Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California Ozone
Federal RegisterJan 8, 1997
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone for 6 nonattainment areas: South
Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura, Sacramento, San Diego, and San
Joaquin Valley. In addition, EPA is approving specific local and
statewide air pollution control measures, including the California
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted these SIP revisions to
EPA on November 14, 1994, November 15, 1994, December 28, 1994,
December 29, 1994, February 7, 1995, March 30, 1995, January 22, 1996,
April 4, 1996, May 17, 1996, June 13, 1996, July 10, 1996, and July 12,
1996.
EPA is approving these revisions to the California SIP under
provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA action on SIP
submittals for nonattainment areas.
EPA is also establishing a consultative process on the potential
for additional mobile source controls that can contribute to attainment
in the South Coast, and the Agency is committing to undertake
rulemaking on those controls deemed to be appropriate for EPA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This approval is effective on February 7, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in
Docket No. A-96-13, which is available for viewing during normal
business hours at the following location: Air Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
Copies 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), public comments, and EPA's technical
support documents for this rulemaking are available at the following
locations:
San Diego Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San
Diego, California
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999
Tuolumne Street, Fresno, California
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive,
Ventura, California
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite
200, Victorville, California
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California
Electronic Availability
This document and related materials are available at Region 9's
site on the World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/region09 (please look
under Air Programs). The Federal Register is also available on the
Internet by pointing a web browser at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
su__docs/ or by telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Barrow, Chief, Office of
Planning, Air Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; (415) 744-1230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A Summary
B. General SIP Issues
1. ``Federal Assignments''
a. Importance of Federal Contribution and Difficulty of Further
Local Controls
b. Public Consultative Process
c. Legal and Policy Issues
d. Comments Specific to Source Categories
(1) Military Exemption
(2) Locomotives
(3) Ships and Shipping Channel
e. EPA Action
2. EPA Approval of Attainment Demonstrations that Rely, in Part,
on Commitments
3. Additional CAA Issues
a. Attainment as Expeditiously as Practicable
b. Contingency Measures
c. Adequacy of SIP's Technical Foundations
(1) Modeling and Treatment of Transport
(2) Impact of Changes to the ZEV Program
(3) Control Measures
d. Consistency of Local Nonroad Measures with CAA Preemption
4. Future SIP Updates and Improvements
5. Overall Approvability of Plans
6. Importance of SIP Implementation
C. SIP Submittals
1. SIP Submittals and Previous EPA Approvals
2. SIP Submittals after EPA's Proposal
3. EPA Completeness Findings
4. Rationale for EPA Approval of Minor SIP Changes without
Further Opportunity for Public Comment
II. Review of the State Submittal and Response to Comments on
Specific SIP Issues
A. State Measures
1. General Comments
2. Mobile Source Measures
a. Review of Measures
(1) M1
(2) M2
(3) M3
(4) M4
(5) M5
(6) M7
(7) M8
(8) M9
(9) M11
(10) Additional New Control Technologies
b. EPA Action
3. I/M
a. Review of Program
b. Response to Comments
c. Emission Reductions
d. EPA Action
4. Consumer Products
a. Introduction
b. Review of Measures
(1) Measure CP-1
(2) Measure CP-3 (Aerosol Paints)
(3) Mid-Term Committal Measure (CP-2)
(4) Long-Term Committal Measure (CP-4)
(5) Alternative Control Plans (ACPs)
c. Emission Reductions
d. EPA Action
5. Pesticides
a. Review of Measures
b. Response to Comments
c. Emission Reductions
d. EPA Action
B. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and Measures
1. Emission Inventories
a. Response to Comments
b. EPA Action
2. San Diego
a. Control Measures
b. ROP Provisions
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
d. Overall EPA Action
3. San Joaquin Valley
a. Control Measures
b. ROP Provisions
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
d. Overall EPA Action
4. Sacramento
a. Control Measures
b. ROP Provisions
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
d. Overall EPA Action
5. Ventura
a. 1995 AQMP Update
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. Control Measures
d. ROP Provisions
e. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
f. Overall EPA Action
6. South Coast
a. Control Measures
(1) Updated Rule Adoption Schedule
(2) TCM Substitution
(3) Near-Term Control Measures
(4) New-Technology Measures
(5) EPA Action
b. ROP Provisions
[[Page 1151]]
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
d. Overall EPA Action
7. Southeast Desert
a. Control Measures
b. ROP Provisions
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
d. Overall EPA Action
III. Summary of EPA Actions
IV. Regulatory Process
A. Executive Order 12886
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Unfunded Mandates
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Appendix A: Current Status of EPA's Activities Relating to the
``Federal Assignments'' in the California SIP Submittal
Appendix B: Schedule for Public Consultative Process
I. Background
A. Summary
EPA is finalizing approval of the 1994 California Ozone SIP.1
This action was proposed on March 18, 1996 (61 FR 10920-10962). The
reader is referred to that notice for additional detail on the affected
areas and the SIP submittals, as well as a summary of relevant Clean
Air Act requirements and EPA interpretations of those requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA will take action on the Santa Barbara SIP separately.
After EPA's proposed approval was issued, ozone violations were
recorded, which prevent the Santa Barbara area from meeting its
attainment goals this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, EPA is approving in this document:
The emission inventories in San Diego, San Joaquin,
Sacramento, Ventura, the Southeast Desert, and the South Coast; 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The respective Federal ozone nonattainment areas are: San
Diego Area, San Joaquin Valley Area, Sacramento Metro Area, Ventura
County Area, Southeast Desert Modified AQMA Area, and Los Angeles-
South Coast Air Basin Area. The boundaries of these areas are set
forth at 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 15% rate-of-progress plans for San Diego, San Joaquin,
Ventura, and the South Coast;
The post-1996 rate-of-progress plans for San Diego, San
Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, and the South Coast;
The modeling and attainment demonstrations in San Diego,
San Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, the Southeast Desert, and the South
Coast;
All of the individual local control measures and the State
control measures not previously approved; and
The State's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program and regulations.
This approval indicates EPA's belief that this SIP, if faithfully
implemented, will achieve clean air for California. The health of all
Californians now depends on the dedication of the State to see that the
plans are carried out. While the State may submit revisions to change
individual strategies, EPA intends to hold it accountable for timely
delivery of the commitments in the plans approved today.
An important aspect of EPA's approval involves the establishment of
a public consultative process intended to identify the future mobile
source strategies to provide the remaining emission reductions needed
for attainment in the South Coast, which remains the Nation's only
extreme ozone nonattainment area.
In submitting its 1994 SIP, the State maintained that achievement
of clean air goals in the South Coast required further emission
reductions from national and international mobile sources, as a
supplement to the State's own aggressive mobile source control program
and the massive contribution made by locally adopted regulations and
control measures. The State argued that California lacked the legal
authority or practical ability to control these sources, and that the
Federal efforts were essential for progress and attainment in the South
Coast because there are no feasible alternatives, in light of the
stringent State and local controls on all other sources.
The State identified in the proposed SIP specific mobile sources
requiring future Federal controls: onroad and nonroad vehicles and
engines, pleasure craft, marine vessels, aircraft, and locomotives. For
each source, the State specified a desired level of emission reductions
and the years for Federal adoption and implementation.
Under the Constitution and the Clean Air Act, EPA does not believe
that a state has authority to assign emission reduction
responsibilities to the Federal government. Nevertheless, EPA believes
that the Federal government should help speed clean air, not only in
California but on a national basis.
Since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA has already issued
30 national regulations to help reduce emissions from mobile sources.
Examples of important recent national controls include: (1) The heavy
duty truck and bus rules for NOX and PM issued in May 1993; (2)
the NOX standards for nonroad diesel engines 37kW and above
promulgated in 1994; (3) the small nonroad gasoline engine standards
(primarily for lawn and garden equipment) finalized in July 1995; and
(4) the pleasurecraft engine standards issued in August 1996.
EPA will issue further national controls for remaining mobile
source categories. In doing so, the Agency must set controls based on
national considerations and criteria established by Congress in the
applicable sections of Title II of the Act.
Since the 1994 California Ozone SIP was submitted, EPA has been
working cooperatively with California and other stakeholders to develop
more stringent controls for both onroad and nonroad vehicles and
engines. These constructive, consensus-building activities have
received widespread national support from the affected industries,
states, and the environmental community, and have already resulted in
agreement on stringent new national controls for highway trucks and
buses, proposed on June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33421-33469), and for nonroad
compression-ignition engines (agreement signed by EPA, California, and
industry, on September 13, 1996). The proposed controls achieve
California's reduction targets for these source categories while at the
same time avoiding the inefficiencies and dislocation that would result
from different and possibly conflicting Federal and California
standards.
As a result of such successes, EPA is optimistic that the year-long
consultative process will succeed and provide emission reductions that
complement the California State and local controls contained in the
South Coast SIP. The current status of EPA's activities in developing
further mobile source controls is presented in Appendix A of this
document.
In order to allow time to evaluate what additional mobile source
reductions can contribute to ozone attainment in the South Coast, EPA
intends to continue and broaden the consultation with the State and
other affected parties through June 1997. As stated in the proposal,
the Agency believes that this period provides the opportunity to agree
on future mobile source reductions that will meet our environmental
goals expeditiously and without adverse consequences to the State and
the South Coast, whether the controls come from national and
international standards or from new State and local measures.
On July 19, 1996, EPA held the first of several meetings in Los
Angeles to describe the public consultative process and stimulate a
useful exchange of ideas on innovative and ambitious approaches to
achieve our pollution reduction targets. Appendix B to this document
gives more details on the public consultative process and proposed
future meetings.
At the conclusion of the consultative process, EPA believes that
the State will have the information it needs to amend
[[Page 1152]]
the South Coast attainment demonstration appropriately, based on the
final mix of international, national, State, and local mobile source
controls. The State has agreed, and has committed to submit a revised
attainment demonstration by December 1997, and to adopt and submit any
needed State measures by December 1999. As proposed, EPA is making a
comparable enforceable commitment to undertake rulemakings, after the
consultative process, on any controls which are determined to be
appropriate for EPA.
EPA believes that, by working together with the State, local
government, affected industry, environmental groups, and the general
public, we can identify approaches to fulfill our public health
obligations in ways that support progress in other areas of public
concern.
The data collected and analyses performed as part of EPA's
forthcoming report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of the Clean
Air Act demonstrate that air pollution control activities, while
costly, have returned far greater economic benefits.3 Similarly,
California-specific studies have recently underscored the State's
historic success in reconciling economic growth with air quality
progress.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to
1990, USEPA report prepared for US Congress under section 812 of the
Clean Air Act, Draft report issued May 3, 1996. USEPA expects to
issue the final report in the near future, along with a similar
prospective analysis on benefits and costs of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments.
\4\ See Alan Gordon, Myths of Jobs vs. Resources: Environmental
Protections and Economic Growth, March 1996 (report prepared for the
California Senate Office of Research), and Anil Puri, Significance
of California Air Pollution Control Regulations for Business
Location Decisions, May 1995 (report prepared for the California Air
Resources Board Research Division).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If successfully implemented, the 1994 California Ozone SIP will
succeed even more completely than previous clean air plans in
harmonizing public health progress with the social and economic goals
of the State's citizens. Federal approval of the 1994 SIP will help to
provide the regulatory certainty needed to sustain and accelerate
California's progress in achieving State and Federal clean air
objectives. EPA will continue to work together with California to
achieve the clean air that our citizen's deserve.
