis ofthe express language ofsection 110(k)(4) and its specific legislative history is not, as NRDC/CCA claim, applicable to EPA's action here. For thereasons set forth below, EPA's authority to approve enforceable commitments under sections 110(k)(3) and 301 is not constrained by section 110(k)(4).

Furthermore, to the extent that the NRDCcase has any relevance to EPA's action under sections 110(k)(3) and 301, in the present case, EPA has not proposed to approve submittals that consist only ofacommitment. The EPA policies atissue in NRDCpermitted a state to initially satisfy an individual CAA requirement (e.g., an inspection and maintenance program) with only a commitment to adopt such a requirement in the future. In contrast, the SIP approved byEPA today contains in adopted, enforceable form a large percentage ofthe emission reductions that make up the required submittal, in this case, the attainment demonstrations. 8 In addition, the California ozone SIP, because ofits many substantive, adopted rules, does notpose the barrier to a completeness determination that the Court inNRDC perceived where only acommitment existed.

NRDC/CCA claim that full approval of the commitments in the California
ozone SIP (pursuant to sections 110(k)(3) and 301) would render section

8Because they include such major substantive components, the attainment demonstrations do not circumvent the submittal deadline in the CAA as NRDC/CCA claim. See, e.g, tables for each area on ROP Forecasts and Targets, Local Control Measures, and Attainment Demonstrations. These tables summarize farmore expansive discussions and data in the actual SIP submittals, which for some areas amount to many volumes and thousands ofpages ofrelevantinformation and analyses in support of the attainment demonstrations. 

### 1155

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1155 1997

### 1156 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

110(k)(4)'s conditional approval mechanism meaningless. We disagree with this conclusion. Historically, EPA has interpreted the CAA to allow states to submit enforceable commitments to adopt rules in the future. The enactment ofsection I10(k)(4) in 1990 provided a new type ofapproval for alimited set ofcommitments that, in general, could not be enforced under sections 113 and 304 ofthe Act9; there is no evidence that Congress intended this limited provision to replace EPA's wellestablished policy ofusing its general approval authority to approve enforceable commitments. In fact, other provisions in the statute belie that result. Finally, there continue to be strongpolicy considerations for interpreting the statute to allow for approvals under section 110(k)(3) of enforceable commitments.

EPA interpreted the pre-amended Act to allow for approval ofattainment demonstrations that included, in part, enforceable commitments to adopt rules in the future. And courts have found these commitments to be enforceable by the public under the citizen suit provisions ofthe Act. See, e.g., AmericanLungAssociationof New Jerseyv. Kean, 670 F.Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), affirmed, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDCv.N.Y. State Dept.of EnvironmentalConservation,668 F.Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens foraBetterEnvironmentv.Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, reconsideration granted in part,746 F.Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalitionv. Cityof New York, 967 F.2d 764 (2d Cir. 1992); Trustees forAlaska v. Fink, 17 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1994).'0

In enacting section 110(k)(4), Congress enacted amuch more limited type ofapproval ofcommitments. First, conditional approval under section 110(k)(4) is for a very limited durationthe commitment mustprovide adate certain for submittal that cannot exceed
one year after conditional approval. Furthermore, in contrast to the enforceable commitments historically accepted by the Agency and the courts, section 110(k)(4) anticipates that the commitment made by the State will not be an enforceable commitment. Under the express language ofsection

9 1n commenting on EPA's proposed SIPapproval action, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) suggested that EPA approve the SIP's commitments under section 110(k)(4) rather than section 110(k)(3) because of theimportant enforceability benefits of
a conditional approval. As discussed below, commitments that are conditionally approved cannot be enforced.

1OCourts have also upheld EPA's approval ofSIPs that contain enforceable commitments. See, e.g., the

cases cited below in the discussion of40 CFR 51.281. 110(k)(4), upon the State's failure to meet the commitment, the conditional approval must be converted to a disapproval. Once a SIP is disapproved, there is no longer any commitment left to enforce under section 113 or 304 of the Act."

There is nothing in the legislative history ofthe 1990CAA Amendments to suggest that Congress's addition of section 110(k)(4), which is much more limited in scope, was intended to preclude EPA's prior practice. Furthermore, other provisions ofthe amended Act indicate that Congress contemplated continued approval of enforceable commitments. Forexample, section 182(e)(5) ofthe CAA, which
concerns attainment demonstrations for extreme ozone nonattainment areas, addresses the "anticipate[d] development ofnew control technologies." This section provides that EPA may approve provisions relying on such technologies if, among other things, the state submits "enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures to be implemented * * * if the anticipated technologies do not achieve planned reductions. These enforceable commitments would clearly need to extend well-beyond the maximum oneyear period that may be granted for conditional approval under section 110(k)(4). Nothing in the language of section 182(e)(5) indicates that Congress authorized those enforceable commitments "notwithstanding" section 110(k)(4).

Nor does EPA agree with NRDC/ CCA's assertion that approval of enforceable commitments constitutes an inappropriate delayin the statutory SIP submittal dates. Congress anticipated that section 110(k)(4) would result in submittal delays for some SIP measures beyond the initial submittal deadlines. EPA believes that the delays in submittal offinal rules that would result in this action arepermissible under section 110(k)(3) because the State has obligated itselfto submit the rules by specified, short-term dates, and that obligation is enforceable byEPA and the public. Moreover, asnoted above, the SIP submittal approved today contains major substantive components submitted as adopted regulations. As such, the California submittal is readily distinguishable from the submittals that
were the subject oftheNRDCcase.

11Adisapproved SIP-i.e., aplan rejected by EPA-is notconsidered to be federally enforceable. Both sections 113(a)(1) and 304(a) and (f)(3) provide for enforcement regarding aviolation ofonly an "applicable implementation plan," which CAA § 302(q) defines as a plan "which has been "approved" or "promulgated" under section 110. Finally, as matter ofpolicy itis important to continue to read section 110 as allowing forfull approval ofSIP submittals containing some enforceable commitments. The conditional approval provision is most effectively used where
a State makes a short term commitment to correct a problem or fill agap in aSIP submission. Ifthe State fails to meet the commitment, the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval and an 18- month clock for sanctions and a 2-year period for promulgation ofa federal implementation plan (FIP) start. However, neitherEPA norcitizens have authority under the CAA to take action to enforce those commitments that have been converted to adisapproval. While
a disapproval may motivate a state to ultimately meet its commitments, through the potential for sanctions and
aFIP, in some cases it may be more desirable to have an approved commitment that EPA or acitizen can enforce directly in court. Approval under section 110(k)(3) allows for enforcement action. Such aremedy is frequently preferable in promoting actual air quality improvements. Moreover, even with respect to an approved commitment, EPA may start the sanctions process through a finding offailure to implement ifthe state does notmeet its enforceable commitment.

EDC commented, with apparent approval, on the vehicle ofenforceable commitments. EDCmaintained, however, that the Administrative Procedure Act and notions offairness require that they be more fully articulated. EPAbelieves that the SIP commitments approved today are sufficiently specific to be enforceable by the Agency or the public.For example, the control measure commitments are forparticular agencies to adopt and implement specific controls by definite dates to achieve precise emission reductions from identified source categories for each milestone year through attainment. In the case ofthe South Coast, the plan also provides detailed discussions ofthe source category, theregulatory history, proposed method ofcontrol (including descriptions ofavailable control technologies and operational approaches), control efficiency assumptions, rule compliance approaches (e.g., reporting and recordkeeping requirements, source testing,certification programs, etc.), test methods, cost effectiveness calculations, and references to document assumptions and provide for further information. The rules to fulfill these commitments willbe subject to noticeand-comment at the State level prior to

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1156 1997

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

adoption and submittal to EPA; furthermore, EPA will approve or disapprove those measures through notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.

Reading the statute as a whole, itis clear that Congress did not intend section 110(k)(4) to be the sole mechanism for approving submittals that contain at least some commitments. Furthermore, for the above reasons, enforceable commitments serve several distinct purposes not addressed by section 110(k)(4). Under these circumstances, EPA's interpretation of the statute is entitled to considerable deference. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.v. NRDC,467 U.S. 837 (1984).12

NRDC/CCA also assert that EPA is precluded from approving the commitments in the California ozone SIPbecause EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 51.281 13requires SIPs to include adopted rules and regulations. EPA has long interpreted this regulation to require States, when submitting rules and regulations, to submit those regulations in adopted rather than proposed form. 14EPA has not interpreted this regulation to require that every submittal must be in regulatory form.

EPA promulgated this regulation long before the enactment ofthe 1990 CAA Amendments. See 36 FR22398 (Nov. 25, 1971), codified as 40 CFR 51.22; recodified as 40CFR 51.281 with minor modifications at 51 FR40674 (Nov. 7, 1986). As discussed above, EPA has historically accepted enforceable commitments in SIPs and courtshave found these provisions to be enforceable by the public under section 304 ofthe CAA. In addition, in a number ofcases, courts ofappeals in some circuits, including the Ninth Circuit,have upheld EPA's approval ofplans that

12As one courthas observed: The need for flexibility in the administration ofa statute whose provisions have been described as 'virtually swim[ming] before one's eyes,' * * * should not be underestimated. We have in thepast been careful to defer to EPA's choice ofmethods to carry out its 'difficult and complexjob' as long as that choice is reasonable and consistent with theAct * * * ConnecticutFund fortheEnvironment,Inc. v. EPA, 672 F.2d 998, 1006 (2d Cir.),cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1035 (1982).

1340 CFR 51.281 provides, in pertinent part: Emissions limitations and othermeasures necessary for attainment and maintenance ofanynational standard* * *must be adopted as rules and regulations* * *. Submittal ofaplan settingforth proposedrules and regulations willnot satisfy the requirements ofthis section

. (Emphasis added.)

14In order to expedite SIP approval, EPA has occasionally proposed to approve a state's draft rules that have been fully developed buthave not yet been adopted. An EPA approval usingthis "parallel processing" procedure, ofcourse, cannot be finalized until the rules have been adopted and formally submitted to EPA as a SIPrevision. included commitments to fill gaps. See Kamp v. Hernandez,752 F.2d 1444, 1445 (9th Cir. 1985); ConnecticutFund forthe Environmentv. EPA, 672 F.2d 998 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1035 (1982); FriendsoftheEarthv. EPA, 499 F.2d 1118, 1124 (2d Cir. 1974).

The cited cases demonstrate that, over along period oftime, EPA has not interpreted 40CFR 51.281 aslimiting the permissible procedural vehicles for SIP measures to rules and regulations. Rather, the Agency has viewed the primary purpose of section 51.281 as ensuring that SIP submittals contain adopted, not proposed, emission limitations and other measures. The commitments atissue here arenot merely proposed; they have been adopted by the various local air districts and ARB. Because EPA's interpretation ofits regulation is areasonable interpretation, it is entitled to deference. Chevron,467 U.S. 837. 3. Additional Clean Air Act Issues

a.AttainmentasExpeditiouslyas Practicable.The Environmental Defense Center commented that the SIPs should be disapproved because they fail to meet the CAA requirement ofattaining the NAAQS as expeditiously aspracticable. The commenter provided no further statutory interpretation or information relating to this CAA provision and defects in the SIPsrelating to it. EPA continues to believe that the SIPs meet the progress requirements ofthe Act, as discussed in the proposal, and provide for expeditious attainment.

b. ContingencyMeasures.NRDC and CCA commented that only SCAQMD's
measure CTY-01 meets the section 182(c)(9) CAA requirement for contingency measures that take effect without further action by the State or EPA upon a failure ofthe Stateto meet the applicable milestone. The commenters stated that EPA should require further definition and refinement ofthe contingency measures and the schedule, funding and enforcement responsibilities required for the measure to succeed.

EPA's proposal addressed only the following CAA requirements: section 181(a)(1) relating to emissions inventories; section 182(b)(1) relating to 15% ROP Plans; section 182(c)(2)(B) relating to Post-1996 ROP Plans; sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2) relating to modeling and attainment demonstrations, and sections 182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3) relating to I/M Programs. The remainingrequirements ofPart D of the Act, including the sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures, will be acted upon in separate rulemakings. c.Adequacy ofSIP'sTechnical Foundations.(1) Modeling and Treatment ofTransport. The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) submitted acomment that EPAhas failed to provide alldata and documentation relating to the modeling in the SIPs. Noting that EPAhas admitted thatproblems in model performance and transport led to California's inability to follow EPA's modeling guidelines in its analyses, EMA asked that EPA not take final action on modeling but should require that appropriate adjustments be made in order to provide accurate modeling assumptions on which to base California's proposed measures.

EPA has not provided all data and documentation relating to the modeling analyses. For each area, modeling input and documentation include hundreds of thousands ofdata. Thisinformation is available from local air pollution agencies.

Again, EMA failed to provide specific information to support its general conclusion. EPArecognizes the opportunities to refine the modeling in each ofthe areas, including the data upon which the modeling is based. Major modeling projects or modeling refinements are underway in each area. EPA contributes technical and funding support to these projects, which may provide information helpful in enhancing the SIP strategies in the future. However, EPA believes that the current modeling in each area meets the requirements ofthe Act and provides a reasonable basis for estimating the emission reductions needed for attainment and the ambient impact of the control measures.

(2) Impact ofChanges to the ZEV Program. The Environmental Defense Center commented that the state has already rescinded the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV)program, demonstrating immediately their willingness and intentto renege on the SIP's commitments. EDC stated that both the Sacramento and South Coast attainment demonstrations should be disapproved because CARB hasrescinded the ZEV program. NRDC and the Coalition for Clean Air commented that EPA needs to quantify the increased emissions that willresult from changes to the ZEV program and should demand compensatingreductions.

At a public hearing on March 28 and 29, 1996, CARB approved revisions to the ZEVprogram in the California motor vehicle control regulations. These changes included elimination ofthe ZEV production requirement forthe 1998 through 2002 model years. CARB retained the 10% ZEVrequirement for 

### 1157

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1157 1997

### 1158 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the 2003 and later model years. In order to offset the loss ofemission reductions, CARB negotiated an enforceable contractual agreement with the vehicle manufacturers, committing them to produce cleaner 49-state cars in the 2001 through 2003 model years. CARB prepared a staffreport demonstrating that the emission reductions achieved within the South Coastby the cleaner 49-state vehicles exceed the emission losses from delay oftheZEVprogram (SeeCARB StaffReport: Initial Statement ofRulemaking-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZEROEMISSION VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS FORPASSENGER CARS AND LIGHTDUTY TRUCKS, February 9, 1996).

EPA shares the commenters' concerns that the SIP mustbe implemented fully and that substitute measures should immediately correct any SIP shortfalls. However, the State has argued that successful implementation ofthe ZEV program requires the March 1996 rule amendments, in order to ensure that
concerns relating to battery technology and ZEV sales potential can be resolved and the ultimate sales mandate be fully accomplished. The State has also provided evidence that the loss in emissions from the elimination ofthe ZEV mandate for the first 5 years will be offset by provisions ofCARB's enforceable contract with the automakers. EPA will carefully monitor implementation ofthe contractual agreement and the ZEV program and will require the State to revise the SIP to provide new emission reductions if needed to meet theprogress and attainment requirements ofthe Act.

(3) Control Measures. NRDC and CCA commented that EPA cannot approve the South Coast SIP because it failsto include as measures all already adopted regulations and measures characterized
as assumptions. The environmental groups argued that the CAA and EPA's regulations require quantification of reductions from each adopted regulation, and that theseregulations themselves should be an enforceable part ofthe SIP.

With respect to the quantification of reductions from the various regulations that comprise the existing California motor vehicle program, the Statehas submitted reductions from theprogram as a whole, without a disaggregation by program element. In recent correspondence, the Statehas provided further detail, including an estimate of Statewide emission reductions from each severable component. 15

15Table 1 ("Adopted stateregulations in the SIP baseline, with implementation dates in 1996 or later") in a letter fromLynn Terry, Assistant The rate-of-progress and ozone attainment demonstrations for each area rely, in part, on emission reductions from regulations adopted bylocal air pollution control districts, since the impact ofthese regulations is factored into the projections offuture year baseline emissions. 16EPA has already approved the great majority ofthese local regulations and expects in the near future to complete final action on the remaining regulations. With respect to those few regulations which arerelied upon in the SIP for rate-of-progress or attainment and which have not yet been approved as part ofthe SIP, EPA construes that reliance and the fact that the local agencies have adopted and the State has submitted therules as SIP revisions to constitute an enforceable commitment by these agencies to implement the rules to achieve the reductions assumed in the rate-ofprogress plans and the attainment demonstrations.

Ifthe State withdraws (beforeEPA's final action) any ofthese regulations that have been submitted but not yet approved as part ofthe SIP, or ifEPA's final action is adisapproval, or ifEPA determines that the rule will achieve fewer emissions reductions than relied upon in the SIP, EPA will call upon the State to fulfill its commitment by submittingreplacement measures on an expeditious schedule and the State will be obligated to provide such replacements.

EPA requires identification of emission reductions associated with each ofthe new measures that are incorporated in the plan's rate-ofprogress and attainment demonstrations and that reduce emissions below the baseline inventory levels. The South Coast SIP fulfills this requirement, and EPA has included, in the tables ofnew measures, the specific credit assigned.

The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) stated that, based on the information provided in the NPRM, EPA and California have not established
areasonable, cost-effective basis for certain oftheproposed regulatory
measures. EMA provided no specific information to support the comment. EPA believes that the SIP control
measures are, in fact, reasonable.

Executive Officer, CARB, to Julia Barrow, Chief, Planning Office, Air &Radiation Division, USEPA, dated September 19, 1996. This correspondence is part ofEPA's rulemaking docket.

16 1n aletter from Barry R.Wallerstein, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Dave Howekamp, Division Director, Air &Toxics Division, Region IX, dated September 18, 1996, the SCAQMD has provided a list oflocal measures and associated emission reductions assumed in the baseline ofthe South Coast SIP.This correspondence ispart of EPA's rulemakin docket. Moreover, EPA does not find statutory authority for the Agency to require states to submit analyses demonstrating that proposed measures are reasonable, cost-effective and appropriate. Finally, due to the nature ofthe Federal/state relationship under the Act, EPA analysis ofthe cost-effectiveness ofSIP
measures would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Act forbids EPAto base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

d. ConsistencyofLocalNonroad Measureswith CleanAirAct Preemption.The Engine Manufacturers Association commented that EPA should notfinalize approval oflocal
measures without adetermination that they have met CAA requirements respecting preemptions on a state's authority to regulate certain nonroad engines and applications. The commenter did not identify any State or local measure that was inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. EPAhas not identified any measure, approved at this time, that violates the Act's preemptions. When regulations are adopted and submitted for SIP approval, EPA reviews the regulations to ensure that they fall within the authority ofthe State orlocal agency and that the regulations are otherwise consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements. 4. Future SIP Updates and Improvements

Western Riverside Council of Governments commented that the SIP should provide the flexibility to replace
measures with local programs that are more sensitive to local political, economic and social conditions. EPA supports and encourages SIP flexibility that respects the superior ability oflocal agencies to reconcile environmental progress with other community goals.

The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) commented that, asEPA recognized in the proposed approval, some ofCalifornia's specific strategies mayrequire adjustment as actual rules are developed. CEPA stated that "we willretain the flexibility to revise the SIP aslong as the emission reductions continue to provide for attainment."

As stated in the NPRM, EPA supports the State's flexibility to revise the SIP, but cautions that EPA must review SIP revisions for approvability under Sections 110(1) and 193. Section 110(1) prevents EPA from approving arevision ifitwould interfere with any applicable

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1158 1997

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

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable furtherprogress, or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act. Section 193 prevents modification of control requirements "in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990 in any area which is anonattainment area for any air pollutant * * *unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions ofsuch air pollutant." 5. Overall Approvability ofPlans

Almost all ofthe commenters supported EPA'sproposed approvals of the plans for each area. However, comments opposing full approval ofthe plans atthis time were received from the Engine Manufacturers Association, the Environmental Defense Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Coalition for Clean Air. These comments are addressed elsewhere in section I.B., or in discussions relating to individual areas. 6. Importance ofSIP Implementation

Several commenters reflected on the critical importance offollow through at the local, State, and Federal levels if the SIPs are to achieve the air quality standards. EPA agrees that all parties, including local government and the general public,must work together to
ensure that each responsible agency honors its commitments. Because these challenging SIPs are so important from the perspective ofpublic health, the
success ofthe SIPs requires widespread public participation and public support. EPA encourages California agencies to report frequently to the public on progress in implementing theplans and to involve the public inresolving implementation issues. Through the Public Consultative Process and other forums, EPA intends to inform and engage the public as the Agency proceeds to develop future mobile
source controls.
C.SIPSubmittals
1. SIP Submittals Before EPA's Proposal

On November 15, 1994, CARB submitted arevision to the "State of California Implementation Plan for Achieving and Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (ozone SIP)

The revision consists of: (a) The State's comprehensive ozone plan, including the State's own measures and the State's summaries of,and revisions to, the local plans; (b) the State's previously adopted regulations for
consumer products and reformulated gasoline and diesel fuels; and (c) local plans addressingthe ozone attainment demonstration and ROP requirements.

