42174 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

1As a moderate nonattainment area, the Bay Area 

was subject to the moderate area requirements of 

title I, part D, subpart 2 of the CAA that were added 

as part of the 1990 Amendments. In redesignating 

the Bay Area back to nonattainment, EPA looked at 

the longstanding general nonattainment provisions 

of subpart 1 of the CAA as well as the subpart 2 

provisions. EPA concluded that the statute was 

ambiguous as to which subpart should apply and 

for a number of policy reasons described at length 

in the proposed and final redesignation actions, 

determined that the Act is best interpreted as 

placing the Bay Area under subpart 1 upon 

redesignation back to nonattainment. Thus the Bay 

Area was not classified under Section 181 upon 

redesignation. (See 62 FR 66578, December 19, 

1997; 63 FR 3725, July 10, 1998).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA258–0397A; FRL–7528–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Ozone 

Attainment Plan; State of California, 

San Francisco Bay Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision, the 2001 San Francisco Bay 

Area Ozone Attainment Plan (2001 

Plan), submitted by the State of 

California to EPA to attain the 1-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) in the San Francisco 

Bay Area as meeting the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The plan 

contains the following components: 

Emission inventories, a reasonably 

available control measure 

demonstration, control measure 

commitments, an attainment assessment 

and its associated motor vehicle 

emissions budgets, commitments to 

study specified measures to determine if 

additional emissions reductions can be 

achieved, a commitment to complete a 

mid-course review by December 15, 

2003, and a commitment to adopt a 

revised plan by March 2004, to submit 

the revised plan by April 15, 2004, and 

to adopt additional measures as 

necessary to attain the standard by 2006. 

In 2001, EPA disapproved certain 

components of the 1999 ozone 

attainment plan for the Bay Area: The 

RACM demonstration, the attainment 

demonstration, and the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets. Because of this 

disapproval the Bay Area became 

subject to the imposition of the 2 to 1 

offset sanction under CAA section 

179(b)(2) on April 22, 2003. Elsewhere 

in this Federal Register we are making 

an interim final determination that the 

2001 Plan corrects these deficiencies. As 

a result of this determination the offset 

sanction will be stayed while EPA 

considers whether to issue a final full 

approval. A final full approval action on 

these elements would terminate the 

sanctions; if EPA disapproves the 

attainment plan on the basis that one or 

more of the disapproved components is 

still insufficient, the offset sanction will 

be reapplied at that time.

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

actions must be received on or before 

August 15, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed 

to: Ginger Vagenas, Planning Office, 

[AIR–2], Air Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901; or to 

vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.

The 2001 Plan is available on the Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District’s 

Web site at http://www.baaqmd.gov/

planning/2001sip/2001sip.htm and at 

their offices at 939 Ellis Street, San 

Francisco, California, 94109. A copy of 

this proposed rule and related 

information are available in the air 

programs section of EPA Region 9’s Web 

site, http://www.epa.gov/region09/air. 

The docket for this rulemaking is 

available for inspection during normal 

business hours at EPA Region 9, 

Planning Office, Air Division, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. A reasonable fee may 

be charged for copying parts of the 

docket. Please call (415) 972–3964 for 

assistance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ginger Vagenas (415) 972–3964, 

Planning Office (AIR–2), Air Division, 

EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105; 

vagenas.ginger@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. 1998 Redesignation to Nonattainment 

B. Nonattainment Area Requirements 

C. 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan 

Submission and EPA Action 

D. 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan Submittal 

II. Evaluation of the State’s 2001 Plan 

Submittal 

A. Emissions Inventories 

B. Reasonably Available Control Measure 

Demonstration. 

C. Control Measures 

D. Attainment Assessment 

E. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for use 

in Transportation Conformity 

III. Mid-Course Review and 2004 Plan

IV. Summary of Proposed Action on the 2001 

Plan 

V. Statutory and Executive Officer Reviews

I. Background 

A. 1998 Redesignation to 

Nonattainment 

In 1978, the San Francisco Bay Area 

(Bay Area) was originally designated 

under section 107 of the CAA, as 

amended in 1977, as nonattainment for 

the federal 1-hour ozone standard. 

Following the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments, the Bay Area retained its 

nonattainment designation and was 

classified as ‘‘moderate’’ under section 

181 of the CAA by operation of law. 56 

FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991). EPA 

redesignated the Bay Area to attainment 

in 1995 based on then current air 

quality data (60 FR 27028, May 22, 

1995) and subsequently redesignated 

the area back to nonattainment on July 

10, 1998 (63 FR 37258). See 40 CFR 

81.305 (1999).1

EPA’s action in 1998 was prompted 

by persistent air quality problems in the 

two years following the redesignation to 

attainment. Ozone levels exceeded the 

federal 1-hour ozone standard on 11 

days in 1995 and 8 days in 1996. As 

provided under section 107(d)(3) of the 

CAA, EPA revised the Bay Area’s 

designation on the basis of those air 

quality data. The intent of the 

redesignation was to return healthy air 

as quickly as possible to the Bay Area. 

B. Nonattainment Area Requirements 

In an effort to focus on near-term air 

quality gains, EPA set an expedited 

attainment deadline of November 15, 

2000 under CAA section 172(a)(2) in its 

redesignation action. At that time, EPA 

believed the Bay Area could attain by 

that date. EPA also required the State to 

submit an attainment plan for the Bay 

Area by June 15, 1999 that addressed 

the section 172(c) requirements and 

specifically required a 1995 baseline 

emissions inventory, an assessment of 

the emissions reductions needed for 

attainment, and adopted control 

measures (or commitments to adopt and 

implement control measures) sufficient 

to meet reasonable further progress 

(RFP) and to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by the attainment deadline. 

The plan was also required to provide 

for the implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) as 

expeditiously as practicable. Finally, the 

plan was required to include 

contingency measures that would take 

effect should attainment not be achieved 

by November 15, 2000, and new motor 

vehicle emissions budgets capping onroad emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) emissions for ozone consistent 

with the new attainment plan. 63 FR at 

37275–37276. See also CAA section 

172(c)(1)–(3), (6)–(7) and (9). 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules 42175

2The Central California Ozone Study is a large 

field measurement program conducted during the 

summer of 2000 to provide a more comprehensive 

and liable data base for future ozone analyses. 