B. Response to Public Comments on General SIP Issues
1. Federal Assignments.
a. Importance of Federal Contribution and Difficulty of Further
Local Controls. As discussed in the proposal, the 1994 California Ozone
SIP includes 7 specific mobile source control measures assigned to the
Federal government. These measures, which were in addition to those
already promulgated by EPA, comprised a more stringent heavy-duty
diesel vehicle standard, an off-road diesel equipment standard, a
standard for gasoline- and LPG-fueled industrial equipment, national
and international standards for marine vessels, national standards for
locomotives with a South Coast clean locomotive fleet program, national
standards for aircraft, and standards for pleasurecraft.
EPA received many comments underscoring the critical need for
reductions from additional national regulations if California areas,
particularly the South Coast, are to achieve healthy air quality. Most
of these comments added a corollary: Further State and local controls
could not reasonably be expected, given the comprehensiveness and
stringency of existing regulations and committal measures in the SIP.
As stated in the proposal, EPA recognizes that national and
international mobile sources are increasingly significant components of
the ozone problem, especially in the South Coast, and EPA is committing
at this time to undertake the rulemaking on those controls that are
determined to be appropriate. The increased Federal contribution that
will come from ongoing national mobile source control measures, plus
the State and local control measures in the SIP, add up to almost all
of the needed emission reductions. EPA is confident that a small
shortfall, if it still exists at the end of the public consultative
process, will be addressed by cooperative Federal, State, and local
strategies, without adverse impacts.
b. Public Consultative Process. The California Environmental
Protection Agency (CEPA) commented that the proposed consultative
process is much like the participatory approach California has used for
many years to develop new environmental programs. CEPA stated that
CARB's staff are prepared to begin work right away with EPA and other
stakeholders to develop appropriate controls.
The American Association of Railroads (AAR) commented in support of
EPA's proposed consultative process as an innovative and useful method
to help assure that the SIP's goals are met.
Over twenty years of efforts to clean the air in Southern
California have taught that cooperation and innovation by all parties
are essential if attainment is to be achieved while retaining a healthy
economy. The proposed consultative process builds on that experience,
and in that manner provides a reasonable basis for EPA approval of the
South Coast attainment demonstration.
The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) supported the
continuation and expansion of the collaborative process. WRCOG asked
that a formal participation program should be developed as part of the
consultative process, to provide a framework in which local governments
and business communities could participate, since local agencies are
required to implement whatever control measures are adopted from this
process and success depends upon local government ``buy-in.'' The City
of Los Angeles also requested that EPA establish a list of key
stakeholders and begin seeking input through a formal process.
EPA agrees that local government participation in the design and
review of control measures is critically important to ensure that the
measures are efficient, acceptable to the affected communities, and
successfully implemented. The Agency hopes that the process can be an
open and informal exchange of ideas from the community at large. EPA
believes that this is the most efficient structure and approach, in the
limited amount of time, to share and receive important information that
will help all participants to understand the issues involved and the
opportunities to achieve the remaining emissions reductions needed from
mobile sources.
c. Legal and Policy Issues. The Environmental Defense Center
opposed EPA's proposed public consultative process to resolve the SIP's
future mobile source component. EDC expressed perplexity at EPA's
reliance on and endorsement of California's assignment of emissions
reductions to meet California's shortfall in attainment demonstration
for the South Coast:
The novel ``consultative'' process is without basis in law or
propriety under the facts. EPA should not accept ``assignment'' of
California's shortfall; this action violates the Act, perverts the
local air quality planning process, and rewards California's
unwillingness to address its own air quality problems. The precedent
is highly disfavorable to clean air and jeopardizes the health and
well being of everyone in the United States.
As stated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA believes
that California does not have the authority to assign SIP
responsibility to the Federal government. However, EPA recognizes that
massive further reductions are needed for attainment in the South Coast
and that attainment may be either
[[Page 1153]]
very costly and disruptive or impossible if further reductions are not
achieved from national and international sources.
EPA therefore established the public consultative process to
resolve the complex issues associated with national and international
sources and to determine what combination of controls at various levels
are appropriate to contribute to the remaining emission reduction needs
in the South Coast. Both EPA and the State have made enforceable
commitments to prepare the controls that are determined, after the
public consultation process, to be appropriate for them. Under these
commitments, any new Federal or State rules both can and will be
adopted before they are required to meet progress or attainment
requirements in the South Coast. EPA also believes that those national
or international controls that issue from the public consultative
process will benefit, rather than disfavor, clean air elsewhere in the
United States.
The ``Federal Assignments'' portion of the SIP is approvable
because it is consistent, in the overall context of the California SIP,
with the Clean Air Act requirements. The California SIP as a whole is
approvable as long as, among other things, it includes ``[a]
demonstration that the plan * * * will provide for attainment'' of the
NAAQS. CAA section 182(c)(2)(A). As set forth in the proposal and below
in section II.B.6., the South Coast SIP regulations and commitments,
coupled with promulgated Federal measures, provide the great bulk of
reductions needed for attainment. The amount of reductions expected
from the consultative process is a small percentage of the overall
amount of reductions needed for attainment. In addition, granting
additional time for identifying and adopting the remaining measures is
consistent with the statutory scheme because the time delays are
relatively brief, in the context of the SCAB attainment process, and
thus do not interfere with the deadline for ROP and attainment.
EPA counts towards the attainment demonstration reductions from
measures resulting from the consultative process, even though those
measures have not yet been determined, in part because of the practical
and technical challenges of providing for attainment in the South
Coast. The SIP provisions for the South Coast already include control
requirements that, in general, are more expensive and technologically
advanced, and apply to smaller emitters, than any other SIP in the
nation.5 Generating additional emissions reductions from
additional SIP measures presents a high magnitude of complexity. Such
additional SIP reductions may prove unnecessary depending on whether
and how many additional reductions from other Federal measures will
occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, for example, SCAQMD rules 1111 (Nox from Gas Fired
Furnaces), 1109 (Refinery Boilers & Process Heaters), 1134 (Nox
from Stationary Gas Turbines), 1135 (Nox from Electric Power
Generating Systems), 431.2 (Liquid Fuel Sulfur Content), 1142
(Marine Tank Vessel Operations), 1113 (Architectural Coatings), 1128
(Paper, Fabric & Film Coating Operations), 1106.1 (Pleasure Craft
Coating Operations), 1130.1 (Screen Printing Operations), 1168 (VOCs
from Adhesive Applications), 1175 (Polymeric Cellular Products--
Blowing Foam), 1146 and 1146.1 (Industrial, Institutional, and
Commercial Boilers, Generators, & Heaters), 1162 (Polyester Resin
Operation), 1110.1 & 1110.2 (Emissions from Internal Combustion
Engines), 1151 (Motor Vehicle Non-Assembly Line Coatings), 1124
(Aerospace Assembly & Component Manufacturing Operations), 1153
(Commercial Bakery Ovens), 462 (Organic Liquid Loading, 461 (Gas
Transfer and Dispensing), 1136 (Wood Products Coatings), and
Regulation XX (Nox/Sox RECLAIM program). See also the CARB
rules for motor vehicles and fuels (generally), off-highway
recreational vehicles and engines, consumer products (generally),
and aerosol coating products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both EPA and the State are committing to undergo the consultative
process described above, and to promulgate controls determined by that
process to be appropriate. Those EPA and State commitments are
enforceable by citizens. Based on these commitments, EPA will assure
that the gap in emissions reductions represented by the consultative
process, and needed to attain, will be closed. For example, at the
close of the consultative process, EPA may promulgate a rulemaking that
identifies (i) additional SIP reductions that EPA considers appropriate
for California to undertake, and additional Federal measures that EPA
intends to promulgate; as well as (ii) schedules for the adoption or
promulgation and implementation of both sets of measures.
For these reasons, EPA has concluded that the SIP for the South
Coast, with its limited reliance on additional reductions to be
determined through a consultative process, ``provide[s] for''
attainment, under section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
EPA believes that CAA section 172(c)(6) supports its conclusion
that the California SIP, including the consultative process
commitments, ``provide[s] for'' attainment under section 182(c)(2)(A).
Section 172(c)(6) of the Act requires, as a rule generally applicable
to nonattainment SIPs, that the SIP ``include enforceable emission
limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques * * *
as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment * * * by
the applicable attainment date * * *.'' (Emphasis added.) The
emphasized terms mean that enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures do not necessarily need to generate reductions in the
full amount needed to attain. Rather, the emissions limitations and
other control measures may be supplemented with other SIP rules--for
example, the commitments EPA is approving today--as long as the entire
package of measures and rules provides for attainment. Under these
circumstances, the emission limitations and control measures generate
reductions in an amount that falls short of the amount needed to
attain; yet those limitations and measures are all that is necessary or
appropriate to attain in light of the additional SIP rules for
commitments.
EPA finds further support for its action in the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Kamp v. Hernandez, 752 F.2d 1444 (1985). There, the court
upheld EPA's full approval of a SIP that relied on a State's agreement
to submit a fugitive emission control plan in the future. Although
recognizing that lack of any controls on fugitive emissions would
prevent attainment, the court justified its holding on the grounds that
the plan was substantially complete, and that the remaining shortfall
would be covered under the state's future submission. The court also
interpreted the predecessor provision to section 172(c)(6) in a manner
consistent with EPA's interpretation of section 172(c)(6) above.
EDC commented that it is unclear how the ``meet and confer''
commitments meet the minimal requirements of the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) and the public participation elements of the CAA.
EPA believes that these requirements will be met and intends a
process with more than the legally-mandated public opportunities for
input. All Federal mobile source measures will be issued through
rulemaking that complies with the CAA and APA provisions. EPA will
ensure that all other future SIP measures go through a fully public
process that complies with applicable APA and CAA requirements for
public involvement. Finally, any necessary revisions to the South Coast
attainment demonstration must comply with all applicable public
notification, public hearing, and public participation requirements.
EDC commented that the practical and legal insufficiency of the
``Federal Assignments'' portion of the SIP is reflected in EPA's
proposal to make enforceable commitments to undertake additional
rulemakings after a
[[Page 1154]]
consultative process (which EDC described as ``secret'') on control
measures necessary to achieve the emissions reductions determined to be
appropriate for EPA. EDC added: ``This promise to make future promises
provides no certainty, specificity or meaning, and violates the spirit
and letter of the CAA.''
In today's action, EPA finalizes its commitment to undertake
rulemaking on any measures which are determined to be EPA's
responsibility, and EPA finalizes its approval of California's
enforceable commitment to adopt measures determined to be the State's
responsibility. These enforceable commitments, in conjunction with the
other SIP measures and other sources of emissions reductions,
constitute the required demonstration of attainment and ROP. As noted
in the discussion of the ``Federal Assignments'' (see Appendix A),
significant progress has already occurred or is expected in the near
future with respect to accomplishing, in enforceable form, specific
regulations (such as EPA's recently proposed national standards for
heavy-duty onroad vehicles) that achieve the vast majority of required
reductions.
EPA has authority to commit itself to promulgate additional Federal
measures determined through the consultative process to be appropriate,
under CAA section 301. This provision authorizes the Administrator to
``prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his
functions under [the Clean Air Act].'' In title I of the Act, Congress
set out what amounts to a ``blueprint'' by which nonattainment areas
will attain the NAAQS. This blueprint couples SIP reductions with
reductions from various Federal measures, such as reductions from
mobile source measures promulgated by EPA under Title II of the Act.
The EPA commitment prescribed in today's rulemaking is necessary to
carry out EPA's functions both in promulgating mobile source
regulations under Title II and in fulfilling its share of the
``blueprint'' reductions needed for attainment.
