27028 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: May 1, 1995.

Approved:

K. P. McMahon,

CDR, JAGC, U.S. Navy Deputy Assistant Judge

Advocate General (Admiralty).

[FR Doc. 95–12477 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CA–64–1–6997; FRL–5202–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of California, Approval

of the Maintenance Plan for the San

Francisco Bay Area and Redesignation

of the San Francisco Bay Area to

Attainment; Approval of Emissions

Inventory; Approval of NOX Exemption

Petition

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for the San Francisco Bay Area as

a revision to California’s State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In

addition, EPA is approving the 1990

base year emissions inventory and a

petition requesting an exemption from

the section 182(f) nitrogen oxides (NOX)

requirements for the area.

On April 13, 1994, EPA notified the

State of California that EPA had made

a finding of incompleteness for required

programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA

or the Act). The EPA’s redesignation of

the San Francisco Bay Area to

attainment and approval of the 1990

emissions inventory abrogates those

requirements for the area. Therefore, the

sanctions and federal implementation

plan clocks begun by those findings are

stopped at the time of this

redesignation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will

become effective on June 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations:

Plans Development Section (A–2–2), Air

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105.

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, CA 94814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wallace Woo, Chief, Plans Development

Section, Air & Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, at (415) 744–1207.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A. Ozone Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan

The San Francisco Bay Area ozone

nonattainment area has attained the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone based on three years

of quality assured ambient air quality

data, for the period 1990–1992.

Therefore, in accordance with the CAA,

as amended in 1990, and to ensure

continued attainment of the standard for

at least 10 years, the State of California

has submitted an ozone maintenance

plan which projects continued

attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the

San Francisco Bay Area.

The maintenance plan submitted for

the San Francisco Bay Area meets all

applicable requirements of the CAA.

The San Francisco Bay Area submittal

complies with section 175A of the Act

which sets forth maintenance plan

requirements for areas seeking

redesignation from nonattainment to

attainment. The plan demonstrates

attainment of the NAAQS for at least 10

years after the area is redesignated.

Eight years after the redesignation, the

state commits to submit a revised

maintenance plan which demonstrates

attainment for the ten year period

following the initial ten year period. In

the event of a NAAQS violation, the

maintenance plan contains contingency

measures adequate to ensure prompt

correction of the air quality problem.

The state submittal being approved

today contains a redesignation request

in which the state demonstrates that the

area has fulfilled the redesignation

requirements of the CAA pursuant to

section 107(d)(3)(E), a NOX exemption

petition pursuant to section 182(f), and

a 1990 emissions inventory of ozone

precursors pursuant to section 182(a) for

the area.

On September 28, 1994 (59 FR 49361–

49370), EPA published a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the

State of California SIP. The NPRM

proposed that the San Francisco Bay

Area be redesignated from

nonattainment to attainment for ozone

and that the maintenance plan

submitted by the State of California as

a revision to the California SIP be

approved contingent upon EPA taking

final rulemaking action to approve

various SIP deficiencies for the San

Francisco Bay Area (including volatile

organic compound (VOC) reasonable

available control technology (RACT)

corrections, emission statement rule,

NSR corrections) and California’s

submittal of the ozone maintenance

plan amendments to the contingency

plan and the 1990 base year emissions

inventory. In addition, the NPRM

proposed approval of a NOX waiver

petition and 1990 base year emissions

inventory.

Since that time, the EPA has taken

final rulemaking action to approve both

the volatile organic compound (VOC)

reasonable available control technology

(RACT) rules which resolve the

deficiencies and the emission statement

rule. Below is the list of rules that the

EPA has approved since the time of

proposed rulemaking on the

redesignation. These approvals remove

one of the conditions for redesignation

of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Rule No. Rule title Notice of final rulemaking

8–1 .................... General Provisions ............................................................................................................ 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–2 .................... Miscellaneous Operations ................................................................................................. 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–4 .................... General Solvent and Surface Coating Operations ........................................................... 60 FR 15092, March 22, 1995.

8–7 .................... Gasoline Dispensing Facilities .......................................................................................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–8 .................... Wastewater (Oil-Water) Separators .................................................................................. 59 FR 43328, August 29, 1994.

8–11 .................. Metal Container Closure and Coil Coating ....................................................................... 59 FR 63721, December 9, 1994.

8–12 .................. Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating ....................................................................................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–13 .................. Light and Medium Duty Motor Vehicle Assembly Plants ................................................. NFRM signed March 29, 1995—

publication pending.

8–14 .................. Surface Coating of Large Appliance and Metal Furniture ................................................ NFRM signed March 29, 1995—

publication pending.

8–15 .................. Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts ......................................................................................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–16 .................. Solvent Cleaning Operations ............................................................................................ 59 FR 63721, December 9, 1994.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27029

Rule No. Rule title Notice of final rulemaking

8–19 .................. Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products .......................................... 60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.

8–20 .................. Graphic Arts Printing and Coating Operations ................................................................. 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–22 .................. Valves and Flanges at Chemical Plants ........................................................................... 60 FR 8949, February 16, 1995.

8–23 .................. Coating of Flat Wood Paneling and Wood Flat Stock ..................................................... NFRM signed March 29, 1995—

publication pending.

8–24 .................. Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Manufacturing Operations ............................................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–25 .................. Pump and Compressor Seals at Petroleum Refineries, Chemical Plants, Bulk Plants,

and Bulk Terminals.

60 FR 12451, March 7, 1995.

8–28 .................. Pressure Relief Valves at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants ............................ 59 FR 63721, December 9, 1994.

8–29 .................. Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations ............................................. 60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.

8–30 .................. Semiconductor Manufacturing Operations ....................................................................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–31 .................. Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products ................................................................ 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–32 .................. Wood Product Coatings .................................................................................................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–33 .................. Gasoline Bulk Terminals and Gasoline Delivery Vehicles ............................................... 60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.

8–34 .................. Solid Waste Disposal Sites ............................................................................................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–35 .................. Coating, Ink, and Adhesive Manufacturing ....................................................................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–38 .................. Flexible and Rigid Disk Manufacturing ............................................................................. 60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.

8–39 .................. Gasoline Bulk Plants and Gasoline Delivery Vehicles ..................................................... 60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.

8–40 .................. Aeration of Contaminated Soil .......................................................................................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–41 .................. Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Operations .......................................................................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–42 .................. Large Commercial Bakeries ............................................................................................. 60 FR 12451, March 7, 1995.

8–43 .................. Surface Coating of Marine Vessel .................................................................................... NFRM signed March 29, 1995—

publication pending.

8–45 .................. Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations .............................................. 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.

8–47 .................. Air Stripping and Soil Vapor Extraction Operations ......................................................... NFRM signed March 29, 1995—

publication pending.

8–50 .................. Polyester Resin Operations .............................................................................................. 60 FR 12451, March 7, 1995.

2–1 .................... Emission Statement Rule ................................................................................................. 60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.

In addition, the State of California has

submitted the amendments to the

maintenance plan necessary for final

approval, including the revised 1990

base year emissions inventory and

amendments to the contingency plan.

The ozone maintenance plan

amendments include a commitment by

the Governor to implement the

improvements to the basic inspection

and maintenance (I/M) program by the

end of 1995 as an early contingency

measure and a revised contingency

process. The reductions from these I/M

improvements were not included in the

maintenance plan emission inventory

projections. In the event of a violation

during the maintenance period, the Bay

Area Air Quality Management District

(BAAQMD) will meet with the EPA

within 30 days of the violation to

discuss which of the adopted NOX

RACT rules are appropriate to submit

into the SIP as fully adopted and

implemented contingency provisions.

The list of NOX controls include six

rules which are scheduled for

implementation through 2001. The

improvements to the basic I/M program

and the NOX RACT controls supersede

the original contingency plan submitted

in November 1993. The original

submittal included a commitment to

implement an enhanced I/M program in

the event of a violation during the

maintenance period. However, the final

enabling legislation for enhanced I/M in

California prohibited areas not

explicitly required to implement

enhanced I/M by the CAA from opting

into the centralized portion of the

program. Therefore, the BAAQMD

revised the contingency plan as

described above.

Below is the list of NOX RACT

contingency measures submitted by

CARB as part of the contingency plan.

BAAQMD NOX RULES AS CONTINGENCY MEASURES

Title regulation 9 Adopted Implementation year(s) NOX reductions (TPD)

NOX and CO from Industrial, Institutional and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators

(rule 7).

9/16/92 1/1/96 .................................. 14.9

NO2 and CO2 Emissions from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines (rule 8) .......... 1/20/93 1/1/97 .................................. 8.3

NOX from Stationary Gas Turbines (rule 9) ................................................................... 5/5/93 1/1/97 .................................. 7.0

Refinery Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (rule 10) ............................. 1/5/94 5/31/95 (sources already

meet RACT standards).

N/A

NOX and CO from Utility Electric Power Generating Boilers (rule 11) .......................... 2/16/94 5/31/95 ................................ 1–2.6

NOX from Glass Melting Furnaces (rule 12) .................................................................. 1/19/94 1/1/97–1/1/2001 .................. 1.2

In early 1994, new State laws (SB 198,

AB 2018, SB 521, SB 629) were passed

to improve the current decentralized I/

M program. The improvements will

begin implementation in 1995 and

include: increased cost waiver limits for

all models to $450; addition of

functional tests for the evaporative

control system; remote sensing or other

roadside testing to discover gross

polluters; centralized computer system

reporting; improved quality assurance

and enforcement; and improved

technician training and certification. In

addition, loaded-mode testing will

either be a required program element (to

be determined by the California Bureau

of Automotive Repair), or will be

implemented on request in the San

Francisco Bay Area within one year of

successful demonstration in areas of the

State implementing enhanced I/M

programs. Below is a chart which
27030 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1Memorandum entitled, ‘‘Procedures for

Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to

Attainment,’’ from John Calcagni, Director, Air

Quality Management Division, to Regional Air

Division Directors.