Information regarding the CCOS is available on-line 

at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/ccos/ccos.htm.

3See Letter, Jack Broadbent, EPA Region 9 to 

Michael Kenney, California Air Resources Board 

(ARB), dated February 14, 2001. A copy of this 

letter can be found in the docket. We published this 

finding in the Federal Register on February 21, 

2002. (See 67 FR 8017.) Our adequacy 

determination was effective on March 8, 2002.

4The BAAQMD has prepared draft technical 

assessment documents (TADs) that describe its 

findings with respect to further study measures 8, 

9, and 11. The TADs can be viewed on-line at

http://www.baaqmd.gov/enf/refineryfsm/

REFINERY_WEBSITE.htm. The further study 

measures are discussed in Section 5 of the 2001 

Plan and are listed in Table 1 below.

C. 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan 

Submission and EPA Action 

On August 13, 1999, the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted 

the 1999 San Francisco Bay Area Ozone 

Attainment Plan (1999 Plan) to EPA. 

The attainment plan was submitted as a 

proposed revision to the California SIP 

by CARB on behalf of the Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD), the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (MTC), and 

the Association of Bay Area 

Governments (ABAG) (the co-lead 

agencies). 

On September 20, 2001, EPA partially 

approved and partially disapproved the 

1999 Plan. Specifically, EPA approved 

the baseline emissions inventory, RFP 

demonstration, a commitment to reduce 

VOC emissions by 11 tons per day (tpd) 

by adopting and implementing specified 

control measures, and contingency 

measures as meeting the requirements of 

the CAA applicable to the Bay Area 

ozone nonattainment area. EPA also 

approved the removal of transportation 

control measures (TCMs) 6, 11, 12, and 

16 from the ozone portion of the 

California SIP. EPA disapproved the 

attainment assessment, its associated 

motor vehicle emissions budgets, and 

the RACM demonstration. The effective 

date of the final disapproval (October 

22, 2001) started an 18-month clock for 

the imposition of sanctions pursuant to 

CAA section 179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31, 

and a 2-year clock for EPA to 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c)(1). 

The disapproval also activated a 

conformity freeze under 40 CFR 

93.120(a)(2). 62 FR 43796 (August 15, 

1997). 

EPA’s September 20, 2001 notice also 

included a finding that the Bay Area 

failed to attain the 1-hour NAAQS for 

ozone by its November 15, 2000 

attainment deadline. In response to the 

finding of failure to attain, the EPA 

required the State to submit a SIP 

revision for the Bay Area to EPA by 

September 20, 2002 that meets the 

requirements of CAA sections 110 and 

172 and provides for attainment ‘‘as 

expeditiously as practicable’’ but no 

later than September 20, 2006. CAA 

section 179(d). 

For details about EPA’s evaluation of 

the 1999 Plan elements and failure to 

attain finding, please see the proposed 

rulemaking at 66 FR 17379 (March 30, 

2001) and final rulemaking at 66 FR 

48340 (September 20, 2001). 

D. 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan 

Submittal 

On November 30, 2001, CARB 

submitted the 2001 Plan to EPA. The 

attainment plan was submitted as a 

proposed revision to the California SIP 

by CARB on behalf of the co-lead 

agencies. The 2001 Plan includes the 

following elements: 

• Emissions inventories for 1995 and 

2000 and projected inventories for 

2001–2006.

• Reasonably available control 

measure demonstration. 

• Commitments to adopt new, 

specified control measures. 

• Attainment assessment, including a 

commitment to develop additional 

control measures as needed to attain the 

standard by 2006. 

• Motor vehicle emissions budgets for 

the attainment year. 

• Commitments by CARB and the colead agencies to: (1) Study specified 

measures to determine whether 

significant additional emission 

reductions can be achieved and whether 

implementation is feasible; (2) conduct 

a mid-course review by December 15, 

2003 that will include an evaluation of 

the modeling from the Central California 

Ozone Study (CCOS) 2 and the latest 

technical information (inventory data, 

monitoring, etc.) to determine the level 

of emission reductions needed to attain 

the 1-hour ozone standard; (3) adopt a 

SIP revision by March 2004 that 

includes a revised attainment target and 

new control measures as needed to 

attain by 2006; and (4) submit the 

revision to EPA by April 15, 2004.

On February 14, 2002 we found the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes.3 The plan became complete 

by operation of law on April 30, 2002. 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B).

II. Evaluation of the State’s Submittal 

EPA evaluated the 2001 Plan 

according to the general nonattainment 

plan requirements contained in section 

172(c) of the CAA. For a more complete 

discussion of section 172(c) as it applies 

to the Bay Area ozone plan, please refer 

to the proposed redesignation, 62 FR 

66580. 

A. Emissions Inventories 

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires 

nonattainment plans to include a 

comprehensive, accurate and current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources. The purpose of this inventory 

is to provide a benchmark for 

attainment planning, and it is often 

referred to as a baseline inventory. To 

satisfy this requirement, the State 

submitted 1995 and 2000 emissions 

inventories and projected emissions 

inventories for 2001–2006 for VOC and 

NOX (2001 Plan, Table 4). They are 

seasonal inventories (typical summer 

day) representing emissions when ozone 

levels are at their highest.

The inventories are divided into 

stationary sources (point, area, and 

biogenic) and on-road motor vehicle and 

non-road mobile sources. Stationary 

source emissions were determined using 

reported emissions estimates derived 

from engineering calculations using 

emission factors from local or outside 

test data. Emission computation 

methodology by source categories is set 

forth in the BAAQMD publication 

‘‘Source Category Methodologies.’’ For 

on-road motor vehicles, EMFAC 2000 

was used to develop the inventories. 

The inventories also take rule 

effectiveness into account and were 

based on the best data available at the 

time. Because the emissions inventories 

are comprehensive and current and 

accurately incorporate the best data 

available at the time, EPA proposes to 

approve them as meeting the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3). 

