issue-1996-03-18•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-18
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-18
issue-1996-03-18Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-18Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-6445 Pennsylvania Regulatory program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10918-10919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6445]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 938
[PA-113-FOR]
Pennsylvania Regulatory program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10919]]
SUMMARY: OSM is correcting an error in the ADDRESSES section of a
proposed rule announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the
Pennsylvania regulatory program (PA-113-FOR) published on Wednesday,
February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7446).
On page 7447, the name and address for the Maryland Bureau of Mines
was included in error. The correct reference should be: Pennsylvania
Bureau of Mining and Reclamation, Room 209, Executive House,
Harrisburg, PA 17105, Telephone (717) 787-5103.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Biggi, Director, Harrisburg
Field Office, Telephone: (717) 782-4036.
Dated: March 8, 1996.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 96-6445 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6443 Virginia Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10919-10920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6443]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 946
[VA-104-FOR]
Virginia Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing the receipt of a proposed amendment to the
Virginia Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) Program (hereinafter
referred to as the Virginia Program) under the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., as
amended. The proposed amendment is intended to streamline Virginia's
total AMLR plan to be consistent with the Federal regulations.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before 4:00 p.m. on
April 17, 1996. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed
amendments will be held at 1:00 p.m. on April 12, 1996. Requests to
present oral testimony at the hearing must be received on or before
4:00 p.m. on April 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to testify at the hearing
should be mailed or hand-delivered to Mr. Robert A. Penn, Director, Big
Stone Gap Field Office at the first address listed below.
Copies of the Virginia program, the proposed amendment, a listing
of any scheduled public meetings or hearing, and all written comments
received in response to this notice will be available for public review
at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Big Stone Gap
Field Office, P.O. Drawer 1217, Powell Valley Square Shopping Center,
Room 220, Route 23, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219, Telephone: (703)
523-4303
Virginia Division of Mined Land Reclamation, P.O. Drawer 900, Big Stone
Gap, Virginia 24219, Telephone: (703) 523-8100
Each requester may receive, free of charge, one copy of the
proposed amendment by contacting the OSM Big Stone Gap Field Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap Field Office, Telephone:
(703) 523-4303.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Virginia Program
On December 15, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Virginia program. Background on the Virginia program,
including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and
the conditions of approval can be found in the December 15, 1981
Federal Register (46 FR 61085-61115). Subsequent actions concerning the
conditions of approval and AMLR program amendments are identified at 30
CFR 946.20 and 946.25.
II. Discussion of the Proposed Amendment
By letter received February 29, 1996 (Administrative Record No. VA-
871), the Virginia Division of Mined Land Reclamation (DMLR) submitted
a proposed Program Amendment to the Virginia Program. This amendment is
intended to streamline Virginia's total AMLR plan to more closely
parallel the Federal state reclamation plan information requirements of
30 CFR 884.13.
The proposed revisions to the Virginia Program concern public water
supplies, interim program sites, prioritization, AML eligibility for
mine fires, refuse sites, acid mine drainage, remining, and water
project eligibility. The primary purpose of the amendment is to
incorporate the 1990 amendments to SMCRA, and the AMLR provisions of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992).
The full text of the proposed program amendment submitted by
Virginia is available for public inspection at the addresses listed
above. The Director now seeks public comment on whether the proposed
amendment is no less effective than the Federal regulations. If
approved, the amendment will become part of the Virginia program.
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 884.15, OSM is now
seeking comment on whether the amendment proposed by Virginia satisfies
the applicable requirements for the approval of State AMLR program
amendments. If the amendment is deemed adequate, it will become part of
the Virginia program.
Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under DATES or at locations other than the Big Stone Gap Field Office
will not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included
in the Administrative Record.
Public Hearing
Persons wishing to comment at the public hearing should contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by close of
business on April 2, 1996. If no one requests an opportunity to comment
at a public hearing, the hearing will not be held.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions.
The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all
persons scheduled to comment have been heard. Persons in the audience
who have not been scheduled to comment and who wish to do so will be
hear following those scheduled. The hearing will end after all persons
who desire to comment have been heard.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to comment at a hearing,
a public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. Persons
wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed
amendments may request a meeting at the Big Stone Gap Field Office by
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All
such meetings will be open to the public and, if possible, notices of
the meetings will be posted in advance at the locations listed above
under ADDRESSES. A summary of
[[Page 10920]]
meeting will be included in the Administrative Record.
Executive Order 12291
On March 30, 1992, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
granted the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
an exemption from sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 of Executive Order 12291 for
actions related to approval or disapproval of State and tribal
abandoned mine land reclamation plans and revisions thereof. Therefore,
preparation of a regulatory impact analysis is not necessary and OMB
regulatory review is not required.
Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 and has determined that, to the
extent allowed by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of
subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are
not applicable to the actual language of State and Tribal abandoned
mine land reclamation plans and revisions thereof since each such plan
is drafted and adopted by a specific State or Tribe, not by OSM.
Decisions on proposed State and Tribal abandoned mine land reclamation
plans and revisions thereof submitted by a State or Tribe are based on
a determination of whether the submittal meets the requirements of
Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) (30
U.S.C. 1231-1243) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Parts 884 and
888.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
agency decisions on proposed State and Tribal abandoned mine land
reclamation plans and revisions thereof are categorically excluded from
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332)
by the Manual of the Department of the Interior [5616 DM 6, appendix 8,
paragraph 8.4B(29)].
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and
certification made that such regulations would not have a significant
economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. Hence,
this rule will ensure that existing requirements established by SMCRA
or previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions in the analyses for the corresponding Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 8, 1996.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 96-6443 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6425 Public MeetingVehicle Lamps and Reflective Devices
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10979-10980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6425]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 96-020; Notice 1]
Public Meeting--Vehicle Lamps and Reflective Devices
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces a public meeting at which the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will seek information
from interested persons on the safety performance of vehicle lamps and
reflective devices. NHTSA also will consider suggestions for actions,
both regulatory and non-regulatory, that the agency should take to
enhance the safety of vehicle lighting systems. This document also
invites written comments on the same subject.
DATES: Public meeting: The meeting will be held on April 17, 1996, from
8:00 am until 12:00 pm. Those wishing to make an oral presentation at
the meeting should contact Michael Pyne at the address, telephone
number, or fax number listed below by close of business on April 4,
1996.
Written comments: Written comments are due by close of business on
April 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Public meeting: The public meeting will be held at the
Embassy Suites Hotel, 4550 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, CA 92122.
Written comments: All written comments should be mailed to the
Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room
5109, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Please refer to the
docket and notice number at the top of this notice when submitting
written comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Pyne, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone 202-366-4931; Fax 202-366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Reform
Calling for a new approach to the way Government interacts with the
private sector, President Clinton asked the Executive Branch agencies
to improve the regulatory process and seek non-regulatory means of
working with the public and regulated industries. Specifically, the
President requested that agencies: (1) Cut obsolete regulations; (2)
reward results; (3) meet with persons affected by and interested in its
regulations; and (4) use consensual rulemaking more frequently. This
notice responds to the third item by scheduling a meeting with the
public with regard to the safety performance of lamps and reflective
devices for cars, light trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles,
motorcycles, heavy trucks, buses, and trailers.
Issues to be Addressed
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment, sets minimum requirements for the
performance and location of original motor vehicle equipment and
replacement lamps and reflective devices including headlamps, tail
lamps, stop lamps, turn signals, and marker lamps on U.S. motor
vehicles and trailers. The purpose of the standard is to assure that
vehicle lighting and reflective systems provide adequate roadway
illumination and enhance the conspicuity of motor vehicles. NHTSA is
holding this meeting to help assess the need for improvements to the
standard and to keep abreast of new lighting developments before
proceeding with research, regulatory, or other activities for improving
the safety performance of lighting and reflective systems. NHTSA hopes
to obtain information from the public, including drivers, inventors,
lighting manufacturers, motor vehicle and trailer manufacturers,
vehicle and traffic safety organizations, consumer groups, and others.
This information, coming from the grassroots level, will help NHTSA
focus its regulatory and non-regulatory actions. The particular motor
vehicle lighting issues on which NHTSA seeks comment include the
following:
1. Lighting Harmonization
Domestic vehicle manufacturers and other parties support the
concept of harmonized vehicle lighting where a single lighting
configuration can be built which meets the safety requirements of the
U.S., Europe, Japan, and other locations. NHTSA supports this by
seeking windows of harmony when it writes regulations as well as by
participating in national and international efforts to identify and
implement such windows. Currently, the U.S. lighting standard, FMVSS
108, and standards of other nations have differences in requirements
that cause multiple versions of lamps to be manufactured for vehicles
produced for the world market. Economies of scale can result from
achieving windows of harmony where one version of lamp can comply.
2. Geometric Visibility of Lamps
NHTSA published an NPRM on October 26, 1995 (60 FR 54833),
proposing to harmonize the geometric visibility of lamps in response to
a petition. NHTSA took that opportunity to propose other harmonizing
aspects that could be implemented. Since lamp location and visibility
are important for safety, the agency would like comments on this
subject. It is a major topic of discussion in the area of lighting
harmonization.
3. Headlamp Beam Patterns
NHTSA may consider whether to amend the performance requirements of
headlamp beam patterns. There are a
[[Page 10980]]
number of factors at issue including the potential for better
illumination, the need to reduce headlamp glare or the effect of
headlamp glare on other drivers, and the desire for harmonization of
U.S. headlamp requirements with those of other countries
4. Headlamp and Auxiliary Driving Lamp Glare
NHTSA receives many telephone calls and letters inquiring why
headlamps are so glaring and why they have to be so high off the
ground. Many of these complaints are about headlamps mounted on heavy
and light duty trucks. Light duty trucks are about fifty percent of the
new vehicle market share. Drivers in passenger cars, thus, are being
affected by more and more glare from higher mounted lamps. Some of the
complaints turn out to be about auxiliary lamps, and why it is
necessary for drivers to have four ``headlamps'' on all the time.
Another aspect of headlamp glare may be mis-aimed headlamps.
Consequently, NHTSA seeks comment on the problem of glare from those
vehicle lamps that are intended to illuminate the roadway, e.g.:
headlamps, fog lamps, driving lamps, and similar lamps.
5. Mandatory vs. Optional Signal Lighting
NHTSA seeks comment on whether certain types of signal lighting not
now regulated should be mandatory, e.g., stopped vehicle signals,
deceleration warning signals, front stop lamps, etc., whether they
should be accommodated by the standard (wherein their use by
manufacturers would be optional but regulated), whether they should be
ignored by the standard as at present, or whether they should be
prohibited.
6. Vehicle-Based Lighting Standard
NHTSA recently terminated action on developing a vehicle-based
roadway illumination performance standard (60 FR 58038 published
November 24, 1995). The goal of the development was to achieve a more
performance-oriented, less design-restrictive regulatory solution for
assuring safe roadway environment illumination. Because the outcome of
this action had the potential to be so different from any known means
of specifying head lighting performance, commenters to the proposal
were skeptical that any solution would be usable and that even if it
were, the perceived regulatory burdens of it would not be commensurate
with the uncertain potential benefits to public safety. Yet many
commenters saw that such a standard could offer significant freedom for
vehicle design. As a result, NHTSA attempted to further develop a tool
to address the commenters concerns, but was unable to do so.
Consequently, NHTSA terminated the project. NHTSA desires comment on
whether there is any public interest in such a vehicle-based system,
and/or whether there is the potential in the future that such a system
might be a desirable alternative to current hardware-based performance
requirements.
7. New Lighting Technology
Two years ago, NHTSA published a notice asking for comment on how
the lighting standard might adversely affect the introduction of new
technologies, e.g., neon and long arc light sources, high intensity
discharge and short arc light sources, light emitting diode light
sources, and centrally located, distributive light sources, into
vehicle lighting (59 FR 16788 published April 8, 1994). It was met with
interest, but comments generally were without substance as to how the
standard might need to be amended to accommodate the new technologies.
One rulemaking action was begun to make high intensity discharge light
sources acceptable as replaceable headlamp bulbs; this is about to be
completed. NHTSA is interested in any updated comments on this topic,
as well as any thoughts on the acceptance or desire of these and any
other new technologies by the public.
Other topics may include daytime running lights and the issue of
updating references to SAE standards in FMVSS 108. In addition, NHTSA
welcomes views and comments from groups that have special lighting-
related needs such as the elderly, and on issues including
international considerations, driver education, and other aspects of
vehicle lighting safety. NHTSA also will entertain suggestions for
activities, either regulatory or non-regulatory, and research that the
agency should undertake. Suggestions for agency action should be
accompanied by rationale for the action and the expected benefits and
other consequences. Recommendations should include, where available,
information on safety effects, consumer costs, regulated party costs,
overall cost-effectiveness, small business effects, availability of
voluntary industry standards, effects on international harmonization,
and whether the action reflects a ``common sense'' approach to solving
the problem.
Procedural Matters
The public meeting will begin at 8:00 am on April 17, 1996, and is
scheduled to conclude at 12:00 pm. It will take place in the morning at
the same location as the SAE Lighting Committee's semi-annual
conference, which is scheduled to resume in the afternoon. The location
will be the Embassy Suites Hotel, 4550 La Jolla Village Drive, San
Diego, California , 92122. Persons wishing to speak at the public
meeting should contact Michael Pyne by the indicated date, and must
include requests for audio-visual aids. Those speaking at the public
meeting should limit their presentations to 15 minutes. However,
because this meeting will be limited to a single morning session, the
speaking time may be revised to 10 minutes per speaker if all speakers
cannot be accommodated with a 15 minute speaking time. If a
presentation will include slides, motion pictures, or other visual
aids, the presenters should bring at least one copy to the meeting for
submission to NHTSA, so that NHTSA can readily include the material in
the public record.
At the meeting, NHTSA staff may ask questions of any speaker, and
any participant may submit written questions for the NHTSA staff. NHTSA
may, at its discretion, address the latter to other meeting
participants. There will be no opportunity for participants directly to
question each other. If time permits, persons who have not requested
time, but would like to make a statement, will be afforded an
opportunity to do so.
A schedule of participants making oral presentations will be
available at the designated meeting room. A copy of any written
statements provided to NHTSA at the meeting will be placed in the
docket relating to this notice. A verbatim transcript of the meeting
will be prepared and placed in the NHTSA docket as soon as possible
after the meeting.
Participation in the meeting is not a prerequisite for the
submission of written comments. NHTSA invites written comments from all
interested parties. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be
submitted.
NHTSA will continue to file relevant information in the docket as
it becomes available after the closing date. It is therefore
recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for
new material.
Issued: March 12, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-6425 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6403 Proposed Amendment to Class D and E2 Airspace and Proposed Establishment of Class E4 Airspace; Jackson, TN
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10908-10910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6403]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASO-7]
Proposed Amendment to Class D and E2 Airspace and Proposed
Establishment of Class E4 Airspace; Jackson, TN
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
[[Page 10909]]
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 6, 1996, the FAA proposed to amend Class D surface
area airspace and establish Class E4 surface area arrival extension at
Jackson, TN. This proposal was necessary because the arrival extension,
which is currently part of the Class D surface area, is greater than 2
miles and must, by regulation, be designated as Class E4 airspace.
However, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), as published,
inadvertantly failed to propose an amendment to the Class E2 surface
area airspace, which exists when the control tower is closed and
approach control service to the surface is provided by Memphis Center.
In addition to amending the Class D surface area airspace and
establishing Class E4 surface area arrival extension airspace, this
SNPRM proposes to amend the Class E2 surface area airspace at Jackson,
TN.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Docket No. 96-ASO-7, Manager, System
Management Branch, ASO-530, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337, telephone (404) 305-5586.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benny L. McGlamery, System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia
30320; telephone (404) 305-5570.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or
arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis
supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful
in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments
are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical,
economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this supplemental notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
ASO-7.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be
available for examination in the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel
for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Manager, System Management Branch, ASO-530,
Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320.
Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons
interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should
also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A which describes the
application procedure.
Background
On February 6, 1996, (61 FR 4381) the FAA proposed to amend Class D
surface area airspace and establish Class E4 surface area arrival
extension airspace at Jackson, TN. However, the NPRM, as published,
inadvertantly failed to propose an amendment to the Class E2 surface
area airspace, which exists when the control tower is closed and
approach control service to the surface is provided by Memphis Center.
This SNPRM corrects that oversight.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to amend Class E2 surface area
airspace in addition to amending the Class D surface area airspace and
establishing the Class E4 surface area arrival extension airspace at
Jackson, TN. Class D airspace designations, Class E airspace
designations for airspace areas designated as a surface area for an
airport and Class E airspace designations for airspace areas designated
as an extension to a Class D surface area are published in Paragraphs
5000, 6002 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August
17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.
* * * * *
ASO TN D Jackson, TN [Revised]
McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport, TN
(Lat. 35 deg.35'59'' N, long. 88 deg.54'56'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2900 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of the McKellar-Sipes
Regional Airport. This Class D airspace
[[Page 10910]]
area is effective during the specific days and times established in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.
* * * * *
Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace areas designated as a surface area
for an airport.
* * * * *
ASO TN E2 Jackson, TN [Revised]
McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport, TN
(Lat. 35 deg.35'59'' N, long. 88 deg.54'56'' W)
Within a 4.2-mile radius of the McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport.
This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific days and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the
Airport/Facility Director.
* * * * *
Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension
to a Class D surface area.
ASO TN E4 Jackson, TN [New]
McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport, TN
(Lat. 35 deg.35'59'' N, long 88 deg.54'56'' W)
McKellar VOR/DME
(Lat. 35 deg.36'13'' N, long. 88 deg.54'38'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.1 miles
each side of the McKellar VOR/DME 206 deg. radial, extending from
the 4.2-mile radius of the McKellar-Sipes Regional Airport to 7
miles southwest of the VOR/DME. This Class E airspace area is
effective during the specific days and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter
be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 23, 1996.
Benny L. McGlamery,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-6403 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6389 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-11 Series Airplanes, and KC-10A (Military) Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10907-10908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6389]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-254-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-11
Series Airplanes, and KC-10A (Military) Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-10 and MD-11 series airplanes, and KC-10A (military) airplanes. This
proposal would require identifying and replacing certain lock link
bolts in the nose landing gear (NLG). This proposal is prompted by a
report indicating that certain bolts were improperly heat-treated
during manufacturing, which makes them prone to failure. The actions
specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of the
lock link bolts in the NLG, which could result in the collapse of the
NLG.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-254-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone
(310) 627-5324; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-254-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-254-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The FAA has received a report indicating that certain lock link
bolts, which may be installed in the nose landing gear (NLG) of certain
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-11 series airplanes and KC-10A
(military) airplanes, were improperly heat-treated during their
manufacture. Investigation revealed that the suspect bolts were
fabricated using a heat-treat process that was lacking the latest
updated process instructions. The improper heat-treatment of these
bolts makes them prone to failure. If an installed bolt were to fail,
it could cause the NLG to collapse.
[[Page 10908]]
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC10-32-242 (for Model DC-10 series airplanes), dated November
1, 1995; and McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD11-32-060 (for Model
MD-11 series airplanes), dated November 6, 1995. These service
bulletins describe procedures for conducting a visual inspection to
identify the serial number of suspect lock link bolts, and the
replacement of those bolts with new bolts having different serial
numbers. Replacing a suspect bolt will minimize the possibility of a
bolt failure and subsequent NLG collapse.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require a one-time visual inspection to identify the
suspect lock link bolts, and the replacement of those bolts with new
serviceable bolts. The actions would be required to be accomplished in
accordance with the service bulletin described previously.
There are approximately 565 Model DC-10 and MD-11 series airplanes
and KC-10A (military airplanes) of the affected design in the worldwide
fleet. The FAA estimates that 334 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD.
It would take approximately .5 work hour per airplane to accomplish
the proposed one-time inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per
work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD
on U.S. operators is estimated to be $10,020, or $30 per airplane.
If a suspect lock link bolt is found to be installed on an
airplane, its removal and replacement would take approximately 3 work
hours to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Replacement parts would be supplied by the manufacture at no charge to
operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement
action on U.S. operators is estimated to be $180 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements
of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions
in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ``ADDRESSES.''
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 95-NM-254-AD.
Applicability: Model DC-10-10, -15, -30, and -40 series
airplanes, and KC-10A airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas
Service Bulletin DC10-32-242, dated November 1, 1995; and Model MD-
11 series airplanes as listed in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
MD11-32-060, dated November 6, 1995; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. To prevent collapse of the nose landing gear as a result
of failure of the lock link bolt, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
perform a visual inspection to determine the serial number of the
lock link bolt, part number (P/N) ACG7079-1, installed in the nose
landing gear (NLG), in accordance with procedures specified in
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-32-242, dated November 1,
1995, for Model DC-10 series airplanes; or McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin MD11-32-060, dated November 6, 1995, for Model MD-11 series
airplanes.
(b) If the serial number of the lock link bolt is not AP001
through AP036 inclusive, or AP200 through AP344 inclusive: No
further action is required by this AD.
(c) If the serial number of the lock link bolt is AP001 through
AP036 inclusive, or AP200 through AP344 inclusive: Prior to further
flight, replace the lock link bolt with a new bolt, P/N ACG7079-1,
that does not have one of those serial numbers.
(d) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
a lock link bolt, part number (P/N) ACG7079-1, having a serial
number of AP001 through AP036 inclusive, or AP200 through AP344
inclusive, on any airplane.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 12, 1996.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-6389 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6379 Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10911-10918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6379]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment Standards Administration; Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Part 500
RIN 1215-AA93
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration,
Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes regulations to implement amendments to
the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA),
with respect to the relationship between workers' compensation benefits
and the benefits available under the MSPA as required by Public Law
104-49. This Public Law 104-49 specifically requires amendment to the
MSPA regulations concerning disclosure of workers' compensation
information and additionally authorizes reconsideration of the MSPA-
required transportation liability insurance. This document also
proposes to amend existing regulations in order to provide for the
expedited proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of
actions initiated by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division to
revoke, suspend, or refuse to issue or renew a Farm Labor Contractor
Certificate of Registration, and for review by the Secretary of Labor.
Additionally, this document proposes to amend the regulations in order
to make them comport with amendments to MSPA. Lastly, this document
proposes to amend the regulations to indicate that the Certificate of
Registration will reflect the maximum number of farm workers that the
farm labor contractor is authorized to transport.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule are due on or before April 17,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Maria Echaveste, Administrator,
Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Commenters who wish to receive notification of
receipt of comments are requested to include a self-addressed, stamped
post card or to submit them by certified mail, return receipt
requested. As a convenience to commenters, comments may be transmitted
by facsimile (``FAX'') machine to (202) 219-5122. This is not a toll-
free number. If transmitted by FAX and a hard copy is also submitted by
mail, please indicate on the hard copy that it is a duplicate copy of
the FAX transmission.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hancock, Office of Enforcement
Policy, Farm Labor Team, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3510, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 219-7605. This is
not a toll-free number. Copies of this NPRM in alternative formats may
be obtained by calling (202) 219-7605, (202) 219-4634 (TDD). The
alternative formats available are large print, electronic file on
computer disk and audio-tape.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The reporting requirements contained in these proposed regulations
have been submitted for review to the Office of Management and Budget
pursuant to section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Title: Worker Information, Form WH-516.
Summary: These proposed regulations amend sections 500.75 and
500.76 of Regulations, 29 CFR Part 500, Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act, to require disclosure to migrant
and seasonal agricultural workers of certain information regarding the
availability of workers' compensation insurance.
Need: Various sections of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Protection Act (MSPA), 29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., require that each
farm labor contractor, agricultural employer and agricultural
association disclose in writing the terms and conditions of employment
to: (a) Migrant agricultural workers at the time of recruitment
(section 201(a)(1)); (b) seasonal agricultural workers, upon request,
at the time of employment (section 301(a)(1)) and (c) seasonal
agricultural workers employed through a day-haul operation at the place
of recruitment (section 301(a)(2)). Sections 201(b) and 301(b), which
relate to posting in a conspicuous place at the place of employment a
poster provided by the Secretary setting forth the rights and
protections afforded covered workers under MSPA, also require that each
such employer provide to each worker (upon request in the case of
seasonal agricultural workers) a written statement of the terms and
conditions of employment. In addition, sections 201(g) and 301(f)
require that such information be provided in English, or as necessary
and reasonable, in a language common to the workers and that the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) make forms available to provide such
information. Optional Form WH-516, Worker Information, is made
available by DOL for these purposes. As an alternative to use of the
Form WH-516, employers may disclose the terms and conditions of
employment in writing to migrant workers, or in writing upon request to
seasonal workers, using any other format provided the required
information is contained within the disclosure.
Public Law 104-49 provides in section 4 for the disclosure of
certain additional information regarding workers' compensation
insurance to the employee, i.e., whether workers' compensation is
provided and if so, the name of the workers' compensation insurance
carrier, the name of the policyholder of such insurance, the name and
the telephone number of each person who must be notified of an injury
or death, and the time period within which this notice must be given.
Optional Form WH-516 is being revised
[[Page 10912]]
to include this new statutorily-required information. This requirement
can alternatively be met by the employer furnishing the worker with a
photocopy of any notice regarding workers' compensation insurance
required by law of the state in which such worker is employed, provided
the notice contains the information specified above (with respect to
workers' compensation) required for disclosure by section 4 of Public
Law 104-49. It is important to note that the information on the terms
and conditions of employment (including the workers' compensation
information) required to be disclosed is to be disclosed to prospective
employees. Outside of an investigation context in which the employer is
specifically requested to provide a copy of any written disclosure made
to workers, this information is not to be forwarded to, nor will it be
maintained by, the Federal government.
Respondents and proposed frequency of response: MSPA covers only
those farms with over 500 man-days of hired agricultural labor during
any calendar quarter during the preceding calendar year. Unless the 500
man-day threshold is reached, there is no coverage under the Act and no
obligation to provide the disclosure. A yard stick for measuring when
the 500 man-day threshold is reached is if a farm employs 7 full-time
equivalent workers during a calendar quarter. The 1992 Census of
Agriculture reported approximately 160,000 farms which hired 5 or more
agricultural workers during the survey year. 1992 Census of
Agriculture, Vol. 1, Part 51, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census,
pg. 207. Therefore, it is estimated that no more than 160,000 farms are
covered by the disclosure obligation. According to the U.S. Department
of Agriculture Quarterly Surveys, there are approximately 1,500,000
migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, some of whom are probably
employed on exempt farms. According to the National Agricultural Worker
Survey, these workers averaged 1.75 agricultural employers annually.
U.S. Farmworkers in the Post-IRCA Period, USDOL, pg. 30, 1993.
Therefore, the number of actual disclosures required will not exceed
2,625,000 (1,500,000 x 1.75).
Estimated total annual burden: It is estimated that it requires 32
minutes to gather and prepare for disclosure the required information,
and to make the required disclosures. Of those 32 minutes, it is
estimated that the new disclosure items required by Pub. L. 104-49 will
require 2 minutes and the remaining time is for the disclosure items
already required by MSPA and the regulations. This includes the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the
collection of information, making copies if needed, and actually making
the required disclosures to prospective employees. This results in an
estimated annual burden of 85,333 hours (160,000 farms x 32 minutes).
To obtain an estimate of respondent costs for making the required
disclosure to prospective employees, the average wage rate for an
agricultural worker nationwide of $6.05 per hour was used (Farm Labor,
May 1995, National Agricultural Statistic Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture). An average markup of 20% for a farm labor contractor is
added to yield an hourly rate of $7.26 per hour. Annual respondent
costs are thus estimated as $619,518 (85,333 annual burden hours x
$7.26).
The public is invited to provide comments on this information
collection requirement so that the Department of Labor may:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden
of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to make the required disclosure of the terms and conditions of
employment to prospective employees, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of the information to be disclosed to
prospective employees. Written comments should be sent to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for Employment Standards Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20503.
II. Background
Public Law 104-49 amends the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Protection Act (MSPA) provisions dealing with the private right
of action, the regulatory process for setting minimum transportation
liability insurance requirements, and disclosure obligations to
agricultural workers. The Act requires the Secretary to reexamine the
current MSPA transportation insurance regulations and to amend the
regulations governing disclosure. The insurance rulemaking must be
completed and a final rule published within 180 days of enactment, or
no later than May 13, 1996. The disclosure regulations, while under no
statutory deadline, provide important new information to agricultural
workers and require regulations before they become effective.
The final proposed regulatory amendment would give adjudication
priority to administrative actions denying, revoking, or suspending a
farm labor contractor (FLC) certificate. Currently, some FLCs continue
to lawfully operate for extended periods awaiting an administrative
hearing and final order on a certification action. This proposed
regulation would establish deadlines for Administrative Law Judge
proceedings and Secretarial review proceedings in MSPA certificate
actions.
Key issues addressed in the proposed regulations on which public
comment is particularly solicited are summarized and explained below.
III. Summary and Discussion
Workers' Compensation Disclosure Requirements
The MSPA was amended by Public Law 104-49 to require farm labor
contractors, agricultural employers and agricultural associations who
recruit or hire agricultural workers subject to the protections of the
Act to provide the workers certain additional information about the
terms and conditions of employment. This information must be included
in a written document, and that disclosure document must be given to
each agricultural worker so that it may be retained in the event that
the information contained therein becomes useful or necessary. Under
current regulations, the information to be disclosed includes the place
of employment, the period of employment, wage rate(s), crops and
activities, whether transportation or other benefits are provided,
housing and its cost (if provided), information about any strike, work
stoppage, slowdown, or interruption in operations, and information
about any employer charges for goods or services.
The disclosures required by the MSPA, including the proposed
additions, must be given to each migrant agricultural worker at the
time of recruitment, or, if sufficient information is unavailable at
that time, at the earliest
[[Page 10913]]
time that the information becomes available, but in no event later than
the commencement of employment. Seasonal agricultural workers are
entitled to the same information in the same form upon request.
Only limited information about workers' compensation is required in
the current regulation; the agricultural worker must be informed only
as to whether or not workers' compensation is provided. Under Public
Law 104-49, the disclosure of additional information concerning
workers' compensation will now be required.
Public Law 104-49 provides that migrant agricultural workers are
entitled to receive, in writing, the name of the workers' compensation
insurance carrier, the name of the policy holder of such insurance, the
name and telephone number of each person who must be notified of an
injury or death, and the time period within which such notice must be
given. Seasonal agricultural workers must also receive the workers'
compensation information identified above, in writing if so requested
by the worker(s). The Department proposes to amend Secs. 500.75 and
500.76 to include these new statutorily-required disclosure items.
Under the proposed rule, the information concerning workers'
compensation may be communicated to the worker in one of two forms. The
farm labor contractor, agricultural employer, or agricultural
association may provide this additional information via the optional
written disclosure form (Optional Form WH-516). In the alternative, the
farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural
association may communicate the necessary workers' compensation
information by giving the agricultural worker a photocopy of any notice
regarding workers' compensation insurance required by the law of the
state in which the worker is employed, as long as such photocopy
contains all the required information.
Transportation Insurance Under MSPA
Under the MSPA, agricultural employers, agricultural associations,
and farm labor contractors who use or cause to be used a vehicle to
transport agricultural workers subject to the Act must comply with
certain minimum transportation safety requirements and provide a
minimum level of financial security to insure against injuries to
workers or third parties. Public Law 104-49 amended the MSPA provision
regarding the determination of the level of financial security to be
required.
MSPA provides three means by which farm labor contractors,
agricultural employers, or agricultural associations may insure against
liability for damage to persons or property arising from the ownership,
operation or causing to be operated a vehicle used to transport
agricultural workers. The security may be in the form of (1) a vehicle
liability insurance policy that insures employees and nonemployees; (2)
a workers' compensation policy along with a liability certificate of
insurance covering transportation whenever nonemployees and employees
may be transported under circumstances not covered by workers'
compensation; or (3) the posting of a $500,000 liability bond. Public
Law 104-49 amended the MSPA provision to require the Secretary to re-
examine the minimum liability insurance requirement and make any
changes indicated by May 13, 1996.
While this proposed rule concerns only the minimum liability
insurance levels per occurrence for such transportation, clarification
is also provided regarding the obligations under MSPA if a farm labor
contractor, agricultural employer, or agricultural association chooses
workers' compensation as the primary transportation insurance coverage
for the agricultural workers being transported. Further, the
legislative history of Public Law 104-49 indicates a need to reaffirm
and further explain the circumstances under which carpooling
arrangements among workers fall outside of the scope of MSPA. Joint
Statement of Legislative Intention, Rep. William F. Goodling, E1943,
Cong. Rec., Oct. 13, 1995. To provide the needed clarification, these
issues are discussed below.
Workers' Compensation as Primary Transportation Insurance
Workers' compensation coverage is a partial alternative to meeting
liability obligations under MSPA and the Department's regulations.
However, workers' compensation coverage alone does not completely
satisfy the legal obligations under MSPA. Property damage insurance is
also required. In addition, the regulations require that if an employer
chooses workers' compensation as the primary coverage, additional
insurance in a specified minimum amount must also be provided to
compensate employees and nonemployees for property damage and bodily
injuries not covered by workers' compensation benefits whenever there
is a possibility that workers may be transported under circumstances
not covered by workers' compensation insurance. Employers who are
certain that the transportation will occur only under circumstances
covered by workers' compensation are not obligated to secure additional
bodily injury coverage but they do so at their own risk and will be in
violation of the MSPA insurance obligations if they transport workers
outside the scope of workers' compensation coverage and are exposed to
suits for actual damages. The regulation at 29 CFR 500.122(c)(2) has
required this supplemental coverage since 1983 and nothing in this
proposed rule is intended to alter this obligation.
Transportation Under MSPA and Carpools
As discussed previously, the legislative history of Publc Law 104-
49 indicated a need to reaffirm and clarify what constitutes a
legitimate carpool arrangement among workers and therefore, beyond the
scope of the MSPA transportation requirements (including minimum
insurance obligations). Carpooling is described in the regulation at
Sec. 500.100(c), which remains unchanged in this proposed rule. Under
the regulation, carpooling is a voluntary arrangement among workers for
transportation to and from work using a worker's own vehicle. The
workers may contribute to offset the costs of the transportation but
only to reasonably reflect the actual costs of the transportation. Any
compensation or other valuable consideration in excess of the actual
costs means the transportation provider is considered a farm labor
contractor and thereby subject to the registration and transportation
requirements of the Act and the regulations. Likewise, any arrangement
in which a farm labor contractor participates will not be considered a
carpool. If any agricultural employer or association directs or
requests such transportation arrangements or provides money or other
valuable consideration for the transportation service, such an
arrangement is not a carpooling arrangement among workers.
There is also some apparent misunderstanding concerning another
transportation practice governed by MSPA transportation regulations. In
California and elsewhere, a substantial industry of individuals known
as ``raiteros'' has developed. The primary function of the ``raitero''
is to transport agricultural workers, for a fee, from common gathering
points to the fields on a day-to-day basis. Under the current
regulations, this would not be considered a carpooling arrangement but
rather a farm labor contracting activity and, consequently, subject to
the MSPA transportation regulations.
According to the Department of Labor National Agricultural Worker
Survey
[[Page 10914]]
(hereinafter referred to as ``NAWS''), U.S. Farmworkers in the Post-
IRCA Period, USDOL, pg. 51, 1993, 10% of the U.S. farm labor force
working in fruit, vegetables, or horticulture, is charged by
``raiteros'' for transportation to and from work. The Report of the
Commission on Agricultural Workers stated that two-thirds of those
working in California citrus and tomatoes paid ``raiteros'' an average
of $3.00 per day for transportation. Report of the Commission on
Agricultural Workers, pgs. 108-109, 1992. It is unknown to what extent
these transportation providers have registered as farm labor
contractors but it is apparent from the farm labor contractor
registration data maintained by the Department of Labor that many have
not. Department of Labor Region 9, which includes the major labor-
intensive agricultural state of California where the ``raitero''
practice is common, reports that only 79 of the 4298 registered farm
labor contractors are authorized to provide transportation.
The ``raitero'' practice is clearly farm labor contracting activity
and subject to MSPA, but many persons who provide this service have
failed to properly register.
Liability Insurance Requirements and Proposed Rulemaking
Public Law 104-49 requires DOL to reexamine the current minimum
liability insurance requirements and determine whether or not changes
are warranted. Among the factors to be considered are the type of
vehicle used, passenger capacity of the vehicle, distance the workers
will be transported, type of roads and highways on which the workers
will be transported, any undue burden on employers and similar
requirements under State law. All of these factors have been considered
by the Department in this proposal.
The overriding concern, as stated in section 401(b)(2)(B) of MSPA,
is the protection of the health and safety of migrant and seasonal
agricultural workers. Prior to Public Law 104-49, the Secretary had the
discretion to set a minimum insurance amount but this could not be less
than the amount required for common carriers of passengers under part
II of the Interstate Commerce Act and the regulations promulgated
thereunder. The factors which the Secretary was to consider in
establishing such requirements are the same as set out in Public Law
104-49.
The legislative history of MSPA makes clear that the requirements
to provide safe vehicles and adequate levels of transportation
insurance are key worker protections in the Act (Report of the House
Committee on Education and Labor, Rept. No. 97-885, 97th Cong., 2d
Sess.; 1982 U.S. Code Cong. and Ad. News 4547 (hereinafter referred to
as Report), at 4565). It was noted that there were a variety of factors
that the Secretary should consider in determining both the substantive
vehicle safety standards and the required minimum insurance amounts.
The House Education and Labor Committee Report accompanying original
MSPA enactment noted that ``[t]he overriding concern of the Secretary
shall be the protection of the health and safety of the workers.'' Id
at 4565. The Committee went on to note the ``* * * often dangerous
conditions under which agricultural workers are transpoted.'' Id at
4566.
The Department's review of MSPA minimum liability insurance levels
as required by Pub. L. 104-49 is guided by the factors set out in the
statute, the legislative intent of the original MSPA enactment and the
amendment, and the underlying purpose articulated by the Interstate
Commerce Commission in setting the minimum levels incorporated by
reference in the current MSPA regulation.
Current Liability Insurance
In both the original MSPA regulations issued in 1983 and a
subsequent amendment in 1992 that significantly raised the insurance
levels, the minimum level of insurance required by the Department under
MSPA has been the same as that set by the Interstate Commerce
Commission regulations for vehicles transporting passengers for hire in
interstate commerce, found at 49 CFR 1043.2(b)(1)(ii). The current ICC
regulation requires at least $1.5 million in liability insurance
coverage for vehicles with a passenger capacity of 15 or fewer and $5
million for a passenger capacity of 16 and more. (Note: under the ICC
regulations--regardless of the outcome of this MSPA rulemaking
process--those who transport agricultural workers in interstate
commerce for a fee may well be required to also comply with the current
ICC insurance rates.)
In a formal rulemaking proceeding to determine the appropriate
minimum insurance levels, the ICC considered a number of factors. The
Commission stated that the primary purposes to be served by the minimum
liability insurance levels include incentives to motor carriers to
operate their vehicles in a safe manner and to assure that they
maintain adequate levels of financial responsibility sufficient to
satisfy claims covering public liability and property damage. The
agency determined, after notice and an opportunity to comment, that the
appropriate amount of minimum coverage was $1.5 million for vehicles
with a seating capacity of 15 or less and $5 million for vehicles with
a seating capacity of 16 or more. In reaching this conclusion, the ICC
considered the protection of the public, the stability of the regulated
industry, the ability of the insurance industry to provide coverage,
and the particular needs of small and minority businesses.
Transportation of Agricultural Workers
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, agricultural workers
were second only to truck drivers in number of occupational fatalities
in 1994. Among agricultural workers, vehicular accidents accounted for
50 percent of all occupational fatalities in 1994. Highway deaths
accounted for 20 percent and vehicular accidents in parking lots and
other non-public locations accounted for about 30 percent of all
agricultural worker occupational fatalities. National Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries, 1994 (Bureau of Labor Statistics; August 3,
1995).
The Department of Labor has received information from
investigations, published reports, and elsewhere documenting the risks
to agricultural workers from vehicular accidents. The liability
insurance required by MSPA is intended to compensate agricultural
workers involved in vehicular accidents when the most common workplace
insurance, workers' compensation, is not provided or when the injuries
resulted from an accident that falls beyond the scope of workers'
compensation. The minimum levels of liability insurance must be
adequate to satisfy the purposes of the Act.
A further consideration in determining the appropriate minimum
insurance levels under MSPA is the insured person's ability to meet
his/her financial responsibility should it be determined that the he/
she is liable for the injuries resulting from an accident. While
agricultural employers generally have assets (land, equipment, crops,
etc.) in addition to the policy of insurance, agricultural workers
employed by many farm labor contractors are likely to find that
compensation for injuries is limited to coverage provided by the
vehicle insurance. Of the 10,899 farm labor contractors registered with
the Department as of October 6, 1995, 975 were authorized to provide
transportation under MSPA in FY 1995. It has been demonstrated in Wage-
Hour enforcement that many farm labor contractors have few assets to
satisfy
[[Page 10915]]
even modest civil money penalty and back wage assessments. It is
reasonable to conclude that many farm labor contractors will also be
without sufficient assets beyond the liability insurance policy with
which to compensate workers injured in accidents.
Based on information indicating that farm labor contractors often
have few financial assets, automobile liability insurance carried on
vehicles operated by or caused to be operated by a farm labor
contractor must be sufficient to cover non-catastrophic injuries
incurred by agricultural workers. Should the damages resulting from
transportation accidents, such as medical costs and lost wages, exceed
the limits of the minimum insurance amounts, the farm labor contractor
may well have insufficient assets to fully compensate for the injuries.
A further consideration is the availability of other insurance
coverage to compensate agricultural workers in the event that they
suffer injuries in a transportation accident. Unlike most U.S. workers,
many agricultural workers do not enjoy full mandatory workers'
compensation protection in most states. According to information
provided by the Department of Labor's Employment Standards
Administration/Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, agricultural
workers are specifically covered in varying degrees by workers'
compensation under current State laws in thirty-nine (39)
jurisdictions. In only fourteen (14) of the 39 jurisdictions in which
agricultural workers are statutorily covered (Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and
the Virgin Islands), farm workers are covered the same as all other
employees. In the remaining twenty-five of the 39 jurisdictions in
which agricultural workers are statutorily covered (Alaska, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), there are limitations that are
not applicable to covered employees in other industries. And in another
14 jurisdictions (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, and Tennessee), agricultural employers may secure
coverage voluntarily, even though no statutory provisions are
prescribed.
According to the National Agricultural Worker Survey, only 41
percent of the agricultural workforce employed in fruit, vegetables,
and horticultural commodities are covered by workers' compensation, and
only 27 percent of the workers employed by farm labor contractors.
Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey 1990; A
Demographic and Employment Profile of Perishable Crop Farm Workers,
USDOL, pg. 74, 1991. Further, according to unpublished NAWs survey data
for FY 1993-1994, only 14 percent of those employed by agricultural
employers or associations and only 7 percent of those employed by farm
labor contractors have any health insurance. Therefore, many workers
will be completely reliant on the liability insurance to compensate for
injuries suffered in transportation accidents. Should the damages
resulting from transportation accidents, such as medical costs and lost
wages, exceed the limits of the minimum insurance amounts, agricultural
workers may find it difficult to secure adequate compensation.
State Insurance Regulation of Agricultural Worker Transportation
In addition to these factors, similar agricultural worker
transportation requirements under State law must be considered. In that
regard, a telephone survey was taken of several States having major
agricultural activity. In every instance, the information provided was
that the State deferred to Federal requirements. Among the States
surveyed were the major labor intensive agricultural states of
California, Texas, and Florida.
The Department considered the limits under the various State
compulsory liability-financial responsibility laws governing personal
vehicles as indicative of sufficient minimum insurance under MSPA. An
examination of these minimum liability insurance levels reveals a wide
range among the various States. For instance, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Oklahoma have minimum levels of $10,000 per person and
a limit of $20,000 per occurrence. On the other hand, Hawaii requires
minimum liability coverage of $50,000 per person and has no per
occurrence limit. The most common minimum coverages are $25,000 per
person up to a maximum of $50,000 per occurrence, found in nearly half
the States.
The levels required for personal automobiles appear to be far too
low to serve the fundamental purpose for which the MSPA transportation
insurance requirement was intended. These levels of mandatory coverage
are not sufficient to adequately compensate for reasonably foreseeable
incidents of agricultural worker accidents and the resulting damages.
For instance, in the 1982 ICC rulemaking that resulted in the current
MSPA levels, the ICC found that the average loss in an interstate bus
accident in 1981 exceeded $125,000 per accident. Information concerning
agricultural worker accidents in Florida over the last six years shows
actual loss exceeding $1.5 million per accident is not unusual.
Consideration of the Current Regulatory Scheme
It has also been suggested that the regulations retain the current
scheme setting a required insurance level for vehicles with a capacity
of 15 passengers or below or 16 and more, either at the current minimum
amounts or reduced amounts.
The current regulatory scheme is simple and easily understood; the
vehicle capacity is either 15 or below or 16 and above. Underwriting is
simplified in that there are only two insurance amounts and these are
the same as required of others engaged in commercial transportation.
The standards are well known in that the agricultural and insurance
industries have worked under this structure for over a decade and the
current insurance amounts have been in place for over three years.
There is no evidence that the higher 1992 amounts have resulted in
reduced compliance with the insurance obligation.
Lowering these liability insurance levels could actually work
against one of the primary rationales for overturning the Adams Fruit
decision. That decision allowed injured workers to sue and recover full
actual damages for MSPA violations even when workers are covered by
workers' compensation. In restoring the workers' compensation bar
against suits for actual damages, the primary sponsor of the
legislation believed that it would be more likely for employers in
voluntary workers' compensation States to opt for workers' compensation
over the presumably more expensive liability insurance option. Securing
workers' compensation insurance would benefit workers by providing
coverage for a broad range of workplace injuries, not simply
transportation accidents. (See statement of Rep. William Goodling,
Congressional Record, H10090, Oct. 17, 1995.) However, if the minimum
liability insurance requirements are lowered, this desired movement to
[[Page 10916]]
voluntary workers' compensation coverage may well be thwarted.
It is the view of the Department that the important interests
served by the transportation insurance requirements can be maintained
with additional flexibility for the regulated community in structuring
transportation practices to suit its particular need. Departing from
the two-level scheme, the proposed rule would maintain an adequate
level of insurance coverage but at the same time allow a lower minimum
insurance amount and, presumably, decrease the premiums to be paid.
