Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6091

and which could have been avoided by

abandonment of the lease, or by

commencement of development

operations, or by obtaining production.

Section 1.612–3(c)(2) of the final

regulations provides that since a delay

rental is in the nature of rent, it is

ordinary income to the payee and not

subject to depletion. The payor may at

his election deduct the delay rental as

an expense, or charge it to depletable

capital account under section 266.

Section 263A was enacted subsequent

to the issuance of § 1.612–3(c) of the

final regulations. The uniform

capitalization rules of section 263A

generally require the capitalization of all

direct costs and certain indirect costs

properly allocable to property produced

by the taxpayer. Capitalization may be

required even though production

(development) has not yet begun.

§ 1.263A–2(a)(3)(ii). In some situations,

a delay rental may be required to be

capitalized under section 263A.

Accordingly, the proposed regulation

clarifies that subsequent to the

enactment of section 263A, the payor of

a delay rental may elect to expense

currently the delay rental or charge it to

depletable capital account under section

266 to the extent that the delay rental is

not required to be capitalized under

section 263A and the regulations

thereunder.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this notice

of proposed rulemaking is not a

significant regulatory action as defined

in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a

regulatory assessment is not required. It

has also been determined that section

553(b) of the Administrative Procedure

Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply

to these regulations, and because the

regulations do not impose a collection

of information on small entities, a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not

required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of

the Internal Revenue Code, this notice

of proposed rulemaking will be

submitted to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration for comment on its

impact on small business.

Comments and Public Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are

adopted as final regulations,

consideration will be given to any

written comments that are submitted

timely (a signed original and eight

copies) to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury

request comments on the clarity of the

proposed regulations and they may be

made easier to understand. All

comments will be made available for

public inspection and copying.

A public hearing has been scheduled

for May 26, 2000, at 10 a.m. in room

2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC. Because of access restrictions,

visitors will not be admitted beyond the

Internal Revenue Building lobby more

than 15 minutes before the hearing

starts.

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3)

apply to the hearing.

Persons that wish to present oral

comments at the hearing must submit

written comments (a signed original and

eight (8) copies) by May 8, 2000. The

outline of topics to be discussed at the

hearing must be received by May 5,

2000.

A period of 10 minutes will be

allotted for each person for making

comments.

An agenda showing the scheduling of

the speakers will be prepared after the

deadline for receiving outlines has

passed. Copies of the agenda will be

available free of charge at the hearing.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this proposed

regulation is Brenda M. Stewart of the

Office of Assistant Chief Counsel

(Passthroughs and Special Industries),

Internal Revenue Service. However,

other personnel from the IRS and

Treasury Department participated in its

development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the

Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1—INCOME TAX

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 1 continues to read in part as

follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. In § 1.612–3, the second

sentence of paragraph (c)(2) is removed

and two sentences are added in its place

to read as follows:

§ 1.612–3 Depletion; treatment of bonus

and advanced royalty.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * * To the extent the delay

rental is not required to be capitalized

under section 263A and the regulations

thereunder, the payor may at his

election deduct such amount or under

section 266 and the regulations

thereunder, charge it to depletable

capital account. The second sentence of

this paragraph (c)(2) applies to delay

rentals paid with respect to leasing

transactions entered into on or after the

date these regulations are published as

final regulations in the Federal Register.

* * * * *

Robert E. Wenzel,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 00–2730 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA–237–0221; FRL–6534–5]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California—

South Coast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a state implementation plan (SIP)

revision by the State of California to

provide for attainment of the ozone

national ambient air quality standard

(NAAQS) in the Los Angeles-South

Coast Air Basin Area (South Coast). EPA

is proposing to approve the SIP revision

under provisions of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards, and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Dave Jesson (AIR–2),

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, or

jesson.david@epa.gov. The rulemaking

docket for this notice is available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at EPA’s Region IX

office. A reasonable fee may be charged

for copying parts of the docket.

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the following

locations:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, California

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, California

The SIP materials are also

electronically available at: http://

www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Jesson at (415) 744–1288.

6092 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1.The 1999 air quality information is preliminary

data from EPA’s Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS). For a description of the boundaries

of the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, see 40

CFR 81.305. The nonattainment area includes all of

Orange County and the more populated portions of

Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside

Counties.

2.In 1998, the areas with the highest peak 1-hour

ozone concentrations were: South Coast .244 ppm,

Houston .230 ppm, Southeast Desert (the area

immediately to the east of the South Coast) .202

ppm, San Joaquin Valley .194 ppm, Ventura County

.174 ppm, San Diego County .164 ppm. An area

exceeds the 1-hour ozone standard each time an

ambient air quality monitor records a 1-hour

average concentration above 0.124 ppm. An area is

violating the standard if, over a consecutive 3-year

period, more than 3 exceedances are expected to

occur at any one monitor. Ground-level ozone is

formed when emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx)

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the

presence of sunlight. NOx and VOCs are referred to

as precursors of ozone. California air quality

agencies generally use the term ‘‘reactive organic

gas’’ (ROG) instead of VOC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

section provides background

information on the South Coast ozone

plan, applicable Clean Air Act

requirements, and EPA’s proposed

action on the plan.

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. What is the ozone problem in the South

Coast?

B. What Clean Air Act requirements apply

to this plan?

C. What action have we taken on previous

South Coast ozone plans?

1. Final approval of the 1994 ozone SIP

2. Proposed partial approval and partial

disapproval of the 1997 ozone revision

3. Final approval of a 1999 State update to

the South Coast ozone SIP reflecting

conclusion to the Public Consultative

Process (PCP) and the implementation

status of CARB’s control measures.

D. What are the changes in the new plan?

1. Control measure revisions

2. Technical revisions

E. What further revisions are planned in

the future?

II. Review of the Revised Ozone Plan

A. Did the SCAQMD and CARB meet the

CAA procedural requirements?

B. Do the revised baseline and projected

emissions inventories meet CAA

requirements?

C. Is the modeled attainment

demonstration consistent with modeling

guidelines?

D. Do the control measures meet CAA

requirements?

1. What are the applicable CAA

requirements?

2. How does the revised ozone plan address

these requirements?

a. Control measures already adopted

b. Short- and intermediate-term control

measure commitments

c. Long-term control measure commitments

3. Does the revised ozone plan meet the

CAA requirements for control measures?

a. Short- and intermediate-term control

measure commitments

b. Long-term control measure commitments

E. Does the plan show reasonable further

progress?

1. What are the applicable CAA

requirements?

2. How does the revised ozone plan

address these requirements?

3. Does the revised ozone plan meet the

CAA requirements?

F. Does the plan provide for attainment?

1. What are the applicable CAA

requirements?

2. How does the revised ozone plan

address these requirements?

3. Does the revised ozone plan meet the

CAA requirements?

G. Are the emissions budgets approvable?

1. Motor vehicle emissions budgets

2. General conformity emissions budgets

H. What are the implications of our proposed

plan approval?

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What is the ozone problem in the

South Coast?

