### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

the IM240 test. Consequently, theAVR SIP is not applicable to current programs as submitted.

This revision is notrequired by the Act. Therefore, thisproposed disapproval action does not impose sanctions for failure to meet Act requirements.

The EPA is soliciting public comment

on the proposed action discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in theFederal rule making procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the Addresses section of this document.

Nothing in today's action should be construed as permitting, allowing,or establishing a precedent for any future request forrevision to any SIP. Each request forrevision to the SIP shall be considered separately in light ofspecific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

The Regional Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the AVR SIP revision willbe based on whether itmeets therequirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Act, as amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFRpart 51.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order12866

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted thisregulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. RegulatoryFlexibilityAct

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 etseq.,EPA must prepare
aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final rule on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that therule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction over populations ofless than 50,000.

The EPA's proposed disapproval of the State request under sections 110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D ofthe Act does not affect any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any preexisting Federal requirements remain inplace after this proposed disapproval. Federal disapproval ofthe State submittal does not affect its State-enforceability. Moreover, theEPA's disapproval ofthe submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, the EPA certifies that this proposed disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities because it does not remove existing requirements, nor does itimpose any new Federal requirements.

C. UnfundedMandatesAct

Under section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPAmust prepare abudgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local or tribal governments in aggregate;

or to theprivate sector, of $100 million

or more. Under section 205, EPAmust select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPAhas determined thatthe proposed disapproval action does not include aFederal mandate that may result in estimated costs of$100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action does
not impose new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or private sector, result from this action.

Listof Subjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 10, 1997. Lynda F. Carroll, 

### ActingDeputyRegional

### Administrator, Region VL [FR Doc. 97 33222Filed 12 18 97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81 [CA-004-BU; FRL-5937-5] DesignationofAreas forAir Quality Planning Purposes; State ofCalifornia; Redesignation oftheSan Francisco BayArea to Nonattainment forOzone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: On May 22, 1995, EPA redesignated the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) from moderate nonattainment for the federal 1-hour

ozone standard to attainment (60 FR 27028).The redesignation became effective on June 21, 1995. Two days later, the Bay Area experienced its first violation ofthe federal 1-hour ozone standard as an attainment area. There have been atotal of43 exceedances and 17 violations ofthe standard since redesignation. The Clean Air Act (CAA

or Act)provides that EPA may at any timenotify the Governor that available air quality information indicates that the designation ofan area within the State should be revised. EPA must consider the response from the Governor as well

aspublic comment on the proposed redesignation before finalizing its action.

On August 21, 1997, EPA sent aletter
to the Governor ofCalifornia notifying him ofthe Agency's intentto redesignate the Bay Area from attainment to nonattainment ofthe federal 1-hour ozone standard. In today's action, EPAis proposing to redesignate the Bay Area as a nonattainment area for ozone. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writingby February 17, 1998. Comments should be addressed to the contact listed below. ADDRESSES: EPA's technical support document and other supporting documentation for the proposal are contained in the docket for this rulemaking. A copy ofthis document and the technical support document are also available in the air programs section ofEPARegion IX's website, http://www.epa.gov/region09. The docket is available forinspection during normalbusiness hours atEPA Region IX, Planning Office, AirDivision, 17th Floor, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. (415)744- 1288. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DaveJesson, Planning Office (AIR-2), AirDivision, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)744-1288.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. OriginalDesignation

The Bay Area was originally designated under section 107 ofthe 1977 CAA as nonattainment for ozone
on March 3, 1978 (40CFR 81.305). The Bay Area consists ofthe following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano (part), and Sonoma (part). Following the 1990 amendments to the Act, the area was classified by operation 

## 66578

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 66578 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

oflaw, under section 181(a), as a "moderate" nonattainment area. (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991).

B. RedesignationtoA ttainment

On November 12, 1993, afterthree years without any violations ofthe federal ozone standard according to quality assured ambient air quality data from the official monitoring network' of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Bay Area, District, or BAAQMD), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted to EPA for approval a maintenance plan and a request to redesignate the Bay Area

ozone nonattainment area to attainment. On September 28, 1994, EPA proposed
to approve the State ofCalifornia's submittal (59 FR49361). On May 22, 1995, EPApublished the final rule redesignating the Bay Area to attainment for ozone (60 FR 27028). The redesignation to attainment became effective on June 21, 1995.

