Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; CaliforniaSouth Coast

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-189-0128; FRL-6217-8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;

California--South Coast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part a

state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of

California to provide for attainment of the ozone national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS) in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area

(South Coast). EPA is proposing the approval and disapproval of the SIP

revisions under provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary

ambient air quality standards, and plan requirements for nonattainment

areas.

DATES: Written comments must be received by February 11, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Dave Jesson, Air Planning Office

(AIR-2), Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

The rulemaking docket for this notice is available for public

inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal

[[Page 1771]]

business hours. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying parts of

the docket.

Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at

the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, California

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

Diamond Bar, California

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson at (415) 744-1288.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Summary

1. Introduction

This proposed action relates to a 1997 revision to the 1994 ozone

SIP for the South Coast.1 The South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the revision within weeks of EPA's

approval of the 1994 ozone SIP. The 1997 proposed revision to the ozone

SIP was not federally required, but was adopted to address, in a

comprehensive and consistent fashion, federal and state requirements

for particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide, and

state requirements for an ozone plan update. In order to understand the

basis for EPA's proposed disapproval of the 1997 revision, it is

necessary to understand the 1994 ozone SIP, several aspects of which

are unique. An overview of the 1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast

appears below, followed by a description of the 1997 proposed revision.

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

\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. 1994 South Coast Ozone SIP

On November 15, 1994, the State of California submitted the 1994

ozone plan for the South. The plan was subsequently amended and we

approved the plan on September 25, 1996, as the first fully approved

and federally enforceable ozone SIP for the South Coast.

The 1994 plan was built on 4 decades of State and local leadership

in researching, developing, adopting, and implementing new air

pollution control strategies. By that date, the California and South

Coast air quality agencies and industry had a world-wide reputation for

pushing technological progress to achieve the world's cleanest cars,

fuels, consumer products, industrial controls, and paints and coatings.

As a direct result of this extraordinary effort by elected

officials, governmental agencies, industry, and the residents of

Southern California, air pollution levels had been dramatically

reduced: the number of days per year with dirty air and the peak

concentrations had dropped by more than 60 percent, and severe episode

days (where health warnings are issued to all residents and pollution-

generating activities must be curtailed) had been completely

eliminated. This accomplishment is more remarkable in view of Southern

California's extraordinary growth during these years and the continued

dependence of the area on private vehicle use.

Despite the State and local achievements, however, Southern

California in 1994 continued to have by far the dirtiest air in the

country. For example, the South Coast in 1994 recorded 1-hour levels at

or above 0.120 parts per million (ppm) for ozone, or smog, on 107 days

in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area and 123 days in the Riverside-San

Bernardino area, while other major metropolitan areas had values at or

above 0.120 ppm on far fewer days: Houston 32, New York 9, Detroit 6,

Philadelphia 5, Atlanta 4, and Chicago 2.2 Similarly, the

South Coast has recorded particulate matter or (soot) and carbon

monoxide pollution levels greater than other urban areas in the U.S.,

and was the only area of the country in violation of the nitrogen

dioxide NAAQS under the 1990 CAA Amendments.

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

\2\ The national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone

is 0.12 ppm averaged over a 1-hour period.

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

Recognizing that all residents have a right to clean air and that

clean air investments have a high benefit-cost ratio,3 the

California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD cooperated in the

adoption of a 1994 plan laying out the strategies that would bring

clean air by the federal deadline of 2010.

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

\3\ The Socioeconomic Assessment Report for the 1994 Air Quality

Management Plan (SCAQMD, August 1994) calculated total benefits of

clean air achieved under the plan to exceed total plan costs by

between $0.9 and $1.5 billion per year. This calculation applies to

ozone, PM, and visibility benefits, but does not include

unquantifiable benefits such as reduction in chronic illness,

reduction in lung function in human beings, reduced damage to

livestock and plant life, and erosion of building materials.

Furthermore, 75% of the costs of the plan are associated with

measure TCM-04 (transportation improvements).

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

The State committed to implement 9 new mobile source control

measures, an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (or Smog

Check) program, and incremental regulatory reductions in the smog-

forming constituents of consumer products and pesticides, and to

develop advanced, long-term controls for onroad and nonroad vehicles

and engines.

The Governing Board of the SCAQMD and the Southern California

Association of Governments (SCAG) committed to implement 60 new

specific controls, and SCAQMD also bound itself to achieve additional

emission reductions in the future from advanced technology measures.

Together these State and local measures would reduce the 1990

emissions level of 2878 tons per day (tpd) to 1032 tpd. Modeling

analyses by the SCAQMD estimated, however, that the smog problem could

not be solved without an additional 156 tpd reduction in pollutants.

The State determined that we should achieve these remaining reductions

by promulgating national mobile source controls in accordance with our

new authorities under the 1990 CAA Amendments.

We concluded that California had no authority under the U.S.

Constitution or the Clean Air Act to require us to contribute

particular measures and emissions reductions to the SIP for the South

Coast. We appreciated, however, the significant level of commitment by

the State and SCAQMD reflected in the 1994 ozone plan and we wished to

do our share in contributing further mobile source controls consistent

with our national authorities and responsibilities. We also saw merit

in the State's desire to cooperate with us in negotiating with affected

industry consistent Federal and California mobile source standards.

We therefore approved the 1994 ozone SIP based upon commitments by

the State and EPA to participate in a public consultative process on

mobile source controls, leading to a decision in mid-1997 on what

further reductions needed to be achieved and which entity should have

responsibility for them. We and California further committed to adopt

any additional controls, as necessary and appropriate, to achieve the

emission reductions required for attainment of the ozone standard in

the South Coast.

We believe that we have now achieved, or have rulemaking in

progress to accomplish, almost all of the reductions the State

purported to assign to us in the 1994 ozone SIP--approximately 145 tpd

out of a 156 tpd ``assignment.'' This is the result of close

coordination between California and EPA and cooperation by

manufacturers and users of mobile source engines and equipment,

culminating in agreements on aggressive new standards for trucks and

buses and most categories of nonroad mobile sources, ranging from

forklifts to outboard engines, and from locomotives to tractors. We

believe that

[[Page 1772]]

these aggressive Federal controls will have clean air benefits

nationally, and that the stringent new standards will ensure that all

sources of the pollution problem contribute their share to needed

emission reductions.

