### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

factors and in relation torelevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
D.RegulatoryFlexibility

The Regulatory FlexibilityAct (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct

aregulatory flexibility analysis ofany rule subject tonotice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies thattherule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial numberofsmall entities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, smallnot-for-profit enterprises, and smallgovernmentaljurisdictions. This finalrule will nothave a significant impact on asubstantial number ofsmall entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I,part Dof the Clean AirAct do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the Stateis already imposing. Therefore,because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify thatthis action will nothave a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Moreover, due to thenature oftheFederal-State relationship under theClean AirAct, preparation ofaflexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofstate action. TheClean AirAct forbids EPA tobase its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246,255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.7410(a)(2).
E.UnfundedMandates

Under section 202oftheUnfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with anyproposed orfinalrule that includes aFederal mandate thatmay result in estimated costs to state, local,

ortribal governments in the aggregate;
orto theprivate sector, of$100 million

ormore. This Federal action approves pre-existingrequirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, ortribal governments, orthe private sector, result from this action. F.AuditPrivilegeandImm unityLaw

Nothingin this action should be construed as making any determination

orexpressing anyposition regarding Ohio's auditprivilege and immunity law (sections 3745.70-3745.73 ofthe Ohio Revised Code ).EPA will be reviewing theeffect ofthe Ohio audit privilege and immunity law on various Ohio environmental programs, including thoseunder the Clean Air Act, and taking appropriate action(s), if any, afterthorough analysis and opportunity for Ohio to state and explain its views and positions on the issues raised by the law. The action taken herein does not express or imply
any viewpoint on the question of whether there are legal deficiencies in this or any Ohio Clean Air Actprogram resulting from the effect ofthe audit privilege and immunity law. As a consequence ofthe review process, the regulations subject to the action taken herein may be disapproved, federal approval for the Clean Air Actprogram under which they areimplemented may be withdrawn, or other appropriate action may be taken, as necessary.
G.Submission to Congressandthe GeneralAccountingOffice

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule,to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General oftheUnited States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to theU.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the FederalRegister. This rule is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions forJudicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) oftheAct, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by September 8, 1998. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which apetition forjudicial 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)).

V. ListofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen oxides, Transportation conformity. Dated: July 1, 1998. David A. Ullrich,
A ctingRegionalAdm inistrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:


### PART52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. 

### Subpart KK-Ohio

2. Section 52.1885 is amended by addingparagraph (a)(9) to read as follows: 

### §52.1885 ControlStrategy: Ozone

(a) * * * (9) Approval-On March 13, 1998, Ohio submitted arevision to the maintenance plan for the Columbus

area. The revision consists of establishing anew outyear for the area's emissions budget. The new outyear emissions projections include reductions from point and area sources; the revision also defines new safety margins according to the difference between the areas 1990 baseline inventory and the out yearprojection. Additionally, the revision consists of allocating aportion ofthe Columbus area's safety margins to the transportation conformity mobile source emissions budget. The mobile source budgets for transportation conformity purposes for the Columbus area are
now: 67.99 tonsper day ofvolatile organic compound emissions for the year 2010 and 70.99 tons per day of oxides ofnitrogen emissions for the year 

### 2010.
[FR Doc. 98 18420 Filed 7 9 98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40CFR Part 81 [CA-008-BU, FRL-6120-4] Designation ofAreas forAir Quality Planning Purposes;State ofCalifornia; Redesignation oftheSan Francisco Bay Area to Nonattainment forOzone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA istaking final action to redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area (BayArea) as anonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Clean 

## 37258

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37258 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

Air Act (CAA or Act)provides thatEPA may atany time revise the designation ofan area on thebasis ofair quality, planning and control considerations, following notification to the Governor. On August 21, 1997, EPA notified the Governor ofCalifornia that theAgency intended to propose to redesignate the Bay Area from attainment to nonattainment ofthe federal 1-hour

ozone standard, based on a total of43 exceedances and 17 violations ofthe standard since the June 1995 redesignation to attainment. EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on August 10, 1998. ADDRESSES: A copy ofthis document and related information are available in the air programs section ofEPA Region 9's website, http://www.epa.gov/ region09/air. The docket for this rulemaking is available for inspection during normal business hours at EPA Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, 17th Floor, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. A reasonable feemay be charged for copying parts ofthe docket. Please call (415)744-1249 or 744-1251 for assistance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina Spindler (415) 744-1251 or Celia Bloomfield (415)744-1249, Planning Office (AIR-2), Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline

.Executive Summary II. Background

A. OriginalNonattainment Designation and

Redesignation and Redesignation to Attainment B. Subsequent Violations and Petitions to

Redesignate theBay Area to Nonattainment C. Applicable Statutory Provisions D.Notification tothe Governor and

Governor's Response E. Proposed Action 11. Summary ofPublic Comments and EPA Response A. Introduction B. Response ofthe State C. Overview ofPublic Comments D. Specific Comments and EPAResponse 1.Comments Relating tothe Basis ofEPA's

Proposal toRedesignate the BayArea to Nonattainment

a.Air Quality andEmissions b. Legal Authority i.General Comments on Mandatory and

Discretionary Authorities toRedesignate ii. Authority to Redesignate without

Classification

c. PolicyIssues i.Public Notification and Public

Perception ii. Impact ofthe BayArea Emissions on

Downwind Nonattainment Areas and Issues ofEquity iii.Effect ofRedesignation onLimited Air Pollution Control Resources iv. Alternatives toRedesignation 2. Comments RelatingtoEPA's Proposed

SIP Requirements

a. Emissions Inventory b. Attainment Assessment

c. Control Measures i. SuggestedMeasures ii. NOxWaiver and Efficacy ofNOx

Controls d. Attainment Deadline

e. Planning Schedule 3. Comments onMiscellaneous Issues

a. Conformity b. Congestion Mitigation and AirQuality

(CMAQ)Funding

c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA) d. Procedural Obligations under CAA,

Section 107 and theAdministrative Procedures Act (APA) IV. FinalAction

A. Overview B. SIP Requirements and Deadlines C. Changes from Proposal V. Emission Reduction Opportunities

A. Stationary Sources B. Transportation Control Measures C. Voluntary Measures D.Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance E. Mitigating Emissions Increases from

Oakland Seaport and AirportExpansion Projects VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 B. Regulatory Flexibility C. Unfunded Mandates ReformAct D.Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and Safety Risks E. Submission toCongress and theGeneral

Accounting Office

I. Executive Summary

On December 19, 1997 EPA published

aNotice ofProposed Rulemaking to redesignate the Bay Area to nonattainment ofthe federal 1-hour

ozone standard. During the 60-day public comment period that followed publication, EPAreceived comments both in support ofand in opposition to

our proposed action. All commenters, regardless oftheir views on the proposed redesignation or the proposed requirements associated with redesignation, expressed strong support for clean air progress in the Bay Area. EPA appreciates the thoughtful
comments on the proposal and greatly values the commenters' commitment to improved air quality and public health protection in the Bay Area. EPA has made significant changes and clarifications in response to the
comments and EPA believes the final action recognizes the innovation and collaborative efforts that can contribute
to clean airin theBay Area.

After carefully considering all ofthe comments received, EPA has decided to finalize theredesignation ofthe Bay Area to nonattainment ofthe i-hour

ozone standard while clarifying and streamlining the actions necessary to reach attainment. Although the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), other regulatory agencies, businesses, and the community as a wholehave made great strides in improving air quality in the Bay Area, there is still more work to be done. Redesignation is the most appropriate course ofaction to assure further air quality improvements and protection ofpublic health and should place minimal burdens on the local economy, residents, industry and regulators.

When the federal ozone standard is exceeded, people, and in particular children, the elderly, and those with respiratory diseases, may experience ozone's illeffects, such as chest pain, cough, lunginflammation, respiratory infection, and chronic bronchitis. In light ofthese significant public health
concerns, EPA believes that it is important to provide thepublic with
accurate information and the correct message that ozonepollution is still a problem.

EPA is compelled to redesignate the Bay Area to nonattainment because of the numerous and widespread violations ofthe i-hour ozone standard,

a standard that was designed to protect public health. The Bay Area's air quality during 1996 ranked as the 6th worst in the nation and for the three-year period 1995-1997, itwas the 8th smoggiest of the major metropolitan areas in the country. The absence ofviolations in 1997 is apositive sign but the Agency does not feel that the clean smog season last yearproves that the serious ozone problem revealed in 1995 and 1996 has been solved. Compliance with the standard is measured over athree-year period so asto account for the effects of weather and other meteorological conditions that can work to either the advantage or disadvantage ofair quality. Thisis particularly relevant to the Bay Area's case since the meteorological conditions prevailing on the West Coast during 1997 were unusually favorable to good air quality and, accordingto an October 1997 reportby the BAAQMD, the ozone-conducive meteorology that occurred in 1995 and 1996 is likely to

recur. The BAAQMD report also revealed that during the 1990s "progress appears to have lapsed;there appears to have been an increase in ozone potential, after accounting for meteorology."

The number ofviolations ofthis public health standard that occurred in the Bay Area during 1995 and 1996 is 

## 37259

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37259 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

especially significant when compared to the air quality in otherparts ofthe country and the nonattainment designation and requirements applicable to those areas. For example, EPA recently reclassified or "bumpedup" the Phoenix and Santa Barbara

areas from "moderate" to "serious" nonattainment areas for failure to attain the ozone standard by 1996. This "bump-up" to the "serious" nonattainment classification means that these areas must comply with additional planning and controlrequirements (e.g. attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress demonstration, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program, Photochemical Assessment Monitoring) and must attain the ozone standard by 1999 or face "bump-up" to the severe classification, which would impose still more requirements. Phoenix monitored 13 violations ofthe ozone standard, and Santa Barbara recorded 7 violations, during the three-year period 1994-1996. The Bay Area experienced 17 violations during that same three-year period. Such a comparison reinforces the appropriateness ofanonattainment designation for theBay Area.

EPA concluded that a redesignation to nonattainment not only accurately describes air quality in the Bay Area, but also provides an opportunity for reevaluating the causes ofthe Bay Area's ozone violations, the quantity of emission reductions needed to attain the health-based standard, and the measures that will achieve those reductions quickly. Some believe that EPA should
not proceed with redesignation under the 1-hour standard, and that the BAAQMD should instead focus all its energies on planningfor therevised 8- hour ozone standard. EPA is convinced, however, that some near-term action is essential to protecting the health and welfare ofthe Bay Area residents. Emission reduction strategies will be evaluated and put in place much sooner through a redesignation under the 1- hour standard than under aplan to meet the revised 8-hour ozone standard. In addition, everything that the Bay Area does to meet the 1-hour standard will help in meeting the more protective 8- hour standard. The Bay Area won'thave
to complete its planning for the 8-hour standard until 2003 or comply with the

new standard until 2005 at the earliest. That is five years during which Bay Area residents would be breathing dirtier airthan they should be. It is the public's right, and EPA's obligation, to 

### be assured that currenthealth standards

aremet now.

EPA isredesignating the Bay Area to nonattainment without assigningit a specific classification. The classification system (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, orextreme) associated with other current ozone nonattainment areas
was created aspart ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act amendments tomatch a nonattainment area'splanning and control requirements with the severity ofthe area's ozone problem. TheBay Area is in aunique position. It was designated nonattainment underthe 1990 amendments, redesignated to attainment afterimplementing mostof the moderate nonattainment area requirements, and isnow beingreturned to nonattainment. The existing Clean Air Act classification system does not specifically applyto theBay Area. In order to allow maximum flexibility and in keepingwith thebest legal reading of the Act,EPA isredesignating the Bay Area underthe longstanding general nonattainment provisions oftheAct, which have no associated classifications. Duringpublic comment, the flexibility allowed by this approach generated uncertainty as tothe planning and control requirements forthe Bay Area. In response tothis concern, and to make surethe AirDistrict's time and energy are spenton control measures, notunnecessary paperwork,EPA has been more specific in the final rulemaking notice describingwhat is required ofthe Bay Area.

Redesignation should notresult in a burdensome and duplicative planning effort. EPA wants theDistrict and its colead agencies tofocus on emission reductions, notpaperwork. EPAis askingforonly three plan elements: the existing 1995 emissions inventory for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx); an assessment ofemission reductions, using available data andtechnical analyses, needed to attain the federal standard; and control

measures to achieve thosereductions. EPA will accept, in addition toorin lieu ofadopted regulations, control measures with enforceable commitments to adopt in regulatory form and implement by specified dates sufficient to attain the 1- hour ozone standard bythe attainment date. Itis an additionalpublic safeguard to makethe control measures in this plan federally enforceable elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), sinceonly in this way can theEPA and the public ensure thatthe commitments in the plan are fully implemented and the plan's promised air quality benefits

arerealized.

In response to public comment, EPA has modified both the schedule and
content for State submissions and the attainment date. First, EPAis requiring onlyone formal State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal instead oftwo. The

one formal SIP submittal will include the emissions inventory, attainment assessment, and control measures so that the District can avoid having to undergo two public hearing and adoption processes, one for the inventory and assessment and a second for the control measures. EPA is allowing the BAAQMD to make a single SIP submittal with the understanding, pursuant to aletter ofcommitment from the Air District and co-lead agencies dated June 23, 1998, that the emissions inventory and attainment assessment willbe made available to the public and submitted informally to EPA within 5 months after signature ofthe final redesignation by the Regional Administrator. This early, informal submittal will allow EPA to review the draftinventory and assessment and work with the District to address any deficiencies.