Memorandum entitled, ‘‘SIP Requirements for

Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to

Attainment of the Ozone and CO NAAQS On or

After November 15, 1992,’’ from Michael H.

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, to Regional Air Division Directors.

2See ‘‘Guidance for Determining the

Applicability of Nitrogen Oxides Requirements

Under Section 182(f)’’, issued by EPA’s Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, December 1993

and EPA’s NOX Supplement to the General

Preamble, 57 FR 55628, November 25, 1992.

3See ‘‘Scope of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)

Exemptions,’’ from G.T. Helms, Group Leader,

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch (MD–

15), to the Air Branch Chiefs, January 12, 1995. ‘‘I/

M Requirements in NOX RACT Exempt Areas’’,

from Mary T. Smith, Acting Director, Office of

Mobile Sources, to the Air Division Directors,

October 14, 1994.

4EPA’s approval of the Bay Area’s maintenance

plan begins the maintenance period as defined in

the transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR

Part 51.392. During the maintenance period, the

Bay Area must meet the requirements of parts

51.428 and 51.430 of the transportation conformity

regulation. These sections specify that the

transportation plan and transportation

improvement program (TIP) must be consistent

with the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the

applicable implementation plan, which in this case,

is the maintenance plan. The requirement of parts

51.436 and 51.438 that plans and TIPs satisfy the

‘‘build/no build’’ test, or demonstrate that the plan

and TIPs contribute to emissions reductions, no

longer apply during the maintenance period.

5See ‘‘Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)

Exemptions—Revised Process and Criteria’’, issued

by John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards (MD–10), May 27, 1994.

estimates the emission reductions from

these improvements by the year 2000.

EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES

FROM I/M PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

BY 2000

HC

(percent)

CO

(percent)

NOX

(percent)

Current Program 16.6 25.3 10.4

Improved Decentralized ........... 22.1 30.0–

34.6

15.0–

22.2

Regarding the new source review

(NSR) requirement, an EPA policy

memo dated October 14, 1994 from

Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation, to the Division

Directors entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source

Review (part D NSR) Requirements for

Areas Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment,’’ amended earlier

guidance 1 which required areas

requesting redesignation to attainment

after November 15, 1992 to have a fully

approved NSR rule prior to final

redesignation. In light of the new policy

set forth in the October 14, 1994

Memorandum, the EPA is no longer

obligated to approve the San Francisco

Bay Area’s NSR rule as a condition for

final approval of the redesignation

request. However, the State of California

submitted an amended NSR rule for the

San Francisco Bay Area on January 4,

1995, and the emission projections

contained in BAAQMD’s maintenance

plan are predicated on continuation of

NSR permitting. The BAAQMD must

continue NSR permitting until such

time as it receives delegation of the PSD

program for VOC. Upon delegation of

the PSD program for VOC, the NSR

permitting program can be moved to the

contingency portion of the maintenance

plan, provided that BAAQMD’s ability

to show maintenance of the standard is

not affected.

B. Section 182(f) NOX RACT Waiver

Petition

The EPA is finalizing the approval of

a petition submitted by the Bay Area

AQMD requesting that EPA grant an

exemption from the section 182(f)

requirements to control major stationary

sources of oxides of nitrogen (NOX)

emissions. The exemption petition is

based on ambient monitoring data and

demonstrates that additional NOX

reductions in the Bay Area would not

contribute to attainment of the NAAQS

for ozone.

EPA has evaluated the exemption

petition for consistency with the

requirements of the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA interpretation of

these requirements as expressed in the

various EPA policy guidance

documents.2 EPA believes that the

petition satisfies the applicable EPA

requirements and, in accordance with

the requirements of the CAA, has

determined that additional NOX

reductions from major stationary

sources in the San Francisco Bay Area

would not contribute to attainment of

the national ambient air quality

standard (NAAQS) for ozone. EPA is

finalizing this action to exempt the San

Francisco Bay Area from implementing

the NOX requirements for RACT, NSR,

and the applicable general conformity

and I/M requirements 3 of the CAA.

Because the San Francisco Bay Area is

being redesignated to attainment of the

ozone standard through this action, the

transportation conformity requirements

will consist of meeting the NOX budget

established in the maintenance plan.4

The EPA believes that all section

182(f) exemptions that are approved

should be approved only on a

contingent basis. As described in the

EPA’s NOX Supplement to the General

Preamble (57 FR 55628, November 25,

1992) and further guidance issued by

EPA,5 section 182(f) exemptions are

granted on a contingent basis and last

for only as long as the area’s monitoring

data continue to demonstrate

attainment. The San Francisco Bay Area

is required to continue to operate an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network, in accordance with 40 CFR

part 58, to verify the attainment status

of the area.

If a violation of the ozone standard

occurs after the San Francisco Bay Area

is redesignated to attainment of the

ozone NAAQS, the NOX requirements

are to be implemented as contingency

measures as provided in the

maintenance plan.

C. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory

In the NPRM, the EPA proposed

approval of a revised 1990 base year

emissions inventory as requested by the

state in a letter dated July 21, 1994. In

this letter, the state requested that EPA

approve a revised 1990 emissions

inventory and projections as part of the

maintenance plan. As discussed in the

NPRM, below is a summary of the 1990

VOC and NOX emission inventory and

projections through the year 2005. The

projections show that the area will

continue to demonstrate attainment of

the ozone NAAQS with current control

measures (adopted through December

31, 1992).

VOC EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY*

[Tons Per Day]

1990 1995 2000 2005

Point .................. 78 73 75 77

Area ................... 173 154 141 141

Mobile On-Road 300 204 142 104

Mobile NonRoad .............. 81 85 82 84

Anthropogenic.

Total ........... 631 515 440 406

Biogenics ........... 300 300 300 300

Total ........... 931 815 740 706

NOX EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY*

[Tons Per Day]

1990 1995 2000 2005

Point .................. 131 130 141 146

Area ................... 15 16 17 18

Mobile On-Road 251 194 166 158

Mobile NonRoad .............. 159 164 176 186

Total ........... 557 504 499 508

*Entries are rounded to the nearest whole

number, totals may not equal to sum of column entries.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27031

6 With respect to the Sacramento attainment

plan, CARB submitted a voluntary ‘‘bump-up’’

request from a serious to a severe classification

pursuant to section 181. The request for ‘‘bump-up’’

for the Sacramento nonattainment area will be dealt

with in a separate Federal Register notice.

7 As one commenter pointed out, the statewide

modeling effort to date indicates that pollutant

transport from Sacramento to the San Francisco Bay

Area also occurs.

II. Public Comment/EPA Response

The EPA received 17 letters

commenting on the proposal. Four

letters expressed strong support for the

redesignation based on the tremendous

progress the San Francisco Bay Area has

made over the past 30 years by attaining

the ozone NAAQS. Nine letters

expressed concern and/or opposition to

the redesignation because of the

transport of pollution from the San

Francisco Bay Area to neighboring

areas, and three letters voiced

opposition to the redesignation for

reasons other than transport. Finally,

one letter addressed the section 182(f)

NOX RACT waiver petition only. Below

is a summary of the comments received

and the EPA’s response.

A. EPA Response to Comments:

Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan

Comment 1

Several commenters stated that

Congress intended EPA to deal with

interstate transport only, as noted in

section 176A of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), and that the regulation of

intrastate transport is outside of EPA

jurisdiction and not a criteria for

redesignation. Other comments stated

that the California Clean Air Act

(CCAA) adequately addresses interbasin

transport. Furthermore, transport is a

complicated issue, and the existing data

is not sufficiently accurate to provide

better solutions at this time. Finally, in

some cases, the San Francisco Bay Area

is the recipient of pollution from other

air basins during certain meteorological

conditions when air flow tends to be

from inland areas and the San Joaquin

Valley can model attainment without

additional measures from the San

Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco

Bay Area should not be unfairly singled

out for scrutiny of intrastate transport,

especially when the CCAA provides a

workable process.

EPA Response

As outlined in the General Preamble

to Title I of the CAA (57 FR 13528, April

16, 1992), the CAA assigns

responsibility to the states for

developing and submitting attainment

demonstrations which show that the

standard will be attained by the

applicable attainment dates for areas

where the demonstration of attainment

is complicated by transport between two

areas of different classifications.

However, EPA needs to be assured that

the attainment plans adequately address

transport so as to ensure attainment for

all areas within a state by the applicable

attainment deadlines.

CARB has submitted attainment

demonstration plans for all areas in

California, including the Sacramento

and San Joaquin Valley nonattainment

areas.6 This submittal included

modeling of a large part of California,

including Sacramento and the San

Francisco Bay Area, as well as the San

Joaquin Valley. EPA will review those

plans and address the adequacy of the

submittals through the federal

rulemaking process.

While the State has the initial

responsibility for dealing with intrastate

transport issues, such issues are the

subject of the Clean Air Act and within

EPA’s jurisdiction. For example, section

110(a)(2)(A) imposes the same

obligation on areas to ensure that

emissions will not interfere with

attainment in downwind intrastate areas

that section 110(a)(2)(D) imposes with

respect to downwind interstate areas. At

the present time, however, the

information available to EPA concerning

potential transport effects due to

emissions from the San Francisco Bay

Area is not sufficient to warrant action

on the part of EPA or otherwise affect

EPA’s action regarding the San

Francisco Bay Area’s redesignation.