California's plan assumed, however, that stringent new emissions

standards would be set for aircraft engines and ocean-going vessels.

Unfortunately, the international standard-setting process for

commercial aircraft engines and ocean-going vessels has not resulted in

standards that will benefit the South Coast appreciably by 2010,

especially in view of the long life-span of these engines. Moreover,

the State assumed an unrealistically rapid turnover rate for harbor

craft, and therefore overestimated reductions that would be achieved in

2010, even by a very stringent federal standard.

While we and the State continue to work with the ports, shippers,

airports, and airlines to achieve reductions from their operations, we

now expect that there will remain a small shortfall in the ``federal''

category. Unfortunately, the SCAQMD has filed a suit against us to

promulgate the aircraft and ocean-going vessel standards postulated by

the State, although all parties are now aware that the standards are

set internationally and that the international standards recently

adopted will not, in fact, achieve the reductions anticipated by the

State in its 1994 SIP submittal.

The SCAQMD has also sued us to end the public consultative process

by making specific additional federal commitments to adopt regulations

for all remaining emission reduction assignments. In response to a suit

from environmental groups, we have already negotiated a settlement that

requires us by June 1, 1999, to conclude the public consultative

process, determine remaining responsibilities of the State and EPA, and

schedule adoption of controls to fulfill those responsibilities.

Thus, we believe that both District suits are a waste of public

resources, and we conclude that it would be inconsistent with our

pending obligations to resolve the public consultative process for us

to approve a new South Coast SIP that includes Federal assignments to

undertake discretionary controls.

3. 1997 South Coast Ozone Plan

As we finalized our approval of the 1994 ozone SIP, the SCAQMD

unveiled a replacement plan. This revised plan abandoned, relaxed, or

postponed approximately 30 measures in the ozone SIP. The revised plan

employed new growth projections, new inventories, and new modeling

analyses to support the proposition that the area could meet the

minimum statutory progress requirements and eventually attain the ozone

NAAQS despite the extensive rollback in near-term controls.

When the revised plan was announced, we indicated our serious

concerns about the direction of the plan, particularly its backsliding

at the very time we were issuing revised ozone NAAQS and new fine

particulate matter (PM-2.5) NAAQS that would require still greater

levels of control than were reflected in the 1994 ozone SIP. We noted

that the extremely high ozone and PM levels in the South Coast

continued to represent one of our country's most severe environmental

and public health problems--problems highlighted by the hundreds of

scientific studies that formed the basis of the new and revised NAAQS.

We encouraged the District to focus on implementation of the newly

approved SIP and, if measures proved to be infeasible or ineffective,

to adopt replacement measures in order to sustain progress.

The SCAQMD nevertheless adopted the revised plan in November 1996,

and the State submitted the plan as a proposed SIP revision in early

February 1997. We continued to express our concerns and to remind the

SCAQMD that the District, responsible for public health in the most

polluted area of the country, had an obligation to increase its efforts

rather than regress. We have repeatedly indicated that we support the

District's flexibility to amend or replace any measure when it is

determined to be infeasible or ineffective, but we cannot support the

significant relaxation of the SIP represented by the 1997 plan.

After adopting a plan revision that postponed or eliminated most of

the near-term measures in the 1994 ozone SIP, the District has since

failed to meet most of its implementation commitments in the 1997 ozone

plan. This is consistent with the District's record over the past 4

years, during which the SCAQMD has adopted and revised credit and

trading rules and has amended existing prohibitory rules to postpone

compliance dates, but has adopted only a handful of new measures

designed to reduce pollution levels.

On September 26, 1997, environmental groups sued the SCAQMD and

CARB in federal district court, seeking a court order to compel the

agencies to meet their federally enforceable commitments to adopt and

implement control measures in the 1994 ozone SIP. We urged the parties

to attempt settlement and we provided a facilitator for the sessions.

Negotiations began in the early Spring of 1998, and a proposed

settlement was drafted in late June. The SCAQMD Governing Board,

however, rejected the proposed settlement in June 1998.

On November 4, 1998, the SCAQMD filed suit against us to compel our

action on the 1997 plans, repeating the argument that the plan should

be approved. We have been consistent in expressing our contrary view,

that the Clean Air Act gives us authority to approve revised SIPs but

does not allow us to approve revisions that represent a significant

retreat from the approved SIP. We believe that it would be particularly

ill-advised to approve major relaxations in the South Coast, where the

public suffers by far the worst pollution levels in the country.

We continue to hope that the SCAQMD will decide to meet its

difficult responsibilities to protect public health and, in so doing,

will both strengthen the plan and begin fully to implement the plan to

fulfill the 1994 plan's promise of clean air progress.

B. The South Coast Ozone Problem

Ground-level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOX),

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and oxygen react in the presence of

sunlight, generally at elevated temperatures.4 Strategies

for reducing smog typically require reductions in both VOC and

NOX emissions.

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

\4\ The South Coast plan sometimes substitutes the term Reactive

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

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

Ozone causes serious health problems by damaging lung tissue and

sensitizing the lungs to other irritants. When inhaled, even at very

low levels, ozone can cause acute respiratory problems; aggravate

asthma; cause temporary decreases in lung capacity of 15 to 20 percent

in healthy adults, cause inflammation of lung tissue; lead to hospital

admissions and emergency room visits; and impair the body's immune

system defenses, making people more susceptible to respiratory

illnesses, including bronchitis and pneumonia. Children are most at

risk from exposure to ozone because they breathe more air per pound of

body weight than adults; their respiratory systems are still developing

and thus more susceptible to environmental threats; and children

exercise outdoors more than adults in the high-ozone months of summer.