C. Violationsofthe Ozone Standard AfterRedesignation

Despite implementation ofmost ofthe

measures in the Bay Area's maintenance plan, the Bay Area's monitoring network 2has recorded 46 exceedances (43 since the redesignation to attainment in June 1995) and 17 violations ofthe federal 1-hour ozone standard over the 3-yearperiod 1994- 1996. 3

1There were no monitored violations ofthe
federal ozone standard at the District's official State and Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) network monitors. There were, however, twoviolations at special purposemonitors (SPMs) that were established for research purposes. EPA was aware of theseviolations at the time it redesignated the

area to attainment. However, EPA excluded these databecause the monitors were not partof the official monitoringnetwork and werenot intended
to monitor ambient air quality for federal compliance purposes. For policy reasons, EPA did
not want to discourage the Bay Area, or other areas, from establishing monitors for research purposes. EPA has since determined that all quality assured data that meet therequirements of40 CFR58.14, with the exception offine particulate matter data (PM 2.5), must be considered for any regulatory
purpose, including an ozone redesignation action. (August22, 1997 memorandum entitled, "Agency Policy on theUse ofSpecial Purpose Monitoring Data," from John Seitz, Director ofthe Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regions I-X) While EPA has determined that the SPMs data should have been considered in the 1995redesignation action, the Agency is notbasing today's proposed action on these data. Today's action is based on the 17 violations recorded during 1995 and 1996.

2Air quality in the BayArea is monitored by the District's State and Local AirMonitoring Station (SLAMS) network, which comprises 24monitoring stations. All data must be quality assured.

3Asrequired by section 175A oftheAct, the Bay Area maintenance plan contains contingency

measures that should be designed to correct any violation ofthe standard occurring after redesignation to attainment. The Bay Area An exceedance ofthe 1-hour ozone standard occurs when the hourly average ozone concentration at agiven monitoring site is greater than or equal to .125 ppm. A violation ofthe standard

occurs when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average ozone concentrations above 0.12 ppm is greater than one. 40 CFRpart 50.9. The average number of days is calculated for a 3-year period. 40 CFRpart 50, appendix H. This 3-year period was established to reduce the impact ofyearly fluctuations in ozone levels. Table 1lists both the exceedances and the 3-year average number ofdays over the 1-hour ozone standard for each SLAMS monitoring site in the Bay Area for theperiod 1994- 1996.

TABLE 1.-AVERAGE NUMBER OF EXCEEDANCES FOR THE OZONE 

### SLAMS NETWORK 1994-1996

Observed

values Average numberof Monitoring site greater exceedances than standard per year

Livermore

........... 17 5.7 Oakland

.............. 0 0.0 San Leandro

...... 3 1.0 Fremont

.............. 2 0.7 Hayward

............. 2 0.7 Concord

............. 4 1.3 Richmond

........... 0 0.0 Bethel Island

...... 2 0.7 Pittsburg

............. 0 0.0 San Rafael

......... 0 0.0 Napa

.................. 1 0.3 San Francisco

.... 0 0.0 Redwood City

.... 1 0.3 Gilroy

.................. 1 0.3 San Jose (4th

Street)

............. 1 0.3 Los Gatos

.......... 5 1.7 Mountain View

... 0 0.0 San Jose (W.

San Carlos)

.... 0.0 San Jose (Piedmont)

.............. 3 1.0 San Martin

......... 2 0.7 Fairfield

.............. 1 0.3 Vallejo

................ 1 0.3 Santa Rosa

........ 0 0.0 Sonoma

.............. 0 0.0

Source: AIRS/AQS.

