Approval and Promulgation of State and Federal Implementation Plans; Proposed Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal RegisterMay 5, 1994

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

SUMMARY: Under the authority of section 110(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA or ``the Act''), EPA today proposes federal implementation plans

(FIPs) to attain, by the applicable statutory deadlines, the national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone in the Sacramento and

Ventura nonattainment areas, and to attain the NAAQS for ozone and

carbon monoxide in the South Coast nonattainment area. EPA's final FIPs

must be signed by the EPA Administrator no later than February 1995.

EPA requests comment on these proposed FIPs.

EPA expects the California Low Emitting Vehicle (LEV) program will

substantially reduce emissions from cars and light trucks, compared to

the federal standard. In addition, for motor vehicles, EPA requests

comment on an enhanced in-use compliance program to provide extra

emissions.

The FIP proposes a federal enhanced motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program. If California adopts an approvable enhanced

I/M program, EPA will either withdraw or refrain from promulgating this

federal program.

The FIP proposes stringent emission standards for heavy-duty

vehicles and provisions to limit usage of older and dirtier heavy-duty

trucks within the State and the FIP areas.

The FIP describes federal rulemakings in progress for both light

and heavy-duty categories of nonroad engines, and proposes additional

measures in the FIP areas.

The proposed FIP includes innovative control programs to reduce

emissions associated with airports and, particularly within the South

Coast, emissions from locomotives, ships, and ports.

EPA proposes rules, specific to each area, for industrial and

commercial sources, and proposes to implement on a statewide basis

federal rules for architectural coatings, consumer products, aerosol

spray paints, and pesticides. EPA also proposes an ``emissions cap''

program, which allows sources the flexibility to develop their own

compliance approach in order to achieve the needed annual emissions

reductions.

Finally, EPA proposes to approve in part and disapprove in part the

proposed South Coast CO State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

designed to address CO requirements of the 1990 Amendments to the Act.

DATES: Written comments on the proposal will be accepted throughout the

public comment process. EPA expects to hold public hearings in early

July 1994, and expects that the deadline for written comments will be

approximately 30 days after the public hearings. EPA will give notice

in the Federal Register of the public hearings and public comment

deadline as soon as possible, but at least 30 days prior to the hearing

dates.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed FIP and SIP promulgations

must be received by EPA at the address below on or before the close of

the public comment period. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate,

if possible) to: EPA Air Docket Section, Attn: Docket No. A-94-09,

Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code--6102), Waterside Mall, Room

M-1500, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 (phone 202-260-7549).

Docket No. A-94-09, containing material relevant to this NPRM, is

located at the above address. The docket is available for public

inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon, and between 1:30 p.m. and

3:30 p.m. EPA may charge a reasonable fee for copying.

A copy of the docket is also available for review at: Regional

Administrator, Attention: Office of Federal Planning (A-1-2), Air and

Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Interested persons may

make an appointment with Ms. Virginia Petersen at (415) 744-1265, to

inspect the docket at EPA's San Francisco office on weekdays between 9

a.m. and 4 p.m.

Copies of this NPRM, the technical support document, and the

regulatory impact analysis, are also available for review at the

addresses listed below:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento,

California

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 8411

Jackson Road, Sacramento, California

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 3000 S Street, Suite 300,

Sacramento, California

El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, 2850 Fair Lane

Court, Bldg. C, Placerville, California

Feather River Air Quality Management District, 463 Palora Avenue,

Yuba City, California

Placer County Air Pollution Control District, 11464 B Avenue,

Auburn, California

Yolo-Solano County Air Pollution Control District, 1947 Galileo

Court, Suite 103, Davis, California

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, California

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Colton Office, 851 S.

Mt. Vernon Avenue, Colton, California

Southern California Association of Governments, 818 W. 7th Street,

Los Angeles, California

Southern California Association of Governments, Inland Empire

Office, 3600 Lime Street, Riverside, California

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 702 County Square

Drive, Ventura, California

Electronic Availability

This document is available May 5, 1994 as an electronic file on

EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). For 1200 bps or 2400 bps

modems, use 919-541-5742; for 9600 bps use 919-541-1447. The FIP NPRM

will be under the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) board, in a section

for ``Recently Signed Rules.'' Users should check the initial CAAA

announcement screen for updates on file availability. Because of its

size, the FIP NPRM will be divided into several pieces, and stored in

the compressed ``ZIP'' archive format. The file names will begin with

``FIP.'' If you need help in accessing the system, call the systems

operator by phone at (919) 541-5384 in Durham, North Carolina.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For stationary and area source issues

and general information on the FIPs, call EPA's FIP Hotline (415) 744-

1151 or Julia Barrow (415) 744-2434, at the Office of Federal Planning

(A-1-2), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.

For mobile source issues, call EPA's FIP Hotline (313) 668-4361 or

Jane Armstrong (313) 668-4471, at the Office of Mobile Sources, Motor

Vehicle and Fuels Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor,

Michigan 48105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

A. Introduction

B. EPA's Goals

1. Provide for the emissions reductions needed to meet EPA's

obligations

2. Develop the FIPs in a manner which encourages and assists the

implementation of air quality measures by State and local agencies

3. Minimize federal intrusion into state and local affairs

4. Minimize adverse socio-economic impacts

5. Ensure fairness with respect to impacts on population as a

whole and on individual air pollution sources

6. Ensure that the federal government does its part to

contribute to the solution

C. Summary of the FIP Contents

1. Required emission reductions

2. Selection of control strategies

3. Specific control measures

a. Stationary/area source measures

b. Mobile source measures

D. Role of State and Local Agencies

1. SIP responsibilities

2. State and local opportunities

E. Public Involvement

1. Public participation in the development of the FIPs

2. Public meetings prior to proposal

3. Process for post-proposal public involvement

4. Solicitation of comment

II. Background and Proposed SIP Actions

A. Description of Affected Areas

1. Sacramento

2. Ventura

3. South Coast

B. SIP Status

1. Introduction

2. Sacramento

3. Ventura

4. South Coast

5. State of California

C. Proposed Action on South Coast SIP Revisions

1. CO Plan

a. Statutory provision and General Preamble requirements

b. Procedural requirements

c. Emissions inventory

d. Reasonably available control measures

e. Attainment demonstration

f. Quantitative milestones and RFP

g. Adoption of mandatory measures

(1) Enhanced I/M

(2) Oxygenated fuels

(3) Clean-fuel vehicle fleet program

(4) Employee commute options program

h. VMT forecast and contingency measures

i. TCMs to offset growth in VMT

j. Fully adopted and enforceable control measures

k. Implications of EPA's proposed action

2. Ozone Rate of Progress Plan

a. Statutory provisions and General Preamble requirements

b. Description of plan

c. Conditional approval of commitments

d. Implications of EPA's proposed action

III. California FIP

A. Basis for the FIP Actions in Applicable law and EPA policies

1. FIP Obligation

a. Introduction

(1) Passage of the 1990 Amendments

(2) Applicable law

(3) New law applies

b. The FIPs must demonstrate attainment

(1) What attainment deadline governs?

(a) Background

(b) Current law

(2) These FIPs need not address new requirements other than the

requirements to demonstrate attainment

(a) Reasonable Further Progress

(b) Reasonably available control measures, including reasonably

available control technology

c. FIPs may use new provisions providing additional flexibility

d. Maintenance demonstration for South Coast

2. Other issues relating to EPA's authority

a. Comprehensive FIP authorities under the Clean Air Act

b. EPA authority to charge fees

c. Restrictions on EPA's authority regarding fees

d. Land use

e. Parking management

f. Authority to order the State to implement specific measures

requiring the State to legislate or expand money

B. Overview of Components of Each FIP

1. Introduction

a. Control approach

b. FIP enforcement

c. Application of FIP requirements to OCS sources

d. Application of FIP requirements to sources located in Indian

country

e. Proposed rules without regulatory text

2. Common elements

a. Mobile source regulations

b. Stationary and area source regulations

(1) Regulations for specific source categories

(2) Regulations imposed statewide

(3) Cap regulations

3. Sacramento Ozone

a. Reduction requirements for 1999 and 2005

b. SIP rules

c. FIP rules for 1999 and 2005

d. 1999 attainment option

(1) Onroad heavy duty trucks

(2) Nonroad growth cap

(3) No drive days

(4) Recreational boat fees or prohibitions

e. EPA's preferred option

(1) EPA authority to initiate bump-up

(2) Rationale for bump-up to ``Severe''

(3) 2005 attainment option

f. Summary of 1999 and 2005 attainment options

g. Attainment demonstrations

4. Ventura Ozone

a. Reduction requirements

b. SIP rules

c. FIP rules

d. Attainment demonstration

e. Alternative attainment date discussion

5. South Coast Ozone

a. Reduction requirements

b. SIP rules

c. FIP rules

d. Section 182(e)(5) provisions

(1) statutory provision and General Preamble requirements

(2) need for additional time to develop new technologies

(3) federal role in support of technological development

activities

(a) Scope of EPA's responsibilities

(b) Recent national initiatives

(1) Climate Change Action Plan

(2) Technology Innovation Strategy

(3) Clean Car Initiative

(4) Demonstration that progress requirements for 1990-2000 are

met without need for Sec. 182(e)(5) measure reductions

e. Attainment demonstration

f. Alternative attainment date discussion

6. South Coast CO

a. Reduction requirements

b. Attainment demonstration

c. Alternative attainment date discussion

C. Stationary and Area Source Rules

1. Introduction

a. Source category description and significance

b. Selection of control strategies

(1) source-specific RACT rules

(2) traditional stationary source category rules

(3) cap regulations

(4) new technology measures under section 182(e)(5)

c. Future evolution of rules

2. Regulations for specific sources

a. Introduction and rationale for selection of sources

b. Formica Corporation (Placer)

c. Sierra Pine Limited (Placer)

d. Michigan California Lumber Company (El Dorado)

e. Reynolds Metals (Placer)

3. Regulations for specific source categories in the FIP areas

a. Introduction

(1) rationale for selection of rules and reduction rates

(2) relationship to existing and pending SIP provisions

(3) relationship to other applicable FIP provisions

(4) rule structure

b. Solvent cleaning operations (Sacramento, Ventura)

c. Wood products coatings (Sacramento, Ventura)

d. Auto refinishing operations(Sacramento)

e. Adhesives and sealants (Sacramento)

f. Can and coil coating (Sacramento)

g. Commercial bakeries (Sacramento)

h. Municipal waste landfills (Sacramento)

i. Livestock waste management (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)

j. Fugitive emissions (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)

(1) oil and gas production facilities and pipeline transfer

stations

(2) gas processing facilities, refineries, bulk plants, bulk

terminals, and chemical plants

k. Service stations (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)

l. Waste burning (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)

m. Residential water heaters (Sacramento)

n. Stationary internal combustion engines (Sacramento)

o. Industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, steam

generators, and process heaters (Sacramento)

(1) biomass boilers

(2) gaseous/liquid fuel-fired boilers (equal to or greater than

5 mmBTU)

(3) gaseous/liquid fuel-fired boilers (greater than 1 but less

than 5 mmBTU)

p. Gas turbines (Sacramento)