This approach most closely reflects the statutory considerations
guiding this rulemaking.
Request for Information From the Regulated Community
Also among the factors to be considered is the extent to which the
proposed minimum insurance levels cause an undue burden on agricultural
employers, agricultural associations, and farm labor contractors.
Information from the regulated community is sought to help DOL assess
the financial impact of the current insurance levels and the levels
specified in this proposed rule. The Department would be aided by
receiving financial statements from agricultural employers,
agricultural associations, and farm labor contractors, detailing the
vehicular liability insurance premiums paid for years 1990-1995, the
number of vehicles covered, the types of transportation provided, and
the period within each year that the transportation was provided. This
information should be accompanied by information regarding accidents in
this period involving agricultural workers and insurance claims,
damages, medical expenses, and other loss information resulting
therefrom.
The Department is particularly interested in receiving information
from insurance companies providing this insurance regarding premiums
charged for this coverage, by county or region, as well as any
information the companies can provide concerning total costs for
accidents involving fatalities, personal injuries and property damage.
Specific information about economic loss in each accident would be most
helpful. In the absence of specific agricultural worker information,
data concerning the transportation of passengers for hire would be
helpful. This information is requested for each year between 1990 and
1995. Similar information is requested for interstate motor carriers
covered by 49 CFR 387.31. Finally, information concerning any State
minimum insurance levels for intrastate passenger transportation for
hire but not subject to the ICC levels would be helpful.
Information from state insurance and/or labor agencies concerning
state agricultural worker transportation insurance requirements would
be helpful.
The Department also solicits information from the regulated
community evidencing whether, and if so, the extent to which the 1992
minimum insurance increases resulted in agricultural employers,
agricultural associations, or farm labor contractors transporting
agricultural workers without securing the required insurance coverage.
In addition, the Department solicits information evidencing whether
and, if so, the extent to which farm labor contractors failed to secure
DOL authorization to transport because they were unable to find an
insurer willing to provide a liability insurance policy at the levels
required in 1992. There is no evidence which supports such a finding in
the enforcement and registration records of DOL. In fact, DOL is unable
to detect any significant decrease in the number of farm labor
contractors registering as transportation providers before and after
the insurance increases. In 1991, the year before the insurance
minimums were increased to the current levels, 40% of all farm labor
contractors inspected by the Department in the course of enforcement
activities were found to be transporting workers without the required
transportation authorization. A year after the increase, in 1993, the
percentage of farm labor contractors in violation had risen slightly to
43%. Similarly, enforcement against farm labor contractors,
agricultural employers and agricultural associations detected no
significant increase in violations of the minimum insurance
requirements. In 1991, 24% of those transporting agricultural workers
did so without securing the required insurance while in 1993, 28% were
in violation, a slight rise. We cannot conclude based on these data
that the increased insurance premiums caused the regulated community to
forego compliance with the legal obligations to register as a farm
labor contractor or to secure the required insurance.
Agricultural workers are requested to provide information
concerning loss suffered by workers injured in accidents and the amount
of insurance necessary to insure against reasonably foreseeable risks.
It is not the intention of this rulemaking to establish a minimum level
of insurance sufficient to cover every possible accident. There are
catastrophic events beyond the scope of this coverage and it is not the
Department's purpose to set excessive minimum insurance levels.
Commentators are invited to discuss the level of insurance necessary to
insure against reasonably foreseeable risks.
Public Law 104-49 directs the Secretary to consider the factors set
out in section 401(b)(2)(B) of the Act in determining the appropriate
insurance for MSPA transportation. That section states: ``To the extent
consistent with the protection of the health and safety of migrant and
seasonal agricultural workers, the Secretary shall * * * consider,
among others--(i) the type of vehicle used, (ii) the passenger capacity
of the vehicle, (iii) the distance which such workers will be carried
in the vehicle, (iv) the type of roads and highways on which such
workers will be carried in the vehicle, and (v) the extent to which a
proposed standard would cause an undue burden on agricultural
employers, agricultural associations, or farm labor contractors.''
In the proposed rule discussed below, the capacity of the vehicle
is the central feature in determining the amount of insurance required.
The type of vehicle, the type of road and the geographic area within
which it will be operated, and the distances to be traveled are
considered by the insurance industry in determining the premiums to be
charged for the required minimum insurance coverage amounts. The
proposal should have the effect of lowering the minimum insurance
required in most transportation covered by MSPA and, presumably,
lowering the premiums to be paid. We solicit comments on the statutory
factors and how they bear on this proposal.
Minimum Transportation Insurance Proposal
The proposed rule would amend the current MSPA liability insurance
requirement to decouple the minimum insurance requirement from the 15-
passenger ICC threshold and would substitute a standard which varies
with the seating capacity of the insured vehicle. This approach would
be a more accurate reflection of actual practice in the agricultural
workplace, where vehicle capacity varies widely. Many agricultural
workers are transported in vehicles that have a maximum capacity of
five, six, nine seats, etc. Growers often transport in buses that seat
30-40 passengers. By eliminating the 15-seat dividing line and
substituting a per-passenger capacity standard, the regulation would
grant the transportation provider the ability to choose its vehicles in
such a way as to control its insurance costs. This course would
probably result in a net decrease in insurance premiums for those who
[[Page 10917]]
transport in vehicles with a seating capacity of fewer than 15
passenger or from 16 to 49 passengers.
Agricultural workers face significant risk from transportation
accidents. Workers have been killed and seriously disabled in such
accidents and have generally not had recourse to workers' compensation.
The damages in such accidents are often substantial, involving the
payment of death benefits to the decedent's survivors or damages for
permanent disabilities. The traumatic injuries suffered in
transportation accidents can result in large medical expenses and
substantial amounts of lost wages. Based on the current regulatory
requirement that a 15 passenger vehicle have at least $1.5 million per
occurrence in liability insurance, the Department proposes a
requirement of $100,000 for each person the vehicle has the seating
capacity to lawfully transport. This amount reflects the reasonably
foreseeable damages that result from transportation accidents without
being excessive.
Administrative Hearings on Denials, Suspensions, and Revocations of
Farm Labor Contractor Certificates
Through enforcement experience under MSPA, the Department is aware
that there are often significant delays in the administrative hearing
and review proceedings to which farm labor contractors are entitled
when the Administrator issues a determination denying, suspending, or
revoking a Certificate of Registration (including a Farm Labor
Contractor Employee Certificate). These delays have resulted in
individuals determined to have violated provisions of MSPA remaining in
business as farm labor contractors for considerable periods after the
Wage and Hour Division has found sufficient basis for barring them from
such activity. To remedy this situation and, thereby, assure more
effective enforcement of MSPA while affording appropriate due process,
the Department proposes to amend the procedural regulations to
establish deadlines for administrative hearings and review proceedings:
the hearing is to be held within 60 days after referral of the matter
to the Office of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ); the ALJ decision is
to be issued within 90 days after the close of the hearing; and a
Secretarial decision will be made within 90 days after the issuance of
a notice of intent to review an ALJ decision (in the event of a proper
appeal to the Secretary of the ALJ's decision).
Executive Order 12866/Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995
This proposed rule is not ``economically significant'' within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866, nor does it require a Sec. 202
statement under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. However,
because the rule provides initial regulations required to implement
provisions of Public Law 104-49 and may raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, it has been determined to be a
``significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of Sec. 3(f)(4) of
Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule addresses insurance and
disclosure obligations required under MSPA, as amended by Public Law
104-49. In addition, the rule proposes to revise the administrative
proceedings involving decisions to revoke, suspend, or refuse to issue
or renew Certificates of Registration under MSPA. No economic analysis
is required because the rule will not have a significant economic
impact.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule amends current
regulations at 29 CFR Part 500 to bring the regulations into conformity
with the statutory changes made to MSPA by the enactment of Public Law
104-49. Additionally, the proposed rule amends Sec. 500.225 of the
current rule to provide for expedited administrative proceedings in
matters where the Administrator has initiated action to revoke,
suspend, or refuse to issue or renew a farm labor contractor's
Certificate of Registration (including Farm Labor Contractor Employee
Certificates).
While certain small entities may benefit by reductions to their
insurance premiums resulting from the proposed change to the prescribed
vehicle insurance limits, any benefit would be modest in nature.
Further, the Department anticipates that the portion of the regulated
community which provides transportation, and thus would be affected by
the proposed minimum insurance requirements, is not substantial in
number in any event. According to the Department's farm labor
contractor registration data, only 975 of all registered contractors
(less than 9% of the total), provide transportation to agricultural
workers. It is believed that a similarly small percentage of
agricultural employers and agricultural associations provide MSPA-
covered transportation.
Therefore, this proposed rule is not expected to have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities'' within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
the Department has certified to this effect to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Accordingly, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Document Preparation: This document was prepared under the
direction and control of Maria Echaveste, Administrator, Wage and
Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 500
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural associations,
Agricultural worker, Aliens, Carpooling, Day-Haul, Farmer, Farm labor
contractor, Health, Housing, Housing standards, Immigration, Insurance,
Investigation, Migrant agricultural workers, Migrant labor, Motor
carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Occupational safety and health,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seasonal
agricultural workers, Transportation, Wages, Manpower training
programs, Labor, Safety.
Signed at Washington, D.C., on this 12th day of March, 1996.
Maria Echaveste,
Administrator, Wage and Hour Division.
For the reasons set forth above, 29 CFR part 500 is amended as set
forth below:
PART 500--MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION
1. The authority citation for part 500 is amended to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 97-470, 96 Stat. 2583 (29 U.S.C. 1801-1872);
Secretary's Order No. 6-84, 49 FR 32473; Sec. 210A(f), Pub. L. 99-
603, 100 Stat. 3359 (8 U.S.C. 1161(f)); and Pub. L. 104-49, 109
Stat. 432 (29 U.S.C. 1854).
2. Section 500.48 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 500.48 Issuance of certificate.
* * * * *
(d) Authorize the activity of transporting a migrant or seasonal
agricultural worker, subject to the maximum number of workers
authorized to be transported under the vehicle liability policy and as
indicated on the face of the Certificate of Registration, only upon
receipt of:
[[Page 10918]]
(1) A statement in the manner prescribed by the Secretary
identifying each vehicle to be used, or caused to be used, by the
applicant for the transportation of any migrant or seasonal
agricultural worker during the period for which registration is sought;
(2) written proof that every such vehicle which is under the
applicant's ownership or control, is in compliance with the vehicle
safety requirements of the Act and this part; and
(3) written proof that every such vehicle is in compliance with the
insurance requirements of the Act and this part;
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 500.75, paragraph (b)(6) is proposed to be revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 500.75 Disclosure of information.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Whether state workers' compensation or state unemployment
insurance is provided:
(i) If workers' compensation is provided, the required disclosure
must include the name of the workers' compensation insurance carrier,
the name(s) of the policyholder(s), the name and telephone number of
each person who must be notified of an injury or death, and the time
period within which such notice must be given.
(ii) The information in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section may be
provided to the worker by giving the worker a photocopy of any workers'
compensation notice required by State law if such State-required notice
contains the information in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 500.76, paragraph (b)(6) is proposed to be revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 500.76 Disclosure of information.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Whether state workers' compensation or state unemployment
insurance is provided:
(i) If workers' compensation is provided, the required disclosure
must include the name of the workers' compensation insurance carrier,
the name(s) of the policyholder(s), the name and telephone number of
each person who must be notified of an injury or death, and the time
period within which such notice must be given.
(ii) The information in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section may be
provided to the worker by giving the worker a photocopy of any workers'
compensation notice required by State law if such State-required notice
contains the information in paragraph (6)(b)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
5. Section 500.121 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs
(a) and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 500.121 Coverage and level of insurance required.
(a) Except where a liability bond pursuant to Sec. 500.124 of this
part has been approved by the Secretary, a farm labor contractor,
agricultural employer or agricultural association shall, in order to
meet the insurance requirements in Sec. 500.120, obtain a policy of
vehicle liability insurance.
(b) The amounts of vehicle liability insurance shall not be less
than $100,000 for each seat in the vehicle. The number of seats in the
vehicle shall be determined by reference to Sec. 500.105(b)(3)(vi). See
Sec. 500.122 regarding insurance requirement where State workers'
compensation coverage is provided.
* * * * *
6. Section 500.122 is proposed to be amended by removing and
reserving paragraph (b), and revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 500.122 Adjustments in insurance requirements when workers'
compensation coverage is provided under State law.
* * * * *
(c) A farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural
association who is the employer of a migrant or seasonal agricultural
worker may evidence the issuance of workers' compensation and passenger
insurance under paragraph (a) of this section by obtaining and making
available upon request to the Department of Labor:
(1) A workers' compensation coverage policy of insurance, and
(2) A liability certificate of insurance covering transportation of
all passengers who are not employees and of workers whose
transportation by the employer is not covered by workers' compensation
insurance. See Sec. 500.121.
* * * * *
7. Section 500.224 is proposed to be amended by redesignating
paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), revising paragraph (c), and adding a
new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 500.224 Referral to Administrative Law Judge.
* * * * *
(b) In cases involving a denial, suspension, or revocation of a
Certificate of Registration (Farm Labor Contractor Certificate; Farm
Labor Contractor Employee Certificate) or ``certificate action,''
including those cases where the farm labor contractor has requested a
hearing on civil money penalty(ies) as well as on the certificate
action, the date of the hearing shall not be more than sixty (60) days
from the date on which the Order of Reference is filed. No request of
postponement shall be granted except for compelling reasons.
(c) A copy of the Order of Reference, together with a copy of these
regulations, shall be served by counsel for the Secretary upon the
person requesting the hearing, in the manner provided in 29 CFR 18.3.
8. Section 500.262 is proposed to be amended by redesignating
paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) as (c), (d), (e), (f), (g),
and (h) respectively, and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 500.262 Decision and order of Administrative Law Judge.
* * * * *
(b) In cases involving certificate actions as described in
Sec. 500.224(b) the Administrative Law Judge shall issue a decision
within ninety (90) calendar days after the close of the hearing.
* * * * *
9. Section 500.268 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 500.268 Final decision of the Secretary.
(a) The Secretary's final Decision and Order shall be issued within
120 days from the notice of intent granting the petition, except that
in cases involving the review of an Administrative Law Judge decision
in a certificate action as described in Sec. 500.224(b) of this part,
the Secretary's final decision shall be issued within ninety (90) days
from the date such notice. The Secretary's Decision and Order shall be
served upon all parties and the Chief Administrative Law Judge, in
person or by certified mail.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-6379 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-27-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6369 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, John Day, Oregon
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10910-10911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6369]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ANM-002]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, John Day, Oregon
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish the John Day, Oregon, Class
E airspace to accommodate a new Global Positioning System (GPS)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to the John Day State
Airport. The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
Operations Branch, ANM-530, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No.
96-ANM-002, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The official docket may be examined at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James C. Frala, ANM-532.4, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No.
96-ANM-002, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington, 98055-4056;
telephone number: (206) 227-2535.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
ANM-002.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in the light of comments received. All comments submitted will be
available for examination at the address listed above both before and
after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Branch, ANM-530,
1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Communications
must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a
copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application
procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
John Day, Oregon, to accommodate a new GPS SIAP to the John Day State
Airport. The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83.
Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above
the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
[[Page 10911]]
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points; dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ANM OR E5 John Day, OR
John Day State Airport, OR
(LAT. 44 deg.24'14''N, long 118 deg.57'49''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the John Day State Airport; that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
9-mile radius of the John Day State Airport, and that airspace
within 4 miles either side of a line bearing 076 deg. true from the
John Day State Airport, extending from the 9-mile radius to a point
38 miles northeast of the airport, and within an area bounded on the
northwest by V357, on the northeast by V4, on the southeast by V269,
and on the southwest by V500; excluding that airspace within Federal
Airways.
* * * * *
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 5, 1996.
Richard E. Prang,
Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain
Region.
[FR Doc. 96-6369 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6347 Tobacco InspectionGrowers Referendum
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6347]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. TB-95-18]
Tobacco Inspection--Growers Referendum
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of referendum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces that a referendum will be conducted by
mail during the period of April 15-19, 1996, for producers of flue-
cured tobacco who sell their tobacco at auction in Sanford and
Carthage-Aberdeen, North Carolina, to determine producer approval of
the designation of the Sanford and Carthage-Aberdeen tobacco markets as
one consolidated auction market.
DATES: The referendum will be held April 15-19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Fial, Assistant to the
Director, Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United
States Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-
6456; telephone number (202) 260-0151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given of a mail referendum
on the designation of a consolidated auction market at Sanford and
Carthage-Aberdeen, North Carolina. Sanford, North Carolina, was
designated on June 26, 1942, and Carthage-Aberdeen, North Carolina, on
August 30, 1988, (7 CFR 29.8001) as flue-cured tobacco auction markets
under the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.). Under this Act
both have been receiving mandatory grading services from USDA.
On September 12, 1995, an application was made to the Secretary of
Agriculture to consolidate the designated markets of Sanford and
Carthage-Aberdeen, North Carolina. The application, filed by Jeffrey S.
Smith, a warehouse operator in Sanford, was made pursuant to the
regulations promulgated under the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 CFR Part
29.1-29.3). On November 7, 1995, a public hearing was held in Sanford,
North Carolina, pursuant to the regulations. A Review Committee,
established pursuant to Sec. 29.3(h) of the regulations (7 CFR
29.3(h)), has reviewed and considered the application, the testimony
presented at the hearing, the exhibits received in evidence, and other
available information. The Committee recommended to the Secretary that
the application be granted and the Secretary approved the application
on February 26, 1996.
Before a new market can be officially designated, a referendum must
be held to determine that a two-thirds majority of producers favor the
designation. It is hereby determined that the referendum will be held
by mail during the period of April 15-19, 1996. The purpose of the
referendum is to determine whether farmers who sold their tobacco on
the designated markets at Sanford and Carthage-Aberdeen are in favor
of, or opposed to, the designation of the consolidated market for the
1996 and succeeding crop years. Accordingly, if a two-thirds majority
of those tobacco producers voting in the referendum favor this
consolidation, a new market will be designated as and will be called
Sanford-Carthage-Aberdeen.
To be eligible to vote in the referendum a tobacco producer must
have sold flue-cured tobacco on either the Sanford or Carthage-
Aberdeen, North Carolina, auction markets during the 1995 marketing
season. Any farmer who believes he or she is eligible to vote in the
referendum but has not received a mail ballot by April 15, 1996, should
immediately contact Rebecca Fial at (202) 260-0151.
The referendum will be held in accordance with the provisions for
referenda of the Tobacco Inspection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 511d) and
the regulations for such referendum set forth in 7 CFR 29.74.
Dated: March 11, 1996.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6347 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6345 Tobacco InspectionGrowers Referendum
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10902-10903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6345]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. TB-95-15]
Tobacco Inspection--Growers Referendum
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of referendum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces that a referendum will be conducted by
mail during the period of April 15-26, 1996, for producers of burley
tobacco who sell their tobacco at auction in Boone and West Jefferson,
North Carolina, and Mountain City, Tennessee, to determine producer
approval of the designation of the Boone, West Jefferson, and Mountain
City tobacco markets as one consolidated auction market.
DATES: The referendum will be held April 15-26, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Fial, Assistant to the
Director, Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United
States Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-
6456; telephone number (202) 260-0151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given of a mail referendum
on the designation of a consolidated auction market at Boone and West
Jefferson, North Carolina, and Mountain City, Tennessee. Boone, West
Jefferson, and Mountain City were designated on October 25, 1941,
October 25, 1948, and November 1, 1951, respectively, (7 CFR 29.8001)
as burley tobacco auction markets under the Tobacco Inspection Act (7
U.S.C. 511 et seq.). Under this Act those markets have been receiving
mandatory grading services from USDA.
On July 10, 1995, an application was made to the Secretary of
Agriculture to consolidate the designated markets of Boone and West
Jefferson, North Carolina, and Mountain City, Tennessee. The
application, filed by warehouse operators in those markets, was made
pursuant to the regulations promulgated under the Tobacco Inspection
Act (7 CFR Part 29.1-29.3). On September 15, 1995, a public hearing was
held in Boone, North Carolina, pursuant to the regulations. A Review
Committee, established pursuant to Sec. 29.3(h) of the regulations (7
CFR 29.3(h)), has reviewed and considered the application, the
testimony presented at the hearing, the
[[Page 10903]]
exhibits received in evidence, and other available information. The
Committee recommended to the Secretary that the application be granted
and the Secretary approved the application on February 26, 1996.
Before a new market can be officially designated, a referendum must
be held to determine that a two-thirds majority of producers favor the
designation. It is hereby determined that the referendum will be held
by mail during the period of April 15-26, 1996. The purpose of the
referendum is to determine whether farmers who sold their tobacco on
the designated markets at Boone, West Jefferson, and Mountain City are
in favor of, or opposed to, the designation of the consolidated market
for the 1996 and succeeding crop years. Accordingly, if a two-thirds
majority of those tobacco producers voting in the referendum favor this
consolidation, a new market will be designated as and will be called
Boone-West Jefferson-Mountain City.
To be eligible to vote in the referendum a tobacco producer must
have sold burley tobacco on either the Boone or West Jefferson, North
Carolina, or Mountain City, Tennessee, auction markets during the 1995
marketing season. Any farmer who believes he or she is eligible to vote
in the referendum but has not received a mail ballot by April 15, 1996,
should immediately contact Rebecca Fial at (202) 260-0151.
The referendum will be held in accordance with the provisions for
referenda of the Tobacco Inspection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 511d) and
the regulations for such referendum set forth in 7 CFR 29.74.
Dated: March 11, 1996.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6345 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6344 Tobacco InspectionGrowers Referendum
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6344]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 10902]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. TB-95-13]
Tobacco Inspection--Growers Referendum
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of referendum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces that a referendum will be conducted by
mail during the period of April 15-26, 1996, for producers of burley
tobacco who sell their tobacco at auction in Horse Cave, Glasgow, and
Greensburg, Kentucky, to determine producer approval of the designation
of the Horse Cave, Glasgow, and Greensburg tobacco markets as one
consolidated auction market.
DATES: The referendum will be held April 15-26, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Fial, Assistant to the
Director, Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United
States Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-
6456; telephone number (202) 260-0151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given of a mail referendum
on the designation of a consolidated auction market at Horse Cave,
Glasgow, and Greensburg, Kentucky. Horse Cave was designated on
November 14, 1936, and Glasgow and Greensburg, Kentucky, were
designated on October 25, 1941, and June 16, 1950, respectively, (7 CFR
29.8001) as burley tobacco auction markets under the Tobacco Inspection
Act (7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.). Under this Act both have been receiving
mandatory grading services from USDA.
On February 23, 1995, an application was made to the Secretary of
Agriculture to consolidate the designated markets of Horse Cave,
Glasgow, and Greensburg. The application, filed by warehouse operators
in those markets, was made pursuant to the regulations promulgated
under the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 CFR Part 29.1-29.3). On September
13, 1995, a public hearing was held in Cave City, Kentucky, pursuant to
the regulations. A Review Committee, established pursuant to
Sec. 29.3(h) of the regulations (7 CFR 29.3(h)), has reviewed and
considered the application, the testimony presented at the hearing, the
exhibits received in evidence, and other available information. The
Committee recommended to the Secretary that the application be granted
and the Secretary approved the application on February 26, 1996.
Before a new market can be officially designated, a referendum must
be held to determine that a two-thirds majority of producers favor the
designation. It is hereby determined that the referendum will be held
by mail during the period of April 15-26, 1996. The purpose of the
referendum is to determine whether farmers who sold their tobacco on
the designated markets at Horse Cave, Glasgow, and Greensburg are in
favor of, or opposed to, the designation of the consolidated market for
the 1996 and succeeding crop years. Accordingly, if a two-thirds
majority of those tobacco producers voting in the referendum favor this
consolidation, a new market will be designated as and will be called
Horse Cave-Glasgow-Greensburg.
To be eligible to vote in the referendum a tobacco producer must
have sold burley tobacco on either the Horse Cave, Glasgow, or
Greensburg, Kentucky, auction markets during the 1995 marketing season.
Any farmer who believes he or she is eligible to vote in the referendum
but has not received a mail ballot by April 15, 1996, should
immediately contact Rebecca Fial at (202) 260-0151.
The referendum will be held in accordance with the provisions for
referenda of the Tobacco Inspection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 511d) and
the regulations for such referendum set forth in 7 CFR 29.74.
Dated: March 11, 1996.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6344 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6311 Television Broadcasting Services; Woodward, OK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6311]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-44; RM-8745]
Television Broadcasting Services; Woodward, OK
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by
Channel 35+ Broadcasters seeking the allotment of UHF TV Channel 35 to
Woodward, OK, as the community's second local and first commercial
television service. Channel 35+ can be allotted to Woodward in
compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation
requirements without the imposition of a site restriction, at
coordinates 36-26-12 NL; 99-23-36 WL.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 3, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Kathryn
R. Schmeltzer, Esq., Kevin M. Walsh, Esq., Fisher Wayland, Cooper
Leader and Zaragoza, L.L.P., 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 400,
Washington, DC 20006 (Counsel to petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-44, adopted January
31, 1996, and released March 12, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-6311 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6310 Radio Broadcasting Services; Franklin, LA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10976-10977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6310]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-36; RM-8766]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Franklin, LA
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition by South
Louisiana Broadcasters requesting the allotment of Channel 295C3 to
Franklin, Louisiana, as the community's second local FM service.
Channel 295C3 can be allotted to Franklin in compliance with the
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements without the
imposition of a site restriction. The coordinates for Channel 295C3 at
Franklin are 29-47-42 and 91-30-12.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 2, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: J. Boyd
Ingram, President, South Louisiana Broadcasters, P.O. Box
[[Page 10977]]
73, Batesville, Mississippi 38606 (Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-36, adopted February
26, 1996, and released March 11, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-
3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-6310 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6309 Radio Broadcasting Services; Delta, CO
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6309]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-38; RM-8759]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Delta, CO
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed on behalf of Blink Communications, Inc., seeking the allotment of
Channel 277C2 to Delta, Colorado, as that community's second local FM
service. Coordinates used for this proposal are 38-44-24 and 108-04-00.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 2, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Gary S. Smithwick
and Shaun A. Maher, Esqs., Smithwick & Belendiuk, P.C., 1990 M Street,
NW., Suite 510, Washington, DC 20036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-38, adopted February
26, 1996, and released March 11, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-6309 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6308 Radio Broadcasting Services; Sylvan Beach, NY
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10977-10978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6308]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-37; RM-8765]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Sylvan Beach, NY
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by
Michael S. Celenza seeking the allotment of Channel 262A to Sylvan
Beach, New York, as the community's first local aural service. Channel
262A can be allotted to the community without the imposition of a site
restriction, at coordinates 43-11-47 North Latitude; 75-43-51 West
Longitude. Canadian concurrence is required since Sylvan Beach is
located within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 2, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: James
K. Edmundson, Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas, 1301 K Street, NW.,
Suite 900, East Tower, Washington, DC 20005 (Counsel to petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-37, adopted February
26, 1996, and released March 11, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
[[Page 10978]]
Federal Communications Commission.
John A Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-6308 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6307 Television Broadcasting Services; Irma, WI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10978-10979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6307]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-39; RM-8757]
Television Broadcasting Services; Irma, WI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by David A
White proposing the allotment of UHF Television Channel 30+ to Irma,
Wisconsin, as that community's first local television service. Canadian
concurrence will be requested for this allotment at coordinates 45-21-
06 and 89-40-06. There is a plus offset on Channel 30.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 2, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, as follows: David A. White, 10400 Olson Drive,
Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54703.
[[Page 10979]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-39, adopted February 26,
1996, and released March 11, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street,
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contact.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-6307 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6306 Radio Broadcasting Services; Frederiksted, VI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6306]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-43; RM-8754]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Frederiksted, VI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Jose
J. Arzuaga proposing the allotment of Channel 297B1, Frederiksted,
Virgin Islands, as potentially the community's third local FM
transmission service. Channel 297B1 can be allotted to Frederiksted in
compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation
requirements at city reference coordinates. The coordinates for Channel
297B1 at Frederiksted are North Latitude 17-42-48 and West Longitude
64-53-00.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 3, 1996 and reply
comments on or before May 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: James
L. Oyster, Esq., 108 Oyster Lane, Castleton, Virginia 22716 (Counsel
for Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-43, adopted February
14, 1996, and released March 12, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-6306 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6236 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10968-10976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6236]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO 002-1002(b); FRL-5442-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes a limited approval and limited disapproval of
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state of Missouri
to meet the 15% Rate-of-Progress Plan (15% Plan) (ROPP) requirements of
section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (the Act).
The EPA is proposing a limited approval because the 15% Plan, submitted
by Missouri, will result in significant emission reductions from the
1990 baseline and, thus, will improve air quality. Simultaneously, the
EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the 15% Plan because it fails
to demonstrate sufficient reductions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) to meet the 15% ROPP requirements. The EPA is proposing a limited
disapproval of the 15% Plan to the extent that the emission reductions
associated with Missouri's enhanced I/M program cannot be achieved.
The EPA is also proposing approval of specific control measures in
the 15% Plan because these rules will strengthen the SIP. However, the
EPA is proposing conditional approval of the control measure for the
control of emissions from municipal solid waste landfills and for the
control of emissions from solvent cleanup operations. A final action on
these control measures will incorporate these rules into the Federally
approved SIP.
The EPA is proposing full approval of Missouri's 1990 Base Year
Inventory. The inventory was submitted by the state to fulfill the
requirements of section 182(b) of the Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Royan W. Teter, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Royan Teter at (913) 551-7609 or Wayne
Leidwanger at (913) 551-7607.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The St. Louis area was designated nonattainment for ozone in 1978.
On November 6, 1991, the EPA promulgated a rule which classified the
St. Louis area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area based on its
design value of 0.138 ppm. The nonattainment area consists of Madison,
Monroe, and St. Claire counties in Illinois; and Franklin, Jefferson,
St. Charles, and St. Louis counties and St. Louis City in Missouri.
Section 182(b) of the Act requires that each state in which all or
part of a moderate nonattainment area is located, submit, by November
15, 1992, a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources, as described in section 172(c)(3) and
182(a)(1), in accordance with guidance provided by the Administrator.
This inventory is for calendar year 1990 and is designated the base
year inventory. The inventory should include both anthropogenic and
biogenic sources of VOCs, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon
monoxide (CO), and must address actual emissions of these pollutants in
the nonattainment area during peak ozone season. The inventory should
include all point and area sources, as well as all highway and
nonhighway mobile sources.
In addition, section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires ozone
nonattainment area classifications of moderate and above to develop
plans to reduce VOC emissions by 15 percent from the 1990 baseline. The
plans were to be submitted by November 15, 1993, and the reductions are
required to be achieved within six years of enactment or November 15,
1996. The Act also set limitations on the creditability of certain
types of reductions. Specifically, a state cannot take credit for
reductions achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)
measures (new car emission standards) promulgated prior to 1990, or for
reductions resulting from requirements to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP) of gasoline promulgated prior to 1990 or required under section
211(h) of the Act, which restricts gasoline RVP. Furthermore, the Act
does not allow credit for corrections to vehicle I/M Programs or
corrections to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules as
these programs were required prior to 1990.
In today's action, the EPA proposes to fully approve the plan
element relating to the emission inventory. With regard to the 15%
Plan, the EPA proposes a limited approval and limited disapproval. The
EPA also proposes to conditionally approve the 15% Plan as it relates
to the reduction credit claimed for the state's municipal solid waste
landfill rule.
II. Review of State Submittal
A. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory (EI)
As noted above, the CAA requires the submission of a comprehensive
EI for areas classified as nonattainment for ozone. The regulatory
significance of these inventories is established in section 182(b)(1)
of the Act. These inventories, termed ``base year'' inventories,
provide a baseline from which reasonable further progress towards
meeting necessary emissions reductions is measured, and provide the
foundation for the development of control strategies for attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
[[Page 10969]]
1. Inventory Development
The EPA issued guidance documents on emissions inventory
development were provided to all agencies involved in EI development
for the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. A review of the inventory
indicates that it was developed consistent with the criteria set forth
in the guidance.
A detailed description of the development process for each portion
of Missouri's 1990 base year emission inventory can be found in the
EPA's technical support document (TSD). Region VII received a revised
draft 1990 base year inventory from Missouri on February 12, 1993. EPA
Region VII, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
Emissions Inventory Branch (EIB), EPA's Office of Mobile Sources, and
contractors reviewed the inventory. Comments were sent to the state,
and a public hearing on the draft inventory, as well as the draft 15%
Plan, was held before the Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC)
on January 27, 1994 and was adopted by the MACC on February 24, 1994.
The EPA received another draft revision of the base year inventory,
in conjunction with another draft of Missouri's 15% Plan, on November
1, 1994. This inventory revision was adopted by the MACC, after proper
notice and public hearing, on January 12, 1995. Missouri's final 1990
baseline emissions inventory was submitted to the EPA on January 20,
1995, in conjunction with Missouri's 15% ROPP. The EPA issued a finding
of completeness with respect to these submissions on July 13, 1995.
2. Review Criteria
The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's 1990 base year emission
inventory based on a Levels I, II, and III review process. The
inventory was reviewed in accordance with requirements specified in a
document entitled ``Quality Review Guidelines for 1990 Base Year
Emission Inventories,'' OAQPS, Research Triangle Park , North Carolina,
August 1992, which details the Level I and II review procedures. Level
III review procedures are specified in a memorandum dated October 7,
1992, from J. David Mobley, EIB Chief, to Air Branch Chiefs, Region I-
X, entitled ``Final Emission Inventory Level III Acceptance Criteria,''
and revised in a memorandum from John S. Seitz, OAQPS Director, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Region I-X, entitled ``Emission
Inventory Issues,'' June 24, 1993.
The Level I and II review process is used to determine that all
components of the base year inventory are present. The review also
evaluates the level of supporting documentation provided by the state,
and assesses whether the emissions were developed according to current
EPA guidance. Level I and II criteria must be passed before the Level
III final criteria can be considered. Missouri's submittal of the 1990
base year EI passed the Level I and II criteria.
The Level III review process consists of an evaluation of the EI in
terms of ten criteria. For a base year EI to be acceptable, it must
pass all of the acceptance criteria. A summary of the EPA's Level III
review of Missouri's 1990 base year EI is given below:
1. An approved Inventory Preparation Plan (IPP) must be provided,
and the quality assurance procedures identified in the IPP must be
performed and its implementation documented. Missouri submitted, and
the EPA approved, an IPP for the St. Louis nonattainment area.
2. Adequate documentation must be provided to enable the reviewer
to determine the emission estimation procedures and the data sources
used to develop the inventory. The final inventory report for St. Louis
contains adequate documentation to determine the estimation procedures
and data sources used to develop the inventory.
3. The point source inventory must be complete. Evidence suggests
that the inventory is comprehensive and includes all relevant sources
within the nonattainment area.
4. Point source emissions must have been prepared or calculated
according to the current EPA guidance. Missouri's 1990 base year
emissions inventory indicates that the point source calculations were
performed in accord with current EPA guidance.
5. The area source inventory must be complete. A review of the
source categories included in Missouri's base year inventory reveals
that Missouri included the appropriate source categories.
6. The area source emissions must have been prepared or calculated
according to the current EPA guidance. The documentation for the area
sources portion of Missouri's inventory contains example calculations
which are consistent with the relevant EPA guidance.
7. Biogenic emissions must have been prepared according to current
EPA guidance. The biogenic emissions were calculated using the EPA PC-
BEIS model.
8. The method used to develop vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT)
estimates (e.g., Highway Performance Monitoring System or a network
transportation planning model) must follow the EPA guidance. The East-
West Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC) is the metropolitan planning
organization responsible for developing VMT estimates for the St. Louis
nonattainment area. On May 5, 1993, the Missouri Highway and
Transportation Department (MHTD) requested Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) approval of the EWGCC's use of the MINUTP travel
demand model as a basis for Missouri's SIP. FHWA concurred on the use
of MINUTP for the St. Louis SIP in a June 7, 1993, letter to MHTD
citing several criteria to be met. EWGCC met the FHWA criteria in three
reports which are included in the SIP documentation pertaining to the
mobile sources inventory. The EPA concurs that the method used to
develop VMT estimates was adequately described and documented.
9. The appropriate version of the MOBILE model must be correctly
used to produce emission factors for each of the vehicle classes. The
most current version of the EPA's MOBILE model, MOBILE5a, was correctly
used to calculate on-road emission factors for the St. Louis
nonattainment area.
10. Nonroad mobile emissions must be prepared according to current
EPA guidance for all of the source categories. The nonroad mobile
emission estimates were correctly prepared according to current EPA
guidance.
Based on the EPA's Level III review, Missouri has satisfied all of
the requirements for purposes of providing a comprehensive, accurate,
and current inventory of actual emissions in the ozone nonattainment
area. For documentation of the EPA's evaluation, including details of
the review procedure, the reader is referred to the EPA's TSD.
3. Proposed Action
The state has submitted a complete inventory containing point,
area, biogenic, on-road, and nonroad mobile source data, and
accompanying documentation. The EPA is proposing full approval of the
1990 base year ozone emission inventory submitted to the EPA for the
St. Louis moderate ozone nonattainment area. The following table
summarizes the 1990 base year inventory for the St. Louis nonattainment
area and boundary point sources within 25 miles.
[[Page 10970]]
1990 St. Louis Ozone SIP Inventory Summary
[Tons per ozone season weekday (TPD)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emissions NOX emissions CO emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point sources................................................... 87.37 377.61 24.33
Area sources.................................................... 87.74 29.47 28.99
Mobile sources.................................................. 123.50 135.00 913.20
Nonroad sources................................................. 64.30 114.32 408.08
Biogenics....................................................... 189.70 0.00 0.00
-----------------------------------------------
Total emissions........................................... 552.61 656.40 1374.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 15% Plan
As noted above, section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires that moderate
and above ozone nonattainment areas develop plans to reduce areawide
VOC emissions from a 1990 baseline by 15 percent, net of growth, in the
nonattainment area. The plans were to be submitted by November 15,
1993, and the reductions were required to be achieved within six years
after enactment or November 15, 1996. The CAA also set limitations on
the creditability of certain types of reductions. Specifically, states
cannot take credit for reductions achieved by FMVCP measures or for
reductions due to controls on RVP promulgated prior to 1990, or
required under section 211(h) of the Act which restricts gasoline RVP.
Furthermore, the CAA does not allow credit for corrections for I/M
programs or corrections to RACT rules where these programs were
required prior to 1990.
The state of Missouri submitted a 15% Plan for the St. Louis
nonattainment area on November 15, 1993. On January 14, 1994, the EPA
notified Governor Mel Carnahan that the submittal was incomplete. The
submittal did not contain officially adopted regulations and, in the
case of the enhanced motor vehicle I/M program, the state lacked the
appropriate legislative authority to adopt regulations. Pursuant to
Sec. 110(k)(1)(C) of the Act, a determination of incompleteness is
treated as a failure to submit a plan. As such, one of the sanctions
provided in Sec. 179(b) would be imposed 18 months from the date of the
finding, or in this case, by July 14, 1995.
A subsequent 15% Plan was adopted by the MACC, after proper notice
and public hearing, on January 12, 1995, and submitted to the EPA on
January 13, 1995. Two supplements were adopted by the MACC on March 30,
1995, and submitted to the EPA on July 11, 1995. The EPA found the
entire 15% Plan submittal complete on July 13, 1995, thereby stopping
the sanctions clock.
The EPA is proposing a limited approval of Missouri's 15% Plan
because the Plan will result in significant emission reductions from
the 1990 baseline and, thus, will improve air quality. Simultaneously,
the EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the 15% Plan because it
fails to demonstrate sufficient reductions of VOCs to meet the 15% ROPP
requirements.
The intent of a 15% Plan is to determine a target level of
emissions and provide for any reductions needed to meet that target by
November 15, 1996. The target level of emissions for the St. Louis
nonattainment area is 263.9 TPD. The emission reductions necessary to
meet the target are 53.7 TPD. The 15% Plan, submitted by the state of
Missouri, includes specific control measures towards meeting the
emissions target.
The 15% Plan, submitted by the state of Missouri, includes specific
control measures used to achieve reductions credit. In the technical
review section of this document, each control measure is evaluated as
to its ability to strengthen the SIP and to the validity of the
emission reductions projected. The majority of the control measures in
the 15% Plan will strengthen the SIP and, therefore, the EPA is
proposing approval or conditional approval of these specific measures
and limited or conditional approval of the reduction credit claimed for
the associated emission reductions. However, for the following control
measure, the EPA believes the amount of emission reduction claimed by
the state is not appropriate.
I/M Program
Section 182 of the Act requires states with moderate ozone
nonattainment areas to implement a basic I/M program. A basic I/M
program began operation in St. Louis in January 1984. Numerous audits
of this program indicated shortfalls in emission reductions, and the
EPA issued an SIP call to correct deficiencies in the I/M SIP.
The state of Missouri developed a centralized enhanced I/M program
to correct deficiencies in the basic I/M program and to obtain credits
toward the 15% Plan requirement. This enhanced I/M program is a
critical part of the 15% Plan because it provides the single largest
source of emission reductions towards meeting the 15 percent reduction
requirement. Based on a series of MOBILE model runs, the state has
estimated that the enhanced I/M program accounts for 23.13 TPD in
emission reductions. However, the EPA notes that individual mobile
source controls, e.g., low RVP fuels, I/M programs, repair technician
training, etc., have synergistic effects within the MOBILE model when
considering multiple control programs. Therefore, the reduction from
the enhanced I/M program, when considered with the other components of
the mobile source control program, is approximately 19.26 TPD of the
29.41 TPD of VOC reductions that will result from the combined effects
of 7.0 RVP gasoline, enhanced I/M, and repair technician training. If
the state chooses to implement an enhanced I/M program, it must
demonstrate that the program, in combination with other components of
the 15% Plan, will achieve the overall level of emission reductions
necessary to reach the target level of emissions in the 15% Plan.
On May 13, 1994, the state received the legislative authority to
establish a centralized, enhanced I/M program for the counties of St.
Charles, Jefferson, and St. Louis, and the city of St. Louis. The state
submitted an SIP revision upgrading the basic I/M program to an
enhanced program on September 1, 1994, and the EPA found the submittal
complete on the same day.
During the 1995 session of the Missouri legislature, funding for
the operation of enhanced I/M program was deleted from the state's
budget. The EPA has also identified other deficiencies in the I/M
element which are discussed in a separate rulemaking, which is
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, and TSD for the I/M
SIP element of the Missouri SIP. The EPA
[[Page 10971]]
has determined that the emission reduction assumed to result from
implementation of the enhanced I/M program cannot be expected to be
achieved. Therefore, the EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the
15% Plan, to the extent that the emission reductions associated with
Missouri's enhanced I/M program cannot be achieved.
1. Technical Review
A. Calculation of Target Level Emissions
The calculation of the total VOC emissions reductions required to
meet the 15% Plan requirements equals the sum of 15 percent of the
adjusted inventory, plus reductions to offset any growth that takes
place between 1990 and 1996, plus any reductions that result from
corrections to the I/M or VOC RACT rules. The following table
summarizes the calculations for the St. Louis nonattainment area.
Calculation of Required Reduction (Tons/Day)
1990 Emission inventory....................................... 357.5
1990 Adjusted................................................. 311.9
15% of adjusted............................................... 46.8
Total expected reductions (RACT, noncreditable FMVCP and RVP,
and I/M)..................................................... 94.5
1996 Target................................................... 263.9
1996 Projection (1996 forecasted emissions with growth and pre-
1990 controls)............................................... 317.6
Required reduction............................................ 53.7
It must be noted that Missouri's point source projections
methodology, which is included in the 1996 projection portion of the
above table, deviates from that recommended by the EPA. The projected
point source inventory in the July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal was
developed using the 1990 adjusted base year inventory, actual 1992 data
for VOCs based on emission inventory questionnaires from sources in the
area, and growth factors derived from Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
On January 23, 1996, Missouri submitted a revision to the 15% Plan
which utilizes the methodology discussed below to project the point
source portion of the 1990 15% plan base year inventory to 1996. The
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) believes, and the EPA
concurs, that the methodology that it has used to project the 1990
adjusted base year inventory to the attainment year of 1996 uses the
best projection data available at this time. A thorough review of
Missouri's modified approach was conducted by the EPA to determine
consistency with the intent of the EPA guidance. The reader is referred
to the EPA's TSD for a detailed analysis of Missouri's methodology and
the EPA's rationale in proposing approval of this method.
As noted in the above table, the total creditable state reductions
needed to meet the 15 percent requirement are 53.7 TPD. The state's
methodology for selecting growth factors and applying them to the 1990
base year emissions inventory to estimate the growth in emissions from
1990 to 1996 is acceptable. However, it must be noted that the point
source projection methodology submitted on January 23, 1996, resulted
in a different total required emission reduction than the one in the
July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal, which was 51.7 TPD. Missouri has yet
to submit the new total required emission reduction to the EPA as a
revision to its 15% Plan. Missouri submitted a draft of the revised
total to the EPA on February 8, 1996, and will hold a public hearing on
the revision on April 25, 1996. As such, the EPA is proposing to
approve the revised total of emission reductions required of Missouri's
15% Plan with the understanding that the state will submit the revision
in a timely manner prior to the EPA taking final action on Missouri's
15% Plan.
B. Measures Achieving the Projected Reductions
Missouri has submitted a plan to achieve the required emission
reductions. A summary of the creditable and noncreditable emission
reductions in Missouri's final 15% Plan control measures are summarized
in the following table. Note that if all the control measures in
Missouri's 15% Plan were creditable, the total emission reductions
would exceed the total required VOC reduction target by 0.16 TPD.
Some of the emission credit claimed for specific measures is
different than those submitted in the July 11, 1995, 15% Plan
submittal. The formally submitted 15% Plan includes a list of control
measures which the state claimed would achieve total VOC emission
reductions of 55.80 TPD.
The original list of emission reductions claimed reductions from
sources subject to the hazardous organic National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (HON) rule as .36 TPD, as compared to
.08 TPD in the above table. The original .36 TPD includes .27 TPD
reductions from the inclusion of Borden Deco Products as an affected
source. The state has since determined that this facility is not
subject to the HON NESHAP rule, and has adjusted the amount of credit
claimed accordingly.