While the preliminary studies

conducted to date indicate that there is

transport of emissions from the San

Francisco Bay Area to nearby areas,7

EPA believes that the state and local

agencies can adequately address the

issue initially. If, however, EPA

determines that there are transport

problems that warrant action on its part,

EPA has the authority to issue a SIP call

under sections 110(k)(5) and

110(a)(2)(A) to require the State to deal

with those problems.

Comment 2

Several commenters expressed

concern or opposition to the

redesignation due to the issue of

transported emissions from the San

Francisco Bay Area to surrounding

areas. Several commenters felt that the

proposed action to redesignate the San

Francisco Bay Area was made despite

an accurate assessment of the impact of

its emissions on attainment in

neighboring areas, including the San

Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Area,

and requested that EPA delay final

action to redesignate the San Francisco

Bay Area until an accurate assessment

and mitigation of transported pollution

to neighboring areas can be made.

Several commenters suggested that EPA

coordinate a meeting with the state, the

affected downwind air pollution control

agencies, and the BAAQMD to resolve

the transport issue.

EPA Response

As noted in the response to Comment

1, the information available concerning

transport from the San Francisco Bay

Area is preliminary in nature and EPA

does not believe that it should affect

EPA’s action on this redesignation.

Moreover, should EPA consider it

necessary and appropriate to take action

in the future, EPA has the authority

under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and

110(k)(5) to deal with any such

transport issues.

However, to respond to the transport

concerns and several suggestions that

EPA coordinate a meeting with the state

and local air pollution control agencies

affected by transport from the San

Francisco Bay Area, EPA met with the

California Air Resources Board (CARB),

the BAAQMD and the affected

downwind air pollution control

agencies on February 2, 1995 to discuss

transport from the San Francisco Bay

Area to neighboring areas. The affected

downwind air pollution control

agencies include the San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

(SJVUAPCD), the Sacramento

Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District (SMAQMD), the Yolo-Solano

Air Pollution Control District

(YSAPCD), the Placer County Air

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), the

El Dorado County Air Pollution Control

District (ECAPCD), and the Feather

River Air Quality Management District

(FRAQMD).

This group, the newly formed

Interbasin Transport Group (ITG),

discussed strategies for dealing with

transport from the San Francisco Bay

Area to downwind areas. The ITG

consists of a main policy body of Air

Directors from EPA, CARB, BAAQMD,

and affected downwind air pollution

control agencies, and a technical

subcommittee, consisting of modeling

experts, which will discuss the ongoing

transport studies in California. The

technical subcommittee will develop a

needs assessment for gathering

additional information on transport and

report ongoing modeling results to the

policy body at regularly scheduled

meetings. Decisions on how to deal with

transport will be made collectively by

the policy body of the ITG.

At the first ITG meeting on February

2, 1995, the BAAQMD presented an
27032 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

8 In a letter dated February 27, 1995, Kenneth

Selover, Air Pollution Control Officer from the

Yolo-Solano APCD representing the Greater

Sacramento Area APCD, states that the concerns

expressed in the comment letter dated December

15, 1994 in response to EPA’s proposal to

redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area from

nonattainment to attainment, were based on a lack

of understanding of the BAAQMD’s proposed

program to further mitigate NOX and other

emissions in response to the CCAA. In the

December 15, 1994 letter, the Sacramento APCDs

requested an extension of the public comment

period until the issue of transport was addressed.

The Sacramento area now agrees that the transport

issue can be dealt with separately from the federal

redesignation process, and the redesignation should

proceed.

overview of the maintenance plan

controls which include aggressive

stationary source and mobile source

controls adopted at the local, state and

federal level as of December 31, 1992.

With these control measures in place,

the VOC emission trend declines

through the year 2005, and the NOX

emissions do not exceed the 1990

attainment year emissions inventory

(the emissions ‘‘cap’’).

At the end of the first ITG meeting,

after consultation with the group, EPA

indicated its belief that any issues

regarding transport from the San

Francisco Bay Area to neighboring areas

should be dealt with separately from the

redesignation as new technical

information becomes available. The

group committed to investigate

additional short and long term measures

for the San Francisco Bay Area to be

implemented to further mitigate any

downwind transport effects. The

establishment of the ITG provides an

avenue to deal effectively with the

transport issue after the redesignation as

new information becomes available.

Since the first meeting of the ITG, the

Greater Sacramento Area Air Pollution

Control Districts (APCDs) revised their

original comments submitted during the

public comment period on the proposed

redesignation. Specifically, the

Sacramento Area APCDs’ letter of

December 15, 1994 urged EPA to delay

final action on the redesignation until

transport was addressed. In a more

recent letter 8 to EPA, the Sacramento

area now agrees that the transport issue

can be dealt with separately from the

federal redesignation process and

concurs with EPA’s proposal to

redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area

from nonattainment to attainment.

Many of the comments were based on

a recently released CARB study,

‘‘Preliminary Assessment of Transport

on San Joaquin Valley Ozone,’’ which

discusses recent simulations to assess

the impact of transported emissions in

the San Joaquin Valley. The results

discussed in the report are based on an

extreme scenario in which

anthropogenic emissions for the San

Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento

area are set to zero. (In other words, the

modeling simulation assumes that there

are no VOC or NOX anthropogenic

emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area

or the Sacramento Area. This exercise

enables one to estimate the proportion

of locally generated ozone versus

transported pollution into the Valley.)

The report indicates that there would be

a decrease in ozone measurements of

27% in the Northern San Joaquin

Valley, 10% in the Central San Joaquin

Valley and 7% in the Southern San

Joaquin Valley. The modeling study

indicates that the Northern San Joaquin

Valley is most affected by transported

emissions. However, the attainment

plan submitted for the San Joaquin

Valley which relies on this modeling

study purports to show that the San

Joaquin Valley models attainment by the

applicable deadline. In addition,

monitoring data for the northern portion

of the San Joaquin Valley shows that

this site has collected air quality data

which demonstrates attainment of the

ozone NAAQS.

The report indicates that the Central

and Southern San Joaquin Valley ozone

concentrations would be reduced by

10% and 7%, respectively, if

anthropogenic (generated by man)

emissions were set to zero for the San

Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento.

Given that the Sacramento Area and the

San Joaquin Valley will continue to

adopt and implement aggressive new

controls in response to the Federal and

California Clean Air Acts and the San

Francisco Bay Area will continue to

adopt and implement new controls in

response to the California Clean Air Act,

the amount of emissions transported

and locally generated emissions will

continue to decrease to the Central and

Southern San Joaquin Valley in the near

future.

The formation of the ITG and the

commitment from all affected agencies

to work together to resolve potential

transport issues, in conjunction with the

California ozone plans submitted on

November 15, 1994 which purport to

demonstrate attainment of the ozone

NAAQS for the Sacramento Area and

the San Joaquin Valley by the applicable

attainment deadlines, indicates that any

intrastate transport issues should be

effectively handled at the state level

initially. EPA is committed to the goals

of the ITG and will continue to

participate in the group to offer support

and review the adequacy of any new

state or local agency strategy for dealing

with transport.

With respect to the handling of

transport issues at the state level, EPA

notes that the California Clean Air Act

(CCAA), adopted by the State of

California in 1988, contains provisions

which are designed to reduce the

amount of pollution transport between

nonattainment areas within the state.

Specifically, areas which are the origin

of transported pollutants, such as the

San Francisco Bay Area, must include

sufficient emission control measures in

the state attainment plan (the ‘‘clean air

plan’’) to mitigate the impact of

pollution sources within their

jurisdictions on ozone concentrations

downwind. In the San Francisco Bay

Area, these requirements include VOC

and NOX best available retrofit control

technology (BARCT) for source

categories that collectively amount to

75% of the 1987 actual hydrocarbon

(HC) emissions inventory for stationary

sources and 75% of 1987 actual NOX

emission inventory for permitted

stationary sources no later than January

1, 1994. The BARCT controls, in most

cases, exceed the federal RACT

requirements. If these recently adopted

controls were calculated into the

projections in the maintenance plan, the

NOX emission trend would decrease

through the year 2005. In addition, the

San Francisco Bay Area is required to

continue to implement a stringent NSR

permitting program for new stationary

sources. The CCAA requires that areas

design attainment plans that include

these controls and ensure attainment of

the more stringent California Ambient

Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) for

ozone (0.09 ppm) by the earliest

practicable date. According to CARB,

the BAAQMD has fully complied with

the CCAA’s transport mitigation

requirements and is continuing to adopt

and implement all feasible control

measures in its effort to attain the more

stringent CAAQS of 0.09 ppm.

Although the BAAQMD has requested

to be exempt from the NOX RACT

requirements of the Federal Clean Air

Act, the BAAQMD had proceeded to

adopt NOX best available retrofit control

technology (BARCT) and stringent New

Source Review (NSR) regulations to

comply with the transport mitigation

requirements of the CCAA. Therefore,

the maintenance plan controls and

additional controls adopted in response

to the CCAA ensure that any transport

of pollutants from the San Francisco

Bay Area to neighboring areas, whatever

its current magnitude, will continue to

decrease throughout the maintenance

period.