4. Regulations imposed statewide

a. Introduction--rationale for statewide control

b. Architectural coatings

(1) relationship to national rule development

(2) relationship to local rules

(3) alternative reduction approaches

(a) fees

(b) corporate average VOC emissions (CAVE) limit

c. Consumer products

(1) FIP promulgation of existing CARB rules

(a) consumer products

(b) antiperspirants and deodorants

(2) aerosol paints

(3) alternative reduction approaches

(4) need for additional reductions

d. Pesticides

(1) Summary and applicability

(2) Specific provisions

(3) Reporting, recordkeeping and test methods

(4) Relationship to State rules

(5) Relationship to FIFRA

5. Cap regulations

a. Introduction

(1) rationale for approach

(2) reduction rate

(3) withdrawal of rules based on SIP progress

(4) relationship to other applicable FIP provisions

(5) implementation and enforcement issues

(a) compliance mechanisms

(b) EPA resources

b. Control approach

(1) rule structure

(2) applicability and exemptions

(3) determination of baseline emissions

(4) compliance plans

(5) reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements

(6) penalties

c. Industrial and commercial solvents and coatings

d. VOC emissions associated with the manufacturing of products

e. Disposal of materials containing VOCs

f. Commercial food preparation and/or baking

g. Petroleum and natural gas extraction, processing, and storage

h. NOX emission sources

(1) Source category description

(2) Issues

i. Alternatives to the FIP cap program

(1) Trading of emissions

(2) Manufacturers bubble for industrial and commercial solvents

and coatings

(a) introduction

(b) withdrawal of rules based on SIP progress

(d) implementation date

(e) applicability

(f) exemption limit

(g) conceptual design

(h) recordkeeping and reporting

(i) implementation and enforcement issues

(3) The use of other economic instruments to incentivize

emission reductions

D. Mobile Sources

1. Overview of mobile source issues and measures

a. Emissions credit for the California Motor Vehicle Control

Program

b. Summary of mobile source FIP measures

(1) Programs for light-duty vehicles

(2) Programs for medium-duty vehicles

(3) Programs for heavy-duty vehicles

(4) Programs for nonroad vehicles and engines

(a) nonroad heavy-duty engines

(b) small nonroad equipment

(5) Programs for national transportation sources and Federal

activities

(a) locomotives

(b) commercial aviation

(d) military installations

(6) Programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled

(a) employee commute options programs

(b) parking cash out

(7) Special issues for mobile sources

(a) inspection and maintenance

(b) retrofit programs for mobile sources

2. Program for onroad light-duty vehicles and engines

a. Overview

b. Air quality significance

c. Enhanced inspection and maintenance

(1) Introduction

(2) Enhanced I/M

(3) Background

(4) Summary of proposed Federal enhanced I/M program

(a) Applicability

(b) Enforcement

(d) Test type and procedure

(e) Vehicle coverage and test frequency

(f) Waivers and special warranty protection

(g) Enforcement and oversight

(h) Convenience issues

(i) Onroad testing

(j) Program start date

d. Enhanced in-use compliance programs for light-duty vehicles

e. Onhighway motorcycles

f. Discussion of emission registration and fee systems for

light-duty vehicles

g. Parking cash-out

h. Importation of vehicles into California

3. Programs for onroad heavy-duty vehicles and engines

a. Overview

b. Air quality significance

c. Enhanced in-use compliance program for heavy-duty vehicles

4. Programs for nonroad vehicles and engines

a. Overview

(1) Statutory authority

(2) General nonroad background

(3) Sierra Club suit

(4) Rationale for implementing the federal programs in the FIP

areas

(5) California's Nonroad Program/Preemption

b. Federal Nonroad Requirements

(1) Federal Requirements for Compression Ignition Engines at or

above 37kw

(a) Applicability

(b) Standards

(d) Certification and Test Procedures

(2) Federal Requirements for Spark Ignited Engines at or under

19kw

(a) Background

(b) Overview of Program to Control Emissions from SI Engines

under 19 kW

(d) Regulatory Scheme

(3) Federal Requirements for Spark Ignited Marine Engines

(a) Overview of Requirements for Spark-Ignition Marine Engines

(b) Definition of Spark Ignited Marine Engine

(d) Emission Standards

(e) General Enforcement Provisions

(f) Compliance Dates for Certifications

(g) Averaging, Banking, and Trading

c. Special FIP Measures

(1) On-Highway Motorcycles and Nonroad Engines Used in

Recreational Vehicles and Nonroad Motorcycles

(a) Overview

(b) Definition of On-Highway and Nonroad Motorcycles

(d) Standards

(e) Certification and Test Procedures

(f) Authority

(2) Fees on Marine Pleasure Craft

(3) Nonroad Compression Ignition Engines under 37kw and Nonroad

Spark Ignited Engines over 19kw and less than 37kw

d. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Nonroad Engines over

37 kW

e. National Transportation Sources

(1) Introduction

(2) Civil and Military Aviation

(a) General Description of Category

(1) Aircraft Operational Classes

(2) Related Mobile Sources

(3) Need for Control

(4) Level of Control

(b) Commercial Aircraft Operations

(1) Overview

(a) Airline Focus and Specific Sources Covered

(b) Geographic Scope

(2) Key Regulatory Elements

(a) Summary

(b) Pounds per PEU Scheme

(d) Averaging and Trading

(e) Reporting and Recordkeeping

(f) Exemptions

(3) Legal Authority and Regulatory Interactions

(4) Ground Access Vehicles Controlled by Other FIP Elements

(5) Issues for Comment

(6) Aviation Working Group Issues/Concerns

(1) Overview

(a) Military Air Base Operations

(b) Control Strategy

(d) Control Period

(2) Key Regulatory Elements

(a) Summary

(b) Baseline Inventory and Emissions Cap

(d) Annual Compliance Determinations

(e) Reporting Recordkeeping

(f) Exemptions

(3) Legal Authority

(4) Issues for Specific Comment

(d) General Aviation

(1) Source Description

(2) Overall Control Strategy

(3) Key Regulatory Elements

(4) Issues for Specific Comment

(e) Public Aviation

(3) Locomotives

(a) Introduction

(b) Freshly Manufactured Locomotives

(1) Option I--National Regulations

(2) Option II--California Only Requirements

(d) Additional Measures for the South Coast

(1) Fleet Average Standard Program

(2) Compliance Program

(3) Authority

(4) Emission Reductions

(5) Other Options

(4) Marine Vessels/Ports

(a) Background and Program Description

(b) Control Strategies--Fee System Based on Emission Levels

(1) Fee Categories

(2) Emission Reduction Technologies

Hotelling

(d) Control Strategies--Discount for Staying outside of the

Region

(5) Non-Aircraft Military Installations

5. Impact of Economic Incentive Program Rule on Fee Programs in

the FIP

a. Introduction

b. Requirements under the EIP

(1) Surplus

(2) Quantifiable

(3) Enforceable

(4) Consistent with SIP attainment and RFP demonstrations

(5) Permanent

(6) Uncertainty Provisions

(7) Auditing

(8) Reconciliation Procedures

(9) Implementation Schedule

(10) Administrative Procedures

E. Fuels Programs

1. Reformulated Fuels

a. Reformulated Gasoline

b. California Reformulated Gasoline (Phase II)

c. California Reformulated Diesel Fuel

F. Severe Area Requirements for Sacramento

1. Introduction

2. Employee commute options program

a. Introduction and statutory requirements

b. Program requirements and implementation approach

c. Employer and compliance plan requirements

d. ECO rule development issues.

3. RACT for 25 ton per year sources

a. Applicable requirements

4. New source review

a. Background

b. Overview of Rule Requirements

(1) BACT

(2) Offsets

(3) Statewide Compliance

(4) Alternative Siting Analysis

c. Existing NSR Rules

d. Changes from Original APCD Rules

(1) Changes to Address Severe Area Requirements

(2) Changes to Address Federal Approvability

(3) Changes to Address Federal Implementation

e. Dual Permit Application and Review

f. Operating Permits

g. Federal Implementation and Delegation to Local Agencies

5. TCMs to offset VMT increases

a. Applicable requirements

b. Demonstration that motor vehicle VOC emissions will not

increase from one ozone season to the next

6. Reformulated gasoline

a. Provision satisfied in FIP/SIP actions above

G. Sec. 182(e)(5) New Technology Measures for the South Coast

1. Introduction

2. Commitment to adopt measures and schedule of emission

reductions

a. Stationary/area sources

b. Mobile sources

3. Commitment to adopt contingency measures

H. Attainment Demonstrations

1. Introduction

2. Baseline inventories

a. Adjustments to State's emissions inventories

b. Basis for projected emissions inventories

c. Stationary sources

(1) Sacramento

(2) Ventura

(3) South Coast

d. Mobile sources

(1) Highway vehicle emission factors

(2) VMT estimates

(3) Nonroad vehicle and engine emission inventory

(i) Heavy duty engines greater than 50 hp

(ii) Spark ignition engines less than 25 hp

(iii) Recreational marine engines

(iv) Locomotives

(v) Aircraft and airports

(4) Mobile baseline inventory summary

3. Air quality data and modeling analyses

a. Sacramento Ozone

b. Ventura Ozone

c. South Coast Ozone

d. South Coast CO

4. State and local control measures

5. Attainment demonstrations

a. Sacramento Ozone

b. Ventura Ozone

c. South Coast Ozone

d. South Coast CO

I. Transportation Conformity

J. Delegation; FIP Implementation by State and Local Agencies

1. State and local obligation to incorporate FIP requirements in

operating permits

2. Full transfer of authority through delegation

3. Full transfer of authority through SIP approval

4. Partial transfer of authority through delegation

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Federalism Implications

Appendix I

A. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Light-Duty Vehicles and

Trucks

B. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Heavy-Duty Vehicles

C. Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Nonroad Engines over 37 kW

Proposed Revisions to CFR

40 CFR 52 Subpart GGG

40 CFR 52.2950--General FIP Provisions and Delegation

40 CFR 52.2951--New Technology Commitments under Sec. 182(e)(5)

40 CFR 52.2952--Stationary and Area Source VOC Cap Rules

(Sacramento)

Industrial and Commercial Solvents and Coatings

VOC Emissions Associated with the Manufacturing of Products

Disposal of Materials Containing VOCs

Commercial Food Preparation and/or Baking

Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, Processing, and Storage

40 CFR 52.2953--Stationary and Area Source VOC Cap Rules (Ventura)

Industrial and Commercial Solvents and Coatings

VOC Emissions Associated with the Manufacturing of Products

Disposal of Materials Containing VOCs

Commercial Food Preparation and/or Baking

Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, Processing, and Storage

40 CFR 52.2954--Stationary and Area Source VOC Cap Rules (South

Coast)

Industrial and Commercial Solvents and Coatings

VOC Emissions Associated with the Manufacturing of Products

Disposal of Materials Containing VOCs

Commercial Food Preparation and/or Baking

Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, Processing, and Storage

40 CFR 52.2955--Stationary and Area Source NOX Cap Rules

(Ventura)

40 CFR 52.2956--Stationary and Area Source NOX Cap Rules (South

Coast) [Reserved]

40 CFR 52.2957--Consumer Product Rules

(a) Consumer products

(b) Antiperspirants and deodorants

40 CFR 52.2958--Aerosol Paint Rule

40 CFR 52.2959--Architectural Coating Rule

40 CFR 52.2960--Pesticides Rule

40 CFR 52.2961--Stationary and Area Source Rules

(a) Solvent cleaning operations (Sacramento, Ventura)

(b) Wood products coatings (Sacramento, Ventura)

(d) Adhesives and sealants (Sacramento)

(e) Can and coil coating (Sacramento)

(f) Commercial bakeries (Sacramento)

(g) Municipal waste landfills (Sacramento)

(h) Livestock waste (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)

(i) Fugitive emissions from gas processing facilities,

refineries, bulk plants, bulk terminals, and chemical plants

(Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)

(j) Service stations (Sacramento, Ventura, South Coast)

(k) Waste burning (Sacramento, Ventura, South Coast)

(l) Residential water heaters (Sacramento)

(m) Stationary internal combustion engines (Sacramento)

(n) Biomass boilers and steam generators (Sacramento)

(o) Gas turbines (Sacramento)

(p) RACT rule--Formica Corporation (Sacramento)

(q) RACT rule--SierraPine Limited (Sacramento)

(r) RACT rule--Michigan-California Lumber Co. (Sacramento)

(s) RACT rule--Reynolds Metal (Sacramento)

(t) Fugitive emissions from oil and gas production facilities

and pipeline transfer stations (Sacramento, South Coast, Ventura)

(u) Large industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers,

steam generators, and process heaters (Sacramento)

(v) Small industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers,

steam generators, and process heaters (Sacramento)

40 CFR 52.2962--Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Motor

Vehicles

40 CFR 52.2963--Enhanced I/M Program

40 CFR 52.2964--Importation of Vehicles

40 CFR 52.2965--Requirements for Engines Past Their Useful Life

40 CFR 52.2966--Enhanced In-Use Compliance for Heavy Duty Engines

and Vehicles Program

40 CFR 52.2967--Nonroad Vehicles and Engines, On-Highway Motorcycles

40 CFR 52.2970--Civil Aircraft Operations

40 CFR 52.2971--Locomotives

40 CFR 52.2972--Military Aircraft Operations

40 CFR 52.2973--Ships and Ports

40 CFR 52.2975--Enhanced In-Use Compliance Program for Nonroad

Engines over 37 kW

40 CFR 52.2999--Employee Commute Options Program Rule (Sacramento)

40 CFR 52.3000--General Permit Requirements (Sacramento)

40 CFR 52.3001--New Source Review (Sacramento)

40 CFR 52.3002--Emissions Reduction Credit Authorization

(Sacramento)

Appendix to 40 CFR 52 Subpart GGG

40 CFR 81 Subpart C

40 CFR 81.305--Reclassification of Sacramento Ozone Nonattainment

Area

I. Executive Summary

A. Introduction

EPA issues this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under court orders to

propose by February 1994, and promulgate by February 1995, federal

implementation plans (FIPs) to attain the ozone National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the Sacramento and Ventura areas,\1\ and to

attain both the ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS in the South Coast

area. These obligations arise from provisions of the Clean Air Act

Amendments (CAAA) of 1977 and 1990, from successful citizen suits to

compel disapproval of 1982 attainment plans for the three areas, and

from district court orders requiring EPA to prepare federal plans

demonstrating attainment of the NAAQS.\2\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\EPA is not currently under a district court schedule order

for the Ventura FIP. EPA and the plaintiffs have, however, recently

negotiated an agreement providing for a proposal and promulgation

schedule consistent with those for the South Coast and Sacramento.

The settlement agreement will be filed shortly with the court.

\2\In the case of Sacramento, the lawsuit was filed by the

Environmental Council of Sacramento and the Sierra Club; see ECOS v.

EPA, No. CIVS 87-0420, slip op. (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 1991). The

plaintiff in Ventura is Citizens to Preserve the Ojai; see CPO v.

EPA, No. CV 88 00982 HLH. For the South Coast, disapproval of the

1982 attainment plan followed litigation by a private citizen, Mark

Abramowitz; see Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987).

The South Coast FIP order resulted from a lawsuit brought by the

Coalition for Clean Air and the Sierra Club, Inc.; see Coalition for

Clean Air v. EPA (reported as Coalition for Clean Air v. Southern

Cal. Edison), 971 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct.

1361 (1993).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifically, these proposals are the result of the historical

inability of each of the three areas to develop adequate state

implementation plans (SIPs) under the Clean Air Act of 1977. Because of

these failures, EPA was required by law to produce federal plans. The

courts have interpreted that this federal responsibility was continued

by the U.S. Congress even as it substantially amended the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990.

Although EPA is issuing this NPRM today because we are legally

required to do so, EPA intends to use this opportunity to assist

renewed state and local efforts to achieve clean, healthy air for the

citizens of California. Therefore, the agency has tried to keep one

central principle in mind as we fashioned our approach: EPA wants to do

this in conjunction with the ongoing efforts of the local communities,

not simply impose federal plans upon them. EPA believes that if these

combined efforts are to be successful, the FIP process must both

develop appropriate emissions reduction strategies, and support the

local-state-federal-public cooperation necessary to attain clean air.

These proposals therefore contain not only the specific control

strategies necessary to demonstrate attainment in each of the three

areas, but also plans to coordinate, to the extent feasible, an

expanded public participation process with that of each local air

board. This coordination is especially important because each local air

board is currently developing its own SIP under the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. These SIPs must be adopted and submitted to EPA by

November 15, 1994. If they can be approved by EPA, then these local

plans can replace proposed federal controls. In light of these ongoing

efforts, EPA strongly believes that a coordinated, inclusive process is

the best way to address the regulatory, social and economic changes

which will be required to achieve clean air.

Looked at collectively, the plans proposed here will directly

affect more than 15 million people--almost half of California's

population--and virtually all businesses in the South Coast,

Sacramento, and Ventura areas. In each FIP area the proposed stationary

controls will require emission reductions from small commercial sources

such as bakeries and print shops to large industrial sources such as

petroleum refineries and large manufacturing operations. Most

commercial and industrial activities will be affected. Proposed area

source controls may result in cost increases and reformulation of

products as diverse as hair spray, deodorant, pesticides and house

paint. Mobile source emission reduction requirements for autos, trucks,

planes, trains, boats, ships, and off-road equipment may result in

higher costs to some and significant changes in the mode of

transportation for others.

These reductions are made even more difficult--and costly--because

they must come on top of years of significant efforts and reductions.

For example, the South Coast area has managed a reduction in peak ozone

levels of nearly 75% since its worst days of the mid-1950's. Yet it

remains the center of the worst air pollution in the country.

Sacramento and Ventura, though not facing the same extreme levels of

air pollution as the South Coast, have also made significant strides in

reducing ozone levels; but they, too, remain close to the bottom of any

urban area ranking of air quality levels.

Taken together, the cost associated with the proposed pollution

control strategies necessary to reach attainment in these three areas

ranges from $4 billion to $6 billion per year over the next 16 years.

While these are not new, additional costs (they were included in the

analysis done prior to the passage of the CAAA of 1990), clearly part

of developing these plans is coming to terms with the fact--regardless

of which governmental body assumes responsibility for the effort--that

most of the emission reductions that were easy or inexpensive were

achieved in these areas some time ago.

The obvious questions at this point are, ``What are the benefits of

clean air for these areas? Is it really worth the cost?'' Ultimately,

the second question will be answered by the citizens, and future

citizens, who live in these communities. In order to make this

judgement, citizens will need to know the answer to the first question.

While we have a firm understanding of the many health, economic, and

aesthetic benefits of clean air, quantifying these benefits has proved

difficult.

What we do know is that the reactivity of ozone causes health

problems because it damages lung tissue and sensitizes the lungs to

other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of

ozone not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as

asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Regular exposure

to ozone for 6-7 hours at concentrations below the levels in the South

Coast, Ventura or Sacramento has been found to significantly reduce

lung function in normal, healthy people during periods of moderate

exercise. Animal studies have demonstrated that repeated exposure to

ozone for months or years can produce permanent structural damage in

the lungs and accelerate the rate of lung function loss and aging of

the lungs. It is also well accepted that ozone can cause significant

crop yield losses, extensive damage to forests, and deterioration of

buildings as well.

We also know that exposure to elevated carbon monoxide levels is

associated with impairment of visual perception, work capacity, manual

dexterity, and learning ability, and with illness and death for those

who already suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly angina or

peripheral vascular disease.

What we don't know enough about yet is how to assign a direct

monetary value to protection from these air pollutants. Benefits such

as reduced health care costs, increased employee attendance and

productivity, increased crop yields, reduced materials damage, and a

healthier ecosystem clearly have value. The quality of life values

associated with more than 15 million people finally being able to

breathe air free of unhealthful levels of smog and carbon monoxide must

be added to the total as well. On balance, these values--when compared

against the costs--were strong enough to compel the U. S. Congress to

mandate that all Americans be provided with this public health

protection. That is what the Clean Air Act is all about. Ultimately,

these federal implementation plans, and the state and local efforts

which will coincide with them, are about finally bringing that

protection to the citizens of California.

