Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California Ozone
Federal RegisterMar 18, 1996
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA114-1-7280; FRL-5439-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California--
Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTIONS: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone for 7 nonattainment areas: South
Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin
Valley, and Santa Barbara, submitted in order to comply with the
November 1994 deadline under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, EPA
proposes to approve specific local and statewide air pollution control
measures, including the California enhanced motor vehicle inspection
and maintenance program.
EPA proposes to approve these revisions to the California SIP under
provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals for
nonattainment areas.
EPA proposes to establish a consultative process on the potential
for additional mobile source controls that can contribute to attainment
in the South Coast.
DATES: Written comments on the proposed EPA actions must be received by
EPA at the address below on or before May 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed
to: Regional Administrator, Attention: Office of Federal Planning (A-1-
2), Air and Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
Copies of the SIP submittal and materials relevant to this
rulemaking are contained in Docket No. A-96-13, which is available for
viewing during normal business hours at the address shown above.
Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at
the addresses listed below:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC
California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, California
In addition, copies of the relevant local plan, the State plan
(1994 California Ozone SIP), and EPA's technical support documents for
this rulemaking are available at the following locations:
Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, 26 Castilian Drive B-23,
Goleta, California
San Diego Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San
Diego, California
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999
Tuolumne Street, Fresno, California
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive,
Ventura, California
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite
200, Victorville, California
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California
Electronic Availability
This document and EPA's technical support documents are available
at Region 9's site on the Internet's World Wide Web at http://
www.epa.gov/region09/air/sip/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Barrow, Director, Office of
Federal Planning (A-1-2), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-2434
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Summary
B. Requirements of the Act
C. Affected Areas
[[Page 10921]]
D. The California Ozone Plans
1. SIP Submittals
2. EPA Completeness Findings
E. Related SIP Approvals
II. Review of the State Submittal
A. State Measures
1. Mobile Source Measures
a. Introduction
b. Review of Measures
(i) M1
(ii) M2
(iii) M3
(iv) M4
(v) M5 34
(vi) M7
(vii) M8 39
(viii) M9
(ix) M11
(x) Additional New Control Technologies
c. EPA Action
2. I/M
a. Review of Program
b. Emission Reductions
c. EPA Action
3. Consumer Products
a. Introduction
b. Adopted Consumer Products Rules
(i) Measure CP-1
(ii) Measure CP-3 (Aerosol Paints)
c. Mid-Term Committal Measure (CP-2)
d. Long-Term Committal Measure (CP-4)
e. Alternative Compliance Plans (ACPs)
f. Emission Reductions
g. EPA Action
4. Pesticides
a. Review of Measure
b. Emission Reductions
c. EPA Action
B. Federal Measures
1. State Approach
2. EPA Action
C. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and Measures
1. Introduction and Common Elements
a. Emission Inventories
(1) 1990 Base Year Inventories
(2) Inventory Projections
b. Rate of Progress
c. NOX Substitution
d. Modeling
(1) Introduction
(2) Uncertainty and Model Performance
(3) Number of Episodes
(4) Attainment Test
(5) Transport
2. Santa Barbara
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) ROP Control Strategy
(3) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
3. San Diego
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) ROP Control Strategy
(3) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
4. San Joaquin Valley
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy
(4) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
5. Sacramento
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy
(4) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
6. Ventura
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy
(4) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
7. South Coast
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy
(4) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
8. Southeast Desert
a. Identification of Plans
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP and Attainment Provisions
(1) ROP and Attainment Emission Targets
(2) State Approach
(3) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(4) EPA Action
e. Overall EPA Action
III. Summary of EPA Actions
IV. Regulatory Process
V. Unfunded Mandates
Appendix: Status of EPA's Activities Relating to the ``Federal
Measures'' in the California SIP Submittal
I. Background
A. Summary
Air pollution remains a significant public health concern in many
parts of the country, including many areas in California. The Clean Air
Act requires states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs) that
lay out how areas will reduce pollution and attain the health-based air
quality standards for a number of pollutants, including ground level
ozone.
On the Clean Air Act deadline for ozone SIP submittals, November
15, 1994, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted to EPA
the State's ozone plans, including State and local measures and
regulations, emission inventories, modeling analyses, rate-of-progress
(ROP) plans, and attainment demonstrations. This material was followed
by several supplementary SIP submissions and technical documentation
over the past year, addressing in still greater detail and more
completely the critical ozone planning requirements of the Act.
Together these submissions present a road map of how the State of
California envisions meeting the health-based ozone air quality
standards in 7 distinct geographic areas within the State by the dates
specified in the Clean Air Act. The submittals represent the
culmination of years of work and collaboration among stakeholders at
the local, regional, State, national, and even international level. The
plans were carefully tailored to meet the clean air goals of
Californians, reflecting the social and economic priorities of each
affected area within the State as well as the legitimate concerns of
national and international commerce.
In the last 30 years, California has significantly improved air
quality in its cities through efforts by businesses and
[[Page 10922]]
communities to reduce ground level ozone pollution. California faces
additional challenges in its fight for clean air because of rapid
growth in population and motor vehicle use as well as meteorological
conditions conducive to ozone formation. Nevertheless, there are still
several areas where air pollution continues to threaten public health,
including Southern California, which violates the standard on almost
one out of every three days--25 times more frequently than the next
most polluted urban areas. The current plans build on California's
pioneering air pollution control efforts to make progress against, and
eventually eliminate, one of the most severe and intractable
environmental and public health problems in the Country.
The Clean Air Act guarantees to all Americans healthy air to
breathe. Unfortunately, approximately one-quarter of Americans
nationwide and more than three-quarters of all Californians are
currently exposed to health-threatening levels of air pollution. Of the
top ten U.S. urban areas with the most violations of the national
ambient air quality standard for ozone, nine are located in California.
Ozone is a highly reactive chemical compound which, at ground
level, can affect both biological tissues and man-made materials. Ozone
exposure causes a range of human pulmonary and respiratory health
effects. While ozone's effects on the pulmonary function of sensitive
individuals (e.g., asthmatics) are of primary concern, evidence
indicates that high ambient levels of ozone can cause respiratory
symptoms in healthy adults and children as well. For example, exposure
to ozone for several hours at moderate concentrations, especially
during outdoor work and exercise, has been found to decrease lung
function, increase airway inflammation, increase sensitivity to other
irritants, and impair lung defenses against infections in otherwise
healthy adults and children. Other symptoms include chest pain,
coughing, and shortness of breath.
There are also public health consequences from direct exposure to
the two principal pollutants that cause ozone formation: oxides of
nitrogen (or NOX) and volatile organic compounds (or VOCs). Since
attainment of the ozone standard requires reductions in these two
precursor pollutants, successful implementation of the ozone SIPs will
yield additional health benefits. Exposure to nitrogen dioxide (a major
component of NOX) can reduce breathing efficiency and increase
lung and airway irritation even in healthy adults; elevated NO2
levels also increase symptoms of respiratory illness, lung congestion,
wheeze, and increased bronchitis in children. VOCs include many air
toxics (such as benzene), which can cause respiratory, immunological,
neurological, reproductive, developmental, and mutagenic problems. Some
VOCs are also probable or known human carcinogens.
Finally, the conversion of NOX into fine particulate matter is
a serious health concern, especially in Southern California. Studies
have shown that high concentrations of fine particulate matter are
associated with major human health problems, including deleterious
effects on breathing and the respiratory system, aggravation of
existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alternations in the
body's defense mechanisms against foreign materials, and damage to lung
tissue resulting in fibrosis, carcinogenesis, and premature death.
In addition to impacts on public health, ozone damages vegetation
and NOX emissions, in the form of acid deposition, both harms
plants and causes eutrophication of lakes and streams. Estimates based
on experimental studies of the major commercial crops in the U.S.
suggests that ozone may be responsible for significant agricultural
crop yield losses. In addition, ozone causes noticeable leaf damage in
many crops, which reduces their marketability and value.
Efforts to clean the air require significant resources, but the
benefits are substantial. While it is easier to put a price tag on a
regulation to limit air pollution than it is to assign a dollar value
to being able to breathe without losing lung capacity or to see
mountains that are a few miles away, we know that impacts on
individuals' health associated with air pollution have considerable
physiological, psychological, and purely financial costs. Similarly,
lower crop yields, decreased forest production, and accelerated
building deterioration due to air pollution also have financial costs
that will be reduced by attainment of the clean air standards.
At the same time, clean air has benefits even beyond healthy
breathing. The technologies and industries that will make air pollution
a problem of the past can also be the growth industries that bring to
California jobs and dollars from markets all around the world. A recent
World Bank study projects a $300 billion worldwide marketplace for
clean technologies by the year 2000. Innovative technologies offer the
promise of continued economic growth in concert with strong
environmental protection.
To achieve public health progress over the past 30 years,
California has already adopted uniquely stringent controls on a vast
array of industrial sources, consumer products, and motor vehicles. As
developed by California and Californians, these existing regulations
and the SIP's proposed enhancements to them promote technological
advances while meeting the economic and environmental needs of the
State. The credit for this achievement is shared by the State's air
pollution professionals, regulated industry, and citizens, who continue
to explore new and innovative ways to minimize pollution associated
with their products and activities.
Plan Approvals
When a state submits a SIP to EPA the Clean Air Act requires the
Agency to review the plan to determine if it meets the Act's
requirements and environmental goals. California's 1994 Ozone SIP
included, for both the State and local agencies, fully adopted
regulations and control measures for which regulations must be written.
Since November 1994, EPA has already completed approval of all but one
of the State's fully adopted regulations and most of the State's
commitments to adopt regulations in the future. The State submitted its
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) regulations on
January 22, 1996. EPA is proposing today approval of the I/M
regulations, which should help to assure the maximum benefits from the
California motor vehicle emissions standards.
EPA believes that this SIP represents an important blueprint for
clean air in California. By today's actions, the Federal government
signals its intention to concur with these plans. California's
commitments, when implemented, will improve air quality and protect
public health. Now it is incumbent on California to meet those
commitments. EPA is today generally proposing to approve in full the
critical components of all of the plans for all of the areas.
EPA is proposing approval of:
The emission inventories and modeling analyses in all of
the affected areas;
The 15% rate-of-progress plans for the period 1990-1996 in
the South Coast (the Los Angeles basin), Ventura, San Joaquin, San
Diego, and Santa Barbara;
The post-1996 rate-of-progress plans in the South Coast,
Ventura, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and San Diego;
[[Page 10923]]
The attainment demonstrations for the South Coast,
Southeast Desert, Ventura, Sacramento, San Joaquin, San Diego, and
Santa Barbara;
All of the individual local measures included with the
plans.
EPA will take action separately on the 15% progress plan for Sacramento
and the progress plans for the Southeast Desert.
The South Coast ozone attainment demonstration raises a unique
issue. In the SIP, California assumes that EPA will issue specific
national mobile source emission reduction rules to help the South Coast
reach attainment. While some additional mobile source standards may be
feasible and desirable, EPA believes that it is important to examine
and discuss these standards because they have far-reaching
implications. As new national and international standards are being
discussed, EPA commits to support rather than hinder State and local
progress in implementing and updating the ozone attainment
demonstration for the South Coast.
To achieve this objective and allow for approval of the South Coast
attainment demonstration at this time, EPA proposes an approach which
the Agency believes is consistent with EPA's guiding principle for
implementing its statutory responsibilities: accomplish environmental
goals through innovative approaches that are collaborative rather than
adversarial, and that provide flexibility while requiring
accountability.
The South Coast attainment demonstration is based primarily on
those State and local components (enumerated in the text of the notice)
that make up the vast majority of reductions needed for attainment in
the South Coast. EPA has already approved most of the State and local
adopted regulations and many of the State's new commitments made as
part of California's 1994 Ozone SIP. EPA proposes in this document to
approve the enforceable State and local commitments that make up the
remainder of the plan. These State and local regulations and
commitments, together with creditable national controls which EPA has
promulgated or proposed, account for well over 90% of the reductions
needed for attainment.
To address the small remaining shortfall which the State has
assigned to the Federal government, EPA proposes to conduct a public
consultative process on future mobile source controls. The Agency also
commits to undertake rulemaking, after the consultative process, on any
controls which are determined to be appropriate for EPA. Finally, EPA
is proposing to require that the State submit, before EPA's final
action on the South Coast plan, an enforceable commitment to submit a
revised South Coast attainment demonstration and gap-filling State or
local control measures, if needed, after the consultative process.
In assigning EPA responsibility for issuing Federal emission
standards for various mobile sources, the State argued that attainment
in Southern California depends upon emission reductions from national
and international mobile sources which could not legally or practically
be regulated at the State or local level. EPA and the State have been
working together for the past several years to evaluate the potential
for additional national emission controls on mobile sources. EPA has
recently proposed or finalized national emission controls for
construction, farm, and lawn and garden equipment; pleasure craft and
some categories of marine vessels; and potential new controls on heavy-
duty truck emissions. The proposed nationwide heavy-duty truck
controls, in fact, are an outgrowth of an EPA-California joint
initiative, developed in consultation with heavy-duty engine
manufacturers, which also extends to possible future controls on heavy-
duty nonroad engines. Other assignments by the State present unique
challenges, such as the establishment of stringent engine emission
standards for aircraft and ocean-going vessels--sources which are today
regulated by treaty principally at the international level.
EPA proposes to continue to consult with the State and other
stakeholders to examine the potential for additional mobile source
controls that can contribute to attainment in the South Coast. This
period provides an opportunity to agree on a set of emission reductions
without adverse consequences to the State or the environment, whether
those additional reductions come from national and international
emission standards or from new State and local measures. At the
conclusion of this consultation, in June 1997, EPA expects that the
State and local agencies will be able to amend the attainment
demonstration appropriately, based on the final mix of national, State,
and local mobile source control responsibilities. During the
consultative process, the State and local agencies need to proceed
aggressively with implementing other parts of the SIP in order to
maintain progress towards cleaning the air.