D.Petitionsto theAdministrator

EPA has received two petitions requesting that the Administrator redesignate the Bay Area to

maintenanceplan contains sixequipment-specific NOx controls and severalimprovements tothe federallymandated Basic Inspection and Maintenance Program (I/M).WhiletheDistrictis continuing toimplement thecontingency measures in itsmaintenance plan, theremainingemission reductions tobe gainedfrom thesemeasures total 1.2tonsperday inNOxreductions and almostno reductions ofVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). nonattainment with the federal i-hour

ozone standard. On March 31, 1997, the Sierra Club and Communities for a BetterEnvironment requested that EPA withdraw the 1995 redesignation action,

or alternatively redesignate the area to nonattainment. The Sierra Club also requested that EPA issue a section 110(k)(5) SIP call based on the inadequacy ofthe current SIP.4 On July 14, 1997, U.S. Congressman Gary Condit and a coalition offederal, state and local elected officials and public interest and industry groups from downwind areas (primarily the San Joaquin Valley) also requested that EPA withdraw the 1995 redesignation to attainment, or alternatively redesignate the area to nonattainment and issue a SIP call.

E.ApplicableStatutoryProvisions

Section 107(d)(3) ofthe Act gives the Administrator the authority to redesignate areas. Under thisprovision, the Administrator may "(O)n the basis ofair quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air qualityrelated considerations the Administrator deems appropriate, * * * at any time notifythe Governor ofany State that available information indicates that the designation ofany area * * * should be revised." Section 107(d)(3)(A). The Governor then has 120 days to submit the redesignation, as the Governor considers appropriate. Section 107(d)(3)(B). The Administrator must promulgate the redesignation within 120 days ofthe Governor's response. The Administrator may make any modifications to the Governor's redesignation which she deems necessary, but must notifythe Governor ofsuch changes 60 days before promulgating a final redesignation. If the Governor does not submitthe redesignation, the Administrator shall promulgate the redesignation which she deems appropriate. Section 107(d)(3)(C). EPA notified the Governor ofCalifornia by letter dated August 21, 1997, that EPA believes that, based on air quality data, the Bay Area should be redesignated to nonattainment. 5The

4A SIP call is a determination under section 110(k)(5) ofthe Clean Air Act that the SIPis inadequate and mustbe revised.

5This letteris available to the public as part of the docket for this rulemaking action. WhileEPA indicated in this letter that the Bay Area would be classified as "moderate," the Agency has determined that amoderate classification is not necessary under subpart 1 oftheAct. (See discussion atH.A.) Furthermore, the planning requirement to prepare amodeling plan for the 8- hour ozone standard willno longer be required as theDistrict is already engaged in such an exercise with the California AirResources Board and downwind air districts. 

## 66579

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 66579 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Governor must respond to this letterby December 19, 1997.

F.Proposed Action
In today's document, EPAproposes to redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area to nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS because ozone levels have violated the federal standard 17 times

over the three year period 1994-1996. Today's action further proposes to require the Bay Area to develop and submit a SIPrevision designed to demonstrate attainment ofthe 1-hour

ozone NAAQS byNovember 15, 1999. Finally, today's action proposes an amendment to 40 CFRparts 52 and 81 to reflect the change in designation. These actions are proposed in accordance with sections 107(d), 110, and 172 ofthe CAA.

II. Applicable Plan Requirements

A. CleanAirAct Provisions

The classifications and attainment dates for areas classified nonattainment under the 1990 amendments to the Act

are contained in section 181(a). The provisions for new designations to nonattainment are found in subsection (b)(1). This subsection provides that

areas that were attainment or unclassifiable at the time ofthe 1990 amendments and are subsequently redesignated to nonattainment are to be classified according to the table in section 181(a)(1). This language contains no reference to areas that were designated nonattainment as aresult of the 1990 amendments.

For areas that were designated attainment or unclassifiable following the 1990 amendments, this section further provides that such areas are subject to the same requirements of section 110 and subparts 1 and 2 ofthe Act as areas designated nonattainment pursuant to the 1990 amendments. In addition, these areas are given an extension ofall fixed date deadlines equal to the length oftime between November 15, 1990, and the date the

area is redesignated.