In the course of studying certain 

measures (identified as further study 

measures in the 2001 Plan) to identify 

additional sources of VOC reductions, 

the BAAQMD has prepared draft 

documents that show that emissions 

from certain sources in the 2001 Plan 

inventories may be underestimated.4

Should these findings be confirmed, the 

emissions inventories that will be 

submitted with the revised ozone plan 

in 2004 must incorporate the corrected 

emissions levels. In addition, the colead agencies must use the most recent 

model developed by CARB and 

accepted by EPA to determine emissions 

from motor vehicles.

42176 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

5 In 1999, EPA reaffirmed its position on this 

topic in the memorandum, ‘‘Guidance on the 

Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) 

Requirement and Attainment Demonstration 

Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,’’ John 

S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, dated November 30, 1999. In this 

memorandum, we state that in order to determine 

whether a state has adopted all RACM necessary for 

attainment and as expeditiously as practicable, the 

state will need to provide a justification as to why 

measures within the arena of potential reasonable 

measures have not been adopted. The justification 

would need to support that a measure was not 

reasonably available for that area.

6For example, the general nature of some 

comments precluded detailed analysis.

7With the exception of FS–10, all measures with 

completion dates that have passed have been 

completed. A workgroup has been convened for 

FS–10 and a technical assessment is underway. See 

the co-lead agencies’ April 10, 2003 progress report, 

which is in the docket and available on line at http:/

/www.baaqmd.gov/planning/2001sip/

rfpreportfinal.pdf. MTC’s report on further study 

measures 1–5 is available online at http://

www.mtc.ca.gov/whats_happening/AirQuality/

FSM.pdf.

8For commitments in the plan that do not 

identify the day of the month, as here, or the month, 

as in Table 2, EPA interprets the deadline to be no 

later than the last day of the month or December 

31st of the noted year, respectively.

B. Reasonably Available Control 

Measure Demonstration 

CAA Section 172(c)(1) requires 

nonattainment area plans to provide for 

the implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable. EPA’s 

principal guidance interpreting the 

Act’s RACM requirement is found in the 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 at 57 FR 

13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992). We 

interpret section 172(c)(1) to impose a 

duty on states to consider all available 

control measures (including those 

identified in public comments) and to 

adopt and implement such measures 

that are reasonably available for 

implementation in the particular 

nonattainment area. Under this 

interpretation, a state does not need to 

adopt measures that are technologically 

or economically infeasible for the area 

or would not contribute to expeditious 

attainment of the applicable standard in 

the area, that is, would not advance the 

attainment date by at least one year.5

In our action on the Bay Area’s 1999 

Plan (66 FR 48341), we disapproved the 

RACM demonstration, noting that the 

1999 Plan was silent on the RACM 

requirement and did not address all 

measures suggested by the public. The 

staff report prepared for the 1999 Plan 

(dated June 9, 1999) mentions just four 

measures suggested by the public and 

lacks an analysis of other potentially 

available measures. 

In contrast, the 2001 Plan includes an 

extensive analysis that addresses more 

than 125 potential stationary source, 

area source, mobile source, and 

transportation control measures. See 

2001 Plan, Appendix C. This analysis 

covers a broad range of potential RACM 

such as controls in the California Clean 

Air Plan, controls in place in the South 

Coast, TCMs listed in CAA section 

108(f), smart growth measures, and 

transportation pricing measures. It also 

covers the measures suggested in public 

comments on the plan. When viewed in 

combination with the area’s existing 

measures and strategies and those newly 

adopted for the plan, the RACM analysis 

covers the range of potential measures 

for the area’s non-trivial sources of 

emissions. 

A number of people commented 

during the co-lead agencies’ public 

process that the 2001 Plan did not 

address or incorrectly characterized 

transportation control measures that 

were suggested by the public at the time 

the 2001 Plan was being developed. We 

found no persuasive evidence 6 that the 

plan excludes significant unique 

measures (as opposed to variations of 

those that were evaluated) that are 

reasonable and would likely result in 

more expeditious attainment.

For each identified potential RACM, 

the plan generally evaluates its 

technological and economic feasibility 

as well as (qualitatively or 

quantitatively) its potential to reduce 

emissions in the Bay Area prior to the 

attainment date. For each measure 

evaluated, the 2001 Plan provides for 

the adoption of the measure or a 

reasonable and adequately supported 

justification for not including the 

measure in the plan. 

The 2001 Plan identifies 13 new 

measures to be implemented and a 

schedule for adoption and 

implementation. See 2001 Plan, 

Appendix B, and the discussion under 

section II.C. below. The 2001 Plan also 

includes a list of 11 measures that are 

not currently reasonably available but 

may become so in the future. The 2001 

Plan includes a commitment to study 

those measures and dates for the 

completion of the studies. (See 2001 

Plan, Table 9 and Appendix E and Table 

1, below.) EPA is proposing to approve 

this commitment under section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA as strengthening 

the SIP. EPA agrees that establishing 

such further study measures is an 

appropriate way to move forward on 

measures that are not currently RACM, 

but do appear to hold some promise.

TABLE 1.—FURTHER STUDY MEASURES

2001 SIP # Measure Timeline for 

completion 7

FS–1 ............. Study Potential for Accelerating Particulate Trap Retrofit Program for Urban Buses .......................................... April 2002.8

FS–2 ............. Update MTC High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane Master Plan .................................................................................... December 2002. 

FS–3 ............. Study Air Quality Effects of High-Speed Freeway Travel ..................................................................................... April 2003. 

FS–4 ............. Evaluate Parking Management Incentive Program ............................................................................................... July 2003. 

FS–5 ............. Enhanced Housing Incentive Program .................................................................................................................. December 2003. 

FS–6 ............. Further Smog Check Program Improvements ....................................................................................................... December 2003. 

FS–7 ............. Parking Cash-Out Pilot Program ........................................................................................................................... December 2003. 

FS–8 ............. Refinery Pressure Vessels, Blowdown Systems, and Flares ............................................................................... December 2003. 

FS–9 ............. Refinery Wastewater Systems ............................................................................................................................... December 2003. 