As mentioned, EPA is proposing to approve all of the local agency
commitments to adopt and implement rules by scheduled dates to achieve
specified emission reductions. In some cases, most notably the South
Coast, scheduled adoption dates have already been missed. It is
critically important that these adoption schedules be amended, that the
local agency staff and governing board's commit themselves to
reasonable and aggressive schedules for rule development and adoption,
and that the affected agencies proceed successfully with plan
implementation to fulfill their public commitments to deliver clean
air. EPA will work with the local agencies, the regulated community,
and the public to help the government boards and officials to meet
their public health obligations. Implementation failures will prolong
the unacceptable current levels of pollution and will expose the areas
to potential sanctions under the Clean Air Act.
Section 182(e)(5) of the Clean Air Act authorizes inclusion of
conceptual, new-technology measures in the attainment demonstration for
the South Coast, the Country's only ``extreme'' ozone nonattainment
area. In this 1990 amendment, Congress recognized that the South
Coast's enormous emission reduction requirements justified giving more
time to allow for the completion of research and development phases
that must precede the successful commercialization of practically zero-
emitting products, industrial processes, and means of transportation. A
large portion of the remaining needed reductions in the 1994 South
Coast plan is now assigned to conceptual measures. If these measures
are to contribute to the solution of the South Coast's ozone problem in
later years, all responsible governmental agencies and private industry
must now increase their resource commitments and cooperative efforts to
develop the clean technologies and innovative market approaches that
will be the basis for the area's economic and environmental progress.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed SIP actions. The
Addresses section of this document provides information on the public
comment process and opportunities to inspect the SIP and related
materials. EPA hopes to take final action soon so that California can
continue to make progress in implementing the challenging strategies in
the plans.
In transmitting the 1994 California Ozone SIP, the Chairwoman of
the California Air Resources Board stated that ``The SIP provides a
firm guarantee to citizens of California that clean air
[[Page 10924]]
goals will be met within the time frames set out in the CAA.'' Indeed,
the goal of the sweeping 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments has been not
simply to sustain the historic progress in reducing air pollution, but
instead to honor the underlying promise of the Act: clean, healthy air
for all Americans. We believe that California's achievement in these
plans for the most polluted areas of the nation proves that the Clean
Air Act is effective when citizens and public officials work together
to focus technical expertise and common sense to protect themselves,
the health of their children, and the welfare of future generations.
The Federal government is committed to playing its part in this final
effort to deliver clean air to all Californians.
B. Requirements of the Act
Title I of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA (CAAA) completely revised
the Part D nonattainment provisions for areas which had not attained
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone. In
addition, Congress made numerous changes governing EPA's processing of
SIPs, as well as the repercussions of State failures to meet the
various SIP requirements.
Section 110 of Part A of Title I contains general requirements
applicable to all SIP revisions. Section 110(k) describes the Agency's
actions on SIP revisions, including findings as to whether submissions
are complete (section 110(k)(1)), deadlines for EPA actions (section
110(k)(2)), types of actions the Agency may take on complete submittals
(110(k) (3) and (4)), and sanctions which may be applied to areas which
fail to meet the Act's requirements (sections 179 and 110(m)) or fail
to implement approved SIPs (sections 113(a)(5), 173(4), and 179).
The requirements addressed by this proposal are generally those of
Part D of Title I, pertaining to nonattainment areas. Such areas are
designated under section 107 of the Act (codified at 40 CFR Part 81).
While Subpart 1 of Part D (sections 171 to 179 CAA) describes general
requirements for nonattainment areas, Subpart 2 (sections 181 to 185B)
lists additional provisions added under the 1990 CAAA for ozone
nonattainment areas.
Under this subpart, ozone nonattainment areas are classified
according to the severity of the nonattainment problem, and become
subject to a graduated series of requirements. The classification
scheme for ozone nonattainment areas is listed under section 181, which
also establishes deadlines for attainment. The nonattainment
classifications and applicable attainment deadlines are: marginal
(November 15, 1993), moderate (November 15, 1996), serious (November
15, 1999), severe (November 15, 2005 or 2007), and extreme (November
15, 2010). Section 181(a) further provides that the attainment date
shall be ``as expeditiously as practicable but not later than'' these
deadlines.
EPA has issued preliminary interpretations 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,'' (57 FR 13498 [April 16, 1992]). In this
proposed rulemaking action, EPA is applying these policies to the
proposed California ozone SIP, taking into consideration the specific
factual issues presented.
The central SIP requirements for ozone nonattainment areas are
demonstrations of reasonable further progress (or ``rate of progress'')
and attainment. Section 182(b)(1) requires, for areas classified as
moderate or above, submission by November 15, 1993 of a SIP revision
providing for reasonable further progress, defined as a reduction from
1990 baseline emissions of at least 15% actual emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC), taking into account growth, during the first 6
years following enactment of the 1990 CAAA (i.e., up to November 15,
1996).
Baseline emissions for calculating the required ROP reduction are
defined at section 182(b)(1)(B). Baseline emissions are relative to a
particular year for which the ROP reduction is calculated, and differ
from the 1990 base year emissions primarily in excluding reductions for
certain Federal programs which were already required prior to the 1990
CAAA. Section 182(b)(1)(C) describes a number of exclusions from
creditability for the purposes of meeting the ROP requirement.
For moderate areas, section 182(b)(1) requires submission of a plan
revision by November 15, 1993, that provides an attainment
demonstration including sufficient annual reductions in VOC and
NOX to attain the ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1996. The attainment
demonstration requirement can be met through applying EPA-approved
modeling techniques.
Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires, for serious and above areas,
submission by November 15, 1994, of reasonable further progress and
attainment plans. For these areas, the CAA defines reasonable further
progress as an additional ROP reduction above and beyond the required
1996 reductions, of 3% per year of baseline VOC emissions, averaged
over each consecutive 3-year period from November 15, 1996 until
attainment. Section 182(c)(2)(A) also requires attainment plans, based
on photochemical grid modeling, to be submitted by November 15, 1994,
for serious and above areas.
Section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for actual NOX emissions
reductions (after accounting for growth) that occur after the base year
of 1990 to be used to meet post-1996 ROP emission reduction
requirements. The reader is referred to section II.C.1.c. below for a
discussion of the Agency's NOX substitution criteria.
Sections 182(g)(3) and 182(g)(5) specify requirements for areas
which fail to submit a ROP milestone compliance demonstration under
section 182(g)(2) within the required period or if the Administrator
determines that the area has not met any applicable milestone. The
first ozone ROP milestone compliance demonstration is due April 1997,
for the period 1990-1996. Among the options discussed in section 182(g)
for curing a ROP shortfall is the use of an economic incentive program
(EIP). Under section 182(g)(4)(B), EPA promulgated requirements for
EIPs at 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart U (see 40 CFR 51.490 through 40 CFR
51.494--``EIP Rules and Guidance''). These EIP rules also serve as
policy guidance to determine the approvability of SIP measures that
rely on economic incentives (see 40 CFR 51.490(b)).
Under section 182(b)(4) of the Act, basic motor vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M) programs are required in all moderate ozone
nonattainment areas. Under section 182(c)(3), ozone nonattainment areas
designated as serious and worse with 1980 populations of 200,000 or
more are required to meet EPA regulations for ``enhanced'' I/M
programs. As required by section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA published
updated requirements for I/M programs on November 5, 1992 (40 CFR part
51, Subpart S, see also 57 FR 52950). On September 18, 1995, EPA issued
flexibility amendments to these I/M rules, allowing for an additional,
less stringent enhanced I/M performance standard for areas that can
meet the ROP and attainment requirements with an I/M program that falls
below the originally promulgated enhanced I/M performance standard (see
60 FR 48029). On November 28, 1995, the National Highway System
Designation Act (Public Law 104-59) was enacted. Section 348 of this
legislation modifies the I/M provisions
[[Page 10925]]
of the Clean Air Act, providing a mechanism for approval with full
credit for decentralized or test-and-repair enhanced I/M programs under
certain circumstances. The legislation also establishes an 18-month
evaluation period to verify that the assigned credits have a basis in
fact, prior to permanent program approval.
Part D of the Act includes other ozone SIP requirements. EPA has
previously acted upon some SIP revisions addressing these requirements;
others will be addressed in future actions. Moreover, the ozone ROP and
attainment plans depend upon the successful adoption and implementation
of well over 100 State and local rules. EPA will approve or disapprove
individual rules relating to each local plan after the State submits
the rules and EPA deems them complete.
EPA believes that the law requires and the public expects that the
responsible California State and local agencies will honor all of their
clean air commitments in these ozone plans, and will consistently
pursue reasonable and aggressive plan implementation until the clean
air goals are reached. Nevertheless, the Act does allow the State to
amend the SIPs in the future, both with respect to the technical
foundations of the demonstrations and the specific mix of control
measures chosen for achieving progress and attainment. State and local
agencies have the flexibility to make changes as necessary and
appropriate to improve the plans, but EPA will fulfill the Agency's
responsibilities under section 110(l) of the CAA, which provides that
``the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress * * * or any other
applicable requirement of the Act.''
C. Affected Areas
When California's ozone nonattainment areas were first classified
under the 1990 CAAA, 9 areas were classified as moderate and above, and
therefore subject to the progress and attainment requirements. The San
Francisco Bay Area was later redesignated to attainment (60 FR 27028,
May 22, 1995). CARB has also submitted a request to redesignate the
Monterey Bay Area to attainment. EPA will act on the Monterey
redesignation in the near future.
This proposal addresses ROP and attainment plans submitted for all
of the remaining nonattainment areas. These areas are the South Coast
(classified as extreme), the Southeast Desert (comprising the Mojave,
Coachella/San Jacinto, and Antelope Valley areas, severe-17), Ventura
(severe-15), Sacramento (severe-15), San Diego (serious), San Joaquin
Valley (serious), and Santa Barbara (moderate). The boundaries for
these areas are set forth at 40 CFR 81.305.
Since a number of the State's measures apply throughout California
and thus contribute both toward attainment and maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS, the SIP submittal and EPA's proposed approval actions affect all
areas in the State.
D. The California Ozone Plans
1. SIP Submittals
On November 15, 1993, in response to the 15% ROP requirements of
section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act, CARB submitted plans for all of the
areas addressed in this notice. These submittals have been superseded
by revised ROP plans submitted one year later.
On November 15, 1994, CARB submitted a revision to the ``State of
California Implementation Plan for Achieving and Maintaining the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (SIP) under cover letter from
James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia Marcus (EPA). This SIP revision includes
documentation that the public involvement and adoption requirements of
the CAA have been met at both the State and local level.
The revision itself consists of: (a) The State's comprehensive
ozone plan, including the State's own measures and the State's
summaries of, and revisions to, the local plans; (b) the State's
previously adopted regulations for consumer products and reformulated
gasoline and diesel fuels; and (c) local plans addressing the ozone
attainment demonstration and ROP requirements.
The ozone SIP submittal includes the following separate documents:
(a) The State's Comprehensive Ozone Plan
``The 1994 California State Implementation Plan for Ozone,''
volumes I-IV. The November 15, 1994, submittal letter refers to other
submittals, described below, as completing the 1994 California Ozone
SIP. Volume I provides an overview of the entire submittal; Volumes II
and III include the State's measures for mobile sources, consumer
products, and pesticides; and Volume IV treats the local plans. On
December 29, 1994 and February 7, 1995, the State submitted updates to
these documents, incorporating changes made by CARB at the time of
adoption, and providing other technical and editorial corrections.
(b) The State's Adopted Regulations
(1) The California Antiperspirants and Deodorants regulations and
Consumer Products regulations, as contained in Title 17 of the
California Code of Regulations, Sections 94507-94517, adopted on
December 27, 1990, August 14, 1991, and September 21, 1992.
(2) The California Diesel Fuel regulations, as contained in Title
13 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 2281 and 2282,
adopted on August 22, 1989, June 21, 1990, April 15, 1991, October 15,
1993, and August 24, 1994.
(3) The California Reformulated Gasoline regulations, as contained
in Title 13, of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 2250,
2252, 2253.4, 2254, 2257, 2260, 2262.1, 2262.2, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5,
2262.6, 2262.7, 2263, 2264, 2266-2272, 2296, and 2297, initially
adopted by CARB on November 17, 1988, and formally adopted on August
22, 1989, June 21, 1990, April 15, 1991, October 15, 1993, and August
24, 1994.
(c) Local Ozone Progress and Attainment Plans
(1) ``1994 Clean Air Plan for Santa Barbara County.'' The submittal
letter for this plan is from James Boyd to Regional Administrator
Felicia Marcus and is dated November 14, 1994.
(2) ``1994 Ozone Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans for San
Diego County.''
(3) ``San Joaquin Valley Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans.''
On December 28, 1994, the State submitted the ``Rate-of-Progress and
Attainment Demonstration Plans for the Kern County Air Pollution
Control District,'' applicable to the Kern desert portion of the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.
(4) ``Sacramento Area Proposed Attainment and Rate-of-Progress
Plans.'' On December 29, 1994, the State replaced this with the
``Sacramento Area Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans.''
(5) ``1994 Air Quality Management Plan for Ventura County.''
(6) ``Rate-of Progress and Attainment Demonstration Plans for the
Mojave Desert.''
(7) ``1994 Air Quality Management Plan for South Coast Air Basin,
Antelope Valley and Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area.''
On December 29, 1994, the State submitted the ``Rate-of-Progress
Plan Revision: South Coast Air Basin &
[[Page 10926]]
Antelope Valley & Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area.'' 1
\1\ Antelope Valley and Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area are
portions of the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management
Area under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 30, 1995, CARB submitted revised 1990 base year emission
inventories for each of the California ozone nonattainment areas.