On August 21, 1995 (60 FR43379), EPA approved the State's consumer products and reformulated gasoline and diesel fuels regulations. At the same time, EPA took interim approval action
on CARB and SCAQMD NewTechnology Measures, under the provisions 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 new-technology
measures approved at that time were: CARB's measures M2 (Improved Control Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles), M9 (Off-Road Diesel Equipment), CP-4 (ConsumerProducts Advanced Technology and Market Incentives), and Additional Measures; and SCAQMD
measures ADV-CTS-01 (Coating Technologies), ADV-FUG (Fugitives), ADV-PRC (Process Related Emissions), ADV-UNSP (Unspecified, Stationary Sources), ADV-CTS-02 (Coatings Technologies).

On December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126), EPA issued the final SIP approval ofthe State's mid-term control measures M3 (Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle requirement for Medium-Duty Vehicles), M5 (Heavy-Duty Vehicle NOx regulations), M8 (Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles lower emissions standards), MIl (IndustrialEquipment, Gas and LPG), and CP2 (Mid-Term Consumer Products).

The remainingportions ofthe ozone SIP submittal, upon which EPA is acting today, include the following separate documents: 1. "The 1994 California State Implementation Plan for Ozone," volumes I-IV.The November 15, 1994, submittal letter refers to other submittals, described below, as completing the 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 atthe time ofadoption, and providing other technical and editorial corrections.

2. "1994 Ozone Attainment and Rateof-Progress Plans for San Diego County." 3. "San Joaquin Valley Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans." On December 28, 1994, the State submitted the "Rate-of-Progress and Attainment Demonstration Plans for the Kern County Air Pollution Control District," applicable to the Kern desert portion of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment
area.

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

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

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

7. "1994 Air Quality Management Plan for South CoastAir Basin, Antelope Valley and Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area." On December 29, 1994, the State submitted the "Rate of-Progress Plan Revision: South Coast AirBasin &Antelope Valley & Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area." 17

8. On March 30, 1995, CARB submitted revised 1990base year emission inventories for each ofthe California ozone nonattainment areas.

9. On June 30, 1995, CARB submitted desriptive materials relating to the State's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program, adopted by the California Bureau ofAutomotive Repair. On January 22, 1996, CARB submitted the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance regulations adopted by the California Bureau ofAutomotive Repair.
2. SIP Submittals After EPA's Proposal

On April 4, 1996, CARB submitted a revision for the San Joaquin Valley, withdrawing an obsolete transportation control measure (Exclusive High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Freeway 41, included in the 1982 Air Quality Management Plan for Fresno).

On May 17, 1996, CARB submitted Executive Order G-96-031, the State's commitment to participate in the public consultative process, submit arevised attainment demonstration for the South Coast as appropriate after the consultative process, and submit control
measures needed to achieve emission reductions determined to be appropriate.

On June 13, 1996, CARB submitted supplemental information regarding the 1994 California SIP, including

1Antelope Valley and Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area are portions ofthe Southeast Desert Modified Air QualityManagement Area which are currently under thejurisdiction ofthe South Coast Air Quality Management District. California has recently revised its air basin classifications, so that Antelope Valley is part ofMojave Desert Air Basin and the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area ispart ofSalton Sea Air Basin. 

### 1159

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1159 1997

## 1160 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

additional information on emission reductions from the State's measures (Letterfrom James D. Boyd to David Howekamp, with Attachments A, B, and C).

On July 10, 1996, CARB submitted updates to the South Coast rule adoption schedule ("Control Measure Adoption Schedule").

On July 12, 1996, CARB submitted updates to the Ventura AQMP ("Ventura County 1995 Air Quality Management Plan Revision" and "Appendix E-95") and an updated post-96 ROP for San Joaquin Valley ("Revised Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan").
3. EPA Completeness Findings

On January 30, 1995, EPA issued a finding 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, MIu, 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.' 8

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); and (3) 1990 base year inventory requirements ofsection 182(a)(1). The CARB emission inventory submittal ofMarch 30, 1995, was included in the completeness determination ofApril 18, 1995.

On June 30, 1995, and February 5, 1996, EPA issued a finding of completeness for the State's I/M program submittals.

On August 14, 1996, EPA issued a finding ofcompleteness for updates to the San Joaquin Valley plan (submitted
on April 4, 1996, and July 12, 1996); the South Coast plan (submitted on July 10, 1996); the Ventura plan (submitted on July 12, 1996); the State's commitment to participate in the public consultative process and revise the South Coast plan
as appropriate (submitted on May 17, 1996); and technical information on State and local measures (submitted on June 13, 1996).

18EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) ofthe CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56FR 42216). 4. Rationale for EPA Approval ofMinor SIP Changes without Further Opportunity for Public Comment

The NPRM indicated that EPA intended to approve in the final action SIP updates ifreceived before theNotice ofFinal Rulemaking (NFRM) was signed. The State, local agencies, and other commenters requested EPA to absorb these updates and corrections into the final plan action.

In the NFRM, EPAhas also made
numerous changes to the tables of control measures, in response to State and local agency requests for correction and clarification. These changes make minor adjustments to the measures, the arrangement ofthe measures in the table, the schedule ofmeasure adoption and implementation, or the emission reductions associated with the
measures. Since the changes are administrative or clerical in nature, or otherwise are not significant, and neither individually nor cumulatively affect ROP or attainment, EPAhas incorporated the changes in this action without further opportunity for public comment. 19Notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedures Act, "when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a briefstatement ofreasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to thepublic interest." 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

The State and involved local agencies in the San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, and Ventura allrequested that the final notice clarify the original intent ofthe 1994 SIP submittal that, coincident with approving the new Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in the current SIP, EPA would delete from the applicable SIP the prior TCMs, which
are out-dated and not relied upon in the
new ROP and attainment demonstrations. Because these rescissions were mistakenly omitted either from the original submittals or EPA's proposed action on the submittals, and because the rescissions
are inconsequential and fully consistent with the 1994 SIP submittal respecting progress and attainment, EPAis finalizing the TCM replacement without further opportunity for public comment.

19TheState's 15% ROP plans for each area donot rely on reductions from any ofthe measures (all reductions come from fully adopted regulations), and the changes do notreduce the amount of emission reductions fromthemeasures in post-1996 ROP milestoneyears orthe attainmentyears. II. Review ofthe State Submittal, Response to Comments on Specific SIP Issues, and EPA FinalAction
A. StateMeasures 1. General Comments

The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) commented that EPA's proposal to approve the State's measures on a statewide basis (if, under State law, they apply throughout California) did not reflect the intent of the State, which was to limit the Federally enforceable State measures onlyto the serious, severe, and extreme nonattainment areas. EPA is so limiting the final approval action. Accordingly, under Federal law the statewide
measures will notcount toward attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS except in the ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious and above. As a result, the State must submit a SIP revision ifit wishes in the future to extend the geographic applicability ofthe measures. Because EPA is accepting the State's request that Federal approval ofthe measures in the SIP apply narrowly to the ozone ROP and attainment needs in serious and above areas, the State must submit a SIP revision if, at any time in the future, the emission reductions associated with the
measures in other areas are needed as components ofattainment or maintenance SIPs for other areas.

CEPA also requested that EPA not approve the reductions shown for State
measures MI, M2, M7, and M9 in the South Coast in the year 2007, because 2007 is not a milestone yearfor the South Coast. EPAis complying with the State's request in this final action. The year 2007 reductions in the South Coast may need to be resubmitted by the State iffederally enforceable 2007 reductions from these measures in the upwind South Coast nonattainment area are needed for the 2007 attainment demonstration in the Southeast Desert.

Finally, CEPA asked that EPA not assign emission reduction credits from
measures M3, M5, M8, and CP-2/CP-3 to San Diego, since the area did not use them for rate-of-progress or attainment. EPA is deletingthis credit. Ifreductions from these measures are needed in San Diego in the future, the CARB must resubmit for SIP approval the State
measures with associated San Diego emission reductions.
2.Mobile Source Measures

a.Review ofMeasures.The following is a briefdescription ofthe State's mobile source measures, orM Measures, identification ofminor corrections and clarifications to the measures or their

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1160 1997

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

associated emission reductions, summary ofpublic comment on the
measures and EPA's response, and EPA's final approval actions on the
measures.

(i) M1-Accelerated Retirement of Light-Duty Vehicles. The SIP commits to secure a financing mechanism by the end of 1995, adopt the measure in 1996, undertake ademonstration program from 1996 through 1998, and implement the program fully from 1999 to 2010, through the annual retirement (scrappage orremoval) ofup to 75,000 older, high-emitting vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin. CARB has clarified in recent correspondence that the State's commitments for M-1 and for M-7, the other vehicle retirement program in the 1994 Ozone SIP, are for the specified emission reductions, 

### rather than a particular number of vehicles to be retired. 2 0 While M1 is a 

### commitment to implement an accelerated vehicle retirement program only in the South Coast, the SIP states that "implementation oflight-duty vehicle retirement programs in other non-attainment areas willbe considered
as a means offurtherreducing emissions" (Vol. I, p. B-2).

The Environmental Defense Center commented that MI is illusory until an 

### adequate and enforceable funding
source is identified. EPA considers the State'sprogress in implementing the
measure to be acceptable at this time. During 1995, the California Legislature enacted SB501, which established a statewide scrappage program to work in 

### concert with the scrap component ofthe I/Mprogram. Current funding comes 

### from legislation authorizing fees in lieu ofsmog check atfirst registration renewal. EPAbelieves that timely program implementation requires the 

### Stateto develop an adequate long-term funding approach by the end of 1997.

EPA will continue to monitorMI. If 

### theprogram does not mature on a schedule likely to deliver thereductions 

### needed forprogress and attainment, EPA will work with the State to correct 

### implementation or substitute other
measures thatprovide the needed emission reductions.

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

### tobe achieved in the South Coast,as displayed in the table below, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure MI."

20Letterfrom Lynn Terry to JuliaBarrow, dated September 20, 1996. 

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

1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

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

### NOx
....... 4 6 9 10 11

(ii) M2-Improved Control Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles. CARB commits to adoptthis measure in 2000 and begin implementation in 2004-2005. This measure will achieve emission reductions from LDVs through the useofone or more market-based and/ortechnology-forcing approaches. Emission reductions associated with this measure arerelied upon in the South Coast only.

The Western States Petroleum Association commented that the description ofthe measure in the NPRM appeared to limit the flexibility ofthe State. EPA's description, which was excerpted from the SIP, was not intended to prescribe the ways in which the measure could be implemented.

The Environmental Defense Center (EDC)noted that M2 relies on the ZEV program, which was recently revised to rescind the interim milestones. EDC also commented that M2 is highly speculative and unenforceable and inappropriate for SIP credit.

On August 21, 1995, EPA approved M2 and assigned it SIP credit in the South Coast under the provisions of section 182(e)(5) ofthe Act.

EPA will continue to work with CARB to ensure that the measure is developed
on schedule. CARB hasrecently provided additional information regarding the development ofthis
measure in aletter from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow, dated September 19, 1996: "We expect to begin developing this advanced technology measure following the 1998 biennial report to the ARB on the Low-Emission Vehicle Program. To meet ourcommitment for adoption in 2000, we would need to hold public workshops on the technical basis and regulatory concepts by 1999. However,
aspart ofthe on-going Low-Emission Vehicle Program review, staffcontinue to evaluate advanced control technologies that may contribute to post-2003 emission reduction strategies for this measure." The Statehas indicated that compliance options include advanced gasoline vehicles, alternative fueled vehicles, and fuel cell technologies.

Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final action to approve the emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast by milestone yearin the table below, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M2."


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


### 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010 ROG
....... 0 0 3 6 10 NOx ....... 0 0 5 9 15 (iii)M3-Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Requirement 

### forMedium-Duty Vehicles (MDVs). CARB commits in the SIP to adopt regulations for this measure in 1997, with implementation occurring from 1998 to 2002. This measure commits to
an increase in the fraction ofMDV ULEVs from 10 percent ofsales ofnew MDVs in the 1998 model year to 100 percent in the 2002 and later model years. This measure offers some flexibilityby allowing other mixes of vehicles and technologies that generate equivalent emission reductions.



### In theirjointcomments, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the 

### Coalition for Clean Airnoted that, at a public hearing in September 1995, CARB announced that ithad made a 

### calculation error which resulted in an overallocation ofemission reductions to this measure. As aresult, the regulations adopted atthat time will achieve 2tpd VOC and 23.9 tpd NOxreduction, 

### compared toM3's claimed credits of approximately 4tpd VOC and 32 tpd NOx in the South Coast in 2010. The environmental groups stated that EPA mustrequire CARB to submit an 

### additional measure to makeup this shortfall before EPA can approve the SIP. Despite CARB's error, EPA expects and requires CARB to adhere to the State's enforceable commitment to adopt by 1997 regulations that achieve the full credit assigned to M3 for the milestone dates specified for each ofthe 5 areas wherereductions are claimed. 21

21The State has clarified its intentions in this regard (letter from Lynn Terry to JuliaBarrow, dated September 19, 1996): "TheSIP binds the Stateto develop enforceable measures that deliver the emission reductions needed forrate-of-progress and attainment, as identified in theplan and subsequent technical transmittals. Volume I ofthe SIP says'* * *Once the SIP is approved by U.S. EPA, these enforceable commitments become mandatory and must be carried out * * *.[they] compel the State or local air districts to obtain the reductions orto substitute alternative measures by formalrevision of the SIP.' Thus, if we discover that
arule to implement aplan measure will not generate the targeted emission reductions, we are obliged to find replacement reductions or to demonstrate that rate-of-progress and attainment Continued



## 1161

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1161 1997

## 1162 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

EPA approved M3 on December 14, here takes final action to approve the area and milestone/attainment year in 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections emission reductions associated with the the table below, labeled "Reductions 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, EPA measure, as displayed bynonattainment from California Mobile Source Measure M3."
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M3 [Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx

So.Coast

............................................................................... 0 .89 .78 9.51 1.85 21.1 2.31 26.7 3.37 33.16 SE Desert

............................................................................. . 0 .1 .1 1.4 .2 3.5

...... .................... . .......... Ventura ................................................................................... 0 0 0 .5 .1 1.0 ...... ........... . .. .. .... . .......... Sacramento ............................................................................ .2 .2 0 1.7 .4 3.9 ...... .................... . .......... S. Joaquin
............................................................................. 0 .4

............. .......... .................... ... (iv) M4-Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV); Early Introduction of 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOx engines. The SIP commits to implementation of this measure beginning in 1996. CARB and the Districts share responsibility for this measure. M4 is a commitment to increase the use of existing low-emission engines among on-road HDDVs through locally implemented demand-side programs and market incentives. This program is intended to result in a 5% sales penetration of 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOx engines through the period 1996-1999, and a 10% sales penetration of these engines between 2000 and 2002. Other combinations of penetrations and emission levels that provide equivalent emission reductions could be implemented. CEPA commented that the NPRM omits SIP credits for this measure outside of the South Coast. EPA agrees to include the State's M4 reductions for the remaining State areas. The credits for these areas are taken from tables provided by CARB in Attachment C to a June 13, 1996 letter from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp. EPA approved M4 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by nonattainment

area and milestone/attainment year in the table below, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M4."
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M4 [Tons per day of NOx]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
So. Coast .................. 2.17 3.90 2.93
............................. 2.34 1.36 SE D esert

.................. 0.31 0.57 0.39 0.35
............................. . ........................ Ventura

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

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

. Joaquin

................. 0.74

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

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

........................... K

ern
........................... 0.04

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

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

........................... (v) M5-Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDVs); Additional NOx Reductions. The SIP commits to adopt this measure in 1997 and begin implementation in 2002. CARB commits to achieve emission reductions through adoption of a 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOx emissions standard for new HDDV engines sold in California beginning in 2002, or by implementation ofalternative measures which achieve equivalent or greater reductions. This measure is designed to achieve emission reductions prior to the introduction of a national HDDV standard in 2004. The 1994 California Ozone SIP ("Federal Measure" M6) assigns to EPA responsibility for adopting such a national standard. See discussion in the NPRM (61 FR 10928-9). Since EPA's proposal, further progress toward fulfilling the M5 and M6 commitments has been made by CARB and EPA. On June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33421-33469), EPA published

an NPRM proposing a national onroad heavy-duty engine standard giving manufacturers the flexibility to choose between two options: (1) A combined non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus NOx standard of 2.4 g/bhp-hr and (2) a combined NMHC plus NOx standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr together with a NMHC cap of .5 g/bhp-hr. EPA and CARB expect that the combined standard will result in NOx reductions comparable to those achieved with a 2.0 g/bhp-hr standard. EPA approved M5 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by nonattainment

area and milestone/attainment year in the table below, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M5." Future SIP updates may need to redistribute the emissions assigned to the State (M5) and Federal (M6) measures.

requirements will still bemet. Further, we South Coast and otherareas forrate-of-progress and process includes several rounds ofpublic review recognize that any shortfall in emission reductions attainment. ARB willbe looking at anyfeasible and athorough consideration ofthe economic would have to bemade up on an expedited basis alternatives proposed during the process of impacts on the affected industries." because of the need forthose reductions in the developing each measure into a regulation. This

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1162 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1163

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE 

### M5 [Tons per day]

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

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

............ ............ 3.1 37.6 4.8 56.2 SE D esert
.................. 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 3.9 0.4 5.1
............ ............ ............ ............ Ventura ...................... 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 1.0
............ ............ ............ .. .......... ... ......... ... ......... Sacramento
............... 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 2.7
............ ............ .. .......... ... ......... ... ......... ... ......... S. Joaquin
................. 0 0
(vi) M7Accelerated Retirement of Heavy-Duty Vehicles. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 1996 and begin implementation in the same year. This measure involves the annual retirement (scrapping or removal) of about 1600 of the oldest, high emitting trucks in the South Coast Air Basin, beginning in 1999. A smaller number of trucks would be scrapped in 1996 to 1998 in order to gain experience with the program and determine the impacts on the used truck market. The SIP commits to secure a financing mechanism for this measure by the end of 1995. While the SIP commits only to implement this measure in the South Coast, the State indicates that consideration is being given to establishing a truck retirement program in Sacramento and other nonattainment areas. The Environmental Defense Center notes that M7 relies on an enforceable funding mechanism to be secured by the end of 1995. EDC comments that it is capricious to fail to identify the secure, enforceable funding source for this speculative scrappage program. State funding legislation has been prepared to establish the Accelerated Vehicle Replacement Program, and the State is continuing to pursue viable funding options. EPA will monitorprogram implementation and ensure that the State and involved parties meet the SIP's schedule for program adoption and implementation in 1996. CARB requested that the ROG emission reductions shown for the South Coast in the year 2002 be reduced from 1to zero (0.21). EPA is doing so at this time. Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final action to approve M7, its implementation schedule, and the emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast, as displayed in the table below, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M7."
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M7-SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN [Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
ROG
.......................... 0 0 1 1 1 1 NO x ........................... 3 6 7 8 9 10

(vii) M8Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (HDGVs), Lower Emission Standards. The SIP commits to adoption of this
measure by 1997 and implementation beginning in 1998. This measure generates emission reductions through the adoption of a LEV/ULEV program for HDGV engines to obtain 50% reductions ofNOx and ROG emissions through the application of3-way catalyst technology. EPA approved M8 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by nonattainment
area and milestone/attainment year in the table below, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M8."
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE 

### M8 [Tons per day]

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

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

............ ............ 0.2 2.3 0.3 3.0 SE D esert
.................. 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.4
............ ............ ............ ............ Ventura ...................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.1
............ ............ ............ .. .......... ... ......... ... ......... Sacramento
............... 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.4
............ ............ .. .......... ... ......... ... ......... ... ......... S. Joaquin
................. 0 0
(viii) M9-Off-road Diesel Equipment; 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOx Standard, California. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 2001 and begin implementation in 2005. The measure requires CARB to adopt a 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOx standard effective in the 2005 model year for new off-road industrial equipment diesel engines that are not preempted from California authority. California is preempted from adopting or enforcing any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions from new construction and farm equipment or vehicles which are smaller than 175 hp (see section 209(e) ofthe Act). CARB requested that the ROG emission reductions shown for the South Coast in the year 2005 be increased from
zero to 0.5. EPA is doing so at this time. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved M9 and assigned it SIP credit in the South Coast under the provisions of section 182(e)(5) of the Act. Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final action to approve

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1163 1997

## 1164 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast by milestone year in the table below, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M9."
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE M9-SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN [tons per day]
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
ROG
................................... 0 0 0.5 4 1 3 N

Ox
.................................... 0 0 4 35 14 34
(ix) Mll-Industrial Equipment; Gas and LPG-California; 3-way catalyst technology. CARB commits to adopt this
measure in 1997 and implement it beginning in 2000. The measure requires CARB to adopt emission standards for
new gas and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) engines 25 to 175 horsepower that are not primarily used in construction
or farm equipment. As noted above, California is preempted from regulating new farm and construction equipment smaller than 175 hp. The standards will be phased-in beginning in 2000, and are intended to reduce ROG emissions by 75% and NO, by at least 50%. CEPA commented that the NPRM omits SIP credits for this measure in Ventura, Sacramento, and the Southeast Desert. EPA agrees to include the State's Ml1 reductions for these areas. The credits for these areas are taken from tables provided by CARB in Attachment C to a June 13, 1996 letter from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp. Since the reductions in these areas are all considerably less than one ton per day and EPA's proposal showed credits only for whole number reductions in the South Coast, EPA is also amending the reductions for the South Coast by showing estimated reductions to the nearest tenth ofa ton. EPA approved M11 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve the emission reductions associated with the measure by milestone/attainment year for each area in the table below, labeled "Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure MIl."
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA MOBILE SOURCE MEASURE 

### M1 1 [Tons per day]

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

.................. 0 0 4.2 2.0 8.8 4.4

............ ............ 15.1 7.7 23.0 11.6 SE Desert

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

(x) Additional New Control Technologies. In addition to the new control technologies described above in
measures M2 and M9, CARB has committed to the implementation of additional innovative measures to achieve the emission reductions needed in the South Coast to reach attainment by 2010. CARB anticipates that these additional measures will include a combination ofmarket-based and technology-based measures. CARB has committed to adoption ofthese
measures no later than 2006 to ensure the needed emissions reductions (55 tpd ofROG and 20 tpd ofNOx) are achieved by 2009.