In 1999 the South Coast had the

largest number of ozone violations in

the country, and trailed only the

Houston area in terms of the peak ozone

concentration.1 The South Coast in 1999

recorded 43 days with 1-hour levels at

or above the 0.12 parts per million

(ppm) NAAQS for ozone. In 1998, the

South Coast had the worst ozone levels

in the nation, experiencing 12 days with

Stage I smog alerts, when 1-hour

concentrations reach 0.20 ppm.2

Ozone causes serious health

problems, particularly in children, by

damaging lung tissue and sensitizing the

lungs to other irritants. Even at very low

levels, ozone can cause acute respiratory

problems; aggravate asthma; cause

temporary decreases in lung capacity of

15 to 20 percent in healthy adults, cause

inflammation of lung tissue; lead to

hospital admissions and emergency

room visits; and impair the body’s

immune system defenses, making

people more susceptible to respiratory

illnesses, including bronchitis and

pneumonia.

B. What Clean Air Act Requirements

Apply to this Plan?

The CAA was substantially amended

in 1990 to establish new planning

requirements and attainment deadlines

for the NAAQS. Under CAA section

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

nonattainment prior to enactment of the

1990 amendments, including the South

Coast, were designated nonattainment

by operation of law.

Under CAA section 181(a), each

ozone area designated nonattainment

under section 107(d) was also classified

by operation of law as either marginal,

moderate, serious, severe, or extreme,

based on air quality monitoring data. An

ozone area with a design value at or

above 0.280 ppm was classified as

extreme. The South Coast was the only

area so classified. Section 181(a) sets

attainment deadlines for each class of

area. The attainment date for an extreme

area is as expeditiously as practicable

but no later than November 15, 2010 (20

years after enactment of the CAA

Amendments).

CAA section 172 contains general

requirements applicable to SIPs for

nonattainment areas. Section 182 sets

out additional air quality planning

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas. The most fundamental of these

nonattainment area provisions

applicable to the South Coast is the

requirement that the State submit by

November 15, 1994, a SIP demonstrating

how the area would attain the ozone

NAAQS by the CAA deadline and how

the area would achieve reductions of

precursor emissions of 15 percent for

the first 6 years and 9 percent for each

3-year period until attainment (rate-ofprogress or ROP). This demonstration

must be based upon enforceable

measures to expeditiously achieve

emission reductions leading to

emissions at or below the level

predicted to result in attainment

throughout the nonattainment area.

We have issued a ‘‘General Preamble’’

describing our preliminary views on

how we intend to act on SIPs submitted

under Title I of the Act. See generally

57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR

18070 (April 28, 1992). You should refer

to the General Preamble for a more

detailed discussion of our

interpretations of Title I requirements.

In this proposed rulemaking action, we

apply these policies to the South Coast

ozone SIP submittal, taking into

consideration the specific factual issues

presented.

C. What Action Have we Taken on

Previous South Coast Ozone Plans?

1. Final approval of the 1994 Ozone SIP

SCAQMD adopted an ozone plan on

September 9, 1994, as part of the 1994

South Coast Air Quality Management

Plan (AQMP). The California Air

Resources Board (CARB) supplemented

the SCAQMD plan with State measures

and submitted it as a proposed revision

to the California SIP on November 15,

1994. On July 10, 1996, CARB submitted

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6093

3We approved some of the State and SCAQMD

measures in the plan earlier. See particularly 60 FR

43379 (August 21, 1995). 4 In response to this ‘‘assignment,’’ we established

a Public Consultative Process to identify the best

options for achieving further emission reductions

from mobile source controls, at least to the extent

they are needed for attainment of the ozone NAAQS

in the South Coast. In connection with the

establishment of this process, both EPA and CARB

made commitments regarding appropriate future

emission reductions. Please see EPA’s final

approval of the 1994 ozone SIP for a discussion of

the ‘‘Federal measures’’ and our rationale, at that

time, for establishing the Public Consultative

Process (62 FR 1152–5, 1184–6). See also section

I.C.3 below.

5We approved the CO and NO2 portions of the

submittal on April 21, 1998 (63 FR 19661) and July

24, 1998 (63 FR 39747), respectively.

6The ‘‘attainment demonstration’’ includes both

the control measures and air quality modeling

showing that the control measures are sufficient to

reduce emissions to levels where violations of the

NAAQS would not occur. The 1999 amendment

does not change the modeling in the 1997 plan,

which we continue to find approvable, but does add

new control measures, thus allowing us to propose

in this document approval of the plan with respect

to both the control measure and the attainment

demonstration requirements of the Act.

7Unless otherwise indicated, when we speak of

emission reductions in this document we refer to

reductions in the attainment year (2010), net of

growth.

an extensive revision to the South Coast

control measure adoption schedule to

adjust for slippage in the plan’s initial

implementation. On January 8, 1997 (62

FR 1150), we finalized approval of the

South Coast ozone plan, including the

ozone portions of the 1994 South Coast

AQMP, as amended in 1996, and the

State measures (‘‘1994 ozone SIP’’). 3

The plan also contained ‘‘Federal

measures,’’ which the State wished us to

adopt and implement in order to reduce

emissions from mobile sources. 4

2. Proposed Partial Approval and Partial

Disapproval of the 1997 Ozone Revision

SCAQMD adopted a completely

revised plan on November 15, 1996, and

the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) submitted the revision on

February 5, 1997. The 1997 revision was

not federally required for ozone, but was

adopted by SCAQMD to address, in a

comprehensive and consistent fashion,

federal and state requirements for

particulate matter, carbon monoxide,

and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and state

requirements for an ozone plan update. 5

On January 12, 1999 (64 FR 1770), we

proposed to find that the revised plan

met the CAA section 110(a)(1)

procedural requirements for adoption

following public notice and hearings.

We also proposed to approve the

baseline and projected emissions

inventory updates under CAA sections

172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1).

Because CAA section 110(l) does not

allow us to approve a SIP revision that

interferes with any applicable CAA

requirement concerning attainment and

reasonable further progress or any other

requirement of the Act, we proposed to

disapprove the 1997 ozone plan as not

meeting: (1) the control measure

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(6),

and 182(e)(5); (2) the attainment

demonstration requirements of CAA

section 182(c)(2)(A); and (3) the

quantitative milestones and reasonable

further progress requirements of CAA

section 182(c)(2)(A).

Our proposed disapproval of these

provisions was based on our findings

that:

(1) the control measures in the 1997

ozone plan were an impermissible

relaxation of the 1994 ozone SIP,

inasmuch as the plan relaxed,

abandoned, or postponed approximately

30 short-term SCAQMD measures, and

did not show that this revision meets

the expeditious attainment test;

(2) the 1997 ozone plan was

inconsistent with the intent of CAA

section 182(e)(5), in that it increased,

rather than reduced, the proportion of

needed SCAQMD reductions that are

assigned to conceptual, new-technology

measures;

(3) the plan relied on unlawful

assignments to the Federal Government

to achieve a portion of the reductions

needed for attainment; and

(4) the plan relied on commitments to

adopt by the end of 1998 23 measures,

of which SCAQMD had adopted less

than 10, and we may not approve a plan

that is not being implemented.