B. EPA's Goals

As the above discussion suggests, we seek to meet several goals as

we engage in the development and promulgation of FIPs for these

California areas. These goals compel EPA to go beyond normal boundaries

of rule development and implementation. EPA views both the SIP and FIP

processes as an opportunity to make real progress towards clean air on

a variety of fronts. To do that, these FIPs must include more than

rules which reduce emissions; they must also involve a concerted effort

to make the process of bringing clean air to California work better.

This effort will require even better cooperation and coordination among

local, state and federal air pollution control agencies, better

coordination with the other governmental agencies which must contribute

to the solutions, and more public involvement and education. Success

demands that everyone work together on creative and innovative

solutions to the difficult air pollution problems these areas still

face.

1. Provide for the Emissions Reductions Needed To Meet EPA's

Obligations

First and foremost, EPA's goal is to meet its obligations under the

Clean Air Act and under court orders, to promulgate plans in

Sacramento, Ventura, and the South Coast which provide for attainment

of the health-based ozone and carbon monoxide standards. Due to

historical failures of these three nonattainment areas to develop

adequate plans themselves, the courts have determined that the Clean

Air Act, as amended in 1990, requires EPA to provide plans now.

Although EPA disagreed with the retention of the FIP obligations in the

wake of the 1990 amendments, EPA takes its obligations, and their

ultimate objective of clean air very seriously.\3\ In EPA's view, any

efforts to fulfill other goals stated below must complement this

ultimate objective of clean air.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\EPA has previously published advance notices of proposed

rulemakings (ANPRs) and/or notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRs) for

FIPs in the three areas. For Sacramento, ANPRs were published on

April 5, 1990 (55 FR 12669) and May 27, 1992 (57 FR 22194). For the

South Coast, EPA published an ANPR on December 7, 1988 (53 FR 49494)

and an NPR on September 5, 1990 (55 FR 36458). EPA published an NPR

for Ventura on January 17, 1991 (56 FR 1754). While the approach of

these FIPs is quite different, the reader should consult these

notices for an account of the litigation, settlement agreements,

modifications to the agreements, regulatory history, and EPA's then-

current interpretations of its obligations. For an account of EPA's

views on timing and circumstances of these FIP obligations, see

especially the executive summary of the South Coast NPR. See also

Coalition for Clean Air, 971 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1992).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Develop the FIPs in a Manner Which Encourages and Assists the

Implementation of Air Quality Measures by State and Local Agencies

It is most appropriate for state and local agencies to play the

lead roles in addressing their own air pollution problems. In fact,

that is how Congress, through the Clean Air Act, intended it to work.

Traditionally, this approach has placed EPA in the roles of technical

advisor, grant officer, and, as a last resort when local or state

responsibilities are not met, as a backstop. But the air quality

problems faced by these California areas are tremendous, and despite

their efforts the state and local governments have been as yet unable

to provide a plan for attaining the health standards. It has therefore

become necessary, both legally and practically, for EPA to play the

backstop role at this time.

As EPA pursues this role, we believe that we must do so in a manner

which both encourages and supports the efforts of the state and local

governments to meet their continuing air quality related

responsibilities, especially regarding the development of the November

15 SIP submittal. In short, this means moving beyond the mere

fulfillment of our legal responsibilities toward the establishment of a

full working partnership among all parties.

Obviously, the first real test of this new partnership begins now.

As has been previously discussed, these FIPs are being proposed at the

same time as state and local agencies are preparing to meet many of the

Act's most important requirements, including their own plans to address

the very same obligation as these FIPs: attainment of the ozone

NAAQS.\4\ EPA is concerned that issuance of comprehensive regulatory

FIPs within the FIP time frame has the potential to disrupt the SIP

planning process. State and local agencies will be in the process of

designing air quality measures for legislative or board consideration

at the same time the federal government is proposing to promulgate

measures to cover the very same emission sources. At the very least,

these parallel planning processes are likely to create confusion for

the public and the regulated community. EPA's goal is to develop the

FIPs in a manner that supports effective air quality planning by the

responsible state and local agencies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\For carbon monoxide, the South Coast is revising its CO SIP

which was submitted to EPA in 1992. The South Coast is currently

scheduled to submit this revised SIP to EPA in November 1994.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Minimize Federal Intrusion Into State and Local Affairs

EPA will meet its obligations to prepare federal plans for clean

air in these three areas of California, and EPA must, and will if

necessary, implement the measures it promulgates. However, EPA firmly

believes that clean air is more likely to be achieved faster, and in

greater harmony with local economic and community goals, if its own

role is minimized by effective state and local actions.

EPA's current challenge to minimize federal intrusion is through

the proposal and promulgation of these federal plans--plans which EPA

hopes to see replaced by state and local regulations. Consequently, EPA

will withdraw or rescind any federal measure it proposes or promulgates

as soon as it can approve acceptable SIP measures submitted by the

state which provide for commensurate emissions reductions. In fact, EPA

hopes these FIPs will become obsolete as a regulatory matter. The

remaining value of these FIPs would then be the partnerships and

solutions which both minimize federal intrusion and enable the state

and local agencies to achieve the clean air goals as the law envisions.

To put this another way, while EPA's goal is to minimize federal

intrusion into state and local decision making and implementation

authority, only prompt action by California officials--within the

timetables of the CAAA and the court ordered deadlines--can

significantly diminish the FIPs' impact on the state. EPA intends to

assist the state and local agencies in their efforts to adopt and

submit ozone SIPs with the requisite emissions reductions and ozone

attainment demonstrations. As pointed out earlier in this discussion,

successful state and local action will allow EPA to withdraw the

regulatory pieces of the federal plan or reduce the scope and

stringency of its imposed or impending measures.

4. Minimize Adverse Socio-Economic Impacts

EPA has attempted to fashion these proposed FIPs to meet the

attainment obligations while trying hard to avoid unnecessarily severe

social and economic impacts, both through the choice of the particular

regulations and by the timing of their implementation. Despite these

mitigatory approaches, federal regulation sufficient to achieve the

NAAQS in these heavily polluted areas has the potential for significant

social and economic disruption. This is the inevitable result of the

extraordinary emission reductions required, the advanced level of

control that already exists, and the constraints on EPA's authority and

practical ability to enact and implement many of the most appropriate

control approaches for these areas.\5\ Current control strategies in

these areas, especially in the South Coast, already employ state of the

art technology and regulatory design for many pollution sources. To

achieve attainment in these areas, in effect, we must do even better.

To mitigate the severe impact of further near-term emission reduction

requirements, EPA has attempted to identify control options which

provide emission sources with flexibility and incentives for

technological development, product reformulation and pollution

prevention. We will look to the public comments on the proposals to

further identify such strategies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\The proposals in this rulemaking are designed to achieve the

substantial emission reductions required in these three areas and

are not necessarily appropriate for areas with lesser problems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We want to emphasize here again that state and local agencies are

in a far better position to tailor plans for the areas that minimize

adverse impacts of the attainment obligations. Through proximity they

have a better understanding of their emission sources and their local

communities. They can also achieve significant mobile source reductions

from transportation and land use measures that are beyond EPA's

resources and authority to implement directly.

For example, there is a growing body of evidence supporting the use

of market-based programs, sometimes incorporating fees, to encourage

emissions reductions and transitions to cleaner technologies and

processes. Such policies can be effectively designed and implemented at

the local level where a specific understanding of local conditions and

economies can be integrated into a flexible program and, regarding fee-

based programs, where revenues can be redistributed within the

community. A well designed program can effectively minimize the

disruptive impacts of major emissions reductions. Conversely, federal

measures for local implementation must be general enough to provide for

enforcement from a distance, and have severe legal restraints relative

to local revenue issues. The federal Miscellaneous Receipts Act, for

example, requires revenues from any such federal fee-based programs to

be deposited in the U.S. Treasury, thereby preventing their

redistribution within the local community. In short then, locally

designed and implemented plans become the best means of minimizing

socio-economic impacts.

5. Ensure Fairness with Respect to Impacts on the Population as a Whole

and on Individual Air Pollution Sources

The extent of the air quality problems in these three areas, as

well as principles of equity, demand that emission reductions must come

from every source of pollution--from cars to refineries to hand-held

spray paint. Fairness is an elusive goal--what seems fair to one may

not seem fair to another--but there are a few facts to bear in mind as

we formulate a plan for clean air: (1) Some emission sources have been

required to reduce more than others in the past; (2) Some emissions can

be reduced more cheaply than others; (3) Some individuals and sources

of emissions can more easily afford to comply with air pollution

regulations than others.

Myriad sources comprise the pieces of the air quality problem, and

each of these sources must be part of the solution. What part of the

solution each will contribute, and how to fashion those contributions

into a plan is where the challenge lies. EPA has and will continue to

consider the issue of fairness as it develops these FIP strategies. We

encourage the regulated community and the public to make sure that the

clean air strategies which ultimately get implemented are fair by: (1)

Constructively participating in the FIP public involvement processes;

and (2) supporting the development of appropriate SIP measures to

displace as much of each of the FIPs as possible.

6. Ensure That the Federal Government Does its Part to Contribute to

the Solution

The solution to these air quality problems will require the

participation of all sectors that can contribute. There are several

ways that these FIP proposals embody the federal government's

contribution to the solution. First, EPA is meeting its legal

obligations to provide plans for attainment in the FIP areas. EPA has

proposed plans which, building upon existing state emission control

strategies, will meet the ultimate goal of attainment. EPA hopes that

this federal effort will, by actually providing a complete plan,

leverage state and local efforts to complete their 1994 ozone

attainment SIPs.

Second, some of the federal rules proposed today would achieve

reductions from emission sources over which the federal government has

sole jurisdiction. Emissions from sources such as new locomotives, ship

engines, aircraft engines, and some farm and construction equipment

have not been previously included in state and local efforts to develop

comprehensive and complete attainment plans. While EPA believes that

these sources are appropriate for regulation, there remain unresolved

legal and policy issues regarding the extent to which, if at all, EPA

can or should continue to regulate them indefinitely. In other words,

should SIPs, such as those due in November 1994, be allowed to take

credit for federally-mandated reductions from these types of sources?

EPA is requesting comment on this issue.

Third, the FIPs proposed today include reductions from federal

facilities such as military bases. EPA intends to continue working with

other federal agencies to reduce emissions from their operations in

these FIP areas as well as other nonattainment areas.

Finally, as we have stated earlier, EPA views these FIPs as an

opportunity to contribute much more than a comprehensive set of

regulations. The ultimate goal of clean air requires public support and

education, development of new clean technologies, use of

environmentally sound modes of transportation, and a fundamental shift

to include pollution prevention into our everyday decision making both

at home and at work. Along with these proposed FIP rules, EPA as an

agency is pursuing a set of initiatives which will contribute to these

pieces of the clean air solution. These efforts include implementation

of the President's Climate Change Action Plan; an increasing emphasis

by the agency on public awareness of environmental issues and solutions

and implementation of the National Environmental Education Act;

participation in the development and funding of a government-wide

Environmental Technology Initiative; and a direct, agency-wide focus on

pollution prevention in every rulemaking we undertake. Over time, these

efforts will provide significant emissions reductions not only for

California, but across America as well.

C. Summary of the FIP Contents

Under the Clean Air Act, nonattainment areas are classified

according to the severity of their pollution problem. The attainment

deadlines that are then assigned reflect the classification. The

current classifications for the three FIP ozone nonattainment areas are

set forth below. Also depicted are the attainment deadlines, which are

as expeditious as practicable, but not later than the following dates:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attainment

Area Classification date

------------------------------------------------------------------------

South Coast.................. Extreme...................... 2010

Ventura...................... Severe....................... 2005

Sacramento................... Serious...................... 1999

------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a number of reasons, EPA believes that the control strategies

available to the Agency to attain the ozone standard in the Sacramento

area by 1999 could result in unacceptable socioeconomic hardship. For

example, nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions within the Sacramento

area are overwhelmingly from mobile sources. And, while significant

reductions of mobile source NOX emissions will result from the

scheduled phasing in of cleaner engines and fuels, this changeover to

cleaner engines and fuels will take some time (e.g. manufacturing

changes, replacement costs, infrastructure changes). This is especially

true since owners legitimately want to continue to receive the benefits

of a full useful life from their present vehicles and engines.

Therefore, in order to get the planned emissions reductions earlier,

i.e., before 1999, EPA must either restrict the use of current, dirtier

vehicles and engines, or somehow force turnover in the current vehicle

and engine fleet. That means considering options like no-drive days,

and/or dramatically increasing the costs associated with operating

vehicles and engines currently in use.

Moreover, in order to attain by 1999, stationary sources in the

Sacramento area would be required to reduce their volatile organic

compounds (VOC) emissions by 20% by 1999, which because of the

magnitude of reductions could lead to potential production cutbacks or

shutdowns. As a result of these negative socioeconomic impacts, EPA is

proposing, in addition to the 1999 attainment option, the option of

reclassifying the Sacramento area to severe. EPA's reclassification

proposal would move the attainment deadline to 2005, and would allow

the Sacramento area, for purposes of attainment, to benefit from

substantial emissions reductions without the use of more disruptive

emissions reduction options. Even with the additional requirements

associated with a severe designation (e.g. the Employee Commute Option

program, and more stringent New Source Review requirements) the Agency

believes that this 2005 deadline can result in attainment without the

onerous consequences associated with Sacramento's current

classification.

The South Coast is classified as a serious CO nonattainment area

and is required to attain the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,

but not later than 2000.

Given these attainment deadlines, the principal technical

objectives of the proposed FIPs are to: (1) Determine the pollutant

emission reductions needed to attain the NAAQS in each area; (2) select

the additional control strategies best suited to achieve these

reductions; and (3) develop specific measures for each strategy.

1. Required Emission Reductions

The first task depends on the collection and analysis of critical

data relating emissions to ambient concentrations. To the greatest

extent possible, EPA's proposed FIPs use data compiled by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the responsible local

agencies (e.g. the local air pollution control districts and councils

of governments) regarding current and future sources and levels of

emissions in each area. In order to remain consistent with state and

local planning efforts, EPA has made adjustments to these data only

where absolutely necessary to correct errors, improve the precision and

currency of the data, or analyze more effectively the impact of control

measures.

Of necessity, the proposed FIPs rely on air quality measurements

and meteorological input from the extensive CARB and district

monitoring networks. Finally, in order to relate emissions levels to

ambient pollutant concentrations, EPA has chosen to rely on modeling

analyses developed cooperatively with the involved state and local

agencies and used in their ongoing SIP development activities.

These technical foundations of the FIPs are discussed in section

III.H., and further details may be found in the technical support

documents accompanying this proposal. The data and analyses will be

revised to reflect the final FIP strategies and to conform, to the

extent possible, with new information and assumptions used by the state

and local agencies in the 1994 ozone SIPs for each area.

The results of these complex technical assessments confirm the need

for massive further reductions in emissions of the ozone precursor

pollutants in each area.\6\ In the most challenging case, current

levels of VOC must be reduced by 90 percent and NOX emissions must

be reduced by 70 percent to reach attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the

South Coast by the target date of 2010. In Ventura, approximately a 40

percent reduction of both VOC and NOX appears to be necessary for

ozone attainment by 2005. The reduction requirements for the Sacramento

area are slightly lower, but still amount to roughly 40 percent for VOC

and 30 percent for NOX by 1999 or 2005. Finally, approximately a

45 percent reduction in CO emissions is needed in order to attain the

CO standard in the South Coast Air Basin by 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\Ground-level ozone, more commonly known as smog, is formed

when nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) react with high temperatures. Strategies for reducing smog

generally require reductions in both VOC and NOX emissions.