Although section 181(b)(1) deals with designations to nonattainment occurring afterthe initial round ofclassifications under the 1990 amendments, it does not address areas, such as the Bay Area, that

were designated nonattainment under the amendments, redesignated to attainment, and that subsequently fall
out ofattainment and areredesignated back to nonattainment. Because this provision does not, on its face, apply to

areas like the Bay Area, EPA believes that ithas discretion to determine whether such areas should fall under subpart 2 ofthe Act when they are redesignated to nonattainment, or should only be subject to the more general provisions ofsubpart 1.

EPA believes the latter is the appropriate result for a number of

reasons. First, the plain language of section 181(b)(1) ofthe statute applies only to areas designated attainment under section 107(d)(4) and excludes

areas like the Bay Area. Second, it is logical to grant the generous extension ofdeadlines to areas that have never been nonattainment and must devise their first nonattainment area SIPs. Conversely, an area that was previously designated asnonattainment has already done much ofthis work and should not need this lengthy time period to complete its planning process. Moreover, areas such as the Bay Area generally will have already implemented the section 181 requirements applicable to their previous classification (moderate, serious, severe or extreme). Assuming that these requirements continue to be implemented, placing the area back into the section 181 scheme would do little
to bring the area back into attainment. On the other hand, placing the area under section 172 provides the flexibility for the area to identify a new mix ofmeasures that, when combined with those already implemented under section 181, will bring the area back into attainment. Finally, sections 172(a)(1) and (2) contain express statements that they do not apply to nonattainment

areas that are specifically covered by other provisions ofpart D ofthe Act, thereby demonstrating that the Act contemplates that some areas will fall under subpart 1,rather than subpart 2. See sections 172(a)(1)(C) and (a)(2)(D). For these reasons, EPAbelieves the best interpretation ofthe Act is that it intentionally excludes areas like the Bay Area from section 181 and places them under section 172.

B. Section 172 Requirements

General nonattainment plan requirements arecontained in section 172(c). Section 172(b) requires the Bay Area plan to meet the "applicable" requirements ofsection 172(c).For

reasons set forth below, we believe that

some ofthe section 172(c) requirements have already been satisfied and therefore need not be part ofthe plan revisions the Bay Area would be required to submitunder this proposed action. A table containing the proposed submittals and submittal dates is located at the end ofsection II.D.below. Section 172(c)(1) requires that the plan provide for implementation ofall reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously aspracticable, including emission reductions from existing sources through adoption of reasonably available control technology (RACT). Thisprovision is applicable to the Bay Area only to the extent that it has not already been complied with. EPA believes that the Bay Area implemented all VOC RACT and most, ifnot all, oxides ofnitrogen (NOx) RACT measures prior to being redesignated to attainment in 1995.6 60 FR 27028.

As required by section 172(c)(1), the plan must provide for attainment. Generally, new modeling isrequired in order to demonstrate that aplan will indeed provide for attainment. During the stakeholder process that preceded the Agency's decision to propose redesignation EPA heard two points made fairly consistently by all those involved. First, all parties agreed on the importance ofa new field study and modeling effort in order to better understand the ozone problem in the Bay Area, as well as its effects on downwind areas. Second, the parties agreed that it would be impossible to conduct a new field study and modeling effort for a short term plan, particularly in light ofthe fact that the Bay Area will be required to undertake such an effort for the new 8-hour standard if designated nonattainment forthe 8-hour standard.

In response to public input, EPA is proposing to require an assessment, employing available modeling information, ofthe level ofemission reductions needed to attain the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. The assessment should take into account the meteorological conditions and ambient concentrations associated with the ozone violations in 1995 and 1996, and should be based on likely controlmeasures for reducing VOC and NO,, emissions. This work may include previous photochemical modeling that was based on Bay Area's 1989 field study, the 1990 modeling analysis donefor the San Joaquin Valley, modeling conducted for Bay Area's SIP attainment demonstration

6The BayArea requested and received aNOx waiverpursuant to section 182(f) ofthe Act. 60FR 27028, May 22, 1995. The waiver was based on 3
years ofclean ambient air quality data showing that

ozone attainment was achieved without application ofthe section 182(f)NOx control requirements. Sincethe waivers only apply to nonattainment
areas, theyremain in effect only during the period before redesignation ofthe area to attainment under section 107(d)(3). Thus, when theBay Area's redesignation to attainment became effective on June 21, 1995, precursor emissions, likeNO,, were addressed, as appropriate, under terms ofthe Bay Area maintenance plan. It is clear, upon final redesignation ofthe Bay Area to nonattainment based on subsequent violations ofthe ozone NAAQS, that the basis for granting the original NO, waiver no longer exists. 