On June 30, 1995, CARB submitted descriptive materials relating to
the State's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program, adopted
by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair.
On January 22, 1996, CARB submitted the motor vehicle inspection
and maintenance regulations adopted by the California Bureau of
Automotive Repair.
2. EPA Completeness Findings
On January 30, 1995, EPA issued a finding of completeness under
Section 110(k)(1) of the Act for the following portions of the
California ozone SIP submittal: Diesel Fuel Regulations; Reformulated
Gasoline Regulations; CARB Measures M2, M3, M5, M8, M9, M11, CP-2, CP-
3, CP-4, Additional Measures; and SCAQMD Long Term Measures ADV-CTS-01/
02, ADV-FUG, ADV-PRC, ADV-UNSP. These elements of the revision were
found complete based on EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth
in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V.2
\2\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990
(55 FR 5830) and pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 18, 1995 the EPA issued a finding of completeness for the
remaining portions of the November and December 1994 submittals with
regard to: (1) attainment and post-1996 RFP requirements at section
182(c)(2) of the Act; (2) 15% ROP requirement of section 182(b)(1)(A);
(3) attainment requirement for moderate areas (Santa Barbara) as
described at Section 182(b)(1)(A); and (4) 1990 base year inventory
requirements of section 182(a)(1).
On June 30, 1995, EPA issued a finding of completeness for the
State's submittal of revisions to the State's I/M program.
On February 5, 1996, EPA issued a finding of completeness for the
State's I/M regulations.
E. Related SIP Approvals
On February 14, 1995, the EPA Administrator signed documents taking
the following approval actions relating to the California ozone SIP:
(1) Final approval of the CARB Antiperspirants and Deodorants
regulations, Consumer Products regulations, Diesel Fuel regulations,
and Reformulated Gasoline regulations, as submitted on November 15,
1994.
(2) Interim final approval of CARB and SCAQMD New-Technology
Measures, submitted as part of the South Coast ozone SIP on November
15, 1994. The measures were approved under the provisions of section
182(e)(5) of the CAA, which authorizes the Administrator to approve
fully and credit as part of an extreme ozone area SIP conceptual
measures dependent upon new control technologies or new control
techniques. The specific measures approved are:
(a) CARB Measure M2, Improved Control Technology for Light-Duty
Vehicles, for adoption in the year 2000 and implementation in 2004-5.
(b) CARB Measure M9, Off-Road Diesel Equipment, 2.5 grams per brake
horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) NOX standard, for adoption in 2001 and
implementation in 2005.
(c) CARB Measure CP-4, Consumer Products Advanced Technology and
Market Incentives, for adoption in 2005 and implementation in 2009.
(d) CARB Additional Measures, for adoption and implementation by
2009-2010.
(e) SCAQMD Measure ADV-CTS-01, Advance Technology-CTS (Coating
Technologies), for adoption in 2003.
(f) SCAQMD Measure ADV-FUG, Advanced Technology-Fugitives, for
adoption in 2003.
(g) SCAQMD Measure ADV-PRC, Advance Technology-Process Related
Emissions, for adoption in 2003.
(h) SCAQMD Measure ADV-UNSP, Advance Technology-Unspecified,
Stationary Sources, for adoption in 2003.
(i) SCAQMD Measure ADV-CTS-02, Advance Technology-CTS (Coatings
Technologies).
(3) Proposed approval of CARB's mid-term control measures: Measures
M3, Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) requirement for
Medium-Duty Vehicles, for adoption in 1997 and implementation in 1998;
M5, Heavy-Duty Vehicle NOX regulations, for adoption in 1997 and
implementation in 2002; M8, Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles lower
emissions standards, for adoption in 1997 and implementation in 1998;
M11, Industrial Equipment, Gas and LPG, for adoption in 1997 and
implementation in 2000; and CP2, Mid-Term Consumer Products, for
adoption in July 1997.
These actions were taken in conjunction with issuance of ozone
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the South Coast, Ventura, and
Sacramento, and a carbon monoxide FIP for the South Coast. Prior to
publication of the FIP and SIP actions in the Federal Register,
legislation was enacted mandating that these FIPs ``shall be rescinded
and shall have no further force and effect'' (Public Law 104-6, Defense
Supplemental Appropriation, H.R. 889, enacted April 10, 1995).
On August 21, 1995, EPA announced the rescission of the FIPs (60 FR
43468), and reissued the final and interim final SIP approvals (60 FR
43379) and the proposed SIP approvals (60 FR 43421) referenced above.
On December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126), EPA issued the final SIP approval
of the State's mid-term control measures (M3, M5, M8, M11, and CP-2).
II. Review of the State Submittal
On October 7, 1994 the State published a public notice regarding
its adoption hearings, to begin on November 9, 1994. Those hearings
were extended to November 14 and 15, at which time CARB adopted and
submitted the documents listed above (section I.C.).
The local elements of the State plan were the product of plan
development, public review and adoption processes conducted in each
nonattainment area. Following adoption by the local air pollution
control boards, the local plans were submitted to CARB, which amended
the plans and incorporated them into the overall California Ozone SIP.
This document discusses the State's submittal in terms of 3 broad
categories: measures which the State has adopted, or enforceably
committed to adopt (section II.A.); measures assigned by the State to
the Federal government (section II.B.); and local ROP and attainment
plans and measures (section II.C.).
A. State Measures
Statewide elements of the ozone progress and attainment plans
include measures to control mobile sources, consumer products, and
pesticides. These control measures consist of existing adopted rules,
commitments to adopt rules between 1995 and 1997, and long-term
measures scheduled for regulatory adoption in the year 2000 or later.
1. Mobile Sources Measures
a. Introduction. According to data from CARB, mobile sources (on-
road and non-road) account for more than 60 percent of ozone precursor
emissions in California. Therefore, further reductions in mobile source
emissions are essential if attainment of the NAAQS for ozone is to be
achieved.
[[Page 10927]]
CARB has an existing statewide control program for mobile source
emissions, which is expected to achieve significant reductions in
emissions in the ozone nonattainment areas of the State. A key element
of this existing control program is the Low-Emission Vehicle/Clean
Fuels (LEV) program which was originally adopted in 1990 and has been
amended several times since. The LEV program aims to reduce emissions
from future light- and medium-duty vehicles. The program contains
several categories of vehicle emission requirements. Increasingly
stringent fleet average requirements must be met by vehicle
manufacturers beginning in 1994. In addition, the LEV program requires
manufacturers to introduce increasing percentages of zero-emission
vehicles (ZEVs), beginning with two percent in 1998 (Title 13,
California Code of Regulations, Section 1960.1).
Other CARB-adopted mobile source control measures include the
California Diesel Fuel Regulations and the California Reformulated
Gasoline regulations. Both of these fuel regulations were originally
adopted in 1989 and frequently amended. As discussed above, EPA
approved the diesel and reformulated gasoline regulations on August 21,
1995 (60 FR 43379).
Beginning in 1988, CARB also adopted the following important sets
of mobile source regulations:
(1) Emission standards for diesel farm and construction equipment
over 175 hp;
(2) revised evaporative emission test procedures;
(3) Phase 2 on-board diagnostics (OBD) provisions;
(4) Revised emission standards for medium-duty vehicles (MDVs) and
light-heavy-duty vehicles (LHDVs); and
(5) Requirements for utility engines and off-highway recreational
vehicles/engines.
In addition to the adopted measures, the State has committed in the
1994 California Ozone SIP to future adoption of a series of mobile
source measures. The commitments fall chronologically into two
categories with regard to the adoption schedule: mid-term commitments
to be adopted during the 1995-1997 time frame, and long-term measures
scheduled for adoption in the year 2000 or later.
The long-term measures are relied upon only in the South Coast Air
Basin. The South Coast is the only area in the country classified as
extreme for ozone, and is subject to section 182(e)(5) of the Act,
which authorizes EPA to credit conceptual measures using new
technologies or control techniques if they are not needed for meeting
the first 10 years of ROP (see section II.C.7.e.(1).).
The following is a description of the State's mobile source
measures, or M Measures, and EPA's approval actions on the measures.
b. Review of Measures
(i) M1--Accelerated Retirement of Light-Duty Vehicles. The SIP
commits to adopt this measure in 1996 and implement it from 1996 to
2010. Responsibility for implementing this measure may be shared
between CARB and regional air districts. In this measure, CARB commits
to the annual retirement (scrappage or removal) of up to 75,000 older,
high-emitting vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin only, beginning in
1999. A smaller number of vehicles will be retired between 1996 and
1998 in order to gain experience with the program. CARB estimates that
$1,000 per car will be required to cover costs associated with vehicle
purchase and program administration. CARB committed in the SIP to
secure a financing mechanism for the program by the end of 1995, and
legislative efforts to do so have been partially successful. While all
critical near-term revenues should be obtained now, the State also
should begin to pursue long-term support for the program. CARB must
also ensure that implementation and monitoring of the measure prevents
double-counting of reduction credits, since scrappage is also a feature
of the State's I/M program and emission reduction credits from
scrappage may be claimed as emission reduction credits in trading
programs.3
\3\ These concerns were expressed in a letter from David P.
Howekamp, Director, Air & Toxics Division, USEPA Region 9, to James
D. Boyd, Executive Officer, CARB, dated June 15, 1995, on follow-up
issues to a June 9, 1995 meeting between CARB, USEPA, and the
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While M1 is a commitment to implement an accelerated vehicle
retirement program only in the South Coast, the SIP states that
``implementation of light-duty vehicle retirement programs in other
non-attainment areas will be considered as a means of further reducing
emissions'' (Vol. II, p. B-2).
The emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast by the
measure are displayed by year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions
from California Mobile Source Measure M1.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M1 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG........................... 5 8 11 12 13 14
NOX........................... 4 6 9 10 10 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) M2--Improved Control Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles. CARB
commits to adopt this measure in 2000 and begin implementation in 2004-
2005. This measure will achieve emission reductions from LDVs through
the use of one or more market-based and/or technology-forcing
approaches. Emission reductions may be achieved through: (1) cost-
effective gasoline engine control technology to meet or exceed Ultra
Low-Emission Vehicle (ULEV) standards in the post-2003 time frame; (2)
ZEV sales in excess of the 10% requirement beyond 2003; and/or (3)
availability of advanced hybrid electric vehicles with emissions
substantially lower than ULEVs. The SIP indicates that market forces
(e.g., incentives) and/or emission standards may be used to achieve the
emission reductions. Emission reductions associated with this measure
are relied upon in the South Coast only. The emission reductions to be
achieved in the South Coast by the measure are displayed by year in the
table below, labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure
M2.''
[[Page 10928]]
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M2 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG........................... 0 0 3 7 6 10
NOX........................... 0 0 5 9 9 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 1995, EPA approved this measure under the provisions
of section 182(e)(5) of the Act.
(iii) M3--Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Requirement
for Medium-Duty Vehicles (MDVs). CARB commits in the SIP to adopt
regulations for this measure in 1997, with implementation occurring
from 1998 to 2002. This measure commits to an increase in the fraction
of MDV ULEVs from 10 percent of sales of new MDVs in the 1998 model
year to 100 percent in the 2002 and later model years. CARB believes
that the emission reductions associated with this measure can be
achieved by applying advancements in LDV emission control technologies
to the medium-duty fleet. This measure offers some flexibility by
allowing other mixes of vehicles and technologies that generate
equivalent emission reductions. The emission reductions to be achieved
by the measure are displayed by nonattainment area and milestone/
attainment year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from
California Mobile Source Measure M3.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M3
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast......................................... 0 1 1 10 2 21 ...... ...... 2 27 3 33
SE Desert......................................... 0 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.2 3.5 0.3 4.1
Ventura........................................... 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 1.0
Sacramento........................................ 0 0.2 0 1.7 0.4 3.9
S. Joaquin........................................ 0 0.4
S. Diego.......................................... 0.9 6.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposed to approve M3 on August 21, 1995, and finalized
approval on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).
(iv) M4--Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV); Early Introduction of
2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX engines. The SIP commits to implementation of
this measure beginning in 1996. CARB and the Districts share
responsibility for this measure. M4 is a commitment to increase the use
of existing low-emission engines among on-road HDDVs through locally
implemented demand-side programs and market incentives. This program is
intended to result in a 5% sales penetration of 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX
engines through the period 1996-1999, and a 10% sales penetration of
these engines between 2000 and 2002. Other combinations of penetrations
and emission levels that provide equivalent emission reductions could
be implemented. The emission reductions to be achieved in the South
Coast by the measure are displayed by year in the table below, labeled
``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M4.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M4 (in South Coast Air
Basin in Tons per Day of NOX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.17......... 3.90 2.93 2.34 1.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) M5--Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDVs); Additional NOX
Reductions. The SIP commits to adopt this measure in 1997 and begin
implementation in 2002. CARB commits to achieve emission reductions
through adoption of a 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX emissions standard for new
HDDV engines sold in California beginning in 2002, or by implementation
of alternative measures which achieve equivalent or greater reductions.
Alternatives under consideration include expanded introduction of
alternative-fueled and low-emission HDDV engines through demand-side
programs and incentives, retrofit of aerodynamic devices, reduced
idling, and speed reduction. The emission reductions to be achieved by
the measure are displayed by nonattainment area and milestone/
attainment year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from
California Mobile Source Measure M5.''
Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M5
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast......................................... 0 0 0.2 1.7 1.8 22.0 ...... ...... 3.1 37.6 4.8 56.2
SE Desert......................................... 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 3.9 0.4 5.1
Ventura........................................... 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 1.0
Sacramento........................................ 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 2.7
S. Joaquin........................................ 0 0
S. Diego.......................................... 0.7 8.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10929]]
This measure is designed to achieve emission reductions prior to
the introduction of a potential national 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX standard
in 2004. The 1994 California Ozone SIP (``Federal Measure'' M6) assigns
to EPA responsibility for adopting such a national standard (see
discussion in section II.B.).