The Environmental Defense Center commented that these new-technology
measuresjeopardize the efficacy ofthe entire SIP. EDC stated that many ofthe State's example controls areunrealistic (speed controls) or illegal (episodic controls).

On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's additional new control technologies measure under the provisions ofsection 182(e)(5), with 2010 emission reduction credits of79 tpd ROG and 60 tpd NOx in the South Coast. CARB has subsequently clarified that the emissions reductions associated with this measure are 55 tpd ROG and 20 tpd NOx.

CARB has also furnished additional information regarding the State's approach to developing the control
measure. A September 19, 1996 letter from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow provides the following description of the State's proposed schedule: "We anticipate kicking offdevelopment of this measure in 1997 with an international symposium on clean transportation to solicit ideas for new technologies and approaches. We intend to follow up with technical work (includingany appropriate research contracts), meetings, and workshops on the most promising ideas through 2000. At that point, we expect to develop regulatory concepts for discussion in 2001-2003, followed by release of specific proposals in 2004-2005, and adoption ofappropriate regulations by 2006." EPA remains eager to work with the State to ensure thatprogress is made to develop approvable mobile source controls asnecessary in the South Coast to meet the SIP's progress and attainment goals.

c. EPAAction. As described above, EPA has already approved most ofthe State's M Measure commitments. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved the CARB new-technology measures M2, M9, and Additional New Technology Mobile Source Measures (described above), and assigned credit in the South Coast ozone attainment demonstration to the measures. At the same time, EPA proposed approval ofthe State's control
measure commitments forM3, M5, M8, and MIl. EPA issued final approval of the measures on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Because EPA was atthat timenot acting on the State's ROP and attainment demonstrations, EPA's approval ofthe State's commitments did notinclude assignment ofspecific emission reduction credits associated with the measures. EPAis here approving the ROP and attainment demonstrations ofCalifornia ozone nonattainment area plans which rely, in part, on theM Measure commitments. Therefore, under sections 110(k)(3) and

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1164 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1165

301(a) ofthe Act, EPA now takes final action to assign credit to the State's enforceable commitments to achieve the specific emission reductions associated with M3, M5, M8, and MIl, and displayed in the tables above for each
measure.

EPA is also approving, under sections 110(a)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, and assigning credit to measures MI, M4, and M7 as part 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. EPAtherefore takes final action to approve and credit CARB's enforceable commitments to these M measures under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, as part ofthe demonstrations ofROP and 

### attainment inthe California ozone nonattainment areas. 2. I/M

a.Review ofProgram.CARBinitially submitted its motorvehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, known
asthe SmogCheckprogram, as a revision to its SIPon June 30, 1995. The submittal was made to fulfillEPA's requirements forbasic and enhanced I! M programs as setforth in40 CFRPart 51, Subpart S.EPAfound the submittal complete on June 30, 1995. Arevised and final revision was submitted by the Stateon 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 theHighway Act, which was enacted on November 28, 1995, modified EPA's I/M regulation. In this notice EPA isfinalizing 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 high enhanced performance standard requirements of40 CFRPart 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
County Enhanced Basic Change of ownership
Alameda ................................................................................................................................................... Alp in

e ........................................................................................................................................................ Amador ..................................................................................................................................................... Butte ......................................................................................................................................................... Calaveras ................................................................................................................................................. Colusa ...................................................................................................................................................... Contra Cos ta ............................................................................................................................................ D

elN orte
.................................................................................................................................................. E

lD orado ................................................................................................................................................. Fresno ...................................................................................................................................................... Glenn ........................................................................................................................................................ Humbold t .................................................................................................................................................. Imperia l
..................................................................................................................................................... In

yo ........................................................................................................................................................... K

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

ings ......................................................................................................................................................... L

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

a

ss

en ...................................................................................................................................................... L

os Angeles .............................................................................................................................................. M

adera ..................................................................................................................................................... M

arin
......................................................................................................................................................... M

ariposa ................................................................................................................................................... M

endocin o ................................................................................................................................................ M

erced
...................................................................................................................................................... Mod oc ....................................................................................................................................................... M

ono ......................................................................................................................................................... M

onterey ................................................................................................................................................... N

apa ......................................................................................................................................................... Nev a da ..................................................................................................................................................... Orange ...................................................................................................................................................... Placer ....................................................................................................................................................... Plumas ...................................................................................................................................................... Riv erside ................................................................................................................................................... Sacramento .............................................................................................................................................. San Benito
................................................................................................................................................ San Bernardin o ........................................................................................................................................ San D iego ................................................................................................................................................. San Francisco .......................................................................................................................................... SanJoaquin
............................................................................................................................................. San L uis Obispo ....................................................................................................................................... San M ateo ................................................................................................................................................ Santa Barbara .......................................................................................................................................... SantaClara .............................................................................................................................................. SantaCruz ............................................................................................................................................... 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
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1165 1997

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

CALIFORNIA I/M PROGRAM COVERAGE BY COUNTY-Continued County Enhanced Basic Change of ownership
Sh

asta ...................................................................................................................................................... . .................... x .................... Sierra ........................................................................................................................................................ ............. ....... ..... ............. x Sisk iy

ou .................................................................................................................................................... ............. ....... ..... ............. x Solan o ...................................................................................................................................................... x x .................... Son oma .................................................................................................................................................... . .................... x x Stan islau s ................................................................................................................................................. x x .................... Su

tter........................................................................................................................................................ . .................... x .................... T

eh

ama .................................................................................................................................................... . .................... x .................... T

rinity
........................................................................................................................................................ ............. ....... ..... ............. x T

u

lare ....................................................................................................................................................... . .................... x .................... T

u

olumne .................................................................................................................................................. ............. ....... .................. x V

en

tura ..................................................................................................................................................... x x .................... Y

olo
.......................................................................................................................................................... x x .................... Y

u

b

a ......................................................................................................................................................... ..................... x ....................

The SIP revision submitted to EPA by CARB includes theLaws and Regulations relating to California's I/M program which comprises pertinent sections ofthe California Business and Professions Code, the Health and Safety Code, the Vehicle Code, and the California Code ofRegulations. 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 for Proposal 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; test procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance; enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors; data collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection; improving repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road testing; SIP revisions; and implementation deadlines. The performance standard for basic I/M programs remains the same as 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 targeted for test-only inspection. All vehicles in the enhanced areas will be subject to loaded mode testing. More stringent requirements apply to technicians licensed in the enhanced
areas. The two programs are essentially the same in allother respects, excepting that frequency ofenforcement related activities such asremote sensing willbe 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 TSD for the NPRM.) The SIP submittal includes modeling which demonstrates that the program design for California's basic program will meet EPA's performance standard for basicprograms. EPAis, therefore, approving this revision to California's SIP for the basic I/M program.

The Highway Act prohibits the Administrator from disapproving or applying an automatic discount of emission reduction credits to a SIP revision because the I/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, permanent approval ofthe SIP revision based on the credits proposed by the state shall be granted if the data collected on the operation ofthe program demonstrates that the 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. The Highway Act is clear that approval under its provisions shall last for only 18 months, and that the program evaluation is due to EPA at the end of that period. Therefore, EPA believes Congress intended forthese programs to start-up as soon as possible, which EPA believes should be atthe latest, 12 months after the effective date ofthe approval, so that at least 6 months of operational program data can be collected to evaluate theperformance of the program. "Start-up" is defined as a fully operational program which has begun regular, mandatory inspections and repairs, using the final test strategy and covering each ofthe state's required
areas. Ifthe state fails to start its program on this schedule, the approval granted under the provisions ofthe Highway Act will convert to a disapproval after a finding letter is sent to the state.

As mentioned above, the Highway Act specifies that EPA grant approval if good faith estimates ofcredits aremade.

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1166 1997

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

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.

The program evaluation to be used by the state during the 18-month period must be acceptable to EPA.EPA anticipates that such a program evaluation process will be developed by the Environmental Council ofState (ECOS) group that is convening now and that was organized for this purpose. California is an active participant in the ECOS group. EPA further expects that in addition to the interim, short term evaluation to be conducted within 18 months, the state will conduct a long term, ongoing evaluation ofits I/M program asrequired bythe I/M Rule in sections 51.353 and 51.366.

At the end ofthe 18-month approval period, EPA willreview the state's final I/M SIP revision, which will include the state's program evaluation, and take action to make the approval ofthe I/M program permanent, ifthe program evaluation data collected by the state demonstrates that the I/Mprogram is achieving the emission reduction credits claimed in the SIP.

According to the schedule submitted by California test-only inspection began in Sacramento in August 1995. The program is expected to be fully operational in Fresno, Bakersfield and San Diego by the fall of 1996, and in the South Coast areas in early 1997. Although this schedule appears to be slipping,EPA anticipates that California will start its program within 12 months ofthis approval.

California has made a good faith estimate that its hybrid enhanced I/M program will meet EPA's high performance standard based on the California Pilot Program and innovative program features including an electronic transmission project with a trigger program used for enforcement, ahigh visibility remote sensingprogram, and stringent licensing and training requirements.

The pilot program conducted aspart oftheMemorandum ofAgreement between EPA and California provided data on the effectiveness oftargeting 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 comprise likely highemitters as identified through use ofthe HEP and remote sensing, previously identified high emitters which must undergo annual testing for 2to 5 years, high emitters identified by test-andrepair stations, high mileage fleet vehicles, vehicles for hire, a2% random sample, and motorists voluntarily choosing to go to test-only stations.

California's program includes an electronic transmission program. A central Vehicle Information Database has been created and an electronic network enabling the test analyzer system units to connect automatically to the database hasbeen 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 is identified as a high emitter, or when
an enhanced test is required. The database will also furnish areal-time communications link to vehicle emissions data which will provide information to BAR enforcement teams to help immediately identify illicit activity. The database will also be used to develop atrigger program to identify shops that areperforming improper inspections and to track the location and performance oflicensed smog check technicians.

The State is also phasing in ahighvisibility remote sensingprogram. California plans to identify as least 200,000 high emitting vehicles annually in the enhanced program areas. Data collected from the program will beused
as atarget parameter for the enforcement program. The program will also serve as a visible reminder to both motorists and test-and-repair stations that improper inspections and/or program avoidance may be detected. Stringent licensing and training requirements arebeing required for testand-repair stations and repair technicians, respectively. 

### California has committed to performing quarterly evaluations ofits program to determine ifEPA's performance standard is being met and the credits taken for the program are being achieved. California plans to adjust the number ofvehicles sent to test-only stations based on these evaluations.

b. Response to Comments. The Environmental Defense Center commented that the State's I/Mprogram mustbe bolstered to return the emissions reduction necessary to meet attainment. California has committed to performing quarterly program evaluations to determine whether SIP emission reduction requirements and EPA's performance standard arebeing met. EPA's approval under section 348(c) ofthe Highway Act requires the State to collect data on the operation of the program to demonstrate with an 18 month period that theI/M credits are valid and the program is otherwise in compliance with the CAA. EPA will work with the State to help ensure that data aretimely collected and that the program delivers SIP-required reductions or ispromptly modified to do so.

c. EmissionsReductions.The emission reductions to be achieved by the measure are displayed by nonattainment area and milestone/ attainment year in the table below, labeled "Reductions from California Enhanced I/M Program." The table reflects therevisions to the estimated reductions shown in theNPRM. These changes were requested byCARB in Attachment A to aletter dated June 13, 1996 (James D. Boyd to David Howekamp). South Coast 2002 NOx is changed from 35.5 to 35.6; Southeast Desert 2005 ROG is changed from 2.9 to 2.6; Southeast Desert 2007 NOx is changed from 2.8 to 2.7; Sacramento 2005 ROGis changed from 5.1 to 5.2; and San Joaquin Valley 1999 NOxis changed from 4.9 to 5.0. The emission reductions claimed for the San Joaquin Valley arebased on implementation of the enhanced I/M program in Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, and Modesto.
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA ENHANCED I/M PROGRAM [Tons per day]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010 ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx
So. Coast SE Desert Ventura

... 34.8 2.4 1.6 40.3 3.0 1.8 32.5 2.6 1.4 2.6

. 7 30.2 34.8 26.2 31.1 

### 1167

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1167 1997

### 1168 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA ENHANCED I/M PROGRAM-Continued [Tons perday]

1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010 ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOxSacramento 5.4 

### 5.7 6.3 6.5 5.2 6.4 S.Joaquin 4.3 5.0 S.Diego

.. 

### 0 0

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

EPA is also finalizing, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, approval ofthe California I/Mprogram and 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.22By mistake EPA's proposed approval was limited to ozone. In this final action EPA is also approving the California I/ M program as meeting the requirements ofsection 187(a)(4) ofthe Act forbasic I/M for the following areas ofthe State classified as moderate for CO with design values less than 12.7: Fresno, Sacramento, Modesto, Chico, Stockton and San Diego.

Under section 348(c) ofthe Highway Act, EPAis finalizing, for a period of 18 months, approval ofthe California I/M submittal ofJanuary 22, 1996, as meeting therequirements ofsection 182(c)(3) ofthe CAA for enhanced I/M in applicable areas ofthe State classified
as serious and above for ozone. In addition, EPA is approving theI/M submittals as meeting the requirements ofsection 187(a)(6) ofthe Act for enhanced I/Mfor the South Coast which is classified as a serious nonattainment
area for carbon monoxide; bymistake, this aspect ofEPA's approval oftheI/ M program was also omitted from the NPRM. Finally, EPA is finalizing, for a period of 18 months, approval ofthe emission reductions to be achieved by the enhanced I/M program, as displayed in the table above, labeled "Reductions from California Enhanced I/M Program." Section 348(c)(3) ofthe Highway Act provides that EPA will take regulatory action to make the

22TheJanuary 22, 1996 SIP submittal includes and supersedes materials contained in the State's earlier submittal ofJune 30, 1995. approval permanent if, atthe expiration ofthe 18-month period or at an earlier time, the data collected on the operation ofthe Stateprogram demonstrates that "the credits are appropriate and the revision is otherwise in compliance with the Clean Air Act."

IfEPA finds that California has failed to start its program within 12 months from the effective date ofthis notice, or by February 9, 1998, and issues a letter
so informing California, then this approval will convert to a disapproval
as ofthe date ofsuch letter. Ifthe required State demonstration is not completed within 18 months and submitted to EPA as a SIPrevision or does not show that the credits are appropriate and that the program is otherwise in compliance with the CAA, EPA will take regulatory action to disapprove the program for purposes of compliance with the enhanced I/M requirements ofsections 182(c)(3) and 187(a)(6). After 18 months have elapsed, unless and until EPA approves anew SIP submittal, the SIP will no longer meet the specificrequirements ofthe 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.As discussed in the NPRM, CARB classifies the emissions reductions resulting from regulations on consumer products regulations into 3 main categories: near-term, mid-term, and long-term with regard to date of promulgation and implementation.

CARB's near-term measures consist of rules adopted prior to May 1995. The existing consumer products regulations, antiperspirant and deodorant regulations, and the 1996 and 1999 VOC content standards 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 regulations are expected to be adopted by July 1, 1997 and implemented by the year 2005, and will cover various
consumer product categories which are currently not regulated by the State of California. These mid-term measures are needed for attainment demonstrations in the Sacramento Metropolitan and Ventura County air basins. In the SIP, CARB asserts that these measures, like the near-term measures, rely on available or reasonably foreseeable technology. CARB has also committed to investigating the feasibility of incorporating reactivity considerations into the mid-term measures to reduce ozone-forming potential while providing additional flexibility at reduced coststo industry and
consumers.

CARB has committed to obtaining furtherreductions (as compared to the
near- and mid-term measures) from
consumer products after 2000. These reductions may rely on available or inthe-pipeline technology, and may also rely on various combinations of traditional control strategies, technology-forcing standards, innovative market-based approaches, and consumer education programs. These long-term measures would be enforced on a statewide basis, but only the South Coast plan relies on the emissions reductions to demonstrate attainment.

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

b. Review ofMeasures.(1) Measure CP-1. Measure CP-1 includes tworules, 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 otherrule controls emissions from household products, such as air fresheners, shaving cream, and hairsprays. Both rules were submitted to EPA on November 15, 1994. EPA

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1168 1997

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

approved theserules into the SIP on August 21, 1995 (see 60 FR43379).

(2) Measure CP-3 (Aerosol Paints). Measure CP-3 is a near term commitment to adopt and implement VOC content standards in aerosol paints. Regulations meeting these commitments were adopted in mid1995. These regulations limit the VOC content ofaerosol paints by establishing sets ofVOC content standards for various coating types. These standards establish the maximum percentage of VOC by weight allowed in the various types ofaerosol coatings. The coating standards are divided into two phases. In the firstphase, effective January 1, 1996, aerosol coatings' VOC content must comply with limits that range from 60 percent to 95 percent, depending on the coating.

In the second phase, currently due to take effect December 31, 1999, aerosol coatings' VOC content limits will range from 30 percent to 80 percent, depending on the type 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 maybe postponed forup to 5 years. However, CARB must ensure that the 1999 limits do notbecome federally enforceable prior to the final effective date, including any extension, according to section 41712 (f)(3) ofthe 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.

(3) Mid-Term Committal Measure CP2. Measure CP-2 is amid-term commitment to adopt additional regulations in 1997 to further reduce VOC emissions from currently unregulated household, industrial and institutional, and commercial consumer products. These reductions are anticipated to result from the further regulation ofnew categories of
consumer products through technology that is currently feasible and commercially viable. EPA approved CP2 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). (4) Long-Term Committal Measure CP-4. Measure CP-4 is a long-term
measure to further reduce emissions aftermeasures CP-1, CP-2, and CP-3
are implemented. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's Measure CP-4 as meeting the requirements of section 182(e)(5).