An emission reduction credit of .6 TPD from Early Toxics Reductions
was included in the July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal. This emission
reduction credit was based on an Early Reductions Program application
submitted to the EPA by Monsanto, Inc. This application has since been
withdrawn. Therefore, the state has eliminated the emission reduction
credit claimed for Early Toxics Reductions.
Finally, the state claimed an emission reduction credit of 1.0 TPD
for rule effectiveness improvements in its officially submitted 15%
Plan. The state has since chosen not to implement this program.
Therefore, the above table does not include a 1.0 TPD emission
reduction credit for this control measure.
Missouri has yet to submit these changes to the EPA as an SIP
revision. Missouri submitted a draft of the revised list of VOC control
measures to the EPA on February 8, 1996, and will hold a public hearing
on the revision on April 25, 1996. As such, the EPA is proposing to
approve this element of Missouri's 15% Plan with the understanding that
the state will submit the revised 15% Plan projections in a timely
manner prior to the EPA taking final action on Missouri's 15% Plan. If,
however, the state fails to finally submit these changes as an SIP
revision, the EPA intends to disapprove the plan as it relates to the
credits discussed above and the emission reduction target.
The following is a concise description of each control measure
submitted by the state to achieve the reduction credit in the 15% Plan.
In general, the EPA is proposing approval of the following control
measures as a strengthening of the SIP, and is proposing limited
approval of the emission reductions projected in the state submittal
for these measures. However, in some instances, the EPA is proposing
limited approval of the emission reductions claimed with the
understanding that the state will fulfill certain requirements in a
timely manner before the EPA takes final action on the 15% Plan. If the
state fails to submit the identified corrections in a timely manner,
the EPA intends to disapprove the plan as it relates to these
requirements. Specific details are outlined within the description of
the affected control measure.
Ract Fix-ups
Section 182(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires states to make corrections
to their RACT rules to make up for deficiencies (e.g., improper
exemptions) in preamendment SIPs. The emissions
[[Page 10972]]
reductions associated with corrections accounting for missing rules,
incorrect emission limits, or required capture systems are not
creditable towards the 15 percent reduction requirements of the Act;
however, the amount of emissions reductions from such corrections must
still be quantified as they are a part of the total required
reductions. What follows is a discussion regarding Missouri's RACT fix-
ups and the associated emissions reductions.
1. Control of Emissions from Aluminum Foil Rolling [Missouri rule 10
CSR 10-5.451]
Alumax Foils Inc., located within the city of St. Louis, emits
approximately 12.5 TPD of VOCs during the production of aluminum foil.
Prior to 1990, the facility was not considered a large source of VOC
emissions. In 1989, the EPA changed the definition of VOCs by removing
the exemption for low vapor pressure organics. The primary source of
air emissions from Alumax had been exempted from the pre-1989
definition of VOCs. Under the new definition, Alumax is a major source
of VOCs within the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area and must be
controlled by RACT. The MDNR developed an RACT rule for aluminum foil
rolling, 10 CSR 10-5.451, ``Control of Emissions from Aluminum Foil
Rolling.'' The rule also requires controls beyond RACT for large
aluminum foil rolling mills. MDNR claims average VOC emission
reductions of 3.0 TPD for these controls. The EPA concurs with this
claimed reduction for 15% Plan purposes.
2. Control of Emissions from Bakery Ovens [Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-
5.440]
During 1993, MDNR determined that Continental Baking Company is a
major source that was never subject to RACT. MDNR promulgated a
regulation that will control the VOC emissions from this bakery. The
facility's actual VOC emissions from bakery ovens in 1993 were 71 tons
per year (TPY). This rule requires the facility to install emissions
control equipment which achieves an overall VOC emission reduction of
98 percent from baking ovens. The EPA concurs with Missouri's estimate
that VOC emissions will be reduced by 0.2 TPD as a result of the
regulation.
It must be noted that as of the date of this action, the rule does
not specify a reference method by which compliance is to be determined.
The EPA communicated this deficiency to Missouri via letter to the
staff director of Missouri's Air Pollution Control Program (APCP) on
August 18, 1995. Missouri has since amended the rule to include the
necessary compliance provisions. A public hearing addressing the
revisions was held on January 25, 1996. The MACC adopted the revised
rule on February 29, 1996. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve
this rule, with the understanding that the revised rule will be
officially submitted prior to the EPA taking a final action on
Missouri's 15% Plan. If the revised rule is not submitted in a timely
manner, the EPA intends to disapprove the rule.
3. Control of Emissions from Offset Lithographic Printing [Missouri
Rule 10 CSR 10-5.442]
This rule reduces emissions from sources performing a plano graphic
method of printing known as offset lithography. The process involves
the utilization of printing and nonprinting areas which are essentially
in the same plane on the surface of a thin metal printing plate.
The offset lithography rule will result in a reduction of 0.8 TPD
of VOC emissions. A reduction of this magnitude represents an
approximate 57 percent control of the 1.4 TPD of point source emissions
from major sources. The reduction includes rule effectiveness (RE). The
EPA concurs with the state's projected emission reductions.
Mobile Sources
1. Control of Gasoline RVP [Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-5.443]
This rule changes the RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 7.0 psi. The
rule is based on a per gallon compliance standard in which every gallon
of gasoline sold within the nonattainment area should meet the 7.0 psi
requirement. Refiners accomplish this RVP reduction by modifying the
refining process to remove the more volatile gasoline components such
as butane. The low RVP fuel control reduces evaporative emissions from
both on-road vehicles and nonroad vehicles and equipment and provides
associated reductions in gasoline evaporation losses from refueling and
fuel storage/distribution.
The EPA concurs with the 9.55 TPD in expected VOC emission
reductions associated with this rule. However, as noted in the
discussion regarding the I/M program, individual mobile source controls
have synergistic effects within the MOBILE model when considering
multiple control programs. Any changes to the mobile source control
strategy which the state chooses to make may affect the emission
reductions claimed for this measure, and the state would have to
demonstrate that the overall reductions are still consistent with the
target level of emissions in the 15% Plan.
2. Transportation Control Measures (TCM)
The state has included several TCMs such as a work trip reduction
program, transit improvements, traffic flow improvements, and a
gasoline price increase from the Missouri fuel tax in its 15% Plan that
have projected emission reductions of 1.795 TPD. However, Missouri is
only claiming a 1.0 TPD emission reduction credit in its 15% Plan. The
EPA has reviewed the TCMs included in the state's 15% Plan and agrees
with the state's assessment of creditable reductions.
Point Source/Area Source Controls
1. Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading, and Transfer [Missouri
Rule 10 CSR 10-5.220]
This rule requires Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery equipment
for petroleum facilities in the St. Louis nonattainment area. The rule
incorporates the limit imposed by the new Federal NESHAP for Stage I
which limits total organic compound emissions to 10 milligrams per
liter of gasoline loaded at gasoline terminals. It incorporates the
EPA's ``Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle Refueling Control
Programs.'' The rule establishes permitting procedures for gasoline
refueling facilities. It sets requirements for gasoline deliveries to
underground storage tanks and requires that vent pipes for storage
tanks be equipped with pressure vacuum valves. It also establishes an
Advisory Committee to provide a forum for discussion between the
regulated community and government agencies.
The state claims, and the EPA agrees with, an emission reduction of
4.2 TPD from this rule.
2. Control of Emissions From Solvent Cleanup Operations
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.455 will require large users of cleanup
solvents to reduce the amount of emissions from such solvents. MDNR has
determined that the rule will definitely affect three facilities, and
has determined the emission reduction credit accordingly. All of these
facilities are automobile manufacturers in the St. Louis area. The rule
allows the affected sources two options for compliance. The first
option is to show a 30 percent reduction in total solvent usage with
respect to the base year of 1990. The second option is to perform
solvent usage studies, screening tests, and trial evaluations as
[[Page 10973]]
a means of reducing solvent usage. With this option, the affected
facility will submit a written summary of the results and a proposal
for reducing cleanup solvent emissions to the MDNR by a specified
deadline. The proposal is subject to approval by the MDNR director. The
three affected facilities produce a total of 946 TPY of VOCs from
cleanup solvents. In calculating reductions which are creditable
towards the CAA-mandated 15 percent, Missouri has assumed that all of
the affected facilities will opt for option one. Missouri has provided
documentation showing that the affected facilities have selected that
option. A 30 percent reduction would result in a decrease of 283.8 TPY
of VOCs. This translates to a daily VOC emissions reduction of 0.91
TPD. Therefore, the EPA concurs with Missouri's estimate.
However, because the rule allows sources to choose option two,
which does not require an equivalent reduction and does not provide
standards for determining an acceptable alternative emission reduction,
the EPA does not believe the rule (as opposed to the emission reduction
credit) can be approved. Missouri has agreed to revise the rule to
eliminate option two, and has agreed to provide a commitment to revise
the rule. Therefore, the EPA proposes to conditionally approve the rule
with the understanding that Missouri will submit the appropriate
commitment prior to the EPA's final rulemaking on the plan.
3. Permanent Plant Closings
The 15% Plan indicates that nine plants have permanently ceased
operations in the nonattainment area. All nine are listed as
significant emitters of VOCs in the 1990 base year inventory. The VOC
reductions from permanent plant closings total 6951 lb/day or 3.48 TPD.
The EPA concurs with the credit associated with permanent plant
closings.
4. Open Burning Restrictions [Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-5.070]
This rule will reduce VOC emissions from the burning of residential
wastes primarily in rural areas where open burning is still allowed.
The regulation would make it illegal for any residence to burn trash or
other man-made refuse. The burning of agricultural wastes from farming
operations will still be allowed in areas where it is currently
permitted. The burning of yard waste such as leaves would be restricted
during the ozone season. The VOC reductions from this control are 2.6
TPD which represents an overall 80 percent control effectiveness which
includes RE. The EPA concurs with credit associated with this rule.
5. Control of Emissions From Traffic Coatings
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.450 limits the VOC content in paints used
for traffic coating. This rule applies only in the St. Louis
nonattainment area. The maximum VOC content is set at 150 grams VOC/
liter. MHTD is the largest user of traffic coatings in the St. Louis
nonattainment area. VOC emissions from traffic coatings account for
1.65 TPD in the 1990 base year inventory. Projected 1996 traffic
coating emissions are 1.69 TPD.
The limit set by this rule is 63 percent lower than the VOC content
of paints used in 1990 by MHTD. For purposes of the 15 percent
calculations, Missouri has assumed that traffic paint users in 1990
were using coatings similar in VOC content to those used by MHTD. Using
a mass balance approach, Missouri has estimated a 60 percent reduction
can be expected as a result of this rule. This assumption corresponds
to a reduction in VOC emissions of 1.0 TPD. The EPA concurs with the
reductions as calculated by MDNR.
6. VOC Emission Reductions From ``Voluntary'' Reductions
Two sources within the nonattainment area, Leonard's Metal Inc.,
and Mallinckrodt Specialty Chemical Company, have reduced their VOC
emissions such that they are creditable towards the rate-of-progress
requirements of the Act. Although the facilties elected to reduce
emissions, the reductions are legally binding on the Companies.
Leonard's Metal entered into a Consent Agreement with the EPA
stipulating that the company will reduce its use of trichloroethylene
and methyl ethyl ketone.
Mallinckrodt shut down two processes associated with the production
of tannin.
As noted above, Leonard's Metal entered into a Consent Agreement
with the EPA. The agreement requires that the facility reduce its
emissions of methyl ethyl ketone by 50 percent and its emissions of
trichloroethylene by 100 percent by 1996. The total VOC reductions
claimed from Leonard's Metal are 0.04 TPD.
The permanent shutdown of certain processes resulted in 214.7 TPY
in VOC reductions from Mallinckrodt; however, the company elected to
bank 182.5 TPY consistent with Missouri 10 CSR 10-6.060, leaving 32.2
TPY or 0.10 TPD (assuming 312 days of operation) creditable towards the
15% Plan as they have been permanently retired.
Based on additional material submitted to the EPA on February 8,
1996, by the state, the EPA concurs with the emission reduction credit
claimed. However, this additional material must be submitted to the EPA
as a revision to Missouri's July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal. The
state intends to include the required supporting material in its April
25, 1996, public hearing on revisions to its 15% Plan. Therefore, the
EPA is proposing approval of emission reduction claimed with the
understanding that the state will submit the required material in a
timely manner to the EPA as an SIP revision before the EPA takes final
action on the state's 15% Plan. As indicated previously, if the state
does not make the appropriate revision, the EPA intends to disapprove
the plan as it relates to these claimed reductions.
7. Control of Emissions From Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Six municipal solid waste landfills are located in the St. Louis
area. Landfills emit VOCs, including methane, through the decomposition
of solid waste. The 1990 base year inventory indicates the nonmethane
VOCs emitted from these six landfills are 1.51 TPD. The submitted 15%
Plan includes a discussion of a rule which will result in a 1.48 TPD
reduction in VOC emissions. However, the submitted 15% Plan does not
include a final rule for this control measure.
The state of Missouri plans to use a yet-to-be-promulgated EPA
standard to develop a rule which controls emissions from all six
landfills in the St. Louis nonattainment area. However, final
promulgation of the EPA's emission standards for landfills has been
significantly delayed. In a October 21, 1994, letter to Gale Wright,
former Chief of the Air Branch, EPA, from Roger Randolph, Director,
MDNR, APCP, the state commits to developing this rule with
implementation in 1996. The state has made every effort to move forward
with this rule despite delays in the promulgation of the EPA's emission
standards. Missouri submitted a draft of a rule for the EPA comment on
May 17, 1995. The EPA provided comments on the draft rule in a June 26,
1995, letter to Jim Kavanaugh, Chief, Planning Section, MDNR, APCP.
Therefore, the EPA finds it reasonable to propose conditional approval
to the emissions reduction credit claimed in the submitted 15% Plan.
The EPA believes that conditional approval of this element of the 15%
Plan is also appropriate because, unlike the enhanced I/M element which
makes up over 40 percent of the claimed emission
[[Page 10974]]
reduction in the 15% Plan, the landfill rule would account for only 3
percent of the claimed emission reduction credit.
The state must submit the final rule to the EPA by no later than
November 15, 1996. Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA may
grant a conditional approval of this rule based on the state's
commitment to submit the rule by a date certain, but not later than one
year after the date of approval of the plan revision. Furthermore,
section 110(k)(4) of the Act states that, should the state fail to meet
its commitment, this conditional approval will convert to a
disapproval. As the state has committed to submit this rule by November
15, 1996, the EPA is proposing conditional approval of the emission
reductions claimed.
Federal Control Measures
1. Control of VOC Emissions From Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
The EPA is currently working on a Federal rulemaking that will
control VOC emissions from architectural and industrial maintenance
coatings. The rule will limit the VOC content of certain types of
coatings. The Federal rule will affect the manufacturers, distributors,
retailers, and users of various types of paints and coatings and will
apply nationwide.
On March 22, 1995, guidance was issued by the Director of the EPA's
OAQPS regarding credit for 15% ROPPs for reductions from the AIM
coating rule. This guidance clarified the EPA's estimates of the
overall reductions expected to be achieved by the AIM rule. The
guidance assessed the reductions at 20 percent and allows states to
take full credit for this reduction without adopting or committing to
backup measures with the stipulation that states adopt any rules
necessary to make up for shortfalls, should the EPA's rule not achieve
a 20 percent reduction. Based on the March 22, 1995, guidance, Missouri
has claimed a reduction credit of 3.05 TPD from the forthcoming Federal
rule.
2. Control of VOC Emissions From Benzene Transfer Operations
The National Emission Standard for Benzene Emissions from Benzene
Transfer Operations, codified at 40 CFR Part 61, subpart BB requires
owners or operators of benzene production facilities and bulk terminals
to install and maintain control devices which reduce benzene emissions
to the atmosphere by 98 percent (by weight) by July 23, 1991. There is
only one affected source within the Missouri portion of the St. Louis
nonattainment area--the Slay Bulk Terminal. For purposes of calculating
the available credit from this source of reductions, Missouri has
assumed that compliance has been achieved and that the difference in
emissions reported in 1990 and 1993 is fully creditable.
Emissions were reduced over that time frame by approximately 99.5
percent (0.74 TPD). Although this level of reduction may have occurred,
credit for this level of reduction is not allowed. The benzene rule
regulates the efficiency of the control device rather than stipulating
a specific emission limitation. The appropriate level of credit should
have been determined by calculating the difference between a 98 percent
reduction in projected 1996 emissions and the base year emissions from
this source. The EPA estimates the actual available credit to be
slightly higher than the state's estimate. Therefore, the EPA will
accept the state's claimed emission reduction credit towards the 15
percent reduction requirement.
3. Control of VOC Emissions From Autobody Refinishing Operations
The EPA plans to promulgate a national rule limiting the VOC
content of various autobody refinishing materials. The EPA issued
guidance in the form of a policy memorandum on November 29, 1994,
finding it acceptable to allow states a 37 percent credit for
reductions expected to occur as a result of the national rule.
Approximately 250 automobile refinishers in the nonattainment area
would be affected.
Missouri conducted a survey of the automobile refinishers in the
St. Louis area. The survey requested information on quantities of
refinishing coatings used annually, quantities of solvents used
annually, and number of jobs completed over certain time frames. The
survey was used to develop the inventory category for automobile
refinishing. The VOC inventory was determined to be 2.1 TPD, thus the
reductions from the Federal rule will be 0.78 TPD.
4. Tier I FMVCP
The EPA promulgated standards for 1994 and later model year light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991). Since
the standards were adopted after the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
the resulting emission reductions are creditable toward the 15 percent
reduction goal. These control measures will result in a 0.6 TPY
reduction in VOC emissions during the pre-1996 time frame as calculated
using the MOBILE model; however, in later years, greater emission
reductions are expected as more fleet turnover occurs.
5. HON
The HON consists of four subparts setting standards for emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) and six non-SOCMI processes. Many of the
HAPs regulated by the HON are also classified as VOCs. Recognizing this
overlap, the EPA issued a May 6, 1993, policy memorandum indicating
that a 5 percent reduction in VOC emissions is expected from sources
complying with the HON rule. In anticipation of such reductions, states
are allowed to receive 5 percent credit towards the 15 percent
reduction requirements of the Act. A single source (Mallinckrodt
Chemicals, Inc.), in the St. Louis nonattainment area is subject to the
equipment leak provisions of the HON rule. The 1990 baseline VOC
emissions from this facility were estimated at 652.84 TPY or 3380.23
lbs/day during the ozone season. Applying the authorized 5 percent
results in a credit of 169.01 lbs/day or 0.08 TPD.
Summary of EPA Action
The EPA has evaluated these submittals for consistency with the
Act, the EPA regulations, and the EPA policy. The EPA is proposing
approval, under Sec. 110(k)(3) and Sec. 301(a), of Missouri's base year
inventory because it fully meets the requirements in section 182 and
applicable EPA guidance described elsewhere in this document. The EPA
is proposing limited approval to the 15% Plan as its implementation
will result in a certain percentage of VOC emission reductions.
However, as discussed above, the EPA is proposing approval of
certain elements of the 15% Plan with the understanding that the state
will submit revisions before the EPA takes final action. [See the
specific discussion related to each element elsewhere in this
rulemaking for the EPA's rationale for this action.] Specifically, the
point source projection methodology submitted on January 23, 1996,
resulted in a different total required emission reduction than the one
in the July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal, which was 51.7 TPD. Also, the
list of control measures, as well as some of the emission credit
claimed for specific measures in this analysis, is different than those
submitted in the July 11, 1995, 15% Plan submittal. The state has
submitted a draft of the recalculation of
[[Page 10975]]
the total emission reductions needed and a revised list of VOC control
measures so that the EPA may proceed with this rulemaking action.
However, the state must hold a public hearing on these elements, and
submit them to the EPA as a revision to its 15% Plan. The EPA proposes
to approve the draft revised emission reduction target with the
understanding that the state will fulfill its administrative
obligations before the EPA takes final action on the 15% Plan.
Also, the EPA is proposing approval of the emission reduction
credits associated with the reductions from Leonard's Metal, Inc., and
Mallinckrodt Specialty Chemical Company, and the claimed emission
reductions associated with Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.440 (Control of
Emissions from Bakery Ovens), with the understanding that the state
will fulfill certain requirements before the EPA takes final action on
the 15% Plan. [See specific discussions related to these measures
within this TSD for the EPA's rationale for this action.]
Failure to fulfill any of the specific requirements outlined above
in a timely manner will result in a disapproval of the emission
reduction target and associated emission reductions.
Furthermore, the EPA is proposing conditional approval of the
emission reduction credits associated with the draft rule for the
control of emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. As discussed
above, if the state fails to submit a final rule to the EPA by November
15, 1996, the conditional approval will be converted to a disapproval.
Likewise, the EPA is proposing conditional approval of Rule 10 CSR
10-5.455, Control of Emissions from Solvent Cleanup Operations. If the
state fails to submit a final amended rule, as discussed above, by 12
months from the EPA's final action, the conditional approval will be
converted to a disapproval.
The EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of the 15% Plan
because it does not achieve the required emission reductions.
Specifically, Missouri's submittal has not demonstrated that the
enhanced I/M program can be implemented in a manner which will achieve
the claimed emission reduction credit. Therefore, the EPA is proposing
a limited disapproval of the 15% Plan, to the extent that emission
reductions associated with Missouri's enhanced I/M program cannot be
expected to be achieved. To gain full approval, Missouri will need to
submit a revised plan which achieves the necessary reductions to meet
the 15% Plan requirements.
Conformity
40 CFR 93.128(b), of the Federal transportation conformity rules,
as amended on November 14, 1995 (40 CFR 51.448(b)), states that if the
EPA disapproves a plan revision containing a control strategy, thus
initiating the sanction process under CAA section 179, the conformity
status of the transportation plan and transportation improvement
program (TIP) shall lapse 120 days after the EPA's final partial
disapproval. No new project-level conformity determinations may be
made. No new transportation plan, TIP, or project may be found to
conform until the state submits an SIP revision fulfilling the same CAA
requirements and conformity to this submission is determined.
However, if the EPA disapproves the submitted control strategy SIP,
but makes a protective finding, the conformity status of the
transportation plan and TIP shall lapse on the date that highway
sanctions are imposed on the nonattainment area under section 179(b)(1)
of the Act. A protective finding, as defined in the Federal
Transportation Conformity rule, as amended, means that the EPA has made
a determination that the control strategy SIP would have been
considered approvable with respect to requirements for emissions
reductions, if all committed measures had been submitted in enforceable
form as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). No new transportation
plan, TIP, or project may be found to conform until another SIP
revision fulfilling the same CAA requirements is submitted and
conformity to this submission is determined.
The emissions budget is the mechanism the EPA has identified for
demonstrating consistency between emissions expected from
implementation of transportation plans, TIPs, and projects with
estimates of emissions in the SIP from on-road motor vehicles. Motor
vehicle emissions budgets are the explicit or implicit identification
of the on-road motor vehicle-related portion of the projected emission
inventory used to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone for a
particular year specified in the SIP. The motor vehicle emissions
budget establishes a cap on the predicted highway and transit vehicle
VOC and NOX emissions which, if exceeded, will result in a
nonconformity finding.
The Mobile Source emissions budget in the submitted 15% Plan is
60.31 TPD. This budget is the 1996 base year mobile emissions minus the
reductions attributable to the mobile category. These reductions
include the enhanced I/M program, the control of RVP in gasoline and
TCMs. As stated above, the EPA has determined that the emission
reduction assumed to result from implementation of the enhanced I/M
program cannot be expected to be achieved. Therefore, if the EPA takes
final action to disapprove the I/M portion of the 15% Plan, the EPA
could not make a protective finding for the purposes of conformity. As
such, the conformity status of the transportation plan and TIP shall
lapse 120 days after the EPA's final limited disapproval.
Sanctions
Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a
submission under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment
based on the submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements
required by the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions
set forth in section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected
within 18 months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two
sanctions available to the Administrator: highway funding and the
imposition of emission offset requirements. The 18-month period
referred to in section 179(a) would begin on the effective date
established in a final limited disapproval action. If the deficiency is
not corrected within six months of the imposition of the first
sanction, the second sanction will apply. The process for imposing and
lifting sanctions is set forth at 40 CFR 52.31.
Moreover, the final disapproval triggers the Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). If the EPA takes final
action to disapprove portions of the Missouri submission, as discussed
above in this notice, the sanction and FIP clocks would be triggered as
discussed in this paragraph.
If the EPA takes final action to conditionally approve a portion of
the submittal, as discussed above in this notice, and the conditional
approval is subsequently converted to a disapproval as provided in
section 110(k)(4), based on the state's failure to meet the commitment,
the 18-month period referred to in section 179(a) of the Act will begin
on the effective date of the conversion of the conditional approval to
a disapproval. The sanctions process at 40 CFR 52.31 will apply if the
18-month period expires and the deficiency has not been corrected. (See
paragraph above.)
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or
[[Page 10976]]
establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5. U.S.C. Sec. 600 et seq.,
the EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the
impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603
and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, the EPA certifies that
it does not have a significant impact on any small entities affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the
CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds
(Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
The EPA's disapproval of the state request under section 110 and
subchapter I, Part D of the CAA does not affect any existing
requirements applicable to small entities. Any preexisting Federal
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect its state
enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the submittal does
not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, the EPA certifies
that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing requirements or impose any new Federal requirement.
Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and
subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but
simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing.
If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under
section 110(k), based on the state's failure to meet the commitment, it
will not affect any existing state requirements applicable to small
entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect
its state enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the
submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, the EPA
certifies that this disapproval action does not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, because it does not
remove existing state requirements or substitute a new Federal
requirement.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, the EPA must undertake various actions in association with
proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of the SIP revision which has been proposed for
limited approval in this action, the state has elected to adopt
portions of the program provided for under section 182(b) of the CAA.
The rules and commitments proposed for limited and conditional approval
in this action may bind state and local governments to perform certain
actions and also require the private sector to perform certain duties.
The proposed action would have no impact on tribal governments as
regulators. To the extent that the rules and commitments being given
limited approval by this action will impose or lead to the imposition
of any mandate upon the state, local, or tribal governments, either as
the owner or operator of a source or as a regulator, or would impose or
lead to the imposition of any mandate upon the private sector, the
EPA's action will impose no new requirements; such sources are already
subject to these requirements under state law.
The EPA has also determined that the proposed limited disapproval
would not impose any mandate on the private sector. Existing rules
previously approved by the EPA remain in effect and would not be
impacted by the limited disapproval. With respect to the impact on
state and local governments, the state may choose, but is not required,
to respond to a limited disapproval by revising and resubmitting the
plan. In any event, the EPA estimates that the cost to state and local
government of revising the plan would be less than $100 million in the
aggregate.
Therefore, the EPA has determined that this proposed action does
not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate
or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 7, 1996.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6236 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6235 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10962-10968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6235]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO-001-1001(b); FRL-5442-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to disapprove revisions to the air pollution
control State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state of
Missouri. The SIP pertains to the St. Louis vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program. These revisions require the implementation
of an enhanced motor vehicle I/M program in the St. Louis
[[Page 10963]]
metropolitan area, i.e., Jefferson, St. Louis, and St. Charles
counties, and St. Louis city. This proposal is being published to meet
the EPA's statutory obligation under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Stanley A. Walker, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley A. Walker at (913) 551-7494.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The CAA as amended in 1990 (the Act) requires areas that do not
meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone pollution to
adopt either a ``basic'' or an ``enhanced'' I/M program, depending on
the severity of the problem and the population of the area. The Act
further requires each state, with an area required to have an I/M
program, to incorporate the I/M requirements into its SIP. Section
182(b)(4) requires basic I/M programs to be updated and implemented in
any 1990 Census-defined urbanized area classified as moderate ozone
nonattainment, e.g., the St. Louis nonattainment area. In order to
correct deficiencies in its basic program and to obtain greater
emission reductions (as explained below), Missouri opted to establish
an enhanced program. The state is required to comply with the I/M
requirements published in the Federal Register (57 FR 52950) I/M
Program Requirements (I/M rule) on November 5, 1992, codified at 40 CFR
Part 51, subpart S, as those requirements relate to basic I/M programs.
One reason for Missouri's election to develop an enhanced I/M
program is that section 182 (b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires states, with
nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above for ozone, to
develop a plan to reduce areawide volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from a 1990 baseline by 15 percent. The reduction must
account for growth in emissions between 1990 and 1996. Missouri, like
other states, was required to submit the plan by November 15, 1993, and
reductions were required to be achieved within six years after
enactment or by November 15, 1996.
In addition, for areas such as St. Louis, the Act prohibits credit
toward the 15 percent reduction for basic I/M programs. On May 25,
1995, Missouri submitted to the EPA a plan to reduce VOC emissions by
15 percent compared to 1990 VOC emission levels. The plan included
reasonably available control technology corrections, stationary source
rules, and an enhanced I/M program. By implementing an enhanced
program, Missouri could make the required improvements in its existing
program and gain greater emission reduction benefits which are
creditable toward the rate-of-progress plan (ROPP).
The enhanced I/M program can reduce mobile source emissions over 40
percent; consequently, it plays a vital role in Missouri's ability to
meet the 15% ROPP. Based on Missouri's ROPP submission, the enhanced
program accounts for a substantial amount of the necessary 15 percent
emission reduction. Failure to implement a full enhanced I/M program
limits the state's ability to meet all the requirements under section
182 of the Act and to attain the ozone standards.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed the EPA to publish updated
guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of
the Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. Based
on these requirements, the EPA promulgated I/M regulations on November
5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), codified at 40 CFR 51.350 through 50.373.
The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs is normally
based on a high-tech test designed for new technology vehicles (i.e.,
those with closed-loop control and, especially, fuel injected engines),
including a transient loaded exhaust short test incorporating
hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
cutpoints; an evaporative system integrity (pressure) test; and an
evaporative system performance (purge) test. The performance standard
for basic I/M programs remains the same as it has been since the
initial I/M policy was established in 1978, pursuant to the 1977 Clean
Air Act Amendments.
Although Missouri has submitted an enhanced I/M program, the EPA is
proposing to act on the submittal with regard to compliance with the
basic I/M requirements in section 182(b)(4) and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart
S, since those are the I/M requirements applicable to St. Louis.
However, in order to assist the state in developing an enhanced program
(should it choose to continue pursuit of that program), the EPA's
review will also include an analysis of the submission as it relates to
requirements for enhanced I/M.
Background on Missouri's Program
On January 1, 1984, the state of Missouri implemented a motor
vehicle I/M program in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The St. Louis
program is decentralized and jointly administered by the Missouri State
Highway Patrol and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).
The St. Louis I/M program was implemented to help reduce ozone and CO
pollution through testing vehicle emissions and requiring those
vehicles that have excessive emissions to be repaired.
The EPA first audited the St. Louis, Missouri, I/M program in 1985.
The audit found that the St. Louis I/M program experienced a
significant shortfall in achieving the minimum required VOC emission
reductions necessary for an acceptable I/M program. As a follow-up to
the 1985 audit, the EPA conducted a second audit of the St. Louis I/M
program in 1987. The follow-up audit showed that the state had not made
sufficient progress toward improving the program. Based on the
continued low failure rate, an unrepresentative reporting on the
tampering rate, and an excessive waiver rate, the I/M program again
failed to achieve a level of emission reductions consistent with the
minimum emission reduction requirements (MERR).
Since the St. Louis I/M program did not meet the minimum
requirements, the EPA requested the state to submit a corrective action
plan (CAP) to correct the St. Louis I/M program deficiencies. As part
of the CAP, Missouri implemented computerized BAR-90 type analyzers on
December 1, 1990.
The EPA conducted an audit of the revised program in August 1992.
Despite improvements following the EPA's two previous audits, the St.
Louis I/M program still had not demonstrated a level of VOC emission
reductions consistent with the MERR for a basic program. The I/M
program is an important strategy toward achieving healthful air quality
in St. Louis. To maximize progress toward that goal, the state of
Missouri and the EPA believed the most effective approach would be to
implement a centralized, test-only program including high-tech testing.
As discussed in the EPA's I/M rule, states such as Missouri were
required to submit an SIP by November 15, 1992, including a schedule,
analysis, description, legal authority, and adequate evidence of
funding and resources for program implementation discussed in section
51.372 (a)(1)-(a)(8).
Missouri, however, failed to submit an SIP revision which would
meet the
[[Page 10964]]
requirements of applicable guidance and regulations for an I/M program.
Therefore, on January 15, 1993, pursuant to section 179(a) of the CAA,
the EPA made a finding of failure to submit a plan. As provided by the
Act, Missouri had 18 months (until July 15, 1994) to submit a complete
SIP revision or be subject to the sanction provisions identified in
section 179(b).
Missouri could not adopt corrections to program deficiencies
without additional legal authority. Therefore, on May 13, 1994,
Missouri received legislative authority not only to correct the
deficiencies identified in the current basic I/M program, but to
implement a more cost-effective enhanced I/M program (Senate Bill 590).
With legislative authority to implement the enhanced I/M program, MDNR
and the EPA began working together to develop a complete SIP revision,
which was necessary to stop the sanction clock. Although the 18-month
clock expired, the EPA could not impose sanctions until the effective
date of a final rulemaking prescribing the order in which the section
179(b) sanctions were to be applied. The final rulemaking (59 FR 39832)
on the order of CAA sanctions was published on August 4, 1994, and
became effective on September 6, 1994.
On September 1, 1994, Missouri submitted to the EPA a revised SIP
for an enhanced I/M program. The plan had undergone proper notice and
public hearing, and was adopted by the Missouri Air Conservation
Commission (MACC) on August 28, 1994. The revision included a copy of
the emergency rulemaking filed with the Secretary of State, a letter
from the Attorney General's Office describing the legal authority for
the emergency rulemaking, a copy of Senate Bill 590, and a Request for
Proposal narrative. Through upfront coordination with MDNR, the EPA was
able to determine that the SIP was complete on September 1, 1994. Thus,
Missouri was able to avoid sanctions. Subsequent amendments were
submitted by Missouri on May 25, 1995, in conjunction with the 15%
ROPP. On June 29, 1995, Missouri submitted additional documentation for
the I/M SIP. The rule was adopted by the MACC on July 27, 1995.
However, during the 1995 legislative session, the Missouri legislature
voted to delete I/M funding for operation of the centralized I/M
program. Lack of I/M funding severely hinders Missouri's ability to
implement several key aspects of the program (as explained below).
Consequently, the EPA is proposing to disapprove Missouri's I/M SIP
submission.
III. The EPA's Analysis of Missouri's I/M Program Submittal
As discussed above, sections 182(b)(4), 182(c)(3), 184(b)(1)(A),
187(a)(6), and 187(b)(1) of the Act require that states adopt and
implement regulations for a basic or an enhanced I/M program in certain
areas. The following sections of this notice summarize the requirements
of the Federal I/M regulations and address whether the elements of the
state's submittal comply with the Federal rule. Although Missouri opted
to revise its SIP to implement an enhanced I/M program, the CAA merely
required the state to submit a plan to correct deficiencies associated
with the current basic I/M program. As such, the EPA's decision
regarding the approvability of Missouri's SIP is based solely on the
criteria for a basic program. However, because Missouri chose to
correct its basic program by submitting an enhanced program, the EPA
has also reviewed the submittal for compliance with the requirements of
an enhanced program. Nonetheless, the deficiencies necessitating the
proposed disapproval, described below, relate to requirements for a
basic I/M program. Parties needing more specific information should
consult the Technical Support Document.
Applicability--40 CFR Section 51.350
Sections 182(b)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR section 51.350(a) require
all states classified as moderate ozone nonattainment, and not required
to implement enhanced I/M, to implement an I/M program no less
stringent than a basic I/M program. Implementation must occur in the
nonattainment area.
The state's submittal contains legal authority and regulations
necessary to establish the program boundaries for enhanced I/M. The
program area which includes the St. Louis metropolitan nonattainment
area, i.e., Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis counties, and St.
Louis city meets Federal requirements. Therefore, this portion of the
SIP is approvable.
I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR Sections 51.351 and 51.352
Section 51.351 contains the performance standard for enhanced I/M
programs, and section 51.352 contains the performance standard for
basic programs. As provided in the state submittal, Missouri's program
design parameters meet the Federal I/M regulations and are approvable.
The emission levels achieved by the state were modeled using MOBILE5a.
The modeling demonstration was performed adequately using local
characteristics and demonstrating that the program design meets the
minimum enhanced I/M performance standards. Therefore, the SIP meets
requirements for enhanced I/M programs under section 51.351. In
addition, the SIP meets the basic I/M requirements under section
51.352.
Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR Section 51.353
As required for enhanced programs in the I/M rule, Missouri's
submittal provides for a centralized, test-only network. The SIP
includes a discussion regarding program evaluation and includes a
schedule for the biennial report. As indicated in the SIP, many program
evaluation aspects will be accomplished by a contractor. However, the
SIP lacks procedures describing the method by which the evaluation will
be conducted. Therefore, the SIP does not meet the program evaluation
requirements in section 51.353 of the I/M rule. However, the program
evaluation criterion is required for enhanced I/M programs only.
Therefore, this deficiency is not relevant to the EPA's proposed action
with respect to the basic I/M requirements.
Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR Section 51.354
In accord with section 51.354 of the I/M rule, the state must
provide a description of the resources and personnel to be used in the
program. According to section 51.372, the state must demonstrate that
adequate funding and resources for the program are available. Section
51.372(a)(8) requires that the SIP contain evidence of adequate funding
and resources to implement all aspects of the program.
As required, the SIP includes a detailed budget plan which
describes the source of funds for personnel, program administration,
program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP also includes a
description of personnel resources dedicated to overt and covert
auditing, data analysis, program administration, enforcement, and other
necessary functions. The description of funding and resources is
adequate for purposes of section 51.354. However, the SIP does not meet
the Federal requirements for evidence of adequate tools and resources
under section 51.372. See the discussion of section 51.372 below for
more details.
Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR Section 51.355
The enhanced I/M performance standards assume an annual test
[[Page 10965]]
frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the performance
standard is achieved. In addition, Missouri must demonstrate that the
network of stations providing the test services is sufficient to ensure
short waiting times and short driving distances.
Missouri's enhanced I/M regulations provide for a biennial test
frequency which meets the performance standard. However, the SIP lacks
sufficient evidence that convenient services will be provided to the
motorist. The state submittal lacks a signed contract or a completed
Request for Proposal (RFP) that demonstrates the convenience
requirements, which is required for enhanced I/M programs only, will be
met. If Missouri chooses to rely on an enhanced I/M program to meet the
I/M SIP element required by section 182(b)(4) and the ROPP requirement
of section 182(b)(1), the state must address this requirement.
Consequently, this portion of the SIP does not meet the Federal
requirements for an enhanced I/M program. However, this deficiency is
not relevant to the EPA's proposed action with respect to the basic I/M
requirements.
Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR Section 51.356
According to Federal regulations, the SIP needs to include a
detailed description of the number and types of vehicles to be covered
by the program, and a description of any special exemptions which will
be granted by the program.
Missouri's enhanced I/M legislation requires coverage of 1971 and
newer light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks up to 8500 pounds gross
vehicle weight rating which are registered or required to be registered
in the I/M program area. This level of coverage is approvable because,
overall, the program design meets the enhanced I/M performance
standard. Also, Missouri is authorized in its enabling legislation to
impose fleet testing requirements and requirements for special
exemptions in accordance with Federal I/M requirements. This portion of
the SIP is approvable.
Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR Section 51.357
Consistent with Federal regulation, Missouri's submittal includes a
description of the test procedures for transient, idle, evaporative
system purge, evaporative system pressure testing, and a visual
emission control device inspection. These test procedures conform to
the EPA approved test procedures detailed in the Federal I/M rule and
in the EPA document entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test Procedures, Emission
Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and Equipment
Specifications,'' EPA-AA-EPSD-I/M-93-1, dated July 1993, and are
approvable. The state I/M regulation establishes {HC, CO, CO, and
NOX} pass/fail exhaust standards for all test procedures for each
applicable model year and vehicle type. The exhaust standards adopted
by the state conform to the EPA established standards and are
approvable. The Missouri I/M regulation establishes evaporative purge
and pressure test standards which conform to the EPA established
standards and are approvable. The state regulation provides for start-
up standards during the first two years of program implementation.
However, details of how the program start-up will be accomplished are
not included, and the SIP submittal indicates they will be provided by
a contractor. Without a signed contract or an RFP detailing
implementation of the start-up process, the EPA cannot approve this
portion of the SIP.
Test Equipment--40 CFR Section 51.358
Computerized test systems are required for performing any emission
measurements on subject vehicles. The Federal I/M regulation requires
Missouri's submittal to include written technical specifications for
all test equipment used in the program. The specifications describe the
emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment, the required
features, and written acceptance testing criteria and procedures.
Missouri's SIP meets these criteria.
Quality Control--40 CFR Section 51.359
The state submittal contains a procedure manual and regulations
which describe and establish quality control measures for the emission
measurement equipment, recordkeeping requirements, and measures to
maintain the security of all documents used to establish compliance
with the inspection requirements. The submittal states that many
quality control functions will be carried out by a contractor. However,
the submittal does not contain an adequate description of how the
contractor will carry out the functions relating to quality control.
Without a signed contract or RFP detailing these functions, the EPA
cannot evaluate whether these controls are adequate and cannot
determine that the state has adequate authority to ensure that these
functions will be implemented.
Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR Section 51.360
Missouri's regulation includes provisions which address waiver
criteria and procedures. The state regulation includes provisions
regarding cost limits, tampering and warranty-related repairs, quality
control, and administration. The state regulation requires repairs for
1981 and newer model year vehicles to be performed by a recognized
repair technician. The waiver rate has been used in the performance
standard modeling demonstration and is approvable. The waiver
provisions outlined in the submittal meet Federal I/M regulations and
are acceptable. However, the EPA notes that the waiver provision in the
current operating basic program allows waivers of emission testing for
persons who receive a low-emission tune-up. This is one of the
deficiencies the EPA noted in its January 15, 1993, finding that
Missouri had failed to submit corrections to its basic I/M program.
Without implementation of the program submitted in September 1, 1994,
this deficiency has not been corrected.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR Section 51.361
The Federal regulation requires compliance to be ensured through
the denial of motor vehicle registration in enhanced I/M programs,
unless an exception for use of an existing alternative is approved.
The Missouri SIP commits to a compliance rate of 96 percent which
was used in the performance standard modeling demonstration and is
approvable. The submittal includes detailed information concerning the
registration denial enforcement process which meets Federal I/M
regulations and is approvable.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR Section
51.362
According to the Federal I/M regulation, the enforcement program
must be audited regularly and must follow effective program management
practices, including adjustments to improve operations when necessary.
The lack of adequate oversight was cited as a deficiency in the basic
program in the January 15, 1993, findings letter described previously.
The Missouri regulation, procedure manual, and supporting documents
describe how the enforcement program oversight is quality controlled
and quality assured. The enforcement program oversight activities
included in the submittal meet most of the Federal
[[Page 10966]]
I/M regulation requirements. However, the state submittal lacks details
of how the information management system will be implemented. As
indicated in the SIP, requirements of this section depend on
participation from the Missouri Department of Revenue (MDOR) and the
assigned contractor. The state needs a Memorandum of Understanding with
MDOR, and a signed contract or an RFP outlining the duties of the
contractor to meet the requirements of this section. The enforcement
program oversight activities included in the submittal do not meet the
Federal I/M requirements and are not approvable. Therefore, the EPA
cannot approve this portion of the SIP.
Quality Assurance--40 CFR Section 51.363
The Federal regulation requires the SIP to describe the quality
assurance program and meet the applicable provision of the rule.
Missouri's submittal lacks a quality assurance procedural manual and
supporting documents which describe details and procedures for
implementing inspector records and equipment audits, as well as
providing formal training to all state enforcement officials.
Performance audits of inspectors will consist of both covert and overt
audits. The SIP indicates many functions of this section are to be
carried out by a contractor. The SIP states the contractor will be
responsible for portions of the oversight and enforcement provisions.
For example, the contractor is to be responsible for developing the
interactive software that would allow real-time access to all test
station information. Without a signed contract or an RFP detailing the
quality assurance program and procedures, the EPA cannot adequately
evaluate this portion of the SIP. Thus, the EPA cannot approve this
portion of the SIP.
Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations, and Inspectors--40 CFR
Section 51.364
The Federal regulation requires the state to meet applicable
enforcement provisions. The Federal I/M regulation requires the
establishment of minimum penalties for violations of program rules.
The Missouri submittal includes the legal authority to establish
and impose penalties against stations, contractors, and inspectors. The
state I/M regulation gives the state auditor the authority to
temporarily suspend station and inspector registrations immediately
upon finding a violation. The submittal includes an official opinion
from the State Attorney General which explains the state constitutional
impediment to immediate suspension authority, and explains that a
system is in place to hold a hearing to suspend or revoke a license
within three business days of finding a violation. The submittal
includes a description of administrative and judicial procedures
relevant to the enforcement process. However, as discussed in the SIP,
a penalty schedule for the inspectors and details on how the contractor
will impose penalties against the inspectors will be included in the
contracts between the state and inspection station contractors. Without
a signed contract or RFP detailing this procedure, the EPA is unable to
approve this portion of the SIP.
Data Collection--40 CFR Section 51.365
Accurate data collection is essential to the management,
evaluation, and enforcement of an I/M program. The narrative in the SIP
states that data will be collected on each individual test conducted
and describes the type of data to be collected. The submittal also
commits to gather and report the results of the quality control checks
required pursuant to the Federal I/M regulations. However, the SIP
indicates much of this function will be fulfilled by a contractor, and
the submittal lacks a description of how the data will be collected.
Therefore, without an RFP or a signed contract detailing this
procedure, the EPA cannot approve this portion of the SIP.
Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR Section 51.366
Data analysis and reporting are required to assist in monitoring
and evaluating the program by the state and the EPA. The Federal I/M
regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide
information and statistics and summarize activities performed.
The narrative provides for the analysis and reporting of data for
the testing program, quality assurance program, quality control
program, and the enforcement program. Again, the SIP indicates much of
this function will be fulfilled by the contractor and lacks an adequate
description of how the data will be collected and reported. Therefore,
without an RFP or a signed contract, the EPA cannot approve this
portion of the SIP.
Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR Section
51.367
The Federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally
trained and licensed or registered to perform inspections.
The narrative in the submittal states that all inspectors will
receive formal training, will be registered by MDNR or the operating
contractor, and will renew their registration every two years. The
narrative includes a description of the items that need to be covered
in the training program. However, the SIP lacks a detailed description
of the written and hands-on tests and a description of the registration
process. The narrative states that a contractor will fulfill most of
the requirement of this section. Therefore, without an RFP or a
contract specifically detailing how this requirement will be met, the
EPA is unable to approve this portion of the SIP.
Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR Section 51.368
The Federal I/M regulation requires the SIP to include public
information and consumer protection programs.
Missouri addresses these provisions in the SIP. Missouri must
develop a public information program which educates the public on I/M,
state and Federal regulations, air quality and the role of motor
vehicles in the air pollution problem, and other items as described in
the Federal rule. The consumer protection program needs to include
provisions for a challenge mechanism, protection of whistle-blowers,
and providing assistance to motorists in obtaining warranty-covered
repairs. The SIP indicates that the requirement of this section will
primarily be the responsibility of a contractor. However, without an
RFP or a signed contract between the contractor and MDNR providing an
adequate description of these programs, the EPA is unable to approve
this portion of the SIP.
Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR Section 51.369
As required by Federal regulation, the Missouri submittal needs to
require the implementation of a technical assistance program which
includes a hotline service to assist repair technicians, and a method
of regularly informing the repair facilities of changes in the program,
training courses, and common repair problems. Missouri lacks a repair
facility performance monitoring program which is expected to be
included in the RFP and I/M contract. Also, the monitoring program
would provide the motorist whose vehicle fails the test a summary of
local repair facilities performance, would provide regular feedback to
each facility on its repair performance, and would require the
submittal of a completed repair form at the time of retest. The
submittal lacks
[[Page 10967]]
an adequate description of the performance monitoring program design
and technician training program, and does not meet the criteria
described in the Federal regulation and is not approvable.
Compliance With Recall Notices--40 CFR Section 51.370
The Federal regulation requires the states to establish methods to
ensure that vehicles that are subject to the testing requirements and
are included in an emission-related recall receive the required repairs
before completing the emission test or renewing the vehicle
registration.
The Missouri regulation provides the legal authority to require
owners to comply with emission-related recalls before completing the
emission test or renewing the vehicle registration. The submittal
includes a commitment to submit an annual report to the EPA which
includes the information as required by Federal regulation. However,
the SIP does not include an adequate description of procedures to be
used to incorporate national database recall information into the state
inspection database, and does not include quality control methods to
ensure recall repairs are properly documented and tracked. Therefore,
the recall compliance program contained in the SIP submittal does not
meet the Federal requirements and is not approvable.
On-Road Testing--40 CFR Section 51.371
On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas. Although
Missouri is not required to implement these on-road requirements, the
use of either remote sensing devices or roadside pullover (including
tailpipe emission testing) can increase the program's efficiency. Any
additional emission reductions achieved would be creditable towards
Missouri's 15% ROPP. Missouri does have enabling authority to implement
the on-road testing requirements. This requirement is optional for
basic I/M areas. Therefore, if Missouri chooses not to include all of
the on-road testing requirements in the program, it will not affect the
EPA's proposed action with respect to the basic requirements.
SIP Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR Section 51.372-373
The Federal regulation requires enhanced I/M programs to meet the
submission deadline and to be implemented in accord with 40 CFR section
51.372-373.
The Missouri submittal included the final state I/M regulations and
legislative authority to implement the program. The SIP lacks final
specifications, a final RFP, the contractor's proposal, the signed
contract between the state and the contractor, procedural documents,
interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding for program
implementation, and evidence of adequate funding and resources to
implement the program.
Regarding adequate tools and resources, the state must demonstrate
that adequate funding and resources for the program are available.
Section 51.372(a)(8) requires that the SIP contain evidence of adequate
funding and resources to implement all aspects of the program. In
attempting to meet the aforementioned requirements, some of Missouri's
test fee or separately assessed per vehicle fee is to be collected,
placed in a dedicated fund, and used to help finance the program.
However, legislative action would be required to enable MDNR to use the
funds for operation of the program. In addition, the Missouri General
Assembly has specifically deleted funding for operation of the program
from Missouri's fiscal year 1996 budget. Consequently, the state has
not demonstrated that adequate funding is available to meet the budget
plan and carry out other program functions.
The state submittal does not meet the adequate tools and resources
requirements set forth in 40 CFR section 51.372.
Conclusion
As discussed previously in this rulemaking, Missouri does not meet
the CAA requirements because its SIP submittal does not correct
deficiencies with respect to the basic I/M program. Currently, the
program is still operating under the system for which the EPA issued a
January 15, 1993, findings letter for failure to submit a plan to meet
MERR. Although the state has submitted a plan in an attempt to correct
I/M program deficiencies, the state has not demonstrated the I/M
program includes adequate resources to implement the program. Without
other supporting documents, such as a signed contract or an RFP
detailing how other requirement of the EPA's I/M rule will be met, the
EPA is unable to evaluate and approve the state's submittal.
EPA Action: The EPA's review of the material indicates that the
state has not adopted an adequate I/M program in accordance with the
requirements of the Act. The EPA is proposing to disapprove the
Missouri SIP revision for an I/M program, which was submitted on
September 1, 1994. The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this notice and on other relevant matters. These comments
will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this notice.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5. U.S.C. 600 et seq., the
EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact
of any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
The EPA's disapproval of the state request under section 110 and
subchapter I, Part D of the CAA does not affect any existing
requirements applicable to small entities. Any preexisting Federal
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect its state
enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the submittal does
not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, the EPA certifies
that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing requirements or impose any new Federal requirement.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''),
[[Page 10968]]
signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA must undertake various
actions in association with proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to the private sector, or to state, local, or tribal governments
in the aggregate.
The proposed disapproval would have no impact on tribal governments
as regulators. The EPA has also determined that the proposed
disapproval would not impose any mandate on the private sector.
Existing rules previously approved by the EPA remain in effect and
would not be impacted by the disapproval. With respect to the impact on
state and local governments, the state may choose, but is not required,
to respond to a disapproval by revising and resubmitting the plan. In
any event, the EPA estimates that the cost to state and local
government of revising the plan would be less than $100 million in the
aggregate.
Therefore, the EPA has determined that this proposed action does
not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate
or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 7, 1996.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6235 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6178 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): WIC Cereal Sugar Limit
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10903-10907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6178]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Consumer Service
7 CFR Part 246
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC): WIC Cereal Sugar Limit
AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to propose rulemaking and solicitation of
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department is considering revising the Federal regulations
that limit the amount of sugar in WIC-eligible adult cereals.
Currently, Federal regulations specify that all adult cereals (hot or
cold) eligible for use in WIC food packages for women and children must
contain no more than 21.2 grams of sucrose and other sugars per 100
grams of dry cereal (i.e., 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce of cereal).
The majority of recent studies fail to document an association between
sugar consumption and an increased risk of developing chronic diseases.
The Department is therefore reviewing whether a revision in the Federal
limit on the sugar content for WIC-eligible adult cereals is warranted.
Consequently, the Department is soliciting public comments on the pros
and cons of revising the current requirement, and is inviting
suggestions on how the sugar limit should be changed, if a change is
deemed appropriate.
DATES: To be assured of consideration, comments must be received on or
before June 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Stanley C. Garnett, Director,
Supplemental Food Programs Division, Food and Consumer Service, USDA,
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 540,
[[Page 10904]]
Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305-2746. Comments on this Notice
should be labeled ``WIC Cereal Sugar Limit Notice.'' All written
comments will be available for public inspection during regular
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) at the
above-noted address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hallman, Branch Chief, Policy
and Program Development Branch, Supplemental Food Programs Division,
Food and Consumer Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 542,
Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305-2730.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This Notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 USC 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of this Act.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This Notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping
requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 USC 3507).
Executive Order 12372
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Programs under No. 10.557 and is subject to the provisions
of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation
with State and local officials [7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V, and final
rule-related Notice published June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29114)].
References
Browne, Mona Boyd: ``Label Facts for Healthful Eating:
Educator's Resource Guide,'' 2nd ed., The Mazer Corporation, Dayton,
Ohio, 1994, 100 pp. [Copies of this publication may be purchased
from The Mazer Corporation, 2501 Neff Road, Dayton, Ohio 45414;
telephone (513) 276-6181.]
Clydesdale, Fergus M., ed.: Workshop on the Evaluation of the
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Sugars, Proceedings of a Workshop
Held in Washington, D.C., May 2-5, 1994, ``Supplement to The
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,'' vol. 62(1S):161S-296S,
July 1995. [Copies of this publication may be purchased from ``The
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,'' 9650 Rockville Pike,
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-3998; fax (301) 571-8303.]
National Research Council, Committee on Diet and Health: ``Diet
and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk,''
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989, 749 pp. [Copies of
this publication may be purchased from the National Academy Press,
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418; telephone 1-
800-624-6242 or (202) 334-3313.]
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: ``Report of the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for
American, 1995: To the Secretary of Health and Human Services and
the Secretary of Agriculture,'' U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., September 1995, 58 pp. [Copies of this publication
may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161; telephone (703)
487-4650.]
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
``WIC Food Package and Nutrition Risk Criteria Reviews: Final
Report,'' U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1991-
1992, 3 volumes, 300 pp. (approximate). [This report to Congress is
comprised of the following three separate documents: (1) ``1992
Biennial Report on the Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants,
and Children and on the Commodity Supplemental Food Program'' (NAL
call number aHV696.F6U625), prepared by the National Advisory
Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal Nutrition; (2) ``Technical
Papers: Review of the WIC Food Packages'' (NAL call number
aHV696.F6T42 1991), prepared by the Department of Nutrition, College
of Health and Human Development, Pennsylvania State University,
under Cooperative Agreement Number 58-3198-1-006; and (3)
``Technical Papers: Review of WIC Nutritional Risk Criteria'' (NAL
call number aHV696.F6T425 1991), prepared by the Department of
Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, University of
Arizona, under Cooperative Agreement Number 58-3198-1-005. The
Department sent copies of the complete report to all WIC State
agencies in 1992. Copies of the report may be borrowed from the
National Agricultural Library (NAL) using the NAL call numbers
listed above corresponding to the three component documents. State
and local staff of certain USDA programs may borrow materials
directly from NAL. Others may borrow materials from NAL through the
interlibrary loan system, making arrangements with their local or
corporate libraries. To borrow these documents, contact: NAL,
Document Delivery Services Branch, 10301 Baltimore Boulevard,
Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2351; telephone (301) 504-5755; fax (301)
504-5675.]
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
``WIC Program Report to Congress: Nutritional Risk Criteria and Food
Package Reviews,'' Alexandria, Virginia, July 1991, 29 pp. [This
report constitutes a combination of two of the Department's reports
to Congress: a preliminary report on the WIC food package review and
an interim report on the WIC nutritional risk criteria review. The
Department sent copies of this report to all WIC State agencies in
1991. Copies of this report may be obtained by contacting: Food and
Nutrition Information Center (FNIC), NAL, 10301 Baltimore Boulevard,
Room 304, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2351; telephone (301) 504-5719;
fax (301) 504-6409. Also, an electronic copy of the report is
available via the Internet at [email protected].]
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: WIC
Program: Report to Congress on Cereals Containing Fruit in the WIC
Supplemental Food Packages,'' Alexandria, Virginia, December 1991,
12 pp. [The Department sent copies of this report to all WIC State
agencies in January 1992. Copies of this report may be obtained by
contacting: FNIC, NAL, 10301 Baltimore Boulevard, Room 304,
Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2351; telephone (301) 504-5719; fax (301)
504-6409. Also, an electronic copy of report is available via the
Internet at [email protected].]
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services: ``Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for
Americans,'' 4th ed., Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., December 1995, 43 pp.
[For a single copy of the bulletin, send your name and address along
with
[[Page 10905]]
a check or money order for 50 cents payable to the Superintendent of
Documents to: Consumer Information Center, Department 378-C, Pueblo,
Colorado 81009. Also, an electronic copy of the bulletin can be
downloaded via the Internet/World Wide Web from the Home Page of the
USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion at http://
www.usda.gov/fcs/cnpp.html or from the Food and Consumer Service
Bulletin Board at FedWorld. FedWorld may be accessed via a modem or
the Internet. If using a modem, set the modem parity to none, data
bits to 8, and stop bit to 1. Set terminal emulation to ANSI. Set
duplex to full, and then set communication software to dial FedWorld
at 703-321-3339. If using the Internet, you can either telnet to
fedworld.gov or ftp to ftp.fedworld.gov. After connecting to
FedWorld, select option D, ``Health, Safety and Nutrition Mall,''
from the main menu, then choose option C, Food and Consumer
Service.]
Willis, Judith Levine: ed.: ``An FDA Consumer Special Report:
Focus on Food Labeling,'' Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Public
Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville,
Maryland, May 1993, 64 pp. [Copies of this publication may be
purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15250-
7954.]
Background
Federal regulations at 7 CFR 246.10 require that a WIC-eligible
adult cereal be high in iron and low in sugar. The current WIC
regulations state that WIC-eligible adult cereals (hot or cold) must
contain a minimum of 28 milligrams of iron per 100 grams of dry cereal
and contain no more than 21.2 grams of sucrose and other sugars per 100
grams of dry cereal (i.e., 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce of cereal).
This Notice focuses only on the Department's consideration of changing
the sugar limit, not the iron requirement, for such cereals.
There are currently five WIC food packages designed for different
participant categories that include the 6-gram sugar limit for WIC-
eligible adult cereals. These WIC food packages are: Food Package III
for children/women with special dietary needs; Food Package IV for
children 1 up to 5 years of age; Food Package V for pregnant and
breastfeeding women (basic); Food Package VI for nonbreastfeeding
postpartum women; and Food Package VII for breastfeeding women
(enhanced).
The basis for Federal regulation of the sugar content of WIC-
eligible adult cereals is three-fold. First, Section 3 of Public Law
(P.L.) 95-627, enacted November 10, 1978, amended Section 17(f)(12) of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 [42 USC 1786(f)(12)] to say, ``[t]o the
degree possible, the Secretary [of Agriculture] shall assure that the
fat, sugar, and salt content of the prescribed [WIC] foods is
appropriate. * * *'' Second, the Department has been responsive to the
advice it has received from nutrition and health experts, the WIC
community and the general public over the years concerning the initial
establishment and continued retention of a sugar limit for WIC-eligible
adult cereals. Third, the Department recognized that dental caries is a
major public health problem in the United States (U.S.) and that sugars
in foods play a role in the development of dental caries.
The Federal requirements for WIC-eligible cereals have been issues
of discussion since the early development of WIC food package
regulations. The initial legislation for the WIC Program enacted
September 26, 1972 (P.L. 92-433) did not impose a Federal sugar limit
for WIC-eligible adult cereals. However, in response to an interim rule
published January 12, 1976 (41 FR 1743) to implement provisions of P.L.
94-105, a significant number of commenters objected to the level of
sugar in cereals allowable by WIC Program regulations. This sentiment
was cited in the preamble of the proposed rule published February 11,
1977 (42 FR 8647) in response to the comments engendered by the January
12, 1976 interim rule. Although in that rulemaking the Department
proposed no restrictions on the sugar content of WIC-eligible adult
cereals, State agencies were reminded that they were not required to
offer cereals high in sugar, but could restrict eligible cereals to
those low in sugar (42 FR at 8649).
In June 1977, the Department held public hearings in seven cities
to solicit oral and written testimony and suggestions for possible
changes in the WIC Program. A number of commenters at the hearings
favored USDA setting a maximum level for the amount of sugar allowed in
WIC-eligible cereals for children and women. The preamble of the final
regulations published August 26, 1977 (42 FR 43206) to revise and
reorganize the Program referenced this public response and solicited
further public comments on the issue of the Federal requirements for
WIC-eligible adult cereals.
In October 1978, USDA convened a food package advisory panel
composed of representatives of WIC State agencies, the food industry,
the nutrition community, advocacy groups, and WIC participants. This
panel reviewed in depth the public comments on cereal issues which the
Department received in response to the August 26, 1977 final rule. The
Department received 230 comments on the exclusion of high-sugar cereals
for the WIC food packages. Over 90 percent of the comments (i.e., 208)
were in support of the Department establishing a maximum level of sugar
for cereals authorized in the WIC Program. As part of its
deliberations, the panel recommended a 6-gram sugar limit for use with
WIC-eligible adult cereals. The 6-gram sugar limit represented a
moderate sugar content for cereals on the market at that time. In
response, USDA published a proposed rule on November 30, 1979 (44 FR
69254) proposing a 6-gram sugar limit for WIC-eligible adult cereals.
Of the 643 persons who commented on the proposed 6-gram sugar
limit, 542, primarily representing the nutrition and health care
communities, supported the 6-gram sugar limit or recommended a more
stringent one. Some of the reasons cited for supporting this
requirement were: the association between sugar consumption and dental
caries; recommendations in the 1979 ``Healthy People: The Surgeon
General's Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention,'' and in
the National Research Council's ``Recommended Dietary Allowances,''
ninth edition, 1980, stating that sugar consumption by the U.S.
population should be reduced; and knowledge that highly sugared cereals
tended to be more expensive than cereals containing less sugar.
The balance of 101 commenters, including 14 State and 53 local WIC
agencies, the Sugar Association and several cereal companies were
opposed to the 6-gram limit, or in some cases any sugar limit
whatsoever. Examples of the reasons given for opposing views were: the
opinion that the 6-gram sugar limit was chosen in an arbitrary and
[[Page 10906]]
capricious manner; an absence of a specific sugar limit in the USDA
regulation applicable to ``foods of minimum nutritional value'' sold in
competition with school lunches and breakfasts (7 CFR 210.11 and
220.12); and the lack of a clear cut-off point to differentiate low-
sugar cereals from high-sugar cereals.
After taking into consideration the advice from outside experts,
advisory groups and the majority of commenters as well as factors
relevant to the WIC Program (e.g., participant acceptance, versatility,
cost, and nutrition education efforts to improve eating habits), the
Department published a final rule on November 12, 1980 (45 FR 74854).
This rule established the 6-gram sugar limit for WIC-eligible adult
cereals.
More recently in 1989, Section 123(c) of P.L. 101-147 mandated that
the Secretary conduct a review of WIC food packages to determine the
appropriateness of WIC-eligible foods. Among other things, the review
was to include consideration of: (1) how effectively protein, calcium
and iron are provided to participants; (2) the nutrient density of
foods; and (3) the extent to which nutrients, for which program
participants are most vulnerable to deficiencies, such as thiamine,
riboflavin, vitamin A and zinc, are effectively provided to
participants. Again, USDA formally solicited public comments on whether
there was evidence to support or refute the regulatory limit on the
amount of sugar contained in WIC food packages [55 FR 42856, October
24, 1990; 55 FR 52050, December 19, 1990].
Of the 97 comment letters the Department received specifically
addressing the issue of whether the existing regulatory limits/
requirements on components of the WIC foods should be retained, 66
comments supported retaining the 6-gram sugar limit for WIC-eligible
adult cereals. Twenty commenters suggested that this sugar limit be
retained only for WIC participants with weight problems, three industry
commenters opposed retaining this sugar limit and suggested either
removing or increasing it, and eight other commenters neither supported
nor opposed the sugar limit.
On October 3, 1991, the Conference Report (H. Rep. No. 239, p.47)
accompanying P.L. 102-142, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1992,
expressed the desire of the conferees that the Department ``make a
report to the appropriate committees of Congress on the issue of
cereals containing fruit in the WIC food package by December 31,
1991.'' In response, on December 31, 1991, the Department submitted to
pertinent Congressional committees a report that documented USDA's
broad base of support for retaining the 6-gram sugar limit. Included
among the letters USDA received encouraging the Department to retain
this WIC cereal requirement were those from the following non-profit
public interest groups and professional nutrition, medical and other
health-related organizations: American Academy of Pediatrics; American
Association of Public Health Dentistry; American Dental Association;
American Public Health Association; Association of State and
Territorial Dental Directors; Association of State and Territorial
Public Health Nutrition Directors; Bread for the World; Center for
Science in the Public Interest; Food Research and Action Center;
National Association of WIC Directors; National Parent-Teacher
Association; Public Voice for Food and Health Policy; and Society for
Nutrition Education.
In 1992, the Department submitted the formal report to Congress on
the outcome of the WIC food package review required by P.L. 101-147,
Section 123(c). Based upon advice from the majority of commenters,
including numerous nutrition and health authorities, the Department
decided to retain the 6-gram sugar limit for WIC-eligible adult
cereals. The National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal
Nutrition also endorsed the 6-gram sugar limit in its 1992 Biennial
Report to the President and Congress. The Council was established in
1975 by Section 17 (h)(1) [currently 17(k)(1)] of the Child Nutrition
Act, and is composed of health/medical experts and representatives of
WIC agencies, parent participants, and food retailers, to advise USDA
on how to improve WIC operations.
Also relevant to this issue is the publication ``Nutrition and Your
Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans,'' jointly developed by USDA
and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The
``Dietary Guidelines'' provide nutritional and dietary advice for the
general public (i.e., healthy Americans 2 or more years of age), based
upon the preponderance of current scientific and medical knowledge. The
first ``Dietary Guidelines'' were published in 1980 and have been
updated every five years to incorporate the latest research findings.
The updates are based on the recommendations of the 11-member Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee. This Committee is composed of widely
recognized non-Federal nutrition and medical experts. Similar to past
editions, the 1995 or fourth edition of the ``Dietary Guidelines,''
released by USDA and DHHS on January 2, 1996, urges Americans to choose
a diet moderate in sugars. An excerpt from pages 33 and 34 of this
latest edition follows:
For very active people with high calorie needs, sugars can be an
additional source of energy. However, because maintaining a
nutritious diet and a healthy weight is very important, sugars
should be used in moderation by most healthy people and sparingly by
people with low calorie needs. This guideline cautions about eating
sugars in large amounts and about frequent snacks of foods and
beverages containing sugars that supply unnecessary calories and few
nutrients.
Over the past several years, the Department has received inquiries
from members of Congress and representatives of the food industry about
the scientific basis for continuing the present sugar limit for WIC-
eligible adult cereals. Although clinical evidence continues to support
the correlation between sugar and dental caries, it has further
revealed that the consumption of any fermentable carbohydrate,
representing starches as well as sugars, can contribute to the
incidence of dental caries. In contrast, recent research has shown that
the independent factor of sugar intake does not appear to increase
one's risk of developing coronary heart disease, diabetes mellitus,
obesity, and hyperactivity.
While this evidence may suggest that no specific nutritional risk
warrants a limit on sugar content, the Department recognizes that there
may be other reasons that make such a limit appropriate. Factors that
should be considered are any impact on the cost of the food package,
the need to promote good dietary habits among nutritionally at-risk
participants, and the potential that a change in the limit may permit
``foods * * * containing sugars that supply unnecessary calories and
few nutrients'' to be included in the WIC food packages. The Department
also remains cognizant of the important role the WIC competent
professional authority plays in tailoring both the WIC food packages
and nutrition counseling to meet individual needs of Program
participants.
Therefore, the Department is seeking public input on whether a
change in the 6-gram sugar limit for WIC-eligible adult cereals is in
the best nutritional interests of WIC participants. The Department is
hoping to elicit a wide range of views from nutrition and health
experts, the WIC community, and other members of
[[Page 10907]]
the public at large to assist USDA in making a decision about this
issue.
Issues for Comment
The Department is interested in receiving public comments on
whether the current 6-gram sugar limit for WIC-eligible adult cereals
should be changed. The Department has identified several positions
related to this decision that commenters may wish to address. USDA
would like to know which, if any, of the following options would be
most appropriate for WIC food packages that make adult cereal
available:
Retain the current 6-gram sugar limit unchanged, counting
all sugar, both naturally occurring and added, as part of the total
sugar content of the cereal.
Set a new sugar limit, either higher or lower than the
current 6-gram level. If this option is selected, commenters should
specify a new sugar limit, e.g., grams of sugar per dry ounce of
cereal, and their justification for suggesting a new limit.
Revise the 6-gram sugar limit to represent only the amount
of sugar added during the manufacturing of a cereal, representing
either a separate ingredient (e.g., table sugar, corn syrup, brown
sugar, honey, and maltodextrin) or a separate component of a processed
or man-made ingredient (e.g., marshmallow and caramel), and exclude the
naturally occurring, inherent sugar in the cereal (e.g., sugars in
grains, dried fruits, and nonfat dry milk).
Eliminate the Federal sugar limit for WIC-eligible adult
cereals. However, WIC State agencies would have the authority to
establish and enforce a sugar limit of their own for WIC-eligible adult
cereals approved for use in their respective States.
Commenters are also invited to recommend alternative options not
stated above. In order for comment letters to be most useful to the
Department, commenters are urged to discuss both the pros and cons of
their recommendations as they apply to WIC participants and program
operations, including any problems WIC State agencies may encounter in
implementing a proposed alternative option. USDA is very interested to
know how any change might impact the provision and effect of WIC food
benefits and nutrition education. The Department also would like to
know whether WIC State and local agencies believe that the current 6-
gram limit provides an adequate range of choices for both WIC agencies
and participants, consistent with the nutritional purposes of the WIC
Program.
Dated: March 8, 1996.
William E. Ludwig,
Administrator, Food and Consumer Service.
[FR Doc. 96-6178 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6011 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California Ozone
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10920-10962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6011]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA114-1-7280; FRL-5439-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California--
Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTIONS: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone for 7 nonattainment areas: South
Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin
Valley, and Santa Barbara, submitted in order to comply with the
November 1994 deadline under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, EPA
proposes to approve specific local and statewide air pollution control
measures, including the California enhanced motor vehicle inspection
and maintenance program.
EPA proposes to approve these revisions to the California SIP under
provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals for
nonattainment areas.
EPA proposes to establish a consultative process on the potential
for additional mobile source controls that can contribute to attainment
in the South Coast.
DATES: Written comments on the proposed EPA actions must be received by
EPA at the address below on or before May 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed
to: Regional Administrator, Attention: Office of Federal Planning (A-1-
2), Air and Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
Copies of the SIP submittal and materials relevant to this
rulemaking are contained in Docket No. A-96-13, which is available for
viewing during normal business hours at the address shown above.
Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at
the addresses listed below:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC
California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, California
In addition, copies of the relevant local plan, the State plan
(1994 California Ozone SIP), and EPA's technical support documents for
this rulemaking are available at the following locations:
Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, 26 Castilian Drive B-23,
Goleta, California
San Diego Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San
Diego, California
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999
Tuolumne Street, Fresno, California
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive,
Ventura, California
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite
200, Victorville, California
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California
Electronic Availability
This document and EPA's technical support documents are available
at Region 9's site on the Internet's World Wide Web at http://
www.epa.gov/region09/air/sip/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Barrow, Director, Office of
Federal Planning (A-1-2), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-2434
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Summary
B. Requirements of the Act
C. Affected Areas
[[Page 10921]]
D. The California Ozone Plans
1. SIP Submittals
2. EPA Completeness Findings
E. Related SIP Approvals
II. Review of the State Submittal
A. State Measures
1. Mobile Source Measures
a. Introduction
b. Review of Measures
(i) M1
(ii) M2
(iii) M3
(iv) M4
(v) M5 34
(vi) M7
(vii) M8 39
(viii) M9
(ix) M11
(x) Additional New Control Technologies
c. EPA Action
2. I/M
a. Review of Program
b. Emission Reductions
c. EPA Action
3. Consumer Products
a. Introduction
b. Adopted Consumer Products Rules
(i) Measure CP-1
(ii) Measure CP-3 (Aerosol Paints)
c. Mid-Term Committal Measure (CP-2)
d. Long-Term Committal Measure (CP-4)
e. Alternative Compliance Plans (ACPs)
f. Emission Reductions
g. EPA Action
4. Pesticides
a. Review of Measure
b. Emission Reductions
c. EPA Action
B. Federal Measures
1. State Approach
2. EPA Action
C. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and Measures
1. Introduction and Common Elements
a. Emission Inventories
(1) 1990 Base Year Inventories
(2) Inventory Projections
b. Rate of Progress
c. NOX Substitution
d. Modeling
(1) Introduction
(2) Uncertainty and Model Performance
(3) Number of Episodes
(4) Attainment Test
(5) Transport
2. Santa Barbara
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) ROP Control Strategy
(3) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
3. San Diego
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) ROP Control Strategy
(3) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
4. San Joaquin Valley
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy
(4) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
5. Sacramento
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy
(4) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
6. Ventura
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy
(4) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
7. South Coast
a. Identification of Plan
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP Provisions
(1) ROP Emission Targets
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy
(4) EPA Action
e. Demonstration of Attainment
(1) Control Strategy
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(3) EPA Action
f. Overall EPA Action
8. Southeast Desert
a. Identification of Plans
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories
c. SIP Control Measures
(1) Description
(2) EPA Action
d. ROP and Attainment Provisions
(1) ROP and Attainment Emission Targets
(2) State Approach
(3) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
(4) EPA Action
e. Overall EPA Action
III. Summary of EPA Actions
IV. Regulatory Process
V. Unfunded Mandates
Appendix: Status of EPA's Activities Relating to the ``Federal
Measures'' in the California SIP Submittal
I. Background
A. Summary
Air pollution remains a significant public health concern in many
parts of the country, including many areas in California. The Clean Air
Act requires states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs) that
lay out how areas will reduce pollution and attain the health-based air
quality standards for a number of pollutants, including ground level
ozone.
On the Clean Air Act deadline for ozone SIP submittals, November
15, 1994, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted to EPA
the State's ozone plans, including State and local measures and
regulations, emission inventories, modeling analyses, rate-of-progress
(ROP) plans, and attainment demonstrations. This material was followed
by several supplementary SIP submissions and technical documentation
over the past year, addressing in still greater detail and more
completely the critical ozone planning requirements of the Act.
Together these submissions present a road map of how the State of
California envisions meeting the health-based ozone air quality
standards in 7 distinct geographic areas within the State by the dates
specified in the Clean Air Act. The submittals represent the
culmination of years of work and collaboration among stakeholders at
the local, regional, State, national, and even international level. The
plans were carefully tailored to meet the clean air goals of
Californians, reflecting the social and economic priorities of each
affected area within the State as well as the legitimate concerns of
national and international commerce.
In the last 30 years, California has significantly improved air
quality in its cities through efforts by businesses and
[[Page 10922]]
communities to reduce ground level ozone pollution. California faces
additional challenges in its fight for clean air because of rapid
growth in population and motor vehicle use as well as meteorological
conditions conducive to ozone formation. Nevertheless, there are still
several areas where air pollution continues to threaten public health,
including Southern California, which violates the standard on almost
one out of every three days--25 times more frequently than the next
most polluted urban areas. The current plans build on California's
pioneering air pollution control efforts to make progress against, and
eventually eliminate, one of the most severe and intractable
environmental and public health problems in the Country.
The Clean Air Act guarantees to all Americans healthy air to
breathe. Unfortunately, approximately one-quarter of Americans
nationwide and more than three-quarters of all Californians are
currently exposed to health-threatening levels of air pollution. Of the
top ten U.S. urban areas with the most violations of the national
ambient air quality standard for ozone, nine are located in California.
Ozone is a highly reactive chemical compound which, at ground
level, can affect both biological tissues and man-made materials. Ozone
exposure causes a range of human pulmonary and respiratory health
effects. While ozone's effects on the pulmonary function of sensitive
individuals (e.g., asthmatics) are of primary concern, evidence
indicates that high ambient levels of ozone can cause respiratory
symptoms in healthy adults and children as well. For example, exposure
to ozone for several hours at moderate concentrations, especially
during outdoor work and exercise, has been found to decrease lung
function, increase airway inflammation, increase sensitivity to other
irritants, and impair lung defenses against infections in otherwise
healthy adults and children. Other symptoms include chest pain,
coughing, and shortness of breath.
There are also public health consequences from direct exposure to
the two principal pollutants that cause ozone formation: oxides of
nitrogen (or NOX) and volatile organic compounds (or VOCs). Since
attainment of the ozone standard requires reductions in these two
precursor pollutants, successful implementation of the ozone SIPs will
yield additional health benefits. Exposure to nitrogen dioxide (a major
component of NOX) can reduce breathing efficiency and increase
lung and airway irritation even in healthy adults; elevated NO2
levels also increase symptoms of respiratory illness, lung congestion,
wheeze, and increased bronchitis in children. VOCs include many air
toxics (such as benzene), which can cause respiratory, immunological,
neurological, reproductive, developmental, and mutagenic problems. Some
VOCs are also probable or known human carcinogens.
Finally, the conversion of NOX into fine particulate matter is
a serious health concern, especially in Southern California. Studies
have shown that high concentrations of fine particulate matter are
associated with major human health problems, including deleterious
effects on breathing and the respiratory system, aggravation of
existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alternations in the
body's defense mechanisms against foreign materials, and damage to lung
tissue resulting in fibrosis, carcinogenesis, and premature death.
In addition to impacts on public health, ozone damages vegetation
and NOX emissions, in the form of acid deposition, both harms
plants and causes eutrophication of lakes and streams. Estimates based
on experimental studies of the major commercial crops in the U.S.
suggests that ozone may be responsible for significant agricultural
crop yield losses. In addition, ozone causes noticeable leaf damage in
many crops, which reduces their marketability and value.
Efforts to clean the air require significant resources, but the
benefits are substantial. While it is easier to put a price tag on a
regulation to limit air pollution than it is to assign a dollar value
to being able to breathe without losing lung capacity or to see
mountains that are a few miles away, we know that impacts on
individuals' health associated with air pollution have considerable
physiological, psychological, and purely financial costs. Similarly,
lower crop yields, decreased forest production, and accelerated
building deterioration due to air pollution also have financial costs
that will be reduced by attainment of the clean air standards.
At the same time, clean air has benefits even beyond healthy
breathing. The technologies and industries that will make air pollution
a problem of the past can also be the growth industries that bring to
California jobs and dollars from markets all around the world. A recent
World Bank study projects a $300 billion worldwide marketplace for
clean technologies by the year 2000. Innovative technologies offer the
promise of continued economic growth in concert with strong
environmental protection.
To achieve public health progress over the past 30 years,
California has already adopted uniquely stringent controls on a vast
array of industrial sources, consumer products, and motor vehicles. As
developed by California and Californians, these existing regulations
and the SIP's proposed enhancements to them promote technological
advances while meeting the economic and environmental needs of the
State. The credit for this achievement is shared by the State's air
pollution professionals, regulated industry, and citizens, who continue
to explore new and innovative ways to minimize pollution associated
with their products and activities.
Plan Approvals
When a state submits a SIP to EPA the Clean Air Act requires the
Agency to review the plan to determine if it meets the Act's
requirements and environmental goals. California's 1994 Ozone SIP
included, for both the State and local agencies, fully adopted
regulations and control measures for which regulations must be written.
Since November 1994, EPA has already completed approval of all but one
of the State's fully adopted regulations and most of the State's
commitments to adopt regulations in the future. The State submitted its
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) regulations on
January 22, 1996. EPA is proposing today approval of the I/M
regulations, which should help to assure the maximum benefits from the
California motor vehicle emissions standards.
EPA believes that this SIP represents an important blueprint for
clean air in California. By today's actions, the Federal government
signals its intention to concur with these plans. California's
commitments, when implemented, will improve air quality and protect
public health. Now it is incumbent on California to meet those
commitments. EPA is today generally proposing to approve in full the
critical components of all of the plans for all of the areas.
EPA is proposing approval of:
The emission inventories and modeling analyses in all of
the affected areas;
The 15% rate-of-progress plans for the period 1990-1996 in
the South Coast (the Los Angeles basin), Ventura, San Joaquin, San
Diego, and Santa Barbara;
The post-1996 rate-of-progress plans in the South Coast,
Ventura, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and San Diego;
[[Page 10923]]
The attainment demonstrations for the South Coast,
Southeast Desert, Ventura, Sacramento, San Joaquin, San Diego, and
Santa Barbara;
All of the individual local measures included with the
plans.
EPA will take action separately on the 15% progress plan for Sacramento
and the progress plans for the Southeast Desert.
The South Coast ozone attainment demonstration raises a unique
issue. In the SIP, California assumes that EPA will issue specific
national mobile source emission reduction rules to help the South Coast
reach attainment. While some additional mobile source standards may be
feasible and desirable, EPA believes that it is important to examine
and discuss these standards because they have far-reaching
implications. As new national and international standards are being
discussed, EPA commits to support rather than hinder State and local
progress in implementing and updating the ozone attainment
demonstration for the South Coast.
To achieve this objective and allow for approval of the South Coast
attainment demonstration at this time, EPA proposes an approach which
the Agency believes is consistent with EPA's guiding principle for
implementing its statutory responsibilities: accomplish environmental
goals through innovative approaches that are collaborative rather than
adversarial, and that provide flexibility while requiring
accountability.
The South Coast attainment demonstration is based primarily on
those State and local components (enumerated in the text of the notice)
that make up the vast majority of reductions needed for attainment in
the South Coast. EPA has already approved most of the State and local
adopted regulations and many of the State's new commitments made as
part of California's 1994 Ozone SIP. EPA proposes in this document to
approve the enforceable State and local commitments that make up the
remainder of the plan. These State and local regulations and
commitments, together with creditable national controls which EPA has
promulgated or proposed, account for well over 90% of the reductions
needed for attainment.
To address the small remaining shortfall which the State has
assigned to the Federal government, EPA proposes to conduct a public
consultative process on future mobile source controls. The Agency also
commits to undertake rulemaking, after the consultative process, on any
controls which are determined to be appropriate for EPA. Finally, EPA
is proposing to require that the State submit, before EPA's final
action on the South Coast plan, an enforceable commitment to submit a
revised South Coast attainment demonstration and gap-filling State or
local control measures, if needed, after the consultative process.
In assigning EPA responsibility for issuing Federal emission
standards for various mobile sources, the State argued that attainment
in Southern California depends upon emission reductions from national
and international mobile sources which could not legally or practically
be regulated at the State or local level. EPA and the State have been
working together for the past several years to evaluate the potential
for additional national emission controls on mobile sources. EPA has
recently proposed or finalized national emission controls for
construction, farm, and lawn and garden equipment; pleasure craft and
some categories of marine vessels; and potential new controls on heavy-
duty truck emissions. The proposed nationwide heavy-duty truck
controls, in fact, are an outgrowth of an EPA-California joint
initiative, developed in consultation with heavy-duty engine
manufacturers, which also extends to possible future controls on heavy-
duty nonroad engines. Other assignments by the State present unique
challenges, such as the establishment of stringent engine emission
standards for aircraft and ocean-going vessels--sources which are today
regulated by treaty principally at the international level.
EPA proposes to continue to consult with the State and other
stakeholders to examine the potential for additional mobile source
controls that can contribute to attainment in the South Coast. This
period provides an opportunity to agree on a set of emission reductions
without adverse consequences to the State or the environment, whether
those additional reductions come from national and international
emission standards or from new State and local measures. At the
conclusion of this consultation, in June 1997, EPA expects that the
State and local agencies will be able to amend the attainment
demonstration appropriately, based on the final mix of national, State,
and local mobile source control responsibilities. During the
consultative process, the State and local agencies need to proceed
aggressively with implementing other parts of the SIP in order to
maintain progress towards cleaning the air.
As mentioned, EPA is proposing to approve all of the local agency
commitments to adopt and implement rules by scheduled dates to achieve
specified emission reductions. In some cases, most notably the South
Coast, scheduled adoption dates have already been missed. It is
critically important that these adoption schedules be amended, that the
local agency staff and governing board's commit themselves to
reasonable and aggressive schedules for rule development and adoption,
and that the affected agencies proceed successfully with plan
implementation to fulfill their public commitments to deliver clean
air. EPA will work with the local agencies, the regulated community,
and the public to help the government boards and officials to meet
their public health obligations. Implementation failures will prolong
the unacceptable current levels of pollution and will expose the areas
to potential sanctions under the Clean Air Act.
Section 182(e)(5) of the Clean Air Act authorizes inclusion of
conceptual, new-technology measures in the attainment demonstration for
the South Coast, the Country's only ``extreme'' ozone nonattainment
area. In this 1990 amendment, Congress recognized that the South
Coast's enormous emission reduction requirements justified giving more
time to allow for the completion of research and development phases
that must precede the successful commercialization of practically zero-
emitting products, industrial processes, and means of transportation. A
large portion of the remaining needed reductions in the 1994 South
Coast plan is now assigned to conceptual measures. If these measures
are to contribute to the solution of the South Coast's ozone problem in
later years, all responsible governmental agencies and private industry
must now increase their resource commitments and cooperative efforts to
develop the clean technologies and innovative market approaches that
will be the basis for the area's economic and environmental progress.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed SIP actions. The
Addresses section of this document provides information on the public
comment process and opportunities to inspect the SIP and related
materials. EPA hopes to take final action soon so that California can
continue to make progress in implementing the challenging strategies in
the plans.
In transmitting the 1994 California Ozone SIP, the Chairwoman of
the California Air Resources Board stated that ``The SIP provides a
firm guarantee to citizens of California that clean air
[[Page 10924]]
goals will be met within the time frames set out in the CAA.'' Indeed,
the goal of the sweeping 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments has been not
simply to sustain the historic progress in reducing air pollution, but
instead to honor the underlying promise of the Act: clean, healthy air
for all Americans. We believe that California's achievement in these
plans for the most polluted areas of the nation proves that the Clean
Air Act is effective when citizens and public officials work together
to focus technical expertise and common sense to protect themselves,
the health of their children, and the welfare of future generations.
The Federal government is committed to playing its part in this final
effort to deliver clean air to all Californians.
B. Requirements of the Act
Title I of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA (CAAA) completely revised
the Part D nonattainment provisions for areas which had not attained
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone. In
addition, Congress made numerous changes governing EPA's processing of
SIPs, as well as the repercussions of State failures to meet the
various SIP requirements.
Section 110 of Part A of Title I contains general requirements
applicable to all SIP revisions. Section 110(k) describes the Agency's
actions on SIP revisions, including findings as to whether submissions
are complete (section 110(k)(1)), deadlines for EPA actions (section
110(k)(2)), types of actions the Agency may take on complete submittals
(110(k) (3) and (4)), and sanctions which may be applied to areas which
fail to meet the Act's requirements (sections 179 and 110(m)) or fail
to implement approved SIPs (sections 113(a)(5), 173(4), and 179).
The requirements addressed by this proposal are generally those of
Part D of Title I, pertaining to nonattainment areas. Such areas are
designated under section 107 of the Act (codified at 40 CFR Part 81).
While Subpart 1 of Part D (sections 171 to 179 CAA) describes general
requirements for nonattainment areas, Subpart 2 (sections 181 to 185B)
lists additional provisions added under the 1990 CAAA for ozone
nonattainment areas.
Under this subpart, ozone nonattainment areas are classified
according to the severity of the nonattainment problem, and become
subject to a graduated series of requirements. The classification
scheme for ozone nonattainment areas is listed under section 181, which
also establishes deadlines for attainment. The nonattainment
classifications and applicable attainment deadlines are: marginal
(November 15, 1993), moderate (November 15, 1996), serious (November
15, 1999), severe (November 15, 2005 or 2007), and extreme (November
15, 2010). Section 181(a) further provides that the attainment date
shall be ``as expeditiously as practicable but not later than'' these
deadlines.
EPA has issued preliminary interpretations of the amended Act's
provisions applicable to these SIP obligations. See, for example, the
``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990,'' (57 FR 13498 [April 16, 1992]). In this
proposed rulemaking action, EPA is applying these policies to the
proposed California ozone SIP, taking into consideration the specific
factual issues presented.
The central SIP requirements for ozone nonattainment areas are
demonstrations of reasonable further progress (or ``rate of progress'')
and attainment. Section 182(b)(1) requires, for areas classified as
moderate or above, submission by November 15, 1993 of a SIP revision
providing for reasonable further progress, defined as a reduction from
1990 baseline emissions of at least 15% actual emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC), taking into account growth, during the first 6
years following enactment of the 1990 CAAA (i.e., up to November 15,
1996).
Baseline emissions for calculating the required ROP reduction are
defined at section 182(b)(1)(B). Baseline emissions are relative to a
particular year for which the ROP reduction is calculated, and differ
from the 1990 base year emissions primarily in excluding reductions for
certain Federal programs which were already required prior to the 1990
CAAA. Section 182(b)(1)(C) describes a number of exclusions from
creditability for the purposes of meeting the ROP requirement.
For moderate areas, section 182(b)(1) requires submission of a plan
revision by November 15, 1993, that provides an attainment
demonstration including sufficient annual reductions in VOC and
NOX to attain the ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1996. The attainment
demonstration requirement can be met through applying EPA-approved
modeling techniques.
Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires, for serious and above areas,
submission by November 15, 1994, of reasonable further progress and
attainment plans. For these areas, the CAA defines reasonable further
progress as an additional ROP reduction above and beyond the required
1996 reductions, of 3% per year of baseline VOC emissions, averaged
over each consecutive 3-year period from November 15, 1996 until
attainment. Section 182(c)(2)(A) also requires attainment plans, based
on photochemical grid modeling, to be submitted by November 15, 1994,
for serious and above areas.
Section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for actual NOX emissions
reductions (after accounting for growth) that occur after the base year
of 1990 to be used to meet post-1996 ROP emission reduction
requirements. The reader is referred to section II.C.1.c. below for a
discussion of the Agency's NOX substitution criteria.
Sections 182(g)(3) and 182(g)(5) specify requirements for areas
which fail to submit a ROP milestone compliance demonstration under
section 182(g)(2) within the required period or if the Administrator
determines that the area has not met any applicable milestone. The
first ozone ROP milestone compliance demonstration is due April 1997,
for the period 1990-1996. Among the options discussed in section 182(g)
for curing a ROP shortfall is the use of an economic incentive program
(EIP). Under section 182(g)(4)(B), EPA promulgated requirements for
EIPs at 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart U (see 40 CFR 51.490 through 40 CFR
51.494--``EIP Rules and Guidance''). These EIP rules also serve as
policy guidance to determine the approvability of SIP measures that
rely on economic incentives (see 40 CFR 51.490(b)).