FS–10 ........... Organic Liquid Storage Tanks ............................................................................................................................... December 2002. 

FS–11 ........... Marine Tank Vessel Activities ................................................................................................................................ December 2003. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules 42177

9Of course, what is ‘‘reasonably available’’

changes over time. Measures that were not 

considered to be RACM in 2001 could potentially 

become RACM by 2004, when the Bay Area’s new 

ozone attainment plan is due. For example, the 

further study measures that have been undertaken 

to examine refinery emissions and marine loading 

operations could yield information that 

demonstrates additional emissions reductions from 

these sectors are reasonably available. We expect 

that the Bay Area’s next plan will include an 

updated analysis that, among other things, revisits 

measures that were previously determined to not be 

RACM.

Based on our evaluation, we conclude 

that the 2001 Plan presents an adequate 

RACM demonstration, and are therefore 

proposing to approve it.9

C. Control Measures 

In order to attain the ozone standard 

by 2006, the Bay Area must reduce VOC 

emissions by 148 tons per day from 554 

tons per day (2000 VOC emissions) to 

406 tons per day. NOX will be reduced 

by 123 tons per day, from 647 tons per 

day (2000 NOX emissions) to 524 tons 

per day. To provide for attainment by 

the applicable date, the 2001 Plan relies 

on reductions from previously adopted 

measures and enforceable commitments 

to adopt 13 new stationary, area, mobile 

source, and transportation control 

measures that will provide additional 

reductions. The new measures and their 

expected emissions reductions are listed 

in the tables below and are described in 

Appendix B of the 2001 Plan. The Plan 

also includes an enforceable 

commitment to adopt additional 

measures needed for attainment. Section 

II.D. below discusses EPA’s authority to 

approve commitments and our rationale 

for approving the commitments in the 

2001 Plan.

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve as part of the attainment 

assessment (discussed below) required 

by CAA section 172(c)(1) the adoption 

and implementation dates of the new 

measures and the total emissions 

reductions they are cumulatively 

projected to achieve. We are approving 

all dates, including those that have 

passed, in order to make the 

commitments enforceable by EPA and 

citizens under the CAA.

TABLE 2.—NEW STATIONARY AND AREA SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES 10

2001 SIP No. BAAQMD 

Regulation No. Source category Adoptiondate 

Implementation

date 

Estimated 

VOC reduction (tpd), 

2000 to 

2006 

Estimated 

NOx reduction (tpd), 

2000 to 

2006 

Measures to be adopted by the BAAQMD 

SS–11 ........... 8–3 ................. Improved Architectural Coatings Rule ........... 2001 2003–2004 2.9 ....................

SS–12 ........... 8–5 ................. Improved Storage of Organic Liquids Rule ... 2002 2002 1.9 ....................

SS–13 ........... 8–14 and 8–19 Surface Preparation and Cleanup Standards 

for Metal Parts Coating.

2002 2003 0.3 ....................

SS–14 ........... 8–16 ............... Aqueous Solvents .......................................... 2002 2003 3.0 ....................

SS–15 ........... TBD ................ Petroleum Refinery Flare Monitoring ............. 2003 2004 11TBD ....................

SS–16 ........... 8–18 ............... Low-Emission Refinery Valves ...................... 2003 2004 TBD ....................

SS–17 ........... 8–10 ............... Improved Process Vessel Depressurization 

Rule.

2003 2004 0.1 ....................

Total 8.2 0.0 

10Adopted regulations will be submitted to EPA within six months of adoption. See 2001 Plan, page 31. 11At the time of plan adoption, the BAAQMD was not able to determine the amount of emissions reductions that could be achieved by adoption of rules implementing SS–15 and 16. The District indicated that the reductions were to be determined (TBD). Therefore, the emission reduction total for SS–11 through SS–17 does not include reductions from these two measures. 

TABLE 3.—NEW MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURE

2001 SIP No. Source category Request 12

date 

Implementation

date 

Estimated 

VOC reduction 

(tpd), 2000 to 

2006 

Estimated NOx

reduction 

(tpd), 2000 to 

2006 

Measures to be requested by the BAAQMD 

MS–1 ............ Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program—Liquid Leak Inspection and Improved Evaporative System 

Test.

2002 2002–2003 4.0 ........................

Total 4.0 0.0 

12 California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) 44003 gives California Air Pollution Control Districts the authority to request that the Department of 

Consumer Affairs (DCA) implement all or parts of the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program in their areas. In the 2001 Plan, the 

BAAQMD, which was subject only to the basic smog check program, committed to opting into the Liquid Leak Inspection and Improved Evaporative System Test elements of enhanced smog check. DCA is already implementing the liquid leak inspection component within the Bay Area. 

DCA expects implementation of the full enhanced I/M program to begin in October 2003, yielding greater emissions reductions than the MS–1 

commitment. Moreover, State law was amended in 2002 (AB 2637—Cardoza) to mandate expeditious DCA implementation of full enhanced inspection and maintenance in the Bay Area, which delivers substantially greater emissions reductions than the commitments in the 2001 Plan. 

42178 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

13EPA modeling guidance provides that states 

may rely on a modeled attainnent demonstration 

supplemented with additional evidence to 

demonstrate attainment. The modeling analysis for 

the Bay Area is governed by 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix W (6.0 Models of Ozone, Carbon 

Monoxide and Nitrogen Dioxide): A control agency 

with jurisdiction over areas with significant ozone 

problems and which has sufficient resources and 

data to use a photochemical dispersion model is 

encouraged to do so. However, empirical models fill 

the gap between more sophisticated photochemical 

dispersion models and may be the only applicable 

procedure if the available data bases are insufficient 

for refined modeling.

TABLE 4.—NEW TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES

2001 SIP No. Control measure 

description Description and implementation steps Schedule 

Estimated VOC 

reduction (tpd), 

2000 to 2006 

Estimated 

NOX reduction (tpd), 

2000 to 

2006 

TCM A ......... Regional 1 Express 

Bus Program.