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

c. EmissionReductions.The following table, "Reductions from California Consumer Products and Aerosol Paint Program," describes the ROG emission reductions in terms oftons per day, as identified in the SIP submittal. Credits for near-term consumer products (CP-1)
are not included, since they were presumed in baseline emissions projections as adopted regulations. The table combines credits for consumer products and aerosolpaints. Credit for CP-4 is claimed only for South Coast.

The ROP and attainment demonstrations for San Diego and San Joaquin Valley do not rely on reductions from the consumer products measures. The State has submitted for SIP approval no emissions reductions for these areas associated with consumer products and aerosolpaints measures, although real reductions will occur in those areas. San Joaquin Valley Unified APCDrequested that EPA identify a 1.1 tpd VOC emissions reduction in the San Joaquin Valley area from these
measures. Since the State does not wish to claim SIP credit forthese measures in the San Joaquin Valley, EPA is not assigning the credits to San Joaquin Valley.
REDUCTIONS FROM CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND AEROSOL PAINT PROGRAM [REDUCTIONS BEYOND THOSE ACHIEVED BY 

### CP-1] [Tons per day of ROG]
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
South Coast

.................................................................... 0 8 39.2
.................... 42.2 89.2 SE D esert

........................................................................ 0 0.6 3.5 3.9

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

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

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

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

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

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

d. EPAAction. As discussed above, EPA has already fully approved all of the State's consumer products rules and committal measures with the exception ofCP-3 (Aerosol Paints).EPA is now approving CP-3 under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, and assigning credit to this measure, as well

as to the previously approved consumer products measures, aspart ofthe ROP and attainment demonstrations for appropriate nonattainment areas. EPA will take regulatory action on the recently adopted ACP and Aerosol Paints regulations themselves in separate rulemakings. 4. Pesticides

a.Review of Measure.California's 1994 SIP submittal includes a commitment to reduce VOC emissions from the application ofagricultural and structural pesticides. The submittal describes relevant authority in Section 6220 ofTitle 3 ofthe California Code of Regulations that hasbeen granted to the California Department ofPesticide Regulation (DPR).

b. Response to Comments.The Environmental Defense Center (EDC) questioned whether the pesticides
measure should be granted credit. EDC stated that pestmanagement research alone will notcreate any reductions and the SIP is entirely vague as to how these air quality benefits willbe accomplished. While the NPRM refers to a June 1997 datefor promulgation of regulations should the voluntary
measures fail, the SIP itselfrecites a possible, not obligatory, 1998 date. Finally, EDCrecommends that the pesticides rule that was included in EPA's 1995 Federal Implementation 

### 1169

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1169 1997

### 1170 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Plan (or some comparable rule) mustbe included in the SIP.

On May 11, 1995, CARB submitted a clarification by the California Department ofPesticide Regulation (Memo from James W. Wells to James D. Boyd) to the pesticide element ofthe SIP, submitted on November 15, 1994. This SIP clarification, which was cited in the NPRM, states, in part, that "The Department ofPesticide Regulation commits to adopt and submit to U.S. EPA byJune 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce volatile organic compound emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticides by specific percentages ofthe 1990 base year emissions, by specific years, and in specific nonattainment areas* * * as listed in the following table * * California assigns to the pesticides
measure less emission reductions than
were associated with EPA's proposed FIP rule but the SIP reductions are sufficient to meet progress and attainment requirements in each area for this control category.

c. EmissionReductionsAs described in the SIP, California has committed to adopt and submitto U.S. EPAbyJune 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticides by 20 percent ofthe 1990 base year emissions in the attainment years for Sacramento, Ventura, Southeast Desert, and the South Coast, and by 12percent in 1999 for the San Joaquin Valley. The table labeled "Reductions from Pesticides Measure" shows reductions counted toward attainment in each area. EPA hasrevised the table to reflect CEPA's request that emission reductions for interim years be excluded from the SIP, since CARB elects not to assign credit to the pesticides measure except forpurposes ofattainment. Ifreductions from the measure are, in the future, needed to meet ROP milestones, CARB mustresubmit the measure and interim reduction estimates as an SIP revision.
REDUCTIONS FROM PESTICIDES MEASURE [Tons per day of ROG]
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
South Coast

.................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 Southeast D esert

.......................................................... 0 0 0 1.5 Ven tura

.......................................................................... 0 0 2.4 Sacramento

................................................................... 0 0 2.8 SanJoaquin

............................................................. . 13

d. EPAAction. EPA is approving the Pesticides measure under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, and assigning credit to the measure aspart ofthe 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. LocalROPandAttainmentPlansand Measures 1.Emission Inventories

a.Response to Comments.The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) commented that EPA has not provided allofthe data or documented all ofthe assumptions that were part of California's inventory and modeling analyses. EMA added that ithas serious
concerns that the baseline emissions inventories include potentially significant overestimates ofgrowth in VMT, trips, and vehicle and equipment sales and usage. EMA indicated that these estimates do not accurately reflect the emissions reductions that will result from the imposition ofcurrent and future national and state regulations. Finally, EMA noted thatEPA acknowledged that its baseline and projected emissions areuncertain, and EMA requested thatEPA should not take final action on the proposed inventories but should require that appropriate adjustments be made in order to provide accurate and reasonable inventory calculations on which to base California's proposed
measures.

EPA does not believe that itis necessary or practical for the Agency to setforth the complete emission inventory data and documentation. This information is available from the State and local agencies, and amounts to thousands ofpages ofemissions and activity data, emissions factors, calculations, and quality assurance programs.

The commenter provided no specific information relating to inaccuracies in the SIP emission inventories. EPA recognizes that, in general, the accuracy ofinventories for any area can be improved. IfEMA has specific corrections to suggest, they should be provided to the State, EPA, and local agencies for review and possible inclusion in future SIPrevisions. However, EPA has determined that the existing inventories meet applicable SIP requirements and provide reasonable foundations for the SIP.

The City ofLos Angeles commented that the South Coast is preparing a 1997 AQMP update, which will improve the inventory. EPA recognizes that the improved inventory in progress may allow for SIP refinement. Ifand when inventory updates and improvements
are submitted as SIP revisions for any of the nonattainment areas, EPA will consider them.

b. EPAAction. EPA is finalizing approval ofthe emission inventories for 

### each ofthenonattainment areas as meetingtherequirements ofsection 182(a)(1) oftheAct. 2. San Diego

a. SIPControlMeasures.Only one comment wasreceived on the San Diego plan. As discussed above in Section II.A.1, CEPA asked EPAto exclude from the San Diego SIPthose emission reductions thatwillresult from implementation ofState measures M3, M5, M8, and CP-2/CP-3, since these reductions are not needed forpurposes ofprogress or attainment. EPA is deleting these credits from the emission reduction tables for Statemeasures in Section II.A.

EPA isnot approving any new State
orlocal measures as part ofthe San Diego ozone SIP, sincenone were included in the State's submittal. The State demonstrated that the ROP and attainment demonstration provisions of theAct could bemet with pre-existing regulations.

b. ROPProvisions.EPA isfinalizing approval oftheROP plan asmeeting the 15% ROP requirements ofsection 182(b)(1) and thepost-1996 ROP requirements ofsection 182(c)(2) ofthe Act. The ROPVOCtargets, projected VOCemissions, and creditable VOC and NOx reductions are shown below in the table labeled "San Diego ROPForecasts and Targets."

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1170 1997

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

SAN DIEGO 

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

Milestone Year 1996 1999
1990 Base Year VOC

Inventory

.................. 312.6 312.6 VOC Projections

(Adopted Measures) 236.1 232.0 ROP VOC Target

........ 241.2 212.2 VOC Shortfall

.............. 0 19.8 NOx Substitution in

VOC Equivalents

..... 19.8

c.ModelingandAttainment Demonstration.EPA is approving the State's modeling analysis and attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2)(A) ofthe Act. A summary of the emission reductions needed to attain the standard and reductions projected from the SIP control strategy isprovided below in the table labeled "San Diego Attainment Demonstration."

SAN DIEGO ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION [Tons per summer day]
VOC NO×
1990 Baseline Emissions

Inventory

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

............. 232 175 Reductions Needed
..........81 63 Reductionsfrom Adopted

M

easures

....................... 81 63 SAN DIEGO ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION-Continued [Tons per summer day]
VOC NO×
Reductionsfrom Committed Local Measures

....... 0 0 Reductionsfrom Committed State Measures

....... 1 1 Total SIP Reductions

........ 82 64 Remaining Emissions in

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

d. OverallEPAAction. EPA approves the San Diego ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control measures, modeling, and demonstrations of 15% ROP, post-1996 ROP, and attainment. 3. San Joaquin Valley

a. ControlMeasures.The San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD commented that
no reductions are tied to any ofthe transportation control measures (TCMs) individually, but rather to the overall TCM package, since the overall emission reductions target is expected to be achieved but it is not anticipated that all ofthe measures would be implemented. EPA's table ofcontrol
measures is consistent with the APCD's position in both the proposal and final action.

On April 4, 1996, CARB submitted a SIP revision (letter from James D. Boyd to Felicia Marcus, attaching CARB Executive Order G-125-203). This submittal requests EPA to delete from the existing SIP an obsolete TCMthat
was originally adopted by the Fresno County APCD as part ofa 1982ozone SIP. (The Fresno County APCDhas sincebeen absorbed into the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD).The 1994 San Joaquin Valley AQMP does not assume emission reductions from this TCM, but rather substitutes a TCM package listed among the local measures in the table labeled "San Joaquin Local Control Measures." In this document, EPA is takingfinal action to delete the obsolete measure, which is entitled "Exclusive High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Freeway 41."

The table labeled "San Joaquin Local Control Measures" indicates the dates of rule adoption and implementation and the emission reductions presumed to
occur by 1999, the applicable attainment deadline. These measures arerelied upon in meeting the attainment requirements ofthe Act. Accordingly, and because the measures strengthen the SIP, EPAis approving, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the control
measures by the dates specified to achieve the emission reductions shown. EPA also is assigning credit to the
measures forpurposes ofattainment. EPA approval ofthe adopted regulations willbe completed in separate rulemakings in the future.
SAN JOAQUIN LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES
Implementing Adoption Implemen- Reductions Rule No. Control Measure Title Agency Date tation Date VOC NOx

1999 Emission Reductions

4403 Components Serving Gas Production

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

....... 2Q/91

........ 4.55

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

(VOC). 4703
........ Stationary Gas Turbine Engines

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

....... 3Q/2000

.......................... 11.92 4653
........ Adhesives

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

....... 1Q/95

....... 1.3
...................... 4623
........ Organic LiquidStorage

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

....... 2Q /96

....... 13.2
...................... TCMs

......................................................................... Ongoing

... Ongoing

... 1.8 1.5 4601
........ Architectural Coatings

............................................... SJVUAPCD 1 Q/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
........ GraphicArts

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

....... 4Q /97

....... . 0.84

...... ........... 4642
........ Landfill Gas Control

................................................... SJVUAPCD 1Q/95

....... 4Q /99

....... 1.41
...................... 4412
........ OilWorkover Rigs

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

....... 2Q /98

....... ....................... 0.87 4623
........ Organic LiquidStorage

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

....... 3Q /98

....... 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 Genera- SJVUAPCD 3Q/95

....... 3Q/99

.............................. 7.6 tors. 4611
........ Smaller PrinterOperations

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

....... 4Q/97

........ 0.30

...... ........... 4702
........ Stationary IC Engines

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

....... 4Q /99

.............................. 12.44 4621 and Stationary Storage Tanks/Fuel Transfer into Vehicle SJVUAPCD 2Q/96

....... 2Q/98

....... 0.41
......................

4622. Tanks. Waste Burning

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

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

............................... 4411
........ Well Cellars

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

....... 2Q /98

....... . 0.56

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

### 1171

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1171 1997

### 1172 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

b. ROPProvisions.On July 12, 1996, CARB submitted arevised post-1996 ROP plan for San Joaquin Valley (letter from James D.Boyd to Felicia Marcus, attaching CARB Executive Order G125-200). The revised ROP, which was adopted on September 20, 1995, excludes NOx reductions from specified controls atfacilities located west of Interstate 5 in Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties. This change is consistent with the 1994 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan. EPAis taking final action on this substitute plan, as requested by CARB and by the San Joaquin Valley APCD (letter from David L. Crow to Regional Administrator, dated May 2, 1996).

EPA is finalizing approval ofthe ROP plans (theoriginal 1994 submittal for 15% ROP requirements and the Kern District portion ofthe San Joaquin Valley, and the 1996 substitute submittal for post-1996 requirements) as meeting the 15% ROP requirements of section 182(b)(1) and the post-1996 ROP requirements ofsection 182(c)(2) ofthe Act. The ROPVOC targets, projected VOCemissions, and creditable VOC and NOx reductions are shown below in the tables labeled "San Joaquin Valley ROP Forecasts and Targets" and "San Joaquin Valley (Kern District) ROP Forecasts and Targets."

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 

### ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS [Tons per summer day]
Milestone Year
VOC Emissions to Meet ROP Target
.............................................................................................................................. VOC Emissions with Plan Reductions
............................................................................................................................. NOx Substitution in VOC Equivalents
.............................................................................................................................

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY (KERN DISTRICT) 

### ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS [Tons per summer day]
Milestone Year
VOC Emissions to Meet ROP Target
.............................................................................................................................. VOC Emissions with Plan Reductions
............................................................................................................................. NOx Substitution in VOC Equivalents
.............................................................................................................................

c.ModelingandAttainment Demonstration.San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD commented that the area was modeled as a single domain, with 3 areas of special study modeled on a finer scale. The APCD further stated that the air basin is not separated into subregions, and the carrying capacities referenced should not be considered separable targets in lieu ofproperly constructed modeling analyses. EPA's tables should not be divided into subregions. Allreferences to carrying capacity should be deleted since the concept is not effective or accurate for
adomain as large as the San Joaquin Valley and carrying capacities fail to account for the influence ofspatial location ofreductions or transport from
one area to another. Finally, the APCD commented that thereductions in the attainment demonstration table do not add up and do not correspond to those in the District's adopted plan. The APCD stated that CARB would make the needed changes.

EPA agrees that the State's tables in the 1994 California Ozone SIP that display carrying capacities for the 3 subregions may be less accurate than reliance on basinwide modeling 

### information, butthere are also benefits, from aplanning perspective, in dividing the area into subregions. The Statehas not employed a single, unified attainment analysis summary, and EPA is, in the final action, continuingto use the subregion information contained in the State's SIP summary document (1994 California Ozone SIP,Volume IV, Tables G-1, G-3, and G-5).EPA believes that thedata included in the "San Joaquin Valley Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans" is also helpful in characterizing, from both a subregional and basinwide perspective, the attainment requirements for, and emission reduction contributions from, each area.

The San Joaquin Valley Transportation Planning Agencies Directors Association commented that the San Joaquin Valley motorvehicle emission and activity projections are outdated. TheAssociation asked EPA to approve them but statethat conformity demonstrations be allowed to bemade with models or assumptions consistent with thoseused in the plan. The Association asked EPA to commit to rapidly expediting development ofa SIP revision to reflectthe new information for the development ofthe emission budget.

EPA will continue to work with the agencies involved in theupdate and refinement ofthe activity, emissions, and modeling data used in the SIP.EPA agrees that models and assumptions consistent with the plan should be used, in the interim, forpurposes of conformity determinations. Improvements to the technical foundations oftheplan's attainment demonstration are underway and should be substituted in the SIP when they are completed. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the existing plan adequately addresses applicable Clean AirAct requirements relating to emission inventories, projected inventories, and modeling analyses.

EPA is therefore taking final action to approve the State's modeling analysis and attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2)(A) ofthe Act. A summary ofthe emission reductions needed to attain the standard and reductions projected from the SIP control strategy is provided below in the table labeled "San Joaquin Valley Attainment Demonstration."

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1172 1997

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

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION [Tons per summer day]
North Central South ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory

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

............................................................. >129 >124 88 90 145 165 Reductions Needed

.......................................................... 0 0 38 25 72 202 Adopted measures

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

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

....................................... 8 2 4 2 3 1 Total Reductions

............................................................... 28 15 39 17 83 185 Remaining Emissions

....................................................... 101 109 87 98 134 182

For purposes ofthe attainment 4. Sacramento contained a typographical error,in demonstration, the Kern District portion a. ControlMeasures.CEPA labeling as "1996" the column for 1999 ofthe San Joaquin Valley was not commented that EPA's proposal listed a emission reductions. separately modeled, under the measure that was not in the SIP These measures arerelied upon in assumption that attainment in this area submittal: Placer County's Woodwaste meeting the attainment and post-1996 should result primarily from upwind Boilers measure. EPA is deleting the ROPrequirements ofthe Act. reductions achieved in the South San measure in this final approval action. Accordingly, and because the measures Joaquin sub-region. CARB provided minorcorrections to the strengthen the SIP, EPAis approving,

d. OverallEPA Action. EPA approves list ofadoption and implementation under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the San Joaquin Valley ozone SIP with dates. All ofthese changes have been the Act, the enforceable commitments to respect to the Act's requirements for incorporated in the final action. adopt and implement the control emission inventories, control measures, The table labeled "Sacramento Local measures by the dates specified to modeling, and demonstrations of 15% Control Measures" indicates the dates of achieve the emission reductions shown. ROP and post-1996 ROP and attainment, rule adoption and implementation and EPA also is assigning credit to the EPA also approves SJVAPCD's the emission reductions presumed to measures forpurposes ofROP and commitments to adopt and implement occur bythe 1999 and 2002 milestone attainment. EPA approval ofthe the listed control measures to achieve years and by 2005, the applicable adopted regulations will be completed the specified emissions reductions. attainment deadline. The proposal in separate rulemakings in the future.
SACRAMENTO LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES [Tons per day] Imple- Emission reductions VOC control measure title Implementing agency Adoption date mentation date 1999 2002 2005
ROG Control Measures

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

Architectural Coatings

........

Auto Refinishing

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

Fugitive HC Emissions

.......

GraphicArts

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

Landfill Gas Control

...........

Pleasure Craft Coating Operations. ECAPCD ............................ PCAPCD ............................ SMAQMD ........................... YSAPCD ............................ ECAPCD ............................ PCAPCD ............................ Amendmentto existing rule

SMAQMD YSAPCD. ECAPCD ............................ PCAPCD ............................ SMAQMD ........................... YSAPCD ............................ ECAPCD ............................ PCAPCD ............................ SMAQMD ........................... YSAPCD ............................ ECAPCD ............................ PCAPCD ............................ SMAQMD ........................... YSAPCD ............................ ECAPCD ............................ PCAPCD ............................ SMAQMD ........................... YSAPCD ............................ ECAPCD ............................
PCAPCD ............................ 2/95
.................................... 2/95. 5/95. Adopted '94. Adopted 4/95

..................... Adopted 3/95. Adopted 3/95. Adopted '94

....................... Adopted '94. 5/95. Adopted '94. 4/95
.................................... Adopted. Adopted. Adopted 4/94. Adopted 9/94

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

/95
.................................. Adopted
............................. 2/95
.................................... Adopted
............................. 4/96
.................................... 12/94. 1996 ........

1996 ........

1996 ........

1999 ........

June 1995

1996 ........ 1996. 1997. 1996. 1996-1999 

## 1173

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1173 1997

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

SACRAMENTO LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES-Continued [Tons per day] Imple- Emission reductions VOC control measure title Implementing agency Adoption date mentation date 1999 2002 2005
SMAQMD

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

............................ 4/95. Pleasure Craft Refueling

.... ECAPCD

............................ 1998

................................... 1999
........ 0.1 0.1 0.2 PCAPCD

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

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

............................ 1998. Polyester Resin Operations ECAPCD

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

.................................... 1997
........ 0.2 0.2 PCAPCD

............................ 1/96

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

. SMAQMD

........................... 1998

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

. YSAPCD

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

............ PCAPCD others?

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

.................................... 1996
........ 0.1 0.2 0.2 SOCMI Distillation/Reactors SMAQM Dothers?