Under section 182(b)(4) of the Act, basic motor vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M) programs are required in all moderate ozone
nonattainment areas. Under section 182(c)(3), ozone nonattainment areas
designated as serious and worse with 1980 populations of 200,000 or
more are required to meet EPA regulations for ``enhanced'' I/M
programs. As required by section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA published
updated requirements for I/M programs on November 5, 1992 (40 CFR part
51, Subpart S, see also 57 FR 52950). On September 18, 1995, EPA issued
flexibility amendments to these I/M rules, allowing for an additional,
less stringent enhanced I/M performance standard for areas that can
meet the ROP and attainment requirements with an I/M program that falls
below the originally promulgated enhanced I/M performance standard (see
60 FR 48029). On November 28, 1995, the National Highway System
Designation Act (Public Law 104-59) was enacted. Section 348 of this
legislation modifies the I/M provisions
[[Page 10925]]
of the Clean Air Act, providing a mechanism for approval with full
credit for decentralized or test-and-repair enhanced I/M programs under
certain circumstances. The legislation also establishes an 18-month
evaluation period to verify that the assigned credits have a basis in
fact, prior to permanent program approval.
Part D of the Act includes other ozone SIP requirements. EPA has
previously acted upon some SIP revisions addressing these requirements;
others will be addressed in future actions. Moreover, the ozone ROP and
attainment plans depend upon the successful adoption and implementation
of well over 100 State and local rules. EPA will approve or disapprove
individual rules relating to each local plan after the State submits
the rules and EPA deems them complete.
EPA believes that the law requires and the public expects that the
responsible California State and local agencies will honor all of their
clean air commitments in these ozone plans, and will consistently
pursue reasonable and aggressive plan implementation until the clean
air goals are reached. Nevertheless, the Act does allow the State to
amend the SIPs in the future, both with respect to the technical
foundations of the demonstrations and the specific mix of control
measures chosen for achieving progress and attainment. State and local
agencies have the flexibility to make changes as necessary and
appropriate to improve the plans, but EPA will fulfill the Agency's
responsibilities under section 110(l) of the CAA, which provides that
``the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress * * * or any other
applicable requirement of the Act.''
C. Affected Areas
When California's ozone nonattainment areas were first classified
under the 1990 CAAA, 9 areas were classified as moderate and above, and
therefore subject to the progress and attainment requirements. The San
Francisco Bay Area was later redesignated to attainment (60 FR 27028,
May 22, 1995). CARB has also submitted a request to redesignate the
Monterey Bay Area to attainment. EPA will act on the Monterey
redesignation in the near future.
This proposal addresses ROP and attainment plans submitted for all
of the remaining nonattainment areas. These areas are the South Coast
(classified as extreme), the Southeast Desert (comprising the Mojave,
Coachella/San Jacinto, and Antelope Valley areas, severe-17), Ventura
(severe-15), Sacramento (severe-15), San Diego (serious), San Joaquin
Valley (serious), and Santa Barbara (moderate). The boundaries for
these areas are set forth at 40 CFR 81.305.
Since a number of the State's measures apply throughout California
and thus contribute both toward attainment and maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS, the SIP submittal and EPA's proposed approval actions affect all
areas in the State.
D. The California Ozone Plans
1. SIP Submittals
On November 15, 1993, in response to the 15% ROP requirements of
section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act, CARB submitted plans for all of the
areas addressed in this notice. These submittals have been superseded
by revised ROP plans submitted one year later.
On November 15, 1994, CARB submitted a revision to the ``State of
California Implementation Plan for Achieving and Maintaining the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (SIP) under cover letter from
James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia Marcus (EPA). This SIP revision includes
documentation that the public involvement and adoption requirements of
the CAA have been met at both the State and local level.
The revision itself consists of: (a) The State's comprehensive
ozone plan, including the State's own measures and the State's
summaries of, and revisions to, the local plans; (b) the State's
previously adopted regulations for consumer products and reformulated
gasoline and diesel fuels; and (c) local plans addressing the ozone
attainment demonstration and ROP requirements.
The ozone SIP submittal includes the following separate documents:
(a) The State's Comprehensive Ozone Plan
``The 1994 California State Implementation Plan for Ozone,''
volumes I-IV. The November 15, 1994, submittal letter refers to other
submittals, described below, as completing the 1994 California Ozone
SIP. Volume I provides an overview of the entire submittal; Volumes II
and III include the State's measures for mobile sources, consumer
products, and pesticides; and Volume IV treats the local plans. On
December 29, 1994 and February 7, 1995, the State submitted updates to
these documents, incorporating changes made by CARB at the time of
adoption, and providing other technical and editorial corrections.
(b) The State's Adopted Regulations
(1) The California Antiperspirants and Deodorants regulations and
Consumer Products regulations, as contained in Title 17 of the
California Code of Regulations, Sections 94507-94517, adopted on
December 27, 1990, August 14, 1991, and September 21, 1992.
(2) The California Diesel Fuel regulations, as contained in Title
13 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 2281 and 2282,
adopted on August 22, 1989, June 21, 1990, April 15, 1991, October 15,
1993, and August 24, 1994.
(3) The California Reformulated Gasoline regulations, as contained
in Title 13, of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 2250,
2252, 2253.4, 2254, 2257, 2260, 2262.1, 2262.2, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5,
2262.6, 2262.7, 2263, 2264, 2266-2272, 2296, and 2297, initially
adopted by CARB on November 17, 1988, and formally adopted on August
22, 1989, June 21, 1990, April 15, 1991, October 15, 1993, and August
24, 1994.
(c) Local Ozone Progress and Attainment Plans
(1) ``1994 Clean Air Plan for Santa Barbara County.'' The submittal
letter for this plan is from James Boyd to Regional Administrator
Felicia Marcus and is dated November 14, 1994.
(2) ``1994 Ozone Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans for San
Diego County.''
(3) ``San Joaquin Valley Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans.''
On December 28, 1994, the State submitted the ``Rate-of-Progress and
Attainment Demonstration Plans for the Kern County Air Pollution
Control District,'' applicable to the Kern desert portion of the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.
(4) ``Sacramento Area Proposed Attainment and Rate-of-Progress
Plans.'' On December 29, 1994, the State replaced this with the
``Sacramento Area Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans.''
(5) ``1994 Air Quality Management Plan for Ventura County.''
(6) ``Rate-of Progress and Attainment Demonstration Plans for the
Mojave Desert.''
(7) ``1994 Air Quality Management Plan for South Coast Air Basin,
Antelope Valley and Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area.''
On December 29, 1994, the State submitted the ``Rate-of-Progress
Plan Revision: South Coast Air Basin &
[[Page 10926]]
Antelope Valley & Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area.'' 1
\1\ Antelope Valley and Coachella/San Jacinto Planning Area are
portions of the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management
Area under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 30, 1995, CARB submitted revised 1990 base year emission
inventories for each of the California ozone nonattainment areas.
On June 30, 1995, CARB submitted descriptive materials relating to
the State's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program, adopted
by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair.
On January 22, 1996, CARB submitted the motor vehicle inspection
and maintenance regulations adopted by the California Bureau of
Automotive Repair.
2. EPA Completeness Findings
On January 30, 1995, EPA issued a finding of completeness under
Section 110(k)(1) of the Act for the following portions of the
California ozone SIP submittal: Diesel Fuel Regulations; Reformulated
Gasoline Regulations; CARB Measures M2, M3, M5, M8, M9, M11, CP-2, CP-
3, CP-4, Additional Measures; and SCAQMD Long Term Measures ADV-CTS-01/
02, ADV-FUG, ADV-PRC, ADV-UNSP. These elements of the revision were
found complete based on EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth
in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V.2
\2\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990
(55 FR 5830) and pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 18, 1995 the EPA issued a finding of completeness for the
remaining portions of the November and December 1994 submittals with
regard to: (1) attainment and post-1996 RFP requirements at section
182(c)(2) of the Act; (2) 15% ROP requirement of section 182(b)(1)(A);
(3) attainment requirement for moderate areas (Santa Barbara) as
described at Section 182(b)(1)(A); and (4) 1990 base year inventory
requirements of section 182(a)(1).
On June 30, 1995, EPA issued a finding of completeness for the
State's submittal of revisions to the State's I/M program.
On February 5, 1996, EPA issued a finding of completeness for the
State's I/M regulations.
E. Related SIP Approvals
On February 14, 1995, the EPA Administrator signed documents taking
the following approval actions relating to the California ozone SIP:
(1) Final approval of the CARB Antiperspirants and Deodorants
regulations, Consumer Products regulations, Diesel Fuel regulations,
and Reformulated Gasoline regulations, as submitted on November 15,
1994.
(2) Interim final approval of CARB and SCAQMD New-Technology
Measures, submitted as part of the South Coast ozone SIP on November
15, 1994. The measures were approved under the provisions of section
182(e)(5) of the CAA, which authorizes the Administrator to approve
fully and credit as part of an extreme ozone area SIP conceptual
measures dependent upon new control technologies or new control
techniques. The specific measures approved are:
(a) CARB Measure M2, Improved Control Technology for Light-Duty
Vehicles, for adoption in the year 2000 and implementation in 2004-5.
(b) CARB Measure M9, Off-Road Diesel Equipment, 2.5 grams per brake
horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) NOX standard, for adoption in 2001 and
implementation in 2005.
(c) CARB Measure CP-4, Consumer Products Advanced Technology and
Market Incentives, for adoption in 2005 and implementation in 2009.
(d) CARB Additional Measures, for adoption and implementation by
2009-2010.
(e) SCAQMD Measure ADV-CTS-01, Advance Technology-CTS (Coating
Technologies), for adoption in 2003.
(f) SCAQMD Measure ADV-FUG, Advanced Technology-Fugitives, for
adoption in 2003.
(g) SCAQMD Measure ADV-PRC, Advance Technology-Process Related
Emissions, for adoption in 2003.
(h) SCAQMD Measure ADV-UNSP, Advance Technology-Unspecified,
Stationary Sources, for adoption in 2003.
(i) SCAQMD Measure ADV-CTS-02, Advance Technology-CTS (Coatings
Technologies).
(3) Proposed approval of CARB's mid-term control measures: Measures
M3, Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) requirement for
Medium-Duty Vehicles, for adoption in 1997 and implementation in 1998;
M5, Heavy-Duty Vehicle NOX regulations, for adoption in 1997 and
implementation in 2002; M8, Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles lower
emissions standards, for adoption in 1997 and implementation in 1998;
M11, Industrial Equipment, Gas and LPG, for adoption in 1997 and
implementation in 2000; and CP2, Mid-Term Consumer Products, for
adoption in July 1997.
These actions were taken in conjunction with issuance of ozone
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the South Coast, Ventura, and
Sacramento, and a carbon monoxide FIP for the South Coast. Prior to
publication of the FIP and SIP actions in the Federal Register,
legislation was enacted mandating that these FIPs ``shall be rescinded
and shall have no further force and effect'' (Public Law 104-6, Defense
Supplemental Appropriation, H.R. 889, enacted April 10, 1995).
On August 21, 1995, EPA announced the rescission of the FIPs (60 FR
43468), and reissued the final and interim final SIP approvals (60 FR
43379) and the proposed SIP approvals (60 FR 43421) referenced above.
On December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126), EPA issued the final SIP approval
of the State's mid-term control measures (M3, M5, M8, M11, and CP-2).
II. Review of the State Submittal
On October 7, 1994 the State published a public notice regarding
its adoption hearings, to begin on November 9, 1994. Those hearings
were extended to November 14 and 15, at which time CARB adopted and
submitted the documents listed above (section I.C.).
The local elements of the State plan were the product of plan
development, public review and adoption processes conducted in each
nonattainment area. Following adoption by the local air pollution
control boards, the local plans were submitted to CARB, which amended
the plans and incorporated them into the overall California Ozone SIP.
This document discusses the State's submittal in terms of 3 broad
categories: measures which the State has adopted, or enforceably
committed to adopt (section II.A.); measures assigned by the State to
the Federal government (section II.B.); and local ROP and attainment
plans and measures (section II.C.).
A. State Measures
Statewide elements of the ozone progress and attainment plans
include measures to control mobile sources, consumer products, and
pesticides. These control measures consist of existing adopted rules,
commitments to adopt rules between 1995 and 1997, and long-term
measures scheduled for regulatory adoption in the year 2000 or later.
1. Mobile Sources Measures
a. Introduction. According to data from CARB, mobile sources (on-
road and non-road) account for more than 60 percent of ozone precursor
emissions in California. Therefore, further reductions in mobile source
emissions are essential if attainment of the NAAQS for ozone is to be
achieved.
[[Page 10927]]
CARB has an existing statewide control program for mobile source
emissions, which is expected to achieve significant reductions in
emissions in the ozone nonattainment areas of the State. A key element
of this existing control program is the Low-Emission Vehicle/Clean
Fuels (LEV) program which was originally adopted in 1990 and has been
amended several times since. The LEV program aims to reduce emissions
from future light- and medium-duty vehicles. The program contains
several categories of vehicle emission requirements. Increasingly
stringent fleet average requirements must be met by vehicle
manufacturers beginning in 1994. In addition, the LEV program requires
manufacturers to introduce increasing percentages of zero-emission
vehicles (ZEVs), beginning with two percent in 1998 (Title 13,
California Code of Regulations, Section 1960.1).
Other CARB-adopted mobile source control measures include the
California Diesel Fuel Regulations and the California Reformulated
Gasoline regulations. Both of these fuel regulations were originally
adopted in 1989 and frequently amended. As discussed above, EPA
approved the diesel and reformulated gasoline regulations on August 21,
1995 (60 FR 43379).
Beginning in 1988, CARB also adopted the following important sets
of mobile source regulations:
(1) Emission standards for diesel farm and construction equipment
over 175 hp;
(2) revised evaporative emission test procedures;
(3) Phase 2 on-board diagnostics (OBD) provisions;
(4) Revised emission standards for medium-duty vehicles (MDVs) and
light-heavy-duty vehicles (LHDVs); and
(5) Requirements for utility engines and off-highway recreational
vehicles/engines.
In addition to the adopted measures, the State has committed in the
1994 California Ozone SIP to future adoption of a series of mobile
source measures. The commitments fall chronologically into two
categories with regard to the adoption schedule: mid-term commitments
to be adopted during the 1995-1997 time frame, and long-term measures
scheduled for adoption in the year 2000 or later.
The long-term measures are relied upon only in the South Coast Air
Basin. The South Coast is the only area in the country classified as
extreme for ozone, and is subject to section 182(e)(5) of the Act,
which authorizes EPA to credit conceptual measures using new
technologies or control techniques if they are not needed for meeting
the first 10 years of ROP (see section II.C.7.e.(1).).
The following is a description of the State's mobile source
measures, or M Measures, and EPA's approval actions on the measures.
b. Review of Measures
(i) M1--Accelerated Retirement of Light-Duty Vehicles. The SIP
commits to adopt this measure in 1996 and implement it from 1996 to
2010. Responsibility for implementing this measure may be shared
between CARB and regional air districts. In this measure, CARB commits
to the annual retirement (scrappage or removal) of up to 75,000 older,
high-emitting vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin only, beginning in
1999. A smaller number of vehicles will be retired between 1996 and
1998 in order to gain experience with the program. CARB estimates that
$1,000 per car will be required to cover costs associated with vehicle
purchase and program administration. CARB committed in the SIP to
secure a financing mechanism for the program by the end of 1995, and
legislative efforts to do so have been partially successful. While all
critical near-term revenues should be obtained now, the State also
should begin to pursue long-term support for the program. CARB must
also ensure that implementation and monitoring of the measure prevents
double-counting of reduction credits, since scrappage is also a feature
of the State's I/M program and emission reduction credits from
scrappage may be claimed as emission reduction credits in trading
programs.3
\3\ These concerns were expressed in a letter from David P.
Howekamp, Director, Air & Toxics Division, USEPA Region 9, to James
D. Boyd, Executive Officer, CARB, dated June 15, 1995, on follow-up
issues to a June 9, 1995 meeting between CARB, USEPA, and the
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While M1 is a commitment to implement an accelerated vehicle
retirement program only in the South Coast, the SIP states that
``implementation of light-duty vehicle retirement programs in other
non-attainment areas will be considered as a means of further reducing
emissions'' (Vol. II, p. B-2).
The emission reductions to be achieved in the South Coast by the
measure are displayed by year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions
from California Mobile Source Measure M1.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M1 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG........................... 5 8 11 12 13 14
NOX........................... 4 6 9 10 10 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) M2--Improved Control Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles. CARB
commits to adopt this measure in 2000 and begin implementation in 2004-
2005. This measure will achieve emission reductions from LDVs through
the use of one or more market-based and/or technology-forcing
approaches. Emission reductions may be achieved through: (1) cost-
effective gasoline engine control technology to meet or exceed Ultra
Low-Emission Vehicle (ULEV) standards in the post-2003 time frame; (2)
ZEV sales in excess of the 10% requirement beyond 2003; and/or (3)
availability of advanced hybrid electric vehicles with emissions
substantially lower than ULEVs. The SIP indicates that market forces
(e.g., incentives) and/or emission standards may be used to achieve the
emission reductions. Emission reductions associated with this measure
are relied upon in the South Coast only. The emission reductions to be
achieved in the South Coast by the measure are displayed by year in the
table below, labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure
M2.''
[[Page 10928]]
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M2 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG........................... 0 0 3 7 6 10
NOX........................... 0 0 5 9 9 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 1995, EPA approved this measure under the provisions
of section 182(e)(5) of the Act.
(iii) M3--Accelerated Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Requirement
for Medium-Duty Vehicles (MDVs). CARB commits in the SIP to adopt
regulations for this measure in 1997, with implementation occurring
from 1998 to 2002. This measure commits to an increase in the fraction
of MDV ULEVs from 10 percent of sales of new MDVs in the 1998 model
year to 100 percent in the 2002 and later model years. CARB believes
that the emission reductions associated with this measure can be
achieved by applying advancements in LDV emission control technologies
to the medium-duty fleet. This measure offers some flexibility by
allowing other mixes of vehicles and technologies that generate
equivalent emission reductions. The emission reductions to be achieved
by the measure are displayed by nonattainment area and milestone/
attainment year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from
California Mobile Source Measure M3.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M3
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast......................................... 0 1 1 10 2 21 ...... ...... 2 27 3 33
SE Desert......................................... 0 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.2 3.5 0.3 4.1
Ventura........................................... 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 1.0
Sacramento........................................ 0 0.2 0 1.7 0.4 3.9
S. Joaquin........................................ 0 0.4
S. Diego.......................................... 0.9 6.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposed to approve M3 on August 21, 1995, and finalized
approval on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).
(iv) M4--Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDV); Early Introduction of
2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX engines. The SIP commits to implementation of
this measure beginning in 1996. CARB and the Districts share
responsibility for this measure. M4 is a commitment to increase the use
of existing low-emission engines among on-road HDDVs through locally
implemented demand-side programs and market incentives. This program is
intended to result in a 5% sales penetration of 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX
engines through the period 1996-1999, and a 10% sales penetration of
these engines between 2000 and 2002. Other combinations of penetrations
and emission levels that provide equivalent emission reductions could
be implemented. The emission reductions to be achieved in the South
Coast by the measure are displayed by year in the table below, labeled
``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M4.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M4 (in South Coast Air
Basin in Tons per Day of NOX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.17......... 3.90 2.93 2.34 1.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) M5--Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (HDDVs); Additional NOX
Reductions. The SIP commits to adopt this measure in 1997 and begin
implementation in 2002. CARB commits to achieve emission reductions
through adoption of a 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX emissions standard for new
HDDV engines sold in California beginning in 2002, or by implementation
of alternative measures which achieve equivalent or greater reductions.
Alternatives under consideration include expanded introduction of
alternative-fueled and low-emission HDDV engines through demand-side
programs and incentives, retrofit of aerodynamic devices, reduced
idling, and speed reduction. The emission reductions to be achieved by
the measure are displayed by nonattainment area and milestone/
attainment year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from
California Mobile Source Measure M5.''
Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M5
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast......................................... 0 0 0.2 1.7 1.8 22.0 ...... ...... 3.1 37.6 4.8 56.2
SE Desert......................................... 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 3.9 0.4 5.1
Ventura........................................... 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 1.0
Sacramento........................................ 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 2.7
S. Joaquin........................................ 0 0
S. Diego.......................................... 0.7 8.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10929]]
This measure is designed to achieve emission reductions prior to
the introduction of a potential national 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX standard
in 2004. The 1994 California Ozone SIP (``Federal Measure'' M6) assigns
to EPA responsibility for adopting such a national standard (see
discussion in section II.B.).
Significant progress toward fulfilling the M5 and M6 commitments
has been made by CARB, EPA, and truck and engine manufacturers. On
March 30, 1995, EPA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with CARB to
undertake a joint effort to develop a national program for controlling
NOX, PM, and HC emissions from onroad and nonroad heavy-duty
engines. This joint effort will involve sharing technology development
and information, resources, and expertise.
Further, on July 11, 1995, CARB, EPA, and members of the Engine
Manufacturers Association signed a Statement of Principles (SOP)
detailing their agreement on future NOX, HC, and PM standards for
heavy-duty engines. The goal of the SOP is to reduce NOX emissions
from onroad HDEs to approximately 2 g/bhp-hr beginning in 2004. This
will be achieved by giving manufacturers the flexibility to choose
between two options: (1) A combined non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus
NOX standard of 2.4 g/bhp-hr and (2) a combined NMHC plus NOX
standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr together with a NMHC cap of .5 g/bhp-hr.
Signatories will work to achieve low emissions throughout the life of
the engine. EPA expects that this combined standard will result in
NOX reductions comparable to those achieved with a 2 g/bhp-hr
standard and significant reductions in HC emissions.
With respect to California standards, the SOP included the
following provision: ``Both EPA and California recognize the benefits
of harmonizing state and federal regulations. California confirms its
intent to notice a public hearing to consider actions to harmonize its
regulations * * * with the federal regulations adopted under this SOP,
provided such action would not compromise California's obligations to
comply with state and federal law including the SIP.''
On August 31, 1995, EPA published the SOP in an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM invited public comment on
national controls for onroad heavy-duty engines consistent with the
SOP, and also described EPA's plans to work cooperatively with engine
and equipment manufacturers to consider additional reductions from
nonroad heavy-duty engines (see 60 FR 45580-45604).
EPA proposed to approve M5 on August 21, 1995, and finalized
approval on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).
(vi) M7--Accelerated Retirement of Heavy-Duty Vehicles. CARB
commits to adopt this measure in 1996 and begin implementation in the
same year. This measure involves the annual retirement (scrapping or
removal) of about 1600 of the oldest, high emitting trucks in the South
Coast Air Basin, beginning in 1999. A smaller number of trucks would be
scrapped in 1996 to 1998 in order to gain experience with the program
and determine the impacts on the used truck market. Incentives are
expected to be provided to operators of older trucks in return for
retirement and purchase of a newer, lower-emitting model. The
incentives may take the form of guaranteed low interest loans,
subsidies, or both. The SIP commits to secure a financing mechanism for
this measure by the end of 1995. While the SIP commits only to
implement this measure in the South Coast, the State indicates that
consideration is being given to establishing a truck retirement program
in Sacramento and other nonattainment areas. The emission reductions to
be achieved in the South Coast by the measure are displayed by year in
the table below, labeled ``Reductions from California Mobile Source
Measure M7.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M7 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG........................... 0 1 1 1 1 1
NOX........................... 3 6 7 8 9 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vii) M8--Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (HDGVs), Lower Emission
Standards. The SIP commits to adoption of this measure by 1997 and
implementation beginning in 1998. This measure generates emission
reductions through the adoption of a LEV/ULEV program for HDGV engines
to obtain 50% reductions of NOX and ROG emissions through the
application of 3-way catalyst technology. The emission reductions to be
achieved by the measure are displayed by nonattainment area and
milestone/attainment year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from
California Mobile Source Measure M8.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M8
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast......................................... 0 0 0 0.8 0.1 1.8 ...... ...... 0.2 2.3 0.3 3.0
SE Desert......................................... 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.4
Ventura........................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.1
Sacramento........................................ 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.4
S. Joaquin........................................ 0 0
S. Diego.......................................... 0.1 0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10930]]
EPA proposed to approve M8 on August 21, 1995, and finalized
approval on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).
(viii) M9--Off-road Diesel Equipment; 2.5 g/bhp-hr NoX
Standard, California. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 2001 and
begin implementation in 2005. The measure requires CARB to adopt a 2.5
g/bhp-hr NOX standard effective in the 2005 model year for new
off-road industrial equipment diesel engines not primarily used in
construction and farm equipment. California is preempted from adopting
or enforcing any standard or other requirement relating to the control
of emissions from new construction and farm equipment or vehicles which
are smaller than 175 hp (see section 209(e) of the Act). The SIP
anticipates that this emissions standard can be achieved through the
transfer of cost-effective on-road diesel engine control technology to
new off-road engines. These control technologies include improved
engine design (especially in fuel/air management and delivery), exhaust
gas recirculation, and exhaust gas aftertreatment. The technology used
to meet the 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOX standard will also further reduce ROG
emissions from post-2005 new engines. The SIP only relies on this
measure in the South Coast. The emission reductions to be achieved in
the South Coast are displayed by year in the table below, labeled
``Reductions from California Mobile Source Measure M9.''
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M9 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG........................... 0 0 0 4 1 3
NOX........................... 0 0 4 35 14 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 1995, EPA approved M9 under the provisions of section
182(e)(5).
(ix) M11--Industrial Equipment; Gas and LPG-California; 3-way
catalyst technology. CARB commits to adopt this measure in 1997 and
implement it beginning in 2000. The measure requires CARB to adopt
emission standards for new gas and liquid petroleum gas (LPG) engines
25 to 175 horsepower that are not primarily used in construction or
farm equipment. As noted above, California is preempted from regulating
new farm and construction equipment smaller than 175 hp). The standards
will be phased-in 2000 and will be based on the use of closed-loop 3-
way catalyst systems. The catalyst systems are expected to reduce ROG
emissions by 75% and NOX by at least 50%.
Reductions From California Mobile Source Measure M11 South Coast Air
Basin
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG........................... 0 4 9 [ ] 15 23
NOX........................... 0 2 4 [ ] 8 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposed to approve M11 on August 21, 1995, and finalized
approval on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).
(x) Additional New Control Technologies. In addition to the new
control technologies described above in measures M2 and M9, CARB has
committed to the implementation of additional innovative measures to
achieve the emission reductions needed in the South Coast to reach
attainment by 2010. CARB anticipates that these additional measures
will include a combination of market-based and technology-based
measures. CARB has committed to adoption of these measures no later
than 2006 to ensure the needed emissions reductions are achieved by
2009. Table 5 (on page I-21) of Volume II of the 1994 California Ozone
SIP lists the following strategies that may be pursued to meet the
emission reduction targets:
A. Possible New Control Technologies
Introduction in fleets of ultra-low emitting heavy-duty
trucks, post-2003
B. Possible Market-Incentive Measures
Incentives to purchase or produce ``cleaner'' technology/
vehicles
Incentives to encourage retrofits of emission control
technology
Incentives for alternative fuel conversions
Incentives to promote the development of alternative fuel
infrastructure
Revise tax rate structure to promote investment in low-
emission technology
Provide opportunity for low-interest loans
Preferred state vendor/contract bid status
Company emission averages
Air basin emission averages
Mobile source emission reduction credit/trading programs
C. Possible Operational Measures Applicable to Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Longer combination vehicles on selected routes
Increased gross vehicle weight
Better enforcement of the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit
Reduced idling time
Reexamine trailer package concept for local deliveries
Aerodynamic devices for all power units and trailers
Other (intermodal transportation, advanced traffic
control/tracking technology, alternative fuel for existing fork lifts)
The SIP states that this list of new control technologies is not
exhaustive and indicates that other new control technologies and
techniques are possible and will be considered as potential sources of
emission reductions. Additional control options mentioned in the SIP
include: pricing to affect the amount of travel and related emissions
(such as congestion pricing or an emission index based on per mile
emissions and VMT); retrofit technologies which reduce emissions;
additional use of alternative fuels; and episodic controls such as
speed reduction and idling curtailment. CARB has committed to further
define and quantify these measures and to adopt them by 2006 for
implementation by
[[Page 10931]]
2009. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's additional new control
technologies measure under th
FR Doc. 96-6011 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California Ozone
e provisions of section 182(e)(5).
c. EPA Action. As described in section I.D. above, EPA has already
approved or proposed to approve many of the State's M Measure
commitments. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved the CARB new-technology
measures M2, M9, and Additional New Technology Measures (described
above), and assigned credit in the South Coast ozone attainment
demonstration to the measures. At the same time, EPA proposed approval
of the State's control measure commitments for M3, M5, M8, and M11. EPA
issued finalized approval of the measures on December 14, 1995 (60 FR
64126). Because EPA was at that time not acting on the State's ROP and
attainment demonstrations, EPA's approval of the State's commitments
did not include assignment of specific emission reduction credits
associated with the measures. As discussed below in section II.C., EPA
is here proposing to approve the ROP and attainment demonstrations of
California ozone nonattainment area plans, which rely, in part, on the
M Measure commitments. Therefore, EPA now proposes to assign credit to
the State's enforceable commitments to achieve the specific emission
reductions associated with M3, M5, M8, and M11, and displayed in the
tables above for each measure.
EPA is also proposing to approve, under sections 110(a)(3) and
301(a) of the Act, and assign credit to measures M1, M4, and M7 as part
of the ROP and attainment demonstrations for appropriate nonattainment
areas, as shown in the tables above. EPA believes that CARB is making
significant progress toward the development and adoption of regulations
to fulfill the M measure commitments. In several cases, regulations
have already been adopted or are expected to be adopted prior to EPA's
final action on the ozone SIPs. EPA therefore proposes to approve and
credit CARB's enforceable commitments to the M measures under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, as part of the demonstrations of ROP
and attainment in the California ozone nonattainment areas.
2. I/M
a. Review of Program. CARB submitted its motor vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M) program, known as the Smog Check program, as a
revision to its SIP on June 30, 1995. The submittal was made to fulfill
EPA's requirements for basic and enhanced I/M programs as set forth in
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S. EPA found the submittal complete on June 30,
1995. A supplemental revision to the SIP was submitted by the State on
January 22, 1996 and found complete on February 5, 1996. Section 348 of
the National Highway System Designation Act (Public Law 104-59),
hereafter referred to as the Highway Act, which was enacted on November
28, 1995, modified EPA's I/M regulation. In this notice EPA is
proposing approval of California's basic program as meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR, Part 51, Subpart S as amended (see 60 FR 48029,
September 18, 1995) and approval of California's enhanced I/M program
as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S, as amended
and section 348(c) of the Highway Act.
The table labeled ``California I/M Program Coverage by County''
shows for every county in the State whether the I/M program is
implemented as enhanced or basic, or is required only upon change of
ownership. For many counties, the type of I/M program in effect varies
depending upon air quality designations and whether the area is
urbanized. The State has established these I/M program boundaries
within counties based upon ZIP code. The reader may contact the Bureau
of Automotive Repair (BAR) to obtain specific program applicability
information by ZIP code.
California I/M Program Coverage by County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change of
County Enhanced Basic ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda...................................................... ............... X ...............
Alpine....................................................... ............... ............... X
Amador....................................................... ............... ............... X
Butte........................................................ ............... X ...............
Calaveras.................................................... ............... ............... X
Colusa....................................................... ............... X ...............
Contra Costa................................................. ............... X ...............
Del Norte.................................................... ............... ............... X
El Dorado.................................................... ............... X X
Fresno....................................................... X X ...............
Glenn........................................................ ............... X ...............
Humboldt..................................................... ............... ............... X
Imperial..................................................... ............... ............... X
Inyo......................................................... ............... ............... X
Kern......................................................... X X ...............
Kings........................................................ ............... X ...............
Lake......................................................... ............... ............... X
Lassen....................................................... ............... ............... X
Los Angeles.................................................. X ............... ...............
Madera....................................................... ............... X ...............
Marin........................................................ ............... X ...............
Mariposa..................................................... ............... ............... X
Mendocino.................................................... ............... ............... X
Merced....................................................... ............... X ...............
Modoc........................................................ ............... ............... X
Mono......................................................... ............... ............... X
Monterey..................................................... ............... X ...............
Napa......................................................... ............... X ...............
Nevada....................................................... ............... X ...............
Orange....................................................... X ............... ...............
Placer....................................................... X X X
Plumas....................................................... ............... ............... X
[[Page 10932]]
Riverside.................................................... X X X
Sacramento................................................... X X ...............
San Benito................................................... ............... X ...............
San Bernardino............................................... X X X
San Diego.................................................... X X X
San Francisco................................................ ............... X ...............
San Joaquin.................................................. X X ...............
San Luis Obispo.............................................. ............... X ...............
San Mateo.................................................... ............... X ...............
Santa Barbara................................................ ............... X ...............
Santa Clara.................................................. ............... X ...............
Santa Cruz................................................... ............... X ...............
Shasta....................................................... ............... X ...............
Sierra....................................................... ............... ............... X
Siskiyou..................................................... ............... ............... X
Solano....................................................... X X ...............
Sonoma....................................................... ............... X X
Stanislaus................................................... X X ...............
Sutter....................................................... ............... X ...............
Tehama....................................................... ............... X ...............
Trinity...................................................... ............... ............... X
Tulare....................................................... ............... X ...............
Tuolumne..................................................... ............... ............... X
Ventura...................................................... X X ...............
Yolo......................................................... X X ...............
Yuba......................................................... ............... X ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP revision submitted to EPA by CARB includes the laws and
regulations relating to California's I/M program which is comprised of
pertinent sections of the California Business and Profession Code, the
Civil Code, the Health and Safety Code, the Penal Code, the Revenue and
Taxation Code, the Welfare and Institutions Code, the Vehicle Code, and
the Code of Regulations. Included in the supplemental submittal are
final regulations for the mandatory exhaust emissions inspection
standards and test procedures for the enhanced program and for the
licensing of I/M stations and technicians which became legally
effective on December 1, 1995 and December 5, 1995, respectively. Other
documents in the submittal are: the Request for Conceptual Design for
Test-only Networks and Referee Services; the BAR-90 Test Analyzer
System Specifications (June 1995); the California Smog Check Inspection
Manual; the Quality Assurance Operations Manual, Chapter 27 of the
Department of Motor Vehicles Manual of Registration Procedures; the
Smog Check Diagnostic and Repair Manual; the Request for proposal for
On-Road Emissions Measurement Systems Services, and the Radian Report
entitled ``Evaluation of the California Pilot Inspection/Maintenance
(I/M) Program.''
EPA's I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for
basic and enhanced I/M programs as well as requirements for the
following: network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and
resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test
procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and
compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement
program oversight; quality assurance; enforcement against contractors,
stations and inspectors; data collection; data analysis and reporting;
inspector training and licensing or certification; public information
and consumer protection; improving repair effectiveness; compliance
with recall notices; on-road testing; SIP revisions; and implementation
deadlines. The performance standard for basic I/M programs remains the
same as it has been since initial I/M policy was established in 1978,
pursuant to the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The high
performance standard for enhanced I/M programs is based on high-
technology loaded mode exhaust testing for HC, CO, and NOX and
testing of the integrity and performance of the evaporative control
system.
California's basic program is a test-and-repair program utilizing
two-speed idle testing. California's enhanced program is a hybrid
program in which 15% of the dirtiest vehicles, based upon high-emitter
profile and remote sensing results as well as other factors, are
targetted for test-only inspection. All vehicles in the enhanced areas
will be subject to loaded mode testing. More stringent requirements
apply to technicians licensed in the enhanced areas. The two programs
are essentially the same in all other respects, excepting that
frequency of enforcement related activities such as remote sensing will
be much greater in the enhanced areas. (A more detailed discussion of
how the elements of California's I/M programs address the requirements
of EPA's I/M regulations is contained in the TSD for this notice.) The
SIP submittal includes modeling which demonstrates that the program
design for California's basic program will meet EPA's performance
standard for basic programs. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve
this revision to California's SIP for the basic I/M program.
The Highway Act prohibits the Administrator from disapproving or
applying an automatic discount of emission reduction credits to a SIP
revision because the I/M program is decentralized or a test-and-repair
program. The Highway Act directs the Administrator to propose approval
of the program for the full credit proposed by the state if the
proposed credits reflect good faith estimates by the state and the
revision is otherwise in compliance with the Clean Air Act. The
approval remains effective for up to 18 months after the date of final
rulemaking. After the 18-month period,
[[Page 10933]]
permanent approval of the SIP revision based on the credits proposed by
the state shall be granted if the data collected on the operation of
the program demonstrates that the credits are appropriate and the
program is otherwise in compliance with the Act.
EPA issued guidance regarding approval of I/M plans under the
Highway Act on December 12, 1995. EPA believes that at least six months
of program operation are needed in order to evaluate the performance of
the program. Thus programs must start no later than 12 months after EPA
takes final rulemaking action. EPA proposes that if the State fails to
start its program on this schedule, the approval granted under the
provisions of the Highway Act will convert to a disapproval after a
finding letter is sent to the state. As mentioned above, the Highway
Act specifies that EPA grant approval if good faith estimates of
credits are made. The Conference Report states that good faith
estimates may be based on previous I/M program performance, remote
sensing programs, or other evidence relevant to effectiveness of I/M
programs. EPA has further suggested that good faith estimates could be
based on innovative program designs. In order to evaluate the program
EPA believes that a continuous sample collection technique should
provide sufficient data to determine program effectiveness. Samples may
be taken in a variety of ways including roadside pullovers and
randomized call-in programs. EPA plans to issue detailed guidance on
data collection and analysis after consultation with states and other
experts. At the end of the 18-month approval period, EPA will take
action to make the approval of the I/M program permanent, if the
program evaluation data collected by the state demonstrates that the I/
M program is achieving the emission reduction credits claimed in the
SIP.
According to the schedule submitted by California test-only
inspection began in Sacramento in August 1995. The program is expected
to be fully operational in Fresno, Bakersfield and San Diego by the
fall of 1996, and in the South Coast areas in early 1997. California
has made a good faith estimate that its hybrid enhanced I/M program
will meet EPA's high performance standard based on the California Pilot
Program and innovative program features including an electronic
transmission program, a high visibility remote sensing program, and
stringent licensing and training requirements.
The pilot program conducted as part of the Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA and California provided data on the effectiveness of
targetting high emitting vehicles through the use of the high-emitter
profile (HEP) and remote sensing combined with the HEP, and the use of
Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) testing. The vehicles required to go
to test-only facilities for inspection will be comprised of likely
high-emitters as identified through use of the HEP and remote sensing,
previously identified high emitters which must undergo annual testing
for 2 to 5 years, high emitters identified by test-and-repair stations,
high mileage fleet vehicles, vehicles for hire, a 2% random sample, and
motorists voluntarily choosing to go to test-only stations.
California's program includes an electronic transmission program. A
central Vehicle Information Database will be created and an electronic
network enabling the test analyzer system units to connect
automatically to the database will be established. The central database
will be able to restrict the issuance of certificates under certain
circumstances, e.g., if a test-only inspection is required, when the
vehicle is identified as a high emitter, or when an enhanced test is
required. The database will also furnish a real-time communications
link to vehicle emissions data which will provide information to BAR
enforcement teams to help immediately identify illicit activity. The
database will also be used to develop a trigger program to identify
shops that are performing improper inspections and to track the
location and performance of licensed smog check technicians.
The State will also be phasing in a high-visibility remote sensing
program. California plans to identify as least 200,000 high emitting
vehicles annually in the enhanced program areas. Data collected from
the program will be use as a target parameter for the enforcement
program. The program will also serve as a visible reminder to both
motorists and test-and-repair stations that improper inspections and/or
program avoidance may be detected. Stringent licensing and training
requirements are being required for test-and-repair stations and repair
technicians, respectively.
California has committed to performing quarterly evaluations of its
program to determine if EPA's performance standard is being met and the
credits taken for the program are being achieved. California plans to
adjust the number of vehicles sent to test-only stations based on these
evaluations. EPA will work with California to further define
California's data collection protocols and analysis as EPA's guidance
on program evaluation is developed.
b. Emissions Reductions. The emission reductions to be achieved by
the measure are displayed by nonattainment area and milestone/
attainment year in the table below, labeled ``Reductions from
California I/M Program.''
Reductions From California Enhanced I/M Program
[Tons per pay]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So. Coast............................................. 34.8 32.4 40.3 35.5 32.5 33.0 ...... ...... 30.2 34.8 26.2 31.1
SE Desert............................................. 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.8
Ventura............................................... 1.6 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.9
Sacramento............................................ 5.4 5.7 6.3 6.5 5.1 6.4
S. Joaquin............................................ 4.3 4.9
S. Diego.............................................. 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. EPA Action. EPA is proposing to approve the California I/M
regulations submitted on January 22, 1996, under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the Act as strengthening the SIP and contributing specific
emission reductions toward the progress, attainment, and maintenance
requirements of the Act.
[[Page 10934]]
EPA is also proposing to approve under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the Act the California I/M program submitted on June 30,
1995, and the I/M regulations submitted on January 22, 1996, as meeting
the requirements of section 182(b)(4) of the Act for basic I/M in
applicable areas of the State classified as moderate for ozone.
Finally, under section 348(c) of the Highway Act, EPA is proposing
to grant approval for a period of 18 months to the California I/M
submittals of June 30, 1995, and January 22, 1996, as meeting the
requirements of section 182(c)(3) of the CAA for enhanced I/M in
applicable areas of the State classified as serious and above for
ozone. Section 348(c)(3) of the Highway Act provides that EPA will take
regulatory action to make the approval permanent if, at the expiration
of the 18-month period or at an earlier time, the data collected on the
operation of the State program demonstrates that ``the credits are
appropriate and the revision is otherwise in compliance with the Clean
Air Act.''
If the State fails to start its program within 12 months of
approval, EPA proposes to have the approval convert to a disapproval
after a finding letter is sent to the State. If the required State
demonstration is not completed within 18 months or does not show that
the credits are appropriate and that the program is otherwise in
compliance with the CAA, EPA will take regulatory action to disapprove
the program for purposes of compliance with the enhanced I/M
requirements of section 182(c)(3). In that event, the SIP will no
longer meet the specific requirements of the Act relating to enhanced
I/M, but the State's regulations will continue in the SIP as
contributing to progress, attainment, and maintenance of the NAAQS.
3. Consumer Products
a. Introduction. ``Consumer products'' are a variety of products
generally purchased from a retail establishment for household use by
the end user. These products include: cleaning products, insecticides,
toiletries, aerosol paints (non-architectural paints are not considered
consumer products under California environmental law), adhesives, air
fresheners, cooking sprays, disinfectants, and other common household
articles that contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and are
considered ``consumption goods''. The term does not refer to consumer
electronics, furniture, appliances, cooking or serving utensils,
furnishings, or other items that are considered ``durable goods'', nor
does the term refer to food items (except cooking sprays), beverages,
or tobacco products.
In its 1994 ozone SIP submittal, CARB presents a discussion of the
State's current and anticipated measures for controlling the VOC
content of consumer products, and sets forth the claimed emissions
reductions. CARB classifies the emissions reductions resulting from
regulations on consumer products regulations into 3 main categories:
near-term, mid-term, and long-term with regard to date of promulgation
and implementation.
CARB's near-term measures are comprised of rules adopted prior to
May 1995. The existing consumer products regulations, antiperspirant
and deodorant regulations, and the 1996 and 1999 VOC content standards
of the recently adopted aerosol paints rule comprise the near-term
measures.
CARB's mid-term measures consist of anticipated regulations from
categories of consumer products for which regulations had not yet been
adopted at the time of the submittal. These reductions are expected to
be adopted by July 1, 1997 and implemented by the year 2005, and will
cover 150 consumer product categories which are currently not regulated
by the State of California. These mid-term measures are needed for
attainment demonstrations in the Sacramento Metropolitan and Ventura
County air basins. In the SIP, CARB asserts that these measures, like
the near-term measures, rely on available technology.
CARB has committed to obtaining further reductions (as compared to
the near- and mid-term measures) from consumer products after 2000.
These reductions would not rely on available technology, but would
currently be considered technology forcing. These long-term measures
would be enforced on a statewide basis, but only the South Coast plan
relies on the emissions reductions to demonstrate attainment.
CARB has further categorized their emission reduction commitments
into 4 classifications, or ``measures'': CP-1, CP-2, CP-3, and CP-4.
These measures are either adopted rules or commitments to adopt rules
to reduce VOC emissions from consumer products and aerosol paints. A
description of each of these measures follows.
b. Adopted Consumer Products Rules
i. Measure CP-1. Measure CP-1 is comprised of two rules, both
adopted prior to November 1994, that are designed to control VOC
emissions from commercial products. One rule controls VOC emissions
from antiperspirants and deodorants; the other rule controls emissions
from household products, such as air fresheners, shaving cream, and
hairsprays. Both rules were submitted to EPA on November 15, 1994. EPA
approved these rules into the SIP on August 21, 1995 (see 60 FR 43379).
ii. Measure CP-3 (Aerosol Paints). Measure CP-3 is a near term
commitment to adopt and implement VOC content standards in aerosol
paints. Regulations meeting these commitments were adopted in mid-1995.
These regulations limit the VOC content of aerosol paints by
establishing sets of VOC content standards for various coating types.
These standards establish the maximum percentage of VOC by weight
allowed in the various types of aerosol coatings. The coating standards
are divided into two phases. In the first phase, which is due to take
effect January 1, 1996, aerosol coatings' VOC content will have limits
that range from 60 percent to 95 percent, depending on the coating.
In the second phase, currently due to take effect December 31,
1999, aerosol coatings' VOC content limits will range from 30 percent
to 80 percent, depending on the type of coating. Before the second
phase of content limits can be implemented, CARB must conduct a public
hearing to determine if the limits are commercially and technologically
feasible. If the Board determines that they are not feasible, the
implementation of some or all of the limits may be postponed for up to
5 years. However, CARB may not submit the 1999 limits to EPA as a SIP
revision until after the Board has determined that they are
technologically and commercially feasible, and is prohibited from doing
so by section 41712(f)(3) of the California Health and Safety Code.