Since our proposed action in this

document is an action on both the 1997

ozone plan and the 1999 Amendment to

it, we are withdrawing the January 12,

1999 proposed partial approval and

partial disapproval of the 1997 ozone

plan. Therefore, if you submitted

comments on our January 12, 1999

proposal and believe that those

comments are relevant to our proposed

action on the 1999 ozone plan, you will

need to resubmit your comments within

the public comment period for today’s

proposed action.

3. Final Approval of a 1999 State

Update to the South Coast Ozone SIP

On July 23, 1999 (64 FR 39923), we

approved an update to the South Coast

1994 ozone SIP, reporting on

implementation of CARB’s control

measures in the 1994 SIP and the

contribution from Federal mobile source

controls undertaken as part of the Public

Consultative Process. We also updated

our own commitment and approved a

new CARB commitment to adopt by

December 31, 2001, control measures

needed to achieve any additional

reductions which are determined to be

appropriate for CARB. Please consult

this final approval document and our

proposed approval (64 FR 30276, June 7,

1999) for more details on the update, the

‘‘Federal measures,’’ the Public

Consultative Process on national mobile

source measures, and our associated

consent decree in Coalition for Clean

Air, et al. vs. SCAQMD, CARB, and

USEPA, No. CV 97–6916 HLH (C.D.

CA.).

D. What are the Changes in the New

Plan?

SCAQMD adopted an amendment to

the 1997 plan on December 10, 1999, to

update the District’s control measures

and to address the deficiencies that

formed the basis for our proposed

disapproval. The 1999 amendment adds

new SCAQMD control measures, revises

existing SCAQMD measures, and

amends the reasonable further progress,

attainment demonstration, and

stationary source emissions budget

portions of the 1997 plan. 6 The 1999

amendment does not change the

emission inventories, modeling, nonSCAQMD control measures, and the

non-ozone portions of the 1997 plan. In

this proposed rulemaking, we refer to

the 1997 plan as amended in 1999 as

‘‘the revised ozone plan.’’ If we approve

this revised ozone plan, it will replace

the 1994 ozone SIP except for that

portion of the SIP that consists of State

control measures and EPA’s

commitment.

1. Control Measure Revisions

The 1999 amendment adds

commitments to adopt 8 short-term

stationary source control measures, 4 of

which are new control measures and 4

of which implement portions of the

1997 plan’s long-term control measures.

The revised ozone plan now includes 26

short- and intermediate-term control

measures and 4 long-term measures.

Along with 17 regulations adopted after

the 1994 ozone SIP was submitted, these

control measure commitments

completely replace all SCAQMD control

measure commitments in the SIP and

greatly reduce the amount of the

attainment demonstration dependent

upon long-term conceptual measures.

SCAQMD long-term VOC control

measures in the 1994 ozone SIP were

assigned credit for a reduction of 180

tpd; in the 1999 amendment, the longterm reductions amount to only 28 tpd. 7

Neither the 1997 plan nor the 1999

amendment changes the State control

measures in the 1994 ozone SIP.

6094 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

8 Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to

Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,

EPA–454/B–95–007 (1996).

9Letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, SCAQMD

Executive Officer, to Felicia Marcus, Regional

Administrator, EPA Region IX, Attachment A.

2. Technical Revisions

Although SCAQMD did not revise the

baseline emissions inventory included

in the 1997 plan, the 1999 amendment

revises the District’s control measures

portion of the plan, adding new

measures and accelerating adoption and

implementation dates of measures in the

1997 plan. Since these changes amend

the plan’s scheduled emission

reductions, the 1999 amendment revises

the 1997 plan’s stationary source

emissions budgets for VOC and NOX.

The 1999 amendment also presents new

rate-of-progress calculations.

E. What Further Revisions Are Planned

in the Future?

While the revised ozone plan

represents more current and accurate

information than was used in the 1994

ozone SIP, SCAQMD and CARB

consider the new plan to be an interim

update. A comprehensive ozone plan

revision is scheduled for adoption and

submittal as a SIP revision in 2001. This

future revision will use new emission

inventories and modeling, and it will

include a revised control strategy if

needed to provide for expeditious

attainment.

II. Review of the Revised Ozone Plan

A. Did SCAQMD and CARB Meet the

CAA Procedural Requirements?

SCAQMD has satisfied applicable

requirements for reasonable public

notice and hearing prior to adoption of

the 1997 plan and the 1999 amendment.

SCAQMD conducted public workshops

and public hearings prior to the

adoption of the 1997 plan on November

15, 1996 (Governing Board Resolution

No. 96–23), and before adoption of the

1999 amendment on December 10, 1999

(Governing Board Resolution 99–35). On

January 23, 1997, CARB adopted the

1997 plan (Resolution No. 97–1)

following public notice, and CARB

submitted the plan to us on February 5,

1997. After public notice, CARB

adopted the 1999 amendment at a

public hearing on January 27, 2000, and

the State indicates its intent to submit

the amendment promptly as a SIP

revision. Assuming that the State makes

this submittal, we believe that the

submittal will have met the procedural

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)

and (l).

B. Do the Revised Baseline and

Projected Emissions Inventories Meet

CAA Requirements?

As discussed in our proposed

approval of the emissions inventory in

the 1997 plan (64 FR 1774–7), the

revised and updated emissions

inventory conforms to our guidance

documents. Please see that notice for

further details regarding the inventories,

the socio-economic forecasts underlying

the projected inventories, and our

emissions inventory guidance

documents. The 1999 amendment

makes no changes to these inventory

summaries, which are included in

Chapter 3 and Appendix III of the 1997

plan.

CARB has prepared draft revisions to

the motor vehicle emissions factors.

Once the new factors are adopted by the

State, the responsible agencies will

begin the process of revising the plan to

reflect the new emissions data. The

State has also recently prepared a new

offroad mobile source emissions model,

and local agencies are revising the

regional growth and control

effectiveness data. These updates and

enhancements will improve emissions

information for the comprehensive 2001

plan revision.

Because the methodologies used to

prepare the inventories in the revised

ozone plan are acceptable, we propose

to approve the plan revision with

respect to the emissions inventory

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(3)

and 182(a)(1).

C. Is the Modeled Attainment

Demonstration Consistent With

Modeling Guidelines?

The attainment demonstration in the

revised ozone plan employs the Urban

Airshed Model (UAM) with the Carbon

Bond IV mechanism. The UAM analysis

uses 4 episodes in 1987, including a

September 7–9 episode with a peak

ozone concentration of 0.33 ppm.

The 1994 ozone SIP analysis used a

more severe episode, June 5–7, 1985,

which had a peak concentration of 0.36

ppm. For the revised ozone plan,

SCAQMD modeled the 1985 episode but

did not show attainment with all control

measures, and the episode was dropped

for purposes of the attainment

demonstration. SCAQMD based its

decision not to use the 1985 episode on

the age of the episode and the District’s

contention that the episode reflects

meteorological conditions that rarely

occur in the area. This is consistent with

our current modeling guidance.8

On November 18, 1998, the SCAQMD

submitted a weight of evidence analysis

for the June 1985 episode.9 A copy of

this analysis has been placed in the

docket for this rulemaking. The analysis

addresses our current modeling

guidance and argues for elimination of

the 1985 episode under a weight of

evidence approach. Attachment B to the

SCAQMD correspondence addresses the

acceptability of the remaining 4

episodes as a basis for an attainment

demonstration. SCAQMD provides

evidence that the episodes are

representative of the types of

meteorological episodes expected in the

South Coast when high ozone

concentrations occur. The evidence

examines the episodes based on the

deviation index (Horie CART analysis)

and the Chu-Cox methodology for

assessing episode frequency.