In addition, the CCAA requires CARB

to compile a report which assesses

transport within the State every three
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27033

9Since that time, CARB has submitted a ‘‘bumpup’’ request for the Sacramento area from serious

to severe. EPA will act on this request in a separate

Federal Register notice.

years. Using several data analysis

techniques, CARB determines the level

of pollutant transport between various

California air basins. These assessments

are used in the process of requiring

BARCT as described above, and also in

the ozone planning process to assign

responsibility for pollution reductions.

CARB leads this effort and meets with

the local air pollution control agencies

on a regular basis to discuss the ongoing

analysis.

Comment 3

Since the San Francisco Bay Area will

not be subject to additional emission

reduction requirements, the public

health of the citizens of San Joaquin

Valley will continue to be at risk when

EPA redesignates the San Francisco Bay

Area.

EPA Response

As discussed above, although the San

Francisco Bay Area is not subject to

additional emission reduction

requirements for the federal CAA (since

the area can demonstrate maintenance

of the NAAQS for the 10 year

maintenance period without additional

controls), the area will continue to

adopt and implement aggressive VOC

and NOX controls to further reduce

ozone and meet the more stringent

CAAQS for ozone. In addition, the

emission inventory projections

contained in the maintenance plan,

which include controls adopted through

December 1992, show a decrease in

VOC emissions and show that NOX

emissions are not expected to increase

over the 1990 attainment levels through

2005 (the 10 year maintenance plan

horizon). Therefore, any transported

pollution to the San Joaquin Valley from

the San Francisco Bay Area will

continue to decrease in the future.

Finally, CARB submitted an ozone plan

which purports to demonstrate

attainment of the ozone standard in the

San Joaquin Valley by 1999, the

statutory deadline for attainment under

the CAA.

Comment 4

Several commenters note that San

Joaquin Valley and Sacramento

industries, businesses, and citizens are

subject to more onerous control

requirements, such as more stringent

NSR requirements and enhanced I/M, in

order to compensate for transported

pollution. This creates an economic

disparity between the regions and

penalizes the citizens in the downwind

areas. Arbitrary air pollution control

boundaries should not be used to create

economic disparity among regions in

the state.

EPA Response

The classification system under the

CAA is based on actual monitored air

pollution values during 1987 through

1989 for each nonattainment area. The

CAA requires specific controls for each

classification, with increasingly

stringent control requirements for more

seriously polluted areas. The air quality

data recorded in the San Joaquin Valley

and the Sacramento Area was more

serious than the air quality monitored in

the San Francisco Bay Area during the

same time period. The Sacramento Area

and the San Joaquin Valley air quality

monitoring data collected during 1987–

1989 warranted a ‘‘serious’’

classification,9 whereas the monitoring

in the San Francisco Bay Area

warranted a ‘‘moderate’’ classification.

Based on the statewide modeling effort

to date, it appears that both the

Sacramento Area and the San Joaquin

Valley are responsible for the vast

majority of the ozone pollution

monitored in their areas. Therefore, EPA

cannot concur that there is evidence

indicating that the higher classifications

warranted by the air quality monitoring

in the Sacramento area and the San

Joaquin Valley are due solely to

transport.

The ozone episode (a single, short

period of high ozone readings) that was

modeled for the Sacramento ozone plan

submittal occurred in August 1990 and

had a small amount of transport from

outside the area, but was essentially a

locally-generated episode. This is

important because it means that there

are days when, with little or no

transported emissions, Sacramento

generates enough ozone pollution to

exceed the standard. Because this

episode was used as the basis for

determining emission control levels,

sources in the Sacramento area will be

controlled to levels which will address

their own effect on ozone, rather than

transport from the San Francisco Bay

Area. An episode from July 1990 which

included more transported emissions

did not perform well when the model

was applied to it and was therefore not

included in the Sacramento Area’s

attainment demonstration. However,

this episode did indicate that the

emission reductions from Sacramento

sources needed for attainment are no

greater than those indicated by the

August 1990 episode, which was

predominately local emissions.

Therefore, Sacramento and San Joaquin

Valley businesses and citizens are not

subject to more onerous controls to

compensate for transported pollutants

from the San Francisco Bay Area.

As noted above, the BAAQMD will

continue to adopt and implement

aggressive VOC and NOX controls to

comply with the CCAA which go

beyond the control measures included

in the maintenance plan and its

emission reduction projections (controls

adopted through December 1992). With

respect to the NSR requirement,

although the San Francisco Bay Area

will no longer be required to continue

federal NSR permitting after

redesignation (as soon as a federally

delegated PSD program is in place), the

BAAQMD has fully complied with the

transport mitigation requirements of the

CCAA which include NSR

requirements.

The air pollution control boundaries

were not drawn arbitrarily or to create

economic disparities within the state,

but rather reflect the natural geographic

air basins that exist in Northern

California. In response to the CAA

adopted in November 1990, EPA

consulted with, and deferred to the

State of California on the air pollution

control boundaries within the State.

Section 107(d)(1)(4)(iv) of the CAA

requires that the entire metropolitan

statistical area (MSA) or consolidated

metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) be

used for ozone or carbon monoxide

nonattainment areas classified as

serious or above. The boundaries of the

Sacramento Area and the San Joaquin

Valley reflect the MSA/CMSA

designations. Since promulgation of the

current air pollution boundaries in

November 1991, EPA has not received

any petitions to re-draw the boundaries

in California.

According to the CAA, areas are

required to attain the NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than the applicable attainment deadline.

Since CARB submitted an ozone

attainment plan to EPA on November

15, 1994 which purports to demonstrate

attainment of the NAAQS for the San

Joaquin Valley and Sacramento area by

the applicable deadline, the state

expects the ozone NAAQS in the San

Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Area to

be attained by the timelines required by

the CAA.

Comment 5

Several commenters noted that the

proposed action to redesignate the San

Francisco Bay Area was made despite

an adequate assessment of the impact of

its emissions on attainment in

neighboring areas (Sacramento and San

Joaquin Valley). One commenter

specifically noted that for the
27034 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

10Under court order, EPA must complete its

review of the particulate matter NAAQS by January

31, 1997. American Lung Association v. Browner,

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,

October 6, 1994 (CIV–93–643–TUC–ACM).

Sacramento Federal Implementation

Plan (FIP) modeling, only one episode

has been modeled. More specifically,

they noted that NOX emissions

transported into Sacramento from the

San Francisco Bay Area increase the

severity and likelihood of ozone

episodes and add to the attainment

burden for the area. (See discussion in

EPA Response to Comment 4)

EPA Response

As discussed above, EPA and the ITG

will deal with transport issues

separately from the redesignation. EPA

is aware of the ongoing statewide

modeling effort, the SARMAP study,

and will continue to participate in those

meetings to evaluate the latest modeling

information. EPA is committed to

addressing the latest transport studies

and being involved in the ITG to work

with state and local governments to

resolve any transport issues.

It should be noted that the SARMAP

modeling study, portions of which were

submitted to EPA in the San Joaquin

Valley ozone plan, looked at an August

1990 episode for Sacramento which

includes transport from neighboring

areas. The results of this episode show

that the emission reductions required

for attainment in the Sacramento area

are no greater than those indicated by

the July 1990 episode, which includes

mostly local emissions.

Comment 6

One commenter made several

suggestions of items that EPA should

require prior to redesignation. These

include: 1. the completion of the

technical studies on Sacramento

modeling case, including the August

ozone episode, using SARMAP. The

outcome should be assignment of

emission reductions to the San

Francisco Bay Area; 2. the BAAQMD

should install and maintain monitors to

measure ozone and NOX aloft to

transport corridors to Sacramento and

the San Joaquin Valley; 3. the BAAQMD

should implement the voluntary ‘‘Spare

the Air’’ program on days when ozone

forecast predicts a violation, or near

violation, in Sacramento; 4. the

BAAQMD should contribute to any

program efforts that are developed for

the Sacramento air basins to slow travel

on highway I–80 during periods when

Sacramento is at risk of violating federal

ozone standards; 5. EPA should

coordinate a joint federal/state/local

effort to assess equity issues in control

of transported pollution, and consider

requiring stationary source, fleet rule

and off-road NOX control equivalent to

Sacramento rules within portions of the

San Francisco Bay Area likely to

transport to the Sacramento area.

EPA Response

As discussed above, EPA will

continue to meet with the affected

downwind air pollution control districts

at regularly scheduled ITG meetings and

any transport issues will be dealt with

separately from the redesignation

process. Specifically, CARB is

continuing to look at episodes in August

1990, and additional monitors are being

installed to look at pollution transport

between the areas. All of the suggestions

listed above will be examined by the

group at upcoming meetings, and the

technical subcommittee of the ITG will

look into the modeling suggestions and

new technical data on an ongoing basis.

Comment 7

One commenter opposed the

redesignation unless transport is

assessed because the San Joaquin

Valley, which is affected by pollution

transported from the San Francisco Bay

Area and Sacramento, may be unable to

make a conformity determination for the

area. It is difficult to explain this

situation to the public and elected

officials when modeling results show

that Stanislaus County would be in

attainment if transport was addressed.

EPA Response

As discussed above, the issue of

transport will be addressed separately

from the redesignation process.

However, it should be noted that the

emission trend for the San Francisco

Bay Area for VOC continually decreases

over the 10 year maintenance period

and NOX emissions do not exceed the

1990 attainment year level (the

emissions ‘‘cap’’). If the NOX BARCT

controls adopted by the BAAQMD were

included in the maintenance plan, the

NOX emissions would also show a

continual decrease over the 10 year

maintenance period. Therefore, any

transport impacts from the San

Francisco Bay Area on other areas will

continue to diminish in the future. It

should be noted that CARB submitted

an ozone attainment demonstration plan

for the San Joaquin Valley which

purports to reach attainment by the

serious area deadline, 1999.