Second, EPAhas extended the deadlines for the formal SIP submittal from May 1998 for the emissions inventory and attainment assessment, and from September 1998 forthe adopted control measures and/or enforceable commitments, to June 15, 1999 for both. This extension gives the BAAQMD and its co-lead agencies more timeto address the substantive requirements ofthe redesignation and carry out their formal adoption and submittal processes.

Third, EPAhas extended the attainment deadline from November 15, 1999 to November 15, 2000 in order to allow additional time for the emission reduction strategies to take effect on air quality in the Bay Area.

Fourth, both CARB and the BAAQMD submitted compelling arguments that a weekend emissions inventory was too difficult and resource intensive to complete at this time, and so EPAhas streamlined the SIP requirements still furtherby eliminating that obligation.

Finally, in response to public comment, EPAhas eliminated the requirement to submit an emissions inventory for carbon monoxide (CO).

The above changes from theproposed redesignation are summarized as follows: 

## 37260

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37260 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations 

## 37261

Proposal-weekend emissions inventoryand CO inventory required Final-weekend emissions inventory and CO inventory not required

Emissions inventory and attainment assessmentdue 5/1/98

.................. Final emissions inventory and attainment assessment due 6/15/99. (Commitment to make draft available to EPA and the public by 11/ 25/98.) Adopted regulations and/or control measures with enforceable commit- Adopted regulations and/or control measures with enforceable commitments due 9/1/98. ments and final emissions inventory and attainment assessmentdue 6/15/99. Attainmentdate of11/15/99

..................................................................... Attainment date of 11/15/2000.

EPA recognizes that innovative methods, including voluntary measures, have the potential to contribute in a cost-effective manner to emission reductions needed for progress toward attainment. To promote the creation and expansion ofeffective voluntary mobile

sourceprograms, the Agency has developed a new policy that allows SIP credit for such programs.' The Bay Area has already demonstrated leadership in crafting innovative approaches to air quality problems through the "Sparethe-Air" and Silicon Valley ECOPASS programs. EPAis eager to work with the local government agencies and members ofthebusiness and environmental communities, who are critical to building public support for voluntary programs, to explore opportunities for innovation and to ensure that the voluntary measures stand the test of public accountability.
II. Background

A. Original NonattainmentDesignation andRedesignationtoAttainment

For more detailed information on the Bay Area's original ozone nonattainment designation, classification under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and redesignation to attainment, the reader is directed to EPA's proposed redesignation, published on December 19, 1997 (62 FR 66578-66583).

The Bay Area was initially designated under section 107 ofthe 1977 CAA as nonattainment for ozone on March 3, 1978 (40CFRpart 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).2 Following the 1990 amendments to the Act, the area was classified by operation oflaw, under section 181(a), as a "moderate" ozone nonattainment area. (56FR 56694,Nov. 6, 1991). On May 22, 1995 (60 FR27028), EPA approved the maintenance plan adopted by

1Memorandum dated October 23, 1997 entitled, "Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Sourve Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs)."

2For a description ofthose portions ofSolano and Sonoma County that areincluded in the Bay Area, the reader is directed to 40 CFRpart 81.21. BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Association ofBay Area Governments (ABAG) and submitted to EPA byCARB. In the same document, EPA redesignated the area to attainment for ozone, based on 3 violation-free years ofdata from theBay Area's official monitoring network.

B. Subsequent ViolationsandPetitions
to RedesignatetheBayAreato Nonattainment

Despite implementation ofmost ofthe

measures in the Bay Area's maintenance plan, the monitoring network has recorded 43 exceedances and 17 violations ofthe federal 1-hour ozone standard overthe years 1995-1996.3

EPA has received 2petitions requesting that the Administrator redesignate the Bay Area to nonattainment with the federal 1-hour

ozone standard. On March 31, 1997, the Sierra Club and Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) requested that EPA withdraw the 1995 redesignation action, or alternatively redesignate the

area to nonattainment. The Sierra Club also requested that EPA issue aCAA section 110(k)(5) SIP call based on the inadequacy ofthe current SIP. On July 14, 1997, U.S. Congressman Gary Condit and acoalition offederal, state and local elected officials and public interest and industry groups from downwind areas (primarilythe San Joaquin Valley) petitioned EPA to withdraw the 1995 redesignation to attainment, or alternatively redesignate the area to nonattainment, and issue aSIP call. Congressman Condit incorporated this petition in his public comment on the

3An exceedance ofthe 1-hourozone standard

occurs when the hourly average ozone concentration ata given monitoring site is greater than orequal to .125 parts permillion (ppm).A violation ofthe standard occurs when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average ozone concentrations at or above .125 ppm is greater than one. 40 CFR part 50.9. The
average number ofdays is calculated for a 3-year period. 40 CFRpart 50, Appendix H. This 3-year period was established to reduce the impact of yearly fluctuations in ozone levels. Table 1in EPA's proposed redesignation (62 FR 66579) listsboth the exceedances and the 3-year average number ofdays

over the 1-hour ozone standard for theperiod 1994 1996 atBay Area monitoring sites in the official State and Local Monitoring (SLAMS) network. proposed action, and the petition is summarized in more detail in section III.C., Overview ofPublic Comments.

C.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).

D.Notificationto the Governorandthe Governor'sResponse

EPA notified the Governor of California by letter dated August 21, 1997, that EPAbelieves that the Bay Area should be redesignated to nonattainment, based on repeated violations ofthe ozone NAAQS. In the letter to the Governor, EPAproposed that the Bay Area be classified as a "moderate" nonattainment area, and that the area be required to submit by March 1, 1998, an emissions inventory and an attainment assessment; submit by May 1, 1998, a schedule and plan for completing a field study and modeling; and submitby September 1, 1998, rules and/or control measures sufficient to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 1999.

The Governor responded to this letter

on December 10, 1997. Noting that the Bay Area had recorded no exceedances ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 1997, the

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37261 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

Governor opposed the redesignation, preferring that EPA allow the BAAQMD maintenance plan, subsequent BAAQMD measures, and CARB

measures to ensure that the area would
not violate the ozone NAAQS in the future. See sections III.B. and III.D. below for a more detailed summary of the Governor's comments and EPA's response.
E.Proposed Action
On December 11, 1997, EPA issued its proposal 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 3-year period 1994- 1996. The proposal was published on December 19, 1997, and invited public
comment through February 17, 1998.

After summarizing applicable CAA provisions and the Bay Area's record of exceedances and violations, EPA proposed to require the BAAQMD and its co-lead agencies to develop and submit a SIPrevision designed to provide for attainment ofthe 1-hour

ozone NAAQS by 1999. EPA's proposal set forth the Agency's reasons for concluding that the Bay Area should not be classified under subpart 2 ofthe CAA, but should rather be subject to the basic SIP requirements ofsection 110 and the general nonattainment plan requirements ofsection 172 (62 FR 66580).Finally, EPAproposed that the Statebe required to submit SIP revisions

on the schedule in the table reproduced below, labeled "Proposed Schedule of Submittal ofRevisions to the State Implementation Plan for Ozone for the San Francisco Bay Area."

PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF SUBMITTAL OF REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR OZONE FOR THE SAN 

### FRANCISCO BAY AREA 

## (62 FR 66578, December 19, 1997)

Action/SIP submittal Date

Current and complete baseline annual average and summer weekday and weekend day emissions inventory for volatile organic 5/1/98

compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide. Assessment, employing available modeling information, ofthe level of emission reductions needed to attain the current 1-hourozone 5/1/98

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This assessment should take into accountthe meteorological conditions and ambient concentrations associated with the violations of the ozone NAAQS inthe period 1995-6, and should be based on likelycontrol measures for reducing VOC and NOx emissions. Adopted regulations and/or control measures, with enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the control measures in regu- 9/1/98

latory form by specifieddates, sufficientto meet reasonable further progress and attain the 1-hour NAAQS expeditiously.

III. SummaryofPublic Comments and EPA Response

A. Introduction

EPA received 127 comments between EPA's notification to the Governor on August 21, 1997, and the close ofthe public comment period on February 17, 1998. The docket for this notice includes the public comments. Ofthe comments, 68 supported the redesignation and 59 opposed the redesignation. In section III.D. below, EPA summarizes and responds to each ofthe substantive comments.
B. Response ofthe State

On the day EPA issued its proposed redesignation, EPAreceived an extensive response from the Governor, dated December 10, 1997. This was supplemented by aletter dated February 17, 1998, from Peter M. Rooney, Secretary for Environmental Protection, California Environmental Protection Agency. The Governor's letter was timely, in that it was received 7 days before the expiration ofthe 120-day period for the Governor to respond to EPA's notification letter.

This section provides a general summary ofthe State's comments, expressed in the two letters. EPA's response to the State's comments appears in section III.D., which organizes by subject matter all ofthe public comments and EPA's responses.

The State opposed the redesignation

as an inefficient use ofresources, in view ofthe forthcoming planning responsibilities to address the new,

more stringent 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 4
The State preferred that EPA allow the region to pursue additional emission reductions through the air quality maintenance process and through implementation ofthe Bay Area's 1997 Clean Air Plan, rather than force the Bay Area to divert resources to an unnecessary planningprocess triggered by redesignation. 5The State noted that EPA had followed a similar, flexible approach by not redesignating other

areas that have violated the ozone standard.

Both letters from the State attached
two legal opinions (CARB memorandum dated December 8, 1997, from Kathleen Walsh to Michael P. Kenny; BAAQMD memorandum dated December 4, 1997, from Robert N. Kwongto Ellen Garvey). These legal analyses concluded that, while EPA has the authority to redesignate the Bay Area to nonattainment even if the Governor does not submit a redesignation request, the Act also gives EPA other preferable options. The BAAQMD memorandum

4EPA promulgated arevised 8-hour ozone NAAQS on July 18, 1997 (62FR 38856).

5This plan was adopted by the BAAQMD on December 17, 1997, to address requirements ofthe California Clean Air Act, including atriennial update to the area's comprehensive strategy for attaining the State's air quality standards. The plan

was notadopted to address Federal CAA requirements and it has notbeen submitted to EPA

as a SIP revision. discusses 3 options: federal maintenance plan, SIP call, and Clinton Administration's common senseplan. The CARB memorandum argues that EPA should issue acall for a revision to the Bay Area's maintenance plan under CAA section 110(k)(5) if the Administrator determines that a SIP revision is necessary to correct a violation, since this approach would allow a more targeted effort to correct the problem. The BAAQMD memorandum adds that amaintenance plan is the means Congress established for addressing exceedances following redesignation to attainment, and both memoranda conclude that the existing maintenance plan and the Bay Area's 1997 Clean Air Plan are already at work toward returning the District to attainment, as indicated by the absence ofany exceedances ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Bay Area during 1997.

The State argued that there is no technical basis for determining a specific emission reduction target by EPA's proposed deadline ofMay 1, 1998, and that a quasi-technical
assessment would not be accepted by the public or the business community. The State contended that modeling information is outdated and inadequate forpurposes ofdetermining an emissions reduction target.

The State argued that redesignation would hurt attainment efforts in the Central Valley, since it would distract the Bay Area from achieving real 

## 37262

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37262 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

emissions reductions. 6

### The Governor stated that he has directed the Chairman ofCARB to work with involved districts
to ensure that the BAAQMD develops additional measures to address the needs ofthe Central Valley.

The State concluded that EPA's proposed schedule does not provide sufficient time forplanning or attainment, and that accomplishment of the proposed SIP requirements would be too costly. The State noted that the BAAQMD had estimated that EPA's proposed planning process, although streamlined, would still cost in the range ofone million dollars or more, and would require significant investments ofstafftime, advisory committee time, and governing board time for all 3 co-lead agencies. The State specifically argued against EPA's proposed requirements for a weekend emissions inventory, which would require severalperson-years ofeffort and associated costs in therange ofa half-million dollars. As an additional financial burden, the State asserted that EPA's proposed redesignation ofthe Bay Area without a classification jeopardizes the region's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding.

Finally, the State cited the President's directive that accompanied the promulgation ofthe new federal standards for ozone and particulate
matter.7The State encouraged EPA to comply with the spirit ofthe directive, which emphasizes that "implementation ofthe air quality standards is to be carried out to maximize common sense, flexibility, and cost effectiveness." The State concluded that EPA withdrawal ofthe redesignation proposal would be most consistent with this directive.

C.Overview ofPublicComments

EPA's proposed redesignation elicited

avery large number ofcomments, offering strong arguments either in support of,or in opposition to, redesignation. Many ofthe letters also provided helpful information regarding the impacts, beneficial or adverse, expected to result from redesignation.

6California's Central Valley comprises the Sacramento Valley to thenortheast ofthe BayArea and the San Joaquin Valley to the southeast. CARB has concluded that the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the North Central Coast (to the south ofthe Bay Area) are affected by transport of

ozone and ozone precursors from the Bay Area.