The model performance for the 1987

episode shows a high systematic bias,

e.g., ozone underprediction of 44

percent for June 24, 40 percent for June

25, 47 percent for September 8, and 38

percent for September 9. SCAQMD

showed that this underprediction is

significantly reduced if motor vehicle

VOC emissions are doubled, in which

case underprediction becomes 24

percent for June 24, 19 percent for June

25, 2 percent for September 8, and 3

percent for September 9. CARB’s draft

revisions to the motor vehicle factors

support this inventory adjustment.

Because the model performance falls

within an acceptable range of accuracy

after these adjustments to the inventory

and because the modeling otherwise

conforms to our guidance, we propose

to approve the modeling analysis.

More accurate and comprehensive

UAM analyses will soon be possible,

based on the Southern California Ozone

Study (SCOS), for which an extensive

field study was completed in the

summer of 1997 and continued, in

limited form, through the summer of

1998. SCAQMD and CARB intend to

complete a new modeling analysis using

updated emission inventories and SCOS

modeling, as part of a comprehensive

ozone SIP revision to be submitted in

2001. We strongly endorse this effort to

update and enhance the technical

foundation of the attainment

demonstration. This revised SIP will be

important to ensure that emission

reduction target levels and control

measures are sufficient to provide for

attainment within the South Coast, and

to establish a technically improved basis

for making adjustments to the control

strategy to achieve efficient and

expeditious attainment.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6095

10 ‘‘The District is committed to adopt Table

2–1 measures unless these measures or a portion

thereof are found infeasible and other substitute

measures that can achieve equivalent reductions in

the same adoption/implementation timeframes are

adopted. Findings of infeasibility will be made at

a regularly scheduled meeting of the District Board

with proper public notification. For purposes of SIP

commitment, infeasibility means the proposed

control technology is not reasonably likely to be

available by the implementation date in question,

or achievement of the emission reductions by that

date is not cost effective. The District acknowledges

that this commitment is enforceable under Section

304(f) of the federal Clean Air Act.’’ 1999

Amendment, page 2–18. Table 2–1, which is

labeled ‘‘Revised AQMP Short- and IntermediateTerm Control Measures, Implementing Agency,

Adoption Date and Implementation Period,’’

contains the complete list of SCAQMD

commitments for short- and intermediate-term

control measures, as also shown in Table 2 of this

document.

D. Do the Control Measures Meet CAA

Requirements?

1. What Are the Applicable CAA

Requirements?

The CAA requires that SIPs include

enforceable control measures sufficient

to meet rate-of-progress milestones and

provide the reductions needed for

attainment by the applicable CAA

deadline. Where it is infeasible for a

state to accomplish the necessary

regulatory adoption in the short term,

we have recognized that this

requirement can be satisfied, to some

extent, by enforceable commitments to

adopt regulations in the future, since

these commitments can be enforced in

court by EPA or citizens.

In view of the magnitude of

reductions required in the South Coast

and the fact that SCAQMD and CARB

have already adopted in regulatory form

more stringent measures than are

included in most other SIPs, we

approved the 1994 ozone SIP despite its

heavy reliance on commitments to

adopt regulations. See 62 FR 1155–7,

1177–82. Over the past 5 years

following adoption of the 1994 ozone

SIP, SCAQMD rule adoptions and

attainment demonstration revisions

have reduced the dependence of the

plan on SCAQMD commitments, which

now amount to 84 tpd of VOC and NOX,

compared to well over 400 tpd in the

1994 ozone SIP.

2. How Does the Revised Ozone Plan

Address These Requirements?

a. Control Measures Already Adopted

Following submittal of the 1994 ozone

SIP, SCAQMD adopted rules projected

to reduce VOC emissions by over 150

tpd by 2010. These rules fulfill many of

the control measure commitments in

both the 1994 and 1997 plans. The table

below entitled ‘‘Table 1—SCAQMD

Rules Adopted between November 1994

and September 1999’’ lists the rules

with projected emission reduction

levels. If these levels are not actually

achieved by the rules, the SCAQMD

enforceably commits to revise the rules

or adopt new rules to provide for

compensating reductions.10

TABLE 1.—SCAQMD RULES ADOPTED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1994 AND SEPTEMBER 1999

Control measure Rule No. Title Adoption

date Implementation dates 2010 reductionsin tpd VOC

CTS–C ........................ 1171 Solvent Cleaning Operations ......................... 1996 1999 .......................... 26.8

CTS–02H .................... 1107 Metal Parts and Products .............................. 1998 1999 .......................... 8.8

CTS–02M ................... 1145 Plastic, Rubber, Glass Coatings .................... 1997 1998 .......................... 1.2

CTS–02N .................... 1122 Solvent Degreasers ........................................ 1997 1999 .......................... 48.1

CTS–07 ...................... 1113 Architectural Coatings—Phase I .................... 1996 1998–2008 ................ 14.8

CTS–07 ...................... 1113 Architectural Coatings—Phase II ................... 1999 2002–06 .................... 16.5

CMB–02B ................... 1146.2 Small Boilers and Process Heaters ............... 1998 2000–06 .................... 4.2 NOX

FUG–01 ...................... 462 Organic Liquid Transfer ................................. 1995 1999 .......................... 0.8*

FUG–02 ...................... 1176 Sumps and Wastewater Separators .............. 1996 1997 .......................... 5.0*

PRC–03 ...................... 1138 Restaurant Operations ................................... 1997 1999 .......................... 0.2

RFL–02 ....................... 461 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities ....................... 1995 1998 .......................... 3.7*

1104 Wood Flat Stock Coating Operations ............ 1998 2000 .......................... negligible

1136 Wood Products Coatings ............................... 1996 2005 .......................... 7.9*

1124 Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations.1996 2002 .......................... 0.2*

1130.1 Screening Printing Operations ....................... 1996 2003 .......................... 0.1*

1168 Adhesive Applications .................................... 1998 2003 .......................... 1.3*

CTS–07 ...................... 1113 Architectural Coatings .................................... 1999 2002–6 ...................... 18.5*

Total Reductions

of VOC.

...................... ......................................................................... .................... .................................... 153.9

Total Reductions

of NOX.

...................... ......................................................................... .................... .................................... 4.2

*Reductions incorporated in baseline inventory.