Significant progress toward fulfilling the M5 and M6 commitments
has been made by CARB, EPA, and truck and engine manufacturers. On
March 30, 1995, EPA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with CARB to
undertake a joint effort to develop a national program for controlling
NOX, PM, and HC emissions from onroad and nonroad heavy-duty
engines. This joint effort will involve sharing technology development
and information, resources, and expertise.
Further, on July 11, 1995, CARB, EPA, and members of the Engine
Manufacturers Association signed a Statement of Principles (SOP)
detailing their agreement on future NOX, HC, and PM standards for
heavy-duty engines. The goal of the SOP is to reduce NOX emissions
from onroad HDEs to approximately 2 g/bhp-hr beginning in 2004. This
will be achieved by giving manufacturers the flexibility to choose
between two options: (1) A combined non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus
NOX standard of 2.4 g/bhp-hr and (2) a combined NMHC plus NOX
standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr together with a NMHC cap of .5 g/bhp-hr.
Signatories will work to achieve low emissions throughout the life of
the engine. EPA expects that this combined standard will result in
NOX reductions comparable to those achieved with a 2 g/bhp-hr
standard and significant reductions in HC emissions.
With respect to California standards, the SOP included the
following provision: ``Both EPA and California recognize the benefits
of harmonizing state and federal regulations. California confirms its
intent to notice a public hearing to consider actions to harmonize its
regulations * * * with the federal regulations adopted under this SOP,
provided such action would not compromise California's obligations to
comply with state and federal law including the SIP.''
On August 31, 1995, EPA published the SOP in an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM invited public comment on
national controls for onroad heavy-duty engines consistent with the
SOP, and also described EPA's plans to work cooperatively with engine
and equipment manufacturers to consider additional reductions from
nonroad heavy-duty engines (see 60 FR 45580-45604).
EPA proposed to approve M5 on August 21, 1995, and finalized
approval on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).
(vi) M7--Accelerated Retirement of Heavy-Duty Vehicles. CARB
commits to adopt this measure in 1996 and begin implementation in the
same year. This measure involves the annual retirement (scrapping or
removal) of about 1600 of the oldest, high emitting trucks in the South
Coast Air Basin, beginning in 1999. A smaller number of trucks would be
scrapped in 1996 to 1998 in order to gain experience with the program
and determine the impacts on the used truck market. Incentives are
expected to be provided to operators of older trucks in return for
retirement and purchase of a newer, lower-emitting model. The
incentives may take the form of guaranteed low interest loans,
subsidies, or both. The SIP commits to secure a financing mechanism for
this measure by the end of 1995. While the SIP commits only to
implement this measure in the South Coast, the State indicates that
consideration is being given to establishing a truck retirement program
in Sacramento and other nonattainment areas. The emission reductions to
be achieved in the South Coast by the measure are displayed by year in
the table below, labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source
Measure M7.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M7 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG........................... 0 1 1 1 1 1
NOX........................... 3 6 7 8 9 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vii) M8--Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (HDGVs), Lower Emission
Standards. The SIP commits to adoption of this measure by 1997 and
implementation beginning in 1998. This measure generates emission
reductions through the adoption of a LEV/ULEV program for HDGV engines
to obtain 50% reductions of NOX and ROG emissions through the
application of 3-way catalyst technology. The emission reductions to be
achieved by the measure are displayed by nonattainment area and
milestone/attainment year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from
California Mobile Source Measure M8.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M8
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast......................................... 0 0 0 0.8 0.1 1.8 ...... ...... 0.2 2.3 0.3 3.0
SE Desert......................................... 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.4
Ventura........................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.1
Sacramento........................................ 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.4
S. Joaquin........................................ 0 0
S. Diego.......................................... 0.1 0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10930]]
EPA proposed to approve M8 on August 21, 1995, and finalized
approval on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).
(viii) M9--Off-road Diesel Equipment; 2.5 g/bhp-hr NoX
Standard, California. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 2001 and
begin implementation in 2005. The measure requires CARB to adopt a 2.5
g/bhp-hr NOX standard effective in the 2005 model year for new
off-road industrial equipment diesel engines not primarily used in
construction and farm equipment. California is preempted from adopting
or enforcing any standard or other requirement relating to the control
of emissions from new construction and farm equipment or vehicles which
are smaller than 175 hp (see section 209(e) of the Act). The SIP
anticipates that this emissions standard can be achieved through the
transfer of cost-effective on-road diesel engine control technology to
new off-road engines. These control technologies include improved
engine design (especially in fuel/air management and delivery), exhaust
gas recirculation, and exhaust gas aftertreatment. The technology used
to meet the 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOX standard will also further reduce ROG
emissions from post-2005 new engines. The SIP only relies on this
measure in the South Coast. The emission reductions to be achieved in
the South Coast are displayed by year in the table below, labeled
``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M9.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M9 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG........................... 0 0 0 4 1 3
NOX........................... 0 0 4 35 14 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 1995, EPA approved M9 under the provisions of section
182(e)(5).
(ix) M11--Industrial Equipment; Gas and LPG-California; 3-way
catalyst technology. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 1997 and
implement it beginning in 2000. The measure requires CARB to adopt
emission standards for new gas and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) engines
25 to 175 horsepower that are not primarily used in construction or
farm equipment. As noted above, California is preempted from regulating
new farm and construction equipment smaller than 175 hp). The standards
will be phased-in 2000 and will be based on the use of closed-loop 3-
way catalyst systems. The catalyst systems are expected to reduce ROG
emissions by 75% and NOX by at least 50%.
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M11 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG........................... 0 4 9 [ ] 15 23
NOX........................... 0 2 4 [ ] 8 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposed to approve M11 on August 21, 1995, and finalized
approval on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).
(x) Additional New Control Technologies. In addition to the new
control technologies described above in measures M2 and M9, CARB has
committed to the implementation of additional innovative measures to
achieve the emission reductions needed in the South Coast to reach
attainment by 2010. CARB anticipates that these additional measures
will include a combination of market-based and technology-based
measures. CARB has committed to adoption of these measures no later
than 2006 to ensure the needed emissions reductions are achieved by
2009. Table 5 (on page I-21) of Volume II of the 1994 California Ozone
SIP lists the following strategies that may be pursued to meet the
emission reduction targets:
A. Possible New Control Technologies
Introduction in fleets of ultra-low emitting heavy-duty
trucks, post-2003
B. Possible Market-Incentive Measures
Incentives to purchase or produce ``cleaner'' technology/
vehicles
Incentives to encourage retrofits of emission control
technology
Incentives for alternative fuel conversions
Incentives to promote the development of alternative fuel
infrastructure
Revise tax rate structure to promote investment in low-
emission technology
Provide opportunity for low-interest loans
Preferred state vendor/contract bid status
Company emission averages
Air basin emission averages
Mobile source emission reduction credit/trading programs
C. Possible Operational Measures Applicable to Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Longer combination vehicles on selected routes
Increased gross vehicle weight
Better enforcement of the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit
Reduced idling time
Reexamine trailer package concept for local deliveries
Aerodynamic devices for all power units and trailers
Other (intermodal transportation, advanced traffic
control/tracking technology, alternative fuel for existing fork lifts)
The SIP states that this list of new control technologies is not
exhaustive and indicates that other new control technologies and
techniques are possible and will be considered as potential sources of
emission reductions. Additional control options mentioned in the SIP
include: pricing to affect the amount of travel and related emissions
(such as congestion pricing or an emission index based on per mile
emissions and VMT); retrofit technologies which reduce emissions;
additional use of alternative fuels; and episodic controls such as
speed reduction and idling curtailment. CARB has committed to further
define and quantify these measures and to adopt them by 2006 for
implementation by
[[Page 10931]]
2009. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's additional new control
technologies measure under the provisions of section 182(e)(5).
c. EPA Action. As described in section I.D. above, EPA has already
approved or proposed to approve many of the State's M Measure
commitments. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved the CARB new-technology
measures M2, M9, and Additional New Technology Measures (described
above), and assigned credit in the South Coast ozone attainment
demonstration to the measures. At the same time, EPA proposed approval
of the State's control measure commitments for M3, M5, M8, and M11. EPA
issued finalized approval of the measures on December 14, 1995 (60 FR
64126). Because EPA was at that time not acting on the State's ROP and
attainment demonstrations, EPA's approval of the State's commitments
did not include assignment of specific emission reduction credits
associated with the measures. As discussed below in section II.C., EPA
is here proposing to approve the ROP and attainment demonstrations of
California ozone nonattainment area plans, which rely, in part, on the
M Measure commitments. Therefore, EPA now proposes to assign credit to
the State's enforceable commitments to achieve the specific emission
reductions associated with M3, M5, M8, and M11, and displayed in the
tables above for each measure.
EPA is also proposing to approve, under sections 110(a)(3) and
301(a) of the Act, and assign credit to measures M1, M4, and M7 as part
of the ROP and attainment demonstrations for appropriate nonattainment
areas, as shown in the tables above. EPA believes that CARB is making
significant progress toward the development and adoption of regulations
to fulfill the M measure commitments. In several cases, regulations
have already been adopted or are expected to be adopted prior to EPA's
final action on the ozone SIPs. EPA therefore proposes to approve and
credit CARB's enforceable commitments to the M measures under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, as part of the demonstrations of ROP
and attainment in the California ozone nonattainment areas.
2. I/M
a. Review of Program. CARB submitted its motor vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M) program, known as the Smog Check program, as a
revision to its SIP on June 30, 1995. The submittal was made to fulfill
EPA's requirements for basic and enhanced I/M programs as set forth in
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S. EPA found the submittal complete on June 30,
1995. A supplemental revision to the SIP was submitted by the State on
January 22, 1996 and found complete on February 5, 1996. Section 348 of
the National Highway System Designation Act (Public Law 104-59),
hereafter referred to as the Highway Act, which was enacted on November
28, 1995, modified EPA's I/M regulation. In this notice EPA is
proposing approval of California's basic program as meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR, Part 51, Subpart S as amended (see 60 FR 48029,
September 18, 1995) and approval of California's enhanced I/M program
as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S, as amended
and section 348(c) of the Highway Act.
The table labeled ``California I/M Program Coverage by County''
shows for every county in the State whether the I/M program is
implemented as enhanced or basic, or is required only upon change of
ownership. For many counties, the type of I/M program in effect varies
depending upon air quality designations and whether the area is
urbanized. The State has established these I/M program boundaries
within counties based upon ZIP code. The reader may contact the Bureau
of Automotive Repair (BAR) to obtain specific program applicability
information by ZIP code.
California I/M Program Coverage by County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change of
County Enhanced Basic ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda...................................................... ............... X ...............
Alpine....................................................... ............... ............... X
Amador....................................................... ............... ............... X
Butte........................................................ ............... X ...............
Calaveras.................................................... ............... ............... X
Colusa....................................................... ............... X ...............
Contra Costa................................................. ............... X ...............
Del Norte.................................................... ............... ............... X
El Dorado.................................................... ............... X X
Fresno....................................................... X X ...............
Glenn........................................................ ............... X ...............
Humboldt..................................................... ............... ............... X
Imperial..................................................... ............... ............... X
Inyo......................................................... ............... ............... X
Kern......................................................... X X ...............
Kings........................................................ ............... X ...............
Lake......................................................... ............... ............... X
Lassen....................................................... ............... ............... X
Los Angeles.................................................. X ............... ...............
Madera....................................................... ............... X ...............
Marin........................................................ ............... X ...............
Mariposa..................................................... ............... ............... X
Mendocino.................................................... ............... ............... X
Merced....................................................... ............... X ...............
Modoc........................................................ ............... ............... X
Mono......................................................... ............... ............... X
Monterey..................................................... ............... X ...............
Napa......................................................... ............... X ...............
Nevada....................................................... ............... X ...............
Orange....................................................... X ............... ...............
Placer....................................................... X X X
Plumas....................................................... ............... ............... X
[[Page 10932]]
Riverside.................................................... X X X
Sacramento................................................... X X ...............
San Benito................................................... ............... X ...............
San Bernardino............................................... X X X
San Diego.................................................... X X X
San Francisco................................................ ............... X ...............
San Joaquin.................................................. X X ...............
San Luis Obispo.............................................. ............... X ...............
San Mateo.................................................... ............... X ...............
Santa Barbara................................................ ............... X ...............
Santa Clara.................................................. ............... X ...............
Santa Cruz................................................... ............... X ...............
Shasta....................................................... ............... X ...............
Sierra....................................................... ............... ............... X
Siskiyou..................................................... ............... ............... X
Solano....................................................... X X ...............
Sonoma....................................................... ............... X X
Stanislaus................................................... X X ...............
Sutter....................................................... ............... X ...............
Tehama....................................................... ............... X ...............
Trinity...................................................... ............... ............... X
Tulare....................................................... ............... X ...............
Tuolumne..................................................... ............... ............... X
Ventura...................................................... X X ...............
Yolo......................................................... X X ...............
Yuba......................................................... ............... X ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP revision submitted to EPA by CARB includes the laws and
regulations relating to California's I/M program which is comprised of
pertinent sections of the California Business and Profession Code, the
Civil Code, the Health and Safety Code, the Penal Code, the Revenue and
Taxation Code, the Welfare and Institutions Code, the Vehicle Code, and
the Code of Regulations. Included in the supplemental submittal are
final regulations for the mandatory exhaust emissions inspection
standards and test procedures for the enhanced program and for the
licensing of I/M stations and technicians which became legally
effective on December 1, 1995 and December 5, 1995, respectively. Other
documents in the submittal are: the Request for Conceptual Design for
Test-only Networks and Referee Services; the BAR-90 Test Analyzer
System Specifications (June 1995); the California Smog Check Inspection
Manual; the Quality Assurance Operations Manual, Chapter 27 of the
Department of Motor Vehicles Manual of Registration Procedures; the
Smog Check Diagnostic and Repair Manual; the Request for proposal for
On-Road Emissions Measurement Systems Services, and the Radian Report
entitled ``Evaluation of the California Pilot Inspection/Maintenance
(I/M) Program.''