Direct exposure to NOX and VOCs also has adverse public

health consequences. Exposure to elevated NOX concentrations

can reduce breathing efficiency, increase lung and airway irritation,

and exacerbate symptoms of respiratory illness, lung

[[Page 1773]]

congestion, wheeze, and increased bronchitis in children. VOCs include

many toxic compounds (such as benzene), which can cause respiratory,

immunological, neurological, reproductive, developmental, and mutagenic

problems. Some VOCs have been identified as probable or known human

carcinogens.

Since the strategies in the 1994 ozone SIP and 1997 ozone plan

address VOC and NOX, the primary precursor of particulate

matter in the South Coast, the plans also affect PM concentrations.

Particulate matter is associated with a number of significant

respiratory and cardiovascular-related effects, including premature

death, increased hospitalization, increased emergency room visits,

increased respiratory symptoms, increased disease (especially among

children and people with lung disease such as asthma), and decreased

lung function.

Both ozone and PM damage vegetation. Experimental studies on the

major commercial crops in the U.S. suggest that ozone may be

responsible for significant agricultural crop yield losses.

Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary, health-

related NAAQS for ozone: 0.12 ppm averaged over a 1-hour period. See 44

FR 8220 (February 8, 1979). EPA also set NAAQS for particulate matter

up to 10 microns in diameter (PM-10): 150 micrograms per cubic meter

(ug/m3) averaged over a 24-hour period, and 50 ug/m3 as an annual

arithmetic average of the 24-hour samples. See 52 FR 24672 (July 1,

1987).

On July 18, 1997, EPA reaffirmed the annual PM-10 standard and

slightly revised the 24-hour standard (62 FR 38651). At the same time,

EPA also established two new standards for PM, both applying only to

particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5). Finally, on

July 18, 1997, EPA also revised the ozone NAAQS, replacing the 1-hour

standard with a standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period (62

FR 38855). EPA has not yet issued specific plan and control

requirements for the new and revised NAAQS.

The South Coast has continuously had by far the worst 1-hour ozone

concentrations in the country, both in terms of peak concentrations and

number of violations. While the South Coast ozone levels have greatly

improved over the years, the trend is not continuous. For example, in

1998 there have been 12 Stage I Alerts (which are triggered by ozone

concentrations at or above 0.20 ppm), compared to only 1 in 1997.

The South Coast typically has among the worst PM-10 annual mean and

24-hour concentration in the country. Last year, the South Coast had

the second worst PM-10 annual mean concentration of U.S. urbanized

areas, with only Phoenix recording a worse level.

C. Clean Air Act Requirements

The Federal CAA was substantially amended in 1990 to establish new

planning requirements and attainment deadlines for the NAAQS. Under

section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, areas designated nonattainment prior

to enactment of the 1990 amendments, including the South Coast, were

designated nonattainment by operation of law.

Under section 181(a) of the Act, each ozone area designated

nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by operation of

law as either marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme,

depending on the 1986-1988 design value for the area. An ozone area

with a design value at and above 0.280 ppm was classified as extreme.

The South Coast was the only area so classified. Section 181(a) sets

attainment deadlines for each class of area. The attainment date for an

extreme area is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than

November 15, 2010.

Section 172 of the Act contains general requirements applicable to

SIPs for nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the Act set out additional

air quality planning requirements for ozone nonattainment areas.

The most fundamental of these nonattainment area provisions

applicable to the South Coast is the requirement that the State submit

by November 15, 1994, a SIP demonstrating attainment of the ozone

NAAQS. This demonstration must be based upon enforceable measures to

achieve emission reductions leading to emissions at or below the level

predicted to result in attainment of the NAAQS throughout the

nonattainment area. The measures must be implemented expeditiously and

must ensure attainment no later than the applicable CAA deadline.

EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing the Agency's

preliminary views on how EPA intends to act on SIPs submitted under

Title I of the Act. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57

FR 18070 (April 28, 1992. The reader should refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion of EPA's preliminary

interpretations of Title I requirements. In this proposed rulemaking

action, EPA applies these policies to the South Coast ozone SIP

submittal, taking into consideration the specific factual issues

presented.

D. SIP Submittals Must Meet Requirements of the Pre-Existing NAAQS

Before the SCAQMD adopted the 1997 ozone plan, EPA had already

announced its intention to issue new and revised ozone and PM NAAQS.

The SCAQMD included in Chapter 10 of the 1997 South Coast Air Quality

Management Plan (AQMP) an initial analysis of the emission reductions

that might be needed to attain the anticipated new and revised ozone

and PM NAAQS. The SCAQMD concluded that significantly greater

reductions would be required to attain the new and revised NAAQS that

were under consideration. However, the SCAQMD prepared the plans to

address only the NAAQS then in effect.

Although EPA has now promulgated revised ozone NAAQS, EPA is not

evaluating the plan based upon the NAAQS issued in 1997. The Agency

will not require states to submit SIPs to address the revised NAAQS for

several years. The pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS remain in effect in

each nonattainment area until the area attains NAAQS. Thus, the 1-hour

NAAQS of 0.12 ppm will not be revoked in the South Coast until the area

has recorded 3 years with no more than 3 concentrations at or above

0.125 ppm at any monitor. State and local agencies remain under an

obligation to adopt and implement SIPs to attain the pre-existing ozone

NAAQS until the EPA revokes the NAAQS for the area.5

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

\5\ EPA has determined that subpart 2 of part D of Title I of

the CAA should continue to apply as a matter of law for the purposes

of achieving attainment of the current 1-hour ozone standard until

an area attains the standard. See the final rule promulgating the

revised ozone NAAQS (July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38873 for ozone),

``Implementation Plan for Revised Air Quality Standards'' (July 18,

1997, at 62 FR 38424), and ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour

Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS'' (memo from Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated December

29, 1997).