7Memorandum from thePresident to the Administrator ofthe Environmental Protection Agency, dated July 16, 1997, entitled "Implementation ofRevised AirQuality Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter," and attaching "Implementation Plan forRevised Air Quality Standards." 62 FR 38421 (July 18, 1997). Regardless ofwhether or not the writer favored redesignation, every commenter strongly supported clean air progress in the Bay Area. It is notable, for example, that many commenters from the Bay Area business community wished to do their part to improve air quality and maintain a sound economy, based on their conviction that investments in air quality directly enhance the area's economic vitality and their employees' quality oflife. EPA appreciates each
comment and greatly values the commenters' commitment to improved air quality and public health protection.

As previously noted, well over 100 individuals or organizations submitted
comments on the proposed redesignation.

Included among the comments were letters supporting redesignation from Congressman Gary Condit (Fresno)and from 6 Members ofCongress from the Bay Area (Representatives George Miller, Lynn Woolsey, Nancy Pelosi, Pete Stark, Anna Eshoo, and Tom Lantos). Four Northern California Members ofCongress (Representatives Ellen Tauscher, Tom Campbell, Frank Riggs, and Vic Fazio) signed aletter in opposition to theredesignation.

The Bay Area Members ofCongress opposing theredesignation believed that such an action is neither consistent with the CAA nor in the spirit ofthe President's 1997 directive on implementing the ozone and particulate
matter NAAQS. These Representatives noted that the CAA does not mandate redesignation but allows EPA to recognize the Bay Area's track record and overall quality ofair.The Members felt that redesignation will trigger a costly, duplicative planning process that will detract from collaborative efforts to improve air quality and prepare for compliance with the 8-hour NAAQS. The Representatives indicated that

sources informed them that EPA's proposed action would provide no new authority, funding and technology. The legislators felt that declining Bay Area emissions and the clean 1997 ozone
season prove that a region can quickly
return to attainment without the economic, political, and administrative complexities ofredesignation. The Representatives indicated that they are not opposed to the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS but wish an efficient, common

sensetransition to achieve the NAAQS. Finally, ifEPA redesignates the Bay Area, the legislators wanted assurance that the CMAQ funding for the Bay Area will not bejeopardized by EPA's action.

Congressman Condit fully supported the proposed redesignation and referenced scientific data relating to Bay Area's exceedances and to the impact of transported pollutants to downwind
areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley. Congressman Condit asked that a July 14, 1997 petition to EPA be incorporated in his comment. This petition was signed by 4Congressmen in addition to Congressman Condit (Representatives George Radanovich, Richard Pombo, John Doolittle, and Sam Farr), 4 state legislators, local elected officials, and officials representing farm and manufacturing organizations, environmental groups, and the San Joaquin Valley Unified AirPollution Control District.

The petition summarizes the adverse impacts ofelevated ozone levels on public health, health care costs, and crops. The petition also notes reasons why the years duringthe early 1990's when the Bay Area recorded no violations were exceptional: A severe drought limited biogenic emissions,

summerpeak temperatures were lower than normal, the area was experiencing

an economic recession, and the 55 mph speed limit was in effect, reducing emissions ofozoneprecursors from cars and trucks.

The petition notes that no modeling supported theredesignation ofthe Bay Area to attainment, and that contingency measures in the maintenance plan yielded no additional air quality benefit, particularly in light ofEPA's decision to waive certain NOx controlrequirements. Thus, the maintenance plan failed to comply with the requirement in CAA section 175A(d) that the plan contain contingency

measures sufficient to assure that the State willpromptly correct any violation ofthe standard which occurs afterthe redesignation. The petition adds that it is now apparent that the maintenance plan failed to comply with the even more fundamental requirement ofsection 175(A)(a) that such plans contain additional measures, ifany, as maybe necessary to ensure maintenance oftheNAAQS.

The petition recounts the Bay Area's

ozone NAAQS violations immediately followingredesignation, some lastingup to 7 hours on 11 different days, with the
worst exceedance in excess of.150 ppm, and 13 exceedances at or above .140 ppm. The petition concludes that prompt action is necessary to achieve the overriding purpose oftheAct, since the SIP controls have been shown to be insufficient for attainment or maintenance.

The petition asks EPA either to withdraw the redesignation or redesignate the Bay Area to nonattainment, and further asks EPAto find that the current Bay Area SIP is inadequate and require the State to 

## 37263

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37263 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

revise the SIPto attain theNAAQS expeditiously.

Thepetition states that thereis no longer a defensible basis tobelieve that the Bay Area has attained orthat the approved maintenance plan is still adequate. The petition continues: "The existing attainment designation sends a false signal tothe public,theregulated community, localagencies and the District itselfthat ozonepollution isno longer aproblem. The complacency created bythat message will hinder rather than help solve theproblem within the Bay Area and theSan Joaquin Valley * * *."

Thepetitioners requested EPA to establish a SIP requirement thatthe Stateperform a comprehensive analysis ofall factors affecting theozone precursor "carrying capacity" for maintenance oftheNAAQS in theBay Area, and provide accurate estimates of emission reductions anticipated to be achieved from additional measures tobe included in theplan, based upon an updated emissions inventory. While the nonattainment SIP isbeingprepared, a SIP call should allow theState 1year to submit amaintenance revision that includes adopted additional measures to
ensure the earliestpracticable attainment and maintenance ofthe

ozone NAAQS. Thepetitioners stated that, "Given history, the submittal should demonstrate thereliability and adequacy ofthose measures convincingly." The subsequent SIP offers an opportunity to finetune the maintenance SIPrevision and address anyproblems thatmay surface in implementation.

The 6Bay Area Members ofCongress supporting theredesignation stressed that protectingthehealth oftheir constituents is oneoftheirhighest responsibilities aslawmakers. After careful consideration, these Representatives concluded thatthe specificproposed redesignation presented by EPAis thebest course of action to providethe greatest assurance ofimprovingBay Area air qualityand protecting public health, whileplacing the fewest burdens on thelocal economy, residents, industry and regulators.

The legislators noted as significant a recent BAAQMD report showing a worsening trend in ozone pollution in the 1990s. While acknowledging the BAAQMD's new plan for future actions, theMembers ofCongress expressed

concern thattheplan, adopted to meet California Clean AirActrequirements, is inadequate since itcontains only proposals, notbinding commitments, and can bechanged at any time. Since theplan isnot enforceable byEPA or the public,the Representatives were unable to verify that the plan would achieve attainment or genuinely improve air quality.

The Representatives' letter went on to stress that there is no way to know whether Bay Area actions are sufficient for attainment until federal and local regulators have a common understanding ofthe extent oflocal air pollution problems. These Members of Congress considered that EPA's redesignation proposal allows the maximum flexibility to the BAAQMD to reach attainment by buildingon its existing plan and avoiding redundancy, specifically with respect to emissions inventory and modeling. The Members stated that itis incumbent upon the BAAQMD to work with EPA to find

common ground on credible and binding actions and timetables.

While aware ofarguments against redesignation based on EPA's recent adoption ofamore stringent 8-hour

ozone NAAQS, the Members of Congress still favored redesignation and action now to address the 1-hour standard, since 10 years may pass before the Bay Area must comply with the revised ozone standard, and any steps taken to comply with the current standard will only help, not hinder, the area's abilityto meet the 8-hour standard when it is officially inplace. In the meantime, Bay Area residents are likely to be exposed to harmful pollution levels ifthere is no action.

Finally, these 6 Representatives noted that the Department ofTransportation has concluded that EPA's proposed redesignation would notjeopardize the Bay Area's eligibility for CMAQ funds under either the existing Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) or pendingrevisions to the Act.

EPA received numerous letters from State legislators, mayors, and boards of supervisors, in almost equal number supporting and opposingthe redesignation. Fifteen city councils or county boards ofsupervisors in the San Joaquin Valley adopted resolutions supporting the redesignation and Federal actions to mandate additional controls in the Bay Area to reduce pollution levels exported into the Valley.

Five California air pollution control districts (Monterey, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Yolo-Solano, and Placer)
wrote to support further emission reductions in theBay Area, while the BAAQMD opposed the redesignation. EPA summarizes and responds to the BAAQMD's extensive comments in section III.D., below. EPA received letters from over 20 Bay Areabusinesses and business organizations arguing against the proposed redesignation, aswell as several letters from San Joaquin Valley businesses supporting the redesignation.

Letters supporting the redesignation and encouraging adoption ofspecific additional controls were sent by Northern California environmental groups. These commenters generally perceived a contrast between the major threat to public health reflected in the
recent ozone violations and the lack of political will shown by State and Bay Area officials. The commenters supported a stringent timetable for SIP revisions and attainment, agreeing with EPA that the urgent priority is to actually adopt measures to ensure that the Bay Area ozone violations will not

recur.

Nineteen public interest groups representing the Bay Area Environmental Justice Community signed a letter in support ofthe redesignation, emphasizing the need to stemjob flight to the suburbs and to increase public transit within the Bay Area. The environmentaljustice groups noted that these changes would benefit poor people and communities ofcolor both by improving theirhealth and by increasingtheir access tojobs and essential services.

All letters from downwind areas (including, notably, the San Joaquin Valley) strongly urged EPA to finalize the redesignation, on the grounds that the Bay Area exports ozone or ozone precursors to their region, thus jeopardizingpublic health, prosperity, and scenic and resource values. These letters typically noted that the Bay Area,

as an attainment area, does not confront Federal control responsibilities, and that this double standard unfairly penalizes downwind nonattainment areas, which face specific CAA mandates associated with their "serious" or "severe" ozone classifications.

Letters from Bay Area local officials and businesses generally pointed to unusual weather during 1995 and 1996

as the cause ofthe ozone exceedances; the Bay Area's continuing efforts to reduce emissions and the BAAQMD's projections that emission levels will decline significantly in future years; the fact that the Bay Area recorded no exceedances in 1997; and the importance ofnotdiverting resources from implementation ofexisting

measures and planning for the more protective 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
commenters frequently observed that EPA's proposed SIP timetable was too hasty to allow for good decision making. 

## 37264

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37264 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

D.Specific CommentsandEPA Response

1. Comments Relating to the Basis of EPA's Proposal to Redesignate the Bay Area to Nonattainment

a. Air Quality and Emissions

Comment:The primary cause ofthe
recent ozone exceedances is the very unusual weather patterns of 1995 and 1996. There were fewer exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 1996 and

no exceedances in 1997. The Bay Area should therefore continue to be considered an attainment area.

Response:The Bay Area is not in compliance with the federal ozone standard, a standard that was designed
to protect public health. The absence of violations in 1997 is apositive sign, but compliance with the federal ozone standard is measured over a 3-year period, not on an annual basis. The primary reason for the 3-year time frame is to account for the effects ofweather and other meteorological conditions that

can work to either the advantage or disadvantage ofair quality. This is particularly relevant in the Bay Area's
case, since the meteorological conditions prevailing on the West Coast during 1997 were unusually favorable to good air quality. Furthermore, according
to arecent technical analysis by the BAAQMD, the ozone-conducive meteorology that occurred in 1995 and 1996 is likely to recur (BAAQMD Evaluationofthe 1995and 1996Ozone Seasons in the SanFrancisco BayArea, October 1997, attached to Governor Wilson's December 10, 1997 letter to EPA Administrator Browner). Bay Area residents must be assured ofclean air under all weather conditions.

The Bay Area recorded 17 violations ofthe 1-hour standard over the 3-year period 1994-1996. During that period, exceedances ofthe ozone standard were measured at 15 official network monitoring locations throughout the Bay Area. Although air quality improved between 1995 and 1996, the Bay Area's ranking in 1996 was the 6th worst in the nation for number ofdays when ozone levels exceeded the federal standard. Over theperiod 1995-1997, theBay Area recorded 15 violations and had significantly worse air quality than most other metropolitan areas designated as nonattainment for ozone (see response to the following comment). Many of these areas are classified as "serious" or higher under the Clean Air Act, and are subject to specific mandatory requirements which would not apply to the Bay Area in EPA's redesignation proposal. These high ozone levels are harmful to public health in the Bay Area. Exposure to ambient ozone concentrations, even atrelatively low levels and for briefperiods oftime, can

cause respiratory symptoms such as a reduction in lungfunction, chestpain, and cough. Repeated exposure can make people more susceptible to respiratory infection and lung inflammation, and

can aggravate preexisting respiratory diseases such as asthma. In consideration ofthese significant public health concerns associated with the Bay Area's elevated ozone levels, EPA continues to believe that redesignation
to nonattainment is warranted. Comment:The Bay Area has the cleanest air ofany metropolitan region in the nation. Since 1990, the Bay Area has been in attainment 99.995% ofthe time.