EPA proposed a public, not a secret, consultative process, and the
Agency sets forth in Appendix B to this document more details on
opportunities for the public to be involved in the difficult
decisionmaking on what additional controls on mobile sources need to be
adopted at the Federal, State, and local level. EPA's commitment,
finalized in this action, is as specific and enforceable as possible,
prior to the completion of critically important public input and
consultation. After the consultative process is completed, in June
1997, responsibility for the small increment of necessary additional
emission reductions should be fully resolved.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Coalition for
Clean Air (CCA) submitted joint comments opposing EPA's proposed
resolution of the ``Federal Assignments.'' The environmental groups
stated that EPA's proposed approval violates the CAA by providing full
credit toward attainment for ``Federal Assignments'' in the SIP.
Although NRDC and CCA encouraged federal-state cooperation to achieve
healthful air in the South Coast, they felt that the consultative
process combined merely with gap-filling commitments cannot be used to
circumvent the November 1994 deadline in the CAA for the State to
provide evidence that it has the legal authority to implement and
enforce all SIP provisions. NRDC and CCA commented that EPA cannot
approve a SIP which relies for ROP and attainment on prospective
federal measures over which CARB has no control and which have neither
been formally proposed nor promulgated.
NRDC and CCA observed that some of what they describe as the
``nonexistent'' federal measures are given credit as early as 1999, but
CARB is not required to submit replacement measures until the end of
1999. NRDC and CCA argued that the State should cover the ``Federal
Assignments'' emissions in its 1994 SIP, which could then be revised to
decrease the State's responsibilities as EPA adopts new federal
regulations. The environmental groups stated that there is no reason
why CARB cannot immediately begin development of these rules concurrent
with the consultative process. Finally, NRDC and CCA commented that EPA
should require that CARB immediately adopt rules, scheduled for
implementation in the year 2000 or later, as backstop measures which
will go into effect to the extent necessary to make up a shortfall that
remains after the consultative process.
EPA's responses to EDC's comments address many of these concerns.
EPA believes that the public consultative process for resolving mobile
source emission reductions is appropriate to the unique facts of the
South Coast attainment demonstration. The 1994 SIP submittal includes
massive reductions achieved by combined State and local regulations and
commitments, covering every significant source category. It is not
clear what feasible measures could be adopted by the State and local
agencies at this time to cover the entire emission reductions included
in the ``Federal Assignments.'' The additional time which EPA is
allowing for the evaluation and development of future Federal controls,
revision to the SIP's attainment demonstration, and then adoption, if
necessary, of any gap-filling measures, is justified by the magnitude
and complexity of the issues involved in regulating sources that have
never previously been subject to emission standards and sources that
are critical components of interstate and, in some cases, international
commerce.
Furthermore, for the larger emission reduction categories in the
``Federal Assignments,'' CARB has matched the national controls with
its own measures to adopt and implement at least equivalent State
controls under the State's unique CAA authorities to regulate mobile
sources. The success of this enterprise to develop cooperative and
consistent Federal-State mobile source emission standards would
eliminate for manufacturers and users the costs of compliance with
conflicting standards and test procedures.
d. Comments Specific to Source Categories. (1) Military Exemption.
The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard expressed concern about any
reconsideration of the exempt status of military aircraft as part of
the exploration of more stringent standards for aircraft engines, and
both agencies expressed a desire to be involved in future discussions.
EPA hopes that these agencies will participate fully in the public
consultative process to help in Federal, State, and local cooperative
efforts to identify viable strategies for achieving our air quality
goals.
(2) Locomotives. The Association of American Railroads (AAR)
commented that the consultative process should not be used as a route
to develop any State or local regulations imposing locomotive controls
for the purpose of reducing emissions. AAR expressed concern that SIP
measure M14 indicates that CARB ``will also consider operational
controls, such as reduced idling and use of California diesel fuel, if
* * * additional emission reductions are needed.'' AAR argued that
these types of state and local standards and requirements must be
avoided in order to avert adverse effects on interstate commerce. AAR
recommended that the consultative process be used to devise ways to
maintain the competitiveness of railroads and improve their volume of
intercity, long-haul freight, given the significant emissions
advantages of rail transportation over trucks. AAR further requested
that EPA work with the railroads and other stakeholders to design
mechanisms to properly account
[[Page 1155]]
in the SIP for the NOx benefits of rail transportation.
EPA trusts that the rail industry will raise these important issues
in the public consultative process.
AAR also raised legal issues regarding the authority of States to
adopt and implement any type of emission-related standard or other
requirement for locomotives. These issues are more germane to EPA's
forthcoming rulemaking to establish national locomotive regulations and
to clarify the extent to which States are preempted from adopting or
implementing locomotive controls.
(3) Ships and Shipping Channel. The U.S. Coast Guard reiterated its
concerns expressed at the time of EPA's proposed Federal Implementation
Plan for California areas regarding any operational controls on marine
vessels, including international legal implications. The U.S. Navy
supported EPA's position that recommendations regarding movement of the
shipping channel should await the results of ongoing studies. The Navy
opposed any strategy that would increase traffic in the Pt. Mugu Sea
Test Range.
EPA welcomes the involvement of these agencies in the public
consultative process. EPA will particularly appreciate the assistance
of the Coast Guard in clarifying international issues as they affect
potential controls on the emissions or operations of ocean-going
vessels, and the continued constructive involvement of the Navy in
studies to help assess the air quality benefits of moving the shipping
channel.
e. EPA Action. EPA approves the State's commitments to revise the
South Coast attainment demonstration and adopt appropriate measures
following the conclusion of the public consultative process, and EPA
finalizes its commitment to undertake rulemaking on any controls which
are determined to be appropriate for EPA.
2. EPA Approval of Attainment Demonstrations that Rely, in Part, on
Commitments. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Coalition
for Clean Air (NRDC/CCA), in a joint comment letter, contended that EPA
cannot approve the California ozone SIP because the majority of
emission reductions in the plan are in the form of commitments and not
adopted rules as required by the CAA. NRDC/CCA also asserted that
approval of such committal SIP provisions would lead to an
inappropriate delay in the statutory SIP submittal deadline. To support
these propositions, NRDC/CCA cite the holding of Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994); the alleged
effect of EPA's interpretation of the conditional approval provision of
the CAA, section 110(k)(4); and the language of EPA's regulation at 40
CFR 51.281.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NRDC/CCA also claim that the SIP inappropriately relies on a
September 1994 EPA memorandum, ``November 1994 Ozone SIP's--
Rulemaking Policy,'' to support the inclusion of commitments in the
plan. As NRDC/CCA correctly point out, this memorandum was rescinded
in 1995. Because EPA is not relying on the 1994 memorandum to
support its approval of California's SIP commitments, it is
irrelevant to this rulemaking and is therefore not addressed further
in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NRDC case, the Court addressed the merits of EPA's
interpretation, as set forth in various policy memoranda, that in
certain circumstances section 110(k)(4) of the CAA allows conditional
approval of commitments unaccompanied by regulatory measures.7 In
these policy memoranda, EPA provided that it would consider conditional
approval of SIP submittals, which were meant to fulfill certain
specific SIP requirements and which consisted entirely of a commitment
letter to submit the required measure by a date certain, but no later
than one year after conditional approval. In reviewing these policies,
the Court concluded, based on the express language of section
110(k)(4), the CAA's general SIP approval scheme, and the legislative
history of section 110(k)(4), that:
\7\ Section 110(k)(4) of the CAA provides:
(4) Conditional approval--
The Administrator may approve a plan revision based on a
commitment of the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a
date certain, but not later than 1 year after the date of approval
of the plan revision. Any such conditional approval shall be treated
as a disapproval if the State fails to comply with such commitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * the conditional approval mechanism was intended to provide
the EPA with an alternative to disapproving substantive, but not
entirely satisfactory, SIPs submitted by the statutory deadlines and
not, as the EPA has used it, a means of circumventing those
deadlines. 22 F.3d at 1134-35.
The Court found that on its face the language of section 110(k)(4)
``seems to authorize conditional approval of a substantive SIP or SIP
revision which, though not approvable in its present form, can be made
so by adopting specific EPA-required changes within the prescribed
conditional period.'' 22 F.3d at 1134. The Court also noted that the
CAA requires EPA to make completeness determinations on required plan
submittals and that such determinations could not reasonably be made
unless the submittal contains ``something more than a mere promise to
take appropriate but unidentified measures in the future.'' Id.
Finally, the Court determined from the legislative history of section
110(k)(4) that the contemplated specific and enforceable measures are
to be additional to some specific enforceable measures already in the
SIP. Id.
NRDC/CCA apparently interpret the NRDC holding as precluding EPA
from accepting in a SIP submittal any commitments to adopt rules at a
future date, even where that submittal includes a significant quantity
of emission reductions in adopted form. We believe that such an
interpretation is far too broad a reading of the NRDC case and that the
circumstances presented by today's action are readily distinguishable
from those in the NRDC case.
First, and most importantly, EPA is not approving the California
SIP commitments under section 110(k)(4), but rather under sections 301
and 110(k)(3), as discussed below. Thus the Court's analysis of the
express language of section 110(k)(4) and its specific legislative
history is not, as NRDC/CCA claim, applicable to EPA's action here. For
the reasons set forth below, EPA's authority to approve enforceable
commitments under sections 110(k)(3) and 301 is not constrained by
section 110(k)(4).