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

E. EPA Actions on Prior South Coast Ozone SIP Revisions

The SCAQMD adopted an ozone plan on September 9, 1994. This plan,

which was included in the 1994 South Coast AQMP, was supplemented by

State measures adopted by CARB and was submitted as a proposed revision

to the California SIP on November 15, 1994. On July 10, 1996, CARB

submitted an extensive revision to the South Coast control measure

adoption schedule, to adjust for slippage in the plan's initial

implementation. On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150), EPA finalized approval

of the South Coast ozone plan, including the ozone portions of the 1994

South Coast

[[Page 1774]]

AQMP, as amended in 1996, and the State measures.6

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

\6\ Some of the State and SCAQMD measures in the plan had been

approved in prior rulemakings. See, particularly, 60 FR 43379

(August 21, 1995), approving CARB regulations relating to

antiperspirants and deodorants and other consumer products,

reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel, and certain new-technology

measures adopted by CARB and SCAQMD.

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

F. South Coast 1997 Plan Revision

On February 5, 1997, CARB submitted as a revision to the California

SIP the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin

(SCAB), Antelope Valley, and Coachella Valley, adopted by the SCAQMD on

November 15, 1996. This submittal addressed all four pollutants for

which the South Coast was designated nonattainment: ozone, PM-10,

carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

EPA has previously acted on two components of the 1997 AQMP. On

April 21, 1998, EPA granted interim final approval to the 1997 South

Coast CO plan (63 FR 19661).7 EPA has also fully approved

the 1997 South Coast NO2 attainment and maintenance plan and the

State's request on March 4, 1998, to redesignate the South Coast to

attainment for NO2 (63 FR 39747, July 24, 1998).

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

\7\ EPA approved the CO plan with respect to the CAA

requirements for notice and adoption, baseline and projected

emissions inventory, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecasts. EPA

granted interim approval to the CO attainment demonstration,

quantitative milestones, and reasonable further progress, since

these plan elements depend, in part, on emission reductions from the

State's enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program.

The I/M program was given interim approval in EPA's final action on

the 1994 ozone SIP (see 62 FR 1165-1168, January 8, 1997) under

section 187(a)(6) of the CAA and section 348 of the

National Highway System Designation Act (Pub. L. 104-59).

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

The ozone and PM-10 portions of the South Coast 1997 AQMP became

complete by operation of law on August 5, 1997.8 SCAQMD and

CARB intend the 1997 ozone plan to supersede completely the 1994 ozone

SIP with respect to the SCAQMD portion of the plan. As discussed, EPA

has not yet issued its interpretation of CAA section 172(e) to prevent

backsliding in PM-10 nonattainment areas. EPA intends to propose action

on the South Coast 1997 PM-10 plan in separate rulemaking.

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

\8\ 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).

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

The State has revised several of its own measures that are part of

the South Coast plan, but at this time CARB has submitted as a SIP

revision only one of these changes. On April 15, 1998, CARB submitted

new Measure M17 (Additional Emission Reductions from Heavy-Duty

Vehicles) as a replacement for Measure M7 (Accelerated Retirement of

Heavy-Duty Vehicles). EPA will take action on Measure M17 in separate

rulemaking.

The 1997 ozone plan includes, among other things, attainment

demonstrations based on updated VMT projections reflecting new

forecasts prepared by SCAG, an amended Regional Mobility Element

adopted by SCAG, revised motor vehicle emissions estimates using

California's EMFAC7G and BURDEN7G program, new stationary and area

source emission inventories, amended SCAQMD control measure

commitments, and revised Urban Airshed Modeling (UAM), using the new

inventories and changes to other modeling inputs.

II. Review of the Plan Submittal and Proposed EPA Action

A. Summary of Proposed Action

In this document, EPA is proposing to approve in part and

disapprove in part the 1997 ozone plan. The ozone plan for the South

Coast depends on commitments by SCAQMD to adopt and implement various

VOC and NOX control measures by particular dates to achieve

specific emission reductions needed for progress and attainment. EPA

proposes to disapprove the control measure portion of the plan for the

reasons discussed in section II.D., below. EPA proposes also to

disapprove the progress and attainment demonstrations in the plan,

since these plan elements depend upon the control measure provisions.

B. Procedural Requirements

Both SCAQMD and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and

regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior

to adoption of the plan and each of the plan amendments. SCAQMD

conducted numerous public workshops and public hearings prior to the

adoption hearing on November 15, 1996, at which the 1997 AQMP was

adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board (Resolution No. 96-23). On

January 23, 1997, the CARB Governing Board adopted the plan (Resolution

No. 97-1). The plan was submitted to EPA by Michael P. Kenny, Executive

Officer of CARB, on February 5, 1997. The SIP submittal includes proof

of publication for notices of SCAQMD and CARB public hearings, as

evidence that all hearings were properly noticed. Therefore, EPA

proposes to approve the 1997 ozone plan as meeting the procedural

requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.

C. Baseline and Projected Emissions Inventory

The revised and updated emissions inventory included in the 1997

AQMP conforms to EPA's guidance documents.9 This EPA

guidance allows approval of California's motor vehicle emissions

factors in place of the corresponding federal emissions factors. The

motor vehicle emissions factors used in the plan were generated by the

CARB EMFAC7G and BURDEN7G program. The gridded inventory for motor

vehicles was then produced using an updated Caltrans Direct Travel

Impact Model (DTIM2) (Systems Applications International, 1994) to

combine EMFAC7G data with transportation modeling performed by SCAG.

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

\9\ See, for example, Procedures for the Preparation of Emission

Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, Volume I:

General Guidance for Stationary Sources, EPA--450/4-91-016;

Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile

Sources, EPA--450/5-91-026d Revised.

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

SCAG provided the baseline socioeconomic data used in the plan.

These forecasts include the following predicted growth through the

ozone attainment year.

[[Page 1775]]

1997 AQMP Baseline Socioeconomic Forecasts

[In millions]

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

Category 1993 2000 2010

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

Population................................... 13.8 14.8 16.7

Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)........... 293.3 317.9 377.9

Daily Vehicle Trips.......................... 31.2 33.2 37.9

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

EPA notes that these predictions assume that the area's growth will

increase at rates considerably below long-term historic

trends.10 This makes it particularly important for

transportation agencies to track actual VMT and trip numbers carefully,

and to trigger remedial actions, if necessary, before the plan fails to

meet scheduled reduction targets. The growth projections for industrial

categories are also generally lower than past trends, and EPA strongly

encourages the SCAQMD to revise the emission inventories and adopt

additional control measures, as may be necessary, if information

suggests that growth will exceed the SIP projections.