In addition to these rules, SCAQMD

also adopted 3 rule revisions in October

and November 1999, implementing plan

measures and contributing additional

emission reductions as shown: CTS–02C

(Phase 2)—Further Emission Reductions

from Solvent Cleaning Operations (Rule

1171)—11 tpd VOC (with an additional

16 tpd subject to technology assessment

in the future); CTS–08—Further

Emission Reductions from Industrial

Coating and Solvent Operations (Rule

1130)—2 tpd VOC; and CMB–06—

Emission Standards for New

Commercial and Residential Water

Heaters (Rule 1121)—7.6 tpd NOX.

b. Short and Intermediate-term Control

Measure Commitments

As discussed above, the revised ozone

plan now includes commitments to

adopt 26 short- and intermediate-term

control measures. The plan describes

each control measure in detail,

identifying 1993 baseline emissions

from the source category, projected 2006

and 2010 emissions, 2006 and 2010

emission reductions, control cost

effectiveness, methods and technologies

of control, rule compliance,

implementation schedule,

implementing agency, and control

measure history, including an

explanation of changes in the measures

in successive plan updates. The table

labeled ‘‘Table 2—Short- and

Intermediate-Term Control Measure

Commitments’’ indicates for each

control measure the dates of rule

adoption and implementation and the

6096 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

emission reductions projected to occur

by 2006 and 2010.

TABLE 2—SHORT-AND INTERMEDIATE-TERM CONTROL MEASURE COMMITMENTS (IN TONS PER SUMMER DAY OF VOC OR

(NOX))

Control measure No. Control measure title Implementing agency Adoption

date

Implementation

date

Emission reductions

2006 2010

CTS–02(P2) ............... Further Emission Reductions from

Solvent Cleaning Operations—

Rule 1171*.

SCAQMD ................... 1999 2002 ................. 10.6 11.0

CTS–02E .................... Emission Reductions from Adhesives—Rule 1168.SCAQMD/CAR B ....... 2000 2007–2008 ....... 0.0 1.3

CTS–02O ................... Emission Reductions from Solvent Usage—Rule 442*.SCAQMD ................... 2000 2002 ................. 1.1 1.0

CTS–07(P 3) .............. Further Emission Reductions from

Architectural Coatings and

Cleanup Solvents—Rule 1113.

SCAQMD ................... 2003 2006–2008 ....... 3.1 9.8

CTS–08 ...................... Further Emission Reductions from

Industrial Coating and Solvent

Operations (Phases 1 and 2)*.

SCAQMD ................... 2002

2003

2004–2008 .......

2005–2008 .......

2.4 5.0

CTS–09 ...................... Further Emission Reductions from

Large Solvent and Coating

Sources (Phases 1 and 2).

SCAQMD ................... 2000

2002

2003–2004 .......

2005–2006 .......

.................. 4.0

3.0

FUG–03 ...................... Further Emission Reductions from

Floating Roof Tanks—Rule 463.

SCAQMD ................... TBD TBD .................. TBD TBD

FUG–04 ...................... Further Emission Reductions from

Fugitive Sources—Rule 1121.

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

FUG–05 ...................... Further Emission Reductions from

Large Fugitive VOC Sources

(Phases 1, 2, and 3)*.

SCAQMD ................... 2001

2002

2003

2003–2006 .......

2004–2007 .......

2005–2008 .......

.................. 1.0

1.0

1.0

FUG–06 ...................... Control of Methanol Emissions

from Refinery Hydrogen Plan

Vents.

SCAQMD ................... 2000 2001–2003 ....... 0.8 0.8

RFL–02(P2) ................ Further Emission Reductions from

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities—Rule 461.

SCAQMD/CAR B2000 2000 2001–2002 ....... 2.0 2.0

CMB–06 ..................... Emission Standards for New

Commercial and Residential

Water Heaters—Rule 1121.

SCAQMD ................... 1999 2002–2005 ....... (3.6) (7.6)

PRC–03(P2) ............... Further Emission Reductions from

Restaurant Operations.

SCAQMD ................... 2000 2001 (new)

2003 (retr ofit).

0.9 0.9

PRC–06 ...................... Further Emission Reductions from

Industrial Processes*.

SCAQMD ................... 2001 2004–2007 ....... 1.9 3.0

MSC–01 ..................... Promotion of Lighter Color Roofing and Road Materials and

Tree Planting Programs.

SCAQMD/Loc al Govt TBD TBD .................. Air quality benefit from

lowering ambient temperature

MSC–03 ..................... Promotion of Catalyst-Surface

Coating Technology Programs.

SCAQMD ................... TBD TBD .................. Conversion of ambient

ozone and CO into

Oxygen and CO2

WST–01 ..................... Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste.SCAQMD ................... 2002 2004 ................. 3.3 3.3

WST–02 ..................... Emission Reductions from

Composting.

SCAQMD ................... 2001 2004–2006 ....... TBD TBD

WST–03 ..................... Emission Reductions from Waste

Burning (implemented through

MOUs).

SCAQMD/Local Fire

Agencies.

.................... 2002 ................. Air quality benefit but no

emission reduction

WST–04 ..................... Disposal of Materials Containing

Volatile Organic Compounds.

SCAQMD ................... 2000 2002 ................. 0.7 0.8

FSS–04 ...................... Emission Charges of $5,000 per

Ton of VOC for Stationary

Sources Emitting over 10 Tons

per Year.

SCAQMD ................... TBD TBD .................. TBD TBD

FLX–01 ....................... Intercredit Trading Program ......... SCAQMD ................... TBD TBD .................. Promotion of advanced

pollution control technology

Total Reductions of VOC .......................................................................................................................................... 26.8 48.1

Total Reductions of NOX .......................................................................................................................................... 3.6 7.6

*SCAQMD commits to achieve the reductions shown but identifies a potential for greater emission reductions from these control measures

(Table 2–4, 1999 Amendment). Any reductions achieved from these measures beyond the amount of the commitment will reduce the long-term

measure commitment, shown in Table 4, below.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6097

SCAQMD commits to meet the

adoption dates, implementation dates,

and emission reduction targets, unless a

measure, in whole or in part, is

determined to be infeasible. Should that

be the case, SCAQMD commits to

achieve equivalent reductions on the

same schedule through substitute

controls.

Recognizing that such control strategy

adjustments may be necessary and that

development and implementation of

regulations may achieve actual emission

reductions that do not match those

projected, SCAQMD included in the

revised plan an additional enforceable

commitment to achieve emission

reduction targets in future years (1999

Amendment, pp. 2–18 and 2–19). This

complementary commitment is shown

below in the table titled ‘‘Table 3—

Emission Reduction Commitments.’’ In

order to ensure expeditious progress,

SCAQMD commits to achieve these

emission reductions even if control

measures are determined to be

infeasible.

TABLE 3.—EMISSION REDUCTION COMMITMENTS

[In tons per day for 2010 Planning Inventory.]

Year

Based on adoption date Based on implementation

date*

VOC NOx VOC NOx

1999 ................................................................................................................. 11.0 7.6 ........................ ........................

2000 ................................................................................................................. 10.0 ........................ ........................ ........................

2001 ................................................................................................................. 4.0 ........................ ........................ ........................

2002 ................................................................................................................. 9.3 ........................ 14.8 ........................

2003 ................................................................................................................. 13.8 ........................ 0.9 ........................

2004 ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 7.3 ........................

2005 ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

2006 ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 4.0 ........................

2007 ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 4.0 ........................

2008 ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 17.1 ........................

Total ...................................................................................................... 48.1 7.6 48.1 7.6

*Represents the final, full implementation date; typically, a rule contains multiple implementation dates.