Furthermore, to the extent that the NRDC case has any relevance to
EPA's action under sections 110(k)(3) and 301, in the present case, EPA
has not proposed to approve submittals that consist only of a
commitment. The EPA policies at issue in NRDC permitted a state to
initially satisfy an individual CAA requirement (e.g., an inspection
and maintenance program) with only a commitment to adopt such a
requirement in the future. In contrast, the SIP approved by EPA today
contains in adopted, enforceable form a large percentage of the
emission reductions that make up the required submittal, in this case,
the attainment demonstrations.8 In addition, the California ozone
SIP, because of its many substantive, adopted rules, does not pose the
barrier to a completeness determination that the Court in NRDC
perceived where only a commitment existed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Because they include such major substantive components, the
attainment demonstrations do not circumvent the submittal deadline
in the CAA as NRDC/CCA claim. See, e.g, tables for each area on ROP
Forecasts and Targets, Local Control Measures, and Attainment
Demonstrations. These tables summarize far more expansive
discussions and data in the actual SIP submittals, which for some
areas amount to many volumes and thousands of pages of relevant
information and analyses in support of the attainment
demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRDC/CCA claim that full approval of the commitments in the
California ozone SIP (pursuant to sections 110(k)(3) and 301) would
render section
[[Page 1156]]
110(k)(4)'s conditional approval mechanism meaningless. We disagree
with this conclusion. Historically, EPA has interpreted the CAA to
allow states to submit enforceable commitments to adopt rules in the
future. The enactment of section 110(k)(4) in 1990 provided a new type
of approval for a limited set of commitments that, in general, could
not be enforced under sections 113 and 304 of the Act 9; there is
no evidence that Congress intended this limited provision to replace
EPA's well-established policy of using its general approval authority
to approve enforceable commitments. In fact, other provisions in the
statute belie that result. Finally, there continue to be strong policy
considerations for interpreting the statute to allow for approvals
under section 110(k)(3) of enforceable commitments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In commenting on EPA's proposed SIP approval action, the
Environmental Defense Center (EDC) suggested that EPA approve the
SIP's commitments under section 110(k)(4) rather than section
110(k)(3) because of the important enforceability benefits of a
conditional approval. As discussed below, commitments that are
conditionally approved cannot be enforced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA interpreted the pre-amended Act to allow for approval of
attainment demonstrations that included, in part, enforceable
commitments to adopt rules in the future. And courts have found these
commitments to be enforceable by the public under the citizen suit
provisions of the Act. See, e.g., American Lung Association of New
Jersey v. Kean, 670 F.Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), affirmed, 871 F.2d 319
(3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC v. N.Y. State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, 668 F.Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better
Environment v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, reconsideration granted
in part, 746 F.Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition v. City of New
York, 967 F.2d 764 (2d Cir. 1992); Trustees for Alaska v. Fink, 17 F.3d
1209 (9th Cir. 1994).10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Courts have also upheld EPA's approval of SIPs that contain
enforceable commitments. See, e.g., the cases cited below in the
discussion of 40 CFR 51.281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In enacting section 110(k)(4), Congress enacted a much more limited
type of approval of commitments. First, conditional approval under
section 110(k)(4) is for a very limited duration--the commitment must
provide a date certain for submittal that cannot exceed one year after
conditional approval. Furthermore, in contrast to the enforceable
commitments historically accepted by the Agency and the courts, section
110(k)(4) anticipates that the commitment made by the State will not be
an enforceable commitment. Under the express language of section
110(k)(4), upon the State's failure to meet the commitment, the
conditional approval must be converted to a disapproval. Once a SIP is
disapproved, there is no longer any commitment left to enforce under
section 113 or 304 of the Act.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A disapproved SIP--i.e., a plan rejected by EPA--is not
considered to be federally enforceable. Both sections 113(a)(1) and
304(a) and (f)(3) provide for enforcement regarding a violation of
only an ``applicable implementation plan,'' which CAA Sec. 302(q)
defines as a plan ``which has been ``approved'' or ``promulgated''
under section 110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing in the legislative history of the 1990 CAA
Amendments to suggest that Congress's addition of section 110(k)(4),
which is much more limited in scope, was intended to preclude EPA's
prior practice. Furthermore, other provisions of the amended Act
indicate that Congress contemplated continued approval of enforceable
commitments. For example, section 182(e)(5) of the CAA, which concerns
attainment demonstrations for extreme ozone nonattainment areas,
addresses the ``anticipate[d] development of new control
technologies.'' This section provides that EPA may approve provisions
relying on such technologies if, among other things, the state submits
``enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures to
be implemented * * * if the anticipated technologies do not achieve
planned reductions. These enforceable commitments would clearly need to
extend well-beyond the maximum one-year period that may be granted for
conditional approval under section 110(k)(4). Nothing in the language
of section 182(e)(5) indicates that Congress authorized those
enforceable commitments ``notwithstanding'' section 110(k)(4).
Nor does EPA agree with NRDC/CCA's assertion that approval of
enforceable commitments constitutes an inappropriate delay in the
statutory SIP submittal dates. Congress anticipated that section
110(k)(4) would result in submittal delays for some SIP measures beyond
the initial submittal deadlines. EPA believes that the delays in
submittal of final rules that would result in this action are
permissible under section 110(k)(3) because the State has obligated
itself to submit the rules by specified, short-term dates, and that
obligation is enforceable by EPA and the public. Moreover, as noted
above, the SIP submittal approved today contains major substantive
components submitted as adopted regulations. As such, the California
submittal is readily distinguishable from the submittals that were the
subject of the NRDC case.
Finally, as matter of policy it is important to continue to read
section 110 as allowing for full approval of SIP submittals containing
some enforceable commitments. The conditional approval provision is
most effectively used where a State makes a short term commitment to
correct a problem or fill a gap in a SIP submission. If the State fails
to meet the commitment, the conditional approval is converted to a
disapproval and an 18-month clock for sanctions and a 2-year period for
promulgation of a federal implementation plan (FIP) start. However,
neither EPA nor citizens have authority under the CAA to take action to
enforce those commitments that have been converted to a disapproval.
While a disapproval may motivate a state to ultimately meet its
commitments, through the potential for sanctions and a FIP, in some
cases it may be more desirable to have an approved commitment that EPA
or a citizen can enforce directly in court. Approval under section
110(k)(3) allows for enforcement action. Such a remedy is frequently
preferable in promoting actual air quality improvements. Moreover, even
with respect to an approved commitment, EPA may start the sanctions
process through a finding of failure to implement if the state does not
meet its enforceable commitment.
EDC commented, with apparent approval, on the vehicle of
enforceable commitments. EDC maintained, however, that the
Administrative Procedure Act and notions of fairness require that they
be more fully articulated. EPA believes that the SIP commitments
approved today are sufficiently specific to be enforceable by the
Agency or the public. For example, the control measure commitments are
for particular agencies to adopt and implement specific controls by
definite dates to achieve precise emission reductions from identified
source categories for each milestone year through attainment. In the
case of the South Coast, the plan also provides detailed discussions of
the source category, the regulatory history, proposed method of control
(including descriptions of available control technologies and
operational approaches), control efficiency assumptions, rule
compliance approaches (e.g., reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
source testing, certification programs, etc.), test methods, cost
effectiveness calculations, and references to document assumptions and
provide for further information. The rules to fulfill these commitments
will be subject to notice-and-comment at the State level prior to
[[Page 1157]]
adoption and submittal to EPA; furthermore, EPA will approve or
disapprove those measures through notice-and-comment rulemaking
procedures.
Reading the statute as a whole, it is clear that Congress did not
intend section 110(k)(4) to be the sole mechanism for approving
submittals that contain at least some commitments. Furthermore, for the
above reasons, enforceable commitments serve several distinct purposes
not addressed by section 110(k)(4). Under these circumstances, EPA's
interpretation of the statute is entitled to considerable deference.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As one court has observed: The need for flexibility in the
administration of a statute whose provisions have been described as
`virtually swim[ming] before one's eyes,' * * * should not be
underestimated. We have in the past been careful to defer to EPA's
choice of methods to carry out its `difficult and complex job' as
long as that choice is reasonable and consistent with the Act * *
*. Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. v. EPA, 672 F.2d 998,
1006 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1035 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRDC/CCA also assert that EPA is precluded from approving the
commitments in the California ozone SIP because EPA's regulation at 40
CFR 51.281 \13\ requires SIPs to include adopted rules and regulations.
EPA has long interpreted this regulation to require States, when
submitting rules and regulations, to submit those regulations in
adopted rather than proposed form.\14\ EPA has not interpreted this
regulation to require that every submittal must be in regulatory form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 40 CFR 51.281 provides, in pertinent part: Emissions
limitations and other measures necessary for attainment and
maintenance of any national standard * * * must be adopted as rules
and regulations * * *. Submittal of a plan setting forth proposed
rules and regulations will not satisfy the requirements of this
section * * *. (Emphasis added.)
\14\ In order to expedite SIP approval, EPA has occasionally
proposed to approve a state's draft rules that have been fully
developed but have not yet been adopted. An EPA approval using this
``parallel processing'' procedure, of course, cannot be finalized
until the rules have been adopted and formally submitted to EPA as a
SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA promulgated this regulation long before the enactment of the
1990 CAA Amendments. See 36 FR 22398 (Nov. 25, 1971), codified as 40
CFR 51.22; recodified as 40 CFR 51.281 with minor modifications at 51
FR 40674 (Nov. 7, 1986). As discussed above, EPA has historically
accepted enforceable commitments in SIPs and courts have found these
provisions to be enforceable by the public under section 304 of the
CAA. In addition, in a number of cases, courts of appeals in some
circuits, including the Ninth Circuit, have upheld EPA's approval of
plans that included commitments to fill gaps. See Kamp v. Hernandez,
752 F.2d 1444, 1445 (9th Cir. 1985); Connecticut Fund for the
Environment v. EPA, 672 F.2d 998 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1035
(1982); Friends of the Earth v. EPA, 499 F.2d 1118, 1124 (2d Cir.
1974).
The cited cases demonstrate that, over a long period of time, EPA
has not interpreted 40 CFR 51.281 as limiting the permissible
procedural vehicles for SIP measures to rules and regulations. Rather,
the Agency has viewed the primary purpose of section 51.281 as ensuring
that SIP submittals contain adopted, not proposed, emission limitations
and other measures. The commitments at issue here are not merely
proposed; they have been adopted by the various local air districts and
ARB. Because EPA's interpretation of its regulation is a reasonable
interpretation, it is entitled to deference. Chevron, 467 U.S. 837.
3. Additional Clean Air Act Issues
a. Attainment as Expeditiously as Practicable. The Environmental
Defense Center commented that the SIPs should be disapproved because
they fail to meet the CAA requirement of attaining the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable. The commenter provided no further
statutory interpretation or information relating to this CAA provision
and defects in the SIPs relating to it. EPA continues to believe that
the SIPs meet the progress requirements of the Act, as discussed in the
proposal, and provide for expeditious attainment.
b. Contingency Measures. NRDC and CCA commented that only SCAQMD's
measure CTY-01 meets the section 182(c)(9) CAA requirement for
contingency measures that take effect without further action by the
State or EPA upon a failure of the State to meet the applicable
milestone. The commenters stated that EPA should require further
definition and refinement of the contingency measures and the schedule,
funding and enforcement responsibilities required for the measure to
succeed.
EPA's proposal addressed only the following CAA requirements:
section 181(a)(1) relating to emissions inventories; section 182(b)(1)
relating to 15% ROP Plans; section 182(c)(2)(B) relating to Post-1996
ROP Plans; sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2) relating to modeling and
attainment demonstrations, and sections 182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3)
relating to I/M Programs. The remaining requirements of Part D of the
Act, including the sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures, will be acted upon in separate rulemakings.
c. Adequacy of SIP's Technical Foundations. (1) Modeling and
Treatment of Transport. The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
submitted a comment that EPA has failed to provide all data and
documentation relating to the modeling in the SIPs. Noting that EPA has
admitted that problems in model performance and transport led to
California's inability to follow EPA's modeling guidelines in its
analyses, EMA asked that EPA not take final action on modeling but
should require that appropriate adjustments be made in order to provide
accurate modeling assumptions on which to base California's proposed
measures.
EPA has not provided all data and documentation relating to the
modeling analyses. For each area, modeling input and documentation
include hundreds of thousands of data. This information is available
from local air pollution agencies.
Again, EMA failed to provide specific information to support its
general conclusion. EPA recognizes the opportunities to refine the
modeling in each of the areas, including the data upon which the
modeling is based. Major modeling projects or modeling refinements are
underway in each area. EPA contributes technical and funding support to
these projects, which may provide information helpful in enhancing the
SIP strategies in the future. However, EPA believes that the current
modeling in each area meets the requirements of the Act and provides a
reasonable basis for estimating the emission reductions needed for
attainment and the ambient impact of the control measures.
(2) Impact of Changes to the ZEV Program. The Environmental Defense
Center commented that the state has already rescinded the Zero Emission
Vehicle (ZEV) program, demonstrating immediately their willingness and
intent to renege on the SIP's commitments. EDC stated that both the
Sacramento and South Coast attainment demonstrations should be
disapproved because CARB has rescinded the ZEV program. NRDC and the
Coalition for Clean Air commented that EPA needs to quantify the
increased emissions that will result from changes to the ZEV program
and should demand compensating reductions.
At a public hearing on March 28 and 29, 1996, CARB approved
revisions to the ZEV program in the California motor vehicle control
regulations. These changes included elimination of the ZEV production
requirement for the 1998 through 2002 model years. CARB retained the
10% ZEV requirement for
[[Page 1158]]
the 2003 and later model years. In order to offset the loss of emission
reductions, CARB negotiated an enforceable contractual agreement with
the vehicle manufacturers, committing them to produce cleaner 49-state
cars in the 2001 through 2003 model years. CARB prepared a staff report
demonstrating that the emission reductions achieved within the South
Coast by the cleaner 49-state vehicles exceed the emission losses from
delay of the ZEV program (See CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement of
Rulemaking--PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLE
REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER CARS AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS, February 9,
1996).