EPA approval action on both phases of the aerosol paint rules will
be taken in separate rulemakings following SIP submittal of the rules.
c. Mid-Term Committal Measure CP-2. Measure CP-2 is a mid-term
commitment to adopt additional regulations prior to 1997 to further
reduce VOC emissions from household consumer products. These reductions
are anticipated to result from the further regulation of new categories
of consumer products through technology that is currently feasible and
commercially viable. EPA proposed to approve CP-2 on August 21, 1995,
and finalized approval on December 14, 1995 (60 FR 64126).
d. Long-Term Committal Measure CP-4. Measure CP-4 is a long-term
measure to further reduce emissions after measures CP-1, CP-2, and CP-3
are implemented. The control strategies committed to in CP-4 depend on
[[Page 10935]]
advancement of manufacturing technology for consumer products and
aerosols. On August 21, 1995, EPA approved CARB's Measure CP-4 as
meeting the requirements of section 182(e)(5).
e. Alternative Compliance Plans (ACPs). In order to provide
industry with flexibility in meeting the VOC content limits for aerosol
paints, CARB has adopted regulations that will allow manufacturers to
meet the VOC standards on an average basis. The regulations, CARB's
Alternate Control Plan (ACP) for consumer products and aerosol
coatings, require that manufacturers carefully track sales and VOC
content of all products being averaged together in order to determine
total VOC emissions from their products and compliance with the rule.
EPA will act on the ACP regulations following submittal by the State.
f. Emission Reductions. The following table describes the ROG
emission reductions in terms of tons per day, as identified in the SIP
submittal. Credits for near-term consumer products (CP-1) are not
included, since they were presumed in baseline emissions projections as
adopted regulations. The ROP and attainment demonstrations for San
Diego, San Joaquin Valley or Santa Barbara do not rely on reductions
from the consumer products measures, although real reductions will
occur in those areas. Credits for consumer products and aerosol paints
(near-term and long-term) are combined. Credit for CP-4 is claimed only
for South Coast.
Reductions From California Consumer Products and Aerosol Paint Program
[Reductions beyond those achieved by CP-1] [tons per day of ROG]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast................... 0 8 39.2 ..... 42.2 89.2
SE Desert..................... 0 0.4 3.5 4.0
Ventura....................... 0 0.4 2.2
Sacramento.................... 0 1.1 5.6
San Joaquin................... 0
San Diego..................... 16.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. EPA Action. As discussed above, EPA has already fully approved
all of the State's consumer products rules and committal measures with
the exception of CP-3 (Aerosol Paints). EPA is now proposing to approve
CP-3 under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and assign credit
to this measure, as well as to the previously approved consumer
products measures, as part of the ROP and attainment demonstrations for
appropriate nonattainment areas. EPA will take regulatory action on the
recently adopted ACP and Aerosol Paints regulations themselves in
separate rulemakings.
4. Pesticides
a. Review of Measure. California's 1994 SIP submittal includes a
commitment to reduce VOC emissions from the application of agricultural
and structural pesticides. The submittal describes relevant authority
in Section 6220 of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations that
has been granted to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation
(DPR). However, since CARB has overall responsibility for developing
the SIP, California's pesticide commitment is described in a letter
from DPR to CARB,4 which CARB then submitted to EPA with the
balance of the 1994 SIP. In May 1995, California used a similar
mechanism to clarify technical details of the pesticide
commitment.5 This clarification is considered part of California's
SIP.
\4\ James Wells (DPR) to James Boyd (CARB), dated November 15,
1994.
\5\ May 9, 1995 letter from Wells to Boyd under a May 11, 1995
cover letter from Boyd to Felicia Marcus (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Emission Reductions. As described in the SIP, California has
committed to adopt and submit to U.S. EPA by June 15, 1997, any
regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions from agricultural and
commercial structural pesticides by specific percentages of the 1990
base year emissions,6 by specific years, and in specific
nonattainment areas as listed in the table labeled, ``Reductions from
1990 Pesticide Emissions Baselines.'' The table labeled ``Reductions
from Pesticides Measure'' shows reductions counted toward the ROP
milestones and attainment in each area.
\6\ In a March 31, 1995 letter from Wells to David Howekamp
(EPA), California clarified its commitment to limit future VOC
emissions from pesticides to the target percentages of the 1990 base
year emissions, regardless of future growth in emissions that might
otherwise occur. ``Therefore, the proposed 20 percent reduction goal
could be considered to be greater than 20 percent if one includes
growth in pesticidal VOC emissions.'' (March 31 letter, page 2.)
Reductions From 1990 Pesticide Emissions Baselines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone nonattainment area 1996 (percent) 1999 (percent) 2002 (percent) 2005 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento Metro................................ 8 12 16 20
San Joaquin Valley.............................. 8 12 16 20
South Coast..................................... 8 12 16 20
Southeast Desert................................ 8 12 16 20
Ventura......................................... 8 12 16 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions From Pesticides Measure
[Tons per day of ROG]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2007 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast............................................. 1.5 1.6 1.3 ....... 1.6 1.7
Southeast Desert........................................ 0 0 1.2 1.5 ....... .......
[[Page 10936]]
Ventura................................................. 0 0 2.4 ....... ....... .......
Sacramento.............................................. 0 0 2.7 ....... ....... .......
San Joaquin............................................. 13 ........ ....... ....... ....... .......
San Diego............................................... 0.2 ........ ....... ....... ....... .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pesticide component of California's SIP also describes
education and outreach programs intended to achieve these emission
reductions voluntarily. EPA strongly encourages these programs, and
hopes to work with DPR and the affected industries to make them
successful. In the event, however, that additional control strategies
are needed, California's commitment to adopt and submit any necessary
pesticide regulations is sufficient to ensure those emission reductions
described in the table labeled, ``Reductions from 1990 Pesticide
Emissions Baselines.'' 7
\7\ Note that for purposes of ROP and attainment demonstrations
in the SIPs, California has not claimed emission reduction credit
for the 8% pesticide emission reductions planned for 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. EPA Action. EPA is proposing to approve the Pesticides measure
under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, and assign credit to
the measure as part of the ROP and attainment demonstrations for
appropriate nonattainment areas. EPA will take regulatory action on the
State's Pesticides regulations, if any regulations are required and are
submitted, in separate rulemakings.
B. Federal Assignments
1. State Approach
In addition to, and in association with, the State's mobile source
control measures, the 1994 California Ozone SIP sets forth a group of 7
specific mobile source control measures that the State would not be
responsible for adopting and implementing.
These new ``Federal assignments'' and the adoption and
implementation dates in the California SIP are as follows:
M6--Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles: a national standard of 2.0 g/bhp-
hr, to be adopted in 1997 and implemented in 2004. M10--Off-Road Diesel
Equipment: a national standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr, to be adopted in 2001
and implemented in 2005. M12--Industrial Equipment, Gas and LPG: a
national standard reflecting application of three-way catalyst systems,
to be adopted in 1997 and implemented from 2000 to 2004.
M13--Marine Vessels: national and international standards to reduce
NOX emissions from new engines by 30 percent, and operational
controls, including shipping lane changes and vessel speed reduction,
to be adopted in 1996 and implemented from 1998 to 2001.
M14--Locomotives: national standards for new and rebuilt locomotive
engines, along with provisions to ensure that by 2010 locomotive fleets
in the South Coast Air Basin will emit on average no more than the 2005
emission level for new locomotives, to be adopted in 1995 and
implemented from 2000 to 2010.
M15--Aircraft: national standards to effect a 30 percent reduction
in ROG and NOX emissions, to be adopted in 1999 and implemented in
2000.
M16--Pleasure Craft: national standards (both Phase I and II).
CARB's decision to place responsibility on the Federal government
for these controls rests on the State's conclusion that: (1) State and
local agencies lack the legal authority or practical ability to control
these source categories; (2) the reductions contributed by the new
Federal assignments are essential for progress and attainment in
California; and (3) there are no feasible alternative sources of
reductions that are available to the State, given the stringent level
of control of all other source categories reflected in the SIPs.
2. EPA Action
While EPA does not believe that the CAA authorizes a state to
assign responsibility to the Federal government for meeting SIP
requirements, the Agency agrees that it has both the authority and
responsibility under the Act for regulating certain national sources of
air pollution. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, in fact, extended
EPA's authority to regulate nonroad vehicles and engines and expressly
required EPA to evaluate nonroad engine emissions, determine whether
these emissions contribute significantly to ozone or CO in areas which
have failed to attain the ozone or CO NAAQS, and regulate these
emissions categories if found to be significant. Under this authority,
EPA completed a Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study and issued an
affirmative determination of significance (59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994).
EPA has also proposed, and in some cases finalized, rules for various
nonroad vehicles and engines, including several of the California SIP
``Federal measure'' source categories. The current status of EPA's
actions on each of the ``Federal measure'' categories is summarized in
the Appendix to this document.
EPA recently established a new policy that allows States to
incorporate into their ROPs and attainment demonstrations the estimated
emission reductions associated with court-ordered or statutorily-
mandated measures prior to final promulgation of the Federal
regulations.8 Consistent with this policy, EPA is proposing to
assign to the California Ozone SIPs emissions reduction credit for
nonocean-going marine vessels, locomotives, and pleasure craft, based
on EPA's current estimates of the reductions that will be achieved by
these national measures. These credits are sufficient, in conjunction
with those attributed by California to the State and local measures, to
demonstrate progress and attainment of the ozone NAAQS in all of the
California ozone nonattainment areas except for the South Coast.
\8\ This policy (January 30, 1996 memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air & Radiation, to EPA Regional
Administrators, on ``SIP Credits for Federal Nonroad Engine
Emissions Standards and Certain Other Mobile Source Programs'')
supersedes EPA's prior policy, expressed in a November 23, 1994
memorandum from Mary Nichols on the same subject. The earlier
memorandum allowed SIP credit for national mobile source measures
required but not yet promulgated ``provided states also commit to
adopt gap-filling measures to account for any shortfalls, identified
later, between currently anticipated and actual final rule
benefits.'' EPA is now eliminating the requirement for state
commitments. If the final national measure delivers less than
credited in the SIP, EPA may issue a call for plan revision under
section 110(k)(5) if the SIP for an area becomes, as a result,
substantially inadequate to comply with any requirement of the Act,
including the provisions relating to demonstrations of ROP and
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, EPA has been evaluating other potential future
``Federal measures,'' including controls for most categories of mobile
sources. These measures have significance in the
[[Page 10937]]
South Coast. EPA's evaluation of these possible national controls has
been ongoing from the period of FIP preparation through the present,
and has evolved into a consultative process.
In the area of onroad controls, EPA's heavy-duty vehicle
initiative, developed in cooperation with CARB, is one aspect of this
process. This consultative initiative, which is consistent with the
State's measure M6, has already shown success and recently culminated
in a Statement of Principles (SOP) signed by EPA, individual members of
the heavy-duty engine industry, and CARB regarding future national
standards for on-highway heavy-duty engines. The goal of the SOP is to
reduce NOX emissions from on-highway heavy-duty engines to levels
approximating 2.0 g/bhp-hr beginning in model year 2004, while also
achieving reductions in HC. For further details on the SOP and
initiative, see EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (60 FR
45580, August 31, 1995). EPA is also engaged in cooperative efforts
with the State of California to discuss with affected industry a
similar heavy-duty nonroad initiative.
As discussed more fully in section II.C.7.e., below, setting forth
EPA's proposed approval of the South Coast attainment demonstration,
EPA agrees with the State that national and international mobile source
emissions are increasingly significant contributors to ozone pollution,
particularly in the South Coast. EPA also agrees with the State that
CARB and EPA share responsibility for controlling new mobile sources.
To address this challenge cooperatively, the CARB Board, in its
resolution of adoption of the 1994 California Ozone SIP, included
specific direction to the CARB Executive Officer to continue to meet
and confer with EPA regarding the federal assignments (CARB Resolution
No. 94-60, November 15, 1994).
Following adoption of the 1994 California Ozone SIP, EPA and CARB
have discussed the affected mobile source control categories and, while
the agencies have not reached consensus on difficult issues of
jurisdiction and responsibility, the two agencies share a strong mutual
interest in further consultation on and collaboration in identifying
and developing the most effective and least disruptive approaches to
achieving further reductions in air emissions from the various
categories of mobile sources.
Building on this interagency cooperation, EPA proposes to continue
and expand the ongoing consultative process with California and other
appropriate parties to examine the potential for additional mobile
source controls that can contribute to progress and attainment, and
that are compatible with other important regulatory considerations,
including those associated with interstate and international commerce.
EPA proposes that this consultative process conclude in June 1997 with
a decision on those additional measures that are appropriate for each
party to pursue. EPA further proposes to make an enforceable commitment
to undertake rulemakings, after the consultative process, on control
measures needed to achieve the emission reductions which are determined
to be appropriate for EPA.
Finally, EPA proposes to approve the South Coast attainment
demonstration if CARB submits, before EPA's final action, an
enforceable SIP commitment to adopt and submit as a SIP revision: (a)
by December 31, 1997, a revised attainment demonstration for the South
Coast as appropriate after the consultative process; and (b) by
December 31, 1999, enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures needed to achieve the emission reductions which are determined
to be appropriate for the State.
C. Local ROP and Attainment Plans and Measures
1. Introduction and Common Elements
This section discusses the progress and attainment plans for each
area, including local, state and Federal measures, and describes EPA's
proposed action on those plans with regard to the ROP requirements of
sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(B), and the attainment requirements
of sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(A).
As described earlier, following local adoption of the plans, the
State took further action on the plans, adding a statewide measure
component and, in some cases, modifying the locally adopted plan.
Volume IV of the 1994 California Ozone SIP presents CARB's adjustments
to the local plans, and summarizes the ROP and attainment
demonstrations. CARB also supplied detailed spreadsheets delineating
projected emissions reductions in each area, by State measure and
milestone year, to complete the technical documentation of each area's
ROP and attainment demonstrations.
a. Emission Inventories.
(1) 1990 Base Year Inventories
Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires that a comprehensive,
accurate, and current base year inventory of actual emissions be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision for each area designated as
nonattainment and classified marginal and higher for ozone. The 1990
emissions inventory is defined as the base year inventory and provides
a benchmark for ROP and attainment planning.
Annual and ozone season weekday inventories of actual emissions are
required for VOC, NOX, and CO for each ozone nonattainment area.
These inventories detail emissions for all categories of stationary
point sources, area sources, onroad vehicles, offroad engines, and
biogenics (for VOC). The inventories use the best available emission
factors and activity indicators representative of the ozone season.
The 1990 base year inventories were initially submitted by CARB in
November 1992 and improved inventories were submitted again as part of
the 1994 California Ozone SIP. On March 30, 1995, CARB submitted
revised 1990 base year inventories which further refined the inventory
estimates. EPA is proposing approval of the March 30, 1995, inventory
submittal.
Annual emission inventory estimates are adjusted to represent the
ozone season weekday inventory (the ``planning inventory''). Seasonal
throughput, seasonal activity factors, and temperature considerations
are used, as appropriate, to develop the planning inventory. Although
EPA recommends a 3 month peak ozone season as the basis for the
planning inventory estimates, because of the persistence of ozone
violations in California from May through October, the CARB uses a 6
month average operating day emissions estimate.
Stationary sources are broadly grouped into point and area sources.
Point sources typically include permitted equipment located at a fixed,
identifiable establishment (e.g., a refinery). Actual emissions are
reported annually to local air pollution agencies as a part of an
ongoing operating permit renewal and emission statement processes.
Operating permit requirements generally pertain to sources emitting at
least 10 tons per year, with lower limits in some areas. This
information is used by the local air district to periodically update
inventory estimates for stationary sources.
Area sources generally include small point sources (e.g., gasoline
dispensing facilities) and ubiquitous emissions not associated with a
permit (e.g., consumer products). CARB and the local air pollution
control districts share the responsibility for calculating emissions
from the over 200 area source categories. The emission and activity
factors used
[[Page 10938]]
to develop area source inventories are described in CARB
guidance.9
\9\ Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions in California
(CARB, September 1991 and updates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile source estimates are divided into on-road and off-road
categories. On-road emissions are estimated by vehicle class, roadway
type and vehicle age. Caltrans, CARB, local government agencies, and
the Department of Motor Vehicles supply the data necessary to estimate
emissions from on-road mobile sources. On-road mobile source emissions
inventories for SIP purposes are generally developed using the latest
version of MOBILE, EPA's mobile source emission factor model, but in
California, CARB has developed its own on-road mobile source emission
factor model, EMFAC. Together with CARB's WEIGHT model, which estimates
accumulated mileage and activities by vehicle year, and BURDEN model,
which estimates vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled by vehicle
type, CARB develops the on-road mobile source emissions inventories for
the nonattainment areas. The version of EMFAC used for the November 15,
1994 and March 30, 1995 submittals was EMFAC7F version 1.1.
The off-road mobile source inventory includes emissions from
categories ranging from lawn mowers to ocean-going vessels. Emission
estimates are a function of emission factors, activity rates, and
control factors. Emission factors and methodologies used to calculate
emissions are based on information compiled by EPA, CARB, and the local
districts.
The CARB base year inventory includes biogenic emission estimates.
EPA's biogenic emission estimation software, Biogenic Emission
Inventory System, was used in conjunction with temperature inputs
representative of the area of concern, consistent with EPA guidance.
This software is used to estimate emissions from natural sources (e.g.,
trees, crops, etc.). Although biogenic emissions represent an
uncontrollable source, these potentially significant emissions are
included in the attainment demonstration modeling.
Because the CARB inventories represent actual emissions, the
inventories already reflect excess, noncompliant emissions and,
consistent with EPA's guidance 10, they do not require further
adjustment by the 80% rule effectiveness discount.
\10\ EPA policy memorandum from OAQPS to Regional Air Division
Directors (April 27, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While CAA requirements and EPA guidance are stated in terms of VOC,
some California District plans estimate their inventories in terms of
either Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) or Reactive Organic Compounds
(ROC). The Santa Barbara, San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento area plans
use ROG while Ventura uses ROC. The only difference between VOC and
ROG/ROC is the inclusion of ethane in the ROG/ROC inventory estimates.
EPA has concluded that the VOC, NOX, and CO inventories of
actual emissions for the ozone nonattainment areas satisfy the
requirements of the Act and EPA's associated approval criteria.
Therefore, under section 182(a)(1) of the Act, EPA is proposing to
approve the 1990 base year inventories for each of the ozone
nonattainment areas addressed in this document.
(2) Inventory Projections
Future year inventories are needed to estimate milestone and
attainment year inventories. These estimates are then used in
projecting and calculating ROP and attainment. Future year inventories
are developed using base year inventory estimates adjusted using growth
and control factors. Growth factors are developed using socioeconomic
forecasts (i.e., population, housing, employment, and motor vehicle
activity) and Standard Industrial Classification data. Growth rates for
motor vehicles consider projected changes in vehicle miles traveled,
trips, and vehicles in use. Control factors are used to adjust future
year inventory estimates to account for reductions from adopted and
scheduled measures. EPA proposes to approve the inventory projections
for each of the nonattainment areas, since the projections meet all
applicable requirements.
b. ROP Targets. The CAA outlines and EPA guidance details the
method for calculating the ROP requirements for the milestone years.
Section 182(b)(1)(A) requires a 15% VOC reduction by November 15, 1996,
from the adjusted 1990 base year inventory (i.e., 3% per year reduction
from 1990 to 1996). Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires that after 1996, an
additional 3% per year VOC (or NOX equivalent) emission reduction
be achieved (in 3 year increments) until the attainment date. The
percent reduction requirements by milestone year and by area
classification are shown below in the table labeled ``ROP
Requirements.''
ROP Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction
Classification Year (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderate and above.................................. 1996 15
Serious and above................................... 1999 24
Severe I and above.................................. 2002 33
2005 42
Severe II and above................................. 2007 48
Extreme............................................. 2008 51
2010 57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 182(b)(1) requires that ROP reductions: (1) Be in addition
to those needed to offset any growth in emissions between the base year
and the milestone year; (2) exclude emission reductions from 4
prescribed Federal programs (i.e., the Federal motor vehicle control
program (FMVCP), the Federal Reid vapor pressure (RVP) requirements,
any Reasonably Available Control Technology corrections previously
specified by EPA, and any I/M program corrections necessary to meet the
basic I/M level); and (3) be calculated from an ``adjusted'' baseline
relative to the year for which the reduction is applicable. The
adjusted ROP base year inventory excludes the emission reductions from
fleet turnover between 1990 and 1996 and from Federal RVP regulations
promulgated by November 15, 1990 or required under section 211(h) of
the Act.
The net effect of these adjustments is that states are not able to
take credit for emissions reductions that would result from fleet
turnover of current Federal standard cars and trucks, or from already
existing Federal fuel regulations. However, the SIP can take full
credit for the benefits of any new (i.e., post-1990) vehicle emissions
standards, as well as any other new Federal or State motor vehicle or
fuel program that will be implemented in the nonattainment area,
including Tier I exhaust standards, new evaporative emissions
standards, reformulated gasoline, enhanced I/M, California low
emissions vehicle program, transportation control measures, etc.
When compared to the national tailpipe and fuel standards
promulgated by EPA, California has had more stringent standards for
some time. The methodology used in the November 1993 15% ROP submittals
was not necessarily the most appropriate way to model the exclusions,
in light of the effects of these differing standards. Therefore, CARB
recalculated the exclusions for Federal RVP and FMVCP for its adjusted
base year inventories and submitted revised ROP plans in November 1994.
The resulting ROP targets conform to applicable requirements and EPA
proposes to
[[Page 10939]]
approve them as part of the approval of the ROP demonstrations.
c. NOX Substitution. Section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for NOX
reductions (after accounting for growth) which occur after 1990 to be
used to meet the post-1996 ROP emission reduction requirements,
provided that such NOX reductions meet the criteria outlined in
EPA's NOX substitution guidance.11 The criteria require that:
(1) the sum of all creditable VOC and NOX reductions must meet the
3% per year ROP requirement; (2) substitution is on a percent-for-
percent of adjusted base year emissions for the relevant pollutant; and
(3) the sum of all substituted NOX reductions cannot be greater
than the cumulative NOX reductions required by the modeled
attainment demonstration. While the Act and the guidance do allow use
of 1990-1996 NOX reductions for substitution in the post-1996
period, the amount of NOX reductions available for substitution is
subject to the same creditability exclusions described above. As
discussed below in the review of the individual plans, the California
ozone areas relying on NOX substitution in post-1996 ROP
demonstrations (San Joaquin, San Diego, Sacramento, and Ventura) meet
applicable requirements pertaining to NOX substitution.
\11\ ``NOX Substitution Guidance,'' OAQPS, USEPA, December,
1993; ``Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-of Progress Plan and the
Attainment Demonstration,'' EPA-452/R-93-015, OAQPS, USEPA, January,
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``VOC equivalents'' is used in the ROP tables for the
areas relying on NOX substitution. This term was taken from CARB's
November 1994 SIP. VOC equivalents is not meant to imply that NOX
reductions were substituted for VOC reductions on a one-for-one basis.
The amount of NOX substitution was determined by calculating the
VOC shortfall percentage, and then converting the percentage into an
equivalent reduction of NOX. For the areas relying on NOX
substitution, CARB and the districts have demonstrated that the
NOX reductions are creditable and not in excess of what is
necessary for attainment. A companion EPA technical support document
provides a more detailed description of the calculations and amount of
NOX reduction used to represent the VOC equivalents.
d. Modeling.
(1) Introduction
An attainment demonstration is a key part of a State Implementation
Plan: using air quality modeling, it shows that the proposed emission
control measures are sufficient for the NAAQS to be attained by the
applicable deadline. For ozone nonattainment areas classified serious,
severe, or extreme, section 182(c)(2)(A) requires an attainment
demonstration based on photochemical grid modeling, for which the Urban
Airshed Model (UAM) is the EPA-approved model. (See Appendix W of 40
CFR Part 51.)
The modeling portions of the SIP submittals were generally reviewed
in terms of technical accuracy, and for consistency with EPA modeling
guidelines. The guidelines are the Guideline for Regulatory Application
of the Urban Airshed Model (EPA, 7/91), Guideline for Regulatory
Application of the Urban Airshed Model for Areawide Carbon Monoxide
(EPA, 6/92), and Guidance on Urban Airshed Model (UAM) Reporting
Requirements for Attainment Demonstration (EPA, 3/94). Thus, the review
covered the appropriateness of data sources, appropriateness of
technical judgements and procedures followed in input preparation,
performance of quality assurance and diagnostic procedures, adequacy of
model base case performance, consistency of control measure simulation
inputs with the submitted control measures, adequacy of the
demonstration of attainment of the NAAQS, and consistency and
completeness of documentation. EPA's confidence in the conclusions
reached in the review is enhanced because of EPA's participation in
technical committees and meetings for each area, and other
communications with State and local technical staff, as the model
applications were being developed.
The UAM model uses an inventory of pollutant emissions, together
with air quality and meteorological data, as input to a system of
algorithms incorporating chemistry and dispersion, in order to simulate
an observed pollution episode. Once a ``base case'' is developed that
meets the minimum performance criteria, projected future emissions are
used as input to simulate air quality in the attainment deadline year.
Various combinations of geographically uniform emission reductions are
simulated to determine approximate attainment reduction targets.
Planners design a control strategy to meet these targets, and then
simulate it with UAM, including the spatially and temporally varying
effects of the selected controls. Attainment is demonstrated when the
modeled air quality with emission controls in effect is below the NAAQS
throughout the geographical modeling domain.
(2) Uncertainty and Model Performance
A modeling attainment demonstration is subject to several
uncertainties. The meteorological and air quality inputs have their own
associated uncertainties, both in measurement and in
representativeness. In addition, not all variables can be measured for
all hours, so default and interpolated values must be used. Processes
such as chemical reaction and advection necessarily appear in the model
in simplified form. The selected episodes may not represent all
conditions conducive to high pollutant levels. Finally, base case and
projected emissions are uncertain. Biogenic emission inventory
methodologies are in a state of flux. In spite of these sources of
uncertainty, photochemical grid modeling is the best tool that is
available for determining the emission reductions that are needed for
NAAQS attainment. The Guideline procedures are meant to ensure that
inputs are set in a scientifically sound manner, and to uncover
compensating errors that can be present even when the model predicts
ozone well.
As explained in the Guideline, episodes are chosen for modeling
based on their high ozone levels, data availability, and other
criteria. Generally, episodes should be chosen that are approximately
as severe as the area's design value, which is based on the historical
ozone highs. During a particular episode, the observed ozone peak may
be higher or lower than the design value; but as long as it is
relatively close, that episode can be accepted for use in an attainment
demonstration. See also the discussion of the attainment test, below.
Once an episode is chosen, modelers attempt to simulate it with
UAM. Various performance statistics and diagnostic tests are available
to gauge their success. Three of the statistics are presented in the
table in this notice. The most commonly stated one is the peak
accuracy, since it is the ozone peak that is ultimately to be reduced
to the NAAQS level. However, it uses only one place and time out of all
those simulated. In judging model performance to be acceptable,
predictions at many places and times are examined. Also, the overall
pattern of ozone and other chemical species are evaluated, in light of
the changing emissions and meteorology occurring during the episode.
Sometimes a lengthy process of diagnostic testing and refinement of
inputs is required. Thus, the finally accepted base case may show some
bias (e.g., simulated ozone peak not matching the observed), and yet be
fully adequate as a simulation of the episode, and for use in an
attainment demonstration. Except where noted, all of the submitted
California modeling
[[Page 10940]]
episodes had acceptable performance, meeting EPA Guideline criteria.
(3) Number of Episodes
The Guideline calls for a minimum of 3 primary episode days to be
modeled. EPA elected to allow areas to use just two if they were based
on a field study, since this provides substantially more complete data,
and so more confidence in model development procedures and results. The
tradeoff of higher quality modeling for fewer episodes is deemed by EPA
to be a reasonable one. Unfortunately, due to problems of model
performance or transport, some areas were only able to develop modeling
for a single ozone episode. The Guideline is silent on what should be
done in cases where, in spite of an area's best effort, the model
simply cannot be made to perform for a given ozone episode. EPA is
electing to accept the California efforts as adequate.
(4) Attainment Test
Recently, questions have arisen over what test an area has to meet
to demonstrate attainment; this has been thought of as showing that
every geographical point within the model domain is reduced to .12 ppm
ozone for every hour, for every episode modeled. However, the
statistical nature of the ozone NAAQS allows each point in space to
have one NAAQS exceedance per year (3 year average). Adding this to the
uncertainties in model inputs and in the model itself, the above test
may be overly conservative. In borderline cases, the overall weight of
evidence of modeling, emissions and meteorological characteristics of
an area may provide a useful adjunct to the attainment test, though
this was not used in the California SIP submittal.
(5) Transport
Pollutant transport between areas is an issue of continuing concern
for the areas of Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, Santa
Barbara, South Coast, and Ventura. For Sacramento and for the portions
of southern California downwind of South Coast, attainment has not been
demonstrated under transport conditions. The ozone episodes modeled
either did not include high levels of transported pollutants, were
found to be dominated by transport and then abandoned as not
representative, or the model did not perform particularly well.
Ideally, upwind and downwind areas would be included within a single
modeling domain; this was done in the SARMAP study centered on the San
Joaquin Valley, but thus far the model does not perform well for the
Sacramento area. Only a limited number of episodes have so far been
modeled, some of them having little transported pollution.
Nevertheless, EPA accepts the modeling done so far as adequate,
because it is the best modeling available, and does show attainment of
the NAAQS for locally generated days. However, the emission reductions
indicated as required by the modeling to date must be viewed as valid
for this stage of planning only; additional reductions may be necessary
in these nonattainment areas or in other areas upwind (such as the San
Francisco Bay Area) to guarantee attainment of the NAAQS. EPA expects
that this will be determined by the modeling additional transport
episodes over the next few years; this effort was not feasible for the
November 15, 1994 deadline because of constraints on available data,
funds and staff. In part because of the California Clean Air Act with
its more stringent ozone standards, modeling will continue in these
areas; for example, a Southern California Transport study is currently
being planned. SIP revisions may become necessary should such future
modeling indicate the need for additional emissions controls.
EPA proposes to approve the modeling in all of the ozone plans
acted on in this notice, as meeting the requirements for attainment
demonstrations in sections 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(A).
2. Santa Barbara
a. Identification of Plan. On November 3, 1994, the Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control Board adopted Santa Barbara's 1994 Clean
Air Plan (CAP). On November 14, 1994, CARB submitted the plan to EPA to
comply with ROP and attainment demonstration requirements of the
Act.12
\12\ November 14, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia
Marcus, EPA, forwarding the Santa Barbara SIP and CARB Executive
Order No. G-125-163 approving the Santa Barbara Plan. The Santa
Barbara submittal includes a November 3, 1994 letter from Douglas
Allard (SBAPCD) to James Boyd (CARB) forwarding the 1994 Santa
Barbara CAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates
of the actual VOC and NOX emissions that occurred in Santa Barbara
in 1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table
labeled ``1990 Santa Barbara SIP Inventories.'' 13 A discussion of
these inventories and of EPA's proposed action on them can be found in
section II.C.1.a. of this notice.
\13\ More detailed summaries of this inventory can be found in
the 1994 CAP, Table 3-3.
1990 Santa Barbara SIP Inventories
[tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary................................................ 32 12
Mobile.................................................... 25 36
OCS....................................................... 6 22
-------------
Total............................................... 63 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. SIP Control Measures.
(1) Description
The submittal describes a series of rules that have been adopted in
order to reduce ROG and NOX emissions in Santa Barbara. Chapters 4
and 5 of the CAP describes the control measures relied upon for
demonstrating compliance with the Act's progress and attainment
requirements. With the exception of contingency measure T-21, Enhanced
Inspection and Maintenance Program, all required measures identified in
Chapters 4 and 5 of the CAP have been adopted. Because the Santa
Barbara area will not achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS by November
1996 with currently adopted controls, as described later under section
II.C.2.f., EPA expects that measure T-21 will be adopted in 1996 and
implemented in 1997 as described in the CAP. Reductions of
approximately .6 tons per day (tpd) of ROG and NOX are expected
from the implementation of T-21.
Table 5-1 describes the plan's transportation control measures
(TCMs), which, collectively, supersede the TCM list in the previously
approved 1982 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP). The TCMs are
projected to result in net emissions reductions for the 1996 target
attainment year of .3 tpd ROG and .2 tpd NOX.
(2) EPA Action
EPA proposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, the control measures portion o
FR Doc. 96-6011 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California Ozone
f the plan, including the
enforceable commitment to adopt contingency measure T-21.
EPA approval of the applicable State and local fully-adopted and
SIP-submitted regulations either has already occurred or will be
completed in separate rulemaking in the future. As requested by the
State, EPA also proposes to delete from the current SIP the 1982
transportation control measures.
d. ROP Provisions.
(1) ROP Emission Targets
The submittal describes the ROG emission reductions needed to meet
[[Page 10941]]
ROP requirements based on Santa Barbara's adjusted 1990 base year
inventories. The SIP also provides emission estimates for 1996, the
only applicable ROP milestone year, by determining the impacts of the
control strategy and calculating anticipated changes in emissions
resulting from projected levels of population, industrial activity,
motor vehicle use, etc. A summary of the ROP targets and the projected
ROG emissions is provided below in the Table labeled ``Santa Barbara
ROP Forecasts and Targets'' (see 1994 CAP, Tables 9-2 and 9-5). The
plan provides for achievement of the ROP target emission levels for
1996, the only applicable milestone year for a moderate ozone area.
Santa Barbara ROP Forecasts and Targets 14
[In tons of ROG per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Base Year Inventory................................... 57
1996 Projections (Adopted Measures)........................ 41
1996 ROP Target............................................ 42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 For the ROP determination, OCS emissions were not included.
(2) ROP Control Strategy
In general, only adopted measures may be relied upon in meeting the
15% ROP requirement. This requirement is met, since the plan relies
only on adopted regulations to achieve the required ROP reductions. A
detailed description of Santa Barbara's 15% ROP demonstration is
provided in Chapter 9 of the CAP.
(3) EPA Action
The Santa Barbara 1994 CAP meets the ROP requirements of the Act,
including the requirement to achieve by 1996 a minimum of 15% of
creditable VOC emission reductions from the 1990 base year. EPA
therefore proposes to approve Santa Barbara's ROP plan under section
182(b)(1) of the Act.
e. Demonstration of Attainment. Santa Barbara is classified as a
moderate nonattainment area for ozone. As a result, the SIP must
contain adequate control measures and commitments to demonstrate
attainment of the ozone NAAQS by 1996.
(1) Control Strategy
The control strategy for Santa Barbara's SIP attainment
demonstration incorporates all of the measures identified in Chapters 4
and 5 of the CAP. The demonstration presumes the measures, which are
already fully adopted as regulations, will be implemented as shown in
the plan, resulting in the emission reductions indicated in the CAP.
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed modeling analysis performed to
demonstrate that the control strategy identified above will result in
NAAQS attainment. A summary of the emission reductions needed to attain
the standard is provided below in the table labeled ``Emission
Reductions Needed in Santa Barbara,'' which is derived from information
in the 1994 CAP.
Emission Reductions Needed in Santa Barbara
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory......................... 63 70
Carrying Capacity......................................... 44 56
Reductions Needed......................................... 19 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the emission reductions projected from the SIP control
strategy is provided below in the table labeled ``Santa Barbara
Attainment Demonstration,'' which is derived from the information in
the 1994 CAP.
Santa Barbara Attainment Demonstration
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions from adopted measures.......................... 19 14
Committed local measures.................................. 0 0
Committed State measures.................................. 0 0
-------------
Total............................................... 19 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Barbara area was classified as a moderate ozone
nonattainment area based on a design value of .14 ppm, recorded at the
Carpenteria site. This was based on 1987-1989 data. The attainment
demonstration for Santa Barbara is based on Urban Airshed Modeling even
though use of photochemical modeling is not a specific Clean Air Act
requirement for a moderate area. Modeling for the Santa Barbara area is
discussed in two documents: the ``Santa Barbara County Photochemical
Modeling Investigation (May, 1994)'' and in the 1994 CAP (Chapter 7 and
Appendix D: Photochemical Modeling Documentation).
In the Santa Barbara County Photochemical Modeling Investigation, a
county-wide assessment of the July 29-31, 1991 episode was analyzed.
The peak ozone concentration measured during this period was .13 ppm at
the Paradise Road Monitoring station. The model performance statistics
did not meet EPA performance requirements as the peak ozone
concentrations were underpredicted by approximately 50%. Because of the
lack of performance, an attainment demonstration was not performed with
this episode.
Santa Barbara APCD and Ventura County APCD collaborated on a joint
modeling effort to satisfy the attainment demonstration requirements of
the Clean Air Act. This collaborative effort is summarized in the 1994
CAP. Two 1984 episodes were selected for the joint modeling effort:
September 5-7 and September 16-17. The episodes and modeling statistics
are discussed further in the accompanying technical support document.
Using 1996 emission forecasts, the photochemical modeling demonstrated
attainment of the ozone standard, although attainment for the September
5-7 episode required removal of the in-transit shipping channel
emissions.
Although the modeling does not fully meet EPA's performance
criteria, EPA believes that the modeling is sufficient to propose
approval of the attainment plan.
(3) EPA Action
EPA believes that the Santa Barbara attainment demonstration
satisfies CAA requirements. EPA therefore proposes to approve Santa
Barbara's attainment demonstration under section 182(b)(1)(A) of the
Act.
f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes to approve fully the Santa
Barbara ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission
inventories, control measures, and demonstrations of ROP and
attainment.
The November 14, 1994, SIP submittal included an ozone
redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Santa Barbara
nonattainment area. During 1994-5, however, the Santa Barbara area
recorded a number of exceedances of the ozone standard. This will
prevent the area from attaining the ozone standard in 1996, since
attainment of the ozone NAAQS requires no more than three exceedances
over a three year period.
On July 18, 1995, the State agreed to withdraw its request for EPA
action on the redesignation request and the maintenance plan. As a
result, EPA is not taking action on the redesignation request and
maintenance plan at this time. However, even though the 1994-5
exceedances will prevent Santa Barbara from achieving the ozone
standard by 1996, EPA is proposing to approve Santa Barbara's 1994 CAP.
If
[[Page 10942]]
the Santa Barbara area experiences no more than one exceedance during
the 1996 ozone season and the state has complied with all requirements
and commitments in the Santa Barbara SIP, section 181(a)(5) of the Act
authorizes EPA to grant a one-year extension of the attainment date
upon request by the State. Up to two extensions can be granted.
Therefore, disapproval of the 1994 CAP and a reclassification of the
area to serious for failure to attain is not yet warranted.
3. San Diego
a. Identification of Plan. On November 1, 1994, the Board of the
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) adopted the ``1994
Ozone State Implementation Plan Revision''. On November 15, 1994, CARB
adopted the SIP revision as the local element of the 1994 California
Ozone SIP, which CARB then submitted to EPA 15 to comply with ROP
and attainment demonstration requirements.
\15\ November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia
Marcus, EPA, forwarding the San Diego component of the SIP and CARB
Board Resolution No. 94-63 approving the San Diego plan revision.
The San Diego submittal includes a November 3, 1994 letter from
Richard Sommerville (SDAPCD) to James Boyd (CARB) forwarding the
1994 San Diego plan and the SDAPCD Board Resolution approving the
SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 1990 Base year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates
of the actual VOC and NOX emissions that occurred in San Diego in
1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table below,
labeled ``1990 San Diego SIP Inventories.'' A more specific breakdown
of 1990 base year emissions can be found on page 9 of the plan, and
further inventory information is provided in the appendices to the
plan. A discussion of these inventories and of EPA's proposed action on
them can be found in section II.C.1.a., above.
1990 San Diego SIP Inventories
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary.............................................. 100.0 28.0
Mobile.................................................. 212.5 209.9
---------------
Total............................................. 312.5 237.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. SIP Control Measures.
(1) Description
The plan lists the VOC and NOX control measures relied upon
for demonstrating compliance with the Act's progress and attainment
requirements, all of which had been adopted at the time of the plan
submittal (see Table 4, ``1999 Attainment Demonstration Control
Measures'' on p. 29 of the SIP).
(2) EPA Action
EPA proposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, the control measures portion of the plan. EPA approval of the
adopted regulations has already occurred or will be completed in
separate rulemakings in the future.
d. ROP Provisions.
(1) ROP Emission Targets
The 1994 SIP describes the VOC emission reductions needed to meet
ROP requirements based on San Diego's adjusted 1990 base year
inventories (see pp. 33 and 35). The SIP also provides emission
estimates for the ROP milestone years by projecting the impacts of the
control strategy and of anticipated changes in population, industrial
activity, and other socio-economic factors. A summary of the ROP VOC
targets and the projected VOC emissions is provided below in the table
labeled ``San Diego ROP Forecasts and Targets.''
As the table shows, VOC reductions alone were not projected to be
sufficient to meet the ROP target levels for milestone years after
1996. Section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act and EPA guidance allows
reductions in NOX emissions to be substituted for post-1996 VOC
reductions so long as certain conditions are met (see discussion above
in section II.C.1.c.). The San Diego plan meets those conditions and
the corresponding NOX reductions as substituted for VOC reductions
are also shown in the table. EPA concludes that the plan provides for
achievement of the ROP target emission levels for all years.
San Diego ROP Forecasts and Targets
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone year 1996 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Base Year VOC Inventory.......................... 312.6 312.6
VOC Projections (Adopted Measures).................... 236.1 232.0
ROP VOC Target........................................ 241.2 212.2
VOC Shortfall......................................... 0 19.8
NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents 16................ 0 19.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 The term ``VOC equivalents'' is not meant to imply that NOX
reductions were substituted for VOC reductions on a one-for-one basis.
The amount of NOX substitution was determined by calculating the VOC
shortfall percentage, and then converting the percentage into an
equivalent reduction of NOX. CARB and the district have demonstrated
that the NOX reductions are creditable and not in excess of what is
necessary for attainment. A companion TSD provides a more detailed
description of the calculations and amount of NOX reduction used to
represent the VOC equivalents.
(2) ROP Control Strategy
In general only adopted measures may be relied upon in meeting the
15% ROP requirement in section 182(b)(1) of the Act. Since the plan
relies only on adopted regulations, this requirement is met. According
to the submitted plan, the post-1996 ROP control strategy includes all
those VOC measures relied upon for the 15% ROP demonstration, as well
as fully adopted NOX regulations.
(3) EPA Action
The San Diego SIP meets the CAA requirements for ROP. EPA therefore
proposes to approve San Diego's 15% and post-1996 ROP plans under
sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2) of the Act.
e. Demonstration of Attainment. San Diego County is classified as a
serious nonattainment area for ozone (see 40 CFR 81.305). As a result,
the SIP must contain adequate control measures to demonstrate
attainment of the ozone NAAQS by 1999.
(1) Control Strategy
The San Diego SIP attainment demonstration includes all of the
measures described earlier. The demonstration presumes the measures
will continue to be implemented, resulting in the emission reductions
shown.
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed modeling analysis performed to
demonstrate that the control strategy described in above will result in
NAAQS attainment. A summary of the emission reductions needed to attain
the standard is provided below in the table labeled ``Emission
Reductions Needed in San Diego,'' which is taken from the
[[Page 10943]]
1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Table F-1.
Emission Reductions Needed in San Diego
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory......................... 313 238
Carrying Capacity......................................... 232 175
Reductions Needed......................................... 81 63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the emission reductions projected from the SIP control
strategy is provided below in the table labeled ``San Diego Attainment
Demonstration,'' which is taken from the 1994 California Ozone SIP,
Volume IV, Table F-2.
San Diego Attainment Demonstration
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions from Adopted Measures.......................... 81 63
Committed Local Measures.................................. 0 0
Committed State Measures.................................. 1 1
-------------
Total................................................. 82 64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego area was originally classified as a severe ozone
nonattainment area based on a rounded 1987-1989 design value of .19
ppm, recorded at the Del Mar station. This was later changed to
serious, since the actual value was .185 ppm, which is within 5 percent
of the cutoff for serious (.180 ppm), as allowed under section
181(a)(4) of the Act (see 60 FR 3771, January 19, 1995). Exceedances of
the ozone NAAQS typically occur in the San Diego area more than 20
times per year. Most of these exceedances are classified by the SDAPCD
as due to transport of pollutants from the South Coast. Locally
generated ozone episodes are more in the neighborhood of .15 ppm.
In order to simulate air quality for the SIP and other planning
needs, San Diego contracted with Radian Corporation to conduct the San
Diego Area Air Quality Study (SDAQS) study during the summer of 1989,
and to perform subsequent modeling (summarized in draft report,
November 1991). That work was later extended by SDAPCD staff, with
participation by CARB. The field study involved a network of air
quality and meteorological instruments, including airplanes, to measure
ozone and its precursors and the meteorological inputs needed for UAM.
Two episodes were selected for modeling from among those recorded
during the field study. The August 28-29, 1989 episode had a monitored
maximum of .154 ppm, at Alpine. After diagnostic simulations and
refinement of model inputs, a base case was developed for the August
episode, representing a locally generated ozone exceedance. The model
performance statistics were within the goals set in EPA guidance, and
the episode simulation was judged adequate for determining emission
reduction targets.
A second episode, September 20-22, 1989, having a .156 ppm peak,
was strongly affected by upper air transport of pollutants from the Los
Angeles area. Only limited data was available on this transported
pollution. While the model's performance for NOX was poor, and the
expected phenomenon of a transported ozone cloud aloft mixing down to
the ground was not simulated well, the model met EPA statistical
performance goals for ozone.
Significant uncertainties remain, but the modeling does show the
beneficial effect on San Diego of the upwind Los Angeles area's
emissions reductions. EPA expects that additional study of transport,
to be conducted over the next few years, may result in the revisiting
of San Diego's air quality problems. The District is an active
participant in the planning of this study. Since San Diego has
demonstrated that such high levels are due primarily to pollutants
transported from the South Coast, additional San Diego emission
reductions are not required for attainment (see 60 FR 3771-2). Finally,
the impact of adopted State and SCAQMD reductions in the 1999
attainment year further support assumptions that transport of ozone and
ozone precursors into the San Diego area will decline significantly in
future years.