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

\10\ The 1997 AQMP's growth projections are also considerably

reduced from those used in the 1994 ozone SIP, which used 2010

projections of 17.4 million for population, 413.9 million miles for

daily VMT, and 45.7 million vehicle trips per day.

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

The plan includes interpolated inventories for all milestone years

for ozone precursors. The methodologies used to prepare the base year

and projected emissions inventories, as described in Chapter 3 and

Appendix 3 of the AQMP, are acceptable. Accordingly, EPA proposes to

approve the 1997 ozone plan with respect to the emissions inventory

requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the CAA.

D. Control Measures

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) require that all measures

and other elements in the SIP be enforceable. As discussed at length in

EPA's approval of the 1994 California ozone SIPs, EPA has interpreted

these provisions to allow for approval of attainment demonstrations

that rely, in part, on commitments to adopt and implement rules in the

future, so long as the commitments are specific and enforceable (see 57

FR 13556 and 13568, April 16, 1992; and 62 FR 1155-1157, January 8,

1997).

The attainment demonstration in the 1997 ozone plan rests on

emission reductions derived from adopted regulations and from rules and

programs which SCAQMD commits to adopt. The plan measures that are

scheduled for adoption in the future are commonly referred to as

``committal measures.'' In the case of the South Coast, the committal

measures are further divided into near-term measures and long-term (or

new-technology) measures, which are authorized for extreme ozone

nonattainment areas under CAA section 182(e)(5). The 1994 ozone SIP

contains 66 near-term control measures for adoption by SCAQMD, SCAG, or

local governments, and 5 long-term measures for adoption by SCAQMD. The

1997 ozone plan includes 36 near-term control measures for adoption by

SCAQMD, SCAG, or local governments, and 6 long-term measures for

adoption by SCAQMD. Both plans contain the same group of near-term and

long-term measures assigned to the State or to the Federal government

(see discussion below in Section II.D.3.)

EPA proposes to disapprove the SCAQMD's committal measures for 4

reasons.

1. SCAQMD Is Already in Default of Many Control Measure Commitments

Although the plan schedules SCAQMD adoption of 23 VOC/

NOX regulations or programs by the end of 1998, the SCAQMD

has adopted less than 10, and no additional measures are scheduled for

adoption by the end of the year. EPA does not believe there is a basis

for approving commitments to adopt rules and programs or to approve an

attainment demonstration based, in part, on reductions from these rules

and programs, if the adoption dates have passed and the rules or

programs have not been adopted. The SCAQMD's faithful implementation of

the plan would cure this deficiency.

2. The Control Measures Are an Impermissible Relaxation of the SIP

The commitments in the 1997 ozone plan to adopt VOC and

NOX control measures represent backsliding from the 1994

ozone SIP. The 1997 plan abandons, relaxes, or postpones approximately

30 control measures in the approved South Coast ozone SIP.

Specifically, SCAQMD removed, postponed, relaxed, or shifted to a

``further evaluation'' category the following control measures, which

were scheduled for near-term adoption in the 1994 ozone SIP: CTS-A

Electronic Components, CTS-C Solvent Cleaning, CTS-D Marine/Pleasure

Craft Coatings, CTS-E Adhesives, CTS-F Motor Vehicle Non-Assembly

Coating, CTS-G Paper/Fabric/Film Coatings, CTS-H Metal Parts/Product

Coatings, CTS-I Graphic Arts/Screen Printing, CTS-J Wood Products

Coatings, CTS-K Aerospace/Component Coatings, CTS-L Automotive Assembly

Operations, CTS-02 Solvents and Coatings at Non-RECLAIM Sources, CTS-07

Architectural Coatings, FUG-01 Organic Liquid Transfer, FUG-02 Active

Draining of Liquid Products, FUG-04 Fugitive Emissions of VOCs, RFL-02

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, RFL-03 Pleasure-Boat Fueling

Operations, CMB-02F Internal Combustion Engines, CMB-05 Clean

Stationary Fuels, PRC-02 Bakeries, PRC-03 Restaurant Operations, WST-01

Livestock Waste, WST-03 Waste Burning, WST-04 Disposal of Materials

Containing VOCs, ISR-01 Special Events Centers, ISR-02 Shopping

Centers, ISR-04 Airport Ground Access, ISR-05 Trip Reduction for

Schools, ADV-CTS-02 Advanced Technology--Coatings. This list does not

include control measures approved as part of the 1994 ozone SIP but

without assigned emission reduction credits.

The scale of the SIP relaxation may be seen in the table below,

``South Coast 1994 Ozone SIP and 1997 Ozone Plan VOC Emission

Reductions from SCAQMD/SCAG Local Rules for Each Rate-of-Progress

Milestone Year.'' 11

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

\11\ The table is not adjusted to harmonize the control category

baseline emission inventories. A small number of near-term control

measures in the 1994 ozone SIP were adopted as regulations before

the 1997 plan was issued. The emission reductions from these adopted

regulations were treated as ``baseline'' emissions in the 1997 plan,

rather than as near-term emission reductions. In addition, the 1997

plan revises the emissions inventory in the 1994 ozone SIP and

reduces the emissions inventory for the control categories and the

emission reductions associated with some of the 1994 ozone SIP's

near-term control measures.

[[Page 1776]]

South Coast 1994 Ozone SIP and 1997 Ozone Plan VOC Emission Reductions From SCAQMD/SCAG Local Rules for Each

Rate-of-Progress Milestone Year

[In tons per day rounded to nearest ton]

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

1999 2002 2005 2008 2010

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

1994 Ozone SIP

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

Near-Term.......................................................... 104 186 233 268 285

Long-Term.......................................................... 0 20 32 121 180

Total.......................................................... 104 207 266 389 465

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

1997 Ozone Plan

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

Near-Term.......................................................... 11 41 67 86 91

Long-Term.......................................................... 0 0 3 54 89

Total.......................................................... 11 41 70 140 180

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

Section 110(l) of the Act provides that EPA may not approve a SIP

revision if the revision will interfere with attainment or reasonable

further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Based

on the measures relaxed or deleted and the associated loss of emissions

reductions, EPA concludes that the 1997 ozone plan constitutes an

unapprovable relaxation of the ozone SIP.12 The State has

not demonstrated why it is not reasonable or feasible for the SCAQMD to

adopt measures sufficient to achieve emission reductions on the 1994

ozone SIP schedule, thus potentially expediting attainment of the

standard.