EPA shares the commenters' concerns that the SIP must be
implemented fully and that substitute measures should immediately
correct any SIP shortfalls. However, the State has argued that
successful implementation of the ZEV program requires the March 1996
rule amendments, in order to ensure that concerns relating to battery
technology and ZEV sales potential can be resolved and the ultimate
sales mandate be fully accomplished. The State has also provided
evidence that the loss in emissions from the elimination of the ZEV
mandate for the first 5 years will be offset by provisions of CARB's
enforceable contract with the automakers. EPA will carefully monitor
implementation of the contractual agreement and the ZEV program and
will require the State to revise the SIP to provide new emission
reductions if needed to meet the progress and attainment requirements
of the Act.
(3) Control Measures. NRDC and CCA commented that EPA cannot
approve the South Coast SIP because it fails to include as measures all
already adopted regulations and measures characterized as assumptions.
The environmental groups argued that the CAA and EPA's regulations
require quantification of reductions from each adopted regulation, and
that these regulations themselves should be an enforceable part of the
SIP.
With respect to the quantification of reductions from the various
regulations that comprise the existing California motor vehicle
program, the State has submitted reductions from the program as a
whole, without a disaggregation by program element. In recent
correspondence, the State has provided further detail, including an
estimate of Statewide emission reductions from each severable
component.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Table 1 (``Adopted state regulations in the SIP baseline,
with implementation dates in 1996 or later'') in a letter from Lynn
Terry, Assistant Executive Officer, CARB, to Julia Barrow, Chief,
Planning Office, Air & Radiation Division, USEPA, dated September
19, 1996. This correspondence is part of EPA's rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rate-of-progress and ozone attainment demonstrations for each
area rely, in part, on emission reductions from regulations adopted by
local air pollution control districts, since the impact of these
regulations is factored into the projections of future year baseline
emissions.16 EPA has already approved the great majority of these
local regulations and expects in the near future to complete final
action on the remaining regulations. With respect to those few
regulations which are relied upon in the SIP for rate-of-progress or
attainment and which have not yet been approved as part of the SIP, EPA
construes that reliance and the fact that the local agencies have
adopted and the State has submitted the rules as SIP revisions to
constitute an enforceable commitment by these agencies to implement the
rules to achieve the reductions assumed in the rate-of-progress plans
and the attainment demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In a letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, Deputy Executive
Officer, SCAQMD, to Dave Howekamp, Division Director, Air & Toxics
Division, Region IX, dated September 18, 1996, the SCAQMD has
provided a list of local measures and associated emission reductions
assumed in the baseline of the South Coast SIP. This correspondence
is part of EPA's rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the State withdraws (before EPA's final action) any of these
regulations that have been submitted but not yet approved as part of
the SIP, or if EPA's final action is a disapproval, or if EPA
determines that the rule will achieve fewer emissions reductions than
relied upon in the SIP, EPA will call upon the State to fulfill its
commitment by submitting replacement measures on an expeditious
schedule and the State will be obligated to provide such replacements.
EPA requires identification of emission reductions associated with
each of the new measures that are incorporated in the plan's rate-of-
progress and attainment demonstrations and that reduce emissions below
the baseline inventory levels. The South Coast SIP fulfills this
requirement, and EPA has included, in the tables of new measures, the
specific credit assigned.
The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) stated that, based on
the information provided in the NPRM, EPA and California have not
established a reasonable, cost-effective basis for certain of the
proposed regulatory measures. EMA provided no specific information to
support the comment. EPA believes that the SIP control measures are, in
fact, reasonable. Moreover, EPA does not find statutory authority for
the Agency to require states to submit analyses demonstrating that
proposed measures are reasonable, cost-effective and appropriate.
Finally, due to the nature of the Federal/state relationship under the
Act, EPA analysis of the cost-effectiveness of SIP measures would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state
action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct.
1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
d. Consistency of Local Nonroad Measures with Clean Air Act
Preemption. The Engine Manufacturers Association commented that EPA
should not finalize approval of local measures without a determination
that they have met CAA requirements respecting preemptions on a state's
authority to regulate certain nonroad engines and applications. The
commenter did not identify any State or local measure that was
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. EPA has not identified any
measure, approved at this time, that violates the Act's preemptions.
When regulations are adopted and submitted for SIP approval, EPA
reviews the regulations to ensure that they fall within the authority
of the State or local agency and that the regulations are otherwise
consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements.
4. Future SIP Updates and Improvements
Western Riverside Council of Governments commented that the SIP
should provide the flexibility to replace measures with local programs
that are more sensitive to local political, economic and social
conditions. EPA supports and encourages SIP flexibility that respects
the superior ability of local agencies to reconcile environmental
progress with other community goals.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) commented
that, as EPA recognized in the proposed approval, some of California's
specific strategies may require adjustment as actual rules are
developed. CEPA stated that ``we will retain the flexibility to revise
the SIP as long as the emission reductions continue to provide for
attainment.''
As stated in the NPRM, EPA supports the State's flexibility to
revise the SIP, but cautions that EPA must review SIP revisions for
approvability under Sections 110(l) and 193. Section 110(l) prevents
EPA from approving a revision if it would interfere with any applicable
[[Page 1159]]
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the Act. Section 193 prevents
modification of control requirements ``in effect, or required to be
adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before
November 15, 1990 in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air
pollutant * * * unless the modification insures equivalent or greater
emission reductions of such air pollutant.''
5. Overall Approvability of Plans
Almost all of the commenters supported EPA's proposed approvals of
the plans for each area. However, comments opposing full approval of
the plans at this time were received from the Engine Manufacturers
Association, the Environmental Defense Center, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and the Coalition for Clean Air. These comments are
addressed elsewhere in section I.B., or in discussions relating to
individual areas.
6. Importance of SIP Implementation
Several commenters reflected on the critical importance of follow
through at the local, State, and Federal levels if the SIPs are to
achieve the air quality standards. EPA agrees that all parties,
including local government and the general public, must work together
to ensure that each responsible agency honors its commitments. Because
these challenging SIPs are so important from the perspective of public
health, the success of the SIPs requires widespread public
participation and public support. EPA encourages California agencies to
report frequently to the public on progress in implementing the plans
and to involve the public in resolving implementation issues. Through
the Public Consultative Process and other forums, EPA intends to inform
and engage the public as the Agency proceeds to develop future mobile
source controls.
C. SIP Submittals
1. SIP Submittals Before EPA's Proposal
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'' (ozone SIP)
The revision consists of: (a) The State's comprehensive ozone plan,
including the State's own measures and the State's summaries of, and
revisions to, the local plans; (b) the State's previously adopted
regulations for consumer products and reformulated gasoline and diesel
fuels; and (c) local plans addressing the ozone attainment
demonstration and ROP requirements.
On August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379), EPA approved the State's consumer
products and reformulated gasoline and diesel fuels regulations. At the
same time, EPA took interim approval action on CARB and SCAQMD New-
Technology Measures, 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 new-technology
measures approved at that time were: CARB's measures M2 (Improved
Control Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles), M9 (Off-Road Diesel
Equipment), CP-4 (Consumer Products Advanced Technology and Market
Incentives), and Additional Measures; and SCAQMD measures ADV-CTS-01
(Coating Technologies), ADV-FUG (Fugitives), ADV-PRC (Process Related
Emissions), ADV-UNSP (Unspecified, Stationary Sources), ADV-CTS-02
(Coatings Technologies).
On December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126), EPA issued the final SIP
approval of the State's mid-term control measures M3 (Accelerated
Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle requirement for Medium-Duty Vehicles), M5
(Heavy-Duty Vehicle NOX regulations), M8 (Heavy-Duty Gasoline
Vehicles lower emissions standards), M11 (Industrial Equipment, Gas and
LPG), and CP2 (Mid-Term Consumer Products).
The remaining portions of the ozone SIP submittal, upon which EPA
is acting today, include the following separate documents:
1. ``The 1994 California State Implementation Plan for Ozone,''
volumes I-IV. The November 15, 1994, submittal letter refers to other
submittals, described below, as completing the 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.
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 & Antelope Valley & Coachella/San Jacinto
Planning Area.'' 17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Antelope Valley and Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area are
portions of the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management
Area which are currently under the jurisdiction of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District. California has recently revised its
air basin classifications, so that Antelope Valley is part of Mojave
Desert Air Basin and the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area is part
of Salton Sea Air Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. On March 30, 1995, CARB submitted revised 1990 base year
emission inventories for each of the California ozone nonattainment
areas.
9. On June 30, 1995, CARB submitted desriptive materials relating
to the State's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program,
adopted by the California Bureau 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. SIP Submittals After EPA's Proposal
On April 4, 1996, CARB submitted a revision for the San Joaquin
Valley, withdrawing an obsolete transportation control measure
(Exclusive High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Freeway 41, included in the
1982 Air Quality Management Plan for Fresno).
On May 17, 1996, CARB submitted Executive Order G-96-031, the
State's commitment to participate in the public consultative process,
submit a revised attainment demonstration for the South Coast as
appropriate after the consultative process, and submit control measures
needed to achieve emission reductions determined to be appropriate.
On June 13, 1996, CARB submitted supplemental information regarding
the 1994 California SIP, including
[[Page 1160]]
additional information on emission reductions from the State's measures
(Letter from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp, with Attachments A, B,
and C).
On July 10, 1996, CARB submitted updates to the South Coast rule
adoption schedule (``Control Measure Adoption Schedule'').
On July 12, 1996, CARB submitted updates to the Ventura AQMP
(``Ventura County 1995 Air Quality Management Plan Revision'' and
``Appendix E-95'') and an updated post-96 ROP for San Joaquin Valley
(``Revised Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan'').
3. EPA Completeness Findings
On January 30, 1995, EPA issued a finding 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.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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);
and (3) 1990 base year inventory requirements of section 182(a)(1). The
CARB emission inventory submittal of March 30, 1995, was included in
the completeness determination of April 18, 1995.
On June 30, 1995, and February 5, 1996, EPA issued a finding of
completeness for the State's I/M program submittals.
On August 14, 1996, EPA issued a finding of completeness for
updates to the San Joaquin Valley plan (submitted on April 4, 1996, and
July 12, 1996); the South Coast plan (submitted on July 10, 1996); the
Ventura plan (submitted on July 12, 1996); the State's commitment to
participate in the public consultative process and revise the South
Coast plan as appropriate (submitted on May 17, 1996); and technical
information on State and local measures (submitted on June 13, 1996).
4. Rationale for EPA Approval of Minor SIP Changes without Further
Opportunity for Public Comment
The NPRM indicated that EPA intended to approve in the final action
SIP updates if received before the Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFRM)
was signed. The State, local agencies, and other commenters requested
EPA to absorb these updates and corrections into the final plan action.
