Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; CaliforniaSouth Coast

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-227-151; FRL-6378-2]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;

California--South Coast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is concluding the Public Consultative Process (PCP) on

mobile source emission reductions needed for attainment of the 1-hour

ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Los Angeles-

South Coast Air Basin Area (South Coast). EPA is also approving the

State's update to the state implementation plan (SIP) for ozone in the

South Coast to reflect the outcome of this process and the

implementation status of some of the control measures. Finally, EPA is

approving the State's joint commitment with EPA to issue regulations to

eliminate the remaining SIP shortfall as determined appropriate for

each agency. EPA is taking these actions under provisions of the Clean

Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for NAAQS,

and plan requirements for nonattainment areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on August 23, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The rulemaking docket for this rule is available for public

inspection during normal business hours at EPA's Region IX office, Air

Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. A

reasonable fee may be charged for copying parts of the docket.

Electronic availability: This document is also available as an

electronic file on EPA's Region 9 Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/

region09.

Copies of related materials are also available for inspection at

the following location: California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street,

Sacramento, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson, EPA Region IX Air

Planning Office, (415) 744-1288, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. EPA's Final Action

We are concluding the Public Consultative Process on mobile source

reductions needed for attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the South

Coast.1 During this process, we have issued or are in the

process of issuing regulations which are expected to reduce emissions

of nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the South Coast in 2010 by

approximately 94 tons per day (tpd), and reduce emissions of volatile

organic compounds (VOC) by about 39 tpd.2 This is roughly 85

percent of the Federal emission reductions identified in the 1994 ozone

SIP submittal for the South Coast.

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

\1\ For a description of the boundaries of the Los Angeles-South

Coast Air Basin, see 40 CFR 81.305. The nonattainment area includes

all of Orange County and the more populated portions of Los Angeles,

San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.

\2\ The South Coast plan sometimes substitutes the term Reactive

Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous.

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

To achieve the remaining reductions (15 tpd of NOX and 8

tpd of VOC), we intend to continue a focused cooperative effort with

California to resolve remaining issues and to agree upon the best

approach for achieving the balance of reductions still unaccomplished.

We will complete by December 31, 2001, any actions identified as

appropriate for our rulemaking under our existing commitment,

promulgated when we approved the 1994 ozone SIP (40 CFR 52.238).

We are approving a similar commitment by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB). The State included this commitment in Executive

Order G-99-037, dated May 20, 1999.3 In the order, CARB

``commits to continue working with U.S. EPA and the affected parties to

achieve the emission reductions identified in the SIP for federal

measures, and to (a) adopt by December 31, 2000, and submit as a SIP

revision, a revised attainment demonstration for the federal one-hour

ozone standard in the South Coast Air Basin, and (b) adopt by December

31, 2001, control measures needed to achieve any additional emission

reductions which are determined to be appropriate for ARB.'' This State

commitment replaces a commitment made at the beginning of the Public

Consultative Process in 1996, and codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(235). We

are therefore rescinding that prior commitment.

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

\3\ CARB submitted the Executive Order on May 20, 1999. We found

the submittal complete on May 20, 1999. We 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).

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

Finally, we are approving the State's update on the status of CARB

control measures in the 1994 ozone SIP, included as Attachment A to the

Executive Order. This update displays

[[Page 39924]]

reductions from CARB's various measures for control of mobile sources,

consumer products, and aerosol paints. It also discusses new CARB

control measures to achieve the reductions required in the 1994 ozone

SIP.

II. Background

On June 7, 1999, in 64 FR 30276-30287, we proposed to conclude the

Public Consultative Process, identified emissions reductions from

promulgated and pending Federal measures, discussed potential measures

for eliminating the remaining emissions reduction shortfall, and

proposed to approve CARB's commitment and SIP update for the South

Coast. For additional details and background, please consult that

document and our final approval of the 1994 ozone SIP for the South

Coast, which was issued on January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150-

1187).4

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

\ 4\ The 1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast consists of two

plans: California's 1994 State Implementation Plan for Ozone, which

deals with the State's control measures, and the South Coast Air

Quality Management District's 1994 Air Quality Management Plan,

which includes all of the local control measures and other plan

elements. The State's portion of the plan is available

electronically at the California Air Resources Board's web site at

www.arb.ca.gov/sip/sip.htm.

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

You may also find in the proposal a description of EPA's consent

decree and settlement agreement with environmental plaintiffs in

Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. SCAQMD, CARB, and USEPA, No. CV 97-

6916 HLH (C.D. Cal.). Among other things, the consent decree requires

us to conclude the Public Consultative Process by July 1, 1999, and to

attempt to promulgate by December 31, 2001, final measures that are

needed for ozone attainment and are appropriate for EPA to

promulgate.5

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

\5\ We issued a notice of the pending settlement on December 9,

1998 (63 FR 67879), consistent with CAA section 113(g). The consent

decree was entered by the Court on June 9, 1999; the settlement

agreement has been signed by the plaintiffs and EPA.