Ozone causes health problems by damaging lung tissue and sensitizing

the lungs to other irritants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Selection of Control Strategies

EPA's selection of control strategies for the FIP areas began with

a review of the existing emissions inventories to determine which

pollution source categories were present in each area and the extent to

which each category contributed ozone precursor (VOC and NOX)

pollutant emissions. All mobile source categories are present in each

FIP area with the exception of ocean-going vessels in Sacramento, but

the relative importance of individual mobile source categories varies

significantly among the three areas. While the South Coast area

includes most industrial and commercial source categories, the

emissions inventory for the Sacramento area includes very few of these

sources. The importance of agriculture in Ventura County is reflected

in the unusual proportion of that area's VOC inventory assigned to

pesticides use. More details on the inventory profile for each area may

be found in sections II.A and III.H.

For stationary sources, EPA next reviewed the extent to which each

category was currently controlled under either federal, state, or local

regulations. In those few cases where the existing level of control

failed to meet existing national requirements for application of

reasonably available control technology (RACT), EPA prepared remedial

regulations for specific industrial sources identified in section

III.C.2., below.

EPA then reviewed the potential for further reductions from each

stationary source category in each area, based on upgrading the level

of control to match that required by the best existing rules, by

further enhancements to existing rules to reflect available technology,

or by imposing requirements that could be met through technology

transfer from similar sources. From this exercise, EPA selected and

prepared most of the industrial and commercial source control measures

discussed in section III.C.3.

That brings us to the first decision point where the awkwardness of

having the federal government undertaking air quality planning for a

particular state or locality becomes obvious. How will the remaining

emission reductions be apportioned among mobile sources, factories, and

consumer products and services? The choice is best made with both a

consideration of the costs and benefits associated with particular

control measures and a knowledge of the local impacts that will occur

when a specific choice is made. In addition, each locality has a

different mix of industries in different states of economic health and

with differing capabilities to absorb the costs of emission control.

Lacking detailed, specific information about every emissions source

in each FIP area, the choice EPA has made in this proposal is to seek

further reductions in all categories of pollution sources generally in

the same proportion as their remaining contribution to the problem.

Given EPA's distant starting point in this area of regulation (i.e. EPA

is not the local air board) this approach is as fair as EPA can be.

This means that the FIPs' reductions are generally apportioned in an

``equal,'' across-the-board fashion even though individual pollution

sources or source categories may vary substantially in their starting

points (the extent to which they have already reduced their emissions)

and in their ability to achieve further emission reductions. Local air

boards have a greater capacity for developing the kind of detailed,

specific information about local emissions sources which can improve

and replace these policies. EPA encourages the local boards to do so

wherever possible.

As a result, significant further reductions must be achieved by

industrial sources, such as petroleum refineries, which may have

already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in control equipment.

EPA is proposing that these sources reduce their VOC and NOX

emissions still further, not only through conventional, technology-

based regulations (for example, the fugitive emissions regulation

presented in section III.C.3.j.), but also through market-based ``cap''

rules, which allow sources the flexibility to select their reduction

approach so long as overall emissions are reduced annually (see section

III.C.5.).

Area source emissions must also be dramatically reduced through

regulations that apply either to individuals or, in some cases, the

national manufacturers and distributors of materials whose application,

storage, or use contribute evaporative VOC emissions. The category of

area sources proposed for new (or further) regulation in the FIPs

includes such diverse substances or activities as clean-up solvents,

architectural coatings, waste burning, landfills, pesticides, consumer

products, livestock waste, and residential water heaters (see sections

III.C.3. and III.C.4.).

Certain of the area sources present special challenges both to the

regulated community and to the regulator. For example, today's NPRM

includes a proposal that manufacturers of pesticides not only continue

to comply with existing state and federal rules that address toxics

concerns but also reformulate their products sold in California to

diminish VOC emissions (section III.C.4.d.). Regulation of other area

sources, including most categories of consumer products, involves

complex considerations of the extent to which additional reductions can

be achieved without negatively affecting the products' quality or its

effectiveness.\7\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\In the case of consumer products, CARB has already undertaken

these analyses and adopted regulations. These FIPs do not include

any new requirements for these consumer product categories, but

would make the existing state requirements federally enforceable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA began its selection process for mobile source control

strategies with those measures that were required in all states by the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and those measures being implemented

by the State of California and local agencies. EPA considered the

impact of these measures as well as the expected benefit of national

mobile source rules in process. For example, the California Low

Emissions Vehicle program (LEV) relies on advanced emission control

technologies, clean gasoline, and an on-board diagnostics system which

achieve substantial reductions beyond those which will result from

federal cars. As described above, EPA then developed mobile source

control strategies such that generally equal, proportional reductions

would be achieved in all stationary, area and mobile source categories.

EPA developed strategies which, if implemented, would result in cleaner

vehicles and engines via further improvements in technology or mobile

source users selecting alternatives with lower polluting

characteristics. EPA also developed strategies which rely on declining

emission limits for other remaining mobile source categories, both to

provide sufficient reductions for attainment and to assure that each

category of emission source was contributing to the solution.

In 1990, passenger cars, other highway vehicles, nonroad engines

and equipment, and the transportation facilities used in interstate

commerce produced from 53 to 63 percent of the total inventory of

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and from 70 to 94 percent of the

total inventory of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the FIP areas

covered by this proposal. In order to demonstrate attainment of the

ozone standard in these areas, EPA is proposing regulations which

assure significant reductions in mobile source emissions--beyond those

already expected from the continued turnover to newer, cleaner vehicles

and engines. The mobile source category covers a very broad range of

sizes of equipment, types of fuels, uses and operating modes, and

extent of current pollution control. Therefore, there is no one measure

or even one uniform type of measure which is proposed across the

category to achieve the reductions needed for the attainment plans (see

section III.D.1.).

The ozone attainment responsibility also falls on mobile sources

that may operate on a national (or even an international) scale. Many

of these mobile sources have not previously been controlled and must

now undertake for the first time challenging pollution abatement

assignments. For example, EPA is proposing that locomotives and large

ships work to reduce NOX and VOC emissions from their respective

activities in the FIP areas (see sections III.D.4.e.(3). and (4).).

Airline operators, though to some extent previously regulated for air

quality purposes, will also be asked to make further emissions

reductions from aircraft and other airport activities (see section

III.D.4.e.(2).).

In addition, high quality inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs

for vehicles remain the single most cost effective and important

measure for achieving mobile source emissions reductions. In the FIPs,

EPA is proposing a program which follows closely the model for meeting

the performance standards for all I/M programs nationwide, and which

EPA could effectively implement. EPA and the State of California are

continuing to hold discussions on a different enhanced program design

which would meet the national enhanced I/M performance standard if

implemented by the state. If an agreement is reached, appropriate

legislation and regulations are adopted, and an approvable SIP revision

is submitted, EPA will withdraw or rescind the FIP I/M program (section

III.D.2.c).

One reason that vehicle emissions continue to be such a large

portion of total VOC and NOX emissions--despite increasingly

stringent emission standards for vehicles--is because of high growth in

vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This VMT increase reflects the simple

facts that more cars are on the road today than ever before, and more

people are driving more miles than ever before. In order to encourage a

reduction in VMT, and in the number of cars on the road, EPA is

proposing two programs designed to decrease growth in VMT by targeting

single occupant vehicle use. The proposed measures will require

increases in average occupancy in personal vehicles in Sacramento and

encourage shifts to carpooling and public modes of transportation in

all the FIP areas (sections III.F.2 and III.D.2.g). Various other

strategies could be used to achieve decreases in VMT. As discussed

below and elsewhere in today's NPRM, EPA resources, and statutory

authority have constrained our ability to propose these possibly more

effective strategies.

In designing these FIPs, EPA has attempted, wherever possible, to

structure the proposed FIP rules so that responsible state and local

agencies can adopt the rules as part of their SIPs or accept EPA

delegation to implement the federal rules (section III.J.). For

example, the proposed New Source Review (NSR) regulations for the

Sacramento FIP area tracks the existing rule format and terminology

shared by the 5 Sacramento area air pollution control districts, rather

than following the design of EPA's existing federal NSR regulations

(section III.F.4.).

While the emission reduction targets in Sacramento and Ventura are

formidable, the overwhelming reductions needed for ozone attainment in

the South Coast appear to require that each individual pollution source

within the FIP area eventually abate its emissions almost completely.

For practically every controllable source category, this ultimate

degree of control is beyond a level now foreseeable with existing

technology and control techniques.

Congress recognized that this unique South Coast attainment

challenge required sustained commitment to seek and apply new

technological solutions. EPA's proposed FIP employs the special

provision in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, which allows for

commitments (rather than fully adopted regulations) as part of the

South Coast ozone attainment demonstration. The South Coast FIP

includes these commitments and outlines some of the federal activities

currently underway to support the development and commercialization of

new control technologies or pollution prevention techniques (see

section III.B.5.d.).

The state has already submitted a SIP for the South Coast

demonstrating attainment of the CO NAAQS by the year 2000. This

demonstration relies primarily on existing state programs for clean

fuels and vehicles, supplemented by an enhanced motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. Since the state has not yet

developed and submitted legislation and regulations to implement an

enhanced I/M program, EPA is proposing to complete the state's

attainment demonstration with a single federal measure: the contractor-

run I/M program discussed in section III.D.2.c. As discussed above, EPA

believes that an I/M program is a necessary part of the ozone FIPs as

well.\8\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\See earlier discussion on I/M.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Specific Control Measures

a. Stationary/area source measures. With few exceptions, industrial

and commercial sources in the FIP areas are already subject to air

pollution controls that match or exceed the stringency of rules applied

elsewhere in the country. In the Sacramento FIP area, however, EPA was

able to identify four major industrial facilities (Michigan-California

Lumber Company; Formica Corporation; SierraPine Limited; and Reynold's

Metals) for which the applicable local regulations do not reflect the

minimum level of control required nationally. The state and local air

districts remain under an obligation to adopt and submit ``RACT''

regulations for these sources. Since these agencies (specifically,

Placer County and El Dorado County Air Pollution Control Districts)

have not yet acted, EPA is today proposing detailed provisions that

will contribute to attainment in the Sacramento area by supplementing

the applicable regulations to match available control technology. See

section III.C.2, and proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(p)-(s).

EPA selected a second set of proposed FIP controls by comparing

existing air pollution regulations in each FIP area with the best

existing state or local regulation, on a category-by-category basis.

Where a more effective control measure that could provide significant

reductions already existed (either as an adopted or draft rule), EPA

has adapted and proposed the rule for federal administration in the

applicable FIP areas. Since existing South Coast controls are generally

the most stringent in the country, many of these proposed rules were

based on existing SCAQMD regulations and are proposed for the

Sacramento and Ventura areas. In some cases, the proposed FIP rules

newly regulate sources in the area (e.g., commercial bakeries and

municipal landfills in the Sacramento FIP area). In other cases, the

proposed rules significantly strengthen existing regulatory provisions

(e.g., tighter coatings and solvents limits in Sacramento and Ventura).

The costs, regulatory strategy, and technical basis of these measures

are discussed individually in section III.C.3. The regulations

themselves appear in proposed 40 CFR 52.2961(a)-(o) and (t)-(v).

EPA is proposing to enforce on a statewide basis a group of four

area source rules. EPA proposes that they be administered on a

statewide basis primarily because ensuring compliance only within the

FIP areas would be relatively ineffective. EPA's rationale for

statewide control appears in section III.C.4.a.

The first of these controls simply proposes CARB's existing

consumer product regulations, which regulate products such as

detergents, floor finishes and deodorants, and are enforced against

manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. While the CARB regulations

have been adopted and enforced by the state for several years,

California has not yet submitted them to EPA for inclusion in the SIP.

The proposed FIP measure would make the measures federally enforceable,

and is discussed in sections II.B.1. and III.C.4.c. The proposed

regulation is 40 CFR 52.2957.

The second proposed statewide control is based on a draft CARB

consumer product rule for the aerosol spray paint category, as well as

rules developed by SCAQMD and the Bay Area Air Quality Management

District. Proposed rule 40 CFR 52.2958 would limit the VOC content of

spray paints that could be sold or used within the state.

The third proposed statewide control deals with one of the largest

nonmobile sources of VOC: architectural and industrial maintenance

(AIM) coatings, including most primers, paints, lacquers, stains, and

specialty coatings used for residential, commercial, and industrial

purposes. The proposed rule progressively tightens restrictions on VOC

content in three phases of reduction through the year 2003 in order to

allow for development of additional VOC reduction strategies. The FIP

rule may be amended if appropriate, in the event that EPA issues a

national AIM coatings rule.

The fourth rule proposed for statewide application is designed to

reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and structural pesticides use.

Many other pesticides are subject to CARB's consumer product rule and

EPA's proposed 40 CFR 52.2957. The proposed agricultural and structural

pesticides rule, 40 CFR 52.2960, is necessarily complex and is

discussed extensively in section III.C.4.d. The rule initially requires

producers to submit VOC analyses of their pesticides. Following EPA

review of the data, EPA will implement a six-step procedure for setting

a VOC limit to achieve target VOC reductions.

In order to achieve further necessary reductions from stationary

and area sources, EPA proposes declining emission ``cap'' rules in each

of the FIP areas. The cap rules apply to a large portion of the

stationary sources of VOC and NOX. For these sources, the rules

require annual reductions in emissions from 2001 through 2005, but

allow each source the flexibility to determine how reductions are to be

made. If a 1999 attainment option is selected for Sacramento, the

Sacramento VOC cap rule would require that all reductions be achieved

in the attainment year (i.e., by January 1, 1999). EPA strongly

encourages affected sources to identify pollution prevention approaches

as the ideal response to this market-based initiative.

The proposed cap rules require sources to submit compliance plans

in the year 2000, showing how the mandated reductions will be achieved,

using 1990 actual emissions as the baseline but subtracting emissions

required to be reduced through any SIP or FIP rules in the period after

1990. EPA is proposing VOC cap rules in each area, with annual

reductions of between 4 and 9 percent, depending upon public comment

and EPA's final determination of the appropriate and necessary

reduction rate. A NOX cap rule with annual reductions of between 6

and 9 percent is proposed only in Ventura, since further NOX

reductions are not needed in Sacramento, and the South Coast has

recently adopted a cap program (RECLAIM) achieving comparable

reductions to the proposed FIP NOX cap rule.

EPA is inviting comment on a number of important issues associated

with these innovative rules. The Agency particularly solicits comment

on whether a trading component should be added to increase compliance

options, and whether it is preferable to establish a manufacturers'

``bubble'' rule for industrial and commercial solvents and coatings,

rather than regulating users (see III.C.5. and 40 CFR 52.2952-52.2955).

b. Mobile source measures--(1) Programs for vehicles. Because the

magnitude of needed emissions reductions is so great, the FIPs seek to

build on reductions already being achieved by the California Low

Emission Vehicle (LEV) program. In order to achieve these reductions,

EPA is asking for comment on the need for and benefits of adopting an

enhanced in-use compliance program which would provide extra in-use

emissions reductions beyond the substantial reductions already provided

by the California LEV program.

Specifically, EPA is proposing to strengthen the recall program for

cars and light and medium duty trucks. Vehicle manufacturer's recall

responsibilities will be determined by testing the emissions

performance of typical vehicles instead of only vehicles which have

been properly maintained. EPA is also proposing to increase

manufacturer's liability for repair of vehicle emissions control

equipment. Both of these proposals are intended to provide incentives

to manufacturers to increase the durability of the emissions control

systems in the vehicles they produce (III.D.2.d., Appendix I.A., and 40

CFR 52.2962).