In the NFRM, EPA has also made numerous changes to the tables of
control measures, in response to State and local agency requests for
correction and clarification. These changes make minor adjustments to
the measures, the arrangement of the measures in the table, the
schedule of measure adoption and implementation, or the emission
reductions associated with the measures. Since the changes are
administrative or clerical in nature, or otherwise are not significant,
and neither individually nor cumulatively affect ROP or attainment, EPA
has incorporated the changes in this action without further opportunity
for public comment.19 Notice and comment are not required under
the Administrative Procedures Act, ``when the agency for good cause
finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons
therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon
are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 5
U.S.C. 553(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The State's 15% ROP plans for each area do not rely on
reductions from any of the measures (all reductions come from fully
adopted regulations), and the changes do not reduce the amount of
emission reductions from the measures in post-1996 ROP milestone
years or the attainment years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State and involved local agencies in the San Joaquin Valley,
South Coast, and Ventura all requested that the final notice clarify
the original intent of the 1994 SIP submittal that, coincident with
approving the new Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in the current
SIP, EPA would delete from the applicable SIP the prior TCMs, which are
out-dated and not relied upon in the new ROP and attainment
demonstrations. Because these rescissions were mistakenly omitted
either from the original submittals or EPA's proposed action on the
submittals, and because the rescissions are inconsequential and fully
consistent with the 1994 SIP submittal respecting progress and
attainment, EPA is finalizing the TCM replacement without further
opportunity for public comment.
II. Review of the State Submittal, Response to Comments on Specific SIP
Issues, and EPA Final Action
A. State Measures
1. General Comments
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) commented
that EPA's proposal to approve the State's measures on a statewide
basis (if, under State law, they apply throughout California) did not
reflect the intent of the State, which was to limit the Federally
enforceable State measures only to the serious, severe, and extreme
nonattainment areas. EPA is so limiting the final approval action.
Accordingly, under Federal law the statewide measures will not count
toward attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS except in the ozone
nonattainment areas classified as serious and above. As a result, the
State must submit a SIP revision if it wishes in the future to extend
the geographic applicability of the measures. Because EPA is accepting
the State's request that Federal approval of the measures in the SIP
apply narrowly to the ozone ROP and attainment needs in serious and
above areas, the State must submit a SIP revision if, at any time in
the future, the emission reductions associated with the measures in
other areas are needed as components of attainment or maintenance SIPs
for other areas.
CEPA also requested that EPA not approve the reductions shown for
State measures M1, M2, M7, and M9 in the South Coast in the year 2007,
because 2007 is not a milestone year for the South Coast. EPA is
complying with the State's request in this final action. The year 2007
reductions in the South Coast may need to be resubmitted by the State
if federally enforceable 2007 reductions from these measures in the
upwind South Coast nonattainment area are needed for the 2007
attainment demonstration in the Southeast Desert.
Finally, CEPA asked that EPA not assign emission reduction credits
from measures M3, M5, M8, and CP-2/CP-3 to San Diego, since the area
did not use them for rate-of-progress or attainment. EPA is deleting
this credit. If reductions from these measures are needed in San Diego
in the future, the CARB must resubmit for SIP approval the State
measures with associated San Diego emission reductions.
2. Mobile Source Measures
a. Review of Measures. The following is a brief description of the
State's mobile source measures, or M Measures, identification of minor
corrections and clarifications to the measures or their
[[Page 1161]]
associated emission reductions, summary of public comment on the
measures and EPA's response, and EPA's final approval actions on the
measures.
(i) M1--Accelerated Retirement of Light-Duty Vehicles. The SIP
commits to secure a financing mechanism by the end of 1995, adopt the
measure in 1996, undertake a demonstration program from 1996 through
1998, and implement the program fully from 1999 to 2010, through the
annual retirement (scrappage or removal) of up to 75,000 older, high-
emitting vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin. CARB has clarified in
recent correspondence that the State's commitments for M-1 and for M-7,
the other vehicle retirement program in the 1994 Ozone SIP, are for the
specified emission reductions, rather than a particular number of
vehicles to be retired.20 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Letter from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow, dated September 20,
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Defense Center commented that M1 is illusory
until an adequate and enforceable funding source is identified. EPA
considers the State's progress in implementing the measure to be
acceptable at this time. During 1995, the California Legislature
enacted SB501, which established a statewide scrappage program to work
in concert with the scrap component of the I/M program. Current funding
comes from legislation authorizing fees in lieu of smog check at first
registration renewal. EPA believes that timely program implementation
requires the State to develop an adequate long-term funding approach by
the end of 1997.
EPA will continue to monitor M1. If the program does not mature on
a schedule likely to deliver the reductions needed for progress and
attainment, EPA will work with the State to correct implementation or
substitute other measures that provide the needed emission reductions.
Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final
action to approve M1, its implementation schedule, and the emission
reductions to be achieved in the South Coast, as displayed in the table
below, labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M1.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M1 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG.................................. 5 8 11 13 14
NOX.................................. 4 6 9 10 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) M2--Improved Control Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles. CARB
commits to 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 associated with this measure are relied
upon in the South Coast only.
The Western States Petroleum Association commented that the
description of the measure in the NPRM appeared to limit the
flexibility of the State. EPA's description, which was excerpted from
the SIP, was not intended to prescribe the ways in which the measure
could be implemented.
The Environmental Defense Center (EDC) noted that M2 relies on the
ZEV program, which was recently revised to rescind the interim
milestones. EDC also commented that M2 is highly speculative and
unenforceable and inappropriate for SIP credit.
On August 21, 1995, EPA approved M2 and assigned it SIP credit in
the South Coast under the provisions of section 182(e)(5) of the Act.
EPA will continue to work with CARB to ensure that the measure is
developed on schedule. CARB has recently provided additional
information regarding the development of this measure in a letter from
Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow, dated September 19, 1996: ``We expect to
begin developing this advanced technology measure following the 1998
biennial report to the ARB on the Low-Emission Vehicle Program. To meet
our commitment for adoption in 2000, we would need to hold public
workshops on the technical basis and regulatory concepts by 1999.
However, as part of the on-going Low-Emission Vehicle Program review,
staff continue to evaluate advanced control technologies that may
contribute to post-2003 emission reduction strategies for this
measure.'' The State has indicated that compliance options include
advanced gasoline vehicles, alternative fueled vehicles, and fuel cell
technologies.
Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final
action to approve the emission reductions to be achieved in the South
Coast by milestone year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from
California Mobile Source Measure M2.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M2 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG.................................. 0 0 3 6 10
NOX.................................. 0 0 5 9 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) M3--Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Requirement
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. This measure
offers some flexibility by allowing other mixes of vehicles and
technologies that generate equivalent emission reductions.
In their joint comments, the Natural Resources Defense Council and
the Coalition for Clean Air noted that, at a public hearing in
September 1995, CARB announced that it had made a calculation error
which resulted in an overallocation of emission reductions to this
measure. As a result, the regulations adopted at that time will achieve
2 tpd VOC and 23.9 tpd NOX reduction, compared to M3's claimed
credits of approximately 4 tpd VOC and 32 tpd NOX in the South
Coast in 2010. The environmental groups stated that EPA must require
CARB to submit an additional measure to make up this shortfall before
EPA can approve the SIP. Despite CARB's error, EPA expects and requires
CARB to adhere to the State's enforceable commitment to adopt by 1997
regulations that achieve the full credit assigned to M3 for the
milestone dates specified for each of the 5 areas where reductions are
claimed.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The State has clarified its intentions in this regard
(letter from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow, dated September 19, 1996):
``The SIP binds the State to develop enforceable measures that
deliver the emission reductions needed for rate-of-progress and
attainment, as identified in the plan and subsequent technical
transmittals. Volume I of the SIP says `* * * Once the SIP is
approved by U.S. EPA, these enforceable commitments become mandatory
and must be carried out * * *. [they] compel the State or local air
districts to obtain the reductions or to substitute alternative
measures by formal revision of the SIP.' Thus, if we discover that a
rule to implement a plan measure will not generate the targeted
emission reductions, we are obliged to find replacement reductions
or to demonstrate that rate-of-progress and attainment requirements
will still be met. Further, we recognize that any shortfall in
emission reductions would have to be made up on an expedited basis
because of the need for those reductions in the South Coast and
other areas for rate-of-progress and attainment. ARB will be looking
at any feasible alternatives proposed during the process of
developing each measure into a regulation. This process includes
several rounds of public review and a thorough consideration of the
economic impacts on the affected industries.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1162]]
EPA approved M3 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve
the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by
nonattainment area and milestone/attainment year in the table below,
labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M3.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M3
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast....................... 0 .89 .78 9.51 1.85 21.1 2.31 26.7 3.37 33.16
SE Desert....................... 0 .1 .1 1.4 .2 3.5 ...... ...... ...... ......
Ventura......................... 0 0 0 .5 .1 1.0 ...... ...... ...... ......
Sacramento...................... .2 .2 0 1.7 .4 3.9 ...... ...... ...... ......
S. Joaquin...................... 0 .4 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) M4--Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV); Early Introduction of
2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX engines. The SIP commits to implementation of
this measure beginning in 1996. CARB and the Districts share
responsibility for this measure. M4 is a commitment to increase the use
of existing low-emission engines among on-road HDDVs through locally
implemented demand-side programs and market incentives. This program is
intended to result in a 5% sales penetration of 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX
engines through the period 1996-1999, and a 10% sales penetration of
these engines between 2000 and 2002. Other combinations of penetrations
and emission levels that provide equivalent emission reductions could
be implemented.
CEPA commented that the NPRM omits SIP credits for this measure
outside of the South Coast. EPA agrees to include the State's M4
reductions for the remaining State areas. The credits for these areas
are taken from tables provided by CARB in Attachment C to a June 13,
1996 letter from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp.
EPA approved M4 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve
the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by
nonattainment area and milestone/attainment year in the table below,
labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M4.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M4
[Tons per day of NOX]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast......................... 2.17 3.90 2.93 ........... 2.34 1.36
SE Desert......................... 0.31 0.57 0.39 0.35 ........... ...........
Ventura........................... 0.1 0.18 0.14 ........... ........... ...........
Sacramento........................ 0.28 0.49 0.36
S. Joaquin........................ 0.74 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Kern.............................. 0.04 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) M5--Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDVs); Additional NOX
Reductions. The SIP commits to adopt this measure in 1997 and begin
implementation in 2002. CARB commits to achieve emission reductions
through adoption of a 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX emissions standard for new
HDDV engines sold in California beginning in 2002, or by implementation
of alternative measures which achieve equivalent or greater reductions.
This measure is designed to achieve emission reductions prior to
the introduction of a national HDDV standard in 2004. The 1994
California Ozone SIP (``Federal Measure'' M6) assigns to EPA
responsibility for adopting such a national standard. See discussion in
the NPRM (61 FR 10928-9). Since EPA's proposal, further progress toward
fulfilling the M5 and M6 commitments has been made by CARB and EPA. On
June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33421-33469), EPA published an NPRM proposing a
national onroad heavy-duty engine standard giving manufacturers the
flexibility to choose between two options: (1) A combined non-methane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus NOX standard of 2.4 g/bhp-hr and (2) a
combined NMHC plus NOX standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr together with a
NMHC cap of .5 g/bhp-hr. EPA and CARB expect that the combined standard
will result in NOX reductions comparable to those achieved with a
2.0 g/bhp-hr standard.
EPA approved M5 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve
the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by
nonattainment area and milestone/attainment year in the table below,
labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M5.'' Future
SIP updates may need to redistribute the emissions assigned to the
State (M5) and Federal (M6) measures.
[[Page 1163]]
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M5
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast............................................... 0 0 0.2 1.7 1.8 22.0 ...... ...... 3.1 37.6 4.8 56.2
SE 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 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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. The SIP commits to
secure a financing mechanism for this measure by the end of 1995. While
the SIP commits only to implement this measure in the South Coast, the
State indicates that consideration is being given to establishing a
truck retirement program in Sacramento and other nonattainment areas.
The Environmental Defense Center notes that M7 relies on an
enforceable funding mechanism to be secured by the end of 1995. EDC
comments that it is capricious to fail to identify the secure,
enforceable funding source for this speculative scrappage program.