Response: There is no question that air quality in the Bay Area has improved

over the last 40 years. However, the Bay Area is not currently attainingthe federal 1-hour ozone standard, a standard that was designed to protect public health and which has been made

more protective by adoption ofanew, 8-hour standard. The magnitude ofthe problem is significant as demonstrated by the number ofviolations (17 since redesignation to attainment in 1995) and the number ofdays when the standard

was exceeded (19 days between 1995- 1997). When comparing air quality in the Bay Area to other major metropolitan areas, there are a number oflarge metropolitan areas, such as Chicago and Detroit, with fewer violations and exceedance days than experienced in the Bay Area. Furthermore, the Bay Area ranks among the worst ofthe 243 Air Quality Control Regions in the country, based on data from the mostrecent 3-yearperiod. Finally, in contrast to most areas ofthe Country, there is not a significant downward trend in the number ofozone exceedances in the Bay Area since 1989. Comment:EPA's reliance on a statistic ranking the Bay Area the 6th
worst in the nation in number ofdays

over the ozone standard is misplaced. EPA's simplistic characterization ofthe number ofexceedances fails to realistically depict the situation. A more realistic characterization isbased on a review ofthe exceedances in terms of hours over the standard relative to hours in the ozone season for six or seven years. Followingthis approach, the number ofhours over the standard is less than 21oo ofapercent for 1990- 1996. This analysis properly focuses on long-term trends rather than short-term data. Response:When EPA establishes an ambient air quality standard, it sets not onlythe level ofthe standard (in this
case, .12 ppm)but also the averaging timeofthe standard (1-hour) and the form ofthe standard (how compliance is measured).Each ofthese components of the NAAQS is setbased on EPA's review ofthe available health effects data. When EPA setthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA specified that the form be based on the number ofexceedance days per year averaged over 3 years. Therefore, EPA's characterization ofthe Bay Area air quality in terms ofnumber ofdays over the standard is appropriate. The form ofthe standard is not based on the number ofhours over the standard relative to hours in the ozone season for 6 or 7 years, so an examination ofthe Bay Area's air quality on this basis would notbe appropriate.

Comment: Some commenters concluded that the absence ofviolations in 1997, in conjunction with predicted further declines in emissions, proves that the Bay Area's ozone problem has been solved. Other commenters noted that the West Coast's extraordinary meteorology in 1997 kept ozone concentrations unusually low, and that emissions in the Bay Area mayin fact
notbe decreasing as much as predicted, given the strong economic growth in the

area and other factors.

Response: The October 1997 BAAQMDreportreferenced above identifies a downtrend in ozone precursor emissions from 1979 through the early 1990s, but notes that during the 1990s "progress appears to have lapsed; there appears to have been an increase in ozone potential, after accounting for meteorology" (page v). The report further notes thatthe ozone violations in 1995 and 1996 cannot be attributed solely to unusual circumstances. It identifies possible explanations for increased emissions

over this time period (e.g., increased speed limits, increased congestion levels, and increased employment levels in East Bay communities).

EPA believes that aredesignation to nonattainment not only accurately describes air quality in the Bay Area, but also provides an opportunity for reevaluating the causes ofthe Bay Area's ozone violations, the quantity of emission reductions needed to attain the health-based standard, and the measures that will achieve those reductions expeditiously. This may involve not onlyCARB and BAAQMDbut also MTC and ABAG in cooperative efforts to reduce the motor vehicle contribution to the Bay Area's continuing smog problem. 

## 37265

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37265 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

Comment:EPA has not demonstrated that contingency measures in the Bay Area's maintenance plan in conjunction with otherprojected reductions will fail to bring theregion back into attainment.

Response:EPA acknowledges that additional emission reductions are likely to be achieved from measures already in the SIP or submitted for SIP approval. No commenter, however, has provided any evidence that these reductions willbe sufficient to avoid violations in the future. Indeed, many commenters, including the BAAQMD and the State, emphasized that recently adopted control measure commitments in the Bay Area's 1997 Clean Air Plan

areimportant in order to ensure continued air quality progress.

The Clean Air Act places theburden

on the State to demonstrate thatits plan,
at all times, provides for attainment and maintenance oftheNAAQS, through federally enforceable emission reductions sufficient to avoid violations oftheNAAQS. The Federal CAA also provides protections to the public in the
event that State plans are not fully and successfully implemented to achieve the scheduled emission reductions and air quality improvements. These protections include federally imposed nonimplementation sanctions and opportunities for citizens to sue to compel implementation.

EPA believes, therefore, that redesignation and new SIP obligations for the Bay Area are consistent with the overall structure and intent ofthe CAA, and provide key public health benefits. The State and BAAQMD will assess, using available data and technical analyses, the amount ofemission reductions needed to ensure that violations ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS do not recur. The State, BAAQMD, and other responsible local agencies must then identify control measures that will achieve these reductions. EPA expects that the agencies will analyze which control measures from the 1997 Clean Air Plan areneeded to attain the standard and which measures beyond those contained in the plan are also needed. The State, BAAQMD, and other responsible agencies willbe subject to a schedule for adopting and implementing the necessary controls. The public willhave increased protections as a result ofmaking control

measures needed to attain the standard part ofthe SIP, thus providing insurance that the measures will be carried out,if necessary, through federal enforcement

or citizen suit. Comment:EPA received a number of comments related to the continued applicability ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS in light ofthe new 8-hour standard.

Response:EPA is responding to these
comments atlength below to further the public's understanding ofthis issue. However, EPA's decisions that (1) the 1- hour standard will remain in effect in an

area untilit is attained, and (2) that the standard continues to apply in the Bay Area because the area is not attaining the standard, are not at issue in this rulemaking action and are not appropriately challenged here. EPA's views regarding these issues are set forth in 63 FR31013, June 5, 1998. Comment:The Bay Area had attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and, therefore, rather than beingredesignated to nonattainment, the area was entitled to revocation ofthe 1-hour NAAQS in conformance with the President's directive.

Response:The President's "Implementation Plan for Revised Air Quality Standards" ("Implementation Plan") (62 FR38424) called for EPAto revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in all

areas that attain the standard. The President did not direct EPAto revoke the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas currently designated as maintenance or attainment areas. The President clearly intended that current air quality be the basis ofEPA's determination ofwhich

areas attain. The Implementation Plan states that "[f]or areas wherethe air quality doesnotcurrentlyattainthe 1- hour standard, the 1-hour standard will continue in effect" (emphasis added). Moreover, the controlling regulatory provision, 40CFR section 50.9(b), specifies that an area must have air quality that meets the standard at the time ofthe decision. EPA's rulemaking action to determine that the 1-hour standard no longer applies in areas that

arenot currently violating the standard is therefore consistent with the Presidential memorandum. 63 FR31013 (June5, 1998). Because the Bay Area is currently violating the 1-hour ozone standard, the area is not currently eligible for this determination. Comment:EPA has indicated that if the Agency's review ofrecent monitoring data finds that an attainment

or maintenance area now violates the 1- hour standard, EPA will not redesignate these areas to nonattainment under the 1-hour standard.

Response:Both EPA's final regulation promulgating the new ozone regulation (62 FR38873) and the Presidential memorandum regarding implementation ofthe standards (62 FR 38424) explain that in orderto ensure a smooth transition to the implementation ofthe 8-hourozone standard, the 1-hour standard will remain applicable to an 

### area until ithas attained the 1-hour standard. Aslong as the 1-hour standard remains in effect in an area, so does EPA's authority under CAA section 107(d)(3) to redesignate that area as a nonattainment area.EPA's "Guidance for Implementingthe i-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM1

### oNAAQS" (December 29, 1997 Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, toEPA Regional Administrators) clarifies that "in certain

cases where airquality datathrough 1997 show nonattainment, EPA maybe redesignating areas from attainment to nonattainment for the i-hour standard."

Comment:EPA should treat theBay Arealike other maintenance areas in the Country, where the i-hourNAAQS is notbeingrevoked becausethe areas have had recent violations ofthe NAAQS. These areas are notbeing reclassified to nonattainment.

Response:TheBay Area's number of exceedances and violations and theBay Area's peak concentrations (highest monitored value and design concentration) farexceed those in all other maintenance areas thathave had exceedances since 1994. There are 5 other ozonemaintenance areas in addition to theBay Area thathave experienced violations ofthe 1-hour

ozone standard after redesignation: Kansas City, Detroit-Ann Arbor, DaytonSpringfield, Grand Rapids and Memphis. Three ofthese maintenance

areas (Detroit-Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, and Dayton-Springfield) already meet thetest for attainment ofthe 1-hour

ozoneNAAQS based on 1995-1997 data and aretherefore proposed for revocation ofthe 1-hour ozone standard (63 FR27247, May 18, 1998).The remaining 2 areas, Kansas City and Memphis, could meet thattest atthe end of1998, assumingthat no more than2 exceedances are recorded at the peak monitor during 1998. Because the peak monitor in theBay Area recorded 8exceedances in 1996, theBay Area would stillviolatethe 1-hour ozone NAAQS even ifno exceedances occurin 1998, since the average numberof exceedances for the 3-year period 1996- 1998 would exceed 1peryear. b. Legal Authority (i)General Comments on Mandatory and Discretionary Authorities To Redesignate

Comment:Anumber ofcommenters feltthat EPA should notredesignate the Bay Areato nonattainment because the Clean AirActcontains no mandatory dutyto do so.

Response:EPA agrees that section 107(d)(3)(A) does notrequire EPAto redesignate theBay Area. However, 

### 37266

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37266 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

section 107(d)(3) oftheAct grants the Administrator broad discretion to redesignate areas when she determines that itis appropriate. For the reasons discussed atlength in the proposal and in today's final notice, the Administrator believes that itis necessary to redesignate the Bay Area. (ii)Authority To Redesignate Without Classification
Comment:The BAAQMD commented that it disagrees with EPA's interpretation ofsection 181(b)(1) ofthe Act, and believes that the ambiguity contained in the language ofthis section argues in favor ofaSIP call to strengthen the maintenance plan, rather than redesignation without classification.

Response:As EPA explained at length in its proposal, section 181(b)(1), which provides for new designations to nonattainment, does not on its face apply to the Bay Area. (Pleaserefer to 62 FR66580, December 19, 1997, for EPA's analysis ofthe applicability of section 181.) Section 181(b)(1) explicitly sets forth which areas it governs. Specifically, section 181(b)(1) covers only those areas that were originally designated attainment or unclassifiable pursuant to section 107(d)(4) ofthe 1990 amendments. This section is silent with regard to areas, like the Bay Area, that

were designated nonattainment under the 1990 amendments, redesignated to attainment, and that subsequently returned to nonattainment.

In its comments on theproposal, the BAAQMD cautions EPA against inferring anything from Congress' silence with regard to areas like theBay Area. However, because Congress was silent on this point, some inference
must be made in order to decide how an
area like the Bay Area is to be treated under the Act. The BAAQMD would like us to infer that we cannot redesignate an areaback to nonattainment once ithas attained the standard, but must instead issue a SIP call to address the inadequacies in the maintenance plan and contingency

measures. While a SIP call is one possible option, itis clearly not the only option authorized by the Act. There is

no ambiguity in the language ofsection 107(d)(3), which grants the Administrator the authority to redesignate an area "any time" she deems it is appropriate based on air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air qualityrelated considerations. 8 EPA continues

8The BayArea recorded 43 exceedances ofthe

ozone standard in the two-yearperiod 1995 1996. The standard allowsno more than three to believe that redesignation, rather than

a SIP call, is the appropriate action in this instance. Given thebroad discretion granted the Administrator under section 107(d)(3), EPAis exercising that discretion today to redesignate the area to nonattainment. Moreover, we also continue to believe that the ambiguity contained in the language of section 181(b)(1) isbest interpreted asplacing the Bay Area under subpart 1 ofthe Act for the following reasons. The plain language ofsection 181(b)(1) applies only to areas designated attainment under section 107(d)(4) and excludes

areas like the Bay Area. Second, as an
area that was previously designated nonattainment, the Bay Area has already done much ofthe work required for a nonattainment area SIP and should not need the lengthy time period granted to

new nonattainment areas to complete its planning process. The Bay Area has already implemented the section 181 requirements applicable to its previous moderate classification. 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.

c. Policy Issues (i) Public Notification and Public Perception
Comment:Some commenters considered redesignation to be simply a labeling exercise that will have a negative impact on public support for existing air quality programs by emphasizing redundant and counterproductive procedural and paperwork tasks above real progress in emission reductions.

exceedances at any onemonitor over three years. In addition, the area recorded violations at special purpose monitors (SPMs) from 1992 1993, prior to being redesignated to attainment. While these violations were notconsidered in EPA's original decision toredesignate the area to attainment because themonitors were notpart ofthe official monitoring network, the Agency has sinceissued a policy that requires that any reliable monitoring data berelied upon in such decisions. (August 22, 1997 memorandum entitled, "Agency Policy on the Use of Special Purpose Monitoring Data," fromJohn Seitz, Director ofthe Office ofAirQuality Planning and Standards.) Aswe noted in the proposal (62FR 66579, December 19, 1997), EPA has determined that the SPMs data should have been considered in the 1995 redesignation action. With the advantage ofhindsight, these violations can beviewed as an indicator that the airquality problem in the Bay Area has notbeen solved atthe time the area was redesignated, as was borne out bythe high number of exceedances during 1995 1996. Aswe have discussed at length herein and in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the severity ofthe air quality problem makes redesignation the appropriate action in this case. 