Using 1999 boundary conditions and a projected emission inventory
including the effect of already-adopted local and state emission
control measures, the ozone peaks were simulated to be .111 ppm and
.116 ppm for the August and September episodes, respectively, thus
demonstrating attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
(3) EPA Action
EPA believes that the San Diego component of the 1994 SIP fulfills
the CAA attainment demonstration requirements. EPA is therefore
proposing to approve the San Diego attainment demonstration under
section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes to approve fully the San Diego
ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission
inventories, control measures, and demonstrations of ROP and
attainment.
4. San Joaquin Valley
a. Identification of Plan. On November 14, 1994, the Board of the
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)
adopted the Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan for the San Joaquin
Valley. On November 15, 1994, CARB modified the plan and adopted it as
the local element of the 1994 California Ozone SIP, which CARB then
submitted to EPA to comply with the ROP and attainment demonstration
requirements of the Act.\17\
\17\ November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia
Marcus, EPA forwarding the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan and CARB Board Resolution no. 94-65 approving the
San Joaquin Valley revised 1993 Rate-of-Progress Plan, Post-1996
Rate-of-Progress Plan and the Attainment Demonstration Plan as
revisions to the SIP. The San Joaquin Valley submittal includes a
November 14, 1994 letter from David Crow (SJVUAPCD) to James Boyd
(CARB), forwarding the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan and the SJVUAPCD Board Resolution (94-11-02a)
approving the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 1990 Base year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates
of the actual VOC and NOX emissions that occurred in San Joaquin
in 1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table below,
labeled ``1990 San Joaquin Valley SIP Inventories.'' A discussion of
the inventories and of EPA's proposed action on them can be found in
section II.C.1.a. of this notice.
San Joaquin Valley 1990 SIP Inventories
[In tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary.......................................... 325.64 382.56
Mobile.............................................. 218.28 327.80
On-Road......................................... 170.86 228.53
Non-Road........................................ 47.44 99.28
-------------------
Total......................................... 543.9 710.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. SIP Control Measures.
(1) Description
The State of California and SJVUAPCD have already adopted many
measures which will contribute to the necessary emissions reductions
for meeting 15% ROP, post-1996 ROP and attainment requirements. In
addition, the SIP describes a series of rules that SJVUAPCD has
recently adopted or committed to adopt in order to reduce VOC and
NOX emissions (SJVUAPCD Attainment Demonstration Plan, table 4-1 &
1994 California Ozone SIP,
[[Page 10944]]
Volume IV, Table G-9. The table labeled ``San Joaquin Local Control
Measures'' indicates the dates of rule adoption and implementation and
the emission reductions presumed to occur by 1999. No reductions from
local measures are assumed in the 15% ROP plan for 1996.
San Joaquin Local Control Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions
Rule No. Control measure Implementing Adoption date Implementation -------------------
title agency date VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 Emission Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4403 (VOC)........... Components Serving SJVUAPCD........ 2Q/91........ 2Q/91......... 4.55 ........
Gas Production.
4703................. Stationary Gas SJVUAPCD........ 3Q/94........ 3Q/2000....... ........ 11.92
Turbine Engines.
4653................. Adhesives........... SJVUAPCD........ 1Q/94........ 1Q/95......... 1.3 ........
4623................. Organic Liquid SJVUAPCD........ 2Q/91........ 2Q/96......... 13.2 ........
Staorage.
TCMs................ ................ Ongoing...... Ongoing....... 1.8 1.5
4601................. Architectural SJVUAPCD........ 1Q/96........ 1Q/98......... 1.51 ........
Coatings.
4692................. Commercial SJVUAPCD........ 2Q/96........ 2Q/98......... 0.39 ........
Charbroiling.
4354................. Glass Melting SJVUAPCD........ 1Q/96........ 4Q/99......... ........ 2.87
Furnaces.
4607................. Graphic Arts........ SJVUAPCD........ 4Q/95........ 4Q/97......... 0.84 ........
4642................. Landfill Gas Control SJVUAPCD........ 1Q/95........ 4Q/99......... 1.41 ........
4412................. Oil Workover Rigs... SJVUAPCD........ 2Q/96........ 2q/98......... ........ 0.87
4623................. Organic Liquid SJVUAPCD........ 3Q/95........ 3q98.......... 3.0 ........
Storage.
4662................. Organic Solvent SJVUAPCD........ 1Q/96........ 1Q/98......... 2.44 ........
Degreasing.
4663................. Organic Solvent SJVUAPCD........ 2Q/96........ 2Q/98......... 0.19 ........
Waste.
4306................. Small Boilers, SJVUAPCD........ 3Q/95........ 3Q/99......... ........ 7.6
Process Heaters and
Steam Generators.
4611................. Smaller Printer SJVUAPCD........ 4Q/95........ 4Q/97......... 0.30 ........
Operations.
4702................. Stationary IC SJVUAPCD........ 2Q/95........ 4Q/99......... ........ 12.44
Engines.
4621 & 4622.......... Stationary Storage SJVUAPCD........ 2Q/96........ 2Q/98......... 0.41 ........
Tanks/Fuel Transfer
into Vehicle Tanks.
Waste Burning....... ND.............. ND........... ND............ ........
4411................. Well Cellars........ SJVUAPCD........ 2Q/96........ 2Q/98......... 0.56 ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) EPA Action
According to the State's submissions, these measures are relied
upon in meeting the ROP and attainment requirements of the Act.
Accordingly, and because the measures strengthen the SIP, EPA proposes
to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the
enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the control measures by
the dates specified to achieve the emission reductions shown. EPA also
proposes to assign credit to the measures for purposes of ROP and
attainment. EPA approval of the adopted regulations will be completed
in separate rulemakings in the future.
d. ROP Provisions.
(1) ROP Emission Targets
The SIP describes the VOC emissions to meet the ROP target and the
VOC emissions with plan reductions (see the 1994 California Ozone SIP,
Table G-7). Additional information regarding the ROP provisions is
presented in the 1994 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment Demonstration
Plan, Table 2-1. A summary of the ROP VOC targets and the projected VOC
emissions is provided below in the table labeled ``San Joaquin Valley
ROP Forecasts and Targets.''
As the table shows, VOC reductions alone were not projected to be
sufficient to meet the ROP target levels for milestone year 1999.
Section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act and EPA guidance allows reductions in
NOX emissions to be substituted for post-1996 VOC reductions so
long as certain conditions are met (see discussion above in section
II.C.1). The San Joaquin Valley plan meets those conditions and the
corresponding NOX reductions as substituted for VOC reductions are
also shown in the table.
San Joaquin Valley ROP Forecasts and Targets
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone year 1996 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions to Meet ROP Target.......................... 433 383
VOC Emissions with Plan Reductions........................ 430 430
NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents 18.................... 0 47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 See footnote 16.
The SIP includes a separate ROP analysis for the Kern District
portion of the San Joaquin Valley.
San Joaquin Valley (Kern District) ROP Forecasts and Targets
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone year 1996 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions to Meet ROP Target.......................... 13.2 11.7
VOC Emissions with Plan Reductions........................ 13.2 13.3
NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents....................... 0 1.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
In general, only adopted measures may be relied upon in meeting the
15% ROP requirement. The San Joaquin Valley control strategy for the
15% ROP requirements, therefore, excluded all committed control
measures listed in the table labeled ``Control Strategy for San Joaquin
Valley.'' The description of adopted measures relied upon in providing
for this requirement is in the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan in Tables 4-1 and 3-2.
(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy
According to the submitted plan, the post-1996 ROP control strategy
includes all those measures relied upon for the 15% ROP demonstration,
plus any measures for which emissions reductions are shown for
milestones occurring after 1996, excluding
[[Page 10945]]
projected reductions from Federal measures.
(4) EPA Action
The San Joaquin Valley SIP meets the CAA requirements for 15% ROP
and post-1996 ROP, including the requirement that the plan provide for
achievement of the ROP target emission levels for all years. EPA
therefore proposes to approve San Joaquin Valley's 15% ROP and post-
1996 ROP plans under sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2) of the Act.
e. Demonstration of Attainment. The San Joaquin Valley is
classified as a serious nonattainment area for ozone (see 40 CFR
81.305). As a result, the SIP must contain adequate control measures to
demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS by 1999.
(1) Control Strategy
The San Joaquin Valley attainment demonstration includes all of the
measures described earlier. The demonstration presumes the measures
will be adopted and implemented as scheduled, resulting in the emission
reductions shown.
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
The 1994 SIP describes the urban airshed modeling analysis
performed to demonstrate that the control strategy described above will
result in attainment. The attainment analysis is based on the model
developed as part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Study, and
divides the nonattainment area into three subregions, and the Kern
District portion. CARB notes that the model is being further refined
and appropriate changes in the SIP may be made in the future.
The area was classified as serious based on a design value of .17
ppm, recorded at the Edison site. This was based on 1987-1989 data.
CARB applied the SARMAP Air Quality Model to develop the attainment
demonstration for the San Joaquin Valley SIP. The SARMAP model is a
nonhydrostatic version of the Regional Acid Deposition Model, with
several modifications. The EPA approved UAM version IV was also applied
to the domain for performance comparison. The SARMAP field study,
conducted during the summer of 1990, provided an enhanced database of
air quality and meteorological data, both at the surface level and
aloft.
The model has been applied to one episode from the study period,
August 5-6, 1990. The episode was chosen because it represents a
typical regime conducive to relatively high ozone peaks. The peak ozone
concentration for the episode was .16 ppm, compared to the design
concentration of .17 ppm.
The EPA recommended statistical criteria for ozone were met for the
episode using the SARMAP model. The predicted peak for the episode for
the southern portion of the domain was .14 ppm, as compared to the
measured concentration of .16 ppm, an underprediction of 13%. The
predicted peak for the central portion of the domain was .152 ppm,
compared to the predicted peak of .131 ppm, an overprediction of 16%.
For the northern portion of the domain, a value of .137 ppm was
predicted compared to the measured value of .150 ppm, an
underprediction of 9%.
A summary of the emission reductions needed to attain the standard
is provided below in the table labeled ``Emission Reductions Needed in
the San Joaquin Valley,'' which is taken from the 1994 California Ozone
SIP, Volume IV, Tables G-1, G-3, and G-5.
Emission Reductions Needed in the San Joaquin Valley
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Central South
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory. 129 124 126 115 217 367
Carrying Capacity................. >129 >124 88 90 145 165
Reductions Needed................. ........... ........... 38 25 72 202
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB's preliminary attainment calculations for the 3 subregions are
provided below in the table labeled ``San Joaquin Valley Attainment
Demonstration,'' which is taken from the 1994 California Ozone SIP,
Volume IV, Tables G-2, G-4, and G-6.
San Joaquin Valley Attainment Demonstration
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Central South
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX ROG NOX ROG NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions from Adopted Measures.. 15 8 27 9 58 164
Committed Local Measures.......... 5 ........... 8 6 22 20
Committed State Measures.......... 8 2 4 2 3 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 28 11 39 16 83 185
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of the attainment demonstration, the Kern District
portion of the San Joaquin Valley was not separately modeled, under the
assumption that attainment in this area should result primarily from
upwind reductions achieved in the South San Joaquin sub-region.
(3) EPA Action
EPA believes that the San Joaquin Valley component of the 1994 SIP
fulfills the CAA attainment demonstration requirements. EPA is
therefore proposing to approve the San Joaquin attainment demonstration
under section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes to approve fully the San
Joaquin ozone SIP with respect to the Act's
[[Page 10946]]
requirements for emission inventories, control measures, and
demonstrations of ROP and attainment.
5. Sacramento
a. Identification of Plans. The Sacramento Metropolitan Area
nonattainment area includes 6 counties (whole and in part) and
jurisdiction is divided among 5 local air pollution control agencies:
the Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), the
Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District (YSAPCD), the Feather River
Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD), the Placer County Air
Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), and the El Dorado County Air
Pollution Control District (ECAPCD). Each local air pollution control
agency adopted and submitted the Sacramento Area Regional Ozone
Attainment Demonstration Plan which was transmitted to CARB. On
December 29, 1994, CARB then submitted the plan to EPA.
Sacramento Ozone SIP Adoptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution
Agency Date of adoption No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMAQMD........................... Dec. 1, 1994............. 94-0014
YSAPCD........................... Dec. 14, 1994............ 94-28
FRAQMD........................... Dec. 12, 1994............ 1994-13
PCAPCD........................... Dec. 20, 1994............ 94-07
ECAPCD........................... Dec. 13, 1994............ 321-94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 1990 Base Year and Projected Inventories. The Sacramento Area
ozone attainment plan provides detailed estimates of 1990 emissions
from all VOC and NOX sources in the Sacramento nonattainment area
in 1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table
labeled ``1990 Sacramento Area SIP Inventories.'' 19 A discussion
of these inventories and of EPA's proposed action can be found in
section II.C.1.c. of this notice.
\19\ More detailed summaries of this inventory can be found in
the 1994 Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Demonstration,
tables C-1 and C-2.
1990 Sacramento Area SIP Inventories
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary................................................ 88 12
Mobile.................................................... 134 151
On-road............................................... 110 118
Off-road.............................................. 24 34
-------------
Total............................................... 222 164
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. SIP Control Measures.
(1) Description
The State of California and the local air districts in Sacramento
Area have already adopted many measures which will contribute to the
necessary emissions reductions for meeting 15% ROP, post-1996 ROP, and
attainment requirements. In addition, the 1994 SIP describes a series
of rules that the Sacramento Area air pollution control districts have
committed to adopt in order to reduce VOC and NOX emissions in the
Sacramento Area. The table labeled ``Sacramento Local Control
Measures'' describes the dates by which the plans presume adoption and
implementation, and the emission reductions presumed to occur by each
milestone, from 1999 through the attainment year (2005), to the extent
that information was available in the submitted plan.
Sacramento Local Control Measures
[Tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission reductions
VOC control measure title Implementing agency Adoption date Implementation date --------------------------------
1996 2002 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG Control Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhesives........................... ECAPCD..................... 2/95....................... 1996................... 1.2 1.3 1.4
PCAPCD..................... 2/95
SMAQMD..................... 5/95
YSAPCD..................... Adopted '94
Architectural Coatings.............. ECAPCD..................... Adopted.................... 1996................... 0.9 1.3 1.6
PCAPCD..................... 4/95
Amendment to existing rule Adopted
SMAQMD.
YSAPCD..................... 3/95
Auto Refinishing.................... ECAPCD..................... Adopted '94................ 1996................... 2.1 2.6 3.2
PCAPCD..................... Adopted '94
SMAQMD..................... 5/95
YSAPCD..................... Adopted '94
Fugitive HC Emissions............... ECAPCD..................... 4/95....................... 1999................... 1.4 1.4 1.4
PCAPCD..................... Adopted
SMAQMD..................... Adopted
YSAPCD..................... Adopted 5/94
Graphic Arts........................ ECAPCD..................... Adopted 9/94............... June 1995.............. 0.4 0.5 0.5
PCAPCD..................... 11/94
SMAQMD..................... '81, '93
YSAPCD..................... Adopted 5/94
[[Page 10947]]
Landfill Gas Control................ ECAPCD..................... 12/94...................... 1996................... 1.2 1.2 1.2
PCAPCD..................... Adopted.................... 1996...................
SMAQMD..................... 2/95....................... 1997...................
YSAPCD..................... Adopted.................... 1996...................
Pleasure Craft Coating Operations... ECAPCD..................... 4/96....................... 1996-1999.............. 0.2 0.2 0.2
PCAPCD..................... 12/94
SMAQMD..................... 1998
YSAPCD..................... Adopted
Pleasure Craft Refueling............ ECAPCD..................... 3/98....................... 1999................... 0.1 0.1 0.2
PCAPCD..................... 3/98
SMAQMD..................... 3/98
YSAPCD..................... 3/98
Polyester Resin Operations.......... ECAPCD..................... 2/96....................... 1997................... 0.2 0.2 0.2
PCAPCD..................... 1/96....................... 1997...................
SMAQMD..................... 1998....................... 1999...................
YSAPCD..................... Adopted '93
Semiconductor Mfg................... PCAPCD others?............. 2/95....................... 1996................... 0.1 0.2 0.2
SOCMI Distillation/Reactors......... SMAQMD others?............. 9/95....................... 1997................... 1.4 1.5 1.6
Surface Preparation and Cleanup..... ECAPCD..................... 2/95....................... 1996................... 3.0 3.3 3.6
PCAPCD..................... 2/95
SMAQMD..................... 2/95
YSAPCD..................... Adopted 5/94
Vents on Underground Gasoline SMAQMD..................... 2/95....................... 1995................... 0.1 0.2 0.2
Storage Tanks.
YSAPCD..................... 1/95
(Both amend current rules).
Wood Products Coatings.............. ECAPCD..................... 2/95....................... 1996................... 0.5 0.5 0.5
PCAPCD..................... Adopted 11/94.............. 1996...................
SMAQMD..................... Adopted 11/94.............. 1996...................
YSAPCD..................... Adopted 11/94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional NOX Control Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilers and Steam Generators........ ECAPCD..................... Adopted '94................ 1996-1997.............. 0.8 0.9 1.0
PCAPCD..................... Adopted '94
SMAQMD..................... 2/95
YSAPCD..................... Adopted '94
Gas Turbines........................ PCAPCD..................... Adopted 10/94.............. 1997................... 0.2 0.3 0.3
SMAQMD..................... 2/97
YSAPCD..................... 5/94
Internal Combustion Engines......... ECAPCD..................... Adopted '94................ Phased in 1997......... 0.3 0.4 0.5
PCAPCD..................... 12/95
SMAQMD..................... 2/95
YSAPCD..................... Adopted '94
Residential Water Heaters........... ECAPCD..................... 1996....................... 1995-1997.............. 0.3 0.4 0.5
PCAPCD..................... 12/95
SMAQMD..................... 1996
YSAPCD..................... Adopted 11/94
Woodwaste Boilers................... PCAPCD..................... 5/95....................... ???.................... ??? ? ?
Mobile NOX Measures:
1. Off-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles. All........................ 12/95...................... 1/97................... 2.0 3.0 5.0
2. On-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) EPA Action
According to the State's submissions, these measures are relied
upon in meeting the post-1996 ROP and attainment requirements of the
Act. Accordingly, and because the measures strengthen the SIP, EPA
proposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act,
the enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the control measures
by the dates specified to achieve the emission reductions shown. EPA
also proposes to assign credit to the measures for purposes of post-
1996 ROP and attainment. EPA approval of the adopted regulations will
be completed in separate rulemakings in the future.
d. Rate of Progress.
(1) ROP Emission Targets
The 1994 SIP describes the VOC emission reductions needed to meet
ROP requirements based on Sacramento's adjusted 1990 base year
[[Page 10948]]
inventories.20 The SIP also provides emission estimates for the
ROP milestone years by projecting the impact of the control strategy
and of anticipated changes in population, industrial activity, and
other socio-economic factors. A summary of the ROP VOC targets and the
projected VOC emissions is provided below in the table labeled
``Sacramento ROP Forecasts and Targets.''
As the table shows, VOC reductions alone were not projected to be
sufficient to meet the ROP target levels for milestone years after
1996. As discussed earlier (section II.C.1.c.), the Clean Air Act
allows substitution of reductions in NOX emissions for VOC
reductions so long as certain conditions are met. The Sacramento Area
plan meets those conditions and the corresponding NOX reductions
are also shown in the table below labeled ``Sacramento ROP Forecasts
and Targets.''
Sacramento ROP Forecasts and Targets
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone year 1996 1999 2002 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Base Year VOC Inventory................................ 211 211 211 211
VOC Inventory Projection.................................... 175 167 163 159
ROP VOC Target.............................................. 162 142 124 107
Preliminary VOC Shortfall................................... 13 25 39 52
VOC Reductions from Committal Measures...................... 0 19 23 14
Total VOC Shortfall......................................... 13 6 16 38
NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents 21...................... 13 6 16 38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See footnote 16.
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
On November 15, 1993, CARB submitted to EPA a ROP plan intended to
demonstrate that VOC emissions would be reduced by 15% by 1996. EPA
determined that this ROP plan was incomplete because it relied on
controls not yet adopted in regulatory form. Appendix G of the 1994 SIP
submittal updates Sacramento's 1993 ROP plan. EPA has deemed this plan
complete. EPA will act on the Sacramento Area's 15% ROP submittal in
separate rulemaking.
\20\ See the Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Plan,
Tables G-1, G-2 and G-3 for ROP targets and lists of measures
included in meeting those targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Post-1996 ROP
Appendix G of the Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Plan
provides detailed information on the ROP emissions reductions from 1996
to 2005. The following summary can be found at Table G-1 of the
Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Plan and provides a general
summary of how the expected ROP reductions will be met.
(4) EPA Action
EPA believes that the Sacramento area component of the 1994 SIP
meets the CAA requirements for post-1996 ROP. EPA is, therefore,
proposing to approve the Sacramento area's post-1996 ROP plan under
section 182(b)(2) of the Act. EPA will act on Sacramento's 15% ROP Plan
in separate rulemaking.
e. Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS. The Sacramento Area is classified
as a severe nonattainment area for ozone. As a result, the SIP must
contain adequate control measures and commitments to demonstrate
attainment of the ozone NAAQS by 2005.
(1) Control Strategy
The control strategy for the Sacramento Area's SIP attainment
demonstration includes all of the State measures and the local measures
identified in the Table labeled ``Sacramento Local Control Measures.''
The demonstration presumes the measures will be adopted and implemented
by the dates shown, resulting in the emission reductions shown.
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed modeling analysis performed to
demonstrate that the control strategy will result in ozone NAAQS
attainment. A summary of the emission reductions needed to attain the
standard is provided below in the table labeled ``Emission Reductions
Needed in Sacramento,'' taken from Table D-1 in Volume IV of the 1994
California Ozone SIP.
Emission Reductions Needed in Sacramento
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory......................... 222 164
Attainment Inventory...................................... 137 98
Reductions Needed......................................... 85 66
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the emission reductions projected from the SIP control
strategy is provided below in the table labeled ``Sacramento Attainment
Demonstration,'' which is based on Table D-2 from Volume IV of the 1994
California Ozone SIP.
Sacramento Attainment Demonstration
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions from Adopted Measures........................ 55 40
Committed Local Measures................................ 17 7
Committed State Measures................................ 15 14
Reductions from National Measures \1\................... 1.6 4.3
---------------
Total............................................. 88.6 65.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Credit shown is EPA's estimate of reductions from statutorily-
mandated national rules.
Based on the Sacramento Area's classification as a severe ozone
nonattainment area and the results of an Urban Airshed Modeling
analysis, Sacramento must reduce its 2005 emissions inventory to 137
tons per day of VOC and 98 tons per day of NOX in order to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The expected emissions reductions
from the combination of adopted measures and commitments to adopt
measures listed above and in the Sacramento's 1994 Regional Ozone
Attainment Plan will achieve the necessary reductions to meet the
attainment targets.
The Sacramento area was classified as a serious ozone nonattainment
area based on a design value of .16 ppm, recorded at the Folsom
station. This was based on 1987-1989 data; the 1990-1992 value was also
.16 ppm. Exceedances of the ozone NAAQS occur in the Sacramento area
about 6 to 10 times per year.
[[Page 10949]]
In order to simulate air quality for the SIP and other planning
needs, CARB and the Sacramento local agencies started planning the
Sacramento Area Ozone Study (SAOS) early in 1989, with intensive data
collection performed during the summer of 1990. This involved an
extended network of air quality and meteorological instruments,
including on airplanes, to measure ozone and its precursors and the
meteorological inputs needed for UAM. The Sacramento Modeling Advisory
Committee (SMAC) was established for technical oversight of the
modeling effort, and included regulatory, industry, and environmental
group participants. CARB and its contractor, Systems Applications
International, prepared a modeling protocol which was accepted by EPA
as meeting EPA Guideline requirements.
Two episodes were selected for modeling from those recorded during
the field study. Ozone maxima occurred in the Interstate 50 and in the
Interstate 80 corridors, downwind (east and northeast) of Sacramento.
While the observed ozone peaks were less than the design value of .16
ppm, they were high enough to meet EPA guidelines for episode
selection, especially considering the excellent database available for
analysis. They had features typical of urban ozone episodes, including
temperatures exceeding 100 deg.F, low wind speeds, and a temperature
inversion that tended to trap pollutants near the ground. After
extensive diagnostic simulations and refinement of model inputs, a base
case was developed for the July 11-13, 1990 episode. While not
outstanding, the model performance statistics were well within the
goals set in EPA's Guideline. This episode's performance was judged
adequate for determining emission reduction targets.
A second episode, August 8-10, 1990, was strongly affected by upper
air transport of pollutants into the area. Only limited data was
available on this transported pollution, so it was difficult to set
boundary conditions for the model. In addition, the source areas were
not certain; the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley, and
recirculation from Sacramento itself are all possible sources for the
pollutant influx. For these reasons, an attainment demonstration using
this episode would be of little value and, after consultation with EPA,
the State did not pursue it.
Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area are included within the
modeling domain of the SARMAP study, conducted for the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area. Ideally, modeling of transport should be
performed with both upwind and downwind areas in the same modeling
domain, as was the case here. Although the SARMAP episodes were not
chosen with a Sacramento attainment demonstration in mind, there is
significant transport to Sacramento in the San Joaquin Valley modeling.
Since that modeling showed attainment throughout the whole domain,
including Sacramento, EPA deems that attainment under transport
conditions has been addressed for Sacramento. Should additional
information analyses be performed for these areas, the issue of
transport to Sacramento will need to be revisited.
Using 2005 and boundary conditions and a projected emission
inventory without additional emission controls, the ozone peak was
simulated to be .134 ppm. Additional controls, giving reductions
relative to the 1990 baseline of 34% VOC and 40% NOX, brought
emissions under the carrying capacity of 137 tpd of VOC and 98 tpd of
NOX, and brought the ozone peak down to .124 ppm, thus
demonstrating attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
(3) EPA Action
EPA believes that the Sacramento Area component of the 1994 SIP
fulfills the CAA attainment demonstration requirements. EPA is
therefore proposing to approve, under section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Act,
the Sacramento Area attainment demonstration.
f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes to approve fully the Sacramento
Area ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission
inventories, control measures, and demonstrations of post-1996 ROP and
attainment. EPA will take action separately on Sacramento's 15% ROP
provisions.
6. Ventura
a. Identification of Plan. On November 8, 1994, the Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) adopted Ventura's 1994 Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP). On November 15, 1994, CARB modified the
AQMP and adopted it as the local element of the 1994 California Ozone
SIP, which CARB then submitted to EPA to comply with ROP and attainment
demonstration requirements of the Act.22
\22\ November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia
Marcus, EPA, forwarding the Ventura AQMP and CARB Board Resolution
No. 94-62 approving the Ventura plan. The Ventura submittal includes
a November 8, 1994 letter from Richard Baldwin (VCAPCD) to James
Boyd (CARB) forwarding the 1994 Ventura AQMP and the VCAPCD Board
Resolution approving the AQMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates
of the actual VOC and NOX emissions that occurred in Ventura in
1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table below,
labeled ``1990 Ventura SIP Inventories.'' A more specific breakdown of
1990 base year emissions can be found in Tables 9-3 and 9-4 of the 1994
AQMP. A discussion of these inventories and of EPA's proposed action on
them can be found in section II.C. of this notice.
1990 Ventura SIP Inventories
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary................................................ 44 18
Mobile.................................................... 41 55
Outer Continental Shelf 23................................ 2 8
-------------
Total............................................... 87 81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 OCS emissions are included because they are included in the modeled
attainment demonstration.
c. SIP Control Measures.
(1) Description
The 1994 AQMP (Tables 6-1 and 6-2) and 1994 California Ozone SIP
(Volume IV, Table E-6) describe a series of rules that the VCAPCD has
adopted or committed to adopt in order to reduce ROG and NOX
emissions in Ventura. Control measures not already adopted at the time
of the plan submittal are listed below in the table labeled ``Ventura
Local Control Measures.'' The table describes not only the dates by
which the plans presume adoption and implementation, but the emission
reductions presumed to occur by each milestone, to the extent that
information was available in the submitted plan. The information
contained in the table below reflects revisions in Ventura's recently
adopted 1995 Air Quality Management Plan, adopted on December, 19,
1995. The 1995 Plan slightly revised adoption dates, implementation
dates, and reductions for numerous district measures already contained
in the 1994 SIP. These revisions will have no adverse impact on ROP or
attainment. Although these revisions have not been formally submitted
from CARB to EPA at this time, CARB has indicated to EPA that they
intend to submit the revised adoption and implementation dates prior to
EPA's final action on the plan.
[[Page 10950]]
Ventura Local Control Measures
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG/NOX reductions \1\
Rule No. Control measure Adoption date Implementation ---------------------------------------
date 1996 1999 2002 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-101............ Gas Turbines... 3/95 4/97 0.0 0.45 0.47 0.49
N-102............ Boilers, Steam 6/96 1/97 0.0 0.05 0.06 0.06
generators,
FR Doc. 96-6011 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California Ozone
Heaters, <1
mmbtu.
R-105............ Glycol 12/94 7/96 0.41 0.73 0.65 0.57
Dehydrators.
R-317............ Clean-up 12/95 7/96 1.45 1.57 1.67 1.76
Solvents and
Solvent Wastes.
R-322............ Painter 6/97 12/97-12/98 0.0 0.48 0.51 0.53
Certification.
R-324............ Screen Printing 6/96 6/97 0.0 0.29 0.30 0.31
Operations.
R-327............ Electronic 6/96 7/97 0.0 0.07 0.07 0.08
Component
Manufacture.
R-403............ Vehicle Gas 5/95 1/96 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.23
Dispensing--Ph
ase II.
R-410............ Marine Tanker 6/96 7/97 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Loading.
R-419............ Tank Degassing 11/94 3/95 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02
Operations.
R-420............ Pleasure Craft 6/97 7/98 0.0 0.08 0.08 0.08
Fuel Transfer.
R-421............ Utility Engine 9/96 9/97 0.0 0.19 0.20 0.20
Refueling
Operations.
R-424............ Gasoline 5/95 1/96 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04
Transfer/
Dispensing.
R-425............ Enhanced 12/95 5/97 1.45 1.21 1.07 0.95
Fugitive I/M
Program.
R-606............ Soil 9/95 9/95 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11
Decontaminatio
n.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``R'' refers to ROG control measures, ``N'' refers to NOX control measures. The reduction estimates were
taken from the 1994 Ventura County AQMP (Tables 11-1 and 11-2). The reductions do not reflect the most recent
estimates in the 1995 AQMP revision. In addition, the table does not include measure R-303, Architectural
Coatings. Overall, the revised reduction estimates do not negatively impact ROP or attainment. If a SIP
revision with the revision reduction estimates and measure R 303 is submitted before EPA's final action, EPA
proposes to approve it without further opportunity for public comment.
(2) EPA Action. According to the State's submissions, these
measures are relied upon in meeting the ROP and attainment requirements
of the Act. Accordingly, and because the measures strengthen the SIP,
EPA proposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, the enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the control
measures by the dates specified to achieve the emission reductions
shown. EPA also proposes to assign credit to the measures for purposes
of ROP and attainment. EPA approval of the adopted regulations will be
completed in separate rulemakings in the future.
d. ROP Provisions.
(1) ROP Emission Targets
The 1994 AQMP (Chapter 11) and Volume IV of the CA SIP (Table E-3)
describe the VOC emission reductions needed to meet ROP requirements
based on Ventura's adjusted 1990 base year inventories. The SIP also
provides emission estimates for the ROP milestone years by projecting
the impacts of the control strategy and of anticipated changes in
population, industrial activity, and other socio-economic factors. A
summary of the ROP VOC targets and the projected VOC emissions is
provided below in the table labeled ``Ventura ROP Forecasts and
Targets.'' 24
\24\ See 1994 SIP, Tables 11-3 through 11-14, and California
Ozone SIP, page IV-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VOC reductions alone were not projected to be sufficient to
meet the ROP target levels for milestone years after 1996. As discussed
earlier (section II.B.1.b.iii.), reductions in NOX emissions may
be substituted for VOC reductions so long as certain conditions are
met. The Ventura plan meets those conditions and the corresponding
NOX reductions substituted for VOC reductions are also shown in
the table.
Ventura ROP Forecasts and Targets
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone year 1996 1999 2002 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Base Year VOC Inventory................ 85 85 85 85
VOC Inventory after Adopted Measures........ 64 61 58 56
ROP VOC Target.............................. 69 60 53 46
VOC Inventory Including Committals.......... 64 61 58 56
VOC Shortfall............................... 0 1 5 10
NOX Substitution in VOC Equivalents 25...... 0 1 5 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
\25\ See footnote 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general only adopted measures may be relied upon in meeting the
15% ROP requirement. The Ventura control strategy for the 15% ROP
requirement, therefore, excluded all committed control measures listed
in the table above labeled ``Ventura Local Control Measures.'' The
description of adopted measures relied upon in providing for this
requirement is in the 1994 AQMP in Tables 6-1, 6-2, 11-1, and 11-2.
(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy
According to the submitted plan, the post-1996 ROP control strategy
includes all those measures relied upon for the 15% ROP demonstration,
plus any measures for which emissions reductions are shown for
milestones after 1996.
(4) EPA Action
EPA believes that the Ventura component of the 1994 SIP meets the
CAA requirements for 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP. EPA is, therefore,
proposing to approve Ventura's ROP plan under sections 182(b)(1) and
182(c)(2) of the Act.
e. Demonstration of Attainment. Ventura County is classified as a
severe nonattainment area for ozone. As a result, the SIP must contain
adequate control measures and commitments to demonstrate attainment of
the ozone NAAQS by 2005.
(1) Control Strategy
The control strategy for Ventura's SIP attainment demonstration
includes the State and local measures identified above. The
demonstration presumes the measures will be adopted and implemented by
the dates shown, resulting in the emission reductions shown.
[[Page 10951]]
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
The UAM analysis described below demonstrates that the control
strategy discussed above will result in attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
A summary of the emission reductions needed to attain the standard is
provided below in the table labeled ``Emission Reductions Needed in
Ventura,'' derived from the 1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Table
E-1. Since the November 1994 submittal, additional modeling refinements
and technical clarifications have resulted in a revised estimate of the
reductions needed for attainment. These technical clarifications to the
1994 SIP were submitted to EPA by CARB on February 6, 1996.\26\ The
summary table below reflects the revised reductions needed for
attainment.
\26\ Prior to the February 6, 1996 CARB letter, EPA, CARB, and
Ventura County APCD agreed on the need to clarify the attainment
demonstration and federal assignments in the 1994 SIP submittal.
This clarification was necessary because of two principle factors.
Recent modeling indicated that moving the shipping channel was no
longer essential for attainment of the ozone NAAQS in Ventura County
and, on December 19, 1995, Ventura County adopted revisions to their
AQMP which removed the measure requiring movement of the shipping
channel.
Emission Reductions Needed in Ventura
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory......................... 87 81
Attainment Inventory...................................... 45 52
Reductions Needed......................................... 42 29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the emission reductions projected from the SIP control
strategy is provided below in the table labeled ``Ventura Attainment
Demonstration,'' taken from the 1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV,
Table E-2. As described above, the table below reflects the revised
estimate of the reductions needed.
Ventura Attainment Demonstration
[In tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions from Adopted Measures.......................... 30 24
Committed Local Measures.................................. 5 1
Committed State Measures.................................. 6 4
Reductions from National Measures \1\..................... 1 1
-------------
Total............................................... 42 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Credit shown is EPA's estimate of reductions from statutorily-
mandated national rules.
The Ventura area is classified as a Severe ozone nonattainment area
based on a design value of .174 ppm, recorded at the Simi Valley and
based on 1987-1989 data.
Ventura's photochemical modeling analysis was based on two
episodes, September 5-7, 1984 and September 16-17, 1984. The episodes
were selected from the period for which an enhanced database was
available from the 1984 South Central Coast Cooperative Aerometric
Monitoring Program. The peak measured concentration for the September
5-7 episode was .18 ppm, measured at the Casitas Pass site. The episode
was representative of widespread, high ozone. The peak measured
concentration for the September 16-17 episode was .14 ppm, also
measured at Casitas Pass. The episode represents an episode with less
transport of ozone and precursors from the South Coast Air Basin.
For the 1994 AQMP, VCAPCD and their contractor used the UAM Version
IV for the photochemical modeling exercise. The Diagnostic Wind model
was used to generate meteorological input to the model. A discussion of
the modeling can be found in Chapter 10 of the 1994 AQMP. The modeling
was submitted as part of the November 1994 SIP.
In 1994-5, CARB staff refined the modeling application by reviewing
and modifying the input files to better reflect the most accurate
information for the Ventura nonattainment area. These refinements and
improvements are detailed in CARB's report, ``Revisions to the Base
Case and Future Year Urban Airshed Model Simulations for Ventura County
in Support of the 1994 State Implementation Plan.'' The report reflects
improvements made to the previous modeling submitted as part of the
1994 SIP. The modeling improvements were submitted by CARB on February
6, 1996. The TSD contains information regarding the performance of the
improved model application for the peak days of the episode. The
performance of the model meets EPA criteria.
The revised model application predicted peak ozone concentrations
in the year 2005 of .12 ppm for the September 5-7 episode and .11 ppm
for the September 16-17 episode.
(3) EPA Action
EPA has determined that the Ventura attainment demonstration meets
CAA requirements. EPA is therefore proposing to approve the Ventura
modeling and attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2)(A) of the
Act.
f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes to approve the Ventura ozone
SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission inventories,
control measures, modeling, and demonstrations of 15% ROP and post-1996
ROP and attainment.
7. South Coast
a. Identification of Plans. On September 9, 1994, the SCAQMD
Governing Board adopted the South Coast 1994 Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP). On November 15, 1994, CARB modified the AQMP and adopted
the ozone attainment, ozone ROP, and particulate matter (PM-10) Best
Available Control Measures (BACM) component of the AQMP, which CARB
then submitted to EPA to comply with ROP, attainment demonstration, and
other requirements of the Act.27 On December 9, 1994, CARB
submitted further revisions to the 15% ROP plan.28
\27\ November 15, 1994 letter from Jacqueline Schafer, CARB, to
Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding 1994 California SIP. The SIP
includes a November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to
Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the South Coast AQMP component of
the SIP and CARB Board Resolution No. 94-61 approving the South
Coast component. The South Coast component includes an October 6,
1994 letter from James M. Lents (SCAQMD) to James Boyd (CARB)
forwarding the 1994 South Coast AQMP and the SCAQMD Board Resolution
94-36 approving the AQMP.
\28\ On November 15, 1993, CARB submitted to EPA a rate-of-
progress plan intended to demonstrate that 1990 VOC emissions would
be reduced by at least fifteen percent by 1996 pursuant to Section
182(b)(1) of the Act. On April 13, 1994, EPA determined that this
ROP plan was incomplete because it relied on controls not yet
adopted in regulatory form. The 1994 SIP updates South Coast's 1993
ROP plan in order to correct this deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates
of the VOC and NOX emissions that occurred in the South Coast in
1990. These base year inventories are summarized in the table below
labeled, ``1990 South Coast SIP Inventories.'' 29 A discussion of
these inventories and of EPA's proposed action on them can be found in
section II.C.1.a. of this notice.
\29\ More detailed summaries of this inventory can be found in
Appendices III-A and III-B of the 1994 AQMP.
[[Page 10952]]
1990 South Coast SIP Inventories
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary................................................ 666 245
Mobile.................................................... 851 1116
-------------
Total............................................... 1517 1361
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. SIP Control Measures.
(1) Description
The State of California and the South Coast have already adopted
many measures which will contribute to the necessary emissions
reductions for meeting the 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP and attainment
requirements. In addition, the 1994 SIP describes a series of rules
that the South Coast has committed to adopt in order to reduce VOC and
NOX emissions in the area. The table labeled ``South Coast Local
Control Measures'' describes the dates by which the plan presumes
adoption and implementation, and the emission reductions presumed to
occur by each milestone, every 3 years from 1996 through the attainment
year (2010), to the extent that information was available in the
submitted plan.30 No reductions from local measures are assumed in
the 15% ROP plan for 1996. The SCAQMD committed to adopt specific
enforceable measures by the date specified in the table, or within 1
year after the date of approval of the ozone plan, whichever is
earlier.
\30\ 1994 CARB Ozone SIP, Volume IV, Table A-5; CARB Ozone SIP
Emission Reductions for South Coast; 1994 AQMP, Appendix I-C, Post-
1996 Federal Clean Air Act Requirements--Detailed Calculations.
[[Page 10953]]
South Coast Local Control Measures
[Tons per day of VOC/NOX]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adoption Implementation
Control measure No. Control measure title Implementing agency date dates 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTS-01.................... VOC RECLAIM............. SCAQMD................... 1995 1998-2010 ............ ............ ............ ............. ............. .............
CTS-02.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2005 0/0 25.0/0 58.1/0 80.9/0 88.3/0 92.8/0
Solvents and Coatings
at Non-RECLAIM Sources.
CTS-03.................... Consumer Product SCAQMD................... ........ 1998-2005 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Labeling Program.
CTS-04.................... Public Awareness/ SCAQMD................... ........ 1997-1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Education Programs--
Area Sources.
CTS-05.................... Further Emission SCAQMD................... 1994 1996-1996 2.14/0 2.49/0 2.73/0 2.9/0 2.99/0 2.99/0
Reductions from
Perchloroethylene Dry
Cleaning Operations.
CTS-07.................... Further Emission SCAQMD................... 1997 2001-2006 0/0 0/0 27.49/0 40.5/0 60.65/0 62.26/0
Reductions from
Architectural Coatings
(Rule 1113).
FUG-01.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1995 1996-1996 4.42/0 4.96/0 5.11/0 5.01/0 4.98/0 4.98/0
Organic Liquid Transfer.
FUG-02.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1995 1996-1996 5.08/0 5.52/0 5.73/0 5.49/0 5.05/0 4.76/0
Active Draining of
Liquid Products.
FUG-03.................... Further Emission SCAQMD................... 1996 1998-1998 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Reductions from
Floating Roof Tanks.
FUG-04.................... Further Emission SCAQMD................... 1997 2000-2010 0/0 0/0 .75/0 .75/0 .75/0 .75/0
Reductions of Fugitive
Emissions.
RFL-01.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1997 2000-2010 0/0 0/0 .04/0 .04/0 .05/0 .06/0
Utility Engine
Refueling Operations.
RFL-02.................... Further Emission SCAQMD................... 1995 1996-1997 1.96/0 4.94/0 5.06/0 5.2/0 5.44/0 5.58/0
Reductions from
Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities.
RFL-03.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1995 1996-1996 .74/0 .77/0 .80/0 .83 .86/0 .88/0
Pleasure Boat Fueling
Operations.
CMB-01A................... Control of Emissions SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2000 0/0 0/.75 0/.79 0/.87 0/.89 0/.97
from Miscellaneous
Combustion.
CMB-01B................... Control of Emissions SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2000 0/0 0/.12 0/.26 0/.26 0/.28 0/.28
from Small Boilers and
Process Heaters.
CMB-01C................... Control of Emissions SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2000 0/0 0/.45 0/.47 0/.52 0/.53 0/.57
from Curing and Drying
Ovens.
CMB-01D................... Control of Emissions SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2000 0/0 0/0 0/.52 0/.55 0/.60 0/.65
from Afterburners.
CMB-01E................... Control of Emissions SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2000 0/0 0/0 0/.06 0/.06 0/.06 0/.08
from Metal Melting
Furnaces.
CMB-01F................... Further Emission SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2008 0/0 3.36/4.91 3.79/4.64 4.31/3.78 4.71/2.46 4.81/1.4
Reductions from
Internal Combustion
Engines.
CMB-02A................... Control of Emissions SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2000 0/0 0/3.87 0/4.21 0/4.56 0/4.92 0/5.16
from Miscellaneous
Combustion.
CMB-02B................... Control of Emissions SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2000 0/0 0/1.34 0/2.98 0/3.19 0/3.40 0/3.55
from Small Boilers and
Process Heaters.
CMB-02C................... Control of Emissions SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2000 0/0 0/1.11 0/1.08 0/1.15 0/1.21 0/1.26
from Curing and Drying
Ovens.
CMB-02F................... Further Controls of SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2008 0/0 1.52/6.83 1.74/6.62 1.99 2.19 2.29/2.20
Emissions from Internal
Combustion Engines.
CMB-03.................... Area Source Credits for SCAQMD................... 1995 1997-2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0 0
Commercial and
Residential Combustion
Equipment.
CMB-04.................... Area Source Credits for SCAQMD................... 1995 1997-2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0 0
Energy Conservation.
CMB-05.................... Clean Stationary Fuels.. SCAQMD................... 1995 1996-2008 0/0 1.22/1.01 2.27/1.76 3.53 3.99 4.09
CMB-06.................... Emission Standard for SCAQMD/.................. 1994 1996-2002 0/.56 0/2.28 0/7.21 0 0 0
New Residential and local
Commercial Water govts
Heaters.
CMB-07.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1997 1999-1999 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0 0
Petroleum Refinery
Flares.
CMB-10.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1995 1998-1998 0/0 0/.41 0/.42 0 0 0
Glass Melting Furnaces
(Non-RECLAIM).
CMB-11.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1995 1996 0/.64 0/.72 0/.68 0 0 0
Non-RECLAIM
Incinerators.
MSC-01.................... Promotion of Lighter SCAQMD/.................. ........ 1996-1998 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Color Roofing and Road local
Materials and Tree govts
Planting.
MSC-02.................... In-Use Compliance SCAQMD................... 1996 1997-1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Program for Air
Pollution Control
Equipment.
PRC-02.................... Further Emission SCAQMD................... 1996 1998-2001 0/0 .24/0 .64/0 .68/0 .72/0 .75/0
Reductions from
Bakeries.
PRC-03.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1994 1996-2001 1.23/0 8.55/0 10.77/0 11.14/0 11.49/0 11.7/0
Restaurant Operations.
PRC-04.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1996 1997-1997 0/0 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0 .13/0
Rubber Products
Manufacturing.
PRC-05.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1996 1997-1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Malt Beverage
Production Facilities
and Wine or Brandy
Making Facilities.
SIP-01.................... SIP Amendments--for SCAQMD................... (\1\) 1998-1998 0/0 .06/0 .06/0 .06/0 .05/0 .05/0
Miscellaneous Sources.