Program includes purchase of approximately 90 low emission buses to operate new or enhanced express bus 

services. Buses will meet all applicable CARB standards, and will include 

particulate traps or filters. MTC will 

approve $40 million in funding to various transit operators for bus acquisition. Program assumes transit operators can sustain service for a five 

year period. Actual emission reductions will be determined based on 

routes selected by MTC.

FY 2003. Complete once $40 

million in funding pursuant 

to Government Code Section 14556.40 is approved 

by the California Transportation Commission and obligated by bus operators.

See Below ........ See Below. 

TCM B ......... Bicycle/Pedestrian 

Program.

Fund high priority projects in countrywide plans consistent with TDA funding availability. MTC would fund only 

projects that are exempt from CEQA, 

have no significant environmental impacts, or adequately mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. Actual 

emission reductions will be determined based on the projects funded.

FY 2004—2006. Complete 

once $15 million in TDA Article 3 is allocated by MTC.

See Below ........ See Below. 

TCM C ......... Transportation for 

Livable Communities (TLC).

Program provides planning grants, technical assistance, and capital grants to 

help cities and nonprofit agencies link 

transportation projects with community plans. MTC would fund only 

projects that are exempt from CEQA, 

have no significant environmental impacts, or adequately mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. Actual 

emission reductions will be determined based on the projects funded.

FY 2004—2006. Complete 

once $27 million in TLC 

grant funding is approved 

by MTC.

See Below ........ See Below. 

TCM 4 ......... Additional Freeway 

Service Patrol.

Operation of 55 lane miles of new roving tow truck patrols beyond routes 

which existed in 2000. TCM commitment would be satisfied by any combination for routes adding 55 miles. 

Tow trucks used in service are new 

vehicles meeting all applicable CARB 

standards.

FY 2001. Complete by maintaining increase in FSP 

mileage through December 

2006.

See Below ........ See Below. 

TCM 5 ......... Transit Access to 

Airports.

Take credit for emission reductions from 

air passengers who use BART to 

SFO, as these reductions are not included in the Baseline.

BART—SFO service to start 

in FY 2003. Complete by 

maintaining service through 

2006.

See Below ........ See Below. 

Total ................................ ................................................................ ................................................ 0.5 .................... 0.7

D. Attainment Assessment 

Under section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, 

nonattainment areas are required to 

submit plans that provide for attainment 

of the national ambient air quality 

standards. As stated above, the 2001 

Plan is required to provide for 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ but no 

later than September 20, 2006. To 

provide for expeditious attainment, the 

2001 Plan relies on fully adopted 

regulations, enforceable commitments to 

adopt new, identified measures (section 

II.B. above) and, as discussed below, an 

enforceable commitment to adopt 

measures to achieve an additional 26 

tpd of VOC emission reductions. To 

support the attainment assessment, the 

Plan includes additional enforceable 

commitments, also discussed below, to 

submit a SIP revision in 2004. 

The 2001 Plan contains a simplified 

modeling analysis, with an explanation 

and documentation of the modeling 

approach (2001 Plan, pp. 14–22), using 

the relevant available data, which is 

sparse in the period before the CCOS 

field study can be employed in a more 

sophisticated Urban Airshed Modeling 

(UAM) analysis.13 The limitation of the 

existing modeling assessment are 

acknowledged in the plan, and are the 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules 42179

14Commitment approved by EPA under section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA are enforceable by the EPA 

and citizens under, respectively, sections 113 and 

304 of the CAA. In the past, EPA has approved 

enforceable commitments and courts have enforced 

these actions against states that failed to comply 

with those commitments: See, e.g., American Lung 

Ass’n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 

1987), aff’d, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, 

Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 

848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env’t v. 

Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in 

part, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition 

for Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist.,

No. CV 97—6916—HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). 

Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, 

EPA could make a finding of failure to implement 

the SIP under CAA Section 179(a), which starts an 

18-month period for the State to correct the 

nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are 

imposed.

15CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each 

SIP ‘‘shall include enforceable emission limitations 

and other control measures, means or 

techniques* * * as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable requirement of 

the Act.’’ Section 172(c)(6) of the Act, which 

applies to nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical 

to section 110(a)(2)(A). The language in these 

sections of the CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP 

to contain any ‘‘means or techniques’’ that EPA 

determines are ‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ to meet 

CAA requirements, such that the area will attain as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later than the 

designated date. Furthermore, the express 

allowance for ‘‘schedules and timetables’’

demonstrates that Congress understood that all 

required controls might not have to be in place 

before a SIP could be fully approved.

direct result of the shortage of key input 

data spending completion of the new 

model. The 2001 Plan employes several 

different methods, including precursor 

emission and concentration trends, 

rollback, and isopleth analyses, to 

calculate the emissions reductions 

necessary for attainment. The 

attainment target is conservatively based 

on the 2000 ozone isopleth analysis, 

which generates the largest amount of 

emissions reductions required for 

attainment of the various methods 

employed, and thereby reduces the 

potential for underestimation of 

reduction requirements (2001 Plan, p. 

22). Given the limitations in the data 

and considering the conservative 

approach taken in setting the attainment 

target, EPA believes that the modeling 

approach employed in the 2001 Plan 

reasonably approximates the attainment 

target.

According to the 2001 Plan’s 

modeling analysis, reductions from the 

previously adopted and new measures 

are still not sufficient to attain the 1-

hour ozone standard. The estimated 

shortfall is approximately 26 tons per 

day (tpd) of VOC reductions. The colead agencies indicated that adopting 

measures to fill the 26 tpd shortfall 

would require further study. Thus, the 

co-lead agencies and CARB made an 

enforceable commitment as part of their 

2001 Plan to adopt and submit measures 

to fill this shortfall (2001 Plan, pages 22, 

24, and 34). The State has also made 

enforceable commitments to submit a 

SIP revision by April 15, 2004 using the 

CCOS to reassess attainment needs, and 

to adopt any additional measures 

needed to provide for attainment by the 

2006 deadline. The CCOS currently 

under way will provide the data 

necessary for a more detailed modeling 

analysis and is expected to be available 

for the co-lead agencies to use in their 

mid-course review. 