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

\12\ The SCAQMD has argued that CAA section 110(a)(2)(H)

authorizes states to amend their SIPs as new information becomes

available, provided the resulting plan is adequate to attain the

NAAQS it implements and it otherwise continues to comply with the

CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA actually requires that a SIP

``provide for revision of such plan from time to time as may be

necessary to take account of * * * the availability of improved or

more expeditious methods of attaining such [NAAQS] * * *.'' This CAA

provision clearly contemplates that states should revise their plans

to provide for greater or more expeditious emission reductions. In

contrast, the District has elected to relax its plan, and the

governing provision of the Act for relaxations is section 110(l).

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

EPA believes that the SCAQMD can identify and adopt substitute

near-term measures. In fact, the SCAQMD has already adopted or

scheduled for near-term adoption some measures not included in the 1997

plan.13 Thus, this deficiency in the 1997 plan could be

cured if the SCAQMD submits commitments to adopt additional control

measures along with a demonstration that the amended plan provides for

attainment on a schedule that is as expeditious as practical.

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

\13\ For example, SCAQMD's June 13, 1997 amendment to Rule 1171

Solvent Cleaning Operations contributes VOC reductions not

specifically called for in the 1997 plan. As an example of another

feasible control option that could achieve significant VOC

reductions, EPA has encouraged SCAQMD implementation of more

stringent requirements for spray booths.

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

3. The Plan Includes Unlawful Assignments of Control Measure

Responsibility to EPA

The plan relies in part on reductions from control measures

assigned to EPA to adopt in the future. In acting on the 1994 ozone

SIP, which also included these ``federal measures,'' EPA stated that

the Agency does not accept California's proposition that a state can,

under the CAA, assign SIP responsibilities to the Federal government

(61 FR 10936, March 18, 1996, 62 FR 1151, January 8, 1997).

Rather than disapprove the 1994 plan, EPA elected to establish a

brief ``public consultative process'' to identify the best options for

achieving further emission reductions from mobile source controls to

contribute to attainment of the NAAQS in the South Coast. EPA indicated

that at the conclusion of this process, in June 1997, EPA expected that

the State would be able to amend the South Coast attainment

demonstration based on the final mix of national, State and local

controls. See 61 FR 10923 (March 18, 1996) and 62 FR 1151-1153 (January

8, 1997).

As part of the final SIP approval, EPA approved CARB's commitment

to amend the South Coast ozone SIP by December 31, 1997, and to adopt

additional mobile source measures, as appropriate, by December 31,

1999, to resolve SIP shortfalls remaining at the end of the public

consultative process. See 40 CFR 52.220(C)(235)(I)(A)(1). In taking

final action to approve the 1994 ozone SIP, EPA also made a commitment

to adopt additional federal mobile source measures which are determined

to be appropriate for EPA and needed for ozone attainment in the South

Coast. See 40 CFR 52.241.

EPA has not yet concluded the public consultative process, but has

been sued by environmental groups to do so (Coalition for Clean Air,

et. al. vs. South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Air

Resources Board, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. CV 97-

6916 HLH (C.D. Cal.)). Subsequently, the SCAQMD also sued EPA for

failing to adopt certain of the Federal Measures included in

California's 1994 ozone SIP and to resolve the public consultative

process and adopt measures determined to be appropriate for the Agency.

EPA has recently entered into a Consent Decree with the

environmental plaintiffs to conclude the public consultative process

and to determine by June 1, 1999, the respective responsibilities of

EPA and the State for adopting measures to achieve the remaining

emission reduction requirements. This Consent Decree was lodged with

the U.S. District Court on November 13, 1998. EPA sought public comment

on the Consent Decree on December 9, 1998 (63 FR 67879).

In light of the imminent conclusion of the public consultative

process provided for in EPA's final approval of the 1994 ozone SIP, the

Agency has determined that it is not appropriate to approve another

South Coast plan that includes emission reductions associated with

specific Federal Measures assigned by the State to EPA, much less a

plan that increases the illegal emission reduction assignment to the

Federal government, as the 1997 plan does for several source

categories.14 EPA reiterates its position that states do not

have the authority under the Clean Air Act or the Constitution to

assign SIP responsibility to the Federal government.

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

\14\ For example, the 1997 plan increases the emission reduction

assignment for measures M13 (Marine Vessels), M15 (Aircraft), and

M16 (Pleasure Craft).

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

EPA expects that this particular SIP deficiency will be resolved in

the future

[[Page 1777]]

through an amendment to the SIP providing specific enforceable

commitments, if appropriate, by responsible agencies to adopt mobile

source control measures sufficient to eliminate any shortfall in

emissions reductions that might remain at the end of the public

consultative process.

4. Section 182(e)(5)

As noted above, CAA section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to approve

long-term, conceptual measures that rely on new technologies or new

control techniques as part of the attainment demonstration for the

South Coast, the only extreme ozone nonattainment area. This CAA

provision recognizes the difficulty faced by CARB, SCAQMD, and SCAG in

fully developing and adopting in the near-term all of the controls that

are needed to achieve attainment by the 2010 deadline.

There is no evidence, however, that CAA section 182(e)(5) was

enacted to provide a broad excuse for postponing the adoption of

available near-term controls because they are difficult or unpopular.

Moreover, the progressive nature of control technology development is

evidently a basic assumption behind the CAA section 182(e)(5)

provision. It would not be consistent with that assumption to authorize

agencies to amend their approved SIP to replace numerous near-term

control measures and emission reductions with long-term commitments. On

the contrary, later revisions to the SIP should reduce, rather than

increase, the long-term measure element.