EPA's I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for
basic and enhanced I/M programs as well as requirements for the
following: network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and
resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test
procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and
compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement
program oversight; quality assurance; enforcement against contractors,
stations and inspectors; data collection; data analysis and reporting;
inspector training and licensing or certification; public information
and consumer protection; improving repair effectiveness; compliance
with recall notices; on-road testing; SIP revisions; and implementation
deadlines. The performance standard for basic I/M programs remains the
same as it has been since initial I/M policy was established in 1978,
pursuant to the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The high
performance standard for enhanced I/M programs is based on high-
technology loaded mode exhaust testing for HC, CO, and NOX and
testing of the integrity and performance of the evaporative control
system.
California's basic program is a test-and-repair program utilizing
two-speed idle testing. California's enhanced program is a hybrid
program in which 15% of the dirtiest vehicles, based upon high-emitter
profile and remote sensing results as well as other factors, are
targetted for test-only inspection. All vehicles in the enhanced areas
will be subject to loaded mode testing. More stringent requirements
apply to technicians licensed in the enhanced areas. The two programs
are essentially the same in all other respects, excepting that
frequency of enforcement related activities such as remote sensing will
be much greater in the enhanced areas. (A more detailed discussion of
how the elements of California's I/M programs address the requirements
of EPA's I/M regulations is contained in the TSD for this notice.) The
SIP submittal includes modeling which demonstrates that the program
design for California's basic program will meet EPA's performance
standard for basic programs. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve
this revision to California's SIP for the basic I/M program.
The Highway Act prohibits the Administrator from disapproving or
applying an automatic discount of emission reduction credits to a SIP
revision because the I/M program is decentralized or a test-and-repair
program. The Highway Act directs the Administrator to propose approval
of the program for the full credit proposed by the state if the
proposed credits reflect good faith estimates by the state and the
revision is otherwise in compliance with the Clean Air Act. The
approval remains effective for up to 18 months after the date of final
rulemaking. After the 18-month period,
[[Page 10933]]
permanent approval of the SIP revision based on the credits proposed by
the state shall be granted if the data collected on the operation of
the program demonstrates that the credits are appropriate and the
program is otherwise in compliance with the Act.
EPA issued guidance regarding approval of I/M plans under the
Highway Act on December 12, 1995. EPA believes that at least six months
of program operation are needed in order to evaluate the performance of
the program. Thus programs must start no later than 12 months after EPA
takes final rulemaking action. EPA proposes that if the State fails to
start its program on this schedule, the approval granted under the
provisions of the Highway Act will convert to a disapproval after a
finding letter is sent to the state. As mentioned above, the Highway
Act specifies that EPA grant approval if good faith estimates of
credits are made. The Conference Report states that good faith
estimates may be based on previous I/M program performance, remote
sensing programs, or other evidence relevant to effectiveness of I/M
programs. EPA has further suggested that good faith estimates could be
based on innovative program designs. In order to evaluate the program
EPA believes that a continuous sample collection technique should
provide sufficient data to determine program effectiveness. Samples may
be taken in a variety of ways including roadside pullovers and
randomized call-in programs. EPA plans to issue detailed guidance on
data collection and analysis after consultation with states and other
experts. At the end of the 18-month approval period, EPA will take
action to make the approval of the I/M program permanent, if the
program evaluation data collected by the state demonstrates that the I/
M program is achieving the emission reduction credits claimed in the
SIP.
According to the schedule submitted by California test-only
inspection began in Sacramento in August 1995. The program is expected
to be fully operational in Fresno, Bakersfield and San Diego by the
fall of 1996, and in the South Coast areas in early 1997. California
has made a good faith estimate that its hybrid enhanced I/M program
will meet EPA's high performance standard based on the California Pilot
Program and innovative program features including an electronic
transmission program, a high visibility remote sensing program, and
stringent licensing and training requirements.
The pilot program conducted as part of the Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA and California provided data on the effectiveness of
targetting high emitting vehicles through the use of the high-emitter
profile (HEP) and remote sensing combined with the HEP, and the use of
Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) testing. The vehicles required to go
to test-only facilities for inspection will be comprised of likely
high-emitters as identified through use of the HEP and remote sensing,
previously identified high emitters which must undergo annual testing
for 2 to 5 years, high emitters identified by test-and-repair stations,
high mileage fleet vehicles, vehicles for hire, a 2% random sample, and
motorists voluntarily choosing to go to test-only stations.
California's program includes an electronic transmission program. A
central Vehicle Information Database will be created and an electronic
network enabling the test analyzer system units to connect
automatically to the database will be established. The central database
will be able to restrict the issuance of certificates under certain
circumstances, e.g., if a test-only inspection is required, when the
vehicle is identified as a high emitter, or when an enhanced test is
required. The database will also furnish a real-time communications
link to vehicle emissions data which will provide information to BAR
enforcement teams to help immediately identify illicit activity. The
database will also be used to develop a trigger program to identify
shops that are performing improper inspections and to track the
location and performance of licensed smog check technicians.
The State will also be phasing in a high-visibility remote sensing
program. California plans to identify as least 200,000 high emitting
vehicles annually in the enhanced program areas. Data collected from
the program will be use as a target parameter for the enforcement
program. The program will also serve as a visible reminder to both
motorists and test-and-repair stations that improper inspections and/or
program avoidance may be detected. Stringent licensing and training
requirements are being required for test-and-repair stations and repair
technicians, respectively.
California has committed to performing quarterly evaluations of its
program to determine if EPA's performance standard is being met and the
credits taken for the program are being achieved. California plans to
adjust the number of vehicles sent to test-only stations based on these
evaluations. EPA will work with California to further define
California's data collection protocols and analysis as EPA's guidance
on program evaluation is developed.
b. Emissions Reductions. The emission reductions to be achieved by
the measure are displayed by nonattainment area and milestone/
attainment year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from
California I/M Program.''
Reductions From California Enhanced I/M Program
[Tons per pay]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast............................................. 34.8 32.4 40.3 35.5 32.5 33.0 ...... ...... 30.2 34.8 26.2 31.1
SE Desert............................................. 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.8
Ventura............................................... 1.6 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.9
Sacramento............................................ 5.4 5.7 6.3 6.5 5.1 6.4
S. Joaquin............................................ 4.3 4.9
S. Diego.............................................. 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. EPA Action. EPA is proposing to approve the California I/M
regulations submitted on January 22, 1996, under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the Act as strengthening the SIP and contributing specific
emission reductions toward the progress, attainment, and maintenance
requirements of the Act.
[[Page 10934]]
EPA is also proposing to approve under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the Act the California I/M program submitted on June 30,
1995, and the I/M regulations submitted on January 22, 1996, as meeting
the requirements of section 182(b)(4) of the Act for basic I/M in
applicable areas of the State classified as moderate for ozone.
Finally, under section 348(c) of the Highway Act, EPA is proposing
to grant approval for a period of 18 months to the California I/M
submittals of June 30, 1995, and January 22, 1996, as meeting the
requirements of section 182(c)(3) of the CAA for enhanced I/M in
applicable areas of the State classified as serious and above for
ozone. Section 348(c)(3) of the Highway Act provides that EPA will take
regulatory action to make the approval permanent if, at the expiration
of the 18-month period or at an earlier time, the data collected on the
operation of the State program demonstrates that ``the credits are
appropriate and the revision is otherwise in compliance with the Clean
Air Act.''
If the State fails to start its program within 12 months of
approval, EPA proposes to have the approval convert to a disapproval
after a finding letter is sent to the State. If the required State
demonstration is not completed within 18 months or does not show that
the credits are appropriate and that the program is otherwise in
compliance with the CAA, EPA will take regulatory action to disapprove
the program for purposes of compliance with the enhanced I/M
requirements of section 182(c)(3). In that event, the SIP will no
longer meet the specific requirements of the Act relating to enhanced
I/M, but the State's regulations will continue in the SIP as
contributing to progress, attainment, and maintenance of the NAAQS.
3. Consumer Products
a. Introduction. ``Consumer products'' are a variety of products
generally purchased from a retail establishment for household use by
the end user. These products include: cleaning products, insecticides,
toiletries, aerosol paints (non-architectural paints are not considered
consumer products under California environmental law), adhesives, air
fresheners, cooking sprays, disinfectants, and other common household
articles that contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and are
considered ``consumption goods''. The term does not refer to consumer
electronics, furniture, appliances, cooking or serving utensils,
furnishings, or other items that are considered ``durable goods'', nor
does the term refer to food items (except cooking sprays), beverages,
or tobacco products.
In its 1994 ozone SIP submittal, CARB presents a discussion of the
State's current and anticipated measures for controlling the VOC
content of consumer products, and sets forth the claimed emissions
reductions. CARB classifies the emissions reductions resulting from
regulations on consumer products regulations into 3 main categories:
near-term, mid-term, and long-term with regard to date of promulgation
and implementation.
CARB's near-term measures are comprised of rules adopted prior to
May 1995. The existing consumer products regulations, antiperspirant
and deodorant regulations, and the 1996 and 1999 VOC content standards
of the recently adopted aerosol paints rule comprise the near-term
measures.
CARB's mid-term measures consist of anticipated regulations from
categories of consumer products for which regulations had not yet been
adopted at the time of the submittal. These reductions are expected to
be adopted by July 1, 1997 and implemented by the year 2005, and will
cover 150 consumer product categories which are currently not regulated
by the State of California. These mid-term measures are needed for
attainment demonstrations in the Sacramento Metropolitan and Ventura
County air basins. In the SIP, CARB asserts that these measures, like
the near-term measures, rely on available technology.
CARB has committed to obtaining further reductions (as compared to
the near- and mid-term measures) from consumer products after 2000.
These reductions would not rely on available technology, but would
currently be considered technology forcing. These long-term measures
would be enforced on a statewide basis, but only the South Coast plan
relies on the emissions reductions to demonstrate attainment.
CARB has further categorized their emission reduction commitments
into 4 classifications, or ``measures'': CP-1, CP-2, CP-3, and CP-4.
These measures are either adopted rules or commitments to adopt rules
to reduce VOC emissions from consumer products and aerosol paints. A
description of each of these measures follows.
b. Adopted Consumer Products Rules
i. Measure CP-1. Measure CP-1 is comprised of two rules, both
adopted prior to November 1994, that are designed to control VOC
emissions from commercial products. One rule controls VOC emissions
from antiperspirants and deodorants; the other rule controls emissions
from household products, such as air fresheners, shaving cream, and
hairsprays. Both rules were submitted to EPA on November 15, 1994. EPA
approved these rules into the SIP on August 21, 1995 (see 60 FR 43379).
ii. Measure CP-3 (Aerosol Paints). Measure CP-3 is a near term
commitment to adopt and implement VOC content standards in aerosol
paints. Regulations meeting these commitments were adopted in mid-1995.
These regulations limit the VOC content of aerosol paints by
establishing sets of VOC content standards for various coating types.
These standards establish the maximum percentage of VOC by weight
allowed in the various types of aerosol coatings. The coating standards
are divided into two phases. In the first phase, which is due to take
effect January 1, 1996, aerosol coatings' VOC content will have limits
that range from 60 percent to 95 percent, depending on the coating.
In the second phase, currently due to take effect December 31,
1999, aerosol coatings' VOC content limits will range from 30 percent
to 80 percent, depending on the type of coating. Before the second
phase of content limits can be implemented, CARB must conduct a public
hearing to determine if the limits are commercially and technologically
feasible. If the Board determines that they are not feasible, the
implementation of some or all of the limits may be postponed for up to
5 years. However, CARB may not submit the 1999 limits to EPA as a SIP
revision until after the Board has determined that they are
technologically and commercially feasible, and is prohibited from doing
so by section 41712(f)(3) of the California Health and Safety Code.
EPA approval action on both phases of the aerosol paint rules will
be taken in separate rulemakings following SIP submittal of the rules.
c. Mid-Term Committal Measure CP-2. Measure CP-2 is a mid-term
commitment to adopt additional regulations prior to 1997 to further
reduce VOC emissions from household consumer products. These reductions
are anticipated to result from the further regulation of new categories
of consumer products through technology that is currently feasible and
commercially viable. EPA proposed to approve CP-2 on August 21, 1995,
and finalized approval on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).
d. Long-Term Committal Measure CP-4. Measure CP-4 is a long-term
measure to further reduce emissions after measures CP-1, CP-2, and CP-3
are implemented. The control strategies committed to in CP-4 depend on
[[Page 10935]]
advancement of manufacturing technology for consumer products and
aerosols. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's Measure CP-4 as
meeting the requirements of section 182(e)(5).
e. Alternative Compliance Plans (ACPs). In order to provide
industry with flexibility in meeting the VOC content limits for aerosol
paints, CARB has adopted regulations that will allow manufacturers to
meet the VOC standards on an average basis. The regulations, CARB's
Alternate Control Plan (ACP) for consumer products and aerosol
coatings, require that manufacturers carefully track sales and VOC
content of all products being averaged together in order to determine
total VOC emissions from their products and compliance with the rule.
EPA will act on the ACP regulations following submittal by the State.
f. Emission Reductions. The following table describes the ROG
emission reductions in terms of tons per day, as identified in the SIP
submittal. Credits for near-term consumer products (CP-1) are not
included, since they were presumed in baseline emissions projections as
adopted regulations. The ROP and attainment demonstrations for San
Diego, San Joaquin Valley or Santa Barbara do not rely on reductions
from the consumer products measures, although real reductions will
occur in those areas. Credits for consumer products and aerosol paints
(near-term and long-term) are combined. Credit for CP-4 is claimed only
for South Coast.