WST-01.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1995 1996-2003 5.63/0 8.39/0 8.86/0 9.31/0 9.77/0 10.07/0
Livestock Waste.
WST-02.................... Emission Reductions from SCAQMD................... 1997 1998-2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Composting of Dewatered
Sewage Sludge.
WST-03.................... Waste Burning........... ......................... 1996 1998-1998 .7/0 .7/0 .7/0 .6/0 .06/0 .06/0
WST-04.................... Disposal of Materials ......................... 1996 1998-2001 0/0 .8/0 2.12/0 2.21/0 2.31/0 2.37/0
Containing Volatile
Organic Compounds.
TCM-01.................... Transportation SCAG..................... 1997 2000-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Improvements.
ISR-01.................... Special Event Centers SCAQMD/.................. 1995 1997-2010 .9/1.03 .77/.84 1.4/1.67 1.07/1.43 .81/1.26 1.33/2.2
(SCAG Measure TCM #10). local 7
govts
[[Page 10954]]
ISR-02.................... Shopping Centers (SCAG SCAQMD/.................. 1996 1997-2010 0/0 1.36/1.5 2.30/2.73 1.75/2.35 1.34/2.07 1.69/2.8
Measure TCM #11). local 9
govts
ISR-03.................... Registration and SCAQMD................... 1995 1997-2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Commercial Vehicles
(SCAG Measure TCM #12).
ISR-04.................... Airport Ground Access SCAQMD/.................. 1997 1999-2010 0/0 .38/.42 .77/.92 .59/.79 .45/.7 .38/.65
(SCAG Measure TCM #13). local
govts
ISR-05.................... Trip Reduction for SCAQMD/.................. 1995 1997-2010 0/0 .21/.24 .47/.63 .46/.72 .35/.64 .38/.74
Schools (SCAG Measure local
TCM #14). govts
ISR-06.................... Enhanced Rule 1501 (SCAG SCAQMD/.................. 1996 1997-2000 0/0 2.86/3.15 3.01/3.59 2.30/3.08 1.75/2.72 1.48/2.5
Measure TCM #15). local 1
govts
ISR-07.................... Parking Cash-Out (SCAG SCAQMD/.................. 1995 1995-1997 .2/.22 .17/.17 .13/.14 .10/.12 .08/.11 .06/.1
Measure TCM #16). local
govts
MON-01.................... Emission Reduction SCAQMD/.................. 1996 1996-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Credits for Low- CARB
Emission Retrofit Fleet
Vehicles.
MON-02.................... Eliminate Excessive Car SCAQMD/.................. ........ .............. 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Dealership Vehicle local
Starts; Educational. govts
MON-04.................... Eliminate Excessive Curb SCAQMD/.................. ........ .............. 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Idling; Educational. local
govts
MON-05.................... Emissions Reduction SCAQMD................... 1995 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 .12/.65 .11/.65 .11/.65
Credit for Heavy-Duty
Buses.
MON-06.................... Emissions Reduction SCAQMD................... 1995 .............. 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Credit for Heavy-Duty
Trucks.
MON-07.................... Emission Reductions for SCAQMD................... 1995 1996-1999 25.54/0 5.15/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
High Emitters.
RME-01.................... Regional Mobility ......................... ........ .............. 2.37/0 11.3/1.15 15.98/6.58 18.5/13.74 20.64/21.77 22.26/27.67
Adjustment.
MOF-03.................... Emission Reduction SCAQMD/.................. 1995 1996-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Credits for Leaf local
Blowers. govts
MOF-04.................... Off-Road Mobile Source SCAQMD................... 1995 1996-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Emission Reduction
Credit Programs.
ATT-01.................... Telecommunications...... SCAQMD/.................. ........ 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0.0
SCAG/....................
local
govts
ATT-02.................... Advanced Shuttle Transit SCAQMD/.................. ........ 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
SCAG/....................
local
govts
ATT-03.................... Zero Emission Vehicle/ Partnership.............. ........ 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Infrastructure.
ATT-04.................... Alternative Fuel Partnership.............. ........ 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Vehicles/Infrastructure.
ATT-05.................... Intelligent Vehicle SCAQMD/.................. ........ 1995-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Highway Systems. SCAG/
local
govts
MKT-01.................... Emission/VMT............ SCAG..................... ........ 2008-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
MKT-02.................... At-the-Pump Fee......... SCAG..................... ........ 2008-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
FSS-01.................... Stage I Episode Plans... SCAQMD................... ........ 2005-2010 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
ADV-CTS-01................ Advanced Technology-- SCAQMD................... ........ .............. 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 14.35/0 23.88/0
Coating Technologies.
ADV-FUG................... Advanced Technology-- SCAQMD................... ........ .............. 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 14.13/0 23.11/0
Fugitive Emission
Controls.
ADV-PRC................... Advanced Technology-- SCAQMD................... ........ .............. 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 7.55/0 12.27/0
Process Related
Emissions.
ADV-UNSP.................. Advanced Technology-- SCAQMD................... ........ .............. 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 39.45/0 66.97/0
Unspecified Stationary
Source Controls.
ADV-CTS-02................ Advanced Technology-- SCAQMD................... ........ .............. 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 54.69/0
Coating Technologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Various.
[[Page 10955]]
(2) EPA Action
EPA proposes to approve, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, the control measures, including the commitment of the SCAQMD to
adopt and implement rules by scheduled dates to achieve specified
emission reductions. EPA action on the SCAQMD's adopted regulations
will be taken in separate rulemakings following their submittal as SIP
revisions.
The SCAQMD is currently considering adoption of a revised
regulatory agenda that shifts to 1996 all rule adoption dates that have
lapsed. In the final action on the South Coast SIP, EPA intends to
approve substitute dates if adopted by the SCAQMD and submitted as a
SIP revision before EPA's final action on the ozone SIP. The amended
schedule must be accompanied by a demonstration that this revision
would not interfere with any applicable requirement of the Act. Unless
the amended schedule and demonstration are submitted, EPA cannot
approve and credit the measures whose adoption dates have passed.
EPA wishes to encourage the SCAQMD to pursue the most aggressive
possible implementation of the AQMP, which remains an otherwise valid
and critically important blueprint for progress and eventual attainment
of the ozone NAAQS. EPA emphasizes that the failure of the SCAQMD to
adopt most of the rules scheduled for adoption in 1995 is not evidence
either that the AQMP is impractical or that the SCAQMD has failed in
meeting its overall commitment to air quality progress. The AQMP needs
amendment at this time only to replace the initial AQMP adoption dates
with an updated timetable for rule adoption.
d. ROP Provisions.
(1) ROP Emission Targets
The 1994 SIP describes the VOC emission reductions needed to meet
ROP requirements based on South Coast's adjusted 1990 base year
inventories.31 The SIP also provides emission estimates for the
ROP milestone years by projecting the impacts of adopted control
measures and of anticipated changes in population, industrial activity,
and other socio-economic factors. A summary of the ROP VOC targets and
the projected VOC emissions is provided below in the table labeled,
``South Coast ROP Forecasts.'' 32
\31\ See 1994 AQMP, Appendix I-C.
\32\ See 1994 AQMP, Appendix I-C, Table 3-4, and Attachment A.
The AQMP also calculates a ROP target for NOX and computes ROP
emissions reductions for NOX, but the AQMP depends upon
NOX substitution only for the 1999, 2002, and 2005 ROP
milestones.
South Coast ROP Forecasts
[In tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emissions to meet ROP target.. 1074.4 976.6 846.6 732.2 617.6 544.1
VOC emissions with plan reductions 1066.4 976.6 846.6 732.2 470.0 312.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) 15% ROP Control Strategy
In general only adopted measures may generally be credited towards
the 15% ROP requirement. In addition, pre-1990 Federal motor vehicle
emission controls, Federal RVP limits on gasoline, and several other
existing measures cannot be credited in ROP plans. The control strategy
for the 15% ROP requirement, therefore, includes all VOC control
measures listed above, except for those showing no emission reductions
in the 1996 column.
(3) Post-1996 ROP Control Strategy
The post-1996 ROP control strategy includes all those measures
listed in above, except for those showing no emissions for the ROP
milestone years. As discussed, the SIP identifies no surplus measures
for the post-1996 ROP requirements. Therefore, all of the VOC emission
reductions in the post-1996 ROP control strategy are needed to meet the
post-1996 ROP requirements.
(4) EPA Action
EPA believes that the South Coast component of the 1994 SIP meets
the CAA requirements for ROP. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve
South Coast's 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP plans under sections 182(b)(1)
and 182(c)(2) of the Act.
e. Demonstration of Attainment. The Los Angeles-South Coast Air
Basin Area is classified as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone. As
a result, the SIP must contain adequate control measures and
commitments to demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS by 2010.
(1) Control Strategy
The control strategy for South Coast's SIP attainment demonstration
includes all of the State and local measures identified above. Among
those measures are several ``new-technology'' measures, which are
needed to achieve reductions beyond what could be accomplished with
existing control technologies or control techniques.
The 1990 Amendments to the Act added section 182(e)(5), which
applies exclusively to extreme ozone areas. This provision authorizes
the State to use conceptual, as yet unadopted measures for its ozone
attainment demonstration and ROP after the year 2000, if these measures
anticipate new or improved technology or control techniques, the
measures are not needed to meet the progress requirements for the first
10 years, and the State commits to submit contingency measures to be
implemented if the anticipated technologies do not achieve planned
reductions.
CARB and the SCAQMD included with their new-technology measures
commitments to submit contingency measures and a demonstration that
reductions from the CARB and SCAQMD new-technology measures are not
needed to achieve the first 10 years of required progress. Because the
section 182(e)(5) approval criteria are met by both the CARB and SCAQMD
submittals, EPA issued final approval of the new-technology measures on
August 21, 1995. See 60 FR 43379 for further details on the new-
technology control measures and EPA's action on them. EPA has therefore
already approved and credited the following SCAQMD and CARB new-
technology provisions.
Because much of the needed reductions in the 1994 South Coast plan
is now assigned to these conceptual measures, air quality progress in
future years requires substantial State and local staff and resource
investment at this time to lay the foundations for the necessary
advances in control technology or control techniques. EPA urges both
CARB and the SCAQMD to set out the timing and stages of projected
control measure development, and to involve the public and the
[[Page 10956]]
regulated community in a process by which they can understand and
contribute to the Agency's steady progress in developing the control
approaches. The SCAQMD's annual report to the California Legislature is
one mechanism for displaying the District's technology advancement
projects and ensuring that necessary resource needs are identified.
Finally, EPA also encourages both CARB and the SCAQMD to reduce the
dimensions of the section 182(e)(5) component of the plan by
substituting near-term control regulations as soon as these controls
can be identified, developed, and adopted. Such action not only
comports with the Act's requirements for attainment ``as expeditiously
as practicable'' (see, for example, section 181(a)(1)) but also
accelerates air quality progress in the interim, both within the SCAB
and in downwind nonattainment areas.
SCAQMD New-Technology Measures
Advance Tech-CTS (Coating Technologies), ADV-CTS-01, adoption 2003,
23.9 tpd ROG;
Advanced Tech-Fugitives, ADV-FUG, adoption 2003, 23.1 tpd ROG;
Advance Tech-Process Related Emissions, ADV-PRC, adoption 2003,
12.3 tpd ROG;
Advance Tech-Unspecified, Stationary Sources, ADV-UNSP, adoption
2003, 67 tpd ROG;
Advance Tech-CTS (Coatings Technologies), ADV-CTS-02, 54.7 tpd ROG.
CARB New-Technology Measures
Improved Control Technology for LDVs, M-2, adoption 2000,
implementation 2004-5, 2010 emission reductions--10 tpd ROB, 15 tpd
NOX;
Off-road diesel equipment--2.5 g/bhp-hr NOX standard, M-9,
adoption 2001, implementation 2005, 2010 emission reductions--3 tpd
ROG, 31 tpd NOX;
Consumer products advanced technology and market incentives
measures, CP-4, adoption 2005, implementation 2009, 2010 emission
reductions 46 tpd ROG;
Additional measures, 2010 emission reductions 79 tpd ROG, 60 tpd
NOX. The measures include possible market-incentive measures and
possible operational measures applicable to heavy-duty vehicles.
(2) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
The 1994 SIP describes urban airshed modeling analysis performed to
demonstrate that the control strategy described above will result in
NAAQS attainment. A summary of the emission reductions needed to attain
the standard is provided below in the table labeled, ``Emission
Reductions Needed in South Coast.''
Emission Reductions Needed in South Coast
[Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory......................... 1517 1361
Carrying Capacity......................................... 323 553
Reductions Needed......................................... 1194 808
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the emission reductions projected from the SIP control
strategy is provided below in the table labeled, ``South Coast
Attainment Demonstration.''
South Coast Attainment Demonstration
[Tons per summer day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions from Adopted measures.......................... 463 429
Committed Local measures.................................. 453 43
Committed State measures.................................. 231 227
Assigned Federal measures................................. 47 109
-------------
Total............................................... 1194 808
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP attainment demonstration was based on a modeling simulation
of 4 episodes of high ozone from the 1987 intensive air quality study.
In addition, one episode of very high ozone (.36 ppm) on June 5-7, 1985
was selected. The September 5-7, 1987 episode represents typical high
ozone episode, with a peak concentration of .33 ppm. The Urban Airshed
Model was used to model air quality. The wind field were generated
using the EPA Diagnostic Wind Model.
The model application does not meet all EPA performance criteria
with the unadjusted mobil source inventory. The base case indicates a
bias of -25% to -71%, indicating that the model tends to underpredict
the peak ozone concentration. In the sensitivity analysis with the
motor vehicle emission inventory increased by a factor of two, the
model performance is enhanced. The model predicts higher ozone values
for both the base and future years. Under the proposed emission
reduction strategy but with the grown motor vehicle inventory, the
model still predicts attainment of the standard by 2010.
Key uncertainties in the modeling analysis include mobile source
and biogenic emission inventory uncertainties. A 1997 field study
designed to study air quality in the Southern portion of the state of
California should improve the performance of the model. The model
inputs and performance are discussed in greater detail in the TSD.
(3) EPA Action
Despite the stringent existing State and local regulations and the
ambitious commitments by CARB and SCAQMD, the ozone attainment
demonstration for the SCAB is insufficient as submitted by the State
since, without any fall back State commitments, it depends upon
additional reductions, stemming from assignments to EPA to establish
specific future controls on national and international mobile sources
and EPA is not obligated by statute or court order to do so. As
discussed above, EPA has concluded that, while credit may be taken for
those national rules that are statutorily mandated, EPA does not
propose to credit the California SIP with Federal controls that are
discretionary. With respect to the South Coast SIP, the table titled
``Federal Assignments in the California SIP for the South Coast''
indicates what emission reductions are assigned by the State to EPA for
discretionary rules.
Federal Assignments in the California SIP for the South Coast
[Reductions from discretionary national measures]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIP 2010
reductions
SIP measure -------------
ROG NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M6--heavy-duty diesel vehicles (2.0 g/bhp-hour NOX
standard)................................................ 1.5 15.5
M10--nonroad diesel equipment (2.5 g/bhp-hour NOX
standard)................................................ 5.3 44.2
M12--industrial equipment, gas and LPG.................... 25.1 12.6
M13--marine vessels \1\................................... 0 1.7
M14--trains \2\........................................... 0 7.2
M15--planes............................................... 2.7 4.1
-------------
Total Reductions.................................... 34.6 85.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SIP Measure M13 includes both the statutorily-mandated ship controls
and discretionary controls on ocean-going ships. The emissions
reductions shown are those beyond what EPA estimates from the
statutorily-mandated ship controls, which were proposed on November 9,
1994 (59 FR 55930).
[[Page 10957]]
\2\ The SIP includes in Measure M14 both the statutorily-mandated
national locomotive emission standards and additional reductions to be
achieved in the South Coast through a provision that requires that by
2010 the locomotive fleet in the SCAB will emit on ave
FR Doc. 96-6011 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California Ozone
rage no more
than the 2005 emissions level for new locomotives. The emission
reductions shown are those specific to the South Coast, in excess of
reductions that would result from the national standards alone.
The unusually high emissions associated with these sources in the
SCAB is in part a reflection of the South Coast's dominant role as a
Pacific Rim trade center, heavily dependent upon every form of goods
transportation. For example, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles,
now the busiest ports in the nation, annually move goods valued at
almost $150 billion, using a complex intermodal network of ships,
trains, trucks, airplanes, and every variety of loading and handling
equipment.
While stationary, area source, and light- and medium-duty vehicle
emissions are projected to decline very significantly as a result of
State and local control measures applicable in the SCAB, emissions from
the remaining mobile source categories are predicted to increase
substantially through the attainment year in the absence of further
controls.
EPA and CARB are already engaged in a cooperative process involving
engine manufacturers and other stakeholders to review the potential for
establishing standards for new heavy-duty motor vehicle engines, heavy-
duty nonroad engines, and controls or prohibitions on fuels and fuel
additives, in accordance with the terms of EPA's authority in sections
202(a)(3), 213, and 211(c) of the Act. This process of evaluating the
appropriateness of new national standards and issuing standards in
formal rulemaking is not expected to be concluded until mid-1997.
Moreover, international standard setting is now in progress under
the jurisdiction of the International Maritime Organization and the
International Civil Aviation Organization relating to ocean-going ships
and commercial aircraft, respectively. Again, by mid-1997 greater
certainty is expected regarding any new international emissions control
standards and the degree to which these standards would affect
predicted levels of SCAB emissions in 2010.
In view of the unique relevance to the SCAB of these ongoing
standard-setting projects, EPA believes that it is appropriate to
examine further the extent to which specific additional mobile source
controls might contribute to ozone attainment in the SCAB. Through June
1997, EPA will continue to engage in a consultative process with CARB,
the SCAQMD, and other stakeholders to examine the potential for
additional mobile source controls that can contribute to progress and
attainment. This review will focus not only on unilateral Federal
controls but also on the potential for cooperative and community-based
controls that reconcile, to the greatest extent practicable, State/
local interests and the legitimate concerns of interstate and
international commerce. EPA expects that the Agency and the State
entities will continue to work cooperatively to identify additional
measures that are appropriate and feasible for each party to pursue. As
discussed above in section II.B.2., EPA proposes to make an enforceable
commitment to undertake rulemakings, after the consultative process, on
control measures needed to achieve the emission reductions which are
determined to be appropriate for EPA.
EPA proposes to approve the South Coast attainment demonstration if
CARB submits, before EPA's final action, an enforceable SIP commitment
to adopt and submit as a SIP revision:
(a) A revised attainment demonstration for the South Coast as
appropriate after the consultative process. This SIP revision would be
due December 31, 1997; and
(b) Enforceable emission limitations and other control measures
needed to achieve the emission reductions which are determined to be
appropriate for the State. This SIP revision would be due no later than
December 31, 1999.
EPA believes that this gap-filling commitment and schedule for
additional SIP submissions for the SCAB is a reasonable application of
the Clean Air Act requirements for SIP submissions to the current
circumstances. EPA is mindful of the requirement in Clean Air Act
section 182(c)(2)(A) for submission of an attainment demonstration by
November 15, 1994. The SCAB has submitted modeling coupled with SIP
measures and commitments that provide the great bulk of reductions
needed for attainment. Granting additional time, as described above,
for the remaining measures is consistent with the statutory scheme
because the time delays are brief, in the context of the SCAB
attainment process, and EPA intends to ensure that there will be no
adverse impact on progress, attainment, or any other Part D requirement
as a result of the extended deadlines. EPA wishes to emphasize that the
South Coast attainment demonstration is clearly dependant on the
ability of the State and local agencies to faithfully adhere to their
rule adoption schedule. Their failure to do so will clearly jeopardize
the attainment demonstration no matter what resolutions are achieved
through the consultative process.
The South Coast attainment demonstration relies, in part, on
reductions from a fully-enhanced I/M program. As discussed in EPA's
proposed approval of California's enhanced I/M program (see section
II.A.2.c.), credits associated with this control measure will become
permanent following the State's submission of the required analysis
demonstrating that the enhanced I/M program is achieving the emission
reductions claimed in the attainment demonstration. At that point,
EPA's approval of the South Coast attainment demonstration will also
become permanent.
EPA believes that the current modeled attainment demonstration is
valid insofar as it projects attainment by the statutory attainment
date. EPA proposes to approve the modeling analysis at this time.
f. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes to approve the South Coast
ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission
inventories and demonstrations of 15% ROP and post-1996 ROP. EPA also
proposes to approve the State and local control measures and the
modeling analysis. With respect to the attainment demonstration, EPA
proposes to approve the attainment demonstration portion of the SIP if
the State submits, before EPA's final action on the ozone SIP, a
commitment to adopt a revised attainment demonstration and gap-filling
measures, if any are necessary after EPA's consultative process.
8. Southeast Desert
a. Identification of Plans. The Southeast Desert Modified Air
Quality Maintenance Area (``Southeast Desert'') is classified as a
severe-17 area based on a .24 ppm ozone design value measured in
Banning. Section 181(a)(2) of the Act
[[Page 10958]]
establishes a severe-17 classification for severe areas with a 1988
ozone design value between .19 ppm and .28 ppm, allowing these areas 17
years (rather than 15 years) to attain the ozone NAAQS. The Southeast
Desert covers the Victor Valley/Barstow region in San Bernardino County
(``Mojave''), the Coachella Valley/San Jacinto region in Riverside
County (``Coachella''), and the Antelope Valley region in Los Angeles
County (``Antelope''). The first of these areas is the responsibility
of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD). The
second and third areas are the responsibility of the SCAQMD. Separate
ROP and attainment demonstrations were prepared for each of the areas.
Air quality in all three areas is overwhelmingly impacted by transport
of ozone and ozone precursors from the South Coast Air Basin.
On September 9, 1994, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the 1994
Air Quality Management Plan for the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area
(Appendix I-B of the South Coast 1994 AQMP) and the 1994 Air Quality
Management Plan for Antelope Valley (Appendix I-A of the South Coast
1994 AQMP).33 On October 26, 1994, the MDAQMD Board adopted the
post-1996 Attainment Demonstration and Reasonable Further Progress Plan
for the San Bernardino County Portion of the Southeast Desert AQMA, and
the Rate-of-Progress Plan for the San Bernardino County Portion of the
Southeast Desert AQMA.34
\33\ November 15, 1994 letter from Jacqueline Schafer, CARB, to
Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the 1994 California Ozone SIP. The
SIP includes a November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to
Felicia Marcus, EPA, forwarding the South Coast AQMP component of
the SIP and CARB Board Resolution No. 94-61 approving the South
Coast component. The South Coast component includes an October 6,
1994 letter from James M. Lents (SCAQMD) to James Boyd (CARB)
forwarding the 1994 South Coast AQMP and the SCAQMD Board Resolution
94-36 approving the AQMP. On November 15, 1993, CARB submitted to
EPA a rate-of-progress plan intended to demonstrate that 1990 VOC
emissions would be reduced by at least fifteen percent by 1996
pursuant to Section 182(b)(1) of the Act. On April 13, 1994, EPA
determined that this ROP plan was incomplete because it relied on
controls not yet adopted in regulatory form. The 1994 SIP updates
South Coast's 1993 ROP plan in order to correct this deficiency.
\34\ November 15, 1994 letter from James Boyd (CARB) to Felicia
Marcus, EPA, forwarding the MDAQMD portion of the SDMAQMA ozone SIP
and CARB Resolution No. 94-64 approving the Mojave Desert Plan.
Among other things, this submittal modifies an earlier 15%
Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration, adopted on March 23,
1994. EPA deemed this earlier SIP submittal incomplete on April 13,
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 1990 Base Year Inventories. The SIP provides detailed estimates
of the actual VOC and NOX emissions that occurred in 1990 in each
of the three portions of the Southeast Desert. These base year
inventories are summarized in the table labeled ``1990 Southeast Desert
SIP Inventories.'' More detailed inventory breakdowns appear in Chapter
3 of Appendix I-B of the South Coast 1994 AQMP (Coachella), Chapter 3
of Appendix I-A of the South Coast 1994 AQMP (Antelope), and Appendix A
of the Mojave RFP Plan.
1990 Southeast Desert SIP Inventories
[Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coachella Antelope Mojave
Category -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary........................ 12.4 3.1 15.7 1.9 20.0 51.6
Mobile............................ 36.9 41.1 19.2 26.2 26.5 62.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 49.4 44.3 34.9 28.1 46.5 113.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. SIP Control Measures.
(1) Description
The SCAQMD's existing rules and committal measures apply not only
throughout the South Coast Air Basin but also in the SCAQMD's portions
of the Southeast Desert. The SIP includes the State measures and a
subset of the SCAQMD measures discussed above in sections II.A. and
II.C.7., but does not add to that list any unique State or local
controls for the Coachella and Antelope regions. The MDAQMD included in
the Mojave Plan the measures listed below as well as several mobile
source measures taken from EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for
the South Coast. CARB eliminated the FIP measures from the State's
submittal.
Mojave SIP Control Measures and VOC/NOX Reductions
[In Tons/day for 1996]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDAQMD measure VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings.......................... 0.92 .....
Rule 1160 Internal Combustion Engines..................... 0.23 6.08
Rule 461 Gasoline Transfer Dispensing..................... 3.74 .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) EPA Action
EPA proposes to approve the control measures portion of the Mojave
plan under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act as strengthening
the SIP.
d. ROP and Attainment Provisions.
(1) ROP and Attainment Emission Targets
CARB's summary of ROP targets in Volume IV of the 1994 California
Ozone SIP identifies the following 15% ROP targets for the three
subregions within the Southeast Desert: Coachella 38 tpd VOC, Antelope
29 tpd VOC, Mojave 36 tpd VOC. CARB did not provide similar information
with respect to post-1996 ROP or attainment.
(2) State Approach
The SIP submittal for the three subregions includes detailed
information relating to compliance with the 15% ROP plan requirements.
With respect to the post-1996 ROP requirements, CARB and the SCAQMD
requested a waiver from the requirements for the Coachella and Antelope
subregions, based on the provisions of section 182(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the
Act, which allows the Administrator to approve post-1996 ROP plans that
achieve less than the 3% per year required reductions if the State
demonstrates that the plan includes all measures that can be feasibly
implemented in the area, including all measures achieved in practice by
sources in the same source category in nonattainment areas of the next
higher classification. CARB also asserted that
[[Page 10959]]
the post-1996 ROP requirements should be waived in all three subregions
based simply on the overwhelming transport into the Southeast Desert
(1994 California Ozone SIP, Volume IV, pp. IV-16 and IV-17).
In submitting the ROP and attainment demonstration plans for the
Southeast Desert, CARB asserted that ``the stringency of the NOX
and VOC precursor control strategy necessary for the district to meet
the 1994 ozone planning requirements for attainment and rate of
progress demonstrations is primarily dependent upon the severity of the
problem in the South Coast, as well as the mix and location of sources
which contribute to ozone precursor concentrations and the timing and
stringency of previously adopted controls in that area.'' (CARB
Resolution No. 94-64, para. 4)
The three local plans provide further documentation of the
overwhelming transport from the South Coast Air Basin. In the case of
the Coachella area, ozone and ozone precursors are transported by the
prevailing sea breeze through San Gorgonio (or Banning) pass. The
Antelope area is impacted by polluted air masses passing northward
through the Newhall and Soledad pass. The Mojave portion of the
nonattainment area is a vast, sparsely-populated high desert region, at
a greater distance from, but still strongly affected by, SCAB emissions
to the west and southwest.
CARB and the local agencies believe that the Southeast Desert will
attain the NAAQS by the 2007 deadline by virtue of the successful
implementation of the South Coast plan. The Mojave plan includes
further information to support MDAQMD's conclusion that opportunities
for further VOC and NOX reductions within the area are greatly
limited by the absence of significant sources of anthropogenic
emissions in the area, and the current degree of control imposed upon
those sources.
(3) Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
Photochemical grid modeling was required for the attainment
demonstration for the Southeast Desert Basin, because of the area's
severe-2 classification. Because of the relatively important role of
the western boundary conditions, it was determined that modeling the
SEDAB basin along with the South Coast Air Basin was preferable to
modeling the SEDAB basin alone.
Therefore, the attainment demonstration was performed by the
SCAQMD, using a domain that includes the South Coast Air Basin, much of
the Southeast Desert Basin, and Ventura County. The SCAQMD did not
enlarge the domain to include the entire Southeast Desert Basin.
Ideally, the domain would cover the entire nonattainment area. However,
the portions of the nonattainment area not covered by the domain were
expected to be below the NAAQS, when the other portions of the area are
able to demonstrate compliance with the standard.
The air quality results for the year 2007 projected inventories
were determined for the purpose of analyzing the ability of the
Southeast Desert to attain by the severe-2 attainment date. Five
episodes were modeled for the attainment demonstration. The episode
selection process was determined by the availability of an enhanced
data base of air quality and meteorological data, generated primarily
by the 1987 South Coast Air Quality Study. Since the modeling was
performed for the SCAB, the primary criteria for episode selection was
the presence of high ozone in the SCAB, rather than high ozone in the
Southeast Desert. The highest level of ozone recorded in the Mojave
Desert for the five episodes was .15 ppm, compared to a design value of
.24 ppm. Because of the high level of resources required to compile the
necessary air quality, emissions inventory, and meteorological data for
each episode, EPA accepts the decision not to model an additional
episode with higher levels of ozone in the Southeast Desert.
Using the emission reductions from proposed control measures,
including South Coast Air Basin emission reductions, the modeling
results show that peak predicted ozone concentrations for the year 2007
are below the ozone NAAQS.
In order to improve understanding of the formation of ozone in the
SCAB and transport between the South Coast, Southeast Desert, Ventura,
and San Diego air basins, a joint study is being planned by the local,
State, and Federal agencies, as well as the National Weather Service
and the Department of Defense. The purpose of the study is to provide
an enhanced data base of air quality and meteorological measurements,
both at the surface level and aloft, to allow modeling of more recent
episodes and a larger domain than is currently possible.
(4) EPA Action
EPA agrees with the State that attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the
Southeast Desert is heavily dependent upon reductions in the South
Coast. Modeling information, based on the South Coast UAM analysis,
supports the State's contention that reductions from the South Coast
SIP (along with SIP reductions within the area) will bring the
Southeast Desert into attainment by the statutory deadline. EPA
therefore proposes to approve the Southeast Desert modeling and
attainment demonstration under section 182(c)(2) of the Act.
e. Overall EPA Action. EPA proposes to approve fully the Southeast
Desert ozone SIP with respect to the Act's requirements for emission
inventories, control measures, and demonstration of attainment. EPA
will take action on the 15% ROP and the post-1996 ROP plan elements for
the three Southeast Desert subregions in separate rulemakings.
III. Summary of EPA Actions
EPA proposes to approve the following elements of the 1994
California Ozone SIP for the listed areas, as meeting applicable CAA
requirements:
(1) Emission Inventories for Santa Barbara, San Diego, San Joaquin,
Sacramento, Ventura, South Coast, and Southeast Desert, under section
182(a)(1) of the CAA.
(2) 15% ROP Plans for Santa Barbara, San Diego, San Joaquin,
Ventura, and South Coast, under section 182(b)(1).
(3) Post-1996 ROP Plans for San Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento,
Ventura, and South Coast, under section 182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA.
(4) Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations for Santa Barbara, San
Diego, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Ventura, Southeast Desert, and South
Coast, under section 182(c)(2) of the CAA.
(5) All of the local control measures listed above in section
II.C., for each of the nonattainment areas, including the specific
emissions reductions for each milestone year, under sections 110(k)(3)
and 301(a) of the CAA. In the case of delinquent control measures in
the South Coast, EPA proposes approval only if a revised adoption
schedule is submitted.
(6) All of the State's control measures contained in the 1994
California Ozone SIP that EPA has not previously approved: M1--
Accelerated Retirement of LDVs, M4--Early Introduction of 2g/bhp-hr
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles, M7--Accelerated Retirement of HDVs, CP3--
Aerosol Paints, and Pesticides). EPA also proposes to assign specific
emissions reductions by nonattainment area and milestone year (as
displayed in the tables in section II.A.) for all of the State control
measures, including those previously approved under sections 110(k)(3),
182(e)(5), and 301(a) of the
[[Page 10960]]
CAA. All of these actions are proposed under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the CAA.
EPA proposes to approve California's I/M regulations under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a). EPA also proposes to approve the State's basic I/
M program under section 182(b)(4) of the CAA and the enhanced I/M
program, including the assignment of specific emissions reductions
identified in section II.A.2. above, under section 182(c)(3) of the CAA
and section 348(c) of the Highway Act.
EPA will take separate regulatory action on the 15% ROP Plans for
Sacramento and the Southeast Desert, and the post-1996 ROP Plan for the
Southeast Desert.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
IV. Regulatory Process
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small business, small not-for-profit enterprises and
government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301 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 impose any new requirements,
it does not have a significant impact on any small entities affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal/state relationship under the
Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
V. Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act'') signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of these SIP revisions, the State and any
affected local or tribal governments have elected to adopt the program
provided for under sections 110 and 182 of the CAA. These rules may
bind State, local, and tribal governments to perform certain actions
and also require the private sector to perform certain duties. To the
extent that the rules being approved today will impose any mandate upon
the State, local, or tribal governments either as the owner or operator
of a source or as a regulator, or would impose any mandate upon the
private sector, EPA's action will impose no new requirements; such
sources are already subject to these requirements under State law.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. EPA has
also determined that this action does not include a mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 4, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Appendix: Status of EPA'S Activities Relating to the ``Federal
Measures'' in the California SIP Submittal
The information below represents the current status of EPA's
activities, including ongoing rulemaking, with respect to each of the
mobile source categories identified as ``Federal Measures'' in the 1994
California Ozone SIP.
Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles
Measure M6 of the 1994 California Ozone State Implementation Plan
(``the SIP'') provides for adoption by EPA of a Federal oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) standard for new heavy-duty diesel on-highway
vehicles. The NOX standard called for in the SIP is 2.0 grams per
brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), to be implemented beginning in 2004.
A Federal standard would help reduce emissions from the large number of
out-of-state trucks which operate in California.
EPA is fulfilling its commitment to propose tighter NOX
emission standards for Federal on-highway heavy-duty vehicles as part
of the NOX/PM (particulate matter) Initiative. On July 11, 1995,
EPA, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the leading
manufacturers of heavy-duty engines signed a Statement of Principles
(SOP) that established a consensus plan to substantially reduce
emissions from future trucks and buses on a nationwide basis. The goal
of the SOP is to ensure cleaner air in a manner which is both realistic
for the heavy-duty engine industry and responds to environmental needs
as well. As a result of the SOP, EPA published an Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on August 31, 1995. The ANPRM announced
plans to propose a non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) plus NOX
standard of 2.4 g/bhp-hr, or a combined NMHC plus NOX standard of
2.5 g/bhp-hr with an NMHC cap of .5 g/bhp-hr. Engines meeting these
future standards are expected to be over 80 percent cleaner than pre-
control engines. EPA is currently preparing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) and expects to publish the NPRM late in the spring of
1996. The Final Rule has a target publication date of winter 1996-1997.
The new standards would be implemented beginning in 2004 and would
apply to all on-highway heavy-duty engines.
CARB played a very important role in the achievement of the
Statement of Principles (SOP). In addition, CARB has given EPA
tremendous support in the development of the ANPRM and the NPRM. As a
result of the SOP and rulemaking processes, EPA and CARB will have
harmonized programs for new heavy-duty engines, an advantage for engine
manufacturers.
Off-Road Industrial Equipment (Diesel)
Measure M10 of the SIP provides for adoption by EPA of a Federal
NOX standard for, at a minimum, new farm
[[Page 10961]]
and construction equipment with diesel engines rated at less than 175
hp (130 kw). These are the engines which California is preempted from
regulating under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The NOX
standard called for in the SIP is 2.5 g/bhp-hr (3.3 g/kw-hr), to be
implemented beginning in 2005.
In its 1991 Nonroad Study, EPA determined that nonroad diesel
engines rated at 37 kw and more, including those covered in SIP measure
M10, emit a substantial portion of the nation's NOX inventory. In
response, EPA set a 9.2 g/kw-hr NOX standard for these engines in
1994, to be phased-in beginning in 1996. The Agency also expressed its
intent to undertake a second tier of standard setting to further
control these emissions. The Clean Air Act provides for this as a
discretionary effort and contains no requirements or guidance regarding
the level or timing of the standards.
Initial work on this second tier of standard setting is currently
underway as part of the NOX/PM Initiative. The NOX/PM
Initiative has been a joint program of both EPA and CARB. EPA and CARB
recognize that harmonizing Federal and California standards would help
to achieve air quality goals in all states by eliminating the potential
for equipment with higher-emitting engines being transported across
state borders. Harmonized standards would also have obvious advantages
for manufacturers. The participation of CARB staff on this initiative
has been invaluable.
At this time, no decisions have been made regarding the level of
the second tier of Federal standards. Although substantial NOX
reductions are being pursued, there is no assurance that setting a
standard as low as 3.3 g/kw-hr in the 2005 timeframe will be the most
appropriate approach nationwide. A number of issues are likely to make
it difficult to set standards at such a level. Among these issues is
the strong desire by engine manufacturers for harmonization with
European nonroad equipment standards which are considerably less
stringent than the levels contained in the SIP. Another issue is the
effect that significant engine technology changes due to standards
could have on equipment designs. In order to fit redesigned engines
into their equipment, manufacturers may need to modify many of their
products to meet visibility, safety and performance specifications
which may require additional leadtime. Regardless of these issues, EPA
is committed to pursuing a second tier of standards for the heavy-duty
diesel nonroad engines covered by this measure.
Gas and LPG Equipment 25-175 Horsepower
Measure M12 of the SIP provides for adoption by EPA of a Federal
program that will implement three-way catalyst technology on new
nonroad equipment powered by gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
engines rated at between 25 hp (18 kw) and 175 hp (130 kw). The goal of
this measure is to reduce NOX emissions by at least 50 percent and
hydrocarbon emissions by 75 percent. This is a complementary measure to
measure M10 and much of the discussion of that measure applies here as
well.
EPA does not currently have any emission standards for gasoline or
LPG engines in this category. However, under a consent decree signed by
EPA with the Sierra Club on June 10, 1993, EPA agreed to determine by
November 30, 1996 whether or not to regulate large gasoline nonroad
engines and, if so, by what schedule. At this time, the Agency is
considering setting standards for these engines as part of the
NOX/PM Initiative. However, no decisions have been made regarding
the possible level of any standards. Although substantial emission
reductions may be pursued, there is no assurance that setting standards
as low as those sought by CARB would be the most appropriate approach
nationwide. The same issues that are likely to make it difficult to
achieve stringent standards for diesel nonroad engines also apply to
gasoline and LPG nonroad engines.
Marine Vessels
Measure M13 of the SIP provides for adoption by U.S. EPA and by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) of emissions standards that
would reduce NOX emissions from new diesel engines used in ocean-
going vessels by 30 percent. M12 also assumes that EPA will issue
standards for non-ocean going vessels that will reduce NOX
emissions by at least 65 percent.
The IMO, a special agency of the United Nations, is developing
guidelines for the reduction of NOX and sulfur oxides (SOx) from
ships under a new Annex to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78). These guidelines
would address the control of air pollution from ships. An IMO committee
is scheduled to finalize a draft Annex in July 1996. After the
committee's action, a diplomatic conference will be held in the spring
of 1997 to review and approve the Annex. Each national will then
consider the Annex and its associated guidelines for implementation and
enforcement on vessels carrying its flag and on vessels entering its
waters. Before the Annex could be enforced within US waters, the
Congress would have to adopt it and its guidelines and then provide
appropriate authority to a government agency.
While it is true that the new Annex is intended to provide for a 30
percent reduction in NOX emissions, that reduction applies only to
ships beginning construction after a certain time (tentatively, January
1998). It should be noted that there is a provision for application to
existing ships that undergo a major modification or whose engines'
power output is changed by 10 percent or more. Beyond that, the Annex
does not address existing engines. Furthermore, achieving the target of
30 percent, would require full implementation of the Annex worldwide.
The NOX emission requirements in the new Annex would apply to
all engines over 100 kW installed on ships over 400 gross tons or which
have a total installed power of 1500 kW. The guidelines are composed of
two parts: Part A addresses guidelines for the implementation of
NOX limits for marine diesel engines; Part B addresses guidelines
for diesel engine test, survey, and certification for compliance with
the NOX emission limits.
Numerous studies are underway to further investigate issues
relating to marine vessels and the Santa Barbara channel. EPA is
involved in these efforts, along with the United States Navy, the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, and CARB.
The United States Navy's ongoing studies are intended to better
characterize ship traffic and its impact on ozone exceedances in
Ventura County. These include investigating air trajectory and
transport mechanisms, inventorying ship traffic, collecting ozone
measurement data, and collecting weather parameters for modeling. This
on-going study is not complete at this time. Another study, sponsored
by SCAQMD, will improve the marine vessel emission inventory and
briefly discuss potential control strategies. The SCAQMD study should
be completed by June 1996. A third study, the Southern California
Transport Study, being led by CARB, is intended to better understand
air pollution transport in Southern California. The study will provide
an enhanced air quality and meteorological database for Southern
California, which will provide the basis for improved modeling. Data
will be collected at the surface and aloft, as well as over water.
Collectively, these studies will help the EPA and other interested
parties further understand and discuss
[[Page 10962]]
potential strategies for reducing emissions from the shipping channel
if needed for attainment.
Locomotives
In Measure M14, CARB assumed locomotive emission reductions from
two EPA programs. The first of these programs was the statutorily
required EPA national regulation for locomotives and locomotive
engines, (national locomotive regulation). EPA expects that the planned
national locomotive regulation will provide all of the CARB SIP credits
with the exception of the 67% reduction in NOX emissions in the
South Coast by 2010.
To address the South Coast's need for further emission reductions
EPA has considered a special locomotive program for the South Coast.
This program would require that all locomotives operating in the South
Coast achieve on average, an emission level equal to EPA national
locomotive regulation tier 2 standards. Since these standards are
technology forcing, the practical requirement would be to require an
accelerated fleet turnover in the South Coast such that only the newest
engines meeting the EPA tier 2 standards would operate in the South
Coast. This program would provide a 66% reduction in locomotive
NOX emissions in the South Coast by 2010 and result in a NOX
emission level of 12 tons/day in the South Coast. The railroads that
operate in the South Coast voluntarily agreed to this program. EPA is
continuing to explore innovative approaches to establish the South
Coast clean locomotive fleet program as part of the SIP.
Aircraft
Measure M15 calls for U.S. EPA to adopt standards to effect a 30
percent reduction in reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOX
emissions beginning in 2000. M15 apparently applies to new commercial
aircraft engines, but also suggests reconsideration of the exempt
status of military aircraft.
The Federal Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emission
standards for aircraft engines. In recognition of this preemptive
authority, the SIP assigns new nationwide emission standards for
commercial aircraft engines to EPA that would reduce ROG and NOX
emissions from this source by 30 percent beginning in 2000. The SIP
also correctly acknowledges that military aircraft engines are
currently exempt from emission standards, which otherwise apply to
commercial aircraft engines. In this regard, the SIP recommends that
the exempt status of these aircraft be reconsidered.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is the most
appropriate forum for establishing commercial aircraft engine emission
standards due to the international nature of the aviation industry. EPA
has actively participated in considering more stringent NOX
standards as part of ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental
Protection (CAEP) in the intervening period since the FIP. In December
1995, CAEP recommended a 16 percent increase in stringency for the
NOX standard that applies to medium and large turbine engines used
on commercial aircraft. The revised standard would affect newly
certified engines (i.e., engine models produced for the first time)
beginning in 2000, and all newly manufactured engines (i.e., engines
already being produced) in 2008. The revised standard would not affect
engines already in air service. No revision of the hydrocarbon emission
standard was considered by CAEP at the time, principally because modern
turbine engines are considered very ``clean'' in this regard.
The CAEP recommendation will now move through the ICAO hierarchy
for consideration. Initially, the ICAO Council will act on the
recommendation. If the Council finds it acceptable, the revision moves
to the full ICAO Assembly for final action. This process may not be
complete until the spring of 1998.
The emission benefits of any new NOX standard will occur
worldwide. These benefits, however, will gradually accrue over an
extended period of time. More specifically, the full benefits of the
revised standard will not occur until well after 2010, because of the
2008 date for full implementation of the standard and the slow fleet
turnover to new, cleaner engines (e.g., aircraft last about 25 years in
active service.) Therefore, very few of the potential benefits will be
realized by the SIP's attainment date. Turning to the exemption for
military engines, EPA agrees with the SIP recommendation that such a
blanket exemption should be reconsidered. The Agency is preparing a
notice of proposed rulemaking to formally adopt the existing ICAO
NOX and CO standards, and will request comment on the need for and
feasibility of applying emission standards to military engines. This
notice is currently scheduled for publication during fiscal year 1997,
due to competing budgetary priorities.
EPA has also continued to explore other ways to reduce the
environmental effects of air travel in California and throughout the
nation in the intervening period since the FIP. More specifically, the
Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are working
cooperatively to encourage continuing progress in reducing emissions
from ground service equipment and aircraft auxiliary power units. EPA
has sponsored additional work to compile technical data and emission
inventory methods. This information will be used by the Federal
Aviation Administration to develop an Advisory Circular for use by
airlines and airport authorities interested in reducing the emissions
from these sources.
Pleasurecraft
Measure M16 assumes that U.S. EPA finalizes proposed national ROG
and NOX standards for various categories of new engines used in
watercraft.
EPA has not yet finalized the rulemaking on emission standards for
spark-ignition marine engines. The court ordered deadline for signature
of the final rulemaking is May 31, 1996. EPA has issued guidance to
states on the amount of credit that will be allowed due to this
rulemaking. These emission standards will apply to new marine engines
beginning in model year 1998. There is no second phase rulemaking
planned.
EPA has not yet finalized the rulemaking on emission standards for
compression-ignition marine engines. The court ordered deadline for
signature of the final rulemaking is May 31, 1996. EPA has not yet
issued guidance to states on the amount of credit that will be allowed
due to this rulemaking. These emission standards will apply to new
marine engines beginning in model year 1999. The emission standards
will achieve an approximate 30% reduction in new engine emissions. The
inventory will be reduced as the fleet turns over.
[FR Doc. 96-6011 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.