EPA believes—consistent with past 

practice—that the CAA allows approval 

of enforceable commitments that are 

limited in scope where circumstances 

exist that warrant the use of such 

commitments in place of adopted 

measures.14 15 once EPA determines that 

circumstances warrant consideration of 

an enforceable commitment, EPA 

believes that three factors should be 

considered in determining whether to 

approve the enforceable commitment: 

(1) Whether the commitment addresses 

a limited portion of the statutorilyrequired program; (2) whether the state 

is capable of fulfilling its commitment; 

and (3) whether the commitment is for 

a reasonable and appropriate period of 

time.

As an initial matter, EPA believes that 

circumstances in the San Francisco Bay 

Area warrant the consideration of 

enforceable commitments. With respect 

to the commitment to adopt additional 

measures to ensure attainment by 2006, 

we have concluded that, at the time of 

plan adoption, the State and co-lead 

agencies had adopted, or had committed 

to adopt, all reasonably available VOC 

control measures and that no additional 

measures could be identified. As 

discussed in more detail below, the 

great bulk of emission reductions 

needed for attainment comes from 

stringent regulations already fully 

adopted by the co-lead agencies, the 

State, or the federal government. These 

previously adopted measures include 

CARB regulations governing area and 

mobile sources, BAAQMD regulations 

governing stationary sources, and 

federal regulations such as standards 

that apply to diesel engines and 

locomotives. 

Moreover, after reviewing measures 

included in other SIPs as well as 

measures recommended by the public, 

the co-lead agencies concluded that they 

had already adopted, or were 

committing in the 2001 Plan to adopt, 

essentially all VOC measures that were 

currently in place in other areas of the 

country (2001 Plan, page 49). 

Furthermore, the BAAQMD concluded 

that they have established or committed 

to establish emissions limits on VOC 

sources that are equivalent to those in 

place in the one extreme area in the 

country—the South Coast. See 2001 

Plan, page 49. 

In July 2001, the co-lead agencies and 

CARB notified EPA that they were 

unable at the time to identify and 

therefore adopt any additional programs 

that would reduce VOC emissions 

sufficient to fill the shortfall. Because 

the State and co-lead agencies need 

additional time to consider technologies 

still in the developmental stages, EPA 

determined that it is appropriate to 

consider enforceable commitments for 

the remaining necessary reductions. 

EPA has also concluded that it was 

not practicable for the co-lead agencies 

to complete the rule development and 

adoption processes prior to plan 

submittal for the 13 new, identified 

control measures to which the plan 

commits and therefore consideration of 

enforceable commitments is warranted. 

Because the vast majority of VOC 

sources are already subject to stringent, 

adopted rules, it is increasingly difficult 

to develop regulations for the remaining 

universe of uncontrolled sources. For 

example, BAAQMD has committed to 

adopt an improved architectural 

coatings rule (see table 2 above). This 

effort requires an assessment of the 

emissions reduction potential of 

establishing coatings restrictions for 

very small sources, including timeconsuming industry surveys and the 

refinement of emissions factors and 

emissions inventories. Adoption of 

stringent new coatings limits also 

involves collection or development of 

information to resolve coating 

performance issues for a large variety of 

different coatings and applications. 

Other rules require similar complex 

research and development work, 

analysis of compliance options and 

necessary exemptions, examination of 

test methodologies (an especially 

important concern where the VOC 

emissions standards, as in the Bay Area, 

approach the monitoring detection 

limits), and development of provisions 

to prevent increased reliance on toxic 

42180 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

16For additional detail, see the co-lead agencies’

April 10, 2003 progress report.

17For additional detail, see the co-lead agencies’

April 10, 2003 progress report.

18EMFAC is California’s motor vehicle emissions 

model and is similar to EPA’s Mobile 6 model, 

which is used elsewhere outside of California. EPA 

approved EMFAC 2000 for use in the Bay Area on 

January 11, 2002 (67 FR 1464).

air pollutants and stratospheric ozone 

depleting compounds as the means of 

compliance with very tight VOC 

restrictions. 

Finally, EPA has determined that the 

submission of enforceable commitments 

for the adoption of identified control 

measures and additional measures 

necessary to achieve attainment by 2006 

will not interfere with the Bay Area’s 

ability to make reasonable progress 

toward attainment of the standard. By 

the end of 2003, which is the midpoint 

between the date of the plan and the 

attainment year, 46% of the required 

VOC reductions will have been 

achieved.16

As provided above, after concluding 

that the circumstances warrant 

consideration of an enforceable 

commitment—as they do in the San 

Francisco Bay Area—EPA will consider 

three factors in determining whether to 

approve the submitted commitments. 

These factors are satisfactorily 

addressed with respect to CARB’s and 

the co-lead agencies’ commitments to 

adopt and submit both the specified 

control measures and additional 

measures to fill the shortfall of VOC 

emissions reductions. 

1. The Commitments Address a Limited 

Portion of the 2001 Plan 

According to the 2001 Plan, 148 tpd 

of VOC reductions and 123 tpd of NOX

reductions are required to attain the 1-

hour ozone standard. As noted above, 

the State, the co-lead agencies and the 

federal government have previously 

adopted measures that will in large part 

achieve the required reductions by 

providing 108.6 tpd of VOC reductions 

and 122.8 tpd of NOX reductions. (2001 

Plan, Tables 10 and 11.) This is reflected 

in the Bay Area planning inventory, 

which incorporates future year emission 

reductions from all regulations adopted 

as of December 31, 2000. Table 4 of the 

2001 Plan shows that previously 

adopted mobile source regulations will 

reduce on-road motor vehicle VOC 

emissions from 227.0 tpd in 2001 to 

168.5 tpd in 2006, and off-road mobile 

source emissions from 67.3 tpd to 54.0 

tpd. As a result of previously adopted 

consumer products regulations, VOC 

emissions from this category will be 

reduced from 52.2 tpd to 46.4 tpd for 

the same period. These sharp reductions 

take into account substantial growth in 

population and activity levels. 