EPA's proposed approval of the 1994 ozone SIP for the South Coast

elicited extensive comments from environmental groups. These commenters

felt that the SIP should be disapproved because it relied too

extensively on speculative and poorly defined long-term measures. The

commenters argued that these measures should be replaced by more near-

term controls and better defined and supported long-term measures.

In response to these comments and based on further discussions with

CARB and the SCAQMD, EPA included in the final approval the following

interpretation of the section 182(e)(5) provisions of the CAA as they

apply to the 1994 ozone SIP and any subsequent revisions to the South

Coast ozone SIP.

Measures which the 1994 South Coast Ozone SIP scheduled for

adoption and implementation, or any portion of the emissions

reductions scheduled to be achieved as a result of implementation of

those near-term measures, may not be converted, at some future time,

into section 182(e)(5) new-technology measures or moved into

emissions reductions associated with section 182(e)(5) new

technology measures, without a convincing showing in a SIP revision

that the technologies relied upon in the near-term rules have been

found to be technologically infeasible or ineffective in achieving

emissions reductions in the near-term. The near-term measures in the

1994 SIP have not been determined to ``anticipate development of new

control techniques or improvement of existing control technologies''

(section 182(e)(5)). On the contrary, they were evidently determined

by the SCAQMD and CARB to be both available and necessary for

expeditious progress in reducing emissions in the near term in the

South Coast. Should either CARB or the SCAQMD determine that new

information requires a reconsideration of the near-term feasibility

of the 1994 SIP near-term measures, the agencies must submit a SIP

revision demonstrating convincingly that the standards defined in

this paragraph above for conversion of near-term measures to section

182(e)(5) new technology measures has been met. Absent such a

convincing showing, a SIP revision will not be approved by EPA.

In view of continuing progress in the development and successful

application of control technologies and control techniques, the

amount and relative proportion of reductions from measures scheduled

for long-term adoption under section 182(e)(5), as compared to

measures already adopted in regulatory form or scheduled for near-

term adoption, should clearly decrease in any future SIP update. EPA

will not approve a SIP revision that contains an increase in the

amount and relative proportion of reductions scheduled for long-term

adoption under section 182(e)(5) that is inconsistent with the

standard defined in the preceding paragraph. Further, to the extent

new modeling performed in any subsequent SIP revision demonstrates

that there is an increase in the year 2010 carrying capacity for ROG

and NOX, this change shall not be used to decrease the

amount of emissions reductions scheduled to be achieved by any near-

term measure from the 1994 SIP unless CARB or the SCAQMD make the

convincing showing required by the preceding paragraph.

(62 FR 1179)

As mentioned, the 1997 ozone plan deletes or relaxes some 30 VOC/

NOX near-term measures in the 1994 ozone SIP, shifts others

to the contingency/further study category or to the long-term measure

category, and decreases the proportion of VOC emission reductions from

near-term measures, while increasing the carrying capacity for

VOC.15

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

\15\ The 1997 ozone plan adds several new measures: FLX-01

Intercredit Trading Program, FLX-02 Air Quality Investment Program,

and MSC-03 Promotion of Catalyst-Surface Coating Technology Programs

for Air Conditioning Units, MON-09 In-Use Vehicle Emission

Mitigation, MON-10 Emissions Reduction Credit for Truck Stop

Electrification, and MOF-07 Credits for the Replacement of Existing

Pleasure Craft Engines with New Lower Polluting Engines. All of

these measures, however, are designed to enhance compliance

flexibility and none contributes emissions reductions.

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

Chapter 9 of the 1997 plan addresses the SIP approval criteria

quoted above by brief discussions and by labelling those 1994 SIP

measures that are deleted (14 VOC/NOX measures) or placed in

a contingency/further study category (17 VOC/NOX measures)

as ``not cost-effective,'' ``technically infeasible,'' ``minimal

emission reduction potential,'' ``low public acceptability,'' and

``economic concerns, implementation authority.''

EPA believes that the 1997 ozone plan revision violates the intent

of CAA section 182(e)(5). This section of the Act was intended to allow

an extreme ozone nonattainment area additional time, if necessary,

beyond the November 15, 1994 ozone SIP submittal deadline, to develop,

adopt, and submit some of the specific regulations and programs needed

to achieve attainment. EPA finds no indication that the provision was

designed to allow a state to design SIP revisions that progressively

postpone SIP commitments to adopt regulations and programs in the near-

term, and in so doing to shift the balance of the SIP increasingly

toward vague and undocumented future commitments. EPA therefore is

inclined to consider the increased reliance of the 1997 ozone plan on

long-term, conceptual measures to be a basis for disapproval of the

control measure portion of the plan. However, the Agency particularly

solicits public comment on whether the proposed 1997 revision can be

reconciled with the purpose and language of CAA section 182(e)(5) or

should be disapproved, in part, because the South Coast's substitute

plan is inconsistent with this section of the Act.

As discussed in Section II.D.2 above, EPA believes that the SCAQMD

recognizes that additional near-term measures can be added to avoid

increasing the proportion of emission reductions assigned to the long-

term measure category. SCAQMD adoption and submittal of replacement

near-term measures could ensure that the plan complies with the Act's

provisions relating to inclusion of long-term measures in the

attainment demonstration.

E. Attainment Demonstration

The attainment demonstration was conducted using the Urban Airshed

Model. The UAM analysis uses 4 episodes in 1987, including a September

7-9 episode with a peak concentration of 0.33 ppm.

[[Page 1778]]

Previous SCAQMD modeling analyses also used a more challenging

episode, June 5-7, 1985, which had a peak concentration of 0.36 ppm.