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

III. Response to Public Comments

A. Summary of Comments and Responses

In response to the proposal, we received comments from South Coast

Air Quality Management District (``SCAQMD''), City of Los Angeles

(``City''), Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, and US Navy

(Region Southwest). We appreciate the thoughtful comments and the

commenters' support and encouragement of our efforts to achieve further

emission reductions from national and international mobile sources

beyond the jurisdiction of local and State agencies.

1. Fair Share Reductions of Federal Sources

All but one of the commenters asked the Federal government to do

its fair share in reducing emissions from Federal mobile sources,

stating that: (a) Further control of local stationary sources will be

difficult, given the stringency of existing local rules, and (b)

Federal sources are under-controlled. To make this point visually,

SCAQMD presented a table showing 2010 reductions from 1990 baseline

emissions inventories for Federal sources, in contrast to much greater

reductions required from stationary sources in the 1994 California

Ozone SIP. Commenters stated that it is especially critical that EPA

and other federal agencies cooperate and achieve additional reductions

from sources beyond the State's regulatory authority.

Response: We intend that the Federal government will contribute

emission reductions to help the South Coast attain the NAAQS. We will

fulfill our regulatory responsibilities under Title II of the CAA and

thus will continue to pursue all appropriate national mobile source

controls, even after the current shortfall is eliminated.

2. Toxic Benefit of Diesel Emission Reductions

SCAQMD noted that we stated that mobile sources are a contributor

to urban air toxics and adverse health effects have been associated

with diesel exhaust. SCAQMD presented a table of the potential cancer

risk contribution from diesel compared to all other emission sources in

the South Coast. SCAQMD stated that local citizens may not benefit from

potential reductions in toxic emissions if reductions are achieved from

non-diesel sources located in and around airports and marine ports,

rather than from diesel-type sources in the aircraft and marine engine

categories.

Response: We appreciate SCAQMD's information regarding the relative

magnitude of diesel emissions among sources of air toxics in the South

Coast. Reductions in urban air toxics are, and will continue to be, an

important consideration in our standard-setting activities.

3. Heavy-Duty Off-Cycle Settlement

SCAQMD estimated a 7 tpd NOX emission reduction

shortfall in 2010 in the South Coast due to excess emissions from non-

compliant engines. SCAQMD expressed concern about claiming benefits

from the settlement until this issue is resolved.

Response: We agree that this issue warrants further analysis in the

context of future SIP revisions, and wish to work with SCAQMD and CARB

to assess 2010 emissions from trucks in the South Coast using the most

current inventory models and assumptions. For purposes of the close-out

of the Public Consultative Process, which is rooted in the 1994 SIP

submittal, we continue to agree with CARB that use of the 1994 SIP

assumptions throughout made the most sense, rather than attempting to

adjust the SIP analysis with various updates to our information base.

Thus, all of the calculations in the table of Public Consultative

Process reductions and shortfalls at 64 FR 30280-1 are consistent with

the 1994 ozone SIP in terms of base year and projected emissions

inventories and emissions factors. The emission reduction numbers shown

for the heavy-duty off-cycle settlement are for the early introduction

in October 2002 of cleaner engines assumed in the 1994 ozone SIP to be

introduced in January 2004.

4. Public Process

Commenters desired greater opportunities for public input. SCAQMD

noted that agreements negotiated by EPA and CARB with affected

industries did not go through extensive discussions and public input.

In order to update stakeholders on future developments and public

involvement opportunities, the City of Los Angeles recommended that we

establish an information mechanism, such as EPA Region IX's web page.

Commenters objected to the 14-day public comment period as too short to

allow for the most meaningful comment.

Response: We intend to post information on the status of our South

Coast mobile source activities on the Region IX web page (www.epa.gov/

region09/air). The Office of Mobile Source web page (www.epa.gov/

omswww) informs the public of ongoing national mobile source rulemaking

activities and opportunities for public involvement. Both EPA and CARB

will also continue to use mailing lists of parties interested in the

aircraft/airport and vessel/port task forces. We solicit suggestions

for other ways to expand public notification and involvement. While we

prefer longer public comment periods, we need to comply with a consent

decree, which requires final action by July 1.

5. Enforceability of Credited SIP Reductions; Credit for Voluntary

Measures

SCAQMD expressed concern that CARB and EPA should not claim credit

for voluntary agreements (such as the State's clean locomotive fleet

agreement

[[Page 39925]]

with railroads operating in California), unless the agreements are

turned into regulatory form. SCAQMD encouraged us to provide backstop

measures for future rules, in the event that emission reductions do not

occur. The City of Los Angeles supported voluntary measures, noted that

existing EPA policy on credit for voluntary measures constrains SIP

accounting for such measures, and urged us to assist states and local

air districts in developing flexible and innovative emission reduction

strategies and allowing full SIP credit for such programs.

