# Approval and Promulgation of State and Federal Implementation Plans; Proposed Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-9963 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Uncategorized Document - **Published:** May 5, 1994 ## 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 (c) SCAQMD Technology Advancement Office (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) manufacturers bubble 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 (c) emission quantification mechanisms 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 (c) relationship with other FIP provisions (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 (c) general 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 (c) adjustments based on local control of VMT growth 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 (c) Network type (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 (c) Compliance Dates (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 (c) Standards (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 (c) Applicability (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 (c) Applicability (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 (c) Control Period (2) Key Regulatory Elements (a) Summary (b) Pounds per PEU Scheme (c) Fee System (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 (c) Military Aviation (1) Overview (a) Military Air Base Operations (b) Control Strategy (c) Geographic Scope (d) Control Period (2) Key Regulatory Elements (a) Summary (b) Baseline Inventory and Emissions Cap (c) Averaging and Trading (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 (c) Remanufactured 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 (c) Control Strategies--Discount for Using Port Facilities while 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) (c) Auto refinishing operations (Sacramento) (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. (c) EPA will not ``select'' specific attendees or chairpersons for 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 Register thirty (30) days prior to such hearings. (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 evol [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-9963. Public record. Not legal advice.