### Other commenters noted thatthe redesignation debate in the Bay Area shows thatlabels are significant, and that "nonattainment" accurately conveys themessage that makingthe Bay Area's air safe tobreathe isa task stillunfinished; there needs tobe aclear and consistent signal tothe affected

sources and thepublic about whynew
measures are necessary. These commenters concluded that, to win approval ofadditional reductions in air pollution, thepublic needs toknow the actual status ofairquality in theBay Area. Thebroaderpublic will not support efforts to reducepollution ifair quality isdeemed to bein attainment of health standards. Iflocal regulators maintain that airquality isfine andif thereisno public accountability through EPA oversight orthe rightof public interest groups to enforce attainmentplans, theregulators will not take on thedifficult task ofrequiring polluters to investfurther in pollution prevention orcontrol technology.

Response:Thelarge number ofBay Areaexceedances in 1995 and 1996 indicates that we do nothave a convincing basis forpredicting an end to ozone violations without further reductions. Designations ofattainment

areintended to apply to areas that have demonstrated clean air overa 3-year period.

Moreover, EPA doesnot believe that theBay Area's current attainment designation is appropriate since ittells the affected public,the regulated community, local agencies, and the Districtthat ozone pollution isno longer

aproblem. This inaccurate message tends toundercut collaborative and progressive actions in thenear term, and contributes to confusion and dissension both within the Bay Area and in downwind populations.

EPA remains convinced thatnearterm action isneeded toprotect the health and welfare ofthe State's residents. Emission reduction strategies willbe evaluated and putin place 4-5 years sooner through aredesignation under the 1-hour standard than is expected undera plan tomeet the revised ozone standard (newplans are notexpected tobe due underthe revised standard until 2003 and the attainment date for an area such asthe Bay Areafor the 8-hour standard is expected tobe 2005 at the earliest).That is at least 4-5 years during which Californians wouldbebreathing dirtier airthan they should be.

Finally, EPAcontinues to believe that

aredesignation tononattainment not only accurately describes airquality in theBay Area butalso provides an opportunity forreevaluating thecauses 

### 37267

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37267 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

oftheBay Area's ozone violations, the quantity ofemission reductions needed
to attain thehealth-based standard, and the measures that will achieve those reductions expeditiously. (ii) Impact ofBay Area Emissions on Downwind Nonattainment Areas and Issues ofEquity

Comment:Commenters from downwind areas and environmental groups referenced a CARB study indicating that pollution transported from the Bay Areaproduces up to 27% ofthe smogin the Central Valley. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District noted that CARB has found that halfofthe exceedances ofthe State 1-hour ozone standard in the North Central Coast Air Basin result from overwhelming transport from the Bay Area (i.e., the exceedances would have occurred even in the absence of local emissions). Commenters expressed the beliefthat continued Bay Area progress toward meeting federal requirements is key to achieving air quality in these downwind areas, and that further NOxreductions in the Bay Area are especially important. Commenters noted highpollution levels in areas downwind ofthe Bay Area, and argued that redesignation would help

ensure that the Bay Area pays the price ofcontrolling its pollution rather than passing iton in the form ofhealth impacts and added regulatory requirements for downwind areas. Downwind areas stated that enhanced
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (or enhanced I/M, which is known in California as Smog Check 2) should be required in the Bay Area,just

as it is in urbanized portions ofthe Central Valley.

The BAAQMD argued that redesignation without classification would not ensure implementation of Smog Check 2in the Bay Area under existing State law. The State argued that redesignation would hurt attainment efforts in the Central Valley, since it would distract the Bay Area from achieving real emissions reductions. Bay Area industry commented that redesignation will not solvepollution transport issues in California and that anyreliance on pollutant transport

concerns to supportredesignation is unfounded and legally impermissible.

Response: The basis for the nonattainment designation is the large number ofrecent violations ofthe 1- hour ozone NAAQS in the Bay Area, not any new evidence regarding the impact ofBay Area pollution on downwind

areas within the State. EPA believes that primary responsibility for addressing transport to and from the Bay Area resides with the State.

With respect to the importance of Smog Check 2in the Bay Area, EPA strongly endorses enhanced I/M asone ofthe most cost-effective measures that could be added to theBay Area's existing controls, since the program has the potential to achieve substantial emissions reductions in the near term and to ensure that the benefits of California's stringentmotor vehicle standards are not diminished because of poorly maintained vehicles. (iii)Effect ofRedesignation on Limited Air Pollution Control Resources
Comment:Redesignation will trigger

an expensive, duplicative planning process that will detract from effective collaborative efforts to improve air quality. Redesignation provides no new funds, authority, or technology but simply imposes paperwork and process requirements.

Response:Redesignation should not result in aburdensome and duplicative planning effort. EPA wants the District and its co-lead agencies to focus on emission reductions, not paperwork.

EPA is asking, in fact, for only three plan elements: the existing 1995 emissions inventory for VOC and NOx,

an assessment ofemissions reductions needed to attain the federal standard, and control measures to achieve those reductions. EPA is allowing the District
to use available data and technical analyses to establish the emission reduction targets. Finally, EPA expects that most ofthe work to identify potential control measures has also been completed for the District's recently adopted 1997 Clean Air Plan. EPA expects that the District will analyze which control measures from this plan

areneeded to attain the standard and which measures beyond those contained in the plan are also needed. Making these control measures federally enforceable elements ofthe SIP provides

an important public safeguard since only in this way can EPA and the public

ensure that the commitments in the plan

are fully implemented and theplan's promised air quality benefits are realized. This streamlined planning effort also provides an opportunity for the Bay Area to quickly determine whether additional reductions from transportation sources are appropriate, in the event that attainment requires

more near-term reductions than the Clean Air Plan currently identifies.

While EPA concedes that redesignation may provide no new funds, authority, or technology, the Agency does not agree that the redesignation, asfinalized in this action, simply imposes burdensome paperwork and process requirements on the Bay Area. EPA's proposed streamlined and flexible set ofrequirements contrasts with extensive and prescriptive planning and control requirements that apply to ozone nonattainment areas with 1999 attainment deadlines. Most of these areas, which were classified as "serious" under the Clean Air Act, have far fewer ozone exceedances and far fewer planningresources than does the Bay Area. The following are examples of "serious" ozone nonattainment area mandates, which EPA does notpropose to require in the Bay Area: (1) A more stringent definition ofmajor stationary

source for purposes ofTitle Voperating permit requirements; (2) more stringent applicability thresholds and offset ratios forpurposes ofpermitting new and modified stationary sources; (3) a more stringent definition ofmajor stationary

source for purposes ofapplying reasonably available control technology requirements to existing stationary
sources; (4) specific, detailed plan elements addressing rate-of-progress; (5)

an enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program; and (6) specific, detailed provisions relating to transportation control.

Comment:Redesignation is inconsistent with the President's directive that the new federal air quality standards be implemented in aflexible, cost-effective and common-sense manner; that EPA respect agreements already made by States, communities, and businesses to clean up the air; and that EPAimplement the standards with the minimum amount ofpaperwork necessary. Redesignation also fails to promote the ideals ofthe President's and VicePresident's reinvention report which calls forthe buildingof partnerships, the reduction ofred tape, and the use ofsound science to set priorities.

Response:A key component ofthe President's implementation plan for the

new federal air quality standards is that continued progress toward meeting the 1-hour standard will ensure a smooth and effective transition to the 8-hour standard. EPA's action to redesignate the Bay Area as a nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard and the simplified setofplanning objectives that accompany this action are consistent with continuing progress towards meeting the 1-hour standard. They are also consistent with other elements ofthe implementation plan pertaining to respecting existing agreements, reducing paperwork, and maximizing common sense flexibility, and cost-effectiveness. As discussed above, EPA is askingfor only 3 plan 

## 37268

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37268 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

elements: the existing 1995 emissions inventory for VOC and NOx, an assessment ofemissions reductions needed to attain the federal standard, and control measures to achieve those reductions, without requiring expensive

new modeling orunnecessary paperwork. TheDistrict has already identified additional control measures in its 1997 California Clean AirActplan that could beused fora new federal plan. In addition, partnerships between theprivate sector, environmental groups, and regulators topromote innovative methods for addressing the airqualityproblem could be an important part ofthe Bay Area's response to theredesignation. (iv)Alternatives toRedesignation

Comment:EPA should allow the Bay Area to implement and supplement,if necessary, the contingency measures in the Bay Area's Maintenance Plan, as the remedy toviolations. The CAA recognizes that attainment areas will experience violations from time to time and that contingency provisions should be adequate tocure theproblem. IfEPA determines thatthe existingBay Area Maintenance Plan is inadequate, the CAAprovides aremedy: EPA may issue

a SIP callunder section 110(k)(5) to strengthen the maintenance plan.

Response:EPA hoped and expected that theBay Area's maintenance plan would bethe means toprevent future exceedances oftheozone standard. Unfortunately, almost all ofthe emission reductions from the Bay Area's maintenance and contingency measures
were in effect at thetime thatthe Bay Area experienced so many violations of the ozone standard in 1995 and 1996. After completing a stakeholder process over thepast several years, EPA concluded that additional publichealth protections areneeded beyond current Bay Area plans. EPAevaluated all ofthe options available under the Clean Air Act to address thepublic health problem and continues tobelieve that redesignation isthe mostdirect and sensibleoutcome.

Theproposal thatEPA rely only on a "SIP Call" would apparently involve EPA usingthe authority ofCAA section 110(k)(5) tomandate submission ofa strengthened maintenance plan. For the

reasons discussed above,EPA believes that redesignation to nonattainment isa
more appropriate course under the framework oftheAct. WhileEPA considered the "SIP Call" option, the Agency concluded that afederal nonattainment designation fortheBay Area was importanttoprovide the public with accurate information and the correct message: Pollution levels must be reduced quickly in order to eliminate unhealthy air quality within the Bay Area. Since the amount of reductions necessary to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standard has not yet been established, EPAbelieves that the proper SIP remedy is twofold. First, the BAAQMD must submitits existing 1995 emissions inventory for VOC and NOx and an assessment,using available data and technical analyses, ofthe emissions reductions needed to attain the standard. Second, the BAAQMD and its co-lead agencies must identify, adopt, and submit for incorporation in the SIP allofthose control measures that are needed to meet the reduction target expeditiously. EPA proposed and is now finalizing this simplified SIP remedy, which does not substantively differ from the planningrequirements that would need to be addressed bythe State in revising the Bay Area's maintenance plan so that itprovides for attainment.

Comment:The BAAQMD commented that ifredesignation is finalized EPA should classify the Bay Area as a "marginal" ozone nonattainment area, subject to the requirements specifically delineated in CAA section 182(a).This certainty would provide a more specific and defensible foundation for the responsibilities ofthe co-lead agencies, CARB, and EPA. The BAAQMD expressed the beliefthat areas designated as "marginal" would have 3 years to develop a SIP submittal and 5 years to reach attainment. Other commenters recommended a "moderate" classification as more appropriate to the Bay Area's air quality.

Response:As discussed above and in the proposal, EPA concluded that subpart 2 ofthe Clean Air Act (which includes the ozone classifications and specific requirements for each classification) applies, on its face, only
to: (1) Areas designated nonattainment under 107(d)(4) atthe time the 1990 amendments were passed, and (2) areas designated nonattainment under 107(d)(3) for the first time after passage ofthe 1990 amendments. See CAA 181(b)(1). Thus, the subpart 2 provisions would not seem to apply to theBay Area, which was initially nonattainment, redesignated to attainment, and then redesignated back
to nonattainment.

In the proposed redesignation (62FR 66580),EPA also presented two policy

reasons for not classifying the Bay Area

or requiring the District to meet all of the subpart 2 requirements for a "moderate" ozone nonattainment area:

(1) Many ofthe classification requirements served no purpose for the Bay Area, because therequirements had already been addressed previously when the area was nonattainment or because the requirements would contribute no specific emission reductions. For example, "moderate"

area requirements include the gasoline vaporrecovery program (which has been approved as part ofthe Bay Area SIP for many years) and the rate-ofprogress plan (which would be superfluous given the compressed attainment schedule for the Bay Area). EPA's proposal stressed the Agency's determination to eliminate paperwork and focus the Bay Area's energies on achieving the emission reductions needed to attain the 1-hour NAAQS quickly.

(2) It did not seem appropriate to allow the Bay Area as much time as subpart 2 gives to newly designated and classified nonattainment areas. The CAA allows newly designated nonattainment areas the same amount of timeto meet subpart 2requirements as
was given to areas initially nonattainment under the 1990 CAA amendments. This would mean that the Bay Area would have either 3 years or 4 years from the effective date ofthe final designation to make a "moderate" SIP submittal, depending upon whether sophisticated photochemical modeling

was employed (approximately 6/2001 or 6/2002, instead ofthe 6/1999 date for SIP submittal setin this action). The Bay Area would also have 6 years to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (2004, instead ofthe 2000 date in this action).