Comment 8

One commenter asserted that there are

no monitoring stations for air emissions

in the West Oakland area which is

comprised of a community of

predominately low income and color

and is near one of the busiest highway

intersections in the country. Census

track analysis shows a high incidence of

cancer in this area. American Lung

Association studies show that the

acceptable levels for particulates in the

Clean Air Act are not protective of

human health. In addition, benzene

levels may be above the EPA acceptable

10¥4 cancer risk level. The

redesignation sends the wrong message

to the community and policy makers

and will not encourage public transit

use. The redesignation is based on

insufficient data since the monitoring

network does not address ‘‘hotspots’’.

EPA Response

The proposal which EPA is finalizing

today redesignates the area to

attainment only for ozone. This action

does not relate to emissions of

particulate matter or benzene. This

decision is based on clean air quality

data for ozone recorded at the

monitoring network since 1990. The

BAAQMD currently monitors for ozone

in the Oakland MSA.

With regard to particulate matter, the

San Francisco Bay Area is currently

designated as ‘‘unclassifiable’’ for PM–

10 (particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter of ten microns or

less). However, EPA will continue to

evaluate the PM–10 monitoring data in

the air basin and redesignate the area to

nonattainment if warranted. EPA is also

working with the BAAQMD to locate an

additional PM–10 monitor in the San

Francisco Bay Area. In addition, at the

national level, EPA is currently

reassessing the existing particulate

matter NAAQS,10 and the Agency may

be promulgating a new particulate

matter NAAQS in the near future.

With regard to benzene, there is no

NAAQS for this pollutant. Rather,

benzene is one of 189 hazardous air

pollutants listed in Section 112 of the

CAA. Emissions of benzene are

regulated at the source where they are

emitted, rather than through an ambient

air quality standard, such as that for

ozone. The National Emission Standard

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

for benzene, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF,

is an example of such a regulation.

With respect to public transit use, the

federally approved SIP contains

transportation control measures which

encourage public transit use. In

addition, all of the relevant local

agencies continue to have a strong

commitment to promoting the use of

public transit.

The term ‘‘hotspots’’ usually is used

to refer to hazardous air pollutants or
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27035

11 ’’Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)

Exemption—Revised Process and Criteria,’’ from

John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, to the Regional Division

Directors, May 27, 1994.

other air pollutants with localized

effects. While there can be areas of high

concentrations of ozone, generally

ozone is formed over the course of

several hours over a large area when

NOX and VOCs react in the presence of

sunlight. With regard to ozone, the

BAAQMD’s monitoring network meets

the federal requirements and the data

collected from this network is sufficient

for redesignation.

Comment 9

With respect to NOX emissions, one

commenter asserts that the maintenance

plan shows that the area can continue

to meet the ozone standard even with

increasing NOX emissions after 2000.

Furthermore, BAAQMD projects that

NOX emissions under their jurisdiction

will increase 18 tons per day (TPD)

between 1990 and 2005. Even though

non-jurisdictional sources make up for

this increase, BAAQMD should adopt

control measures to reduce

jurisdictional NOX emissions by 18 TPD

by 2005. This is particularly important

since the San Joaquin Valley ozone

formation is predominately affected by

the level of NOX emissions.

EPA Response

The maintenance plan does not show

an overall increase in NOX emissions

during the maintenance period.

Through the year 2005, the level of NOX

emissions remains at or below the 1990

attainment level NOX carrying capacity.

In addition, it should be noted that the

NOX projections in the maintenance

plan do not include the NOX BARCT

controls adopted by BAAQMD in

response to the transport mitigation

requirements of the CCAA. If those

controls were included, the NOX

projections would show a continuous

decrease through the year 2005.

Specifically, the BAAQMD adopted

NOX BARCT controls by 1995 which

will be fully implemented by 2002.

With these control measures in place,

the NOX emission projections decrease

the emission trend by an additional 74

TPD in 2005 beyond the current trend

line contained in the maintenance plan.

Comment 10

One commenter stated that the area

evaluated for attainment and

maintenance of the federal ozone

standard for the San Francisco Bay

Area, as required in 40 CFR 50.9, should

include data from the monitoring

locations in the portion of adjacent air

basins immediately downwind of the

San Francisco Bay Area air basin. These

adjacent areas have experienced ozone

concentrations above the federal

standard as a direct consequence of

emissions from the San Francisco Bay

Area with little or no contribution from

local emissions and may experience

similar events in the future. In addition,

the September 1, 1993 Memorandum

from Mary Nichols states that EPA

intends to apply to intrastate transport

the provision of section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(1), which requires each

state’s SIP prohibit emissions which

will contribute significantly to

nonattainment. There are little or no

local emissions between these

monitoring sites and the upwind San

Francisco Bay Area. It appears EPA has

expressed a policy which could prohibit

the approval of the San Francisco Bay

Area SIP unless violations caused in

adjacent air basins are addressed.

EPA Response

To qualify for redesignation in

accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E), an

area must demonstrate, among other

things, that the ambient air quality

monitoring data in the area meets the

NAAQS. The San Francisco Bay Area

has satisfied this requirement by

submitting five consecutive years of

monitoring data which show no

violations of the ozone NAAQS. As

discussed above, EPA is fully aware of

the potential transport issues and is

committed to working with the State

and local air pollution control agencies

to resolve any issues through the ITG.

EPA has the authority to deal with

intrastate transport issues under the

Clean Air Act, but the information

presently available does not warrant

action by EPA at this time.

Comment 11

One commenter stated that the 1990

VOC and NOX ‘‘carrying capacity’’

levels in the maintenance plan should

be made federally enforceable. The

measures identified as contingencies

should be incorporated into the SIP to

mitigate any possible emission

reduction shortfall.

EPA Response

The 1990 VOC and NOX emission

inventory and emission projections

through 2005 are based on control

measures adopted through December 31,

1992 at the federal, state, and local level

and approved into the SIP. Those

emissions levels are already supported

by federally enforceable requirements.

The NOX measures and improvements

to the I/M program identified in the

contingency plan are not included in

the maintenance plan projections.

As expressed previously in an EPA

policy 11 pursuant to section 182(f) of

the CAA, EPA may allow areas which

have demonstrated attainment of the

ozone NAAQS without having

implemented NOX controls to be exempt

from the federal NOX RACT

requirements. However, the

maintenance plan includes NOX

controls as contingency measures which

will be submitted for incorporation into

the SIP in the event of a violation during

the maintenance period.

Comment 12

One commenter stated that EPA

should consider whether the urban area

for maintenance planning should be

extended beyond the air basin

boundaries to the full extent of the

urbanized area since related growth of

the adjacent urban areas growth is

directly controlled by policies

implemented within the San Francisco

Bay Area. EPA should ensure that

redesignation does not cause ozone

levels above the federal standard in the

San Francisco Bay Area or adjacent air

basins. This requires that all emission

increases caused by urban growth and

industrialization must be matched by

equivalent deceases. EPA should ensure

that the approval includes provisions

which protect the adjacent air basins

and federally protected forests and

national parks. Protection should

include requirements to maintain an

extensive system of air monitors to

detect high ozone levels, and

maintaining emission levels for all

ozone precursors at or below the level

which does not cause ozone levels

above the federal standard in the San

Francisco Bay Area and adjacent air

basins.

EPA Response

After the passage of the CAA in 1990,

EPA consulted with the State of

California regarding the appropriate

boundaries for nonattainment areas

within the State. The current boundary

of the San Francisco Bay Area reflects

the State’s recommended boundary for

the area. Section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of the

CAA requires that the boundaries for

areas classified as serious and above

include entire metropolitan statistical

areas (MSAs) or consolidated

metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs).

Transport will be addressed as

discussed previously.

As discussed previously, with respect

to the comment concerning emissions
27036 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

increases during the maintenance

period, the maintenance plan for the

San Francisco Bay Area projects that

future emissions for VOC decrease

throughout the maintenance period and

NOX emissions do not increase over the

attainment levels. The San Francisco

Bay Area must maintain its current

ozone monitoring network as part of the

maintenance plan. The suggestion that

the San Francisco Bay Area install

monitors to detect high ozone levels (or

precursor pollutants at high elevations)

will be considered by the ITG.

With regard to protection of air

quality in national parks and forests, the

prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD) provisions contained in Part C of

the CAA are specifically designed to

protect air quality in ‘‘clean air’’ areas,

and particularly in pristine areas such

as national parks. These requirements

provide sufficient protection for such

areas and it is not necessary to include

additional requirements as a condition

of redesignation.

Comment 13

One commenter opposes the

redesignation because it suggests that

the air quality no longer poses a threat

to public health. In addition, EPA

research has shown that there is no safe

level for ozone. In addition, a federal

declaration of attainment conflicts with

California’s goal of a stricter ozone

standard.

EPA Response

EPA’s action to redesignate the San

Francisco Bay Area means that the air

quality in the region meets the federal

NAAQS (health-based standard) for

ozone, and does not address other air

pollutants. The EPA is currently in the

process of re-evaluating the ozone

NAAQS and expects to make a final

decision in mid-1997. Until any change

is made, EPA is bound to implement the

provisions of the Act as they relate to

the current standard, including those

relating to designations and

redesignations.