Previously adopted BAAQMD 

regulations contribute additional 

reductions in VOC emissions from 

industrial and commercial sources, 

whose emissions are reduced from 171.2 

tpd in 2001 to 157.0 tpd in 2006.

In contrast, the new, identified 

control measures to which the 

BAAQMD commits in the plan are 

expected to reduce VOC emissions by 

only 12.7 tpd and NOX emissions by 0.7 

tpd by 2006. The 2001 Plan’s 

commitment to adopt additional 

unspecified measures to fill the shortfall 

needed to reach attainment will achieve 

26 tpd of VOCs. Thus, these combined 

commitments represent a relatively 

small amount of the total reductions 

needed for attainment, only 0.6% of 

NOX reductions and 26% of VOC 

reductions, or 14% of total reductions 

needed to reach attainment. 

2. The State and the Co-lead Agencies 

Are Capable of Fulfilling their 

Commitment 

In many cases the new measures that 

are the subject to commitments in the 

2001 Plan have already been adopted 

and/or implemented and emissions 

reductions are being achieved. For 

example, Rule 8–3 (SS–11) was adopted 

on November 21, 2001 and submitted to 

EPA on June 18, 2002; Rule 8–5 (SS–12) 

was adopted on November 27, 2002 and 

submitted to EPA on January 21, 2003; 

Rules 8–14 and 8–19 (SS–13) and Rule 

8–16 (SS–14) were adopted on October 

16, 2002 and submitted to EPA on April 

1, 2003.17 Furthermore, we are 

confident that CARB and the co-lead 

agencies will be able to meet the 26 tpd 

commitment. They have made progress 

on their further study measures and, if 

necessary, could adopt a declining VOC 

cap applicable to stationary sources.

3. The Commitments Are for a 

Reasonable and Appropriate Period of 

Time 

The adoption, implementation, and 

submittal dates for the new control 

measures reflect a reasonable amount of 

time for the development and 

implementation of each measure. The 

commitment to identify the control 

measures that will enable the Bay Area 

to reach attainment must be fulfilled by 

March 2004, when the revised plan is to 

be adopted by the co-lead agencies. In 

light of the co-lead agencies’

demonstration that they need additional 

time to consider technologies that are 

still in the developmental stages, this 

time frame is reasonable and 

appropriate. 

For the above reasons, EPA is 

proposing to approve as one element of 

the attainment assessment the 2001 

Plan’s enforceable commitments to 

adopt and submit the specified control 

measures listed in II.C. above and to 

adopt additional measures as necessary 

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 

2006, which we find to be the most 

expeditious attainment date practicable. 

Based on the previously adopted 

measures and these commitments, the 

2001 Plan demonstrates that the Bay 

Area will achieve sufficient reductions 

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 

2006. Therefore we are proposing to 

approve these commitments and the 

attainment assessment as meeting the 

requirements of section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA.

E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Use in Transportation Conformity 

EPA’s conformity rule, 40 CFR part 

93, requires that transportation plans, 

programs, and projects conform to the 

SIP and establishes the criteria and 

procedures for determining whether or 

not they do conform. Conformity to a 

SIP means that transportation activities 

will produce no new air quality 

violations, will not worsen existing 

violations, and will not delay timely 

attainment of the NAAQS (CAA section 

176(c)(1)). 

One of the primary tests for 

conformity is to show that 

transportation plans and improvement 

programs will not cause motor vehicle 

emissions higher than the levels needed 

to make progress toward and to meet the 

air quality standards. The motor vehicle 

emissions levels needed to make 

progress toward and to meet the air 

quality standards are set in the area’s air 

quality implementation plans and are 

known as the ‘‘motor vehicle emissions 

budgets.’’ Emissions budgets are 

established for specific years and 

specific pollutants. See 40 CFR Part 

93.118(a). The 2001 Plan (page 30) 

includes budgets of 164.0 tpd for VOC 

and 270.3 tpd for NOX, both for the 

attainment year, 2006. These budgets 

are based on projected emissions for 

motor vehicles in the attainment year 

and take into account expected growth 

and were developed using San 

Francisco Bay Area EMFAC 2000.18

On February 14, 2002 we found the 

2006 motor vehicle emission budgets in 

the 2001 Plan adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

adequacy finding was based on our 

preliminary determination that the plan 

provides for timely attainment of the 1-

hour ozone standard in the San 

Francisco Bay Area and that the criteria 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules 42181

19An overview of the photochemical modeling 

for the Bay Area’s 2004 ozone attainment plan is 

available on line at http://www.baagmd.gov/

planning/2004sip/modelpg.htm.

in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) of the conformity 

rule were satisfied. As a result of our 

adequacy finding, the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission and the 

Federal Highway Administration are 

required to use these budgets in 

conformity analyses. 

Upon further review, EPA has 

confirmed its preliminary determination 

that the submitted plan demonstrates 

attainment in the Bay Area by 2006 and 

that the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets are consistent with the plan. 

The budgets were derived using the 

most accurate and up-to-date planning 

assumptions and emissions model 

available at the time of the plan 

submittal. We are therefore proposing to 

approve the 2006 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets. 

The co-lead agencies and CARB have 

committed to completing a mid-course 

review of the plan by December 15, 

2003 and to submit a revised plan by 

April 15, 2004. In order to be 

approvable, the new plan must derive 

its inventory and motor vehicle 

emissions budgets using EMFAC2002, 

which is an updated and improved 

revision to EMFAC2000 that was 

recently approved and is now available 

for SIP planning (68 FR 15720, April 1, 

2003). 