Reductions From California Consumer Products and Aerosol Paint Program
[Reductions beyond those achieved by CP-1] [tons per day of ROG]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast................... 0 8 39.2 ..... 42.2 89.2
SE Desert..................... 0 0.4 3.5 4.0
Ventura....................... 0 0.4 2.2
Sacramento.................... 0 1.1 5.6
San Joaquin................... 0
San Diego..................... 16.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. EPA Action. As discussed above, EPA has already fully approved
all of the State's consumer products rules and committal measures with
the exception of CP-3 (Aerosol Paints). EPA is now proposing to approve
CP-3 under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and assign credit
to this measure, as well as to the previously approved consumer
products measures, as part of the ROP and attainment demonstrations for
appropriate nonattainment areas. EPA will take regulatory action on the
recently adopted ACP and Aerosol Paints regulations themselves in
separate rulemakings.
4. Pesticides
a. Review of Measure. California's 1994 SIP submittal includes a
commitment to reduce VOC emissions from the application of agricultural
and structural pesticides. The submittal describes relevant authority
in Section 6220 of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations that
has been granted to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation
(DPR). However, since CARB has overall responsibility for developing
the SIP, California's pesticide commitment is described in a letter
from DPR to CARB,4 which CARB then submitted to EPA with the
balance of the 1994 SIP. In May 1995, California used a similar
mechanism to clarify technical details of the pesticide
commitment.5 This clarification is considered part of California's
SIP.
\4\ James Wells (DPR) to James Boyd (CARB), dated November 15,
1994.
\5\ May 9, 1995 letter from Wells to Boyd under a May 11, 1995
cover letter from Boyd to Felicia Marcus (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Emission Reductions. As described in the SIP, California has
committed to adopt and submit to U.S. EPA by June 15, 1997, any
regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and
commercial structural pesticides by specific percentages of the 1990
base year emissions,6 by specific years, and in specific
nonattainment areas as listed in the table labeled, ``Reductions from
1990 Pesticide Emissions Baselines.'' The table labeled ``Reductions
from Pesticides Measure'' shows reductions counted toward the ROP
milestones and attainment in each area.
\6\ In a March 31, 1995 letter from Wells to David Howekamp
(EPA), California clarified its commitment to limit future VOC
emissions from pesticides to the target percentages of the 1990 base
year emissions, regardless of future growth in emissions that might
otherwise occur. ``Therefore, the proposed 20 percent reduction goal
could be considered to be greater than 20 percent if one includes
growth in pesticidal VOC emissions.'' (March 31 letter, page 2.)
Reductions From 1990 Pesticide Emissions Baselines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone nonattainment area 1996 (percent) 1999 (percent) 2002 (percent) 2005 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento Metro................................ 8 12 16 20
San Joaquin Valley.............................. 8 12 16 20
South Coast..................................... 8 12 16 20
Southeast Desert................................ 8 12 16 20
Ventura......................................... 8 12 16 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions From Pesticides Measure
[Tons per day of ROG]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast............................................. 1.5 1.6 1.3 ....... 1.6 1.7
Southeast Desert........................................ 0 0 1.2 1.5 ....... .......
[[Page 10936]]
Ventura................................................. 0 0 2.4 ....... ....... .......
Sacramento.............................................. 0 0 2.7 ....... ....... .......
San Joaquin............................................. 13 ........ ....... ....... ....... .......
San Diego............................................... 0.2 ........ ....... ....... ....... .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pesticide component of California's SIP also describes
education and outreach programs intended to achieve these emission
reductions voluntarily. EPA strongly encourages these programs, and
hopes to work with DPR and the affected industries to make them
successful. In the event, however, that additional control strategies
are needed, California's commitment to adopt and submit any necessary
pesticide regulations is sufficient to ensure those emission reductions
described in the table labeled, ``Reductions from 1990 Pesticide
Emissions Baselines.'' 7
\7\ Note that for purposes of ROP and attainment demonstrations
in the SIPs, California has not claimed emission reduction credit
for the 8% pesticide emission reductions planned for 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. EPA Action. EPA is proposing to approve the Pesticides measure
under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and assign credit to
the measure as part of the ROP and attainment demonstrations for
appropriate nonattainment areas. EPA will take regulatory action on the
State's Pesticides regulations, if any regulations are required and are
submitted, in separate rulemakings.
B. Federal Assignments
1. State Approach
In addition to, and in association with, the State's mobile source
control measures, the 1994 California Ozone SIP sets forth a group of 7
specific mobile source control measures that the State would not be
responsible for adopting and implementing.
These new ``Federal assignments'' and the adoption and
implementation dates in the California SIP are as follows:
M6--Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles: a national standard of 2.0 g/bhp-
hr, to be adopted in 1997 and implemented in 2004. M10--Off-Road Diesel
Equipment: a national standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr, to be adopted in 2001
and implemented in 2005. M12--Industrial Equipment, Gas and LPG: a
national standard reflecting application of three-way catalyst systems,
to be adopted in 1997 and implemented from 2000 to 2004.
M13--Marine Vessels: national and international standards to reduce
NOX emissions from new engines by 30 percent, and operational
controls, including shipping lane changes and vessel speed reduction,
to be adopted in 1996 and implemented from 1998 to 2001.
M14--Locomotives: national standards for new and rebuilt locomotive
engines, along with provisions to ensure that by 2010 locomotive fleets
in the South Coast Air Basin will emit on average no more than the 2005
emission level for new locomotives, to be adopted in 1995 and
implemented from 2000 to 2010.
M15--Aircraft: national standards to effect a 30 percent reduction
in ROG and NOX emissions, to be adopted in 1999 and implemented in
2000.
M16--Pleasure Craft: national standards (both Phase I and II).
CARB's decision to place responsibility on the Federal government
for these controls rests on the State's conclusion that: (1) State and
local agencies lack the legal authority or practical ability to control
these source categories; (2) the reductions contributed by the new
Federal assignments are essential for progress and attainment in
California; and (3) there are no feasible alternative sources of
reductions that are available to the State, given the stringent level
of control of all other source categories reflected in the SIPs.
2. EPA Action
While EPA does not believe that the CAA authorizes a state to
assign responsibility to the Federal government for meeting SIP
requirements, the Agency agrees that it has both the authority and
responsibility under the Act for regulating certain national sources of
air pollution. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, in fact, extended
EPA's authority to regulate nonroad vehicles and engines and expressly
required EPA to evaluate nonroad engine emissions, determine whether
these emissions contribute significantly to ozone or CO in areas which
have failed to attain the ozone or CO NAAQS, and regulate these
emissions categories if found to be significant. Under this authority,
EPA completed a Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study and issued an
affirmative determination of significance (59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994).
EPA has also proposed, and in some cases finalized, rules for various
nonroad vehicles and engines, including several of the California SIP
``Federal measure'' source categories. The current status of EPA's
actions on each of the ``Federal measure'' categories is summarized in
the Appendix to this document.
EPA recently established a new policy that allows States to
incorporate into their ROPs and attainment demonstrations the estimated
emission reductions associated with court-ordered or statutorily-
mandated measures prior to final promulgation of the Federal
regulations.8 Consistent with this policy, EPA is proposing to
assign to the California Ozone SIPs emissions reduction credit for
nonocean-going marine vessels, locomotives, and pleasure craft, based
on EPA's current estimates of the reductions that will be achieved by
these national measures. These credits are sufficient, in conjunction
with those attributed by California to the State and local measures, to
demonstrate progress and attainment of the ozone NAAQS in all of the
California ozone nonattainment areas except for the South Coast.
\8\ This policy (January 30, 1996 memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air & Radiation, to EPA Regional
Administrators, on ``SIP Credits for Federal Nonroad Engine
Emissions Standards and Certain Other Mobile Source Programs'')
supersedes EPA's prior policy, expressed in a November 23, 1994
memorandum from Mary Nichols on the same subject. The earlier
memorandum allowed SIP credit for national mobile source measures
required but not yet promulgated ``provided states also commit to
adopt gap-filling measures to account for any shortfalls, identified
later, between currently anticipated and actual final rule
benefits.'' EPA is now eliminating the requirement for state
commitments. If the final national measure delivers less than
credited in the SIP, EPA may issue a call for plan revision under
section 110(k)(5) if the SIP for an area becomes, as a result,
substantially inadequate to comply with any requirement of the Act,
including the provisions relating to demonstrations of ROP and
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, EPA has been evaluating other potential future
``Federal measures,'' including controls for most categories of mobile
sources. These measures have significance in the
[[Page 10937]]
South Coast. EPA's evaluation of these possible national controls has
been ongoing from the period of FIP preparation through the present,
and has evolved into a consultative process.
In the area of onroad controls, EPA's heavy-duty vehicle
initiative, developed in cooperation with CARB, is one aspect of this
process. This consultative initiative, which is consistent with the
State's measure M6, has already shown success and recently culminated
in a Statement of Principles (SOP) signed by EPA, individual members of
the heavy-duty engine industry, and CARB regarding future national
standards for on-highway heavy-duty engines. The goal of the SOP is to
reduce NOX emissions from on-highway heavy-duty engines to levels
approximating 2.0 g/bhp-hr beginning in model year 2004, while also
achieving reductions in HC. For further details on the SOP and
initiative, see EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (60 FR
45580, August 31, 1995). EPA is also engaged in cooperative efforts
with the State of California to discuss with affected industry a
similar heavy-duty nonroad initiative.
As discussed more fully in section II.C.7.e., below, setting forth
EPA's proposed approval of the South Coast attainment demonstration,
EPA agrees with the State that national and international mobile source
emissions are increasingly significant contributors to ozone pollution,
particularly in the South Coast. EPA also agrees with the State that
CARB and EPA share responsibility for controlling new mobile sources.
To address this challenge cooperatively, the CARB Board, in its
resolution of adoption of the 1994 California Ozone SIP, included
specific direction to the CARB Executive Officer to continue to meet
and confer with EPA regarding the federal assignments (CARB Resolution
No. 94-60, November 15, 1994).
Following adoption of the 1994 California Ozone SIP, EPA and CARB
have discussed the affected mobile source control categories and, while
the agencies have not reached consensus on difficult issues of
jurisdiction and responsibility, the two agencies share a strong mutual
interest in further consultation on and collaboration in identifying
and developing the most effective and least disruptive approaches to
achieving further reductions in air emissions from the various
categories of mobile sources.
Building on this interagency cooperation, EPA proposes to continue
and expand the ongoing consultative process with California and other
appropriate parties to examine the potential for additional mobile
source controls that can contribute to progress and attainment, and
that are compatible with other important regulatory considerations,
including those associated with interstate and international commerce.
EPA proposes that this consultative process conclude in June 1997 with
a decision on those additional measures that are appropriate for each
party to pursue. EPA further proposes to make an enforceable commitment
to undertake rulemakings, after the consultative process, on control
measures needed to achieve the emission reductions which are determined
to be appropriate for EPA.
Finally, EPA proposes to approve the South Coast attainment
demonstration if CARB submits, before EPA's final action, an
enforceable SIP commitment to adopt and submit as a SIP revision: (a)
by December 31, 1997, a revised attainment demonstration for the South
Coast as appropriate after the consultative process; and (b) by
December 31, 1999, enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures needed to achieve the emission reductions which are determined
to be appropriate for the State.
C. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and Measures
1. Introduction and Common Elements
This section discusses the progress and attainment plans for each
area, including local, state and Federal measures, and describes EPA's
proposed action on those plans with regard to the ROP requirements of
sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(B), and the attainment requirements
of sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(A).
As described earlier, following local adoption of the plans, the
State took further action on the plans, adding a statewide measure
component and, in some cases, modifying the locally adopted plan.
Volume IV of the 1994 California Ozone SIP presents CARB's adjustments
to the local plans, and summarizes the ROP and attainment
demonstrations. CARB also supplied detailed spreadsheets delineating
projected emissions reductions in each area, by State measure and
milestone year, to complete the technical documentation of each area's
ROP and attainment demonstrations.
a. Emission Inventories.
(1) 1990 Base Year Inventories
Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires that a comprehensive,
accurate, and current base year inventory of actual emissions be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision for each area designated as
nonattainment and classified marginal and higher for ozone. The 1990
emissions inventory is defined as the base year inventory and provides
a benchmark for ROP and attainment planning.
Annual and ozone season weekday inventories of actual emissions are
required for VOC, NOX, and CO for each ozone nonattainment area.
These inventories detail emissions for all categories of stationary
point sources, area sources, onroad vehicles, offroad engines, and
biogenics (for VOC). The inventories use the best available emission
factors and activity indicators representative of the ozone season.
The 1990 base year inventories were initially submitted by CARB in
November 1992 and improved inventories were submitted again as part of
the 1994 California Ozone SIP. On March 30, 1995, CARB submitted
revised 1990 base year inventories which further refined the inventory
estimates. EPA is proposing approval of the March 30, 1995, inventory
submittal.
Annual emission inventory estimates are adjusted to represent the
ozone season weekday inventory (the ``planning inventory''). Seasonal
throughput, seasonal activity factors, and temperature considerations
are used, as appropriate, to develop the planning inventory. Although
EPA recommends a 3 month peak ozone season as the basis for the
planning inventory estimates, because of the persistence of ozone
violations in California from May through October, the CARB uses a 6
month average operating day emissions estimate.
Stationary sources are broadly grouped into point and area sources.
Point sources typically include permitted equipment located at a fixed,
identifiable establishment (e.g., a refinery). Actual emissions are
reported annually to local air pollution agencies as a part of an
ongoing operating permit renewal and emission statement processes.