## 66580

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 66580 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

that was based on the Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach [EKMA], and any other work that will lend insight into the nature ofthe ozoneproblem in the Bay Area. It may be appropriate to form

acommittee made up ofrepresentatives with technical modeling expertise from the BAAQMD, CARB, and EPAto review the analysis. EPA recommends that the committee also include technical stafffrom downwind districts. EPA is proposing that this assessment be submitted on May 1, 1998.

Section 172(c)(2) contains the requirement for reasonable further progress (RFP).RFP is defined as "such annual incremental reductions in emissions * * * as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for thepurpose of ensuring attainment * * * by the applicable date." Section 171(1). Because EPA is not proposing to require submission ofadopted measures until September 1998, the Agency believes that the RFP requirement would be satisfied if allrequired emission reductions occurby 1999, the proposed attainment year.

Under section 172(c)(3) the Bay Area must submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory ofactual emissions from all sources. To address this requirement, EPAproposes that the Bay Area must submit a current and complete baseline annual average and

summer weekday and weekend day7
emissions inventory for VOC, NO., and carbon monoxide (CO). This submittal would be due on May 1, 1998.

Section 172(c)(4)requires the area to identify and quantify emissions that will be allowed from new major sources

or major modifications in urban enterprise zones identified by the Administrator in consultation with the Secretary ofHousing and Urban Development under section 173(a)(1)(B) ofthe Act. No such zones have been identified in the Bay Area nonattainment area. Thus, no submission is required for this plan. Were such zones to be identified, a growth allowance would have to be included in the SIP to ensure that emission increases from new sources in the urban enterprize zones would not interfere with attainment.

Section 172(c)(5)requires submittal of

anew source review (NSR)program consistent with section 173 ofthe Act. While the Bay Area does have a SIPapproved NSRprogram, it is out ofdate and does not meet current statutory

7EPAGuidance Document#EPA 450 4 91 014, entitled "Preparation ofEmissions forCO and Ozone Precursors forAir Quality Modeling," Volume II, May 1991. requirements.8 The Bay Area has submitted arevised new source review rule designed to meet the requirements ofthe 1990 amendments to the Act. EPA will act on this rule and the NSR requirement in separate rulemaking. Based on the Bay Area's design value of .138 ppm, EPA believes that the NSR program should, by analogy, meet the requirements applicable to amoderate

area. Thus, we are proposing that the NSRpermitting requirements, applicability thresholds, and offset ratios be set at the same levels that apply to moderate ozone nonattainment

areas under sections 182(a)(2)(C) and 182(b)(5).

Section 172(c)(6) requires enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures, means or techniques, necessary to provide for attainment by the applicable date. We areproposing that the Bay Area submitby September 1, 1998, adopted regulations (and/or enforceable commitments to adopt and implement control measures in regulatory form by specified dates) sufficient to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1999. Section 172(c)(6) allows the Bay Area to identify and adopt amix ofmeasures that best
meets the needs ofthe area. Section 172(c)(7) requires that nonattainment plans meet the general SIP requirements ofsection 110(a)(2).

Section 172(c)(8) allows the District to apply to the Administrator to use equivalent modeling, emission inventory, and planning procedures.

Under section 172(c)(9), aplan must contain contingency measures that go into effect if the area fails to make RFP

or fails to attain the standard. The Bay Area plan will need to contain contingency measures that go into effect if the area is unable to attain the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS by the attainment date. As discussed above, the short attainment period for the Bay Area

means that failure to make RFP and failure to attain are equivalent.