State funding legislation has been prepared to establish the
Accelerated Vehicle Replacement Program, and the State is continuing to
pursue viable funding options. EPA will monitor program implementation
and ensure that the State and involved parties meet the SIP's schedule
for program adoption and implementation in 1996.
CARB requested that the ROG emission reductions shown for the South
Coast in the year 2002 be reduced from 1 to zero (0.21). EPA is doing
so at this time.
Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final
action to approve M7, its implementation schedule, and the emission
reductions to be achieved in the South Coast, as displayed in the table
below, labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M7.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M7--South Coast Air Basin
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG............................... 0 0 1 1 1 1
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.
EPA approved M8 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve
the emission reductions associated with the measure, as displayed by
nonattainment area and milestone/attainment year in the table below,
labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M8.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M8
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast............................................... 0 0 0 0.8 0.1 1.8 ...... ...... 0.2 2.3 0.3 3.0
SE 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 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(viii) M9--Off-road Diesel Equipment; 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOX
Standard, California. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 2001 and
begin implementation in 2005. The measure requires CARB to adopt a 2.5
g/bhp-hr NOX standard effective in the 2005 model year for new
off-road industrial equipment diesel engines that are not preempted
from California authority. California is preempted from adopting or
enforcing any standard or other requirement relating to the control of
emissions from new construction and farm equipment or vehicles which
are smaller than 175 hp (see section 209(e) of the Act).
CARB requested that the ROG emission reductions shown for the South
Coast in the year 2005 be increased from zero to 0.5. EPA is doing so
at this time.
On August 21, 1995, EPA approved M9 and assigned it SIP credit in
the South Coast under the provisions of section 182(e)(5) of the Act.
Under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is taking final
action to approve
[[Page 1164]]
the emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast by milestone
year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile
Source Measure M9.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M9--South Coast Air Basin
[tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG............................... 0 0 0.5 4 1 3
NOX............................... 0 0 4 35 14 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 beginning in 2000, and are intended to reduce ROG
emissions by 75% and NOx by at least 50%.
CEPA commented that the NPRM omits SIP credits for this measure in
Ventura, Sacramento, and the Southeast Desert. EPA agrees to include
the State's M11 reductions for these areas. The credits for these areas
are taken from tables provided by CARB in Attachment C to a June 13,
1996 letter from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp. Since the reductions
in these areas are all considerably less than one ton per day and EPA's
proposal showed credits only for whole number reductions in the South
Coast, EPA is also amending the reductions for the South Coast by
showing estimated reductions to the nearest tenth of a ton.
EPA approved M11 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126). Under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA here takes final action to approve
the emission reductions associated with the measure by milestone/
attainment year for each area in the table below, labeled ``Reductions
from California Mobile Source Measure M11.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M11
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast............................................... 0 0 4.2 2.0 8.8 4.4 ...... ...... 15.1 7.7 23.0 11.6
SE Desert............................................... 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1
Ventura................................................. 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Sacramento.............................................. 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(x) Additional New Control Technologies. In addition to the new
control technologies described above in measures M2 and M9, CARB has
committed to the implementation of additional innovative measures to
achieve the emission reductions needed in the South Coast to reach
attainment by 2010. CARB anticipates that these additional measures
will include a combination 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 (55 tpd of ROG and
20 tpd of NOX) are achieved by 2009.
The Environmental Defense Center commented that these new-
technology measures jeopardize the efficacy of the entire SIP. EDC
stated that many of the State's example controls are unrealistic (speed
controls) or illegal (episodic controls).
On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's additional new control
technologies measure under the provisions of section 182(e)(5), with
2010 emission reduction credits of 79 tpd ROG and 60 tpd NOX in
the South Coast. CARB has subsequently clarified that the emissions
reductions associated with this measure are 55 tpd ROG and 20 tpd
NOX.
CARB has also furnished additional information regarding the
State's approach to developing the control measure. A September 19,
1996 letter from Lynn Terry to Julia Barrow provides the following
description of the State's proposed schedule: ``We anticipate kicking
off development of this measure in 1997 with an international symposium
on clean transportation to solicit ideas for new technologies and
approaches. We intend to follow up with technical work (including any
appropriate research contracts), meetings, and workshops on the most
promising ideas through 2000. At that point, we expect to develop
regulatory concepts for discussion in 2001-2003, followed by release of
specific proposals in 2004-2005, and adoption of appropriate
regulations by 2006.'' EPA remains eager to work with the State to
ensure that progress is made to develop approvable mobile source
controls as necessary in the South Coast to meet the SIP's progress and
attainment goals.
c. EPA Action. As described above, EPA has already approved most of
the State's M Measure commitments. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved the
CARB new-technology measures M2, M9, and Additional New Technology
Mobile Source Measures (described above), and assigned credit in the
South Coast ozone attainment demonstration to the measures. At the same
time, EPA proposed approval of the State's control measure commitments
for M3, M5, M8, and M11. EPA issued final 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. EPA is here
approving the ROP and attainment demonstrations of California ozone
nonattainment area plans which rely, in part, on the M Measure
commitments. Therefore, under sections 110(k)(3) and
[[Page 1165]]
301(a) of the Act, EPA now takes final action to assign credit to the
State's enforceable commitments to achieve the specific emission
reductions associated with M3, M5, M8, and M11, and displayed in the
tables above for each measure.
EPA is also approving, under sections 110(a)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, and assigning 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. EPA therefore takes final action to approve
and credit CARB's enforceable commitments to these 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 initially 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 revised and final revision 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 finalizing 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 high enhanced performance standard
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
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 ............
[[Page 1166]]
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 comprises
pertinent sections of the California Business and Professions Code, the
Health and Safety Code, the Vehicle Code, and the California 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
targeted for test-only inspection. All vehicles in the enhanced areas
will be subject to loaded mode testing. More stringent requirements
apply to technicians licensed in the enhanced areas. The two programs
are essentially the same in 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 the NPRM.) The SIP
submittal includes modeling which demonstrates that the program design
for California's basic program will meet EPA's performance standard for
basic programs. EPA is, therefore, approving this revision to
California's SIP for the basic I/M program.
The Highway Act prohibits the Administrator from disapproving or
applying an automatic discount of emission reduction credits to a SIP
revision because the I/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, 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. The Highway Act is clear that
approval under its provisions shall last for only 18 months, and that
the program evaluation is due to EPA at the end of that period.
Therefore, EPA believes Congress intended for these programs to start-
up as soon as possible, which EPA believes should be at the latest, 12
months after the effective date of the approval, so that at least 6
months of operational program data can be collected to evaluate the
performance of the program. ``Start-up'' is defined as a fully
operational program which has begun regular, mandatory inspections and
repairs, using the final test strategy and covering each of the state's
required areas. 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.
[[Page 1167]]
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.
The program evaluation to be used by the state during the 18-month
period must be acceptable to EPA. EPA anticipates that such a program
evaluation process will be developed by the Environmental Council of
State (ECOS) group that is convening now and that was organized for
this purpose. California is an active participant in the ECOS group.
EPA further expects that in addition to the interim, short term
evaluation to be conducted within 18 months, the state will conduct a
long term, ongoing evaluation of its I/M program as required by the I/M
Rule in sections 51.353 and 51.366.
At the end of the 18-month approval period, EPA will review the
state's final I/M SIP revision, which will include the state's program
evaluation, and 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. Although this
schedule appears to be slipping, EPA anticipates that California will
start its program within 12 months of this approval.
California has made a good faith estimate that its hybrid enhanced
I/M program will meet EPA's high performance standard based on the
California Pilot Program and innovative program features including an
electronic transmission project with a trigger program used for
enforcement, 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
targeting 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 comprise 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 has been created and an electronic
network enabling the test analyzer system units to connect
automatically to the database has been 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 is also 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 used 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.
b. Response to Comments. The Environmental Defense Center commented
that the State's I/M program must be bolstered to return the emissions
reduction necessary to meet attainment. California has committed to
performing quarterly program evaluations to determine whether SIP
emission reduction requirements and EPA's performance standard are
being met. EPA's approval under section 348(c) of the Highway Act
requires the State to collect data on the operation of the program to
demonstrate with an 18 month period that the I/M credits are valid and
the program is otherwise in compliance with the CAA. EPA will work with
the State to help ensure that data are timely collected and that the
program delivers SIP-required reductions or is promptly modified to do
so.
c. 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 Enhanced I/M Program.'' The table reflects the revisions to
the estimated reductions shown in the NPRM. These changes were
requested by CARB in Attachment A to a letter dated June 13, 1996
(James D. Boyd to David Howekamp). South Coast 2002 NOX is changed
from 35.5 to 35.6; Southeast Desert 2005 ROG is changed from 2.9 to
2.6; Southeast Desert 2007 NOX is changed from 2.8 to 2.7;
Sacramento 2005 ROG is changed from 5.1 to 5.2; and San Joaquin Valley
1999 NOX is changed from 4.9 to 5.0. The emission reductions
claimed for the San Joaquin Valley are based on implementation of the
enhanced I/M program in Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, and Modesto.
Reductions From California Enhanced I/M Program
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast..................... 34.8 32.4 40.3 35.6 32.5 33.0 ........ ........ 30.2 34.8 26.2 31.1
SE Desert..................... 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.7
Ventura....................... 1.6 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.9
[[Page 1168]]
Sacramento.................... 5.4 5.7 6.3 6.5 5.2 6.4
S. Joaquin.................... 4.3 5.0
S. Diego...................... 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. EPA Action. EPA is finalizing approval of 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.
EPA is also finalizing, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, approval of the California I/M program and 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.22 By mistake EPA's proposed approval was
limited to ozone. In this final action EPA is also approving the
California I/M program as meeting the requirements of section 187(a)(4)
of the Act for basic I/M for the following areas of the State
classified as moderate for CO with design values less than 12.7:
Fresno, Sacramento, Modesto, Chico, Stockton and San Diego.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The January 22, 1996 SIP submittal includes and supersedes
materials contained in the State's earlier submittal of June 30,
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 348(c) of the Highway Act, EPA is finalizing, for a
period of 18 months, approval of the California I/M submittal of
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. In addition, EPA is approving the I/M
submittals as meeting the requirements of section 187(a)(6) of the Act
for enhanced I/M for the South Coast which is classified as a serious
nonattainment area for carbon monoxide; by mistake, this aspect of
EPA's approval of the I/M program was also omitted from the NPRM.
Finally, EPA is finalizing, for a period of 18 months, approval of the
emission reductions to be achieved by the enhanced I/M program, as
displayed in the table above, labeled ``Reductions from California
Enhanced I/M Program.'' Section 348(c)(3) 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 EPA finds that California has failed to start its program within
12 months from the effective date of this notice, or by February 9,
1998, and issues a letter so informing California, then this approval
will convert to a disapproval as of the date of such letter. If the
required State demonstration is not completed within 18 months and
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision 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 sections
182(c)(3) and 187(a)(6). After 18 months have elapsed, unless and until
EPA approves a new SIP submittal, 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. As discussed in the NPRM, CARB classifies the
emissions reductions resulting from regulations on consumer products
regulations into 3 main categories: near-term, mid-term, and long-term
with regard to date of promulgation and implementation.
CARB's near-term measures consist of rules adopted prior to May
1995. The existing consumer products regulations, antiperspirant and
deodorant regulations, and the 1996 and 1999 VOC content standards 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 regulations are expected to
be adopted by July 1, 1997 and implemented by the year 2005, and will
cover various consumer product categories which are currently not
regulated by the State of California. These mid-term measures are
needed for attainment demonstrations in the Sacramento Metropolitan and
Ventura County air basins. In the SIP, CARB asserts that these
measures, like the near-term measures, rely on available or reasonably
foreseeable technology. CARB has also committed to investigating the
feasibility of incorporating reactivity considerations into the mid-
term measures to reduce ozone-forming potential while providing
additional flexibility at reduced costs to industry and consumers.