Operating permit requirements generally pertain to sources emitting at
least 10 tons per year, with lower limits in some areas. This
information is used by the local air district to periodically update
inventory estimates for stationary sources.
Area sources generally include small point sources (e.g., gasoline
dispensing facilities) and ubiquitous emissions not associated with a
permit (e.g., consumer products). CARB and the local air pollution
control districts share the responsibility for calculating emissions
from the over 200 area source categories. The emission and activity
factors used
[[Page 10938]]
to develop area source inventories are described in CARB
guidance.9
\9\ Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions in California
(CARB, September 1991 and updates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile source estimates are divided into on-road and off-road
categories. On-road emissions are estimated by vehicle class, roadway
type and vehicle age. Caltrans, CARB, local government agencies, and
the Department of Motor Vehicles supply the data necessary to estimate
emissions from on-road mobile sources. On-road mobile source emissions
inventories for SIP purposes are generally developed using the latest
version of MOBILE, EPA's mobile source emission factor model, but in
California, CARB has developed its own on-road mobile source emission
factor model, EMFAC. Together with CARB's WEIGHT model, which estimates
accumulated mileage and activities by vehicle year, and BURDEN model,
which estimates vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled by vehicle
type, CARB develops the on-road mobile source emissions inventories for
the nonattainment areas. The version of EMFAC used for the November 15,
1994 and March 30, 1995 submittals was EMFAC7F version 1.1.
The off-road mobile source inventory includes emissions from
categories ranging from lawn mowers to ocean-going vessels. Emission
estimates are a function of emission factors, activity rates, and
control factors. Emission factors and methodologies used to calculate
emissions are based on information compiled by EPA, CARB, and the local
districts.
The CARB base year inventory includes biogenic emission estimates.
EPA's biogenic emission estimation software, Biogenic Emission
Inventory System, was used in conjunction with temperature inputs
representative of the area of concern, consistent with EPA guidance.
This software is used to estimate emissions from natural sources (e.g.,
trees, crops, etc.). Although biogenic emissions represent an
uncontrollable source, these potentially significant emissions are
included in the attainment demonstration modeling.
Because the CARB inventories represent actual emissions, the
inventories already reflect excess, noncompliant emissions and,
consistent with EPA's guidance 10, they do not require further
adjustment by the 80% rule effectiveness discount.
\10\ EPA policy memorandum from OAQPS to Regional Air Division
Directors (April 27, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While CAA requirements and EPA guidance are stated in terms of VOC,
some California District plans estimate their inventories in terms of
either Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) or Reactive Organic Compounds
(ROC). The Santa Barbara, San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento area plans
use ROG while Ventura uses ROC. The only difference between VOC and
ROG/ROC is the inclusion of ethane in the ROG/ROC inventory estimates.
EPA has concluded that the VOC, NOX, and CO inventories of
actual emissions for the ozone nonattainment areas satisfy the
requirements of the Act and EPA's associated approval criteria.
Therefore, under section 182(a)(1) of the Act, EPA is proposing to
approve the 1990 base year inventories for each of the ozone
nonattainment areas addressed in this document.
(2) Inventory Projections
Future year inventories are needed to estimate milestone and
attainment year inventories. These estimates are then used in
projecting and calculating ROP and attainment. Future year inventories
are developed using base year inventory estimates adjusted using growth
and control factors. Growth factors are developed using socioeconomic
forecasts (i.e., population, housing, employment, and motor vehicle
activity) and Standard Industrial Classification data. Growth rates for
motor vehicles consider projected changes in vehicle miles traveled,
trips, and vehicles in use. Control factors are used to adjust future
year inventory estimates to account for reductions from adopted and
scheduled measures. EPA proposes to approve the inventory projections
for each of the nonattainment areas, since the projections meet all
applicable requirements.
b. ROP Targets. The CAA outlines and EPA guidance details the
method for calculating the ROP requirements for the milestone years.
Section 182(b)(1)(A) requires a 15% VOC reduction by November 15, 1996,
from the adjusted 1990 base year inventory (i.e., 3% per year reduction
from 1990 to 1996). Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires that after 1996, an
additional 3% per year VOC (or NOX equivalent) emission reduction
be achieved (in 3 year increments) until the attainment date. The
percent reduction requirements by milestone year and by area
classification are shown below in the table labeled ``ROP
Requirements.''
ROP Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction
Classification Year (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderate and above.................................. 1996 15
Serious and above................................... 1999 24
Severe I and above.................................. 2002 33
2005 42
Severe II and above................................. 2007 48
Extreme............................................. 2008 51
2010 57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 182(b)(1) requires that ROP reductions: (1) Be in addition
to those needed to offset any growth in emissions between the base year
and the milestone year; (2) exclude emission reductions from 4
prescribed Federal programs (i.e., the Federal motor vehicle control
program (FMVCP), the Federal Reid vapor pressure (RVP) requirements,
any Reasonably Available Control Technology corrections previously
specified by EPA, and any I/M program corrections necessary to meet the
basic I/M level); and (3) be calculated from an ``adjusted'' baseline
relative to the year for which the reduction is applicable. The
adjusted ROP base year inventory excludes the emission reductions from
fleet turnover between 1990 and 1996 and from Federal RVP regulations
promulgated by November 15, 1990 or required under section 211(h) of
the Act.
The net effect of these adjustments is that states are not able to
take credit for emissions reductions that would result from fleet
turnover of current Federal standard cars and trucks, or from already
existing Federal fuel regulations. However, the SIP can take full
credit for the benefits of any new (i.e., post-1990) vehicle emissions
standards, as well as any other new Federal or State motor vehicle or
fuel program that will be implemented in the nonattainment area,
including Tier I exhaust standards, new evaporative emissions
standards, reformulated gasoline, enhanced I/M, California low
emissions vehicle program, transportation control measures, etc.
When compared to the national tailpipe and fuel standards
promulgated by EPA, California has had more stringent standards for
some time. The methodology used in the November 1993 15% ROP submittals
was not necessarily the most appropriate way to model the exclusions,
in light of the effects of these differing standards. Therefore, CARB
recalculated the exclusions for Federal RVP and FMVCP for its adjusted
base year inventories and submitted revised ROP plans in November 1994.
The resulting ROP targets conform to applicable requirements and EPA
proposes to
[[Page 10939]]
approve them as part of the approval of the ROP demonstrations.
c. NOX Substitution. Section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for NOX
reductions (after accounting for growth) which occur after 1990 to be
used to meet the post-1996 ROP emission reduction requirements,
provided that such NOX reductions meet the criteria outlined in
EPA's NOX substitution guidance.11 The criteria require that:
(1) the sum of all creditable VOC and NOX reductions must meet the
3% per year ROP requirement; (2) substitution is on a percent-for-
percent of adjusted base year emissions for the relevant pollutant; and
(3) the sum of all substituted NOX reductions cannot be greater
than the cumulative NOX reductions required by the modeled
attainment demonstration. While the Act and the guidance do allow use
of 1990-1996 NOX reductions for substitution in the post-1996
period, the amount of NOX reductions available for substitution is
subject to the same creditability exclusions described above. As
discussed below in the review of the individual plans, the California
ozone areas relying on NOX substitution in post-1996 ROP
demonstrations (San Joaquin, San Diego, Sacramento, and Ventura) meet
applicable requirements pertaining to NOX substitution.
\11\ ``NOX Substitution Guidance,'' OAQPS, USEPA, December,
1993; ``Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-of Progress Plan and the
Attainment Demonstration,'' EPA-452/R-93-015, OAQPS, USEPA, January,
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``VOC equivalents'' is used in the ROP tables for the
areas relying on NOX substitution. This term was taken from CARB's
November 1994 SIP. VOC equivalents is not meant to imply that NOX
reductions were substituted for VOC reductions on a one-for-one basis.
The amount of NOX substitution was determined by calculating the
VOC shortfall percentage, and then converting the percentage into an
equivalent reduction of NOX. For the areas relying on NOX
substitution, CARB and the districts have demonstrated that the
NOX reductions are creditable and not in excess of what is
necessary for attainment. A companion EPA technical support document
provides a more detailed description of the calculations and amount of
NOX reduction used to represent the VOC equivalents.
d. Modeling.
(1) Introduction
An attainment demonstration is a key part of a State Implementation
Plan: using air quality modeling, it shows that the proposed emission
control measures are sufficient for the NAAQS to be attained by the
applicable deadline. For ozone nonattainment areas classified serious,
severe, or extreme, section 182(c)(2)(A) requires an attainment
demonstration based on photochemical grid modeling, for which the Urban
Airshed Model (UAM) is the EPA-approved model. (See Appendix W of 40
CFR Part 51.)
The modeling portions of the SIP submittals were generally reviewed
in terms of technical accuracy, and for consistency with EPA modeling
guidelines. The guidelines are the Guideline for Regulatory Application
of the Urban Airshed Model (EPA, 7/91), Guideline for Regulatory
Application of the Urban Airshed Model for Areawide Carbon Monoxide
(EPA, 6/92), and Guidance on Urban Airshed Model (UAM) Reporting
Requirements for Attainment Demonstration (EPA, 3/94). Thus, the review
covered the appropriateness of data sources, appropriateness of
technical judgements and procedures followed in input preparation,
performance of quality assurance and diagnostic procedures, adequacy of
model base case performance, consistency of control measure simulation
inputs with the submitted control measures, adequacy of the
demonstration of attainment of the NAAQS, and consistency and
completeness of documentation. EPA's confidence in the conclusions
reached in the review is enhanced because of EPA's participation in
technical committees and meetings for each area, and other
communications with State and local technical staff, as the model
applications were being developed.
The UAM model uses an inventory of pollutant emissions, together
with air quality and meteorological data, as input to a system of
algorithms incorporating chemistry and dispersion, in order to simulate
an observed pollution episode. Once a ``base case'' is developed that
meets the minimum performance criteria, projected future emissions are
used as input to simulate air quality in the attainment deadline year.
Various combinations of geographically uniform emission reductions are
simulated to determine approximate attainment reduction targets.
Planners design a control strategy to meet these targets, and then
simulate it with UAM, including the spatially and temporally varying
effects of the selected controls. Attainment is demonstrated when the
modeled air quality with emission controls in effect is below the NAAQS
throughout the geographical modeling domain.
(2) Uncertainty and Model Performance
A modeling attainment demonstration is subject to several
uncertainties. The meteorological and air quality inputs have their own
associated uncertainties, both in measurement and in
representativeness. In addition, not all variables can be measured for
all hours, so default and interpolated values must be used. Processes
such as chemical reaction and advection necessarily appear in the model
in simplified form. The selected episodes may not represent all
conditions conducive to high pollutant levels. Finally, base case and
projected emissions are uncertain. Biogenic emission inventory
methodologies are in a state of flux. In spite of these sources of
uncertainty, photochemical grid modeling is the best tool that is
available for determining the emission reductions that are needed for
NAAQS attainment. The Guideline procedures are meant to ensure that
inputs are set in a scientifically sound manner, and to uncover
compensating errors that can be present even when the model predicts
ozone well.
As explained in the Guideline, episodes are chosen for modeling
based on their high ozone levels, data availability, and other
criteria. Generally, episodes should be chosen that are approximately
as severe as the area's design value, which is based on the historical
ozone highs. During a particular episode, the observed ozone peak may
be higher or lower than the design value; but as long as it is
relatively close, that episode can be accepted for use in an attainment
demonstration. See also the discussion of the attainment test, below.
Once an episode is chosen, modelers attempt to simulate it with
UAM. Various performance statistics and diagnostic tests are available
to gauge their success. Three of the statistics are presented in the
table in this notice. The most commonly stated one is the peak
accuracy, since it is the ozone peak that is ultimately to be reduced
to the NAAQS level. However, it uses only one place and time out of all
those simulated. In judging model performance to be acceptable,
predictions at many places and times are examined. Also, the overall
pattern of ozone and other chemical species are evaluated, in light of
the changing emissions and meteorology occurring during the episode.
Sometimes a lengthy process of diagnostic testing and refinement of
inputs is required. Thus, the finally accepted base case may show some
bias (e.g., simulated ozone peak not matching the observed), and yet be
fully adequate as a simulation of the episode, and for use in an
attainment demonstration. Except where noted, all of the submitted
California modeling
[[Page 10940]]
episodes had acceptable performance, meeting EPA Guideline criteria.
(3) Number of Episodes
The Guideline calls for a minimum of 3 primary episode days to be
modeled. EPA elected to allow areas to use just two if they were based
on a field study, since this provides substantially more complete data,
and so more confidence in model development procedures and results. The
tradeoff of higher quality modeling for fewer episodes is deemed by EPA
to be a reasonable one. Unfortunately, due to problems of model
performance or transport, some areas were only able to develop modeling
for a single ozone episode. The Guideline is silent on what should be
done in cases where, in spite of an area's best effort, the model
simply cannot be made to perform for a given ozone episode. EPA is
electing to accept the California efforts as adequate.
(4) Attainment Test
Recently, questions have arisen over what test an area has to meet
to demonstrate attainment; this has been thought of as showing that
every geographical point within the model domain is reduced to .12 ppm
ozone for every hour, for every episode modeled. However, the
statistical nature of the ozone NAAQS allows each point in space to
have one NAAQS exceedance per year (3 year average). Adding this to the
uncertainties in model inputs and in the model itself, the above test
may be overly conservative. In borderline cases, the overall weight of
evidence of modeling, emissions and meteorological characteristics of
an area may provide a useful adjunct to the attainment test, though
this was not used in the California SIP submittal.
(5) Transport
Pollutant transport between areas is an issue of continuing concern
for the areas of Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, Santa
Barbara, South Coast, and Ventura. For Sacramento and for the portions
of southern California downwind of South Coast, attainment has not been
demonstrated under transport conditions. The ozone episodes modeled
either did not include high levels of transported pollutants, were
found to be dominated by transport and then abandoned as not
representative, or the model did not perform particularly well.