C.ApplicableAttainmentDate

Section 172(a)(2) governs attainment dates for nonattainment areas that fall under section 172. This section provides that the attainment date for an area designated nonattainment shall be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date the area is designated nonattainment. Thus, the Administrator may setthe attainment date atany pointup to 5 years based on
an assessment ofwhat is "as expeditiously as practicable."

Because the Bay Area's emissions appear to be on a downward trend based

8See 54 FR 11866 (March 19, 1982). on currently available information, 9 and because the area was attaining the standard as recently as 1994, EPA believes that the Bay Area should be able to identify and implement

measures that will bring itback into attainment fairly quickly. Thus, EPAis proposing to set the Bay Area's attainment deadline as November 15, 1999. Thisis the date by which the area would have had to attain ifit had been bumped up to a "serious" classification rather than being redesignated to attainment. As discussed above, the Bay Area recorded 43 exceedances and 17 violations ofthe standard from June 21, 1995 (the date on which the area was redesignated to attainment) and November 15, 1996, the attainment deadline for moderate ozone nonattainment areas. These violations far exceed those recorded duringthe

same time frame byother moderate

ozone nonattainment areas which EPA is proposing to bump up to serious for failure to attain by November 15, 1996.

EPA proposes to make the determination as to whether the area has attained based on monitoring data from the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. During this timeframe, EPA will be reviewing 1997-1999 monitoring data forthe entire country to determine whether

areas are violating the new NAAQS. Areas that violate the 8-hour standard but attain the i-hour standard prior to designation under the new standard will be eligible for classification as a "transitional" area when designated nonattainment for the new 8-hour NAAQS.' 0 Ifthe Bay Area attains the 1- hour standard by 1999 and meets the requirements for transitional areas, it may take advantage ofthis status and avoid certain enumerated requirements under the new NAAQS.

In the event that the Bay Area does
notmeet the 1999 attainment date, it may, in the future, be eligible for up to two i-year extensions ofthisdate if it

were to meet the requirements ofsection 172(a)(2)(C).

EPA is particularly interested in receiving public comment on the proposed November 15, 1999 attainment deadline. The Agency has received preliminary input from the District indicating that it believes a later date should be chosen. EPA solicits comment from allinterested parties on thisissue.

D.Schedule forPlanSubmissions
The schedule forplan submissions is governed by section 172(b). This section

9"Bay Area Emission Inventory Projections: 1980 2002," provided by the Bay Area to EPA May 1997.

1062 FR 38426, July 18, 1997. 

### 66581

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 66581 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

provides that the Administrator must establish a schedule for each area to submit aplan or plan revision that
meets the applicable requirements of sections 172(c) and 110(a)(2). The schedule must, at a minimum, require submission ofthe attainment plan no later than three years after designation
to nonattainment. EPA is proposing two separate submittal dates for elements of the Bay Area plan that are designed to achieve the November 15, 1999 attainment date. These submittals will be due on May 1, 1998 and September 1, 1998. The contents ofthese submittals are discussed in section II.B. above.

SCHEDULE OF SUBMITTAL OF REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR OZONE FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

Action/SIP submittal Date

Current and complete baseline

annual average and summer weekday and weekendday emissions inventory forvolatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide

.......................... 5-1-98 Assessment, employing available

modeling information, ofthe level ofemission reductions needed toattain the current 1- hourozone National Ambient AirQuality Standard (NAAQS). Thisassessment shouldtake into account the meteorologicalconditions and ambient concentrationsassociated with the violations of theozone NAAQS in the period 1995-6, and should be based on likely control measures for reducing VOC and NOxemissions

........ 5-1-98 Adopted regulations and/or control measures, with enforceablecommitments to adopt and implement the control
measures in regulatoryform by specifieddates, sufficientto meet reasonable further progress and attain the 1-hour NAAQS expeditiously

.............. 9-1-98

III.Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order(E.O.) 12866

Under E.O. 12866, (58 FR51735, October 4, 1993), EPA is required to determine whether today's proposal is a "significant regulatory action" within the meaning ofthe E.O., and therefore should be subject to OMB review, economic analysis, and the requirements ofthe E.O. See E.O. 12866, §6(a)(3). The E.O. defines, in §3(f), a "significant regulatory action" as a regulatory action that is likely to result in arule that may meet at least one of four criteria identified in section 3(f), including, (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of$100 million or more or 

### adversely affectin a material waythe
economy, a sector ofthe economy, productivity, competition,jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter thebudgetary impact ofentitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or therights and obligations ofrecipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out oflegal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles
setforth in theExecutive Order.