The same analysis applies to an even greater extent with respect to a "marginal" classification. The Bay Area has previously addressed the CAA "marginal" area requirements for corrections to RACT rules, NSRrules, basic I/M, and rules requiring sources to report on their emissions. IfEPA were to classify the area as "marginal," in fact, the Bay Area would only need to submit a single new SIP element-an updated emissions inventory-which would notbe due until 2years from the effective date ofthe final designation (approximately 6/2000, instead ofthe 11/1998 informal submittal date agreed
to bythe BAAQMD, and the 6/1999 SIP deadline set in this action). The CAA does not require "marginal" areas to submit attainment assessments, but sets

an attainment deadline 3 years after the effective date ofthe nonattainment designation (i.e., 2001).

EPA does not believe that either the "moderate" or "marginal" classification requirements and schedule represent an efficient, common-sense, or adequate response to the urgent public health

concerns associated with the Bay Area's large number ofrecent ozone NAAQS 

### 37269

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37269 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

violations. EPA continues to conclude that the proposed approach of redesignation without classification, settingnear-term deadlines for SIP revision and attainment, is not only better supported by the terms ofthe CAA but also better fits the goals ofthis action: To provide the Act's clean air protections to Bay Arearesidents as quickly as possible, with minimal process and paper, and with the greatest flexibility afforded to the State and local agencies.

Comment:The BAAQMDproposed that, in lieu ofredesignation, the BAAQMD, EPA, CARB, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Association ofBay Area Governments, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, CBE,Earth Justice, and the Sierra Club could enter into abinding memorandum ofunderstanding or agreement that would result in additional stationary and mobile source control measures, with their concomitant emission reductions, being added to the BAAQMD's Maintenance Plan or SIP. The BAAQMD argued that this approach was supported by the President's emphasis onregulatory flexibility.

Response:EPA strongly supports collaborative efforts between all involved parties, and particularly encourages consultation with downwind air districts and environmental groups. EPA does not view broad cooperative efforts such as the BAAQMDproposes as incompatible with redesignation to nonattainment, and notes that halfofthe parties named by the BAAQMD support EPA's proposed redesignation action. EPA is unclear, however, regarding the scope of the BAAQMD's proposed binding MOU

or MOA, whether all ofthe parties would have the authority to enterinto

abindingMOU orMOA, and whether allnecessary parties would be bound. There are significant statutory constraints, for example, on EPA's authority to enter intobinding agreements. Nevertheless, EPA would be pleased to participate in any process established by the BAAQMD. Comment:EPA should follow the Clinton Administration's "Common Sense" option, and allow the Bay Area simplyto focus on the 8-hour ozone standard on the schedule established for

new ozone SIPs.

Response:This option apparently involves no near-term actions by State and local Bay Area agencies, since most substantive requirements and deadlines for SIPs addressing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will not come due for approximately 5 years. The commenter appears to conclude that we should abandon efforts to reach a less stringent

ozone standard on our way to achieving

amore stringent ozone standard.

EPA's final promulgation ofthe revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS and final interim implementation policy, "Guidance forImplementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM1O NAAQS" (December29, 1997), responded to commenters on the proposals, who argued that abandonment ofSIP obligations to provide attainment plans for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would be inconsistent with national public health goals, in view ofthe fact that new plans addressing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will not be due until mid-2003. In order to ensure that momentum is maintained by state and local agencies, the final policy provides that the 1-hour standard and applicable Clean Air Act requirements will continue to apply to

an area untilEPA makes a determination that the areahas met the 1-hour standard. As discussed elsewhere in response to comments, EPA believes that acompressed and streamlined planningprocess is necessary for the Bay Area to expedite efforts to protect public health. EPA agrees with commenters who concluded that this process will benefit rather than detract from eventual preparation ofa SIP addressing the 8-hourozone NAAQS.

2. Comments Relating to EPA's Proposed SIP Requirements

a. Emissions Inventory

Comment:While the BAAQMD has been maintaining and updating a weekday inventory for many decades, preparing a weekend day inventory, as EPA proposes to require, would demand extensive new data gathering and compilation, several person-years of effort, and one half-million dollars or
more. Although assumptions could be made and best-judgment factors could be applied to weekday data to generate

an estimate ofweekend day data, the resulting uncertainties would hamper planning efforts based on their use. Such an extensive new requirement would be more appropriate for a SIP submittal focused on the new 8-hour NAAQS.

Response:Based on these comments from the State and the BAAQMD, EPA has decided to amend the proposed SIP submittal schedule to delete the weekend day emission inventory requirement. Nevertheless, EPA encourages BAAQMD and CARB to work together with State and regional planning and transportation agencies to

assess weekend emissions and develop appropriate additional control measures
as maybe necessary and appropriate to

ensure that weekend violations do not persist. Comment:EPA proposed to require an updated carbon monoxide (CO) emissions inventory. A commenter noted that, although aCO inventory mayhelp shed light on sources ofozone precursors, the CO inventory has no direct bearing on ozone attainment
status and EPA should delete the requirement from the final redesignation.

Response:In order to minimize still further the scope ofthe Bay Area SIP obligation, EPA agrees to eliminate this requirement. Consequently, EPA finalizes in this action a SIP requirement for the existing 1995 inventory for VOC and NOxemissions only.
b. Attainment Assessment
Comment:Bay Area industry, the State, and the BAAQMD argued that a credible attainment assessment, particularly one that takes into account the 1995-6 meteorological conditions and ambient concentrations, cannot be performed byMay 1, 1998, due to data gaps and lack ofmodeling capability. If the BAAQMD should attempt an assessment, it would not be technically defensible and would notbe accepted by the public or business community. Reliable modeling cannot be performed until theresults ofa new field study (conducted in 1999 or 2000) are available. Bay Area industry expressed

concern that EPA's unrealistic schedule may lead the BAAQMD to prematurely "lock in" a control strategy that emphasizes counterproductive NOx reductions.

On the other hand, environmental groups and other commenters felt that EPA's proposed schedule struck an appropriate balance between the competingconcerns for acting quickly and acting knowledgeably. These commenters emphasized that the BAAQMD cannot assure compliance with the 1-hour NAAQS withoutfirst knowing what emissions are and what reductions are needed, and any extra time and effort spent to understand the problem now will pay double dividends in the future, in helping theregulatory agencies and affected industry comply with theFederal 8-hour NAAQS and the California 1-hour standard.

Response:EPA continues to believe that available data and technical analyses can be used to provide, within

a very short period oftime, a reasonable estimate ofemission reductions needed to attain. The BAAQMD's October 1997 report, Evaluationofthe 1995and1996 

## 37270

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37270 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

OzoneSeasonsin the SanFranciscoBay Area,recommended such an assessment. EPAremains willing to work with the BAAQMD to ensure that the exercise can be completed within the established time limits and resource constraints, and that the analysis will comply with applicable federal requirements. EPA notes that there is no CAA requirement that the Bay Areause Urban Airshed Modeling, and that other approaches maybe appropriate to target the amount ofemission reductions needed to attain the NAAQS expeditiously. The quality oftechnical data and analyses techniques will continually improve, but itdoes not make sense to wait for the "perfect" science to take action. Regulatory agencies need to use the best information available now to make reasonable decisions about how to protect public health. In order to allow

more time to assess the reductions needed for attainment, EPA is extending the formal SIP submittal deadline for the attainment assessment from May 1, 1998 to June 15, 1999. The Districthas committed to submit a draft attainment
assessment informally to EPA, and make it available to the public, by November 25, 1998. (Letter from BAAQMD, ABAG, and MTC dated June 23, 1998.) This early informal submittal will allow EPA
to review the draft inventory and
assessment and work with the District to address any deficiencies. Finally, with respect to industry's contention that EPA's schedule may lead the District to "lock in" allegedly counterproductive NOx controls, EPA does intend to allow CARB and BAAQMD the flexibility to select the appropriate mix ofozone precursor controls to ensure attainment. This issue is also discussed below in the
context ofthe NOx waiver.

c. Control Measures (i) Suggested Measures

Comment:Several ofthe commenters recommended particular control

measures that could be adopted to speed Bay Area attainment. The most frequently mentioned new measure was the Smog Check 2program. Sacramento Valley air pollution control districts and environmental groups also urged implementation oftwo additional reduction programs: (1) A heavy duty mobile source NOxcontrol strategy that includes incentives for early introduction ofclean engine and fuel technologies; and (2) arequirement for permits and controls on smaller stationary sources, including natural gas fired boilers and internal combustion engines, and regulation ofstationary diesel internal combustion engines, which are now exempt. The Sierra Club attached to their comment an extensive list ofcontrol measures for inclusion into the SIP, particularly suggestions for specific improvements to the Bay Area transportation control measures. CBE provided detailed recommendations for

avariety ofspecific additional controls
atBay Area refineries and chemical plants. CBE also endorsed apublic comment on the proposed redesignation from Chesapeake Environmental Group, Inc., advocating further reductions in VOC emissions from land fills by prohibitions on the use ofpetroleumcontaminated soil as a landfill cover. The Bay Area Environmental Justice Community recommended tough rules

on oil refining and otherpolluting manufacturing processes, control on the
movement ofjobs to the outer suburbs, and commitments to redirect public funds to transit instead ofhighway building.

Response:EPA believes that the suggested control measures merit serious attention bythe responsible agencies. EPA has forwarded the
comments to CARB, BAAQMD, MTC and ABAG with encouragements to these agencies to consider the suggestions for incorporation into the SIP, as appropriate. In order to allow

more time for evaluation ofadditional control measures, EPAis extending the SIP submittal deadline for adopted regulations or enforceable commitments
to adopt regulations, from September 1, 1998, to June 15, 1999.

Comment:The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc., the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI), and Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America, Inc., commented that the adoption and implementation schedule ofrules in the Bay Area's 1997 Clean Air Plan was coordinated with the implementation schedule ofCAA section 183(e) rules for reducing VOC emissions and the Federal schedule for implementation ofthe maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for automobiles and light duty trucks. The commenters noted that the respective deadlines for these Federal rules are2003 and 2000, respectively. The commenters emphasized that any acceleration ofthe BAAQMD's current schedule to meet EPA's proposed 1999 attainment deadline would likely result in duplicative efforts and inconsistent requirements, and thus increased costs to affected industry.

Response:EPA has asked the State to perform an assessment ofreductions needed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS expeditiously, in order to prevent recurrence ofthe violations experienced following the redesignation to attainment. EPA wishes the Stateto

use its goodjudgment to determine which new controls should be adopted

or expedited to meet attainment requirements, assuming that the attainment assessment identifies the need for more reductions to prevent exceedances by the attainment year 2000. EPA encourages the BAAQMD and otherresponsible agencies to select control approaches thatmaximize

common sense and cost effectiveness.

Comment:Industry commenters questioned whether controls adopted to meet the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would necessarily be helpful in meeting the

new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Other commenters, however, noted that controls adopted to meet the Federal 1- hour ozone standard would contribute
to eventual attainment ofCalifornia's

more stringent 1-hour ozone standard and could be generally presumed to benefit attainment ofthe new 8-hour

ozone NAAQS.

Response:While EPAbelieves that the great majority ofcontrol possibilities for meeting the 1-hour ozone NAAQS will also advance attainment ofthe 8- hour ozone NAAQS in the Bay Area, EPA encourages CARB, BAAQMD, MTC, and ABAG to assess any new control measures that may be considered for expeditious attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, in order to

ensure that the measures will also promote attainment ofthe 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Comment:The BAAQMDproposed that new contingency measures be added to the SIP to augment the ones currently implemented. The BAAQMD stated that theprocess for identifying these measures "can occur quickly through consultation amongEPA, CARB, and the co-lead agencies. Through thisprocess, we can commit

ourenergies and our limited resources to pursuing ourreal shared goal-clean air for all people allthe time-through

common sense, flexible, cost-effective, and coordinated actions."

In its comment letter, the BAAQMD identified the following options for supplementing the existing SIP controls:

(1) already adopted measures which have not been submitted intothe SIP, such ascontrols on refinery fugitive emissions and pressure reliefvalves, NOx Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) controls on refineries and utilities, $1 increase in bridge tolls; (2) measures that the BAAQMD will be pursuing in the near term, such as an aqueous solvents rule, new CMAQfunded projects); 

### 37271

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37271 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

(3) State measures, such as further improvements to the I/M program.

Response:EPA shares completely the BAAQMD's goal statement to provide "clean airfor all people all the timethrough common sense, flexible, cost effective, and coordinated actions." EPA also appreciates the BAAQMD's point that additional control measures can be identified quickly through consultation with EPA, CARB, and the co-lead agencies; and EPA would be happy to consult on appropriate measures.

In terms ofsupplementing the current SIP with additional control measures, EPA agrees the example measures are feasible. Depending on the outcome of the attainment assessment, however, additional controls may be needed. The Bay Area has already identified several feasible control measures in response to the State requirement for a 1997 Clean Air Plan. Upon review ofthe Bay Area's 1997 Clean Air Plan, CARB suggested a number ofmodifications to existing Bay Area regulations and transportation control measures that could result in additional emission reductions (See letter from Lynn Terry, Assistant Executive Officer, CARB to Ellen Garvey, Air Pollution Control Officer, BAAQMD, dated December 1, 1997.) In addition, EPA's Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards identified 42
cost effective control measures that may be appropriate for theBay Area. (E.H. Pechan &Associates, Inc., "Control Measure Analysis ofOzone and PM Alternatives: Methodology and Results," prepared for Innovative Strategies and Economics Group, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, RTP, NCJuly 17, 1997.)Whatever additional SIP measures arepursued, they must provide sufficient emission reductions
to ensure expeditious attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Bay Area. (ii)NOxWaiver and the Efficacy ofNOx Controls
Comment:Industry commenters stated that EPA provided no adequate notice ofits retroactive revocation ofthe NOx waiver and the waiver remains appropriate to avoid requirements for expensive and counterproductive NOx controls, since modeling evidence shows that NOx reductions may elevate

ozone concentrations at locations within the Bay Area under certain meteorological conditions, and thus could detract from attainingthe ozone NAAQS.