Ideally, upwind and downwind areas would be included within a single
modeling domain; this was done in the SARMAP study centered on the San
Joaquin Valley, but thus far the model does not perform well for the
Sacramento area. Only a limited number of episodes have so far been
modeled, some of them having little transported pollution.
Nevertheless, EPA accepts the modeling done so far as adequate,
because it is the best modeling available, and does show attainment of
the NAAQS for locally generated days. However, the emission reductions
indicated as required by the modeling to date must be viewed as valid
for this stage of planning only; additional reductions may be necessary
in these nonattainment areas or in other areas upwind (such as the San
Francisco Bay Area) to guarantee attainment of the NAAQS. EPA expects
that this will be determined by the modeling additional transport
episodes over the next few years; this effort was not feasible for the
November 15, 1994 deadline because of constraints on available data,
funds and staff. In part because of the California Clean Air Act with
its more stringent ozone standards, modeling will continue in these
areas; for example, a Southern California Transport study is currently
being planned. SIP revisions may become necessary should such future
modeling indicate the need for additional emissions controls.
EPA proposes to approve the modeling in all of the ozone plans
acted on in this notice, as meeting the requirements for attainment
demonstrations in sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(A).
2. Santa Barbara
a. Identification of Plan. On November 3, 1994, the Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control Board adopted Santa Barbara's 1994 Clean
Air Plan (CAP). On November 14, 1994, CARB submitted the plan to EPA to
comply with ROP and attainment demonstration requirements of the
Act.12
\12\ November 14, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia
Marcus, EPA, forwarding the Santa Barbara SIP and CARB Executive
Order No. G-125-163 approving the Santa Barbara Plan. The Santa
Barbara submittal includes a November 3, 1994 letter from Douglas
Allard (SBAPCD) to James Boyd (CARB) forwarding the 1994 Santa
Barbara CAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates
of the actual VOC and NOX emissions that occurred in Santa Barbara
in 1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table
labeled ``1990 Santa Barbara SIP Inventories.'' 13 A discussion of
these inventories and of EPA's proposed action on them can be found in
section II.C.1.a. of this notice.
\13\ More detailed summaries of this inventory can be found in
the 1994 CAP, Table 3-3.
1990 Santa Barbara SIP Inventories
[tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary................................................ 32 12
Mobile.................................................... 25 36
OCS....................................................... 6 22
-------------
Total............................................... 63 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. SIP Control Measures.
(1) Description
The submittal describes a series of rules that have been adopted in
order to reduce ROG and NOX emissions in Santa Barbara. Chapters 4
and 5 of the CAP describes the control measures relied upon for
demonstrating compliance with the Act's progress and attainment
requirements. With the exception of contingency measure T-21, Enhanced
Inspection and Maintenance Program, all required measures identified in
Chapters 4 and 5 of the CAP have been adopted. Because the Santa
Barbara area will not achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS by November
1996 with currently adopted controls, as described later under section
II.C.2.f., EPA expects that measure T-21 will be adopted in 1996 and
implemented in 1997 as described in the CAP. Reductions of
approximately .6 tons per day (tpd) of ROG and NOX are expected
from the implementation of T-21.
Table 5-1 describes the plan's transportation control measures
(TCMs), which, collectively, supersede the TCM list in the previously
approved 1982 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP). The TCMs are
projected to result in net emissions reductions for the 1996 target
attainment year of .3 tpd ROG and .2 tpd NOX.
(2) EPA Action
EPA proposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, the control measures portion of the plan, including the
enforceable commitment to adopt contingency measure T-21.
EPA approval of the applicable State and local fully-adopted and
SIP-submitted regulations either has already occurred or will be
completed in separate rulemaking in the future. As requested by the
State, EPA also proposes to delete from the current SIP the 1982
transportation control measures.
d. ROP Provisions.
(1) ROP Emission Targets
The submittal describes the ROG emission reductions needed to meet
[[Page 10941]]
ROP requirements based on Santa Barbara's adjusted 1990 base year
inventories. The SIP also provides emission estimates for 1996, the
only applicable ROP milestone year, by determining the impacts of the
control strategy and calculating anticipated changes in emissions
resulting from projected levels of population, industrial activity,
motor vehicle use, etc. A summary of the ROP targets and the projected
ROG emissions is provided below in the Table labeled ``Santa Barbara
ROP Forecasts and Targets'' (see 1994 CAP, Tables 9-2 and 9-5). The
plan provides for achievement of the ROP target emission levels for
1996, the only applicable milestone year for a moderate ozone area.
Santa Barbara ROP Forecasts and Targets 14
[In tons of ROG per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Base Year Inventory................................... 57
1996 Projections (Adopted Measures)........................ 41
1996 ROP Target............................................ 42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 For the ROP determination, OCS emissions were not included.
(2) ROP Control Strategy
In general, only adopted measures may be relied upon in meeting the
15% ROP requirement. This requirement is met, since the plan relies
only on adopted regulations to achieve the required ROP reductions. A
detailed description of Santa Barbara's 15% ROP demonstration is
provided in Chapter 9 of the CAP.
(3) EPA Action
The Santa Barbara 1994 CAP meets the ROP requirements of the Act,
including the requirement to achieve by 1996 a minimum of 15% of
creditable VOC emission reductions from the 1990 base year. EPA
therefore proposes to approve Santa Barbara's ROP plan under section
182(b)(1) of the Act.
e. Demonstration of Attainment. Santa Barbara is classified as a
moderate nonattainment area for ozone. As a result, the SIP must
contain adequate control measures and commitments to demonstrate
attainment of the ozone NAAQS by 1996.
(1) Control Strategy
The control strategy for Santa Barbara's SIP attainment
demonstration incorporates all of the measures identified in Chapters 4
and 5 of the CAP. The demonstration presumes the measures, which are
already fully adopted as regulations, will be implemented as shown in
the plan, resulting in the emission reductions indicated in the CAP.
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed modeling analysis performed to
demonstrate that the control strategy identified above will result in
NAAQS attainment. A summary of the emission reductions needed to attain
the standard is provided below in the table labeled ``Emission
Reductions Needed in Santa Barbara,'' which is derived from information
in the 1994 CAP.
Emission Reductions Needed in Santa Barbara
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory......................... 63 70
Carrying Capacity......................................... 44 56
Reductions Needed......................................... 19 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the emission reductions projected from the SIP control
strategy is provided below in the table labeled ``Santa Barbara
Attainment Demonstration,'' which is derived from the information in
the 1994 CAP.
Santa Barbara Attainment Demonstration
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions from adopted measures.......................... 19 14
Committed local measures.................................. 0 0
Committed State measures.................................. 0 0
-------------
Total............................................... 19 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Barbara area was classified as a moderate ozone
nonattainment area based on a design value of .14 ppm, recorded at the
Carpenteria site. This was based on 1987-1989 data. The attainment
demonstration for Santa Barbara is based on Urban Airshed Modeling even
though use of photochemical modeling is not a specific Clean Air Act
requirement for a moderate area. Modeling for the Santa Barbara area is
discussed in two documents: the ``Santa Barbara County Photochemical
Modeling Investigation (May, 1994)'' and in the 1994 CAP (Chapter 7 and
Appendix D: Photochemical Modeling Documentation).
In the Santa Barbara County Photochemical Modeling Investigation, a
county-wide assessment of the July 29-31, 1991 episode was analyzed.
The peak ozone concentration measured during this period was .13 ppm at
the Paradise Road Monitoring station. The model performance statistics
did not meet EPA performance requirements as the peak ozone
concentrations were underpredicted by approximately 50%. Because of the
lack of performance, an attainment demonstration was not performed with
this episode.
Santa Barbara APCD and Ventura County APCD collaborated on a joint
modeling effort to satisfy the attainment demonstration requirements of
the Clean Air Act. This collaborative effort is summarized in the 1994
CAP. Two 1984 episodes were selected for the joint modeling effort:
September 5-7 and September 16-17. The episodes and modeling statistics
are discussed further in the accompanying technical support document.
Using 1996 emission forecasts, the photochemical modeling demonstrated
attainment of the ozone standard, although attainment for the September
5-7 episode required removal of the in-transit shipping channel
emissions.
Although the modeling does not fully meet EPA's performance
criteria, EPA believes that the modeling is sufficient to propose
approval of the attainment plan.
(3) EPA Action
EPA believes that the Santa Barbara attainment demonstration
satisfies CAA requirements. EPA therefore proposes to approve Santa
Barbara's attainment demonstration under section 182(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes to approve fully the Santa
Barbara ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission
inventories, control measures, and demonstrations of ROP and
attainment.
The November 14, 1994, SIP submittal included an ozone
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Santa Barbara
nonattainment area. During 1994-5, however, the Santa Barbara area
recorded a number of exceedances of the ozone standard. This will
prevent the area from attaining the ozone standard in 1996, since
attainment of the ozone NAAQS requires no more than three exceedances
over a three year period.
On July 18, 1995, the State agreed to withdraw its request for EPA
action on the redesignation request and the maintenance plan. As a
result, EPA is not taking action on the redesignation request and
maintenance plan at this time. However, even though the 1994-5
exceedances will prevent Santa Barbara from achieving the ozone
standard by 1996, EPA is proposing to approve Santa Barbara's 1994 CAP.
If
[[Page 10942]]
the Santa Barbara area experiences no more than one exceedance during
the 1996 ozone season and the state has complied with all requirements
and commitments in the Santa Barbara SIP, section 181(a)(5) of the Act
authorizes EPA to grant a one-year extension of the attainment date
upon request by the State. Up to two extensions can be granted.
Therefore, disapproval of the 1994 CAP and a reclassification of the
area to serious for failure to attain is not yet warranted.
3. San Diego
a. Identification of Plan. On November 1, 1994, the Board of the
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) adopted the ``1994
Ozone State Implementation Plan Revision''. On November 15, 1994, CARB
adopted the SIP revision as the local element of the 1994 California
Ozone SIP, which CARB then submitted to EPA 15 to comply with ROP
and attainment demonstration requirements.
\15\ November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia
Marcus, EPA, forwarding the San Diego component of the SIP and CARB
Board Resolution No. 94-63 approving the San Diego plan revision.
The San Diego submittal includes a November 3, 1994 letter from
Richard Sommerville (SDAPCD) to James Boyd (CARB) forwarding the
1994 San Diego plan and the SDAPCD Board Resolution approving the
SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 1990 Base year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates
of the actual VOC and NOX emissions that occurred in San Diego in
1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table below,
labeled ``1990 San Diego SIP Inventories.'' A more specific breakdown
of 1990 base year emissions can be found on page 9 of the plan, and
further inventory information is provided in the appendices to the
plan. A discussion of these inventories and of EPA's proposed action on
them can be found in section II.C.1.a., above.
1990 San Diego SIP Inventories
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary.............................................. 100.0 28.0
Mobile.................................................. 212.5 209.9
---------------
Total............................................. 312.5 237.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. SIP Control Measures.
(1) Description
The plan lists the VOC and NOX control measures relied upon
for demonstrating compliance with the Act's progress and attainment
requirements, all of which had been adopted at the time of the plan
submittal (see Table 4, ``1999 Attainment Demonstration Control
Measures'' on p. 29 of the SIP).
(2) EPA Action
EPA proposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, the control measures portion of the plan. EPA approval of the
adopted regulations has already occurred or will be completed in
separate rulemakings in the future.
d. ROP Provisions.
(1) ROP Emission Targets
The 1994 SIP describes the VOC emission reductions needed to meet
ROP requirements based on San Diego's adjusted 1990 base year
inventories (see pp. 33 and 35). The SIP also provides emission
estimates for the ROP milestone years by projecting the impacts of the
control strategy and of anticipated changes in population, industrial
activity, and other socio-economic factors. A summary of the ROP VOC
targets and the projected VOC emissions is provided below in the table
labeled ``San Diego ROP Forecasts and Targets.''
As the table shows, VOC reductions alone were not projected to be
sufficient to meet the ROP target levels for milestone years after
1996. Section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act and EPA guidance allows
reductions in NOX emissions to be substituted for post-1996 VOC
reductions so long as certain conditions are met (see discussion above
in section II.C.1.c.). The San Diego plan meets those conditions and
the corresponding NOX reductions as substituted for VOC reductions
are also shown in the table. EPA concludes that the plan provides for
achievement of the ROP target emission levels for all years.
San Diego ROP Forecasts and Targets
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone year 1996 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Base Year VOC Inventory.......................... 312.6 312.6
VOC Projections (Adopted Measures).................... 236.1 232.0
ROP VOC Target........................................ 241.2 212.2
VOC Shortfall......................................... 0 19.8
NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents 16................ 0 19.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 The term ``VOC equivalents'' is not meant to imply that NOX
reductions were substituted for VOC reductions on a one-for-one basis.
The amount of NOX substitution was determined by calculating the VOC
shortfall percentage, and then converting the percentage into an
equivalent reduction of NOX. CARB and the district have demonstrated
that the NOX reductions are creditable and not in excess of what is
necessary for attainment. A companion TSD provides a more detailed
description of the calculations and amount of NOX reduction used to
represent the VOC equivalents.
(2) ROP Control Strategy
In general only adopted measures may be relied upon in meeting the
15% ROP requirement in section 182(b)(1) of the Act. Since the plan
relies only on adopted regulations, this requirement is met. According
to the submitted plan, the post-1996 ROP control strategy includes all
those VOC measures relied upon for the 15% ROP demonstration, as well
as fully adopted NOX regulations.
(3) EPA Action
The San Diego SIP meets the CAA requirements for ROP. EPA therefore
proposes to approve San Diego's 15% and post-1996 ROP plans under
sections 182(b)(1) and
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.