EPA is also seeking comment on a program which would require that

on-board diagnostic systems of new vehicles be capable of

communicating, to on-road sensors, the operational status of the

emission control system. This approach would be intended to

particularly target high emitting vehicles, and would remain in effect

for the life of the vehicle (III.D.2.d.).

For the South Coast, EPA is also proposing a requirement that

certain commercial vehicle fleets make the majority of their purchases

from inherently low emitting vehicles (ILEVs),\9\ including, for

example, natural gas and electric vehicles, 40 CFR 52.2962.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\Beyond very low exhaust emissions, these vehicles must have

little or no evaporative emissions even when emissions control

systems malfunction. In practice this means using fuel sources which

have little or no evaporative emissions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For light-duty vehicles, EPA proposes to prohibit California

residents from importing or registering vehicles purchased outside of

California that are not certified to meet California's stringent

vehicle standards. This prohibition would begin in 1999, and is

described in section III.D.2.h. The proposed regulation is 40 CFR

52.2964.

Given the level of emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate

attainment in each of the three FIP areas, EPA believes it is

absolutely essential to propose an enhanced inspection and maintenance

(I/M) program for vehicles which meets national performance standards.

As previously discussed, the structure of the FIP proposal will follow

EPA's model program. If the state enacts and submits approvable

legislation and regulations for its own enhanced program which meets

national performance standards, EPA will withdraw or rescind the FIP I/

M program. This issue is described in more detail in sections

III.D.1.b.(7).(a). and III.D.2.c. The proposed regulation is 40 CFR

52.2963.

For heavy duty trucks, the FIP proposals include tighter

hydrocarbon (HC) and NOX exhaust standards for model years 1999

and beyond, strict evaporative HC standards to minimize shifting from

diesel to gasoline beginning in 1999 as well, and a declining average

NOX level for fleet operators beginning in 2000. Fees for fleet

emission averages above the declining NOX targets are proposed to

help maintain turnover to the newer, cleaner engines.

At the option of the fleet owner, interstate trucks may comply with

limitations on the number of stops allowed within FIP areas beginning

in 1998 rather then complying with the declining NOX levels. The

heavy duty truck proposals are discussed in section III.D.3. and the

proposed regulations are in 40 CFR 52.2966.

Finally, for the 1999 attainment date option in Sacramento, EPA is

proposing to include an accelerated retirement strategy for on-highway

heavy duty engines. This accelerated retirement strategy is discussed

in section III.B.3..

(2) Programs for nonroad vehicles and engines. EPA is proposing to

regulate a number of categories of nonroad vehicles and equipment:

Nonroad heavy duty engines, small nonroad equipment, motorcycles and

recreation vehicles, and marine engines. See discussion in section

III.D.4.(a)-(d).

For nonroad heavy duty engines (at or above 50 horsepower, 37 kW),

a phased approach would begin with a national program targeted for

final rulemaking in May 1994. In the next phase, EPA is proposing

additional standards for the FIP areas and increased manufacturers

liability for repair of emissions control systems to help ensure

continued low emission performance. An emissions- based, fleet-average

fee system with a declining emission levels is proposed for the FIP

areas to maintain turnover to the cleaner engines. For the 1999

attainment date option in Sacramento, EPA is proposing a growth cap for

the nonroad heavy equipment category. This cap is discussed in section

III.B.3.

For small nonroad equipment (spark ignited engines at or below 25

horsepower, 19kW), EPA is proposing to employ a two-phased strategy of

first setting national standards for implementation by 1995, and then

employing negotiated rulemaking to achieve still further reductions

after 2000 or 2001. This strategy reflects discussions already underway

at the national level. The standards EPA will propose in the first

phase will be similar to the State of California's regulation for

utility and lawn and garden equipment engines manufactured in 1995 and

beyond. In both phases, the effect of this action will be to extend

regulations to engines which California is currently pre-empted from

regulating (III.D.4.b.2.).

The FIP proposals include more stringent exhaust emissions

standards for motorcycles and recreational vehicles such as mopeds,

dirt bikes, all terrain vehicles (ATVs), and go-karts sold in

California after January 1996. The level of stringency may require

substitution of 4-stroke nonroad engines for some current 2-stroke

applications (III.D.4.c.(1).).

Finally, EPA is proposing to apply national emission standards,

scheduled to be proposed in 1994 and finalized by November 1995, to

spark-ignited marine propulsion engines such as outboard engines,

personal watercraft (``jet-skis,'' etc.), and sterndrive and inboard

engines. These national rules will apply to new spark ignition marine

propulsion engines produced after August 1, 1998 and are proposed to be

combined with a registration/permitting and fee system for marine

engine use in FIP area waters. Marine engines meeting the new national

standards would be exempt from the fees which are proposed to begin in

2004 (III.D.4.b.(3). and III.D.4.c.(2).). For the 1999 attainment

option in Sacramento, EPA is proposing a fee system or boating

restriction to reduce emissions from recreational boating by one-third.

(3) Program for National Transportation Sources and Federal Activities

The litigation which resulted in today's FIP proposals arose in

part from the South Coast's concern that emission regulation of

``federal sources'' such as those associated with interstate

transportation or military bases was not keeping pace with controls in

other sectors. In order to achieve appropriate emissions reductions in

these areas, the FIP proposals include controls for locomotives,

airports and aircraft, large marine vessels, and military

installations.

For locomotives, EPA is relying on a national regulation that will

apply to NOX emissions from newly manufactured locomotive engines

in two phases, first in 2000, then in 2005. Tighter standards for

remanufactured locomotive engines are also being proposed and may be

implemented either statewide or nationwide. Because the necessary

reductions in NOX emissions are so significant in the South Coast,

EPA is proposing a supplemental program for railroads in the South

Coast FIP. This program would require that railroads reduce their

average emission rate of their fleet by 2010 to a level consistent with

the reductions proposed for stationary sources. See discussion in

section III.D.4.e.(3) and proposed regulation 40 CFR 52.2971.

As described in section III.D.4.e.(2), EPA is proposing that

commercial aviation operations be subject to an environmental

performance target in the FIPs, including mobile emissions sources

under the direct control of the airline (aircraft, aircraft auxiliary

power units, ground service equipment, captive vehicle fleets, and any

other airline-operated mobile source). Declining emissions rate targets

for these emissions, consistent with the caps proposed for stationary

sources, would be set beginning with the ozone season of 2001. This

level of allowable emissions would translate into an industry-wide

environmental performance factor expressed as an allowable pounds of

pollutant per passenger equivalent unit. Airlines which exceed their

allowable performance factor would pay a fee based on the amount of

excess emissions. In order to provide additional flexibility in meeting

these targets, EPA is also proposing intra-airline averaging for

airlines with operations at multiple airports within the same FIP area.

The Agency is also seeking comment on the establishment of an inter-

airline credit and trading program. The proposed regulation is 40 CFR

52.2970.

For general aviation in the FIP areas, EPA is proposing two fee

systems in the alternative. One proposal would simply charge a fee for

each takeoff sufficient to discourage use without making general

aviation prohibitively expensive. The second approach would incorporate

an exemption into the fee program for engines that are certified to

``clean'' emissions levels. EPA also requests comment on

differentiation of fees based on airport proprietor's programs for

other emissions reductions such as refueling vapor recovery and other

alternative control programs. See discussion in section

III.D.4.e.(2).(d). and proposed regulation at 40 CFR 52.2970.

Section III.D.4.e.(2).(c). and (5) describes EPA's proposed

military installation bubble for each FIP area encompassing all mobile

emission sources under the control of the Department of Defense (DOD),

with the exception of military aircraft and vessels. This includes

auxiliary power units, ground service equipment, captive vehicle

fleets, privately owned vehicles, and any other mobile source operated

within the boundaries of the installation. A declining emissions cap

would apply similar to the cap imposed on stationary sources within

each FIP area. Each installation would be required to determine a

baseline inventory from which the reductions will be achieved. The

proposed regulation, 40 CFR 52.2972, allows trading among active bases

and credit for base closures that generate permanent emission

reductions.

Marine vessels are the largest uncontrolled source of emissions of

NOX and sulfur oxides in California. In order to encourage

emissions reductions from these vessels in a manner consistent with

existing international standards, EPA is proposing a flexible control

strategy for the reduction of emissions from ships in port.

Specifically, a user fee would be based on the type emission control

that a particular ship used. Ship operators would be allowed (and

encouraged) to reduce the fees which would be applied by using low

emission engines, using electrical onshore power service instead of the

ship's engines while in port, and for travelling outside of the Channel

Islands. Compliance with all three operational changes would eliminate

the fees altogether. Ships that use South Coast ports more frequently

would be faced with higher annual fees, and therefore would have a

greater incentive to make operational changes and install more

efficient emission control devices to reduce or avoid fees.

In Ventura there are no large ports, but marine vessel emissions

are still large contributors to the area's NOX inventory, because

of the emissions that are blown onshore from passing ships by the

prevailing winds. As mentioned above, the South Coast FIP includes a

discount in the proposed fee system to encourage ships to move further

out to sea when passing the Ventura coastline. See discussion of marine

vessels and ports in section III.D.4.e.(4). and proposed regulation 40

CFR 52.2973.

(4) Programs to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

As described earlier, vehicle emissions continue to be a large

portion of future total VOC and NOX emissions inventory, despite

increasingly stringent emission standards, because of projections of

continued high growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Due to current

growth projections, EPA is proposing programs designed to decrease

growth in VMT by targeting single occupant vehicle use. The proposed

regulations require increases in average occupancy in personal vehicles

in Sacramento (for the 1999 attainment option only) and encourage

shifts to carpooling and public modes of transportation in all the FIP

areas. Various other strategies could be used to achieve decreases in

VMT, but most depend on local planning and implementation to be

successful. Unfortunately, EPA resources and statutory authority have

constrained our ability to propose these possibly more effective

strategies. These constraints are discussed generally in section

III.A.2.

Finally, for purposes of the 1999 attainment date option for

Sacramento, EPA is proposing a restriction on the use of on-road

vehicles such that each vehicle in the Sacramento nonattainment area

would be prohibited from being driven on one day out of five weekdays.

This is, of course, one of the least desirable of mobile source options

available to EPA, but, as is described in detail in III.B.3.d.(3), it

appears necessary in order to meet the 1999 attainment deadline. It is

also one of the main reasons why EPA is recommending the 2005

attainment option.

D. Role of State and Local Agencies

1. SIP Responsibilities

EPA has every intention of using the FIP process to propose and

promulgate real solutions to the ozone problems in Sacramento and

Ventura, as well as both the ozone and carbon monoxide problems in the

South Coast. EPA will implement these solutions as it becomes

necessary. However, under the CAAA of 1990, nothing in the FIPs

proposed today or to be finalized in February, 1995 releases the state

and local governments from their independent legal responsibilities to

meet all requirements of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, failure to

meet any of these requirements will subject applicable areas of the

state to the mandatory sanctions required by section 179 of the Act.

One of the most important responsibilities that any nonattainment

area has under the Clean Air Act is to adopt and submit to EPA in

November 1994, comprehensive plans to attain the ozone standard by its

applicable attainment date. Regardless of the FIPs, the state must

still implement plans sufficient to demonstrate attainment. Nothing in

the FIP can relieve them of that responsibility under the law. As

discussed earlier, EPA is requesting comment on whether there should be

an exception to this requirement. Specifically, comment is requested on

whether, as a legal and policy matter, states should be allowed to take

credit for emission reductions associated with FIP controls applied to

sources over which EPA has sole jurisdiction.

2. State and Local Opportunities

EPA hopes that state and local agencies will take full advantage of

the opportunities provided by the FIP development process. EPA believes

that the emission reduction strategies proposed today, together with

the public involvement process described below, can be used to leverage

support for state and local emission reduction strategies. EPA has

purposefully chosen to maximize the number of strategies in this

proposal that could be adopted wholesale by state and local agencies.

In other cases, the necessarily blunt EPA strategies should provide

support for better tailored state and local regulation of the same

emission sources. Finally, state and local agencies have the ability to

adopt innovative emissions growth management, transportation control

and land use strategies that EPA cannot propose. These types of

strategies adopted at the local level could displace the more onerous

strategies in the FIPs.

E. Public Involvement

1. Public Participation in Development of the FIPs

One of the more difficult aspects of developing these FIPs has been

to build in meaningful public participation. Sufficient time is at best

a luxury in meeting the court-ordered deadlines to promulgate the final

FIPs. Conversely, sufficient time is an absolute necessity for full

public involvement. An inevitable conflict arises when trying to meet

both of these needs.

If community-wide support for the changes necessary to reach

attainment were easy to achieve, there would be no need for these FIPs

or even the attainment deadlines in the first place. Unfortunately, any

level of real public participation in matters this controversial can

easily degenerate into parochial disagreements with no real benefit to

anyone involved. Any participation process which facilitates consensus

solutions must be designed to minimize these disagreements.

Finally, given the limited resources available to EPA for actually

developing the strategies in these FIPs, it is a measure of the

Agency's commitment to public involvement that we have and will

continue to direct them toward increasing public involvement in this

effort.

Irrespective of these difficulties, EPA has and will continue to

engage in every possible effort to make the final plans a product of

local involvement and consensus. We will do so because we believe

strongly that we can best fulfill the goal of the Clean Air Act--that

is, clean and healthy air for all Americans--and meet our court-ordered

obligations by preparing these plans with the state and local

communities, not in spite of them. We are highly cognizant of the fact

that each area affected by our rules has its own unique qualities and

concerns. We also believe that the only way in which EPA can fully

understand those concerns--and take them into account--is through

direct participation by the affected interests and communities.

Ultimately we believe that the success of any air quality plan--

federal, state or local--will be dependent upon the level of

understanding and support which exists in the community regarding the

need for and benefits of the plan. Without that understanding and

support, we are unlikely to meet the difficult challenges which lie

ahead.

2. Public Meetings Prior to Proposal

As a result of these beliefs, we have initiated an effort to

develop these plans in a manner which encourages local input. First,

our plans, and their assumptions, were built with significant input

from state and local air agencies, other local and state officials, and

representatives of various affected interests. EPA has tried to use the

best and most current data that these entities could provide within our

FIP proposal timeframe.

Second, our FIP development effort has included eight informal,

pre-proposal public meetings (two each in Ventura and Sacramento, and

four in the South Coast). The purposes of these meetings were to: (1)

Begin the process of education and interaction among the various

parties--local, state, federal, and the public; (2) solicit initial

thoughts and concerns from the affected communities as we developed the

proposals; and (3) solicit suggestions about how best to continue the

interactive process through the development of the final plans due in

February 1995. The results of these meetings are found throughout these

FIP proposals, both in the emission reductions strategies and in the

post-proposal process.

Finally, our FIP development process has included numerous staff-

to-staff discussions among the local and state air boards and EPA. The

results of these discussions, as well, are found throughout the

proposals.

3. Process for Post-Proposal Public Involvement

In order to organize and facilitate meaningful community

involvement during the period between proposal and the final plans, EPA

plans to enhance the normal notice and comment period. Our primary

effort in this area will consist of working to coordinate the FIP

processes with the ongoing local processes so as to minimize public

confusion and coordinate planning resources. This approach is based on

comments and requests received in pre-proposal meetings, and will

rely--to the greatest extent feasible--on the processes already in

place at the local level. Following proposal of the FIPs, EPA will

continue to meet with responsible state and local air agencies to

coordinate the SIP and FIP public processes, as well as with community

groups, environmental and business interests.