Earthjustice, on behalfofSierra Club and CBE, agreed with EPA'sposition that no waiver ofNOx control requirements now applies, but contended that the waiver continued during the maintenance period. Earthjustice considered that the waiver expired by its own terms, however, because it was explicitly conditional, lasting only aslong as the area's monitoring data continue to demonstrate attainment. Finally, Earthjustice concluded that the Bay Area is therefore now subject to CAA section 182 requirements for NOx control.

Response:Section 182(f)ofthe Act extends the ozone nonattainment area VOC requirements ofsubpart 2 ofthe Act to emissions ofNOx. This section also provides that the Administrator may, either on her own or inresponse to a petition, waive these subpart 2NOx requirements if, for nonattainment areas outside an ozone transport region, either of2tests aremet. The section 182(f) NOx requirements would not apply if the Administrator determines that (1) for the sources concerned, net air quality benefits are greater in the absence oftheNOx reductions, or (2) additional NOx reductions would not contribute to attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS. Additionally, the NOx control requirements, under the same tests, could be relieved asto any portion of the controls that are shown to result in

excess emissions reductions. On December 16, 1993, EPA issued guidance on obtaining NOxwaivers. 9
This guidance was subsequently revised


### on May 27, 1994.10

At thetime the Bay Area submitted its redesignation request, EPA guidance governing redesignations required, pursuant to section 107 ofthe Act, that

an area must meet all applicable requirements ofsection 110 and part D prior to redesignation. Thus, before EPA could redesignate theBay Area to attainment, the Bay Area had to adopt allrequired NOxRACT rules. However, based on air quality data from official SLAMS monitors, EPA determined that the Bay Area had attained theNAAQS without adopting alloftheserules. Based on the determination that the area
was attaining without benefit of additional NOx reductions, itwas apparent that such reductions would
not contribute to attainment ofthe

ozone NAAQS. Thus, the Bay Area qualified for a waiverunder the test provided in subsection 182(f)(1)(A). Therefore, the Bay Area requested, and EPA approved, a NOxwaiver under that subsection. One commenter points out

9 "Guideline for Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen Oxide Requirements under Section 182(f)," John Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards.

10"Section 182(f)Nitrogen Oxides (No) Exemptions Revised Process and Criteria," John Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards. that the waiver was granted in the same notice asthe redesignation to attainment, arguing that this fact supports theposition that the waiver mustremain in effect. However, the waiver was acted on in the same notice

so that the area could be redesignated without first meeting any remaining part DNOx requirements. Because the Agency was ready to act on both requests at the same time, it saw no
reason to hold up the redesignation so that it could grant theNOx waiver first.

The NOx waiver acts onlyto relieve

an ozone nonattainment area from subpart 2nonattainment area NOx requirements. Once an area is redesignated to attainment these requirements no longer apply and a NOx waiver is irrelevant. Moreover, as the May 27, 1994 John Seitz guidance

memo cited above points out, theNOx exemption test set forth in section 182(f)(1)(A) asks only if additional reductions ofNOx would contribute to attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS, not whether they would contribute to maintenance ofthe standard once attainment is confirmed through redesignation to attainment. Recognition ofthis byboth the BAAQMD and EPA is inherent in the fact that theBay Area's maintenance plan contingency
measures, approved aspart ofthe redesignation to attainment, are nearly allNOx measures.

The commenters cite language in the May 27, 1994, guidance to support their position that EPA must notify the state and provide notice in the Federal Register in order to revoke NOx exemptions. However, thislanguage deals with a situation where a nonattainment area is granted a NOx waiver based upon clean air quality data, the area is not redesignated to attainment, and the area subsequently violates the ozone NAAQS. In this situation the exemption must be revoked because the area remains a nonattainment area and, unless revoked, the exemption would continue, inappropriately, to apply. Such is not the case with an area, such as the Bay Area, which is redesignated to attainment and thereby becomes a maintenance area. In such areas the exemption, which applies to nonattainment areas, by its terms no longer applies."

The commenters argue that EPA should nottake any action to revoke the NOx exemption because itremains appropriate due to the commenters'

11Sections I.C. and II.A. ofalater guidance document entitled "Conformity: General Preamble forExemption from Nitrogen Oxides Provisions expands on this point." See 59 FR at 31239 40, including note 1 (June 17, 1994). 

## 37272

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37272 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

position that the Bay Area is "hydrocarbon limited, and * * * NOx reduction measures may elevate ozone concentrations * * *." Even assuming that this is true, there is no legalbasis for retaining theNOx exemption. The Bay Area's exemption was granted based on three years ofclean air quality data. After 43 exceedances and 17 violations ofthe ozone NAAQS in two years, the basis for the exemption no longer exists.

The commenters' concerns regarding the relationship between NOx emissions and ozone formation in the Bay Area are appropriately addressed through the District's SIP revision process. Because the Bay Area is being redesignated under subpart 1oftheAct, there are no mandatory NOx measures which must be adopted. On the other hand, the Bay Area may not eliminate from the SIP any existingNOx controls without a demonstration that such revision would
not interfere with progress, attainment,

or other applicable requirements ofthe Act (CAA section 110(1)). Inresponse to the redesignation, EPA expects CARB and BAAQMD to pursue whatever combination ofVOC and NOx reductions is most consistent both with expeditious attainment in the Bay Area and with the State's determination of appropriate and necessary emissions levels in the Bay Area consistent with the attainment and maintenance requirements ofdownwind areas. In view ofthe fact that nitrates appear to constitute more than one third ofthe Bay Area's fine particulate matter, EPA also recommends that the Bay Area take into account therole ofNOxemissions reductions in the control offine particulates.

d. Attainment Deadline
Comment:The 1999 attainment deadline (assumingthat attainment isto be based on 1997-99 air quality) is unrealistic, since most ofthe 1998

season will have passed before the control measure SIP submittal to EPA; consequently theplan will affect emissions only for 1999.

Response:The commenters appear to have misunderstood EPA'sproposal. In accordance with theAgency's interpretation ofthe CAA requirement that plans "provide for attainment," under a 1999 attainment deadline, the State would need only show that its SIP includes sufficient emission reductions in effect by the start ofthe 1999 smog
season to ensure that no more than one exceedance atany monitor will occur in 1999. Moreover, EPA's proposal noted that, under the terms ofCAA section 172(a)(2)(C), the area maybe eligible for up to 2 1-year extensions ofthe 

### attainment deadline ifno more than 1 exceedance occurred inthe year preceding theextension and the SIPis fully implemented. Finally, EPAnotes that the same commenters arguing against a 1999 attainment deadline also claim thatthere is already strong evidence thatthe Bay Area will not experience future violations, sinceno exceedances were recorded in 1997 and both CARB and BAAQMDproject that the emissions inventory will continue to decline. EPArecognizes that the proposed 1999 deadline may be difficult to meetifthe attainment assessment demonstrates that substantial additional control measures areneeded. In an effort tobalance the time constraints associated with SIP adoption and submittal with the goalofprotecting public health as quickly as possible, EPA hasdecided to extend the attainment deadline byone year to November 15, 2000. Comment:Redesignation oftheBay Area willhave no effect on air quality within the time frame proposed byEPA. The time from the startofrule development to achievement ofthe reductions isgenerally wellover 18 months. Consequently, implementation ofcontrol measures would not occur until after theend ofthe 1999 ozone
season. IfEPA is seekingonly to add federal enforceability to existing state airquality control requirements, then redesignation isclearly nothingmore than apaperwork exercise sincethose control requirements are already in place.

Response:As discussed earlier,EPA wants the District to focus on near-term emission reductions, notpaperwork. Because the Districthas already identified additional control measures in its 1997 California Clean Air Act plan, these measures couldbeused for

anew federal plan and implemented

soonerthan initially planned to achieve

near term emission reductions. Otherwise, under theCalifornia Clean Air Act plan, theBay Area would not implement these measures until2000 or later. EPA alsobelieves that itis important tomake federally enforceable allofthecontrol measures needed to bringthe Bay Area into attainment. This provides further assurance tothepublic that thecontrol measures will be implemented and theemission reductions needed to protectpublic health achieved.

e. Planning Schedule Comment:EPA's SIP schedule provides insufficient time to complete planning processes, public involvement, and adoption, sincethe co-lead agency planning processnormally requires 15 months, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for public review must be satisfied under State law, atleast 2months are required for CARB review prior to submittal, and the regulated community needs adequate lead time to change or install

new controls. The BAAQMD also concluded that more time to prepare a plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would notresult in abetter plan, better air quality, or better health. The prudent
course, accordingto the BAAQMD, is to focus on the new 8-hourNAAQS.

Response:EPA acknowledges thetime constraints associated with SIP development, adoption, and submittal. On the other hand, EPA does not expect that the agencies will launch a wholly

new planning exercise but rather that they will continue the 1997 Clean Air Plan planning effort, adding only an attainment assessment using available data and technical analyses and adjustments to the control measures that maybe necessary to ensure expeditious attainment. In an effort to be responsive
to the District's scheduling concerns without sacrificing nearterm public health protections, EPA has agreed to allow the Stateto submit only one official SIP revision on June 15, 1999 based on the District's commitment to submit a draftofthe emissions inventory and attainment assessment to EPA byNovember 25, 1998. In committing to submit a draft inventory and assessment within 5 months after signature ofthe final redesignation by the Regional Administrator, the District also agreed to hold an early public workshop on the inventory and
assessment. (Letterfrom Ellen Garvey, BAAQMD;Eugene Leong, ABAG; and Lawrence Dahms, MTC to Felicia Marcus dated June 23, 1998.) These changes not only extend the time frames contained in the proposal but also enable the District to hold one public hearing for all three elements ofthe SIP revision.

3. Comments on Miscellaneous Issues

a. Conformity

Comment:Several commenters questioned the effect ofBay Area redesignation on transportation conformity. One commenter argued that it would be inconsistent with CAA section 176(c) ifEPA were to determine that the emissions budget from anew Bay Area SIP submittal applied simultaneously with the emissions budget in the currently-approved Bay Area maintenance plan.

Response:Today's action does not have an immediate effect on transportation conformity in the Bay 

## 37273

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37273 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

Area. The Bay Area currently has an approved ozone maintenance plan and the budgets in this plan continue to apply. Any EPA action with potential effects on transportation conformity will take place in the context ofEPA's review ofthe Bay Area's June 15, 1999 SIP submittal.

The transportation conformity rule does not directly address a situation, like that in theBay Area, where an approved maintenance plan proves to be inadequate and the area is redesignated and required to submit a new plan. However, EPA believes the correct interpretation ofthe conformity rule would require any new budgets contained in the June 15, 1999 submittal to become effective after a 45-day review period unless EPA finds them inadequate. EPA will continue to work with theUS Department of Transportation (DOT) to resolve DOT's

concerns regarding the interpretation of the rule and simultaneous applicability ofbudgets and will make a final policy decision in the future.
b. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funding
Comment:Redesignation oftheBay Area to nonattainment without a classification couldjeopardize the Bay Area's continued eligibility for CMAQ funding pursuant to either current law

or the pendingbills forreauthorization ofthe Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).

Response:Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), the new transportation funding legislation, signed recently by the President, redesignation ofthe Bay Area
to nonattainment for ozone will not affect CMAQ eligibility. In fact, the Bay Area will be eligible for more CMAQ funding than they were allocated under ISTEA, the previous transportation funding legislation.

c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

Comment:Some commenters asserted that EPA failed to comply with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), and should have prepared a statement in accordance with section 202 ofUMRA. In theproposal, EPA stated that the redesignation did not trigger section 202, as it did not contain any federal mandate because it did not impose any enforceable duties, and that

even if itdid contain a federal mandate, the resulting expenditures would not exceed $100 million in any one year. Commenters argued that the redesignation does impose an enforceable duty upon California and the BAAQMD, because failure to adopt a SIP would result in loss ofhighway funds and, in addition, result in more stringent emissions offset requirements for new and modified stationary
sources, result in loss ofgrants, and trigger aduty for EPAto issue a federal implementation plan (FIP).

One commenter also argued that the redesignation constitutes aprivate sector mandate under UMRA, because it requires the District to submit regulations or enforceable commitments to adopt regulations imposing duties on emissions sources. However, the test for

aprivate sector mandate under UMRA is whether it "would impose an enforceable duty upon theprivate sector." Clearly the redesignation has created no duty enforceable against any private party. The commenter also states that EPAisrequiring that new source review permitting requirements, applicability thresholds and offset ratios be set "by analogy" atthe levels otherwise applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. These arethe levels currently in effect in the Bay Area

as aresult ofthe area's previous status

as amoderate nonattainment area and therefore present no new burdens on private parties in any event. Some commenters also asserted that the redesignation will impose costs in

excess of$100 million. This estimate

was based on projected costs of complying with the types of requirements the commenter believes would be imposed if the state were to adopt a SIP.