............. 9/95

.................................... 1997
........ 1.4 1.5 1.6 Surface Preparation & ECAPCD

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

.................................... 1996
........ 3.0 3.3 3.6

Cleanup. PCAPCD

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

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

............................ Adopted 5/94. Vents on Underground SMAQMD

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

.................................... 1996
........ 0.1 0.2 0.2

Gasoline Storage Tanks. YSAPCD (both amend cur- 1/95. rent rules). Wood Products Coatings

... ECAPCD

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

.................................... 1996
........ 0.5 0.5 0.5 PCAPCD

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

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

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

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

. YSAPCD

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

### Regional NOxControl Measures

Boilers &Steam Genera- ECAPGD

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

....................... 1996-1997 0.8 0.9 1.0

tors. PCAPCD

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

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

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

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

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

................... 1997
........ 0.2 0.3 0.3 SMAQMD

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

............................ Adopted 7/94. Internal Combustion En- ECAPCD

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

....................... Phased in 0.3 0.4 0.5

gines. 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. M

obile NOx Measures 1. All

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

.................................. 1/97

......... 2.0 3.0 5.0 Off-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles2. On-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles.



### b. ROPProvisions.EPA isfinalizing ROP Plan in separate rulemaking. The labeled "Sacramento ROP Forecasts and approval ofSacramento area'spost-1996 ROP VOC targets, projected VOC Targets." ROP plan under section 182(b)(2) ofthe emissions, and creditable VOC and NOx Act. EPAwill act on Sacramento's 15% reductions are shown in thetable below SACRAMENTO 

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

Milestone Year 1996 1999 2002 2005
1990 Base Year VOC Inventory

....................................................................................... 211 211 211 211 VOC Inventory Projection

................................................................................................. 175 167 163 159 ROP V OC T arget ............................................................................................................. 162 142 124 107 Preliminary VOC Shortfall

................................................................................................ 13 25 39 52 VOC Reductionsfrom Committal M easures

.................................................................... 0 19 23 14

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1174 1997

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

SACRAMENTO 

### ROP FORECASTS AND 

### TARGETS-Continued [Tons per summer day]

Milestone Year 1996 1999 2002 2005
T otalV OC Shortfall
.......................................................................................................... 13 6 16 38 NO x Substitution in VOC Equivalents

.............................................................................. 13 6 16 38

c.ModelingandAttainment Demonstration.The Environmental Defense Center commented that Sacramento's attainment demonstration must be disapproved because CARB has rescinded the ZEV program, which was relied upon to produce emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate Sacramento's timely attainment. As discussed in Section I.B.3.c.(3) above, EPA strongly supports the State's ZEV program and, while CARB's March 1996 amendments to theZEV mandate eliminates theZEVproduction requirements for the 1998 through 2002 model years, the State's 10% production requirement for 2003 and later years remains inplace and some new compensating reductions are expected from the national LEVprogram. EPA does not have information to support the commenter's contention that the ZEV amendments invalidate Sacramento's attainment demonstration.

EPA is taking final action to approve the modeling analysis and attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2)(A) ofthe Act. A summary of the emission reductions needed to attain the standard and reductions projected from the SIP control strategy isprovided below in the table labeled "Sacramento Attainment Demonstration."

Sacramento attainment demonstration (tons per VOC NOx summerday)
1990 Baseline Emissions

Inventory

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

......... 137 98 Reductions Needed

..........85 66

From Adopted Measures 55 40 From Committed Local

M

easures

................... 17 7 From Committed State

Measures

................... 15 14 From National Measures1

....... . .... ..... ..... .... 1.6 4.3 Total

.................................. 88.6 65.3 Remaining Emissions

....... 133.4 98.7

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

d. OverallEPA Action. EPA approves the Sacramento ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control measures, modeling, and demonstrations ofpost1996 ROP and attainment. EPA also approves the local agencies' commitments to adopt and implement 

### the listed control measures to achieve the specified emissions reductions by 

### the dates shown. 5. Ventura.

a. 1995AQMP Update.Ventura's 1994 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), adopted on November 8, 1994,
was submitted as part ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP. On December 19, 1995, Ventura adopted a 1995 AQMP 

### revision, with slightly revised emission inventories, control measures, modeling analyses, and attainment demonstration. At the time oftheproposed action, CARB had not yet submitted this updated plan as a replacement for the 1994 AQMP, but the State indicated that it would do so in the near future and requested EPAto act upon portions of the 1995 AQMP in the final approval action. On July 12, 1996, CARB submitted the previously agreed upon portions ofthe 1995 AQMP intended to replace portions ofthe 1994 AQMP.



### EPA's proposal addressed much ofthe
new information from the 1995 AQMP, and EPA is now finalizing approval of the 1994AQMP as modified byportions ofthe 1995 AQMP. The specific modifications submitted byCARB are the "Revised Rule Adoption and Implementation Schedule" (Table 4-2) and Appendix E-95 (revised emissions from architectural coatings in Tables E43 and E-45) from the 1995 AQMP.

In their comment letters, the District and Environmental Defense Center (EDC)requested that EPArulemaking reflect the 1995 AQMP revision. EPAis not acting on the entire 1995 AQMP 

### revision atthis time because the entire revision has not been submitted bythe State. EPAis only acting on the portions ofthe 1995 AQMP which have been submitted by the State. In their SIP submittal, the State indicated that the remaining updates "will be submitted at
alater date after revisions to CARB's mobile source inventory are incorporated bythe District." After the remaining portions ofthe 1995 AQMP
are submitted, EPA intends to act 

### expeditiously totake action on the submittal.

b. 1990Base YearInventories. Ventura County APCD requested in their comment letter that the Ventura County SIP emissions inventory used in the NPRM be revised byexcluding OCS 

### emissions, sincethese OCS emissions

are outside the District's nonattainment
area. EPA is not proposing to change the inventory estimates because CARB has notrequested this change, and the totals
are consistent with their SIP submittal. EPA will continue to work with the District and CARB regarding the District's comment.


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

...................... 44 17 Mobile

............................ 41 56 Outer Continental Shelf 2 8
Total

................... 87 81

c. Control Measures. EPA's proposal addressed the 1995 AQMP updates to the control measures, with slightly revised adoption dates, implementation dates, and reductions fornumerous district measures already contained in the 1994 SIP. After EPA's proposal, Ventura adopted very minorfurther revisions to the rule adoption schedule for 5 measures (N-102, R-317, R-410, R-421, and R-425).No change was made to the implementation dates for the measures. Ventura adopted these minor changes on January 9, 1996. Ifthe changes are submitted as a further revision to the SIP rule adoption schedule, EPA intends to approve them since they do not adversely affect rateof-progress or attainment. Because the changes have not been submitted at the timeofthis action, however, EPAis finalizing approval ofthe schedule as revised byVentura on December 19, 1995, and submitted by CARB on July 12, 1996.

Also subsequent to EPA's proposal, the State and Ventura County APCD indicated that measures R-303, Architectural Coatings, and R-700/N700, Transportation Control Measures, should be included in the list ofcontrol
measures. The addition ofthese two
measures and minor adjustments to the adoption and implementation schedules and estimates ofemission reductions for
some ofthe controlmeasures are reflected in the table ofmeasures below, labeled "Ventura Local Control Measures." EPA's proposed approval 

### 1175

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1175 1997

### 1176 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

stated: "If a SIPrevision with the revised reduction estimates and
measure R-303 is submitted before EPA's final action, EPA proposes to approve it without further opportunity for public comment." EPA'sproposal also indicated the following finding: "Overall, therevised reduction estimates do not negatively impact ROP
or attainment."

The State and Ventura County APCD both requested that EPA approve in the final action measure R-700/N-700, Transportation Control Measures, and delete from the existing SIP prior transportation measures. Measure R700/N-700 was included in the 1994 Ventura AQMP but mistakenly omitted by the State from the list ofmeasures in the State's SIP. No emission reductions from any prior transportation measures were assumed in the 1994 or 1995 Ventura AQMP. In this document, EPA is taking final action to approve measure R-700/N-700, Transportation Control Measures, and rescind from the existing SIP allprior transportation control
measures.

The table labeled "Ventura Local Control Measures" indicates the dates of rule adoption and implementation and the emission reductions presumed to
occur byeach ROP milestone year and by 2005, the applicable attainment deadline. At therequest ofCARB and the District, EPA has deleted from this table the 1996 column ofreductions, since no reductions from new local
measures were used to demonstrate compliance with the 1996 ROP target.

The Environmental Defense Center commented that Ventura's measures are not fully articulated, that this violates the Administrative Procedures Act, and that the measures should be disapproved or conditionally approved. EPA disagrees with the commenter's characterization ofthe Ventura control
measures. The commenter does not give any examples ofwhat itperceives as ambiguities or vagueness. The measures are setforward with sufficient detail to understand the control category, the type ofemission standard expected to be adopted, likely compliance options, scheduled adoption and implementation dates, base year emissions for the category, and expected emission reductions from the measure by milestone year. As discussed in section I.B.2., EPA also disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that EPA may not fully approve specific enforceable commitments to adopt control measures.

The Ventura control measures are relied upon in meeting the post-1996 ROP and attainment requirements ofthe Act. Accordingly, and because the
measures strengthen the SIP, EPAis approving,under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, the enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the control measures bythe dates specified to achieve the emission reductions shown. EPA also is assigning credit to the measures for purposes of post-1996 ROP and attainment. Some ofthe measures have been adopted in regulatory form. These include N-101, adopted 3/14/95; R-105, adopted 12/13/94; R-403, adopted 5/9/ 95;R-419, adopted 11/8/94; R-424, adopted 5/9/95; and R-606, adopted 10/ 10/95. EPA has already approved R105, and EPA approval ofthe remaining regulations will be completed in separate rulemakings in the future.
VENTURA LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES [tons per day]

Rule No. Control measure Adoption Implementa- 1999 2002 2005 date tion date
N-101

...... Gas Turbines

.................................................................. 3/95 4/97 0.45 0.47 0.49 N-102

...... Boilers, Steam generators, Heaters, <1 mmbtu

............. 12/96 1/97 0.05 0.06 0.06 R-105

...... Glycol Dehydrators

......................................................... 12/94 7/96 0.73 0.65 0.57 R-303

...... AIM Architectural Coatings

............................................. 12/96 12/97 0.0 0.0 0.89 R-317

...... Clean-up Solvents and SolventWastes

......................... 6/96 7/96 1.57 1.67 1.76 R-322

...... Painter Certification Program

......................................... 6/97 12/97-12/98 0.48 0.51 0.53 R-324

...... Screen Printing Operations

............................................ 6/96 7/97 0.29 0.30 0.31 R-327

...... Electronic Component Manufacture

............................... 6/96 7/97 0.07 0.07 0.08 R-403

...... Vehicle Gas Dispensing-Phase II

................................ 5/95 1/96 0.22 0.22 0.23 R-410

...... Marine Tanker Loading

................................................... 9/96 7/97 0.0 0.0 0.0 R-419

...... Tank Degassing Operations

........................................... 11/94 3/95 0.03 0.03 0.02 R-420

...... Pleasure Craft FuelTransfer

.......................................... 6/97 7/98 0.08 0.08 0.08 R-421

...... Utility Engine Refueling Operations

................................ 12/96 9/97 0.19 0.20 0.20 R-424

...... Gasoline Transfer/Dispensing

........................................ 5/95 1/96 0.03 0.04 0.04 R-425

...... Enhanced Fugitive I/M Program

..................................... 9/96 5/97 1.21 1.07 0.95 R-606

...... Soil Decontamination

...................................................... 10/95 4/96 0.10 0.10 0.11 R-700

...... Transportation

................................................................. 96-05 1996-2005 0.0 0.0 0.58 N-700
...... Control Measures

.......................................... ........................ 0.0 0.0 0.50

1"R" refersto ROG control measures, "N" refersto NOxcontrol measures.

d. ROPProvisions.CARB and the District commented that the Ventura ROP Forecasts and Targets table in the NPRM contained erroneous information in the line titled "VOC Inventory Including Committals." EPA concurs 

### and has deleted theline from thetable below labeled "Ventura ROP Forecasts and Targets."

EPA isfinalizing approval of Ventura's ROP plan as meeting the 15% ROP requirements ofsection 182(b)(1) and the post-1996 ROP requirements of section 182(c)(2) ofthe Act. The ROP VOCtargets, projected VOC emissions, and creditable VOC and NOxreductions
are shown in the table below labeled "Ventura ROP Forecasts and Targets."

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1176 1997

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

### 1177

VENTURA 

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

Milestone Year 1996 1999 2002 2005
1990 Base Year VOC Inventory

....................................................................................... 85 85 85 85 VOC Inventory after Adopted Measures

.......................................................................... 64 60 57 55 ROP V OC T arget ............................................................................................................. 68 60 53 45 V

OC Shortfall
.................................................................................................................... 0 0 4 10 NOx Substitution in VOC Equivalents

.............................................................................. 0 0 4 10

e. ModelingandAttainment Demonstration.EPA's proposal reflected the additional modeling refinements and technical clarifications made in the 1995 AQMP, asrequested by the State and Ventura County APCD.

The Environmental Defense Center (EDC)commented that, "Assuming the competence ofthe Ventura County model, EDC is concerned that the 2005 prediction ofa .12 ppm peak ozone concentration provides virtually no buffer or room for error. Any relaxation, slippage or difficulties in adopting each ofthe control measures, local, state and federaljeopardizes Ventura County's timely attainment. Already CARB has rescinded the bulk oftheZEV program, thereby impairing Ventura County's prospects for attainment." The Act does not require SIPs to overcontrol and, under the current ozone NAAQS, a .12 ppm ozone concentration is not treated
as a violation. With respect to CARB's amendments to theZEV program, see the discussion in section I.B.3.c.(2).

EDC also commented that "EDC does not believe that the Ventura County AQMP and attendant state and national control measures are sufficient to provide for timely attainment ofthe
ozone NAAQS in Ventura County.EDC questions the validity ofthe model, including its assumptions." The commenter provided no new information or rationale for its assertions, and EPA continues to conclude thatthe attainment demonstration is approvable.

On June 13, 1996, CARB provided supplemental information to EPA which clarified the ROG reductions needed for attainment in Ventura. EPA has incorporated this minor change in the attainment demonstration shown below. This minor change affects ROG reductions from "Committed Local Measures" (increased from 5 tpd to 6 tpd) and the ROG "TOTAL" column (increased from 42 tpd to 43 tpd ROG). VENTURA ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION [In tons per summer day]
ROG NOx
1990 Baseline Emissions

Inventory

........................ 87 81 Carrying Capacity

............. 45 52 Reductions Needed
..........42 29

Reductionsfrom Adopted Measures
.............. 30 24 Committed Local Measures

......................... 6 1 Committed State Measures

............................ 6 4 Reductionsfrom National Measures1

........ 1 1

Total

....................... 43 30
1Credit shown is EPA's estimate of reductions from statutorily-mandated national rules.

f. OverallEPAAction. EPA approves the Ventura ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control measures, modeling, and demonstrations of 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP and attainment. EPA also approves the Ventura County APCD's commitments to adopt and implement the listed control measures to achieve the specified emissions reductions bythe dates shown.
7. South Coast

a.SIP ControlMeasures.(1) Updated Rule Adoption Schedule. EPA's proposal discussed the failure ofthe SCAQMD to adopt regulations on the schedule contained in the 1994 Ozone SIP, and asked the SCAQMD to adopt and submit arevised schedule that is "reasonable and aggressive." EPA indicated its intention to approve substitute dates if the revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement ofthe Act.

On April 12, 1996, the SCAQMD adopted an updated rule schedule for the South Coast. On July 10, 1996, CARB submitted the schedule as a SIP revision. In submitting the revision, CARB summarized the State's findings regarding impacts ofthe delayed adoption dates:

As stated in the Notice, the 1990 1996 rate-of-progress requirement forthe South Coast was met with previously adopted state andlocal rules and regulations. Although the revised schedulemay delay by ayear ortwo theimplementation dates ofafew control
measures and the associated emission reductions, all ofthe planned emission reductions will beon trackbythe year 2000. Thiswill not affect compliance with the Act's progress requirement since the 1994 Ozone SIP currently accounts for 68 tons per dayofvolatile organic compound emission reductions above and beyond the minimum progress requirement through 1999. Finally, because the2010 emission reductions from thecontrol measures remain unchanged, the attainment demonstration will notbe affected by thisrevised schedule.

EPA concludes that the revision would notviolate applicable provisions ofthe Act, including ROP and attainment, assuming that the SCAQMD adheres to the new schedule. EPA therefore takes final action to approve the revised adoption dates as listed in the table labeled "South Coast Local Control Measures."

(2) TCM Substitution. The State and the Southern California Association of Governments both requested that EPA's final approval ofthe South Coast TCMs and Indirect Source control measures be accompanied bydeletion ofprior TCMs approved as part ofprevious SIPs and replaced by these new measures. The previously approved TCMs have become outdated, and were not assumed in the current attainment demonstration. The request forTCM deletion was included in the 1994 SIP submittal as one ofthe elements ofthe SCAQMD's resolution ofadoption ofthe 1994 AQMP. In this document, EPA is takingfinal action to rescind from the applicable SIP allpreviously approved TCMs-an action which was mistakenly omitted from theproposal.

(3) Near-Term Control Measures. The State submitted comments making minor adjustments to the dates and emission reductions associated with the control measures. EPA is making those changes in this final action, as reflected in revisions to the table labeled "South CoastLocal Control Measures."

The State also requested several adjustments to the table ofmeasures. First, EPA's proposal included 12 SCAQMD measures which the State did notintend to submit aspart ofthe ozone

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1177 1997

### 1178 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

SIP on the grounds that they are not needed for ozone attainment: CMB-01A, CMB-01B, CMB-01C, CMB-01D, CMB01E, CMB-02A, CMB-02B, CMB-02C, CMB-06, CMB-10, CMB-11, and MON07. The State requested deletion ofthe
measures in the final action. EPA is correcting the mistake in the NPRM and eliminating these measures from the table.

Second, the State requested that EPA amend the table ofmeasures to substitute for VOC RECLAIM the "Substitute Measures for CTS-01 VOC RECLAIM" listed in Table A-10 of Volume IV ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP, alongwith thereductions originally associated with the VOC RECLAIM program. After submittal ofthe 1994 SIP, the SCAQMD decided not to adopt the VOC RECLAIM program, but to pursue instead these alternative sources ofequivalent reductions. To correct the mistake in the proposal, EPA has revised the table to incorporate this list ofsubstitute measures from the 1994 submittal, alongwith thereductions originally assigned to VOC RECLAIM.

Third, the State requested that EPA amend the table to list the South Coast transportation control measures (TCM

### 01, ATT-01, ATT-02, ATT-03, ATT04, and ATT-05) under measure RME01, which was intended to subsume them. In the final action, EPA has rearranged the table to display more accurately this relationship.

Fourth, the State asked EPA to clarify that the South Coast's market-based
measures (MKT-01, MKT-02, and MKT-03 23) are intended as possible alternatives to the 7 indirect source (ISR)measures in the SIP. In the final action, EPAhas added a footnote and rearranged the table to place the 3 market-based measures under the ISR
measures as potential replacements for them.

Finally, the State requested that EPA not make part ofthe SIP any emission reductions from new local measures for the 1996 ROP milestone year, since the 15% ROP plan assumes reductions only from adopted State and local rules. In the final action, EPA has deleted the 1996 column from the table oflocal
measures.

Environmental groups commented on EPA's proposed approval ofthe control
measures portion oftheplan. NRDC and the Coalition for Clean Air commented extensively on the issue ofwhether EPA should approve the South Coast commitments to adopt control measures and a SIP that isbased on those commitments rather than fully adopted

23Measure M 3, Congestion Pricing, was inadvertently omitted from the proposal. rules. EPAhas responded to these comments in section I.B.2.

The Environmental Defense Center (EDC)stated thatthe South Coastplan lacks potentially applicable controls and fails the "as expeditiously as practicable" standard. The commenter provided no examples ofcontrols that
were eithernot included in the South Coast SIP or were not scheduled for expeditious adoption and implementation. EPA believes that the SCAQMD and CARB adopted control
measures and enforceable schedules for adoption and implementation of additional measures together represent a thorough list ofcontrol measures in light ofcurrently available control technologies and control techniques. EPA further believes that the schedules for developing and adopting measures in the future reflects expeditious progress. CARB's adopted and scheduled mobile source, consumer product, and pesticides measures all go beyond (in many cases, they go considerably beyond) existing control requirements applicable elsewhere in the Country. SCAQMD's existing regulations generally represent the most complete and stringent controls for each subject source category in the Country.