A set of conflicts exist though, which may make it necessary for

the FIP processes to also follow its own separate track. For example,

the local air boards are currently developing plans which not only meet

the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, but also must

meet the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. No such

California specific requirement exists for the FIPs.

Further, EPA believes that it is necessary for the FIPs to apply

many of the controls to all three areas or in some cases, state-wide.

Reliance on the various local SIP processes to engage the public on

these particular FIP measures would make it difficult for interested

parties to participate fully in all aspects of the dialogue, and could

lead the public to believe that EPA has the ability to tailor these

measures to the conditions of the local areas.

Finally, EPA must meet the mandates of the federal courts and the

terms of settlement agreements which require it to promulgate final

FIPs by February 1995. This deadline cannot be changed by EPA and means

that coordination with ongoing local processes must be constrained to

fit within EPA's timeframe.

For these reasons, EPA believes that we should take additional

steps outside of the local processes in order to provide an opportunity

for productive public input on the proposed FIPs in a timeframe which

is consistent with the final promulgation deadline of February 1995.

These steps will include:

(a) Following proposal of the FIPs, EPA will convene a public

workshop in each FIP area in order to describe in some detail our

proposals, to help us identify appropriate issues for in-depth

examination, and to encourage local participation and support for

issue-specific focus meetings.

(b) Depending on the level of support that exists, issue-specific

focus meetings may be held in each FIP area, and possibly a central

forum for selected statewide issues, to help develop comments on the

FIP issues of greatest concern. The goals of each issue-specific group

will be to develop a consensus position, if possible, and to submit

consensus comments, if possible, on its set of FIP issues. EPA will

also encourage each group to direct its comments to the state and local

air agencies which will be developing ozone plans due in November 1994.

these focus meetings, but will encourage participation that is

sufficiently representative and inclusive so as to make any consensus

real and meaningful. To the extent possible, EPA will provide

contractor and staff support for the meetings. EPA will encourage the

local air districts and the Air Resources Board to provide staff

support as well.

(d) All group meetings sponsored by EPA will be open to the public.

The number of meetings for each issue area will vary by issue.

(e) Following the workshops and group meetings, formal public

hearings will be held in each FIP area, probably in early July 1994.

Notice will be given of the formal public hearings in the Federal

(f) The public comment period will be held open from the

publication of the FIP proposals until 30 days after the public

hearings.

(g) It is EPA's intention to give great weight to any comments on

which local consensus has been reached through this public involvement

process. EPA, of course, remains ultimately responsible for the content

of the final rule which must meet federal legal requirements and

address national policy concerns. Although EPA encourages all

interested parties to participate in focus meetings and workshops, any

member of the public who has chosen not to do so has the right to

submit written comments and/or testify at the public hearings. EPA will

consider all comments received during the public comment period.

EPA realizes that the time constraints involved pose a very real

obstacle to achieving consensus on issues as complex and controversial

as those raised in developing clean air strategies. The requirement to

finalize these FIPs by February 1995 means that EPA, and the public,

will need to make very efficient use of this period until the public

comment period closes in mid-summer. EPA is realistic about the level

of consensus that can be reached in such a short period of time. We

have decided to go forward with an expanded public involvement process

because we believe that the potential benefits are great--and at a

minimum, all parties will benefit from a greater understanding of the

air quality problems, the concerns of affected parties, and the range

of solutions.

In summary, we see the development of the final federal

implementation plans due in February of 1995 as a real opportunity for

local communities, in conjunction with federal and state authorities,

to build air quality plans that can be successfully implemented.

Optimally, this process will also provide state and local authorities

with workable ideas and strategies that can be incorporated into the

1994 ozone plans, thus facilitating recision of all or significant

parts of the FIPs. Through the enhanced notice and comment process each

participant--state, local, federal, and every interested member of the

public--will have the opportunity to take responsibility where it

should be taken, and to work cooperatively where it can be done.

4. Solicitation of Comment

Written comments on the proposals contained in today's NPRM will be

accepted throughout the public process described above. EPA expects to

hold public hearings in early July, 1994 and expects that the deadline

for written comments will be approximately 30 days after the public

hearings. EPA will give notice in the Federal Register of the public

hearings and public comment deadline as soon as possible, but no later

than 30 days prior to the hearing dates.

EPA encourages the public to participate both through formal

hearing and written comments as well as in the informal workshop and

focus meeting forums described above. Workshops will be held in each

FIP area in mid to late March 1994. Throughout today's NPRM, EPA has

encouraged the public to comment on specific issues and alternatives.

We expect that these issues will be appropriate for further examination

in informal workshop and focus meeting forums.

II. Background and Proposed SIP Actions

A. Description of the Affected Areas

1. Sacramento Area

The Sacramento area includes all of Sacramento and Yolo Counties,

the northeast portion of Solano County, the southern portion of Sutter

County, and all of El Dorado and Placer Counties except for the Lake

Tahoe area.\10\ The population of this area is approximately 1.6

million, and is projected to increase to 1.9 million by 2000 and 2.2

million by 2005.\11\ The annual personal income of the area exceeds $30

billion. The economy is dominated by agricultural, commercial, and

service sectors, with almost no heavy industry.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\At the time EPA's FIP obligation arose, the Sacramento

nonattainment area did not include any portions of El Dorado and

Sutter Counties. These portions were added in revised designations

promulgated in conformance with the 1990 Amendments. See 56 FR

58694, 56726 (November 6, 1991).

\11\Population projections for 2000 and 2005 are based on the

latest SACOG data and do not yet include estimates from the

northeast portion of Solano County.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mobile sources, particularly motor vehicles, are the dominant

source of VOC and NOX in the Sacramento area. By 1999, mobile

sources will account for approximately 50 percent of VOC emissions and

over 90 percent of NOX emissions. Industrial, commercial, and

residential solvents and coatings are also significant sources of VOC,

contributing almost 30 percent of VOC emissions in 1999.

Violations of the ozone NAAQS occur in the Sacramento area from as

early as April through mid-November, although most violations in recent

years have been confined to the warmer months of June through October.

The Sacramento ozone design value at the time of classification was

0.16 ppm (based on 1987-1989 data), substantially above the NAAQS for

ozone, which is 0.12 ppm, measured as a one-hour average. Over the

period 1990-1992, the design value was still 0.16 ppm. For this 1990-

1992 measurement period, only four areas had a higher design value:

South Coast (.30 ppm); the Southeast Desert area, immediately to the

east of the South Coast (.23 ppm); Houston/Galveston (.21 ppm); and San

Diego (.17 ppm).

Based on this design value, the Sacramento area was classified as

``Serious'' under section 181(a) of the Clean Air Act, with an

attainment deadline of no later than November 15, 1999. See 56 FR

56728. However, according to EPA's most recent national air quality and

emissions trends data (through calendar year 1992), the area also has

the eighth largest number of average expected exceedances of the ozone

standard in the country (9.0 days).\12\ Outside of southern and central

California, only the Houston and Philadelphia areas have a greater

number of expected exceedances.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\The average estimated number of exceedances is the number of

days the 0.12 ppm standard was exceeded on average at the site

recording the highest second maximum 1-hour concentration, after

adjustment for incomplete or missing data days.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This unusual frequency of exceedances--coupled with the absence of

easy-to-control pollution sources, the immense emissions reductions

needed, the rapid population growth predicted for this area, and the

possibility that some of the ozone violations in Sacramento may be due

primarily to transport of pollution from the south and southwest--

suggest the appropriateness of a bump-up to a ``Severe''

classification, in accordance with the provisions of section 181(b)(3).

See discussion below.

Urban airshed modeling suggests that a 40 percent reduction in

current levels of VOC coupled with a 30 percent reduction in NOX

emissions would be needed for attainment. As displayed in a table

included in the Sacramento FIP attainment demonstration (see section

III.H.3.a.), other combinations of VOC and NOX reductions also

could yield attainment, but in EPA's judgment the 40:30 option appears

to have a greater potential to minimize dislocation and inequities

among source categories.

2. Ventura Area

The Ventura area includes all of Ventura County, which lies on the

California coast between Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties. The

1990 population was 660,000 and is projected to increase to 840,000 by

2005. The County ranks third in California in petroleum production and

17th in the Country in agricultural income. Twenty-five percent of the

work force commute to jobs in Los Angeles.

Ventura's emissions inventory is less dominated by the mobile

source component than is Sacramento's. For the year 2005, mobile

sources account for approximately 40 percent of VOC emissions and 70

percent of NOX emissions. The ozone season extends from April

through November, but very few violations have been recorded before

June.

Ventura is classified as a ``Severe'' ozone area, with a November

15, 2005 attainment deadline.\13\ For the period 1990-1992, the design

value was .15 ppm. While this design value is the same as Sacramento's

for the 1990-1992 period, Ventura had more than twice the number of

expected exceedance days (17.6).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\Based on a request and supporting information from the

State, EPA's designation under the 1990 CAA Amendments divided the

Los Angeles Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area into four

distinct areas with respect to ozone designations and

classifications. This action made the entire Ventura County a

separate nonattainment area with a ``Severe'' classification,

although the 1988-1990 design value calculated for the area would

have supported a ``Serious'' classification. See 56 FR 56698, 56700,

56731 (November 6, 1991). Prior to this designation, the Ventura

ozone nonattainment area included only that portion of the County

south of the southern boundary of the Los Padres National Forest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transport of ozone and ozone precursors from Los Angeles, Santa

Barbara, and outer continental shelf activity can be significant.

However, emissions from Ventura itself can result in ozone standard

exceedances independent of transport from other areas. In addition,

mountains bordering the Ventura urban areas contribute to a meteorology

that favors high ozone concentrations, particularly within the southern

portions of the County.

Based on recent urban airshed modeling analyses, EPA has determined

that attainment requires 40 percent reductions from current levels of

both NOX and VOC.

3. South Coast Area

The South Coast area (South Coast Air Basin) includes all of Orange

County and the more populated portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino,

and Riverside Counties.\14\ Ventura County lies to the northwest, the

Southeast Desert ``Severe'' ozone nonattainment area (portions of San

Bernardino, Riverside, Kern, and Los Angeles Counties) is to the north

and east, and the San Diego ``Severe'' ozone area is to the south.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\For a description of the boundaries of the South Coast Air

Basin, see 40 C.F.R. 81.305 and 56 FR 56726-56728 (November 6,

1991).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current population of approximately 13 million is expected to

grow to more than 18 million by 2010. The South Coast is the largest

industrial area in the United States, with a gross domestic product of

$300 billion. Practically every commercial and industrial category is

represented in the area's economy.

In the year 2010, mobile sources will account for 46 percent of VOC

emissions, 81 percent of NOX emissions, and 97 percent of CO

emissions in the South Coast.

The South Coast area has by far the worst ozone levels in the

Country and is the only area classified as ``Extreme.'' For the period

1990-1992, the design value was .30 ppm and the average number of

actual exceedance days was 134.3. Ozone levels are particularly high

during the months of July through October, but violations also occur

under warm and stagnant conditions in April, May, June, and November.

The South Coast is one of only three ``Serious'' CO areas in the

Country. Its design value is 16.4 ppm for the period 1991-1992. The

average yearly number of exceedances for those years was 38. In recent

years, CO violations have occurred only in the months of November,

December, January, and February, and at certain monitoring sites in Los

Angeles and Orange Counties. No CO violations have been recorded in the

Riverside and San Bernardino portions of the South Coast area since the

1970's.

These uniquely high levels of pollution are the result of the

massive emissions generated within the area, combined with especially

adverse meteorology and topography. A number of factors--sunshine, high

temperatures, ocean breezes carrying pollutants into the inland

valleys, mountains to the north and east trapping the pollutants within

the basin, and prolonged thermal inversion layers--conspire to create

ideal conditions for the generation of high ozone levels. Extreme

wintertime inversions retard the dispersion of CO emissions from the 9

million motor vehicles within the area. This leads to a buildup of CO

concentrations over time, particularly within west-central Los Angeles

County. Attainment requires approximately a 45 percent reduction in CO

emissions from the baseyear.

B. SIP Status

1. Introduction; Relationship of the FIP to the SIP

At the same time EPA is proposing federal plans for these areas,

the responsible State and local agencies have been developing and

adopting their own plans and rules to meet the scheduled Clean Air Act

requirements. In relation to the FIPs, the most important of these new

SIP requirements and submittal deadlines are:

(1) CO plan for the South Coast demonstrating attainment and

addressing the provisions of section 187 of the Act--due November

15, 1992;

(2) Ozone 15 percent rate-of-progress plans for each area

meeting the requirements of section 182(b)(1)--due November 15,

1993;

and (3) ozone plans for each area demonstrating attainment and

satisfaction of the relevant portions of section 182--due November

15, 1994.

EPA has issued preliminary interpretations of the amended Act's

provisions applicable to these SIP obligations. See, for example, the

``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990,'' [see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)

and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)], and ``Guidance for Growth Factors,

Projections, and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress

Plans,'' (EPA-452/R-93-002, March 1993).

Ultimately, EPA expects that SIP measures meeting the requirements

of the 1990 amendments and more carefully tailored to the FIP areas

will supplant the potentially severe measures EPA is compelled to

propose here. EPA understands that this scenario presents facilities

with the prospect of changing compliance requirements as the FIP is

replaced by SIP measures. In the long term, however, it will better

serve the area to have in place measures which are designed by State,

regional, and local authorities, who are best situated to minimize any

disruption of the local economy and communities.

In the discussion below, the more important completed and pending

SIP submittals for the State and each area are briefly described. To

the extent that the submittals satisfy, or help to satisfy EPA's

obligations under the existing court orders, EPA will approve the SIPs

and refrain from promulgating FIP provisions addressing those aspects

of the air quality problem.

A submittal from the State and local districts of an approvable\15\

SIP demonstrating attainment by the applicable deadline will enable EPA

to rescind the FIP in its entirety. EPA believes that this rescission

is appropriate even if the SIP for the area has other deficiencies

(such as deficient RACT or NSR rules) which trigger separate FIP

actions.\16\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA can conditionally

approve a state plan which lacks adopted enforceable measures as

long as the state has been made a commitment to adopt the

enforceable measures within one year of the conditional approval.

\16\The Act allows states to replace FIP requirements with SIP

measures, subject, of course, to EPA's approval of the SIP measures

under sections 110(a), (k), and (l) of the Act. The Act provides

that EPA is relieved of having to promulgate a FIP at all if the

state submits and EPA approves a replacement SIP before the FIP must

be promulgated. Section 110(c)(1) of the Act provides: ``The

Administrator shall promulgate a Federal implementation plan at any

time within 2 years after the Administrator [makes certain findings

or disapproves a SIP] unless the State corrects the deficiency, and

the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the

Administrator promulgates such Federal implementation plan.''

Section 302(y) of the Act defines a FIP as ``a plan (or portion

thereof) promulgated by the Administrator to fill all or a portion

of a gap or otherwise correct all or a portion of an inadequacy in a

State implementation plan. . . .'' If a state fills a gap or cures

an inadequacy in its SIP subsequent to EPA promulgating a FIP, the

FIP may be rescinded or revised. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit recognized this principle in Coalition for Clean Air

v. EPA (reported as Coalition for Clean Air v. Southern California

Edison), 971 F.2d 219.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA wishes to emphasize that all existing and future SIP

obligations remain the responsibility of State and local agencies,

despite provisions in the FIP that may fulfill, in whole or in part,

these obligations. Thus, the State and the applicable areas of the

State are subject to the sanctions provisions of section 179 for any

failure to submit a required plan or plan element, or upon EPA

disapproval of a required plan or plan element.\17\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\Under section 179 of the Act, two principal sanctions are

authorized: a highway funding restriction and an increased offset

requirement for major new or modified sources. The highway funding

sanction is enforced through an EPA prohibition on approval by the

U.S. Secretary of Transportation of projects or grants in the area

except where the Secretary has determined that the purpose of the

project or grant is to improve a demonstrated safety problem.