With respect to the California ozone

standard and California Clean Air Act,

EPA’s action to redesignate the San

Francisco Bay Area to attainment for the

federal ozone standard does not impede

California or the BAAQMD from striving

for a stricter ozone standard. EPA’s

action to redesignate the area to

attainment for the federal ozone

standard recognizes the tremendous

progress made so far and does not

prohibit the area from adopting

additional control measures to control

ozone. Nor does it preclude EPA from

requiring emission reductions from

sources in the San Francisco Bay Area

should EPA ultimately determine that

such reductions are needed.

Comment 14

One commenter asserted that

attainment levels had been recorded

only because of particular

meteorological conditions which lead to

the transport of pollutants to nearby air

basins. In addition, any current air

quality benefit will be wiped out by the

BAAQMD’s own calculation of

increased motor vehicle traffic in the

future.

EPA Response

According to section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii),

the Administrator must determine that

the improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions resulting from the

implementation of measures in the

applicable plan and applicable federal

regulations. Between 1987 and 1990, the

SIP control measures account for an

approximate 69 TPD decrease in VOC

emissions. In addition, the maintenance

plan analyzed trend data for summer

temperatures and vehicle miles traveled

and employment during the 1990–1992

timeframe to determine if the

improvement in air quality was due to

meteorological circumstances or a

downturn in the economy. The analysis

showed that neither exceptionally cool

temperatures nor a downturn in the

economy were responsible for the area

meeting the federal ozone standard, but

rather the emission reductions and

improved air quality were the result of

permanent measures in the SIP. EPA has

accepted this analysis. It should be

noted that the San Francisco Bay Area

has actually measured ‘‘clean’’ air

quality data for ozone for five

consecutive years.

With respect to transport, CARB

released preliminary results from a

modeling study which show that

emissions from the San Francisco Bay

Area and the Sacramento Area do

impact ozone concentrations in the San

Joaquin Valley (see discussion above).

However, for the reasons described

above, EPA cannot concur that the San

Francisco Bay Area has met the ozone

NAAQS because of transport of

emissions to nearby air basins. In

addition, as discussed above, future

control regulations that are being

adopted by the BAAQMD will further

reduce any transported emissions to

nearby air basins in the future.

The projections in the maintenance

plan do show that vehicle miles

travelled (VMT) will continue to

increase in the future. However,

emission projections through 2000 show

an overall reduction in ozone precursor

emissions from mobile sources due to

the retirement of older vehicles and the

increase in proportion of new, cleaner

vehicles.

Comment 15

One commenter asserted that the

BAAQMD’s transportation control

measure plan in the Clean Air Plan will

increase vehicle miles traveled.

EPA Response

The transportation control measure

(TCM) plan in the Bay Area Clean Air

Plan has not been submitted to become

part of the SIP, but rather fulfills the

requirements under the California Clean

Air Act. EPA has not reviewed this plan

since it is not part of the control strategy

used to demonstrate attainment or

maintenance of the federal ozone

standard.

B. EPA Response to Comments: Section

182(f) NOX Waiver Petition

In August 1994, three environmental

groups submitted joint comments on the

proposed approvals of NOX exemptions

for the Ohio and Michigan ozone

nonattainment areas. The comments

address EPA’s general policy regarding

NOX exemptions and apply to all

actions EPA takes regarding section

182(f) NOX exemptions. These

comments as well as those received

specifically addressing the BAAQMD

proposed NOX RACT exemption are

addressed below.

NOX Waiver Comment 1

The commenters argued that NOX

exemptions are provided for in two

separate parts of the CAA, section

182(b)(1) and section 182(f). Because the

NOX exemption tests in subsections

182(b)(1) and 182(f)(1) include language

indicating that action on such requests

should take place ‘‘when [EPA]

approves a plan or plan revision,’’ these

commenters conclude that all NOX

exemption determinations by the EPA,

including exemption actions taken

under the petition process established

by subsection 182(f)(3), must occur

during consideration of an approvable

attainment or maintenance plan, unless

the area has been redesignated as

attainment. These commenters also

argue that even if the petition

procedures of subsection 182(f)(3) may

be used to relieve areas of certain NOX

requirements, exemptions from the NOX

conformity requirements must follow

the process provided in subsection

182(b)(1), since this is the only

provision explicitly referenced by

section 176(c), the CAA’s conformity

provisions.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27037

EPA Response

Section 182(f) contains very few

details regarding the administrative

procedure for acting on NOX exemption

requests. The absence of specific

guidelines by Congress leaves EPA with

discretion to establish reasonable

procedures, consistent with the

requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA).

The EPA disagrees with the

commenters regarding the process for

considering exemption requests under

section 182(f), and instead believes that

subsections 182(f)(1) and 182(f)(3)

provide independent procedures by

which the EPA may act on NOX

exemption requests. The language in

subsection 182(f)(1), which indicates

that the EPA should act on NOX

exemptions in conjunction with action

on a plan or plan revision, does not

appear in subsection 182(f)(3). And,

while subsection 182(f)(3) references

subsection 182(f)(1), the EPA believes

that this reference encompasses only the

substantive tests in paragraph (1) [and,

by extension, paragraph (2)], not the

procedural requirement that the EPA act

on exemptions only when acting on

SIPs. Additionally, paragraph (3)

provides that ‘‘person[s]’’ (which

section 302(e) of the CAA defines to

include States) may petition for NOX

exemptions ‘‘at any time,’’ and requires

the EPA to make its determination

within six months of the petition’s

submission. These key differences lead

EPA to believe that Congress intended

the exemption petition process of

paragraph (3) to be distinct and more

expeditious than the longer plan

revision process intended under

paragraph (1).

With respect to major stationary

sources, section 182(f) requires States to

adopt NOX NSR and RACT rules, unless

exempted. These rules were generally

due to be submitted to EPA by

November 15, 1992. Thus, in order to

avoid the CAA sanctions, areas seeking

a NOX exemption would have needed to

submit their exemption request for EPA

review and rulemaking action several

months before November 15, 1992. In

contrast, the CAA specifies that the

attainment demonstrations are not due

until November 1993 or 1994 (and EPA

may take 12–18 months to approve or

disapprove the demonstration). For

marginal ozone nonattainment areas

(subject to NOX NSR), no attainment

demonstration is called for in the CAA.

For maintenance plans, the CAA does

not specify a deadline for submittal of

maintenance demonstrations. Clearly,

the CAA envisions the submittal of and

EPA action on exemption requests, in

some cases, prior to submittal of

attainment or maintenance

demonstrations.

The CAA requires conformity to the

applicable SIP with regard to federallysupported NOX generating activities in

relevant nonattainment and

maintenance areas. However, EPA’s

conformity rules explicitly provide that

these NOX requirements would not

apply if EPA grants an exemption under

section 182(f). In response to the

comment that section 182(b)(1) should

be the appropriate vehicle for dealing

with exemptions from the NOX

requirements of the conformity rule,

EPA notes that this issue has previously

been raised in a formal petition for

reconsideration of EPA’s final

transportation conformity rule and in

litigation pending before the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit on the substance of both the

transportation and general conformity

rules. The issue, thus, is under

consideration within EPA, but at this

time remains unresolved. Additionally,

subsection 182(f)(3) requires that NOX

exemption petition determinations be

made by the EPA within six months.

The EPA has stated in previous

guidance that it intends to meet this

statutory deadline as long as doing so is

consistent with the Administrative

Procedures Act. The EPA, therefore,

believes that until a resolution of this

issue is achieved, the applicable rules

governing this issue are those that

appear in EPA’s final conformity

regulations, and EPA remains bound by

their existing terms.

NOX Waiver Comment 2

The commenters stated that the

modeling required by EPA guidance is

insufficient to establish that NOX

reductions would not contribute to

attainment since only one level of NOX

control, i.e., ‘‘substantial’’ reductions, is

required to be analyzed. They further

explained that an area must submit an

approvable attainment plan before EPA

can know whether NOX reductions will

aid or undermine attainment.

EPA Response

The EPA does not believe that this

comment is applicable to the San

Francisco Bay Area exemption because

the demonstration is based on three

years of ambient monitoring data and

not modeling.

NOX Waiver Comment 3

The commenters provided a comment

that three years of ‘‘clean’’ data fail to

demonstrate that NOX reductions would

not contribute to attainment, and that

EPA’s policy erroneously equates the

absence of a violation for one three-year

period with ‘‘attainment’’.

EPA Response

The EPA has separate criteria for

determining if an area should be

redesignated to attainment under

section 107 of the CAA. The section 107

criteria are more comprehensive than

the CAA requires with respect to NOX

exemptions under section 182(f).

Under section 182(f)(1)(A), an

exemption from the NOX requirements

may be granted for nonattainment areas

outside an ozone transport region if EPA

determines that ‘‘additional reductions

of [NOX] would not contribute to

attainment’’ of the ozone NAAQS in

those areas. In some cases, an ozone

nonattainment area might attain the

ozone standard, as demonstrated by 3

years of adequate monitoring data,

without having implemented the section

182(f) NOX provisions over that 3-year

period. The EPA believes that, in cases

where a nonattainment area is

demonstrating attainment with 3

consecutive years of air quality

monitoring data without having

implemented the section 182(f) NOX

provisions, it is clear that the section

182(f) test is met since ‘‘additional

reductions of [NOX] would not

contribute to attainment’’ of the NAAQS

in that area. The EPA’s approval of the

exemption, if warranted, would be

granted on a contingent basis (i.e., the

exemption would last for only as long

as the area’s monitoring data continue to

demonstrate attainment).

NOX Waiver Comment 4

Some commenters provided a

comment on all section 182(f) actions

that a waiver of NOX controls is

unlawful if such a waiver will impede

attainment and maintenance of the

ozone standard in separate downwind

areas.