Because EMFAC2000 has certain 

technical limitations, EPA approved it 

only for use in development of ozone 

motor vehicle emissions factors for SIP 

development and future conformity 

determinations in the San Francisco Bay 

Area. It was superior to prior models 

available for use in the area and the 

improved EMFAC 2002 was not yet 

available. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

EMFAC2000-derived motor vehicle 

emission budgets in the Bay Area ozone 

SIP only until new budgets developed 

with the new model are submitted 

pursuant to commitments in the SIP and 

found adequate for conformity 

purposes. See 67 FR 1464, January 11, 

2002. Normally, new budgets cannot 

replace existing budgets in approved 

plans if they are for the same Clean Air 

Act requirement and year until the new 

budgets are approved as part of the SIP 

(see 40 CFR 93.118(e)). In this case, our 

approval of the budgets in the 2001 Plan 

will expire upon EPA’s determination 

that the new budgets, which will be 

developed using EMFAC2002 and are 

scheduled to be submitted in April 

2004, are adequate. We have taken this 

approach because budgets developed 

with EMFAC2002 will be more accurate 

than those developed using 

EMFAC2000. An adequacy 

determination can usually be made 

within a few months of plan 

submission. Therefore, by limiting the 

duration of our approval of the 

EMFAC2000-derived budgets to the 

point when the updated budgets are 

found to be adequate, the updated 

budgets may be in place within a few 

months of their submission, rather than 

when the SIP is finally approved, which 

could take as long as 18 months. 

III. Mid-Course Review and 2004 Plan 

The co-lead agencies and CARB have 

made an enforceable commitment to 

perform a mid-course review by 

December 15, 2003 that will include an 

evaluation of the modeling from the 

CCOS and the latest technical 

information (e.g., inventory and 

monitoring data) to determine the level 

of emission reductions needed to attain 

the ozone standard. The co-lead 

agencies have also committed to adopt 

a SIP revision by March 2004 that 

includes a revised attainment target and 

new control measures as needed to 

attain by 2006. In addition, the co-lead 

agencies and CARB committed to 

submit a revised ozone attainment plan 

by April 15, 2004 that will include new 

control measures as needed to attain by 

2006. As discussed in section II.D. 

above, EPA is proposing to approve 

these commitments as part of the 

attainment assessment under CAA 

section 172(c)(1). 

The commitments have been adopted 

by CARB and the co-lead agencies for 

several reasons. As noted in Section 

II.D. above, the 2001 Plan’s modeling 

assessment has its limitations, which 

are the direct result of the shortage of 

key input data. This lack of input data 

has resulted in some uncertainty 

regarding the amount of emissions 

reductions that will be necessary to 

attain the 1-hour ozone standard. 

However, the CCOS will provide a more 

comprehensive and reliable data base 

for future ozone analyses. The modeling 

for the 2004 Plan will use recent 

episodes from 1999 and 2000 and will 

be supported by more extensive field 

measurements.19 It will also rely on 

improved emission inventory modeling 

and meteorological inputs. This 

information should result in a more 

reliable determination of whether the 

amount of emissions reductions 

required in the 2001 Plan will be 

sufficient for the Bay Area to attain the 

ozone standard. The information will be 

used to establish revised attainment 

targets, if necessary, in the 2004 plan. In 

addition, the CCOS should illuminate 

the contribution that pollution 

generated in the Bay Area makes to air 

quality in downwind areas.

The mid-course review and 2004 plan 

revision will also provide the co-lead 

agencies an opportunity to update key 

information in the plan that is currently 

being refined by additional study. As 

noted above, EPA recently approved 

EMFAC2002, California’s new motor 

vehicle emissions model. Use of 

EMFAC2002 will improve the accuracy 

of the motor vehicle emissions 

inventory, which will allow planners to 

better forecast the impact of 

transportation projects on air quality 

and to adjust the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets. In addition, the colead agencies and CARB have 

committed to study specified measures 

to determine whether significant 

additional emission reductions can be 

achieved and whether implementation 

is feasible. As noted in section II.B. 

above, EPA is proposing to approve this 

commitment. The MTC’s and 

BAAQMD’s ongoing work on their 

further study measures is providing new 

information, particularly with regard to 

refinery and marine vessel loading 

emissions, that will result in inventory 

corrections and should lead to the 

adoption of new control measures. The 

information generated by the further 

study measures and work being done in 

other areas of the country will also 

enable the co-lead agencies to update 

their RACM analysis. The progress that 

has been made in all of these areas, both 

locally and nationally, should enable 

the co-lead agencies and CARB to 

submit a more technically advanced 

plan in 2004.

IV. Summary of Proposed Action 

Because EPA has determined that 

these plan elements meet the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c), the 

Agency is proposing to approve the 

emissions inventory and the RACM 

demonstration. EPA is also proposing to 

approve, as meeting the requirements of 

section 172(c)(1), the attainment 

assessment and associated motor 

vehicle emissions budgets, and 

commitments to (1) adopt 13 new 

stationary, area, mobile source, and 

transportation control measures; (2) 

conduct a mid-course review by 

December 15, 2003 that will include an 

evaluation of the modeling from the 

Central California Ozone Study and the 

latest technical information (inventory 

data, monitoring, etc.) to determine 

whether the level of emission 

reductions in the 2001 Plan is sufficient 

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard; (3) 

to adopt a SIP revision by March 2004 

that includes a revised attainment target 

42182 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

20EPA is aware of the pending lawsuit regarding 

the 2001 Plan in California Superior Court in San 

Francisco, Communities for a Better Environment et 

al. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District et 

al., Case No. 323849. Prior to taking final action on 

the plan, we will evaluate any decision of the Court 

in that case to determine what effect, if any, it has 

on our rulemaking.

and new control measures as needed to 

attain by 2006; and (4) to submit the SIP 

revision to EPA by April 15, 2004. 

Finally, we are proposing to approve 

under section 110(k)(3) as strengthening 

the SIP the commitment to study 

specified measures to determine 

whether significant additional emission 

reductions can be achieved and whether 

implementation is feasible.20

Elsewhere in this Federal Register we 

are making an interim final 

determination that the 2001 Plan 

corrects the deficiencies in the 1999 

Plan. As a result of this determination, 

the offset sanction is stayed while EPA 

considers whether to issue a final full 

approval. A final full approval action on 

these elements would terminate the 

sanctions clock that was started as a 

result of the earlier disapproval; if we 

disapprove the 2001 Plan on the basis 

that one or more of the disapproved 

components is still insufficient, the 

offset sanction will apply on the 

effective date of the disapproval. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed 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.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds.

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

Dated: July 7, 2003. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 03–17972 Filed 7–15–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U