EPA has determined that the redesignation to nonattainment proposed today, aswell as the establishment ofSIP submittal schedules, would result in none ofthe effects identified in E.O. 12866 §3(f). Under section 107(d)(3) ofthe Act, redesignations to nonattainment are based upon air quality considerations. The finding, based on air quality data, that the Bay Area is not attaining the

ozone NAAQS and should be redesignated to nonattainment does not, in and ofitself,impose any new requirements on any sectors ofthe economy. Similarly, the establishment ofnew SIP submittal schedules merely establishes the dates by which SIPs must be submitted, and does not adversely affect entities.

B. RegulatoryFlexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., EPA must prepare
aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPAmay certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction over populations ofless than 50,000.

A redesignation to nonattainment under section 107(d)(3), and the establishment ofa SIP submittal schedule for areclassified area, do not, in and ofthemselves, directly impose any new requirements on small entities. SeeMid-TexElectric Cooperative,Inc.v. FERC,773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider the rule's impact on entities subject to the requirements ofthe rule). Instead, this rulemaking simply proposes to make a factual determination and to establish a schedule to require the State to submit SIP revisions, and does not propose to directly regulate any entities. Because EPA isproposing to apply the same permitting applicability thresholds and offsetratios applicable to moderate
areas, no additional sources will be subject to theserequirements as aresult ofEPA's action. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),EPA certifies that today'sproposed action does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning ofthose terms for RFA purposes.
C. UnfundedMandatesReform Act

Title II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of theirregulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 ofthe UMRA, EPA generally mustprepare awritten statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, when EPA promulgates "any general notice ofproposed rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation ofany rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of$100 million ormore" in any one year. A "Federal mandate" is defined, under section 101 ofUMRA,

as aprovision that "would impose an enforceable duty" upon theprivate
sector or State, local, or tribal governments," with certain exceptions
nothere relevant. Under section 203 of UMRA, EPA mustdevelop a small government agency plan before EPA "establish[es] any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments." Under section 204 ofUMRA, EPA is required to develop a process to facilitate input byelected officers of State, local, and tribal governments for EPA's "regulatory proposals" that contain significant Federal intergovernmental mandates. Under section 205 ofUMRA, before EPA promulgates "anyrule for which a written statement is required under [UMRA sec.] 202",EPA must identify and consider areasonable number of regulatory alternatives and either adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives oftherule, or explain why a different alternative was selected.

EPA has concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation ofany Federal mandate 

## 66582

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 66582 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

that may result in expenditures of$100 million or more for State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or for the private sector, in any one year. Itis questionable whether a redesignation would constitute a federal mandate in any case. The obligation for the state to revise its State Implementation Plan that arises out ofaredesignation is not legally enforceable and atmost is a condition for continued receipt of federal highway funds. Therefore, it does not appear that such an action
creates any enforceable duty within the meaning ofsection 421(5)(a)(i) ofUMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)), and ifit does the duty would appear to fall within the exception for a condition ofFederal assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)(I)).

Even if aredesignation were considered aFederal mandate, the anticipated costs resulting from the mandate would not exceed $100 million
to eitherthe private sector or state, local and tribal governments. Redesignation ofan area to nonattainment does not,in itself, impose any mandates or costs on the private sector, and thus, there is no private sector mandate within the meaning ofsection 421(7) ofUMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(7)). The only cost resulting from the redesignation itselfis the cost to the State ofCalifornia ofdeveloping, adopting and submitting any necessary SIPrevision. Because that cost will not exceed $100 million, this proposal (if it is a federal mandate at all)is not subject
to therequirements ofsections 202 and 205 ofUMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535). EPA has also determined that this proposal would notresult in regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because only the State would take any action as result oftoday'srule, and thus the requirements ofsection 203 (2 U.S.C. 1533) do not apply.