Some stated specifically that NOX

emissions from the Bay Area are likely

to exacerbate ozone nonattainment

downwind in the Sacramento Basin and

the San Joaquin Valley, and that until

transport of ozone precursors from the

San Francisco Bay Area to the

Sacramento Basin and the San Joaquin

Valley are addressed, granting an

exemption from the NOX requirements

is not consistent with the requirements

of the Clean Air Act.

The commenters further added that

transport of NOX emissions from the

San Francisco Bay Area adds to the

attainment burden of the Sacramento

Basin, and results in substantially

different air quality rules in the two

regions which translates into economic

inequities and unfair economic
27038 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

12See ‘‘Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)

Exemptions—Revised Process and Criteria’’, issued

February 8, 1995 by John S. Seitz, Director of EPA’s

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

13There are 3 NOX exemption tests specified in

section 182(f). Of these, 2 are applicable for areas

outside an ozone transport region; the ‘‘contribute

to attainment’’ test described above, and the ‘‘net

air quality benefits’’ test. EPA must determine,

under the latter test, that the net benefits to air

quality in an area ‘‘are greater in the absence of NOX

reductions’’ from relevant sources. Based on the

plain language of section 182(f), EPA believes that

each test provides an independent basis for

receiving a full or limited NOX exemption.

Consequently, as stated in section 1.4 of the

December 16, 1993 EPA guidance, ‘‘[w]here any one

of the tests is met (even if another test is failed),

the section 182(f) NOX requirements would not

apply or, under the excess reductions provision, a

portion of these requirements would not apply.’’

penalties to the Sacramento area

community. Also, insufficient technical

studies have been conducted to assess

multi-basin transport regarding the San

Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento

Basin, without which, redesignation and

the NOX exemption should not be

granted.

The commenters contend that EPA’s

policy could prohibit approval of the

SIP for the BAAQMD unless violations

in adjacent air basins are addressed.

Therefore, because of previous ozone

concentrations monitored above the

Federal standard in the San Joaquin

Valley which were a consequence of

San Francisco Bay Area emissions, areas

evaluated for attainment, maintenance,

and exemptions should include data

from monitoring locations in adjacent

air basins downwind of the San

Francisco Bay Area. In addition, until

all data, including recent data showing

the Northern portion of the San Joaquin

Valley would be in attainment of the

Federal ozone standard in the absence

of transported pollutants from the San

Francisco Bay Area, which identifies the

San Francisco Bay Area as a transport

couple with the San Joaquin Valley is

adequately assessed to define the effects

of San Francisco Bay Area emissions on

the ozone attainment status of the San

Joaquin Valley, a NOX RACT exemption

should not be approved.

EPA Response

As a result of these comments and

comments received regarding ozone

transport in NOX exemption requests for

other areas in the United States, EPA

has reevaluated its position on this issue

and decided to revise the previously

issued guidance. 12 As described below,

EPA intends to use its authority under

section 110(a)(2)(D) to require a State to

reduce NOX emissions from stationary

and/or mobile sources where there is

evidence, such as photochemical grid

modeling, showing that NOX emissions

would contribute significantly to

nonattainment in, or interfere with

maintenance by, any other State. This

action would be independent of any

action taken by EPA on a NOX

exemption request for stationary sources

under section 182(f). That is, EPA action

to grant or deny a NOX exemption

request under section 182(f) would not

shield that area from EPA action to

require NOX emission reductions, if

necessary, under section 110(a)(2)(D).

Modeling analyses are underway in

many areas for the purpose of

demonstrating attainment in the 1994

SIP revisions. Recent modeling data

suggest that certain ozone

nonattainment areas may benefit from

reductions in NOX emissions far

upwind of the nonattainment area. For

example, the northeast corridor and the

Lake Michigan areas are considering

attainment strategies which rely in part

on NOX emission reductions hundreds

of kilometers upwind. The EPA is

working with the States and other

organizations to design and complete

studies which consider upwind sources

and quantify their impacts. As the

studies progress, EPA will continue to

work with the States and other

organizations to develop mutually

acceptable attainment strategies.

At the same time as these large scale

modeling analyses are being conducted,

certain nonattainment areas in the

modeling domain have requested

exemptions from NOX requirements

under section 182(f). Some areas

requesting an exemption may be

upwind of and impact upon downwind

nonattainment areas. EPA intends to

address the transport issue through

section 110(a)(2)(D) based on a domainwide modeling analysis.

Under section 182(f) of the Act, an

exemption from the NOX requirements

may be granted for nonattainment areas

outside an ozone transport region if EPA

determines that ‘‘additional reductions

of [NOX] would not contribute to

attainment of the national ambient air

quality standard for ozone in the

area.’’ 13 As described in section 4.3 of

the December 16, 1993 guidance

document, EPA believes that the term

‘‘area’’ means the ‘‘nonattainment area’’

and that EPA’s determination is limited

to consideration of the effects in a single

nonattainment area due to NOX

emissions reductions from sources in

the same nonattainment area.

Section 4.3 of the guidance goes on to

encourage, but not require, States/

petitioners to include consideration of

the entire modeling domain, since the

effects of an attainment strategy may

extend beyond the designated

nonattainment area. Specifically, the

guidance encourages States to ‘‘consider

imposition of the NOX requirements if

needed to avoid adverse impacts in

downwind areas, either intra- or interState. States need to consider such

impacts since they are ultimately

responsible for achieving attainment in

all portions of their State (see generally

section 110) and for ensuring that

emissions originating in their State do

not contribute significantly to

nonattainment in, or interfere with

maintenance by, any other State [see

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)].’’

In contrast, section 4.4 of the

guidance states that the section 182(f)

demonstration would not be approved if

there is evidence, such as

photochemical grid modeling, showing

that the NOX exemption would interfere

with attainment or maintenance in

downwind areas. The guidance goes on

to explain that section 110(a)(2)(D) [not

section 182(f)] prohibits such impacts.

Consistent with the guidance in

section 4.3, EPA believes that the

section 110(a)(2)(D) and 182(f)

provisions must be considered

independently, and hence is

withdrawing the guidance presently

contained in section 4.4. Thus, if there

is evidence that NOX emissions in an

upwind area would interfere with

attainment or maintenance in a

downwind area, that action should be

separately addressed by the State(s) or,

if necessary, by EPA in a section

110(a)(2)(D) action. In addition, a

section 182(f) exemption request should

be independently considered by EPA. In

some cases, then, EPA may grant an

exemption from across-the-board NOX

RACT controls under section 182(f) and,

in a separate action, require NOX

controls from stationary and/or mobile

sources under section 110(a)(2)(D). It

should be noted that the controls

required under section 110(a)(2)(D) may

be more or less stringent than RACT,

depending upon the circumstances.

NOX Waiver Comment 5

Comments were received regarding

exemption of areas from the NOX

requirements of the conformity rules.

The commenters argue that such

exemptions waive only the

requirements of section 182(b)(1) to

contribute to specific annual reductions,

not the requirement that conformity

SIPs contain information showing the

maximum amount of motor vehicle NOX

emissions allowed under the

transportation conformity rules and,

similarly, the maximum allowable

amounts of any such NOX emissions

under the general conformity rules. The

commenters admit that, in prior
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27039

14 ‘‘Criteria and Procedures for Determining

Conformity to State or Federal Implementation

Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and

Projects Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C.

of the Federal Transit Act,’’ November 24, 1993 (58

FR 62188).

15 ‘‘Determining Conformity of General Federal

Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans;

Final Rule,’’ November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214).

guidance, EPA has acknowledged the

need to amend a drafting error in the

existing transportation conformity rules

to ensure consistency with motor

vehicle emissions budgets for NOX, but

want EPA in actions on NOX

exemptions to explicitly affirm this

obligation and to also avoid granting

waivers until a budget controlling future

NOX increases is in place.

EPA Response

With respect to conformity, EPA’s

conformity rules 14,15 provide a NOX

waiver if an area receives a section

182(f) exemption. In its ‘‘Conformity;

General Preamble for Exemption from

Nitrogen Oxides Provisions’’, 59 FR

31238, 31241 (June 17, 1994), EPA

reiterated its view that in order to

conform, nonattainment and

maintenance areas must demonstrate

that the transportation plan and

transportation improvement plan (TIP)

are consistent with the motor vehicle

emissions budget for NOX even where a

conformity NOX waiver has been

granted. Due to a drafting error, that

view is not reflected in the current

transportation conformity rules. As the

commenters correctly note, EPA states

in the June 17th notice that it intends to

remedy the problem by amending the

conformity rule. Although that notice

specifically mentions only requiring

consistency with the approved

maintenance plan’s NOX motor vehicle

emissions budget, EPA also intends to

require consistency with the attainment

demonstration’s NOX motor vehicle

emissions budget. However, EPA is not

granting an exemption from the

transportation conformity requirements

under section 182(f) in this action for

the Bay Area. Rather, EPA’s approval of

the Bay Area’s redesignation and

maintenance plan begins the

maintenance period, and an area’s

transportation plans and TIPs must be

consistent with the motor vehicle

emissions budget in the maintenance

plan. The requirements of the

transportation conformity regulation

that plans and TIPs satisfy the ‘‘build/

no build’’ test and achieve emissions

reductions, does not apply to areas

redesignated and operating under a

maintenance status.

NOX Waiver Comment 6

Some commenters argue that the CAA

does not authorize any waiver of the

NOX reduction requirements until

conclusive evidence exists that such

reductions are counter-productive.