Section 179(b)(1)(B) also allows the Secretary to exempt certain

projects and grants that are intended to minimize air pollution

problems. The offset sanction requires that major new or modified

sources in the area obtain at least 2 to 1 offsets before

construction.

Section 179(a) requires EPA to impose one of these sanctions

within 18 months and the remaining sanction within 24 months if: (1)

The state has failed to submit a required plan or element; (2) the

required submission is deemed incomplete; (3) EPA disapproves the

required submission; or (4) an approved SIP provision is not being

implemented. Section 110(m) allows EPA to impose these sanctions at

any time after EPA has made one of these findings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While EPA's FIP promulgation process unfolds, the responsible State

and local agencies in Sacramento, Ventura, and the South Coast are

developing their own plans under the schedule provided by the 1990

Amendments. Depending upon the time EPA is able to approve SIP

replacement measures submitted by these agencies, EPA may upon approval

of such measures either refrain from promulgating, or withdraw the

corresponding portions of the FIP. sections 110(c) and 302(y).

As the relationship between the FIPs and the developing SIPs

evolves, EPA will confront a number of issues. One question that has

been raised is whether the State may claim credit toward meeting

progress or attainment requirements for the emissions reductions from

FIP measures that apply to a limited category of sources over which

State or local control is legally preempted. The issue is whether the

State, in its plan, may seek not to replace these FIP measures, but

rather continue to rely upon them, at the same time obtaining EPA's

full approval for the state plan.

Although EPA has not previously addressed this specific question, a

straightforward reading of the Clean Air Act's text and structure

suggests that a state plan to be approvable must demonstrate attainment

of the relevant standard, without reliance on measures that EPA has

promulgated solely pursuant to its FIP authority. (Under this theory, a

state could still rely on any measures that EPA has promulgated under

its independent authority, such as Title II, as opposed to its

authority under section 110(c) to assume California's waiver role

under, for example, section 209. See discussion of EPA's FIP authority,

section III.A.2.a. To decide otherwise would require the conclusion

that Congress intended FIP measures to remain in place, perhaps

permanently, without sanctions being imposed on the state--a view

arguably at odds with the Act's historic emphasis on the primacy of

state responsibility and the role of FIPs as temporary substitutes for

state failures.

On the other hand, it may be argued that, for a limited number of

sources over which the federal government, when promulgating a FIP,

demonstrably has sole legal authority, and over which the state is

barred from exerting control, removing the FIP measures and hence

requiring the state to compensate for the lack of control of these

sources may force it to impose unreasonably and inequitably harsher

controls on other sources. Thus, the argument goes, EPA should consider

whether there is any basis in law, and justification in policy, for

carving out a limited exception to the traditional view.

EPA does not resolve this complex issue here, but intends to

continue to analyze and explore it. In this proposal we solicit comment

on the legal and policy implications raised by this aspect of the

relationship between the FIP and the SIP.

2. Sacramento

On November 15, 1993, the State submitted Sacramento ozone rate-of-

progress plans for the Sacramento Metropolitan Area, addressing the

Act's 15 percent rate-of-progress plan requirements. The Sacramento

area's 15 percent plans involved a coordinated effort by the Sacramento

Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and the five local air pollution

control agencies. Each of the air agencies developed a plan for their

portion of the area.

The reductions in Sacramento's 15 percent plans rely on an enhanced

I/M program, measures that the State and local governments have adopted

or have committed to adopt, measures that the Federal government will

have to develop and implement for the Sacramento area, and substitution

of NOX for VOC reductions. However, an approvable enhanced I/M

program has not been authorized by the State legislature, EPA has

decided preliminarily that it will not accept commitments for measures

for purposes of the Act's 15 percent rate-of-progress provision, and

EPA cannot credit NOX reductions in place of the necessary VOC

reductions. Therefore, EPA cannot take action at this time to approve

this submittal with respect to the Clean Air Act progress

demonstration.

The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

(SMAQMD), the Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District (YSAPCD), the

Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), the El Dorado

County Air Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD), the Feather River Air

Quality Management District (FRAQMD), SACOG and CARB plan to submit a

comprehensive revised ozone attainment SIP on or before November 15,

1994. The local agencies hope to release a draft of this SIP in the

Spring of 1994 and to modify it after EPA finalizes the FIP in February

1995. The air quality modeling in the SIP and FIP are based on similar

data and should be consistent. There may, however, be significant

differences between the regulations included in the two plans to attain

the ozone standard.

3. Ventura

On November 15, 1993, the State submitted a Ventura ozone rate-of-

progress plan addressing the Act's requirement that a plan be submitted

by that date demonstrating creditable VOC reductions of at least 15

percent from 1990 to 1996. The plan describes how this reduction can be

accomplished with an enhanced I/M program plus measures that the State

committed to adopt and implement by 1996 in Ventura's 1991 Air Quality

Management Plan. Many of the promised local measures have already been

adopted, but an approvable enhanced I/M program has not been authorized

by the State legislature. As in the case of Sacramento, EPA cannot now

approve this Ventura plan submittal with respect to the progress

demonstration.

The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), the

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the CARB

plan to submit a comprehensive revised ozone attainment SIP on or

before November 15, 1994. VCAPCD hopes to release a draft of this SIP

by the Spring of 1994 and to modify it after EPA finalizes the FIP in

February 1995. The air quality modeling in the SIP and FIP are based on

similar data and should be consistent. As in the case of Sacramento,

however, the regulations included in the two plans may be different.

4. South Coast

On December 31, 1992, the State submitted the CO plan for the South

Coast. This plan includes a demonstration of attainment by the year

2000 relying on emission reductions from previously adopted regulations

as well as from an enhanced I/M program meeting the requirements of

sections 182(c)(3) and 187(a)(6). Because the State legislature has not

yet enacted legislation authorizing such an enhanced I/M program, EPA

proposes to disapprove the CO plan with respect to the requirements for

an attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, reasonably

available control measures, and enhanced I/M.

On January 15, 1993, the Agency issued a finding of failure to

submit two other mandatory elements of the CO plan: (1) Transportation

control measures (TCMs) to offset growth, as required by section

182(d)(1)(A); and (2) adopted contingency measures to be implemented if

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecasts are exceeded, in accordance with

section 187(a)(3). In section II.C.1., below, EPA is proposing to

disapprove the CO SIP with respect to these six elements: attainment

demonstration, reasonable further progress, reasonably available

control measures, provision for an enhanced I/M program, TCMs to offset

growth, and contingency measures to be implemented if VMT forecasts are

exceeded. EPA is also proposing a partial approval of other portions of

the plan that represent an improvement over what is currently in the

SIP, do not conflict with proposed FIP provisions, and meet some of the

applicable requirements of the Act.

On November 15, 1993, the State submitted a 15 percent rate-of-

progress plan for the South Coast. The 15 percent plan relies on

reductions from currently adopted rules, but also depends upon a

relatively small contribution from 10 SCAQMD measures scheduled for

full adoption in 1994 or 1995 and an improved I/M program. As in the

case of Sacramento and Ventura, EPA cannot at this time propose to

approve this South Coast submittal with respect to the 15 percent rate-

of-progress demonstration. However, in section II.C.2., below, for

entirely different purposes EPA is proposing to conditionally approve

the SCAQMD commitments to adopt rules during 1994 and 1995.

On October 15, 1993, the SCAQMD adopted rules implementing the

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program for NOX and

sulfur oxides (SOX). This innovative program establishes a

declining cap ``bubble'' requirement on most facilities with emissions

greater than 4 tons per year of NOX or SOX. The program

includes emissions allocation and emissions trading components. EPA

intends to propose to approve (or conditionally approve) the RECLAIM

regulations in separate rulemaking, following SIP submittal. For the

purposes of the FIP attainment demonstration, EPA proposes to assign

credit to the adopted RECLAIM program, which went into effect on

January 1, 1994. If EPA does not finally approve the NOX RECLAIM

rules, EPA would not be able to grant credits for associated

reductions, and would need to amend the FIP accordingly. For more

details on the RECLAIM rules, see section III.C.5.

The SCAQMD, SCAG, and CARB are currently preparing a comprehensive

revision to existing air quality plans, addressing all pollutants and

the requirements of both the federal and State Clean Air Acts. SIP

submittal of this comprehensive plan (or portions of the plan) is

scheduled to occur on or before November 15, 1994. The new plan will

include revised 1990 baseyear emissions inventories, and projected

inventories for interim years through the year 2020. With respect to

motor vehicle emissions, these inventories may be significantly

different from those used in the proposed ozone and CO FIPs, because

the 1994 plan is expected to rely on new trip modeling input data and

revised motor vehicle emissions factors. For ozone, the plan may

analyze additional episodes, including a weekend episode.

5. State of California

California's motor vehicle control program (CMVCP) predates the

first federal statute regulating motor vehicle emissions, the Motor

Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965. In the Air Quality Act of

1967 (Pub. L. 90-148), Congress allowed California a waiver of the Air

Quality Act's preemption section on motor vehicle emissions control

because of California's pioneering efforts and unique problems. The

1977 amendments to the CAA expanded the flexibility granted to

California in order ``to afford California the broadest possible

discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its

citizens and the public welfare.'' H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st

Sess. 301-2 (1977).

So long as California demonstrates that its motor vehicle standards

are ``in the aggregate'' at least as protective of public health and

welfare as applicable federal standards, section 209(b) of the Act

requires the Administrator to waive the Act's general prohibition on

state adoption of standards relating to the control of emissions from

new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, unless the

Administrator finds that California's determination was arbitrary and

capricious, that California does not need the standard to meet

``compelling and extraordinary conditions,'' or that the California

standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent

with section 202(a) of the Act.\18\ Section 211(c)(4)(B) also provides

that a state that has received a section 209 waiver (i.e., California)

may prescribe controls or prohibitions respecting fuels or fuel

additives.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\In section 209 waiver decisions EPA has explained that

California standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) if there

is inadequate lead time to permit the development and application of

requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost

of compliance within such period. In addition, the Agency has held

that to avoid inconsistency with section 202(a), California's

procedures may not impose inconsistent certification requirements

such that manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California

and Federal requirements with the same test vehicle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 1990 CAAA further expanded the California waiver provisions to

cover nonroad vehicles or engines (except for certain preempted

engines), and also established a special California clean-fuel vehicle

program to be implemented in California (the California Pilot Test

Program). See sections 209, 211(c)(4), and 249.

California law reserves to CARB most authorities for adopting and

enforcing motor vehicle emission controls (including restrictions on

fuels and fuel content) and standards for nonroad engines and consumer

products. Under this authority, particularly as strengthened by the

California Clean Air Act of 1988 (Chapter 1568, Statutes of 1988), CARB

has adopted many new provisions with the potential for vast VOC and

NOX emission reductions. CARB regulations adopted through the

first half of 1990 are described at length in EPA's 1990 proposed FIP

for the South Coast. See 55 FR 36470-36479.

More recently adopted State measures include: Low Emissions

Vehicles (LEV) and Clean Fuels Program; Utility and Lawn and Garden

Equipment Engine Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures;

Standards for Consumer Products (CARB regulations adopted thus far

cover approximately 30 consumer product categories); and Emission

Standards for Construction and Farm Equipment.

EPA is not generally assigning credit in the attainment

demonstration for State (or local) regulations that have not already

been approved as part of the SIP or are not now undergoing SIP

approval. EPA's policy restricts State credit in either their

attainment demonstrations or progress plans for reductions from

measures that have not been submitted as approvable elements of the

SIP.

The principal reason for this policy has been to comply with

section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act, which requires that each SIP ``include

enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or

techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable

permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and

timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet

the applicable requirements of this Act * * *.''

In general, EPA policy has been to require that reductions used in

attainment demonstrations be submitted for incorporation in the SIP, to

ensure that the reductions are enforceable directly by EPA in the event

that the responsible State and local agencies fail to perform their

implementation responsibilities. It is for this reason that EPA is

proposing in this NPRM to promulgate consumer product regulations

comparable to rules which CARB has previously adopted and already

enforces, but which the State has not yet submitted as a SIP revision.

C. Proposed Action on the South Coast SIP Revisions

1. CO Plan

a. Statutory provision and general preamble requirements. The air

quality planning requirements for CO nonattainment areas are set out in

sections 186-187 of the Act, which pertain to the classification of CO

nonattainment areas and to the submission requirements of the SIPs for

these areas, respectively. EPA has issued a ``General Preamble''

describing the Agency's preliminary views on how EPA intends to act on

SIPs submitted under Title I of the Act [see generally 57 FR 13498

(April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)]. The reader should

refer to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the

EPA's preliminary interpretations of Title I. In this proposed

rulemaking action, EPA is applying these policies to the proposed South

Coast CO SIP, taking into consideration the specific factual issues

presented.

Those states containing CO nonattainment areas classified as

``Serious'' were required under the Act to submit by November 15, 1992,

a plan that provides enforceable measures to achieve annual emissions

reductions leading to attainment of the NAAQS by December 31, 2000. The

Act mandates other specific plan elements, which are discussed below.

In today's action, EPA is proposing to partially disapprove and

partially approve the plan for the South Coast, in accordance with the

provisions of section 110(k) of the Act governing EPA's review of SIP

submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). EPA is proposing to approve the

plan with respect to procedural requirements, employee commute options

(ECO) program, and forecast of VMT. EPA is proposing to disapprove the

plan with respect to the attainment demonstration, reasonable further

progress (RFP), reasonably available control measures (RACM), enhanced

inspection and maintenance (I/M), VMT contingency measures, and TCMs to

offset growth in motor vehicle emissions and meet progress and

attainment requirements. The State's submission to address the

requirements for the clean-fuel vehicle fleet has been conditionally

approved in a separate rulemaking. EPA will also act separately on the

State's oxygenated fuel program. EPA is proposing to take no action on

the plan's emissions inventory for the reasons discussed below.

b. Procedural requirements. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act requires

states to provide reasonable notice and public hearing before plan

adoption. The SCAQMD satisfied this requirement by furnishing proper

notice and adopting the plan at a public hearing held on November 6,

1992. Following adoption by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD, the plan

was forwarded to CARB, which submitted the CO plan as a proposed

revision to the California SIP on December 31, 1992. On April 29, 1993,

CARB submitted a letter correcting certain adoption and implementation

dates for measures under CARB's jurisdiction.

c. Emissions inventory. Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that

nonattainment plans include a comprehensive, accurate, current

inventory of actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants

in the nonattainment area. The emissions inventory included with the

South Coast CO plan generally conforms to applicable EPA guidance (see,

for example, Emission Inventory Requirements for Carbon Monoxide State

Implementation Plans, EPA-450/4-91-011; Procedures for the Preparation

of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone,

Volume I: General Guidance for Stationary Sources, EPA-450/4-91-016;

Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile

Sources, EPA 450/4-81-026d Revised). This guidance allows approval of

California's motor vehicle emissions factors (in this case, the

EMFAC7EP update) in place of the corresponding federal emissions

factors. The methodologies used to prepare the base year and projected

emissions inventories, as described in Chapter 3 of the plan, are

acceptable. EPA is not proposing to approve into the SIP the State's

emission inventories, however, because a different inventory is

employed in the federal attainment demonstration for CO, and a new CO

inventory has been developed for use in a South Coast SIP revision

scheduled for adoption later this year. EPA hopes to be able to approve

the revised inventory in the final SIP action and use this new

inventory in the final CO FIP.