EPA believes that SCAQMD's schedule for adopting rules meets any reasonable test for expeditious action, given the complexity ofmost ofthe pending regulations and the fact that most ofthe controls are for source categories previously unregulated or never yet controlled to the extent contemplated. SCAQMD's rate-ofprogress demonstration exceeds the Clean Air Act 3% per year requirement. Finally, both SCAQMD and CARB supplemented their comprehensive lists ofnear-term measures with newtechnology measures. The SCAQMD's advanced control technology research and development activities attract worldwide interest asthe most significant airpollution control technology development program ofany local airpollution control agency, and CARB's programs for investigating new technologies and fuels, particularly for motor vehicle emission reductions, receives similar acclaim. (4) New-Technology Measures. NRDC and the Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) had extensive comments on EPA's proposed approval ofthe newtechnology measures submitted by CARB and the SCAQMD for inclusion in the SIP under provisions ofsection 182(e)(5) ofthe Act. As discussed in the proposal, this CAA section authorizes EPA to approve conceptual measures that rely on new technologies or new control techniques as part ofthe attainment demonstration for the South Coast, the only "extreme" ozone nonattainment area. The Act requires that the measures not be needed to meet progress requirements for the first 10 years and that the submittal be accompanied by acommitment to adopt contingency measures 3 years before the new-technology measures are scheduled for implementation. EPA approved the CARB and SCAQMD new-technology
measures on August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379).24

NRDC and CCA asked that EPA include adoption dates for all section 182(e)(5) measures in the table ofSouth CoastLocal Control Measures. EPA agrees and has inserted the applicable dates, which were inadvertently omitted from the proposal.

NRDC and CCA commented that the SIP does notinclude adequate schedules and resource commitments for the measures. Both CARB and the SCAQMD have provided further information as updates to and elaboration on the development approach for the new-technology
measures. 25

Joint NRDC-CCA comments argued that the SIP does not include an adequate commitment from the State to adopt contingency measures atleast 3 years before proposed implementation ofthe measures, as required by section 182(e)(5)(B). In a letter from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow dated September 19, 1996, CARB has clarified that the State's "commitment in the SIP with respect to the contingency measure requirement is intended to provide the commitment required by the Clean Air Act."

NRDC and CCA argued that the South Coast SIP cannot be approved because it over-relies on speculative section 182(e)(5) new technologies, which the SIP fails to define adequately. EPA does notbelieve that the Act provides a quantitative limit on the extent to which the attainment demonstration may rely
on new-technology measures. Moreover, the majority ofneeded reductions in the South Coast attainment demonstration (roughly75% oftherequired VOC and

24Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, petitions forreview ofEPA's action in approving the
measures would need to have been properly filed within 60 days ofthis final action. Sincenew information has been provided relating to the section 182(e)(5) new-technology measures, however, EPA is addressing mostofthe comments that apply to EPA's prior approval action.

25Letter from Lynn Terry, AssistantExecutive Officer, CARB, to Julia Barrow, Chief, Planning Office, Air &Radiation Division, USEPA, dated September 19, 1996; letter fromBarry Wallerstein, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Dave Howekamp, Division Director, Air &Toxics Division, Region IXUSEPA, dated September 18, 1996. This correspondence ispart ofEPA's rulemaking docket.

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1178 1997

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

NOxreductions) derive from currently adopted rules or enforceable commitments to adoptrules in the near future.

Nevertheless, EPA agrees with the commenters that all theresponsible parties should work together to reduce the size ofthe new-technology component ofthe SIP by expeditiously converting these measures first into carefully defined control development projects and then into feasible regulations. EPA commits to do its share to support the needed research and development activities ofCARB and the SCAQMD.

Measures which the 1994 South Coast Ozone SIP scheduled for near-term adoption and implementation, or any portion ofthe emissions reductions scheduled to be achieved as a result of implementation ofthose near-term measures, may not be converted, at
somefuture time, into section 182(e)(5) new-technology measures or moved into emissions reductions associated with section 182(e)(5) new technology measures, without a convincing showing in a SIP revision that the technologies relied upon in the nearterm rules havebeen found to be technologically infeasible or ineffective in achieving emissions reductions in the near-term. The near-term measures in the 1994 SIPhave not been determined to "anticipate development ofnew control techniques or improvement of existing control technologies" (section 182(e)(5)). On the contrary, they were evidently determined bythe SCAQMD and CARB to be both available and necessary for expeditious progress in reducing emissions in the near term in the South Coast. Should either CARB or the SCAQMD determine that new information requires areconsideration ofthe near-term feasibility ofthe 1994 SIP near-term measures, the agencies must submit a SIP revision demonstrating convincingly thatthe standard defined in this paragraph above for conversion ofnear-term
measures to section 182(e)(5) new technology measures has been met. Absent such a convincing showing, a SIP revision will not be approved by EPA.

In view ofcontinuing progress in the development and successful application ofcontrol technologies and control techniques, the amount and relative proportion ofreductions from measures scheduled for long-term adoption under section 182(e)(5), as compared to
measures already adopted in regulatory form or scheduled for near-term adoption, should clearly decrease in any future SIP update. EPA will not approve a SIP revision that contains an increase in the amount and relative proportion of reductions scheduled for long-term adoption under section 182(e)(5) thatis inconsistent with the standard defined in the preceding paragraph. Further, to the extent new modeling performed in any subsequent SIP revision demonstrates that there is an increase in the year 2010 carrying capacity for ROG and NOx, this change shall not be used to decrease the amount ofemissions reductions scheduled to be achieved by any near-term measure from the 1994 SIP unless CARB or the SCAQMD make the convincing showing required by the preceding paragraph.

EPA also agrees with the commenters that, aspart ofCalifornia's 1997 SIP revision, the SCAQMD should provide greater specificity in the description of the South Coast Air Basin long-term control measures. In order to help
ensure that the measures are successfully developed and adopted pursuant to the requirements ofsection 182(e)(5), the 1997 SIP and a summary from publicly available budget documents submitted to EPA must define the long-term measures more precisely with respect to the affected
source categories, expected reductions from each category (or as many categories as may be feasible), the most likely controltechnologies and control techniques to be employed, the agency's working schedule for each phase in the development and adoption ofthe control measures, evidence ofadequate
resources committed to the activities, and opportunities for the public to be informed and involved in the process. Furthermore, to ensure approvability of the 1997 SIP, the revision must contain
a level of specificity for the nonbudgetary items noted above atleast containing the level ofdetail in the clarification to draft Appendix IV to the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan, which further defines the section 182(e)(5) measures, attached as Attachment 2 to the letter from Barry Wallerstein to Dave Howekamp, dated September 18, 1996. The level of specificity in the Long-Term Control Measure for Miscellaneous VOC Sources should be enhanced as additional information becomes available. EPA understands that thisclarification to draftAppendix IV is being made available for public review and will be formally considered for adoption by the SCAQMD Governing Board.

(5) EPA Action. EPA concludes that the control measures should be approved in the final action. The South Coast controlmeasures arerelied upon in meeting thepost-1996 ROP and attainment requirements ofthe Act. Accordingly, and because the measures strengthen the SIP, EPAis approving, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the near-term control measures by the dates specified to achieve the emission reductions shown. EPA also is assigning credit to the near-term and new-technology
measures forpurposes ofpost-1996 ROP and attainment.
SOUTH COAST LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES [Tons per day ofVOC/NOx]
Control meas- Control measure title Implementing Adoption Implementa1 ure No. Control measure title agency date tion dates 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

CTS-01
...........

CTS-A
............ CTS-B
............ CTS-C
............ CTS-D
............ CTS-E
............ CTS-F
............. CTS-G
............ CTS-H
............ CTS- I
.............. CTS-J
............. CTS-K
............ Substitute Measures for VOC RECLAIM (12 rules listed immediately below). Electronic Components

............. Petroleum Cold Cleaning

.......... Solvent Cleaning Operations

..... Marine/Pleasure Craft Coatings Adh esives .................................. Motor Vehicle Non-Assembly

Coating. Paper/Fabric/Film Coatings

....... Metal Parts/Products Coatings

.. Graphic Arts/Screen Printing

..... Wood Products Coatings

........... Aerospace/Component Coatings SCAQMD
........

SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ .................... 1998-2010 22.5/0 29.9/0 37.4/0 44.9/0 49.9/0 

### 1179

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1179 1997

## 1180 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

SOUTH COAST LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES-Continued [Tons per day ofVOC/NOx]
Control meas- Control measure title Implementing Adoption Implementa1 ure No. Control measure title agency date tion dates 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

CTS-L
............. CTS-02
...........

ATT-02

........... 

### IAdvanced Shuttle Transit

.......... 0 3 ...........
0 4 ...........
0 5 ........... 1994 1998-2005

1998-2005

1997-1997

1996-1996 Automotive Assembly Operations. Emission Reductions from Solvents and Coatings at NonRECLAIM Sources. Consumer Product Labeling

Program. Public Awareness/Education

Programs-Area Sources. Further Emission Reductions

from Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Operations. Further Emission Reductions

from Architectural Coatings (Rule 1113). Emission Reductions from Organic LiquidTransfer. Emission Reductions from Active Draining of Liquid Products. Further Emission Reductions

from Floating Roof Tanks. Further Emission Reductions of

Fugitive Emissions. Emission Reductions from Utility

Engine Refueling Operations. Further Emission Reductions

from Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. Emission Reductions from

Pleasure Boat Fueling Operations. Further Controls of Emissions

from Internal Combustion Engines. Area Source Credits for Commercial and Residential Combustion Equipment. Area Source Credits for Energy

Conservation. Clean Stationary Fuels

.............. Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery Flares. Promotion of Lighter Color

Roofing and Road Materials and Tree Planting. In-Use Compliance Program for

Air Pollution Control Equipment. Further Emission Reductions

from Bakeries. Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations. Emission Reductions from Rubber Products Manufacturing. Emission Reductions from Malt

Beverage Production Facilities and Wine or Brandy Making Facilities. SIP Amendments-for Miscellaneous Sources. Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste. Emission Reductions from

Composting of Dewatered Sewage Sludge. Waste Burning

........................... Disposal of Materials Containing

Volatile Organic Compounds. Regional Mobility Adjustment

(subsumes next 6 measures intable). Transportation Improvements

.... Telecommunications

.................. CTS-07

...........

FUG-01

.......... FUG-02

..........

FUG-03

.......... FUG-04

.......... RFL-01

........... RFL-02

...........

RFL-03

...........

CMB-02F

........

CMB-03

.......... SCAQMD ........ SCAQMD ........

SCAQMD ........ SCAQMD ........ SCAQMD ........

SCAQMD ........

SCAQMD ........ SCAQMD ........

SCAQMD ........ SCAQMD ........ SCAQMD ........ SCAQMD ........

SCAQMD ........

SCAQMD ........

SCAQMD ........

SCAQMD ........ SCAQMD ........ SCAQMD ........ SCAQMD/local

govts.
SCAQMD

........

SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........

SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........

SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD
........

SCAG
.............. SCAQMD/

SCAG/local govts. SCAQMD/

SCAG/local govts. 1997-2000

1996-2008 1999-1999

1996-1998

12/961 1997-1997

1996
10/96

1996
1996

Various

12/96

1997 1998-2001

1996-2001

1997-1997

1997-1997

1998-1998

1996-2003

1998-2000

1996 1998-1998 1996 1998-2001

1997 2000-2010

.................... 1995-2010

1995-2010 8/96 2001-2006

1995 1996-1996
7/96 1996-1996 25.0/0

0/0
0/0
2.49/0

0/0

4.96/0
5.52/0

0/0
0/0
0/0
4.94/0

.77/0

1.52/6.83

0/0

0/0
1.22/1.01 0/0
0/0

0/0

.24/0

8.55/0
.13/0

0/0

.06/0

8.39/0

0/0

.07/0

.8/0
11.3/1.15

0/0 0/0

0/0 58.1/0

0/0
0/0
2.73/0

27.49/0

5.11/0
5.73/0

0/0
.75/0
.04/0
5.06/0

.80/0

1.74/6.62

0/0

0/0
2.27/1.76 0/0
0/0

0/0

.64/0
10.77/0

.13/0

0/0

.06/0
8.86/0

0/0

.07/0 2.12/0
15.98/6.58

0/0 0/0

0/0 80.9/0

0/0
0/0
2.9/0

40.5/0

5.01/0

5.49/0

0/0
.75/0
.04/0

5.2/0

.83

1.99/5.43

0/0

0/0
3.53/2.84 0/0
0/0

0/0

.68/0
11.14/0

.13/0

0/0

.06/0
9.31/0

0/0

.06/0 2.21/0
18.5/13.74

0/0 0/0

0/0 88.3/0

0/0
0/0
2.99/0

60.65/0

4.98/0

5.05/0

0/0
.75/0
.05/0
5.44/0

.86/0

2.19/3.67

0/0

0/0
3.99/2.71 0/0
0/0

0/0

.72/0
11.49/0

.13/0

0/0

.05/0
9.77/0

0/0

.06/0 2.31/0
20.64/21.77

0/0 0/0

0/0 92.8/0

0/0
0/0
2.99/0

62.26/0

4.98/0
4.76/0

0/0
.75/0
.06/0

5.58/0

.88/0

2.29/2.20

0/0

0/0
4.09/2.41 0/0
0/0

0/0

.75/0

11.7/0
.13/0

0/0

.05/0
10.07/0

0/0

.06/0 2.37/0
22.26/27.67

0/0 0/0

0/0 1998-1998

2000-2010

2000-2010

1996-2000

1996 1996-1996

11/96 1998-2008

11/96 1997-2000

04 ..........
05 .......... 07 ..........
01 ..........

MSC-02

..........

PRC-02

.......... PRC-03

.......... PRC-04

.......... PRC-05

..........

SIP- 01 ............ WST-01

.......... WST-02
..........

WST-03

.......... WST-04

.......... RME-01

..........

TCM-01

.......... ATT-01

...........

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1180 1997

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

SOUTH COAST LOCAL CONTROL MEASURES-Continued [Tons per day ofVOC/NOx]
Control meas- Control measure title Implementing Adoption Implementa1 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010 ure No. agency date tion dates 1999 2002 2 2 2010

ATT-03 ...........
ATT-04 ........... ATT-05
...........

01 ............ 02
............
03 ............

ISR-04
............ ISR-05
............ ISR-06
............ ISR-07
............ MKT-01

.......... MKT-02

.......... MKT-03

.......... MON-01

..........

MON-02

..........

MON-04

.......... MON-05

.......... MON-06

.......... MOF-03

.......... MOF-04

..........

FSS-01

........... ADV-CTS-01

ADV-FUG .......
ADV-PRC .......
ADV-UNSP .....

ADV-CTS-02 Zero Emission Vehicles/Infrastructure. Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Infrastructure. Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems. Special Event Centers (SCAG

Measure TCM #10). Shopping Centers (SCAG

Measure TCM #11). Registration and Commercial

Vehicles (SCAG Measure TCM #12). Airport Ground Access (SCAG

Measure TCM #13). Trip Reduction for Schools

(SCAG Measure TCM #14). Enhanced Rule 1501 (SCAG

Measure TCM #15). Parking Cash-Out (SCAG

Measure TCM #16). Emission/VMT

............................ At-the-PumpFee

....................... Congestion Pricing

.................... Emission Reduction Credits for

Low-Emission Retrofit Fleet Vehicles. Eliminate Excessive Car Dealership Vehicle Starts; Educational. Eliminate Excessive Curb Idling;

Educational. Emissions Reduction Credit for

Heavy-Duty Buses. Emissions Reduction Credit for

Heavy-DutyTrucks. Emission Reduction Credits for

Leaf Blowers. Off-Road Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credit Programs. Stage IEpisode Plans

............... Advanced Technology-Coating

Technologies. Advanced Technology-Fugitive

Emission Controls. Advanced Technology-Process

Related Emissions. Advanced Technology-Unspecified Stationary Source Controls. Advanced Technology-Coating

Technologies. Partnership

...... Partnership

...... SCAQMD/

SCAG/local govts. SCAQMD/local

govts. SCAQMD/local

govts. SCAQMD

........

SCAQMD/local

govts. SCAQMD/local

govts. SCAQMD/local

govts. SCAQMD/local

govts. SCAG
.............. SCAG
.............. SCAG
.............. SCAQMD/

CARB.
SCAQMD/local

govts.
SCAQMD/local

govts. SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD/local

govts. SCAQMD

........

SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........ SCAQMD

........

SCAQMD

........ 1995-2010

1995-2010

1995-2010

1997-2010

1997-2010

1997-2010

1997-2010

1997-2010

1997-2010

1997-2010

2000-2010 2000-2010 2000-2010 1996-2010

1 996 1....................

1996

1995

1995
5/96

1995

2003-2005

2003-5

2003-5

2003-5 1995-2010

1996-2010

1996-2010

2005-2010 2006-2010

2006-2010

2006-2010

2006-2010

1996-20001 1997-2010 .77/.84
1.36/1.5

0/0

.38/.42
.21/.24.
2.86/3.15

.17/.17

0/0

0/0

0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0

0/0 0/0
0/0
0/0

0/0

0/0 1.4/1.67
2.3/2.73

0/0

.77/.92
.47/.63
3.01/3.59

.13/.14

0/0

0/0

0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0

0/0 0/0
0/0
0/0

0/0

20.44/0 1.07/1.43
1.75/2.35

0/0

.59/.79

.46/.72
2.30/3.08

.10/.12

0/0

0/0

0/0
.12/.65

0/0
0/0
0/0

0/0 0/0
0/0
0/0

0/0

32.37/0 .45/.7
.35/.64
1.75/2.72

.08/.11

0/0

0/0

0/0
.11/.65

0/0
0/0
0/0

0/0 14.35/0
14.13/0

7.55/0
39.45/0

45.38/0 1.33/2.2
1.69/2.89

0/0

.38/.65
.38/.74
1.48/2.51

.06/.1

0/0

0/0

0/0
.11/.65

0/0
0/0
0/0

0/0 23.88/0
23.11/0
12.27/0
66.97/0

54.69/0

*Alternativeto ISR measures above.



### c. ROPProvisions.EPA isfinalizing the Act.The ROP VOC targets, projected reflects CARB's requestthat the State's approval ofthe South Coast ROP plan VOC emissions, and creditable VOC and ROPforecasts be substituted for the
asmeeting the 15% ROP requirements NOx reductions are shown in the table SCAQMDplan forecasts, which EPA ofsection 182(b)(1) and thepost-1996 below labeled "South Coast ROP erroneously displayed in theproposal. ROP requirements ofsection 182(c)(2) of Forecasts and Targets." The table

SOUTH COAST 

### ROP FORECASTS [In tons per summer day]

1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
VOC emissions to meet ROP target

................................ 1181 1019 890 767 647 568 VOC emissions with plan reductions

................................ 1144 951 818 686 530 323

e. ModelingandAttainment Demonstration.The Environmental 

### Defense Center (EDC)commented that EPA should reject the South Coast's attainment demonstration because CARBhas abandoned theZEVprogram. 

## 1181

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1181 1997

## 1182 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

EPA does not have information to support the commenter's contention that the ZEV amendments invalidate the attainment demonstration. See discussion in section I.B.3.c.(2).

As discussed above in theproposal and in section I.B.1., EPA's proposed approval ofthe South Coast attainment demonstration was based, in part, on the State's submission ofan enforceable SIP commitment to adopt and submit as a SIPrevision:

(a) a revised attainment demonstration for the South Coast as appropriate after a consultative process on future mobile source controls. This SIPrevision would be due December 31, 1997; and

(b) enforceable emission limitations and other control measures needed to achieve the emission reductions which
are determined to be appropriate for the State. This SIP revision would be due
no later than December 31, 1999.

On May 17, 1996, CARB submitted this commitment in the form of Executive Order G-96-03, attached to a letter from John D.Dunlap, III, to Felicia Marcus. The Executive Order includes the following language:

Now, Therefore,it is Orderedthatpursuant toBoard Resolution 94 60,ARBhereby commits toparticipate in the consultative process described above, and to adopt and submit as aSIPrevision: (a)By December 31, 1997, arevised attainment demonstration for the South Coast Air Basin as appropriate after the consultative process, and (b) by December 31, 1999, control measures needed to achieve anyadditional emission reductions which are determined tobe appropriate.