EPA Response

The EPA does not agree with this

comment since it ignores Congressional

intent as evidenced by the plain

language of section 182(f), the structure

of the Title I ozone subpart as a whole,

and relevant legislative history. By

contrast, in developing and

implementing its NOX exemption

policies, EPA has sought an approach

that reasonably accords with Congress’

intent. Section 182(f), in addition to

imposing control requirements on major

stationary sources of NOX similar to

those that apply for such sources of

VOC, also provides for an exemption (or

limitation) from application of these

requirements if, under one of several

tests, EPA determines that in certain

areas NOX reductions would generally

not be beneficial. In subsection

182(f)(1), Congress explicitly

conditioned action on NOX exemptions

on the results of an ozone precursor

study required under section 185B.

Because of the possibility that reducing

NOX in a particular area may either not

contribute to ozone attainment or may

cause the ozone problem to worsen,

Congress included attenuating language,

not just in section 182(f) but throughout

the Title I ozone subpart, to avoid

requiring NOX reductions where it

would be nonbeneficial or

counterproductive. In describing these

various ozone provisions (including

section 182(f)), the House Conference

Committee Report states in pertinent

part: ‘‘[T]he Committee included a

separate NOX/VOC study provision in

section [185B] to serve as the basis for

the various findings contemplated in the

NOX provisions. The Committee does

not intend NOX reduction for

reduction’s sake, but rather as a measure

scaled to the value of NOX reductions

for achieving attainment in the

particular ozone nonattainment area.’’

H.R. Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess.

257–258 (1990). As noted in response to

an earlier comment by these same

commenters, the command in

subsection 182(f)(1) that EPA ‘‘shall

consider’’ the 185B report taken together

with the timeframe the Act provides

both for completion of the report and for

acting on NOX exemption petitions

clearly demonstrate that Congress

believed the information in the

completed section 185B report would

provide a sufficient basis for EPA to act

on NOX exemption requests, even

absent the additional information that

would be included in affected areas’

attainment or maintenance

demonstrations. However, while there is

no specific requirement in the Act that

EPA actions granting NOX exemption

requests must await ‘‘conclusive

evidence’’, as the commenters argue,

there is also nothing in the Act to

prevent EPA from revisiting an

approved NOX exemption if warranted

due to better ambient information.

In addition, the EPA believes (as

described in EPA’s December 1993

guidance) that section 182(f)(1) of the

CAA provides that the new NOX

requirements shall not apply (or may be

limited to the extent necessary to avoid

excess reductions) if the Administrator

determines that any one of the following

tests is met:

(1) In any area, the net air quality

benefits are greater in the absence of

NOX reductions from the sources

concerned;

(2) In nonattainment areas not within

an ozone transport region, additional

NOX reductions would not contribute to

ozone attainment in the area; or

(3) In nonattainment areas within an

ozone transport region, additional NOX

reductions would not produce net ozone

air quality benefits in the transport

region.

Based on the plain language of section

182(f), EPA believes that each test

provides an independent basis for

receiving a full or limited NOX

exemption.

Only the first test listed above is

based on a showing that NOX reductions

are ‘‘counter-productive.’’ If one of the

tests is met (even if another test is

failed), the section 182(f) NOX

requirements would not apply or, under

the excess reductions provision, a

portion of these requirements would not

apply.

III. EPA Final Action

In this final action, EPA is approving

the San Francisco Bay Area ozone

maintenance plan because it meets the

requirements of section 175A. In

addition, the Agency is redesignating

the San Francisco Bay Area to

attainment for ozone because the State

of California has demonstrated

compliance with the requirements of

section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation.

Finally, EPA is approving the NOX

waiver petition and 1990 emissions

inventory for the San Francisco Bay

Area.

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
27040 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

request for revision shall be considered

separately in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements. The ozone SIP

is designed to satisfy the requirements

of Part D of the CAA and to provide for

attainment and maintenance of the

ozone NAAQS. This final redesignation

should not be interpreted as authorizing

the State of California to delete, alter, or

rescind any of the VOC or NOX emission

limitations and restrictions contained in

the approved ozone SIP. Changes to the

ozone SIP VOC RACT regulations

rendering them less stringent than those

contained in the EPA approved plan

cannot be made unless a revised plan

for attainment and maintenance is

submitted and approved by EPA.

Unauthorized relaxations, deletions,

and changes could result in both a

finding of nonimplementation (section

173(b) of the CAA) and in a SIP

deficiency call made pursuant to section

110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 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 an October

14, 1993 memorandum from Michael H.

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation. The OMB has

exempted this regulatory action from

the requirements of section 6 of

Executive Order 128866.

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

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

Redesignation of an area to attainment

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,

approval of a section 182(f) exemption,

and approval of an emissions inventory

do not impose any new requirements on

small entities. Redesignation is an

action that affects the status of a

geographical area and does not impose

any regulatory requirements on sources.

The Administrator certifies that the

approval of the redesignation request

will not affect a substantial number of

small entities.

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 the state

implementation plan or plan revisions

approved in this action, the State and

any affected local or tribal governments

have elected to adopt the program

provided for under section 175A and

182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. Also,

EPA’s final action approving the section

182(f) NOX waiver petition relieves

requirements otherwise imposed under

the CAA and, hence does not impose

any federal intergovernmental mandate,

as defined in section 101 of the

Unfunded Mandates Act. The rules and

commitments approved in this action

may bind State, local and tribal

governments to perform certain actions

and also may ultimately lead to the

private sector being required to perform

certain duties. To the extent that the

rules and commitments being approved

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, 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. Therefore, EPA has determined

that this final 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.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), petitions for judicial

review of this action must be filed in the

United States Courts of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 21, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements (See section

307(b)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7607(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, and Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National Parks,

Wilderness Areas.

Dated: April 24, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Parts 52

and 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(205)(i)(B) and

(212) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of Plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(205) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Bay Area Air Quality Management

District.

(1) Amendments to the San Francisco

Bay Area Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for the National

Ozone Standard and 1990 Emissions

Inventory adopted on September 7, 1994

by the Bay Area Air Quality

Management District, October 5, 1994

by the Metropolitan Transportation

Commission, and August 24, 1994 by

the Association of Bay Area

Governments.

* * * * *

(212) Ozone redesignation request for

the Bay Area Air Quality Management

District submitted on November 5, 1993,

by the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Redesignation request for the San

Francisco Bay Area and the Ozone

Maintenance Plan for the National

Ozone Standard adopted on September

1, 1993 by the Bay Area Air Quality

Management District, September 22,

1993 by the Metropolitan

Transportation Commission, and

September 16, 1993 by the Association

of Bay Area Governments.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27041

PART 81—[AMENDED]

Subpart B—Designation of Air Quality

Control Regions

3. In section 81.305, the table for

‘‘California—Ozone’’ is amended by

revising the entry ‘‘San Francisco Bay

Area’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.305 California.

* * * * *

CALIFORNIA—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date Type

San Francisco–Bay Area:

Alameda County ..................................................................................... June 21, 1995 Attainment.

Contra Costa County ............................................................................. ........................ ......do.

Marin County .......................................................................................... ........................ ......do.

Napa County .......................................................................................... ........................ ......do.

San Francisco County ............................................................................ ........................ ......do.

San Clara County ................................................................................... ........................ ......do.

San Mateo County ................................................................................. ........................ ......do.

Solano County (part) .............................................................................. ........................ ......do.

That portion of the county that lies south and west of the line described

that follows: Description of boundary in Solano County between San

Francisco and Sacramento: Beginning at the intersection at the westerly

boundary of Solano County and the 1⁄4 section line running east and

west through the center of Section 34; T.6 N., R. 2 W., M.D.B.&M.,

thence east along said 1⁄2 section line to the east boundary of Section

36, T. 6 N., R. 2 W., thence south 1⁄2 mile and east 2.0 miles, more or

less, along the west and south boundary of Los Putos Rancho to the

northwest corner of Section 4, T. 5 N., R. 1 W, thence east along a line

common to T. 5 N., and T. 6 N. to the northeast corner of Section 3, T.

5 N., R. 1 E., thence south along section lines to the southeast corner

of Section 10 T. 3 N., R. 1 E., thence east along section lines to the

south 1⁄4 corner of Section 8 T. 3 N., R. 2 E., thence east to the boundary between Solano and Sacramento Counties.

........................ ......do.

Sonoma County (part) ................................................................................... ........................ ......do.

1The date is November 15, 1990 unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 95–12407 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR PART 300

[FRL–5209–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final Rule: Notice of Deletion of

United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill

No. 5 from the National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of

United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill

No. 5, located in Pierce County,

Washington from the National Priorities

List (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of

the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.

EPA and the State of Washington

Department of Ecology have determined

the Site poses no significant threat to

public health or the environment and,

therefore, no further remedial measures

pursuant to CERCLA are appropriate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Jane Nearman, Site Manager, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, HW–124,

Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–6642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to

be deleted from the NPL is: United

States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5,

Pierce County, Washington.

A Notice of Intent to Delete for this

site was published March 27, 1995. (60

FR 15737). The closing date for

comments on the Notice of Intent to

Delete was April 26, 1995. EPA received

no comments.

EPA identifies sites which appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

it maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Any site deleted from the NPL

remains eligible for remedial actions in

the unlikely event that conditions at the

site warrant such action in the future.

NCP Section 300.425(e)(3). Deletion of a

site from the NPL does not affect

responsible party liability or impede

Agency efforts to recover costs

associated with response efforts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, and Water supply.

Dated: May 12, 1995.

Gerald A. Emison,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended

as follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 33 U.S.C.

1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.