The 1999 amendment provides the

following clarification on the

‘‘currency’’ that will be used in

determining emission reduction

progress under the revised ozone plan:

‘‘For purpose of tracking the progress in

emission reductions, the baseline

emissions for the year 2010 planning

inventory (summer inventory for ozone)

in the 1997 AQMP will be used,

regardless of any subsequent new

inventory information that reflects more

recent knowledge. This is to assure that

the same ‘‘currency’’ is used in

measuring progress as was used in

designing the AQMP. This will provide

a fair and equitable measurement of

progress. Therefore, whether progress is

measured by emission reductions or by

remaining emissions for a source

category provides no material

difference.’’ (Page 2–16) We propose to

accept the use of this approach for

determinations of compliance with

emission reduction commitments

associated with the control measures in

the revised ozone plan.

The new or amended control measure

commitments in the revised ozone plan

replace 31 control measure

commitments contained in the 1994

ozone SIP. These measures are listed in

the table below labeled ‘‘Table 4—

Measures Deleted from the 1994 Ozone

SIP.’’

TABLE 4.—MEASURES DELETED FROM THE 1994 OZONE SIP

Control measure No. Control measure title

CTS–A .................................. Electronic Components

CTS–C .................................. Solvent Cleaning

CTS–D .................................. Marine/Pleasure Craft Coatings

CTS–E .................................. Adhesives

CTS–F .................................. Motor Vehicle Non-Assembly Coating

CTS–G ................................. Paper/Fabric/Film Coatings

CTS–H .................................. Metal Parts/Product Coatings

CTS–I ................................... Graphic Arts/Screen Printing

CTS–J .................................. Wood Products Coatings,

CTS–K .................................. Aerospace/Component Coatings

CTS–L .................................. Automotive Assembly Operations

CTS–07 ................................ Architectural Coatings

FUG–01 ................................ Organic Liquid Transfer

FUG–02 ................................ Active Draining of Liquid Products

FUG–04 ................................ Fugitive Emissions of VOCs

RFL–02 ................................. Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

RFL–03 ................................. Pleasure-Boat Fueling Operations

CMB–02F ............................. Internal Combustion Engines

CMB–05 ............................... Clean Stationary Fuels

PRC–02 ................................ Bakeries

PRC–03 ................................ Restaurant Operations

WST–01 ............................... Livestock Waste

WST–03 ............................... Waste Burning

WST–04 ............................... Disposal of Materials Containing VOCs

6098 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 4.—MEASURES DELETED FROM THE 1994 OZONE SIP—Continued

Control measure No. Control measure title

ISR–01 ................................. Special Events Centers

ISR–02 ................................. Shopping Centers

ISR–03 ................................. Registration and Commercial Vehicles

ISR–04 ................................. Airport Ground Access

ISR–05 ................................. Trip Reduction for Schools

ADV–CTS–02 ....................... Advanced Technology—Coatings

Appendix A of the 1999 Amendment

presents SCAQMD’s reasons for

replacing these control measures.

c. Long-Term Control Measure

Commitments

Section 182(e)(5) of the Act allows an

extreme ozone nonattainment area

additional time, if necessary, beyond the

November 15, 1994 ozone SIP submittal

deadline, to develop, adopt, and submit

some of the specific regulations and

programs needed to achieve attainment.

The CAA allows us to approve plans

based on long-term measures if the State

demonstrates that the measures are not

needed to meet ROP requirements

during the first 10 years and if the State

has submitted enforceable commitments

to adopt contingency measures to be

implemented if the long-term measures

do not achieve planned reductions.

None of the long-term measures in the

revised ozone plan are scheduled for

implementation during the period

1990–2000, and the plan meets CAA

requirements for ROP without reliance

on the long-term measures, which are

needed only for attainment. The revised

ozone plan identifies additional

measures beyond those credited with

reductions toward ROP or attainment, to

be scheduled for adoption and

implementation in the future. The plan

also provides a range of additional

emission reductions from several of the

short- and intermediate-term measures

that may contribute additional emission

reductions creditable against all or part

of the long-term measure commitments.

In addition, the 1999 Amendment

includes SCAQMD commitments to

submit semi-annual progress reports on

meeting the District’s commitments, and

to hold annual workshops on

identifying new controls to minimize,

and potentially eliminate, reliance on

long-term measures.

Because of SCAQMD’s success in

accelerating long-term control measures,

there remain in the revised ozone plan

only 28 tpd of VOC assigned to this

special category of measures, which is

authorized for extreme ozone areas

under CAA section 182(e)(5). The table

entitled ‘‘Table 5—Long-Term Control

Measures’’ displays SCAQMD’s longterm measure commitments in the

revised ozone plan.

TABLE 5—LONG—TERM CONTROL MEASURES

[2010 VOC reduction in tons per summer day]

Control measure Title Adoption date Implementation

date

Emission

reductions

ADV–CLNG ................ Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations ................................. 2003–4 ............. 2005 ................. 16

ADV–CTS ................... Miscellaneous Industrial Coating and Solvent Operations ............... 2003–5 ............. 2006–10 ........... 6

ADV–FUG .................. Fugitive Emissions ............................................................................ 2003–5 ............. 2006–10 ........... 5

ADV-PRC ................... Industrial Process Operations ........................................................... 2003–5 ............. 2006–10 ........... 1

Total reductions ...... ............................................................................................................ ........................... ........................... 28

3. Does the revised ozone plan meet the

CAA requirements for control measures?

a. Short- and intermediate-term control

measure commitments

In our proposed action on the 1997

ozone plan, we proposed to disapprove

the near-term control measures because:

(1) SCAQMD had already failed to adopt

many of the measures by the scheduled

date; (2) the control measures

represented an impermissible relaxation

of the 1994 ozone SIP; and (3) the SIP

included unlawful assignments of

control measures to the Federal

government (64 FR 1775–7). SCAQMD

has remedied the first deficiency and is

currently on schedule with regard to the

commitments in the revised ozone plan.

The recently adopted rules and the

short-and intermediate-term control

measure commitments, as revised in the

1999 Amendment, cure the second

deficiency by accelerating emission

reduction progress beyond the level set

out in the 1997 plan and thereby

eliminating our concern regarding

backsliding from the 1994 ozone SIP.

The third deficiency was remedied by

our recent rulemaking concluding the

Public Consultative Process (64 FR

39923, July 23, 1999).

We now propose to approve, under

CAA section 110(k)(3), the enforceable

SCAQMD commitments to adopt and

implement the short-and intermediateterm control measures, and to

implement those measures that have

already been adopted in regulatory

form, by the dates specified to achieve

the emission reductions shown above in

Tables 1, 2, and 3. We are proposing to

assign credit to these measures for

purposes of the attainment

demonstration in the revised ozone

plan. We propose to approve

SCAQMD’s commitment to achieve the

overall emission reduction schedule in

Table 3, which provides the basis for

allowing alternative or revised measures

to substitute for those identified in

Table 2, so long as SCAQMD continues

to meet the Table 3 schedule for

adopting and implementing regulations

to achieve specific levels of emissions

reduction. Finally, we propose to

approve the deletion of the 31 control

measures from the 1994 ozone SIP,

listed above in Table 4.

b. Long-Term Measure Commitments

In our proposed action on the 1997

ozone plan, we proposed to disapprove

the long-term control measures because

the 1997 plan increased the proportion

of reductions assigned to the long-term

category, and we believed that CAA

section 182(e)(5) did not authorize us to

approve SIP revisions that postpone SIP

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6099

commitments in the near-term and shift

the balance of the SIP toward more

distant and less specific commitments

(64 FR 1777). The revised ozone plan

remedies this deficiency by dramatically

reducing the emission reductions

assigned to this category.