EPA is taking final action to approve this commitment under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a), and the modeling analysis and attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2)(A) ofthe Act. A summary ofthe emission reductions needed to attain the standard and reductions projected from the SIP control strategy is provided below in the table labeled "South Coast Attainment Demonstration."
SOUTH COAST ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION [Tons per summer day]


### VOC 

# ] NO×< 1990 Baseline Emissions

Inventory ........................ Carrying Capacity

............. Reductions Needed
.......... Reductionsfrom Adopted

measures ....................... Committed Local measures ................................ Committed State measures ................................ 1517 323 1194
463
453
231 

### SOUTH COAST ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION-Continued [Tons per summer day] 

### VOC NO×
"Federal Assignments" 47 109 Total
....................... 1194 808

The South Coast attainment demonstration relies, in part, on reductions from a fully-enhanced I/M program. As discussed in EPA's proposed approval ofCalifornia's enhanced I/Mprogram and above in section II.A.3., credits associated with this control measure will become permanent followingthe State's submission ofthe required analysis demonstrating that the enhanced I/M program is achieving the emission reductions claimed in the attainment demonstration. At that point, EPA's approval ofthe South Coast attainment demonstration will also become permanent.

f.OverallEPAAction. EPA approves the South Coast ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control measures, modeling, and demonstrations of 15% ROP, post-1996 ROP, and attainment. EPA approves SCAQMD's commitments to adopt and implement the near-term control measures to achieve the specified emission reductions by the dates shown. EPA also approves CARB's commitments relating to the public consultative process and future SIP revisions.
7. Southeast Desert (a)ControlMeasures.As discussed in EPA's proposal, the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area ("Southeast Desert") covers the Victor Valley/Barstow region in San Bernardino County ("Mojave"), the Coachella Valley/San Jacinto region in Riverside County ("Coachella"), and the Antelope Valley region in Los Angeles County ("Antelope"). 26 The first ofthese
areas is the responsibility ofthe Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD).The second and third areas are currently the responsibility ofthe SCAQMD. Separate control measures, ROP and attainment demonstrations
were prepared for each ofthe areas.

The SCAQMD's existing rules and committal measures apply not only

553 26TheState has recently changed the names of 808 the respective airbasins. Under State law, the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area is now part of 429 the Salton Sea AirBasin, and Antelope Valley is part ofthe Mojave Desert AirBasin. In its 1996 session, the California State Legislature passed 43 legislation that would establish anew air agency to have theresponsibility for local airpollution plans 227 and measures in the Antelope Valley area. throughout the South Coast AirBasin but also in the SCAQMD's portions of the Southeast Desert. The SIP includes the State measures and a subset ofthe SCAQMD measures approved above in sections II.A. and II.B.6., but does not add to that list any unique State or local controls for the Coachella and Antelope regions.

The MDAQMD included in the Mojave Plan 7 measures, all ofwhich have now been adopted in regulatory form. Three ofthe rules have been approved as part ofthe SIP: 461 Gasoline Transfer Dispensing, 1103 Asphalt Paving, and 1160 Internal Combustion Engines. The table labeled "Mojave SIP Control Measures and VOC/NOx Reductions lists the rules that have not yetbeen approved. This table includes Rules 1157, 1158, and 1159, which were mistakenly omitted from the proposal.

The MDAQMD controlmeasures are relied upon in meeting the attainment requirements ofthe Act. Accordingly, and because the measures strengthen the SIP, EPA is approving, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, the enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the control measures to achieve the emission reductions shown. EPA also is assigning credit to the
measures forpurposes ofattainment.


### MOJAVE SIP CONTROL MEASURES AND VOC/NOx REDUCTIONS [In Tons/Day for 1996]
MDAQMD Measure VOC NOx
Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings
............ 0.92 0 Rule 1157 Boilers/

Process Heaters
........ 0 0.04 Rule 1158 Electric

Power Generation

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

b. ROPProvisions.EPA will take action on the ROP provisions for the Southeast Desert in separate rulemakings.

c. ModelingandAttainment Demonstration.As discussed in the proposal, the SIP includes modeling information, based on the South Coast UAM analysis, demonstrating that reductions from the South Coast SIP (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.

d. OverallEPAAction. EPA approves the Southeast Desert ozone SIP with

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1182 1997

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

respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control measures, modeling, and demonstration of attainment. EPA also approves MDAQMD's commitments to adopt and implement the listed control measures to achieve the specified emissions reductions. EPA will take action on the 15% ROP and thepost-1996 ROP plan elements for the three Southeast Desert subregions in separate rulemakings. III. SummaryofEPA Actions

EPA approves the following elements ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP for the listed areas, as meeting applicable CAA requirements:

(1) Emission Inventories for San Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, South Coast, and Southeast Desert, under section 182(a)(1) ofthe CAA.

(2) 15% ROP Plans for San Diego, San Joaquin, Ventura, and South Coast, under section 182(b)(1).

(3) Post-1996 ROP Plans for San Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, and South Coast, under section 182(c)(2)(B) ofthe CAA.

(4) Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations for 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.B., 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.

(6) All ofthe State's control measures contained in the 1994 California Ozone SIP that EPA has not previously approved: M1-Accelerated Retirement ofLDVs, M4-Early Introduction of2g/ bhp-hr Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles, M7-Accelerated Retirement ofHDVs, CP3- Aerosol Paints, and Pesticides, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). EPA approval includes assignment of specific emissions reductions by nonattainment area and milestone year (as displayed in the tables in section II.A.) for all ofthe State control measures, including those previously approved under sections 110(k)(3), 182(e)(5), and 301(a) ofthe CAA. Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) ofthe Act, EPA approves CARB's commitments to revise the South Coast attainment demonstration and adopt appropriate
measures following the conclusion of the public consultative process. Under section 301 ofthe Act, EPA issues the Agency's commitment to undertake rulemaking to promulgate additional Federal measures determined to be appropriate. EPA approves California's I/M regulations under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). EPA also approves the State's basic I/Mprogram under sections 182(b)(4) and 187(a)(4) ofthe CAA and the enhanced I/M program, including the assignment ofspecific emissions reductions identified in section II.A.3. above, under sections 182(c)(3) and 187(a)(6) ofthe CAA and section 348(c) ofthe Highway Act.

In final action, EPA deletes from the applicable SIP alltransportation control
measures included in prior SIPs for Ventura and the South Coast, and Fresno measure "Exclusive High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Freeway 41."

EPA will take separate regulatory action on the 15% ROP Plans for Sacramento and the Southeast Desert and the post-1996 ROP Plan for the Southeast Desert.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing aprecedent for any future request for revision to any SIP. Each request for revision 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
A. Executive Order12886

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.
B. RegulatoryFlexibilityAct

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 etseq.,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, EPA may 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 nothave
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 intothe economic reasonableness ofstate action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. UnfundedMandates

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

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that mayresult in estimated costs of$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. ThisFederal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
D.Submissionto Congressandthe GeneralAccountingOffice

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) ofthe Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing thisrule and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General ofthe General Accounting Office prior to publication ofthe rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) ofthe APA as amended. 

## 1183

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1183 1997

## 1184 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

E.Petitions forJudicialReview Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by March 10, 1997. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthisrule for the purposes ofjudicialreview nor does it extend the time within which apetition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) Appendix A: Current Status ofEPA's Activities Relating to the "Federal Assignments" in the California SIP Submittal

Note: The 1994 California Ozone SIP includes "Federal" mobile source assignments (SIPMeasures M6, M10, M12, M13, M14, M15, and M16). In so doing,the State notonly askedEPA tocomplete statutorilymandated responsibilities but also toundertake discretionary regulations to achieve specific mobile source emission reductions needed for the California attainment demonstrations, particularly for the South Coast. Thisfact sheet summarizes the current status ofFederal activities relating tothe source categories covered by each oftheState's "Federal Assignments." Heavy DutyDiesel Vehicles

Measure M6 ofthe 1994 California Ozone State Implementation Plan ("the SIP") provides for adoption byEPAofaFederal oxides ofnitrogen (NOx)standard fornew heavy-duty diesel on-highway vehicles. The NOx standard called for inthe SIP is 2.0 grams per brakehorsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), tobe implemented beginning in 2004. A Federal standard would helpreduce emissions from the large number ofout-ofstatetrucks which operate in California.

EPA is fulfillingits commitmentto propose tighter NOx emission standards for Federal on-highway heavy-duty vehicles as part of the NOx/PM (particulate matter) Initiative. On July 11, 1995, EPA, theCalifornia Air Resources Board (CARB),and the leading manufacturers ofheavy-duty engines signed
a StatementofPrinciples (SOP)that established aconsensus plan tosubstantially reduce emissions from future trucks and buses on a nationwide basis.The goalofthe SOP istoensure cleaner air in amanner which isboth realisticfor theheavy-duty engine industry and responds to environmental needs as well. As aresult of the SOP, EPApublished an Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)onAugust 31, 1995. The ANPRM announced plans to propose achoice ofstandards for combined non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus NOx: 2.4g/bhp-hr, or 2.5 g/bhp-hr with an NMHC cap of0.5 g/bhp-hr. Engines meeting these future standards are expected tobe over 80percent cleaner thanpre-control engines. EPA formally proposed these standards and related provisions in aNotice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on June 27, 1996 (61 FR33421 33469). The FinalRule has a target publication date ofwinter 1996 1997. The new standards would be implemented beginning in 2004 and would apply to all on-highway heavy-duty engines.

CARB played a very important role in the achievement ofthe Statement ofPrinciples (SOP).In addition, CARB has given EPA tremendous support in the development of the ANPRM and theNPRM. As a result ofthe SOP and rulemaking processes, EPA and CARB will haveharmonized programs for
new heavy-duty engines, an advantage for engine manufacturers.
Off-Road Industrial Equipment (Diesel)

Measure M10 ofthe SIPprovides for adoption byEPA ofa Federal NOx standard for, at a minimum, new farm and construction equipment with diesel engines rated at less than 175 hp (130 kw). These are the engines which California is preempted from regulating under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The NOx standard called for in the SIP is 2.5 g/bhp-hr (3.3 g/kw-hr), to be implemented beginning in 2005.

In its 1991 Nonroad Study,EPA determined that nonroad diesel engines rated at 37 kw and more, including those covered in SIP measure M10, emit a substantial portion ofthe nation's NOx inventory. In response, EPA set a 9.2 g/kw-hrNOx standard for these engines in 1994, to be phased-in beginning in 1996. The Agency also expressed its intent to undertake a second tier of standard settingto further control these emissions. The Clean Air Act provides for this as a discretionary effort and contains no requirements or guidance regarding the level or timing ofthe standards.

Initial work on this second tier ofstandard settingis currently underway aspart 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 by eliminating thepotential for equipment with higher-emitting engines being transported across state borders. Harmonized standards would alsohave obvious advantages for manufacturers. The participation ofCARB staffon this initiative has been invaluable.

EPA, CARB, and allkey nonroad diesel engine and equipment manufacturers signed
an SOP on September 13, 1996, similar in many ways to the SOP signed in 1995 relating to highwayheavy-duty engines. EPA expects to propose standards for diesel engines used in most land-based nonroad equipment and in some marine applications. The proposed standards will represent second and third tiers ofcontrol for larger engines and will also include Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards for smalldiesel engines. These standards are expected to result in major reductions in this very large class ofemission sources, with NOx reductions ranging from 40 75%, depending on engine size. Also based on the SOP, EPA expects to propose special provisions which provide implementation flexibility to manufacturers ofthe nonroad equipment in which these engines are used to account for engine modifications which the engine manufacturers may choose to make. In addition to resulting in a common set of standards for this category for EPA and CARB, these standards will essentially achieve harmonization ofstandards between theU.S. and Europe.
Gas and LPG Equipment25-175 Horsepower

Measure M12 ofthe SIPprovides for adoption byEPA ofa Federal program that willimplement three-way catalyst technology on new nonroad equipment powered by gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)engines rated at between 25 hp (18 kw) and 175 hp (130 kw). The goal ofthis
measure it toreduce NOx emissions by at least 50 percent and hydrocarbon emissions by 75percent. This is a complementary
measure to measure M10 and much ofthe discussion ofthat measure applies here as well.

EPA does not currently have any emission standards for gasoline or LPG engines in this category. However, under a consent decree signed by EPA with the Sierra Club on June 10, 1993, EPA agreed to determine by November 30, 1996 whether or not to regulate large gasoline nonroad engines and, if so, by what schedule. At this time,the Agency is considering setting standards for these engines as part ofthe NOx/PM Initiative and has begun discussions about a possible SOP. Although substantial emission reductions may bepursued, there is no
assurance that setting standards as low as those sought by CARB would be the most appropriate approach nationwide.
Marine Vessels

Measure M13 ofthe SIPassumes that the U.S. EPA and International Maritime Organization (IMO) will adopt emission standards that willreduce NOx emissions from new marine diesel engines by 30 percent. M13 also assumes that EPA will issue standards for new marine diesel engines used in vessels operated primarily in domestic waters that willreduce NOx emissions by at least 65 percent.

The IMO, a special agency oftheUnited Nations, is developing regulations for the reduction ofNOx and sulfur oxides (SOx) from ships. These regulations are part of a
new Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention ofPollution from Ships (MARPOL73/78), which addresses the control ofair pollution from ships. An IMO committee, theMarine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) is scheduled to finalize the draft Annex in March 1997. A diplomatic conference will be held in September 1997 to review and adopt theAnnex. After adoption, each signatory country will consider theAnnex for ratification and, after the ratification requirements specified in theAnnex are met, itwill go intoeffect. Before theAnnex can be enforced within U.S. waters, Congress will have to ratify it and provide appropriate authority to a government agency to implement it.

The emission requirements set out in the Annex will apply only to engines larger than

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1184 1997

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

130kW (175 hp)installed on ships constructed on or afterJanuary 1, 2000; engines installed on ships constructed before that date are exempt. However, the standards will apply to any replacement engine installed on any ship beginning January 1, 2000, as well as to engines that undergo "substantial modification" or whose power is increased by 10 percent. Because existing engines are not covered by the standards, achieving the target 30percent reduction will require considerable time (turnover ofships is estimated to be about 30 years). Also, it will be necessary for the annex to achieve full implementation by flag states.

Only one-third ofthe commercial marine fleet willhave turned over by 2010; therefore, the full 30 percent emission reduction from marine vessels will not be realized. To achieve greaterreductions more quickly, it will be necessary to explore operational controls on ocean-going commercial marine vessels that operate offCalifornia's coasts, particularly in the South Coast region. Three studies are underway to investigate issues relating to the contribution ofthese marine vessels to air quality in the South Coast area and along the Santa Barbara channel. Collectively, these studies willhelp EPA and other interested parties understand and explore potential operational control strategies needed for further emissions reductions from marine sources. EPA is involved in allofthese efforts, along with the United States Navy, the United States Coast Guard, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and CARB.

The largest ofthese studies is sponsored by the United States Navy. This goal ofthis study is to better characterize ship traffic and its impact on ozone exceedances in Ventura County. It will investigate air trajectory and transport mechanisms, clarify ship traffic patterns, collect ozone measurement data, and collect weather parameters for modeling. This on-going study is not complete atthis time. A second study, sponsored by SCAQMD, will measure the marine vessel emission inventory and explore potential control strategies. The SCAQMD study should be completed by June 1996. A third study, the Southern California Transport Study, led by CARB, will examine air pollution transport in Southern California. This study willprovide an enhanced air quality and meteorological database for Southern California, which willprovide the basis for improved modeling. Data will be collected at the surface and aloft, as well as
over water.

As originally drafted, the standards set out in MARPOL Annex VI would apply to any engine larger than 130 kW installed on a vessel that operates in the "marine environment." This means that the Annex would apply to vessels operatingin domestic
as well as international waters. To preserve the ability to set more stringent standards for engines installed on vessels that operate in U.S. domestic waters, the U.S. sought to limit the application ofthe Annex. Specifically, at the July 1996 MEPC meeting, theU.S. succeeded in obtainingan exemption to the Annex for high speed engines installed on vessels that are not engaged in international voyages. This exemption gives EPA the ability to pursue more stringent national emission control for high speed diesel marine engines on vessels that operate primarily in domestic waters. EPA is currently preparing
an NPRM to set standards for these engines.
Locomotives

In Measure M14, CARB assumed locomotive emission reductions from two EPAprograms. The first ofthese programs was the statutorily required EPA national regulation for locomotives and locomotive engines, (national locomotive regulation). EPA expects that theplanned national locomotive regulation will provide all ofthe 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 EPA has considered a special locomotive program for the South Coast. This program would ensure that alllocomotives operating in the South Coast achieve on average, an emission level equal to EPA national locomotive regulation tier 2 standards. Since these standards are technology forcing, the practical requirement would be to require an accelerated fleet turnover in the South Coast such that only the newest engines meeting theEPA tier2 standards would operate in the South Coast. This program would provide an approximately two-thirds reduction in locomotive NOx emissions in the South Coast by 2010 and result in aNOx emission level of 12 tons/day in the South Coast. The railroads that operate in the South Coast have indicated support for this program. EPA is continuing to explore innovative approaches to establish the South Coast clean locomotive fleet program as part ofthe SIP.
Aircraft

Measure M15 calls for U.S. EPA to adopt standards to effect a 30 percent reduction in reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx emissions beginning in 2000.M15 apparently applies to new commercial aircraft engines, but also suggests reconsideration 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 EPAthat would reduce ROG and NOx emissions from this source by 30 percent beginning in 2000. The SIP also correctly acknowledges that military aircraft engines are currently exempt from emission standards, which otherwise apply to commercial aircraft engines. In this regard, the SIP recommends that theexempt status ofthese aircraft be reconsidered.

The International CivilAviation Organization (ICAO) is themost appropriate forum for establishing commercial aircraft engine emission standards due to the international nature ofthe aviation industry. EPA is currently preparing a direct final rule to formally adopt the existing ICAO NOx and CO standards.

EPA has actively participated in considering more stringent NOx standards as part ofICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP)in the intervening period since theFIP. 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 beingproduced) in 2008. The revised standard would not affect engines already in air service. No revision of thehydrocarbon emission standard was considered by CAEP at thetime, principally because modern turbine engines are considered very "clean" in this regard.

The CAEP recommendation will now move through theICAO hierarchy for consideration. Initially, the ICAO Council willact on therecommendation. Ifthe Council finds it acceptable, the revision
moves to thefull ICAO Assembly for final action. This process may not be 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 oftherevised 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 ofthepotential benefits willbe realized by the SIP's attainment date.

Turning to the exemption for military engines, EPA agrees with the SIP recommendation that such a blanket exemption should be reconsidered in the consultative process. EPA hopes to address the feasibility ofapplying emission standards to military engines in the public consultative process.

EPA has also continued to explore other ways to reduce the environmental effects of air travel in California and throughout the nation in the intervening period since the FIP. More specifically, the Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are working cooperatively to encourage continuing progress in reducing emissions from ground service equipment and aircraft auxiliary power units. EPA has sponsored additional work to compile technical data and emission inventory methods. This information will be used by theFederal Aviation Administration to develop an Advisory Circular foruse by airlines and airport authorities interested in reducing the emissions from these sources. Pleasurecraft

Measure M16 assumes that U.S. EPA finalizes proposed national ROGand NOx standards for various categories ofnew engines used in watercraft.

EPA has finalized its proposed emission standards for spark-ignition marine engines. The final rule is expected to reduce by about 75% theHC emissions from outboard motors, personal watercraft, andjet boats beginning in model year 1998. EPA has issued guidance to states on the amount ofcredit that will be allowed due to this rulemaking. There is no second phase rulemaking planned. 

## 1185

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1185 1997

### 1186 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

EPA has not yet finalized the proposed emission standards for compression-ignition marine engines. The court ordered deadline for completion ofthis action is December 1996. EPA has not yet issued guidance to states on the amount ofcredit that will be allowed due to this rulemaking. Appendix B: Schedule for Public Consultative Process Background: The Need to Achieve Our Public Health Goals

Airpollution remains a significant public health concern in manyparts ofthe country, including many areas ofCalifornia. The Clean Air Act requires states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs) that lay out how
areas will reduce pollution and attain the health-based air quality standards for a number ofpollutants including ground level
ozone smog.

Despite the dramatic progress that aggressive air quality regulations have made in reducing smog levels, residents ofthe South Coast continue to experience by far the worst air pollution in the United States. The 1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast shows the need for massive additional reductions to reach target emission levels ofVOC and NOx-volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, thepollutants thatreact with sunlight to form ozone.