Response: As indicated in the proposal, we have concluded that it

is appropriate to assign credit to the South Coast Locomotive Fleet

Average Emissions Program. The agreement between CARB and the railroads

is exemplary in its detail and in the extent of its provisions to

quantify and verify reductions. We believe that the program will

achieve the scheduled reductions, but if it does not, we will use our

existing authorities to assure that the reductions will occur. We

support voluntary and other innovative measures and commit to work with

agencies to establish SIP credit to the extent that such credit is

consistent with the Clean Air Act.

6. Remaining Shortfall

Some commenters encouraged EPA not to downplay the potential

shortfall of 23 tpd, which must be eliminated if the area is to attain

the ozone NAAQS. These commenters also felt that EPA should not assign

responsibility for remaining reductions to the State. If EPA ultimately

does assign responsibility to the State, SCAQMD urged EPA to require

the State to achieve reductions from mobile sources, rather than

stationary sources, which are already stringently controlled. SCAQMD

also felt that EPA's statement that ``EPA actions might not be limited

to controls on mobile sources and fuels'' was not consistent with the

consent decree.

Response: We agree with commenters that the task of eliminating the

shortfall is important and directly linked to public health protection.

In concert with the State and other parties, we expect to achieve most,

if not all, of the remaining reductions from mobile sources rather than

stationary sources.

7. Marine Vessel Activities

The City requested that EPA fund finalization of the ship emission

and alternative marine vessel control strategy study, and that EPA

support (including with Federal funds) CARB's Deep Sea Vessel/Shipping

Channel Technical Working Group. The Navy reiterated its opposition to

an operational control strategy to move the vessel channel 25 miles off

the coast, based on the Navy's belief that the strategy lacks

scientific support and would have severe impacts on the Pt. Mugu Sea

Test Range. The Navy preferred a strategy involving slowing commercial

vessels, and encouraged us to make that determination, implement the

measure, and conclude the process with respect to marine vessel

operational controls.

Response: In May 1999, the EPA contracted study referenced in the

City's comment letter was finalized. However, the results may need to

be updated to reflect more recent information. We will continue to

participate in, and support, studies needed to evaluate the feasibility

and benefit of marine vessel control options. We appreciate the Navy's

valuable contributions to the technical assessment of potential

strategies, as we do the participation and expertise of the shipping

industry, the ports, and other stakeholders. CARB, EPA, and other

participants will provide the Navy with opportunities to express its

views and share its research as we conclude the technical projects and

reach final decisions on the best approaches.

8. Programs to Increase Engine Turn-Over Rates

The City encouraged us to pursue Federal funding sources for such

programs and to ensure that Federal fleets, such as the U.S. Postal

Service fleet, convert to cleaner technologies at an accelerated rate.

Response: We identified possible Federal funding sources in the

proposal and will attempt to direct currently available funds to

projects that can reduce pollutants in the South Coast. Other potential

Federal funds, such as for the Clean Air Partnership, or Federal

subsidies, including changes to the Federal Tax Code, depend upon

Congressional action. We intend to work with Federal agencies in the

South Coast to increase use of alternative-fueled vehicles with the

lowest emissions.

B. Conclusion

We are finalizing the action as proposed. As noted above, however,

we will undertake additional actions in response to comments in order

to improve and strengthen the process for resolving the remaining

shortfall in emission reductions.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by

statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary

to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875

do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety effects of

[[Page 39926]]

the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to E.O.

13045 because it is does not involve decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with

Indian tribal governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian

tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of

E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create

any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);

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

F. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

G. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 21, 1999. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such

rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

H. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this action does not include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or

more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: July 1, 1999.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by removing paragraph (c)(235) and

adding paragraph (c)(265) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(265) New and amended plans for the following agencies were

submitted on May 20, 1999, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) California Air Resources Board.

(1) Executive Order G-99-037, dated May 20, 1999, State commitment

to continue working with U.S. EPA and the affected parties to achieve

the emission reductions identified in the SIP for federal measures, and

to adopt by December 31, 2000, and submit as a SIP revision, a revised

attainment demonstration for the federal one-hour ozone standard in the

South Coast Air

[[Page 39927]]

Basin, and adopt by December 31, 2001, control measures needed to

achieve any additional emission reductions which are determined to be

appropriate for ARB; Attachment A, update to the 1994 ozone SIP for the

South Coast.

[FR Doc. 99-18719 Filed 7-22-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P