We therefore propose to approve, as

meeting CAA section 182(e)(5), the

SCAQMD commitments to adopt and

implement the long-term control

measures in Table 4, and we propose to

assign the emission reductions from

these measures to the attainment

demonstration in the revised ozone

plan. As mentioned above, however,

SCAQMD may satisfy all or a part of its

long-term control measure obligations

by adopting near-and intermediate-term

control measures that achieve more

emission reductions than assigned to

these measures in Table 2.

E. Does the plan show reasonable

further progress?

1. What are the applicable CAA

requirements?

CAA sections 182(c)(2) and (e) require

that extreme area ozone SIPs include

quantitative milestones that are to be

achieved every 3 years until attainment,

and that demonstrate reasonable further

progress (RFP) toward attainment by the

applicable date. CAA section 171(a) of

the Act defines RFP as ‘‘such annual

incremental reductions in emissions of

the relevant air pollutant as are required

by this part or may reasonably be

required by the Administrator for the

purpose of ensuring attainment of the

applicable national ambient air quality

standard by the applicable date.’’

For ozone areas classified as serious

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

the SIP must provide for reductions in

ozone-season, weekday VOC emissions

of at least 3 percent per year net of

growth averaged over each consecutive

3-year period beginning in 1996 until

the attainment date. This is in addition

to the 15 percent reduction over the first

6-year period required by CAA section

182(b)(1) for areas classified as moderate

and above.

2. How Does the Revised Ozone Plan

Address These Requirements?

The revised ozone plan shows

reductions consistent with the 3 percent

per year rate of progress requirement for

1997–1999 and 2000–2002 through use

of VOC emission reductions from

currently adopted regulations. For

2003–2005, 2006–2008, and 2009–2010

milestone periods, however, the plan

does not have enough creditable VOC

reductions to meet the milestones, and

must substitute NOx reductions, as

allowed by CAA section 182(c)(2)(C). As

shown below in the table entitled

‘‘Table 6—Rate-of-Progress Plan,’’ NOx

substitution accounts for 3.6 percent of

the required 9 percent reduction

between 2003–2005; 8.5 percent

between 2006–2008; and 0.5 percent

between 2009–2010.

TABLE 6.—RATE-OF-PROGRESS PLAN

[Emissions Rounded to Nearest Ton per Day]

1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx

Adjusted

1990 Base

Year .......... 1527 1472 1515 1472 1510 1472 1509 1472 1509 1472

Required Percent Reduction ...... 24 0 9 0 5.4 3.6 0.5 8.5 0.5 8.5

Required Reductions .... 367 0 136 0 82 53 8 125 8 81

Emissions

Target ....... 1161 1472 1012 1472 926 1419 917 1294 909 1213

Emissions

(Adopted

Rules) ....... 982 956 946 859 918 797 913 764 909 751

Emissions

(Counting

Reductions

from Commitments) .. 939 935 826 815 708 695 587 609 414 530

The 1999 Amendment significantly

increases VOC reductions in all interim

milestone years, compared to the 1997

ozone plan.

3. Does the Revised Ozone Plan Meet

the CAA Requirements?

As shown by Table 6, the revised

ozone plan meets the ROP requirements

based entirely on fully adopted

regulations. Taking into account

reductions from SCAQMD and CARB

enforceable commitments,

implementation of the plan should

result in reductions in excess of the

minimum ROP requirement (compare

the last line in Table 6 to the emissions

target for each milestone year). This is

appropriate, given the enormous

reductions required for this area to

reach attainment.

Compliance with the milestone and

RFP provisions of the Act requires that

all of the creditable emission reductions

be approved as enforceable parts of the

SIP (General Preamble, April 16, 1992,

at 57 FR 13517). Because we proposed

to disapprove the control measure

provisions in the 1997 ozone plan, we

also proposed to disapprove the plan

with respect to the CAA section

182(c)(2) quantitative milestone and

reasonable further progress

requirements. As discussed above,

however, we now propose to approve

the control measures in the revised

ozone plan, and therefore propose to

approve the new plan as meeting the

quantitative milestone and RFP

requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2).

6100 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

11The updated emission reductions which,

among other things, would reflect more accurately

the I/M program as compared to the 1994 submittal,

are necessary in the case of I/M to account for a

legislative change to the program in 1997.

12For more details on the general conformity

requirements, you should consult 40 CFR 51.850–

51.860 and 40 CFR part 93.

F. Does the Plan Provide for

Attainment?

1. What are the Applicable CAA

Requirements?

CAA sections 182(c)(2)(A) and (e)

require that ozone SIPs for areas

classified as extreme demonstrate

attainment of the ozone NAAQS by the

applicable deadline—in the case of the

South Coast, as expeditiously as

practicable but not later than November

15, 2010. CAA section 181(a)(1). The

demonstration must be based upon

photochemical grid modeling or any

other analytical method determined to

be at least as effective.

2. How Does the Revised Ozone Plan

Address These Requirements?

As discussed above, the modeling

approach in the revised ozone plan is

consistent with our modeling

guidelines. The modeling analysis

shows that attainment of the ozone

NAAQS will require reducing ozone

precursors to the following summer day

levels: 413 tpd VOC and 530 tpd NOX.

These levels are frequently called the

‘‘carrying capacity’’ of the area. The

enforceable emission reductions in the

revised ozone plan will reduce 2010

baseline emissions to these attainment

levels, as shown in the table entitled

‘‘Table 7—Ozone Attainment

Demonstration.’’

TABLE 7.—OZONE ATTAINMENT

DEMONSTRATION

[In tons per summer day]

VOC NOX

1990 baseline emissions .......... 1733 1472

2010 baseline emissions (assuming reductions from all

rules adopted as of 9/96) ...... 839 727

Plan reductions from baseline .. 426 197

2010 emissions assuming reductions from plan implementation ..................................... 413 530

Carrying capacity ...................... 413 530

Percent reduction from 1990

baseline emissions ................ 76% 64%

3. Does the Revised Ozone Plan Meet

the CAA Requirements?

The revised ozone plan includes

enforceable measures and commitments

that will achieve the ozone precursor

reductions needed to reach attainment,

as established in a modeling analysis

consistent with our guidelines.

Moreover, the stringent new measures,

aggressive implementation schedules,

and accelerated progress in the revised

ozone plan also meet the expeditious

attainment requirement of CAA section

181(a). We therefore propose to approve

the attainment demonstration under

CAA section 182(c)(2).

G. Are the emissions budgets

approvable?

1. Motor vehicle emissions budgets

Attainment demonstration submittals

must specify the maximum motor

vehicle emissions allowed in the

attainment year and demonstrate that

this emissions level, when considered

with emissions from all other sources, is

consistent with attainment. In order for

us to find the budget adequate and

approvable, the submittal must meet the

conformity adequacy requirements of 40

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and be approvable

under all pertinent SIP requirements.