The South Coast SIP includes federal, state and local regulations and commitments to achieve the emission reductions needed to attain the national ozone health standard by 2010. U.S. EPA has already issued or is in the process ofissuing stringent national controls
on most categories ofmobile sources, including heavy-duty trucks and buses; construction, farm, and lawn and garden equipment; pleasure craft; some categories of marine vessels; and locomotives. PurposeofthePublicConsultativeProcesson FutureMobile Source Controls

Through a public process, we hope together to identify the bestoptions for achieving further emission reductions from mobile source controls, at least to the extent they are needed for attainment ofthe ozone health standard in the South Coast, and to
ensure that appropriate parties accept responsibility for adopting and implementing the controls expeditiously.
Schedule

July 19, 1996 Los Angeles public meeting to introduce to the general public the consultative process and to allow California stakeholders an opportunity toprovide input to the proposed national truck and bus rules during thepublic comment period.

November 1996 Los Angeles public meeting to discuss pending national and international ship controls, possible reductions from port measures, pending national and international aircraft controls, and possible reductions from airport

measures.

November 1996 to May 1997 Los Angeles informal workshops to provide further input
on desirable control measures for airports/ aircraft and (separately) ports/ships.

February 1997 Los Angeles public meeting to continue discussions of opportunities for reductions from future mobile source measures and to allow California stakeholders to provide informal input to theproposed national nonroad rules during the public comment period.

June 1997 Los Angeles public meeting or public hearing to summarize findings during the consultative process, identifying SIP reductions from specific new measures and setting out an approach for dealing with the remaining shortfall (if any).
FutureUpdatesto the Schedule

Information on thedate and location of public meetings will be placed on EPA Region 9's siteon the Internet's World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/region09 (go to Air Programs). Those wishing to be placed on EPA's mailing listfor public consultative process meeting announcements should write orphone Julia Barrow (see the Addresses portion ofthis document).
List of Subjects 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.

Dated: September 25, 1996. Felicia Marcus, RegionalAdm inistrator.

Part 52,chapter I,title 40 of the Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 7671q. 

### Subpart F-California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by addingparagraphs (c)(204)(i)(A)(6), (c)(204)(i)(B)(2), (c)(204)(i)(C) through (F), (c)(205)(i)(A), (c)(213), and (c)(233) through (238) to read as follows: § 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c)* * * (204) * * * 

### (i) * * * (A)* * * 

### (6)State control measures: Accelerated Retirement ofLDV's (Measure MI),Early Introduction of2g/ bhp-hr Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles (Measure M4),Accelerated Retirement ofHeavy-Duty Vehicles (Measure M7), Aerosol Paints (Measure CP3), and California Department ofPesticide Regulation's Pesticide Plan, as 

### contained in "The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume II: The AirResources Board's Mobile Source and Consumer Products Elements," adopted on November 15, 1994, and tables oflocal agency control
measures and revisions to local Rate-ofProgress plan elements as contained in "The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume IV: "Local Plans," 

### adopted on November 15, 1994.



### (B) * * * (2) Control measures, emissions inventory, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in "1994 Air Quality Management 

### Plan," adopted on September 9, 1994.

(C) San Diego Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Emissions inventory, 15% Rate-ofProgress plan, Post-1996 Rate-ofProgress plan, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in "1994 Ozone Attainment and Rate-ofProgress Plans for San Diego County," adopted on November 1, 1994.

(D) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Control measures, emissions inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress plan, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration,as contained in "San 

### Joaquin Valley Attainment and Rate-ofProgress Plans," adopted on November 14, 1994.

(E) Ventura County AirPollution Control District.

(1) Control measures, emissions inventory, 15% Rate-of-Progress plan, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration,as contained in "1994 AirQuality Management Plan for Ventura County," adopted on November 8, 1994.

(F)Mojave Desert AirQuality Management District. (1) Control measures, emissions inventory, modeling, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in "Rate-of-Progress and Attainment Demonstration Plans for theMojave Desert," adopted on October 26, 1994.

(205) * * * (i) * * * 

### (A) Kern County AirPollution Control District.

(1) Emissions inventory, modeling, 

### and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in "Rate-of-Progress and Attainment Demonstration Plans for the Kern County AirPollution Control District," adopted on December 1, 1994. * * * * *

(213) California Statewide Emission Inventory submitted on March 30, 1995, by the Governor's designee. 

### (i)Incorporation byreference. (A) California AirResources Board. (1) 1990Base-Year Emission Inventory for Ozone Nonattainment Areas in California.

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1186 1997

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

(i) Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura.

(233) New and amended plans for the following agencies were submitted on December 29, 1994, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation byreference. (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.

(1) 15% Rate-of-Progress plan and Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area, as contained in the "Rate-ofProgress Plan Revision: South Coast Air Basin &Antelope Valley &Coachella/ San Jacinto Planning Area," adopted on December 9, 1994.

(B) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

(1) Emissions inventory, Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, modeling, and
ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in "Sacramento Area Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans," adopted by Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District on December 1, 1994; by Feather River Air Quality Management District on December 12, 1994; by El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District on December 13, 1994; by Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District on December 14, 1994; and by Placer County Air Pollution Control District on December 20, 1994.

(234) The California Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program
was submitted on January 22, 1996, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation byreference. (A) California Air Resources Board. (1) Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program adopted on January 22, 1996.

(i) Health and Safety Code: Division 26, Part 5 §39032.5; Chapter 5. Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, Article 9.

(ii)Business and Professions Code, Chapter 20.3, Automotive Repair, Article 4, §9886, §9886.1, §9886.2, §9886.4.

(iii)Vehicle Code §4000.1, §4000.2, §4000.3, §4000.6.



### (iv) Title 16, California Code or Regulations, Division 33, Bureau of Automotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, §3340.1, §3340.5, §3340.6, §3340.10, §3340.15, §3340.16, §3340.16.5, § 3340.16.6, §3340.17, §3340.18, §3340.22, §3340.22.1, § 3340.22.2, §3340.22.3, §3340.23, §3340.24, §3340.28, §3340.29, §3340.30, §3340.31, §3340.32, §3340.32.1, § 3340.33, §3340.33.1, §3340.35, § 3340.35, §3340.36, §3340.41, §3340.41.3, §3340.41.5, §3340.42, § 3340.42.1., §3340.50, §3340.50.1, § 3340.50.3, §3340.50.4, §3340.50.5.

(235) New and amended plans for the following agencies were submitted on May 17, 1996, by the Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A) California Air Resources Board. (1)Executive Order G-96-031, dated May 17, 1996, State commitment to participate in public consultative process, submit arevised attainment demonstration for the South Coast as appropriate byDecember 31, 1997, and submit control measures to achieve emission reductions determined to be appropriate, ifany, byDecember 31, 1999.

(236) New and amended plans for the following agencies were submitted on June 13, 1996, by the Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A) California Air Resources Board. (])Letterdated June 13, 1996, from James D.Boyd to David Howekamp, including "Corrections to State and Local Measures" (Attachment A) and "Summary Emission Reduction Spreadsheets" (Attachment C).

(237) New and amended plans for the following agencies were submitted on July 10, 1996, by the Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District. (1) Revised rule adoption schedule, adopted on April 12, 1996.

(238) New and amended plans for the following agencies were submitted on July 12, 1996, by the Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.

(1) "Revised Rule Adoption and Implementation Schedule" (Table 4-2) and "Architectural Coatings" (Appendix E-95, Tables E-43 and E-45) contained in "Ventura County 1995 Air Quality Management Plan Revision," adopted
on December 19, 1995. (B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. (1) Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress plan, as contained in "San Joaquin Valley Revised Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plans," adopted on September 20, 1995. 3.40 CFRpart 52 is amended by adding anew section 52.238 to read as follows: §52.238 Commitment to undertake rulemaking.

(a) The Administrator shall undertake rulemaking, afterthe South Coast mobile source public consultative process, to promulgate any VOC and NOx mobile source controls which are determined to be appropriate for EPA and needed for ozone attainment in the Los Angeles-South CoastAir Basin Area.

4.40 CFRpart 52 is amended by adding a new section 52.241 to read as follows: §52.241 Interim approval ofenhanced 

### inspectionandmaintenance program.

(a) Under section 348(c) ofthe National Highway Systems Designation Act (Pub.L. 104-59), the California SIP is approved as meeting the provisions of section 182(c)(3) for applicable ozone areas and section 187(a)(6) for applicable carbon monoxide areas with respect to the requirements for enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance. This approval expires on August 7, 1998, or earlierif by such earlier date the State has submitted as a SIP revision therequired demonstration that the credits are appropriate and that the program is otherwise in compliance with the Clean AirAct and EPA takes final action approving that revision.

[FR Doc. 97 144 Filed 1 7 97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY 40CFR PART 52 [CA114-0025; FRL-5665-9] Approvaland Promulgation of Implementation Plans;California; Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION:Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is approving arevision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone for Santa Barbara County. Specifically, EPA is approving the emissions inventory, control measures, and 15% rate-of-progress plan. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted this SIP revision to EPA on November 14, 1994.

EPA is approving this revision to the California SIP under provisions ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA action on SIP submittals for nonattainment areas. EFFECTIVE DATE: This approval is effective on February 7, 1997. ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in Docket No. 

### 1187

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1187 1997

## 1188 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

A-96-13, which is available for viewing during normal business hours at the following location: Air Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Copies 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),public comments, and EPA's technical support documents for this rulemaking are available at the following location: Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, 26 Castilian Drive B-23, Goleta, California. ElectronicAvailability

This document and related materials
are available at Region 9's site on the World Wide Web athttp:// www.epa.gov/region09 (please look under Air Programs). The Federal Register is also available on the Internet by pointing aweb browser at: http:// www.access.gpo.gov/su docs/ or by telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Barrow, Chief,Office ofPlanning, Air Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

### I. Background.
A. Summary

EPA is finalizing approval ofthe emissions inventory, control measures, and 15% rate-of-progress (ROP) plan for the Santa Barbara County ozone nonattainment area, as included in the 1994 California Ozone SIP.' This action
was proposed on March 18, 1996, as part ofaction on the 1994 California Ozone SIP (61 FR 10920-10962). EPA has separately finalized approval ofall elements proposed for approval in that document, with the exception ofSanta Barbara plan elements. The reader is referred to the notice ofproposed rulemaking for additional detail on the SIP submittal (including State measures and analyses), as well as a summary of relevant Clean Air Act requirements and

1TheFederal ozone nonattainment areais the "Santa Barbara-SantaMaria-Lompoc Area," which comprises the entire County ofSanta Barbara (see 40 CFR 81.305). EPA interpretations ofthose requirements. Santa Barbara is currently classified
as amoderate nonattainment area for
ozone (40CFR 81.305). As a result, the SIP must contain adequate control
measures and commitments to demonstrate attainment ofthe ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by 1996, in accordance with sections 181(a)(1) and 172(c)(6) ofthe CAA.

The 1994 SIP employed an urban airshed modeling analysis to demonstrate that the control strategy will result in NAAQS attainment by the deadline. After the 1994 SIP had been prepared, exceedances ofthe ozone NAAQS were recorded during both 1994 and 1995. This precluded Santa Barbara from achieving the ozone standard by 1996.2

Section 181(a)(5) ofthe Act, however, authorizes EPAto grant aone-year extension ofthe attainment date upon request bythe State, if an areahas complied with allrequirements in the SIP and records no more than one exceedance during the attainment year. Based on this provision, EPA proposed to approve Santa Barbara's plan as meeting the attainment demonstration requirements ofsection 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act, assuming that the area experienced no more than one exceedance during the 1996 ozone season.

After theproposed approval ofthe Santa Barbara plan was issued in March 1996, several locations in Santa Barbara recorded exceedances ofthe ozone standard. These exceedances now disqualify the area from receiving a oneyear attainment deadline extension. Therefore, there is no longer abasis for EPA's proposed approval ofthe attainment demonstration and the supporting modeling analysis. Forthis reason, CARB has withdrawn the attainment demonstration portion ofthe SIP.3

2Attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS is achieved when the number ofexceedances at each monitoring site within the area, averaged over the past 3 calendar years, is less than or equal to 1. An exceedance is a daily maximum hourly average
ozone concentration that is greater than the 0.12 ppm standard. (40 CFR 50, App. H)

3November 6, 1996 letterfrom Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, CARB, to Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, EPA, withdrawing the Santa Barbara ozone attainment demonstration. The letter also encloses an October 18, 1996 letter from Douglas W. Allard (SBCAPCD)to Michael P. Kenny, requesting withdrawal ofthe attainment demonstration. Allard's letter notes that, on October 17, 1996, "the Air Pollution Control Board directed
me to request that the AirResources Board withdraw the attainment demonstration element from the 1994 Clean AirPlan (CAP), a component of the StateImplementation Plan." Because the State has withdrawn this SIP element, EPAis not responding in this document to extensive Environmental Defense Center comments on EPA's proposed approval ofSanta Barbara's modeling and attainment demonstration. EPA encourages the State and local agencies to address those comments, to the extent that they remain relevant, in the preparation ofattainment demonstrations in the future.
B. SIPSubmittals

On November 15, 1994, CARB adopted and submitted arevision to the "State ofCalifornia Implementation Plan for Achieving and Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (ozone SIP).The revision consists of: (a) The State's comprehensive ozone plan, including the State's own measures and the State's summaries of,and revisions to, the local plans; (b) the State's previously adopted regulations for consumer products and reformulated gasoline and diesel fuels; and (c) local plans addressing the ozone attainment demonstration and ROP requirements. EPAhas previously finalized approval ofall ofthe State's
measures and most ofthe elements of the local plans, with the exception of the plan for Santa Barbara.

EPA is today approving elements from the following ozone SIP submittals:

1. "1994 Clean Air Plan for Santa Barbara County," adopted by the Board ofthe Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District on November 2, 1994. The November 14, 1994, submittal letter for this plan is from James Boyd, Executive Officer ofCARB, to EPA Regional Administrator Felicia Marcus.

2. On March 30, 1995, CARB submitted revised 1990base year emission inventories for each ofthe California ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is approving in this document the Santa Barbara portion ofthe State's submittal.
C.EPA CompletenessFindings

On April 18, 1995 the EPA issued a finding ofcompleteness, pursuant to 40 CFRPart51, Appendix V, for the Santa Barbara plan portion ofthe November 1994 and March 1995 submittals with regard to: (1) 15% ROP requirement of section 182(b)(1)(A); and (2) 1990base year inventory requirements of section 182(a)(1). 4

4EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 (55FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56FR 42216).

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1188 1997

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

II. Review ofthe SIP Submittal, Response to Comments on Specific SIP Issues, andEPA FinalAction
A. EmissionsInventory

The Environmental Defense Center (EDC)provided two comments on the emissions inventory. First, EDC stated that significant amounts ofemissions from variances and violations, construction activities, and small source exemptions are excluded from the inventory. Second, EDCstated that the 1996 inventory misstates emissions by not removing from the inventory those emissions associated with the shutdown ofthe Battles Gas plant in July 1995, thus allowing banking ofthese emissions.

The emission inventories for Santa Barbara were developed in accordance with EPA guidance, using the most accurate data available. 5 The SIP's base year and projected inventories include the District's best estimations of emissions from construction activities and, to the extent data are available, emissions from unpermitted sources. The 1990 baseline inventories and the projected inventories also address variances and violations through use of control factors that reflect general estimations ofrule effectiveness.

The Battles Gas Plant was not shut down but under permit and in operation when the Clean Air Plan was adopted. EPA's emissions inventory guidelines and 15% rate-of-progress guidelines do not require thatprojected inventories eliminate emissions from sources that may be shut down in the future. 6

EPA is finalizing approval ofthe Santa Barbara emission inventories as meeting therequirements ofsection 182(a)(1) ofthe Act.
B. ControlMeasures

EDC objected to the SBCAPCD's wholesale deletion of 1982 control measures, including measures which required development ofrules incorporating therelative ozone formation potential ofvarious emissions.

In general, the 1994 SIP does not delete the 1982 SIP measures but rather updates them. EPA does not believe that the CAA requires the District to retain

5See the list of SIPinventory guidance documents in the supplement to EPA's General Preamble for the Implementation ofTitle Iofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, issued on April 28, 1992 (57FR 18070 18071).

6 1ndeed, Rate-of-Progress projected inventories generally should bebased on allowable levels. See EPA's Emission Inventory Requirements for Ozone State Implementation Plans (EPA 450/4 91 010), March 1991, pp. 3 6 7. Until permits are surrendered, sources should be assumed to be in operation. its prior commitments to develop reactivity-based rules, which are neither specifically mandated bythe CAA nor associated with particular emission reductions or ambient air quality benefits in the 1982 SIP.

EDC stated that the inadequacy ofthe SIP control measures is apparent, given Santa Barbara's violations ofthe ozone NAAQS. EPA interprets the comment as meaning that EDCdoes notbelieve that the control measures achieve sufficient emission reductions to attain the ozone NAAQS by 1996. The Agency is not addressing this issue because, as noted above, the State has withdrawn the attainment demonstration portion ofthe Santa Barbara plan. EPA is, however, approving the individual control
measures in the SIP (1994 Clean Air Plan, Tables 4-2 and 5-1) under the provisions ofCAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a), because they strengthen the SIP.

Table 5-1 ofSanta Barbara's plan describes the area's transportation control measures (TCMs), which supersede the TCM listin the previously approved 1982 SIP. On May 1, 1995, EPA took direct final action to approve TCM-5, and to delete the Goleta Transit Center from the 1982 SIP (60 FR21045). The 1994 Clean Air Plan shows that allofthe 1982 TCMs have either been fully implemented or replaced by 1994TCMs.

All non-transportation related control
measures identified in the Santa Barbara Clean Air Plan have been fully adopted in regulatory form. Ifany ofthese regulations, which are assumed in the baseline ofthe Clean Air Plan, are relaxed or in practice achieve fewer emission reductions than relied upon in the SIP, the District must submit replacement rules on an expeditious schedule.

Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA takes final action to approve the SIP control measures, including contingency measure T-21, because these measures strengthen the SIP.
C.ROPProvisions

EPA is finalizing approval ofthe ROP plan asmeeting the 15% ROP requirements ofsection 182(b)(1) ofthe Act. The ROP ROGtargets, projected ROG emissions, and creditable ROG reductions are shown below in the table labeled "Santa Barbara ROP Forecasts and Targets." Creditable emission reductions from fully adopted regulations reduce emissions below the ROP target level for 1996. SANTA BARBARA 

### ROP FORECASTS AND TARGETS [In tons of ROG per summer day;excludes OCS emissions]

1990 BaseYear Inventory

.................... 57 1996 Projections (Adopted Measures) 41 1996 ROPTarget

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

III.Summary ofEPA Actions

EPA approves the following elements ofthe 1994 California Ozone SIP for Santa Barbara, as meeting applicable CAA requirements:

(1) Emission Inventories for Santa Barbara under section 182(a)(1) ofthe CAA.

(2) 15% ROPPlan for Santa Barbara under section 182(b)(1). (3) Santa Barbara's control measures, including contingency measure T-21, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing aprecedent for any future request for revision to any SIP. Each request for revision 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
A. Executive Order12886

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), asrevised 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.
B. RegulatoryFlexibilityAct

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 etseq., 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, EPA may 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 

## 1189

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1189 1997

### 1190 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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).
C. UnfundedMandates

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

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate thatmay result in estimated costs of$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
D.Submission to Congressandthe GeneralAccountingOffice

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) ofthe Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as amended bythe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General ofthe General Accounting Office prior to publication ofthe rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is not a "major rule" as defined by section 804(2) ofthe APA as amended.
E. Petitionsfor JudicialReview Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by March 10, 1997. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which apetition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) Listof Subjects 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.

Dated:November 7, 1996. Felicia Marcus, RegionalAdministrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:42U.S.C. 7401 7671q. Subpart F-California



### 2. Section 52.220 is amended by addingparagraphs (c)(21 1)(i)(A)(2), and (c)(213)(i)(A)(1)(i) to read asfollows: §52.220 Identificationof plan. * * * * *

(c) * * * (211) * * * 

### (i) * * * (A) * * * (2) Emissions inventory, 15% Rate-ofProgress plan, and control measures, as contained in "1994 Clean AirPlan for Santa Barbara County," adopted on November 2, 1994. * * * * *

(213) * * * (i) * * * (A) * * * (1)*** (i) Santa Barbara. * * * * * [FR Doc. 97 145 Filed 1 7 97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 1190 1997