For the 1997 plan, the SCAQMD modeled the 1985 episode but did not show

attainment with all control measures, and the episode was dropped for

purposes of the attainment demonstration. SCAQMD based its decision not

to use the 1985 episode on the age of the episode and the District's

contention that the episode reflects meteorological conditions that

rarely occur in the South Coast. Current EPA modeling guidelines allow

use of a ``weight of evidence'' analysis to justify abandonment of

episodes with extremely rare meteorological conditions.16 On

November 18, 1998, the SCAQMD submitted a weight of evidence analysis

for the June 1985 episode.17 A copy of this analysis has

been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. The analysis addresses

EPA's current modeling guidance and argues for elimination of the 1985

episode under a weight of evidence approach. Attachment B to the

November 18, 1998, SCAQMD correspondence addresses the acceptability of

the remaining 4 episodes as a basis for an attainment demonstration.

The SCAQMD provides evidence that the episodes are representative of

the types of meteorological episodes expected in the South Coast Air

Basin when high ozone concentrations occur. The evidence examines the

episodes based on the deviation index (Horie CART analysis) and the

Chu-Cox methodology for assessing episode frequency.

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

\16\ U.S.E.P.A., Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to

Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007 (1996).

\17\ Letter from Barry R. Wallerstein, SCAQMD Executive Officer,

to Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, Attachment

A.

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

The model performance for the 1987 episodes shows a high systematic

bias (for example, ozone underprediction of 44% for June 24 and 40% for

June 25; 47% for September 8 and 38% for September 9). This

underprediction is significantly reduced if motor vehicle VOC emissions

are doubled. For example, the underprediction becomes 24% for June 24

and 19% for June 25; and 2% for September 8 and 3% for September 9.

The SCAQMD contends that this inventory adjustment is warranted,

since it is generally conceded that motor vehicle VOC emissions were

substantially underestimated in the 1987 historical episode emissions

calculations. If this inventory adjustment is valid, model performance

for the UAM simulation is within EPA's acceptable range of accuracy.

The 1997 ozone plan's modeling analysis predicts attainment with

VOC emissions are reduced to 413 tons per day (tpd) and NOX

emissions are reduced to 530 tpd. For comparison purposes, the 1994

ozone SIP projected attainment with carrying capacities of 323 tpd VOC

and 553 tpd NOX, while the final 1994 AQMP identifies the

carrying capacities as 313 tpd VOC and 274 tpd NOX.

The ozone plan's modeled attainment demonstration is based on

emission reductions from the 1997 ozone plan's suite of control

measures. As discussed in section II.D., EPA proposes to disapprove

these control measures for the 3 reasons discussed in section II.D. The

1997 ozone plan therefore does not meet the CAA section 182(c)(2)(A)

requirement that the plan include ``(a) demonstration that the plan, as

revised, will provide for attainment of the ozone national ambient air

quality standard by the applicable attainment date.'' EPA proposes to

disapprove the ozone plan with respect to the attainment demonstration

requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), because of the deficiencies

in the control measure portions of the plan.

E. Quantitative milestones and reasonable further progress (RFP)

1. Clean Air Act Provisions

CAA section 182(c)(2) requires that ozone SIPs include quantitative

milestones that are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is

redesignated attainment and that demonstrate reasonable further

progress (RFP) toward attainment by the applicable date. CAA section

171(a) of the Act defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions

in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part

or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality

standard by the applicable date.''

For ozone areas classified as serious or above, CAA section

182(c)(2) requires that the SIP must provide for reductions in ozone

season, weekday VOC emissions of at least 3 percent per year net of

growth averaged over each consecutive 3-year period beginning in 1996

until the attainment date. This is in addition to the 15 percent

reduction over the first 6-year period required by CAA section

182(b)(1) for moderate areas. EPA believes that ``(by) meeting the

specific 3 percent reduction requirements (of CAA section 182(c)(2)),

the State will also satisfy the general RFP requirements of section

172(c)(2) for the time period discussed.'' (General Preamble, April 16,

1992, 57 FR 13518.)

The 1997 ozone plan shows reductions consistent with the 3 percent

per year rate of progress requirement for 1999 through use of VOC

emission reductions alone. Beginning in 2002, however, the plan does

not have enough creditable VOC reductions to meet the milestones, and

must substitute NOX reductions, as allowed by CAA section

182(c)(2)(C). The schedule for these milestone years in the 1997 ozone

plan is 6 percent VOC and 3 percent NOX in 2005; 0.5 percent

VOC and 8.5 percent NOX in 2008; and 0.5 percent VOC and 5.5

percent NOX in 2010. The rate of progress schedule in the

1994 ozone SIP far exceeds the CAA progress requirements for each

milestone year using VOC emission reductions alone (see EPA's final

approval of the 1994 ozone SIP, January 8, 1997, 62 FR 1181, table

entitled ``South Coast ROP Forecasts'').

Compliance with the milestone and RFP requirements of the Act

requires that all of the creditable emission reductions be approved as

enforceable parts of the SIP (General Preamble, April 16, 1992, at 57

FR 13517). Because EPA proposes to disapprove the control measure

provisions in the ozone plan, EPA also proposes to disapprove the plan

with respect to the CAA section 182(c)(2) quantitative milestone and

reasonable further progress requirements.

F. Summary of Proposed EPA Actions

EPA proposes the following actions on elements of the South Coast

ozone plan, as submitted on February 5, 1997:

(1) Approval of procedural requirements, under sections 110(a)(1)

and 110(k)(3) of the CAA;

(2) Approval of baseline and projected emission inventories, under

sections 110(a)(1), 110(k)(3), 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the CAA;

(3) Disapproval of the VOC and NOX control measure

provisions, under CAA sections 110(k)(3), 110(l), 172(c)(6), and

182(e)(5);

(4) Disapproval of the attainment demonstration, under CAA sections

110(k)(3) and 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA; and

(5) Disapproval of quantitative milestones and reasonable further

progress, under sections 110(k)(3) and 182(c)(2) of the CAA.

As discussed above, the partial disapproval of the ozone SIP

revision does not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179,

since EPA's approval of the 1994 South Coast ozone

[[Page 1779]]

plan with respect to the same requirements remains in force.

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.

III. 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 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 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. 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 and

disapprove 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, Intergovernmental

relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

[[Page 1780]]

Dated: December 30, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 99-666 Filed 1-11-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P