Moreover, State and local agencies are preparing comprehensive

revisions to the base year and projected inventories for motor

vehicles. EPA may use some or all of this revised and updated motor

vehicle data to amend the attainment demonstration in the final FIP. If

the State submits an approvable CO SIP along with acceptable updated

emissions inventories for the South Coast, EPA will be able to approve

the revised State plan and inventories and substitute them for the

federal plan and federal emissions inventories.

d. Reasonably available control measures (RACM). Section 172(c)(1)

requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the

implementation of all RACM (including Reasonably Available Control

Technology, or RACT) as expeditiously as practicable. EPA interprets

this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to

consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such

measures as are reasonably available for implementation in the area as

components of the area's attainment demonstration.

The South Coast CO plan's control measures are presented in Chapter

4, Chapter 6, Appendix B, and Appendix C. The control measures are also

discussed below in sections II.C.1.g., h., i., and j. The State and

local control measures (with adoption/implementation dates before 2001)

are as follows:

M-G-12, Oxygenated Fuels Program (1991/1992);

ARB-4, Improved Certification Requirements for alternative Fuel

Retrofit Systems (1992/1992);

M-G-5, Motor Vehicle Buyback Program (1993/1993-1997);

M-G-4, Low-Emission New Fleet Vehicles (1991/1993-2000);

M-G-11, Inspection and Maintenance Program Enhancement (1993/1994);

M-G-1, Zero-Emission Urban Bus Implementation (1992/1994-2000);

ARB-5, Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels Program (1990/1994-

2003);

ARB-1, Revised Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Medium-

Duty Vehicles and Light Heavy-Duty Engines (1990/1995-1996);

ARB-7, Low Emission Vehicle Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines (1992/

1998-2007);

ARB-11, Inspections of Fleet Heavy-Duty Trucks (1992/to be

determined);

ARB-12, Control of Off-Cycle Emissions (1993/to be determined);

ARB-16, Retrofit/Operational Requirements for Locomotives (1993/

1992-1997);

M-I-7, Eliminate Leaf Blowers (1993/1994);

ARB-13, Emission Standards for Utility Engines (1990/1994-1999);

ARB-15, Emission Standards for Off-Road Motorcycles (1992/1995);

ARB-14, Emission Standards for Construction and Farm Equipment

(1992/1995-2000);

ARB-18, Emission Standards for Off-Highway Vehicles (1993/1995-

2000);

ARB-17, Emission Standards for Marine Vessels (1993/1997-1999);

P-B-6, Control of Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Flares (1992/

1996);

FC-1/2g, Transit Improvements (to be determined/to be determined);

F-2/2f, HOV and Bus Lanes/Roads (to be determined/to be determined);

FC-3/M-H-5(c), Employer-Based Trip Reduction (1993/1994);

FC-4, Additional VMT/VT Reduction Strategies (1989-2000, with SCAQMD

backstop 1994/1991-, with SCAQMD backstop 1994);

FC-5/4, Traffic Flow Improvements (1989-2000/1991-);

FC-6/M-G-7, Control Extended Idling (1993/1994);

FC-7/M-G-5, Encourage Removal of Pre-1980 Vehicles (1993/1993);

FC-8, M-G-6, Reduce Cold Start Emissions from Vehicles (1994/1994);

M-H-1, Environmental Review Program (1992/1992);

M-H-2, Trip Reduction for Schools (1993/1993);

M-H-4, Special Activity Centers (1993/1994).

EPA has reviewed the extensive list of scheduled measures and has

concluded that the plan would reflect RACM but for the omission of an

enhanced I/M program. By this NPRM, EPA is proposing to disapprove the

plan with respect to the RACM requirement because of this single

deficiency. EPA invites comment on whether other RACM exist for the

South Coast CO plan.

e. Attainment demonstration. As noted, ``Serious'' CO nonattainment

areas were required to submit a demonstration that the plan will

provide for attainment by December 31, 2000. The SCAQMD conducted an

attainment demonstration using both areawide (Urban Airshed Model, or

UAM) and hotspot (CAL3QHC) modeling analyses. The two modeling analyses

and the selection of the design value (23.4 ppm, recorded in 1988 at

the Lynwood monitoring station) are discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix

D of the CO plan. The modeling analyses are consistent with EPA's

guidance (Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway

Intersections, User's Guide to CAL3QHC: A Modeling Methodology for

Predicting Pollutant Concentrations near Roadway Intersections, and

Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model for

Areawide Carbon Monoxide). The SCAQMD's modeling analyses predict

attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS by the year 2000, based upon the

control strategies included in the plan.

However, since attainment depends upon large CO emissions

reductions (587.4 tons per day) assigned to the enhanced I/M program,

which has not yet been adopted by the State, EPA proposes to disapprove

the attainment demonstration portion of the plan. In the future, the

attainment demonstration could be approved if the State submits

approvable enhanced I/M legislative authorization and regulations.

f. Quantitative milestones and reasonable further progress (RFP).

The CO plan must contain measures which demonstrate RFP toward

attainment by the applicable attainment date. Reasonable further

progress is defined in section 171(1) of the Act as such annual

incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as

are required by Part D or may reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the NAAQS by

the applicable date.

EPA has reviewed the attainment demonstration and control strategy

for the area (see Chapter 6 and Appendix C of the CO plan). EPA

concludes that the plan would provide for RFP but for the fact that the

State legislature has not yet adopted legislation authorizing an

enhanced I/M program and California has not submitted implementing

regulations for the program. Therefore, EPA proposes to disapprove the

RFP provision. Again, however, this defect could be cured by State

action to authorize, adopt, and submit an approvable enhanced I/M

program.

g. Adoption of mandatory control measures. The Act mandates State

adoption of four control programs for CO areas such as the South Coast.

(1) Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

Section 187(a)(6) requires implementation of an enhanced I/M

program in the nonattainment area's urbanized portions (as defined by

the Bureau of Census) with a CO design value greater than 12.7 ppm.

EPA's regulations respecting this requirement were issued on November

5, 1992 (57 FR 52950). The reader should refer to section III.D.2.c.

for a detailed discussion of the purpose and components of the enhanced

I/M program. As noted, the California State Legislature has to date

failed to enact legislation that would authorize such a program. While

EPA is not now required to propose a FIP enhanced I/M measure (as

discussed in section III.A.1.), the Agency has chosen to do so as part

of the FIP attainment demonstrations.

(2) Oxygenated Fuels

Sections 211(m) and 187(b)(3) mandate SIP provisions prohibiting

the sale of gasoline during winter months containing less than 2.7

percent oxygen by weight. Increasing the oxygen content of gasoline

causes motor vehicle engines to run with leaner overall fuel/air

mixture, thereby reducing the amount of CO generated during the

combustion process.

California's adopted regulations (California Wintertime Oxygenates

Program for the years 1992-1995, and Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline

regulation for the years after 1995) provide for the sale of 1.8 to 2.2

percent oxygenated fuels. On October 30, 1992, the CARB applied for a

partial waiver from the 2.7 percent level specified in the Act.

EPA intends in a separate NPRM to propose to conditionally approve

the waiver under the provisions of section 211(m)(3)(A), which

authorizes the Administrator to waive, in whole or in part, this fuel

requirement if the State demonstrates that use of oxygenated gasoline

would prevent or interfere with the attainment of a NAAQS or a state or

local ambient air quality standard.

CARB's waiver petition argues that an oxygen content above an

average of 2.0 percent would interfere with attainment of the

California standards for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate

matter, because the higher oxygenated fuel levels have the potential to

increase emissions of NOX, which is a precursor to ozone and (in

the South Coast) nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter.

(3) Clean-Fuel Vehicle Fleet Program

Section 246 of the Act requires that the CO SIP for the South Coast

provide for a Clean-Fuel Vehicle Fleet program by May 15, 1994. Section

182(c)(4) places a similar requirement on the South Coast ozone SIP.

The Act mandates SIP provisions requiring the purchase of clean new

vehicles, beginning in 1998, for use in centrally fueled fleets of cars

and light-duty trucks.

On November 13, 1992, CARB submitted as a SIP revision the State's

regulations mandating the availability of clean fuels. At the same

time, CARB applied for conditional approval of an opt-out from this

requirement based upon a showing that the State's Low- Emission

Vehicles (LEV) and Clean Fuels programs (adopted in 1990) qualify as a

substitute for the federal clean fleet program. On November 29, 1993

(58 FR 62532), EPA approved the State's clean fuels availability

regulations and conditionally approved the opt-out request.\19\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\In Section III.D.2.d.(6), EPA proposes as part of the South

Coast FIP a clean fuel fleet program, consistent with EPA's final

fleet program rules [see 58 FR 64679 (December 9, 1993)].

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Employee Commute Options Program

Section 187(b)(2) requires SIP submission by November 15, 1992, of

an Employee Commute Options (ECO) regulation to reduce commute trips to

the worksites of large employers. Section 182(d)(1)(B) mandates that

the ECO SIP requirement also applies to ``Severe'' and ``Extreme''

ozone nonattainment areas, and this same section establishes minimum

program performance levels: the rules must ``require that each employer

of 100 or more persons in such area increase average passenger

occupancy per vehicle in commuting trips between home and the workplace

during peak travel periods by not less than 25 percent above the

average vehicle occupancy for all such trips in the area at the time

the revision is submitted.''

In December 1992, EPA issued Employee Commute Options Guidance to

assist states in developing approvable ECO SIP revisions. This

guidance, and the ECO requirement in the 1990 Amendments, derive in

part from the SCAQMD employee trip reduction program, Regulation XV,

which was adopted on December 11, 1987, as the Country's first large-

scale ECO program.

Regulation XV has undergone several significant revisions since

that date to expand the program and address implementation issues. The

SCAQMD rule was initially submitted as a SIP revision on February 7,

1989, and CARB submitted an amended Regulation XV on two occasions:

March 31, 1991 and May 31, 1993. EPA has reviewed the amended

Regulation XV for consistency with the Act and EPA's guidance. This

review is available as a Technical Support Document, ``EPA Analysis of

the Approvability of South Coast Air Quality Management District

Regulation XV.'' Based on this detailed analysis, EPA proposes in this

NPRM to approve Regulation XV as meeting the requirements of sections

187(b)(2) and 182(d)(1)(B) of the Act.

While the current Regulation XV meets federal approval criteria,

EPA encourages the SCAQMD to continue to evaluate and adjust the

program, if necessary, to ensure that the rule is fully and successfuly

implemented. Any adjustments to the rule must not jeopardize timely

achievement of average passenger occupancy targets and emissions

reductions from the rule.

h. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecast and contingency measures.

Section 187(a)(2)(A) requires the South Coast CO plan to contain a

forecast of VMT for each year until attainment. The plan must also

provide for annual updates of the forecasts along with annual reports

regarding the extent to which the forecasts proved to be accurate.

Finally, section 187(a)(3) requires that the plan contain specific

contingency measures to be implemented if the annual estimate of actual

VMT or a subsequent VMT forecast exceeds the most recent prior forecast

of VMT or if the area fails to attain the CO NAAQS by the attainment

date. These contingency measures must be adopted and enforceable in the

SIP and must take effect without further action by the State or the

Administrator.

The required VMT forecasts are included in Table 3-3 and Appendix A

of the plan. The forecasts require significant update, and SCAG is now

preparing and adopting such an amendment for a new Regional Mobility

Plan and an air quality plan revision scheduled for adoption later in

1994. EPA therefore proposes to approve the forecasts, but intends to

amend the VMT projections in the FIP when the new VMT numbers are

adopted and submitted as a SIP revision. EPA also proposes to approve

the responsible agencies' commitments to replace the VMT projections

and monitor actual VMT levels in the future.

The State has not yet submitted, however, fully adopted and

enforceable contingency measures to meet the requirements of section

187(a)(3). The plan includes three groups of potential controls,

identified as contingency measures. The measures, in fact, are surplus

rather than contingent. The committal measures achieve reductions

beyond those needed for progress and attainment, and they are scheduled

for adoption and implementation by fixed dates, which are independent

of determinations that VMT levels have been exceeded or that the plan

has failed to achieve progress milestones or attainment. Although the

measures are not designed to be triggered by excess VMT levels or by a

failure to achieve scheduled progress or attainment, the measures could

be approved as meeting the contingency requirement if: (1) They are

submitted in fully adopted form, and (2) the RFP and attainment

deficiencies are resolved by SIP submission of approvable enhanced I/M

authorization and regulations.

The first group of ``contingency'' measures (Table 6-4 of the plan)

consists of two stationary source measures: P-B-5, Control of Emissions

from OCS Exploration, Development and Production; and P-B-6, Control of

Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Flares. Emissions reductions were not

estimated for these possible measures. Moreover, neither of the

controls have yet been adopted, although the plan scheduled both for

adoption in 1992. Thus, the two measures cannot be approved.

The second group (Table 6-5) comprises five measures. One of the

measures is assigned to CARB: ARB-8, Fleet Average Standards for Post-

2003 Model Years (Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty

Vehicles). The remaining four measures were scheduled for adoption by

1992, but the State has provided no evidence that the measures have in

fact been adopted. The four measures are energy conservation programs:

E-D-1b, Residential Sector; E-C-1b, Commercial Sector; E-C-2b,

Industrial Sector; and E-C-3, Local Government Sector.

Each of the five measures is designed to serve as contingency

measures after the year 2000. As such, the measures would be

appropriate for SIP submission in the context of a CO maintenance plan.

In their present form, they could not serve to meet contingency

requirements for the attainment plan, since the measures are not

designed to remedy plan shortfalls in achieving reasonable further

progress before, and attainment by, the year 2000. Moreover, EPA cannot

either approve or conditionally approve the measures since the

scheduled full adoption date has elapsed without evidence of such

adoption. Nevertheless, the measures are important pollution prevention

initiatives with multiple benefits, and EPA strongly encourages further

progress at the State, regional, and local level to implement the

measures fully.

The third group of ``contingency'' measures (Table 6-6) includes 11

transportation and indirect source measures. The plan requests

conditional approval of the measures to allow time to fully develop and

adopt the controls, and the resolution of adoption commits the SCAQMD

to revise the measures in 1993 to be fully quantifiable as required by

the CAA (SCAQMD Board Resolution No. 92-36, Finding 10).

These potentially significant measures are undergoing further

revision at the local and regional level, in order to improve the

design and quantification of the controls and confirm implementation

responsibilities. This is particularly the case with respect to the

only two measures to which substantial emissions reductions are

assigned: FC-3--Employer-Based Trip Reduction (advances beyond existing

Regulation XV), and FC-4--Additional VMT/VT Reduction Strategies. EPA

hopes to receive these revised measures as a SIP submittal and will

take action to approve or conditionally approve the controls at that

time.

The CO plan therefore lacks approvable measures that fulfill the

section 187(a)(3) requirements for fully adopted contingency measures

to be triggered if estimates of actual VMT exceed the plan's forecasted

levels. EPA proposes to disapprove the plan with respect to this

requirement. In separate rulemaking, EPA will propose as part of the

South Coast ozone and CO FIP/SIP a substitute contingency measure to be

implemented automatically in the event actual VMT excesses are

monitored.

i. Transportation control measures (TCMs) to offset growth in

emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled. Section 187(b)(2) of

the Act requires ``Serious'' CO areas to meet a TCM requirement

specified in section 182(d)(1)(A) for ``Severe'' and ``Extreme'' ozone

areas. The Act provides that all such plans must include specific and

enforceable TCMs to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT

and numbers of vehicle trips, and to achieve

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.