The motor vehicle emissions caps

defined by this and other plans when

they are approved into the SIP are used

to determine the conformity of

transportation plans, programs, and

projects to the SIP, as described by CAA

section 176(c)(2)(A). For more detail on

this part of the conformity requirements

see 40 CFR 93.118. For transportation

conformity purposes, the cap on motor

vehicle emissions is known as the motor

vehicle emissions budget. The budget

must reflect all of the motor vehicle

control measures contained in the

attainment demonstration (40 CFR

93.118(e)(4)(v)).

The motor vehicle emissions budgets

in the revised ozone plan for 2010 are

80.7 tpd VOC and 277.8 tpd NOX. These

budgets were developed using the

State’s EMFAC7G motor vehicle

emissions factors. We propose to

approve the budgets as consistent with

all of the adequacy criteria of 40 CFR

93.118(e)(4), including consistency with

the 2010 baseline emissions inventory,

the motor vehicle control measure

emission reductions used in the

attainment demonstration, and the

reductions needed for attainment.

In the near future, CARB is expected

to issue refinements to the emissions

factors for use in transportation

conformity determinations. The

refinements would more accurately

reflect emission reductions associated

with the State’s motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program and other motor vehicle

controls.11 These refinements must be

used in conformity determinations, in

accordance with our transportation

conformity regulations, which require

use of the most current and accurate

information (40 CFR 93.110(e),

122(a)(2)). Subsequent budgets will

reflect these changes and any new or

modified control measures.

2. General Conformity Emissions

Budgets

CAA section 176(c)(1) provides that

‘‘No department, agency, or

instrumentality of the Federal

Government shall engage in, support in

any way or provide financial assistance

for, license or permit, or approve any

activity which does not conform to an

implementation plan. . . .’’ This

provision establishes requirements for

‘‘general conformity,’’ as distinct from

‘‘transportation conformity,’’ discussed

above.12 General conformity must be

based on the most recent estimates of

emissions in the federally approved SIP.

The revised ozone plan establishes

new emissions budgets for ROP

milestone years for each source

category. The budgets appear in Table

4–9 of Appendix V of the 1997 ozone

revision, and are modified by Table 2–

6 of the 1999 Amendment, which

reduces the stationary source VOC

emissions consistent with the new and

accelerated SCAQMD control measures

in the 1999 Amendment. The emissions

budgets as revised by the 1999

Amendment appear below in the table

entitled ‘‘Table 8—Emissions Budgets

by Milestone Year.’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6101

13Once a substitute control measure has been

adopted as a regulation and submitted as a SIP

revision, we will undertake formal rulemaking,

with opportunity for public comment, on the

regulation.

TABLE 8.—EMISSIONS BUDGETS BY MILESTONE YEAR

[In tons per day]

Year

Stationary Onroad Nonroad Total

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

1999 ................................................................. 435.2 115.7 354.0 526.8 137.3 292.6 938.6 935.1

2002 ................................................................. 402.4 96.7 273.1 447.1 125.1 270.7 826.1 814.5

2005 ................................................................. 334.4 91.4 206.0 369.1 116.6 234.0 707.6 694.5

2008 ................................................................. 305.1 91.4 145.4 310.1 106.7 209.2 587.4 609.0

2010 ................................................................. 267.6 88.3 80.7 277.8 65.1 164.3 413.6 530.4

Final approval of the revised ozone

plan would establish these budgets for

purposes of general conformity under

CAA section 176(c)(1), replacing the

budgets in the 1994 ozone SIP. Thus,

projects requiring general conformity

determinations may be able to show that

emissions from the project are

specifically included in the revised

ozone plan’s attainment demonstration

(see, 40 CFR 93.158(a)(1)).

H. What are the implications of EPA’s

proposed plan approval?

If we finalize the proposed approval

of the revised ozone plan, this plan

would replace and supersede the 1994

ozone SIP with the exception of the

State control measures for mobile

sources, consumer products, and

pesticides, and EPA’s commitment.

These State measures remain unchanged

from those approved as part of the 1994

ozone SIP. Final approval would also

set new emissions budgets for purposes

of conformity. Our final approval would also make

enforceable the SCAQMD commitments

to adopt and implement the control

measures and regulations listed above in

Tables 1, 2, and 5, to achieve the

specified emissions reductions,

computed consistently with the

assumptions in the plan’s emissions

inventory. Similarly, final plan approval

would make enforceable the SCAQMD

commitment to achieve the overall

emission reduction schedule in Table 3,

and this would create the possibility of

SCAQMD control measure adjustments

and substitutions under the approved

SIP, so long as the emission reduction

obligations of Table 3 are met.13

As discussed in section I.E. above,

CARB and SCAQMD intend to adopt

and submit a comprehensive revision to

the ozone plan in 2001. This new plan

will use an entirely new UAM

attainment analysis, updated and

corrected baseline and projected

emissions information, and updates to

the control measures to reflect the

current status of the measures and any

changes to the measures that may be

required to meet the emission reduction

needs in the new attainment

demonstration or to ensure that the SIP

emission reduction commitments are

met. We strongly support the timely

completion of this new comprehensive

revision to refine and enhance the

technical foundations of the attainment

demonstration and update the control

measures, as necessary.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This proposed rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

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

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is

does not involve decisions intended to

mitigate environmental health or safety

risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

6102 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

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

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

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

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

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

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing new

regulations. To comply with NTTAA,

the EPA must consider and use

‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ (VCS)

if available and applicable when

developing programs and policies

unless doing so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this proposed action.

Today’s proposed action does not

require the public to perform activities

conducive to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Nora L. McGee,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–2827 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket No. NH040–7167b; FRL–6532–3]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: New Hampshire; Plan for

Controlling Emissions From Existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the

Sections 111(d)/129 State Plan

submitted by the New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Services

(DES) on June 2, 1999. This State Plan

is for carrying out and enforcing

provisions that are at least as protective

as the Emissions Guidelines (EG)

applicable to certain existing Hospital/

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator

(HMIWI) units in accordance with

sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air

Act. The New Hampshire DES

submitted the Plan to satisfy certain

Federal Clean Air Act requirements. In

the Final Rules Section of the Federal

Register, EPA is approving the New

Hampshire State Plan submittal as a

direct final rule without a prior

proposal. EPA is doing this because the

Agency views this action as a

noncontroversial submittal and

anticipates that it will not receive any

significant, material, and adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule elsewhere in this Federal Register.

If EPA does not receive any significant,

material, and adverse comments to this

action, then the approval will become

final without further proceedings. If

EPA receives adverse comments, the

direct final rule will be withdrawn and

EPA will address all public comments

received in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. EPA will

not begin a second comment period.

DATES: EPA must receive comments in

writing by March 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You should address your

written comments to: Mr. Brian

Hennessey, Acting Chief, Air Permits

Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. EPA, One Congress Street, Suite

1100 (CAP), Boston, Massachusetts

02114–2023.

Copies of documents relating to this

proposed rule are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The