ListofSubjects in 40 CFR Part81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Dated: December 11, 1997. Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, RegionIX. [FRDoc. 97 33225 Filed 12 18 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR

Fish and WildlifeService

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE36 Endangered andThreatened Wildlife and Plants; Noticeof PublicHearing and Reopening ofComment Period on Proposed Endangered StatusforThree Aquatic Snails,and Proposed Threatened StatusforThree Aquatic Snails inthe Mobile River Basin of Alabama

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice ofpublic hearing and reopening ofcomment period.

SUMMARY: TheFish and Wildlife Service (Service),pursuant to theEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), provides notice ofapublic hearing on the proposed endangered status for the cylindrical lioplax (Lioplax cyclostornaformis),flat pebblesnail (Lepyriumshowalteri),and plicate rocksnail (Leptoxisplicata);and the proposed threatened status for the painted rocksnail (Leptoxistaeniata), round rocksnail (Leptoxisampla),and lacy elimia (Elimiacrenatella). The Service also announces thereopening of the comment period for these actions. The public hearing and thereopening of the comment period will allow additional comments on this proposal to be submitted from all interested parties. DATES: Thepublic hearingwillbe held from 7 to 10 p.m. on Tuesday,January 13, 1998, in Birmingham, Alabama. The comment period now closes on January 23, 1998. Any comments received bythe closing date will be considered in the final decision on this proposal. ADDRESSES: Thepublic hearing willbe held atthe DwightBeeson Hall Auditorium on thecampus ofSamford University, 800Lakeshore Drive, Birmingham, Alabama 35229. Written comments and materials concerning the proposal may be submitted at the hearing or sent directly tothe Field Supervisor,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. Comments and materials received willbe available forpublic inspection, by appointment, duringnormal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

### Hartfield (see ADDRESSES section), 601/ 965-4900, extension 25. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The six aquaticsnail species are endemic to portions ofthe Mobile River Basin, Alabama. The cylindrical lioplax, flatpebblesnail, and round rocksnail are found in the Cahaba River drainage; the lacy elimia and painted rocksnail are in the Coosa River drainage; and the plicate rocksnail is in the Black Warrior River drainage. All six species have disappeared from 90 percent ormore of theirhistoric range. Known populations

arerestricted to smallportions ofstream drainages. The past decline ofthe snails is attributed to impoundment, habitat fragmentation, and water quality degradation. Currentthreats include the gradual and cumulative effects of sedimentation and nutrification originating from nonpoint sources on the snails' localized and isolated stream refugia.

On October 17, 1997, the Service published arule proposing endangered
status for the cylindrical lioplax, flat pebblesnail, and plicate rocksnail; and threatened status forthe painted rocksnail, round rocksnail, and lacy elimia in the Federal Register (62 FR 54020-54028. Section 4(b)(5)(E) ofthe Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that

apublic hearing be held ifit is requested within 45 days ofthe publication ofthe proposed rule. A public hearing requestby Gorham & Waldrep, P.C., was received within the allotted time period. The Service has scheduled apublic hearing in Birmingham, Alabama on Tuesday, January 13, 1998, at Samford University's Dwight Beeson Hall Auditorium from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m.

Oral and written comments will be accepted and treated equally. Parties wishingto make statements for the record should bring a copy oftheir
statements to the hearing. Oral
statements may be limited in length, if the number ofparties present at the hearing necessitates such alimitation. There are no limits to the length of written comments or materials submitted at the hearing ormailed to the Service. Legal notices announcing the date, time, and location ofthe hearing are being published in newspapers concurrently with this FederalRegisternotice. The comment period on the proposal was initially closed on December 16, 1997. To accommodate the hearing, the public
comment period isreopened upon publication ofthis notice. Written
comments may now be submitted until January 23, 1998, to the Service office in the ADDRESSES section. 

## 66583

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 66583 1997