CARB has committed to obtaining further reductions (as compared to
the near- and mid-term measures) from consumer products after 2000.
These reductions may rely on available or in-the-pipeline technology,
and may also rely on various combinations of traditional control
strategies, technology-forcing standards, innovative market-based
approaches, and consumer education programs. These long-term measures
would be enforced on a statewide basis, but only the South Coast plan
relies on the emissions reductions to demonstrate attainment.
CARB has further categorized their emission reduction commitments
into 4 classifications, or ``measures'': CP-1, CP-2, CP-3, and CP-4.
These measures are either adopted rules or commitments to adopt rules
to reduce VOC emissions from consumer products and aerosol paints. A
description of each of these measures follows.
b. Review of Measures. (1) Measure CP-1. Measure CP-1 includes 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
[[Page 1169]]
approved these rules into the SIP on August 21, 1995 (see 60 FR 43379).
(2) Measure CP-3 (Aerosol Paints). Measure CP-3 is a near term
commitment to adopt and implement VOC content standards in aerosol
paints. Regulations meeting these commitments were adopted in 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, effective January 1,
1996, aerosol coatings' VOC content must comply with limits that range
from 60 percent to 95 percent, depending on the coating.
In the second phase, currently due to take effect December 31,
1999, aerosol coatings' VOC content limits will range from 30 percent
to 80 percent, depending on the type 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 must ensure that the 1999 limits do not become
federally enforceable prior to the final effective date, including any
extension, according to 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.
(3) Mid-Term Committal Measure CP-2. Measure CP-2 is a mid-term
commitment to adopt additional regulations in 1997 to further reduce
VOC emissions from currently unregulated household, industrial and
institutional, and commercial consumer products. These reductions are
anticipated to result from the further regulation of new categories of
consumer products through technology that is currently feasible and
commercially viable. EPA approved CP-2 on December 14, 1995 (60 FR
64126).
(4) Long-Term Committal Measure CP-4. Measure CP-4 is a long-term
measure to further reduce emissions after measures CP-1, CP-2, and CP-3
are implemented. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's Measure CP-4
as meeting the requirements of section 182(e)(5).
(5) Alternative Control Plans (ACPs). In order to provide industry
with flexibility in meeting the VOC content limits, CARB has adopted
regulations that will allow manufacturers to meet the VOC standards on
an emissions average basis. The regulations, CARB's Alternative Control
Plan (ACP) for consumer products and aerosol coatings, require that
manufacturers carefully track sales and VOC content of 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.
c. Emission Reductions. The following table, ``Reductions from
California Consumer Products and Aerosol Paint Program,'' 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 table combines credits for consumer products
and aerosol paints. Credit for CP-4 is claimed only for South Coast.
The ROP and attainment demonstrations for San Diego and San Joaquin
Valley do not rely on reductions from the consumer products measures.
The State has submitted for SIP approval no emissions reductions for
these areas associated with consumer products and aerosol paints
measures, although real reductions will occur in those areas. San
Joaquin Valley Unified APCD requested that EPA identify a 1.1 tpd VOC
emissions reduction in the San Joaquin Valley area from these measures.
Since the State does not wish to claim SIP credit for these measures in
the San Joaquin Valley, EPA is not assigning the credits to San Joaquin
Valley.
Reductions From California Consumer Products and Aerosol Paint Program [Reductions Beyond Those Achieved by CP-
1]
[Tons per day of ROG]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast...................... 0 8 39.2 ........... 42.2 89.2
SE Desert........................ 0 0.6 3.5 3.9 ........... ...........
Ventura.......................... 0 0.4 2.2 ........... ........... ...........
Sacramento....................... 0 1.1 5.6 ........... ........... ...........
San Joaquin...................... 0 ............ ........... ........... ........... ...........
San Diego........................ 0 ............ ........... ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. 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 approving CP-3 under
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and assigning 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).
b. Response to Comments. The Environmental Defense Center (EDC)
questioned whether the pesticides measure should be granted credit. EDC
stated that pest management research alone will not create any
reductions and the SIP is entirely vague as to how these air quality
benefits will be accomplished. While the NPRM refers to a June 1997
date for promulgation of regulations should the voluntary measures
fail, the SIP itself recites a possible, not obligatory, 1998 date.
Finally, EDC recommends that the pesticides rule that was included in
EPA's 1995 Federal Implementation
[[Page 1170]]
Plan (or some comparable rule) must be included in the SIP.
On May 11, 1995, CARB submitted a clarification by the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation (Memo from James W. Wells to James
D. Boyd) to the pesticide element of the SIP, submitted on November 15,
1994. This SIP clarification, which was cited in the NPRM, states, in
part, that ``The Department of Pesticide Regulation commits to adopt
and submit to U.S. EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to
reduce volatile organic compound emissions from agricultural and
commercial structural pesticides by specific percentages of the 1990
base year emissions, by specific years, and in specific nonattainment
areas * * * as listed in the following table * * *.'' California
assigns to the pesticides measure less emission reductions than were
associated with EPA's proposed FIP rule but the SIP reductions are
sufficient to meet progress and attainment requirements in each area
for this control category.
c. 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 20 percent of the 1990 base year
emissions in the attainment years for Sacramento, Ventura, Southeast
Desert, and the South Coast, and by 12 percent in 1999 for the San
Joaquin Valley. The table labeled ``Reductions from Pesticides
Measure'' shows reductions counted toward attainment in each area. EPA
has revised the table to reflect CEPA's request that emission
reductions for interim years be excluded from the SIP, since CARB
elects not to assign credit to the pesticides measure except for
purposes of attainment. If reductions from the measure are, in the
future, needed to meet ROP milestones, CARB must resubmit the measure
and interim reduction estimates as an SIP revision.
Reductions From Pesticides Measure
[Tons per day of ROG]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast..................... 0 0 0 0 0 1.7
Southeast Desert................ 0 0 0 1.5
Ventura......................... 0 0 2.4
Sacramento...................... 0 0 2.8
San Joaquin..................... 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. EPA Action. EPA is approving the Pesticides measure under
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and assigning credit to the
measure as part of the 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. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and Measures
1. Emission Inventories
a. Response to Comments. The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
commented that EPA has not provided all of the data or documented all
of the assumptions that were part of California's inventory and
modeling analyses. EMA added that it has serious concerns that the
baseline emissions inventories include potentially significant
overestimates of growth in VMT, trips, and vehicle and equipment sales
and usage. EMA indicated that these estimates do not accurately reflect
the emissions reductions that will result from the imposition of
current and future national and state regulations. Finally, EMA noted
that EPA acknowledged that its baseline and projected emissions are
uncertain, and EMA requested that EPA should not take final action on
the proposed inventories but should require that appropriate
adjustments be made in order to provide accurate and reasonable
inventory calculations on which to base California's proposed measures.
EPA does not believe that it is necessary or practical for the
Agency to set forth the complete emission inventory data and
documentation. This information is available from the State and local
agencies, and amounts to thousands of pages of emissions and activity
data, emissions factors, calculations, and quality assurance programs.
The commenter provided no specific information relating to
inaccuracies in the SIP emission inventories. EPA recognizes that, in
general, the accuracy of inventories for any area can be improved. If
EMA has specific corrections to suggest, they should be provided to the
State, EPA, and local agencies for review and possible inclusion in
future SIP revisions. However, EPA has determined that the existing
inventories meet applicable SIP requirements and provide reasonable
foundations for the SIP.
The City of Los Angeles commented that the South Coast is preparing
a 1997 AQMP update, which will improve the inventory. EPA recognizes
that the improved inventory in progress may allow for SIP refinement.
If and when inventory updates and improvements are submitted as SIP
revisions for any of the nonattainment areas, EPA will consider them.
b. EPA Action. EPA is finalizing approval of the emission
inventories for each of the nonattainment areas as meeting the
requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the Act.
2. San Diego
a. SIP Control Measures. Only one comment was received on the San
Diego plan. As discussed above in Section II.A.1, CEPA asked EPA to
exclude from the San Diego SIP those emission reductions that will
result from implementation of State measures M3, M5, M8, and CP-2/CP-3,
since these reductions are not needed for purposes of progress or
attainment. EPA is deleting these credits from the emission reduction
tables for State measures in Section II.A.
EPA is not approving any new State or local measures as part of the
San Diego ozone SIP, since none were included in the State's submittal.
The State demonstrated that the ROP and attainment demonstration
provisions of the Act could be met with pre-existing regulations.
b. ROP Provisions. EPA is finalizing approval of the ROP plan as
meeting the 15% ROP requirements of section 182(b)(1) and the post-1996
ROP requirements of section 182(c)(2) of the Act. The ROP VOC targets,
projected VOC emissions, and creditable VOC and NOX reductions are
shown below in the table labeled ``San Diego ROP Forecasts and
Targets.''
[[Page 1171]]
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................ 0 19.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration. EPA is approving the
State's modeling analysis and attainment demonstration under section
182(c)(2)(A) of the Act. A summary of the emission reductions needed to
attain the standard and reductions projected from the SIP control
strategy is provided below in the table labeled ``San Diego Attainment
Demonstration.''
San Diego Attainment Demonstration
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory..................... 313 238
Carrying Capacity..................................... 232 175
Reductions Needed..................................... 81 63
Reductions from Adopted Measures...................... 81 63
Reductions from Committed Local Measures.............. 0 0
Reductions from Committed State Measures.............. 1 1
Total SIP Reductions.................................. 82 64
Remaining Emissions in 1999........................... 231 174
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Overall EPA Action. EPA approves the San Diego ozone SIP with
respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories, control
measures, modeling, and demonstrations of 15% ROP, post-1996 ROP, and
attainment.
3. San Joaquin Valley
a. Control Measures. The San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD commented
that no reductions are tied to any of the transportation control
measures (TCMs) individually, but rather to the overall TCM package,
since the overall emission reductions target is expected to be achieved
but it is not anticipated that all of the measures would be
implemented. EPA's table of control measures is consistent with the
APCD's position in both the proposal and final action.
On April 4, 1996, CARB submitted a SIP revision (letter from James
D. Boyd to Felicia Marcus, attaching CARB Executive Order G-125-203).
This submittal requests EPA to delete from the existing SIP an obsolete
TCM that was originally adopted by the Fresno County APCD as part of a
1982 ozone SIP. (The Fresno County APCD has since been absorbed into
the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD). The 1994 San Joaquin Valley AQMP
does not assume emission reductions from this TCM, but rather
substitutes a TCM package listed among the local measures in the table
labeled ``San Joaquin Local Control Measures.'' In this document, EPA
is taking final action to delete the obsolete measure, which is
entitled ``Exclusive High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on Freeway 41.''
The table labeled ``San Joaquin Local Control Measures'' indicates
the dates of rule adoption and implementation and the emission
reductions presumed to occur by 1999, the applicable attainment
deadline. These measures are relied upon in meeting the attainment
requirements of the Act. Accordingly, and because the measures
strengthen the SIP, EPA is approving, under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the Act, the enforceable commitments to adopt and implement
the control measures by the dates specified to achieve the emission
reductions shown. EPA also is assigning credit to the measures for
purposes of attainment. EPA approval of the adopted regulations will be
completed in separate rulemakings in the future.
San Joaquin Local Control Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions
Rule No. Control Measure Implementing Agency Adoption Date Implementation ---------------------------
Title Date VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 Emission Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.