Response:EPA does not believe that it is necessary to resolve the issues of whether the redesignation constitutes a "federal mandate" or requires consideration ofcosts to private parties,

aswell as costs to the state,under UMRA.

EPA believes that even if itwere construed as a federal mandate, with
costs to private parties to be considered

aswell as costs to the state, those costs could not reasonably be expected to exceed $100 million in any one year. EPA has conducted an analysis of potential costs to private parties. In
terms ofthe impact on theprivate sector, the BAAQMD has yet to determine the amount ofneeded reductions and the mix ofVOC and NOx

measures to achieve the needed reductions. EPA used cost data developed for the July 1997 "Regulatory Impact Analyses for the Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Proposed Regional Haze Rule," as thebasis ofits analysis. This data shows that the national average cost for reasonably available VOC control measures is higher than the national average cost for reasonably available NOx control

measures ($2,652per ton per yearfor VOC; $1,937 per ton per year for NOx, expressed in 1990 dollars). EPA

assumes that reductions ofboth VOC and NOx will be necessary to bring the Bay Areaback into attainment. However, for the purpose ofthis analysis EPA assumed that all the needed reductions would come from VOCmeasures because this approach would over-estimate the actual costs. In addition, EPA assumed that VOC emissions may need to be reduced by as much as 80 tons per day (approximately 28,800 tonsper year) above and beyond

measures currently underway at the State and local levels. This amount of reductions is significantly greater than that assumed to be needed by the various interested parties. During the extensive stakeholder process EPA has heard that anywhere from 0to 50 tons per day in additional reductions will be necessary. Thus, by assuming 80 tons per day for thepurposes ofthis analysis, EPA believes that it is significantly overestimating the costs. Even by employing cost numbers and tonsto be reduced that are significantly higher than what EPA believes the actual results willbe, the impacts would still be less than $100 million (i.e., $76,377,600).

As previously discussed in Section III.D.3.b. ofthis notice, one commenter indicated that the redesignation without classification under the Clean Air Act would result in loss ofhighway funds in excess of$100 million under ISTEA and that this should be viewed asthe
cost ofthe "mandate". The interplay of these two distinct statutes, were it to result in a significant decrease in highway funding to the Bay Area, would
notbe amandate as it is defined in UMRA, as itwould impose no enforceable duty on State, local or tribal governments. Moreover, as discussed above in section III.D.3.b., EPA, in consultation with the Department of Transportation, has determined that the redesignation will not result in any significant loss ofhighway funding to the Bay Area under therecently passed reauthorization ofISTEA.
d. Procedural Obligations Under CAA Section 107 and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

Comment:EPA has failed to follow the procedure set forth in section 107(d)(3) ofthe Actfor redesignating
areas, and consequently has failed to follow procedural requirements ofthe Administrative Procedure Act.

Response: The commenters misinterpret both theplain language of sections 107(d)(3) (A), (B) and (C), and 

### 37274

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37274 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

the intent ofthese sections. As described morefully below, the exchange ofcorrespondence between EPA and a State provided forby section 107(d)(3) is intended to address situations where there is agreement that

aredesignation isnecessary, but differing opinions concerning the boundaries ofthe area, orportion thereof,to beredesignated.

Section 107(d)(3) ofthe Act sets forth theprocedure forredesignation ofareas and provides thatthe Administrator
may atany time notify the Governor of any state that available information 

### indicates that thedesignation ofany
area should berevised. Section 107(d)(3)(B) provides thatthe Governor has 120 days fromreceipt ofthis letter to submit tothe Administrator such redesignation, if any, ofthe appropriate

area (or areas) or portion thereof as the Governor considers appropriate.

Section 107(d)(3)(C) contemplates four potential outcomes which flow from a Governor's response to notification from EPA that an area should be redesignated:

(1) The Governor concurs with EPA's notification and submits a redesignation ofthe same area, orportion thereof,that

was proposed by EPA. In this event, section 107(d)(3)(C) provides that EPA
must promulgate the redesignation no later than 120 days after receipt ofthe Governor's redesignation submittal. No further correspondence with the Governor is required.

(2) The Governor concurs with EPA's notification that a redesignation is necessary, but submits a redesignation ofthe area with different boundaries, or submits a redesignation ofonly a portion ofthe area that was proposed by EPA. IfEPA agrees with the Governor's redesignation submittal, section 107(d)(3)(C) provides that EPA must promulgate the redesignation no later than 120 days after receipt ofthe Governor's redesignation submittal. No further correspondence with the Governor is required.

(3) The Governor concurs with EPA's notification that a redesignation is necessary, but submits a redesignation ofthe area with different boundaries, or submits a redesignation ofonly a portion ofthe area that was proposed by EPA. IfEPA disagrees with the Governor's submittal, section 107(d)(3)(C) provides that EPA may make such modifications as it deems necessary, but must notify the State 60 days before promulgation ofthe redesignation in order to provide the State with an opportunity to demonstrate why any proposed modification is inappropriate. (4) The Governor does not submit a redesignation for an area, or portion thereof. Section 107(d)(3)(C) provides that EPA "shall promulgate such redesignation, if any, thatthe 

### Administrator deems appropriate." No further correspondence with the Governor is required.

In the instance at hand,EPA notified the Governor ofCalifornia byletter dated August 21, 1997, that the Bay Area should be redesignated to nonattainment for ozone, based on available air quality data demonstrating 43 exceedances and 17 violations ofthe standard in the two-year period from 1995 through 1996. The Governor of California did not submit a redesignation ofthe Bay Area. Rather, the Governor responded, by letter dated December 10, 1997, that he does not believe any redesignation is appropriate. Thus, EPA's action is governed by the last sentence ofsection 107(d)(3)(C), which provides that EPA "shall promulgate such redesignation, if any, that the Administrator deems appropriate."

EPA has complied with the requirements ofboth the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedure Act in its action to redesignate the Bay Area. EPA has conducted notice and comment rulemaking, fully considering all comments received, including those provided by the Governor. Contrary to the assertions ofthe commenter, there is nothing in either statute which precludes EPA from proposing a redesignation at any time following notification ofthe Governor. EPA is free
to solicit comment from the general public simultaneously with the Governor's notification, at any time during the 120day period for the Governor's response, or at any time following the Governor's response, so long as EPA complies with thetime periods set forth in section 107(d)(3), and its general duty to consider and respond to all comments.

While itis true thatEPA made minor changes to the redesignation requirements setout in the Governor's notification when the Agency published its proposal, the State was in no way prejudiced by this fact. The changes did not relate to area boundaries, orportions thereof, and therefore did not invoke the notification procedures. EPA's proposed rulemaking provided a 60 day public
comment period and the State was provided with a copy oftheproposal on December 11, 1997, 8 days before it was published in the FederalRegister. The State provided EPA with comments on its proposal on February 17, 1998. These comments, as well as the Governor's response letter, have been fully considered in EPA's decision to redesignate the Bay Area.

IV.Final Action

A. Overview

As discussed in theresponse to comments, EPAremains convinced that the Agency's appropriate action, in the face ofnumerous and widespread violations ofthe 1-hour ozone standard in the Bay Area, is to finalize the redesignation ofthe San Francisco Bay Area to nonattainment for the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. EPA takes this action under CAA section 107(d),based specifically on the Bay Area's 17 violations ofthe 1-hour ozone NAAQS

over the 3-year period, 1994-1996.

EPA also finalizes the Agency's determination that the Bay Area should
notbe classified under subpart 2 ofthe CAA, but rather should be required to meet applicable requirements ofCAA subpart 1.

B. SIPRequirementsandDeadlines

In accordance with CAA sections 110 and 172, the State must submit byJune 15, 1999 a SIP revision containing: (1) The existing 1995 emissions inventory forNOx and VOC in the Bay Area; (2)

an assessment, using available data and technical analyses, ofthe emission reductions needed to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standard; and (3) adopted regulations and/or control measures with enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the control measures in regulatory form by specified dates. The extension for the emissions inventory and attainment assessment submittal is being granted in response to a commitment madeby the AirDistrict (Letterfrom Ellen Garvey, BAAQMD et al. to Felicia Marcus, EPA Region IX, dated June 23, 1998) to provide the inventory and assessment to EPA in draftwithin 5 months ofthe final redesignation. Thisearly, informal submittal will allow EPA to review the draftinventory and assessment and work with the District to address any deficiencies. The District also agreed to hold an early public workshop on the draftinventory and assessment. The adopted regulations and control
measures, and the schedule for adoption and implementation ofsuch measures, mustbe sufficient to meet reasonable furtherprogress and attain the 1-hour NAAQS expeditiously but no later than November 15, 2000. EPA emphasizes that the submittal due on June 15, 1999
must include contingency measures that go into effect ifthe BayArea does not attain the NAAQS bythe prescribed deadline in order to address the specific requirement ofCAA section 172(c)(9). 

## 37275

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37275 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

For a more complete discussion of SIP submittals, thereader isreferred to subpart 1 elements applicable to these the proposal (62 FR 66580-66581).

SCHEDULE OF SUBMITTALS STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR OZONE FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

Action/SIP submittal Date

1995 emissions inventoryfor VOC and N Ox .............................................................................................................................. Draft- 11/25/98 Final-6/15/99 Assessment, employing available data and technical analyses, ofthe level of emission reductions needed to attain the cur- Draft-11/25/98

rent 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This assessmentshould take into accountthe mete- Final-6/15/99 orological conditions and ambient concentrations associated with the violations ofthe ozone NAAQS in the period 1995- 6, and should be based on likelycontrol measures for reducing VOC and NOxemissions. Adopted regulations and/or control measures, with enforceable commitments toadopt and implement the control measures 6/15/99

in regulatory form by specifieddates, sufficientto meet reasonable further progress and attain the 1-hour NAAQS expeditiouslybut no later than November 15, 2000.

C. Changes from Proposal proposed SIP requirements in response in section III.D.2. The changes are as
In this final action, EPAhas amended to public comments, as discussed above follows:
both the schedule and content ofthe

Proposal-weekend emissions inventoryand CO inventory required Final-weekend emissions inventory and CO inventory not required.

Emissions inventory and attainment assessmentdue to EPA 5/1/98

..... Emissions inventory and attainment assessment due to EPA 6/15/99. (Commitment tosubmit draft by 11/25/98.) Adopted regulations and/or control measures with enforceable commit- Adopted regulations and/or control measures with enforceable commitments due 9/1/98. ments, and final emissions inventory and attainment assessmentdue 6/15/99. Attainmentdate of 11/15/99

..................................................................... Attainment date of 11/15/2000.

V. Emission Reduction Opportunities

Under EPA's final redesignation, the Air District and its co-lead agencies are responsible for determining the appropriate mix ofcontrol measures that will most effectively bring the Bay Area into attainment with the 1-hour

ozone standard. The Bay Area, like other major metropolitan areas, is experiencing rapid economic growth and an increasingpopulation that may lead to emission increases fromboth the stationary and mobile source sectors. Given these circumstances, the Air District may wish to explore new and innovative approaches for achieving reductions from both source sectors. EPA believes that traditional control strategies aimed at reducing emissions from stationary sources are essential to any airpollution control program. At the same time, EPA supports efforts to develop alternative emission reduction methods. Mobile source emissions, for example, make up the majority ofthe

ozone precursor inventory in many urban areas, including the Bay Area, but air pollution control agencies often have difficulty regulating these emissions. Mobile sources are therefore good candidates for non-traditional approaches. EPA encourages the BAAQMD and its co-lead agencies to identify opportunities for innovation, in addition to traditional control strategies,

as they develop measures to bring the Bay Area into attainment ot the ozone standard.

A. StationarySources Stationary sources in the Bay Area emit approximately 152 tons ofVOC and 157 tons ofNOx per day (Bay Area Clean Air Plan, Volume 1,p.21). This
current level ofemissions reflects tremendous progress in stationary

source reductions over the past 20 years. Nonetheless, BAAQMD will need to

assess whether additional stationary

source measures are needed to help the Bay Area attain the federal 1-hour ozone standard. Recently, BAAQMD proposed in its 1997 Clean Air Plan several stationary source measures believed to be both feasible to implement and effective at reducing emissions. EPA expects that the District will analyze which control measures from this plan

areneeded to attain the standard and

assess whether any measures beyond those contained in the plan are also needed. Ifadditional measures are needed, the District may want to consider stationary source measures suggested bypublic commenters on the redesignation proposal such as improving tank and flare design, eliminating exemptions from certain District rules, and improvingcontrols

on energy sources (e.g., natural gas fired boilers and privately owned and operated powerplants). However, EPA is not requiring adoption ofthese or any other specific controls; it is the BAAQMD's authority and responsibility to determine the appropriate mix ofBay Area measures.
B. TransportationControlMeasures

Given that on-road motor vehicles emit43% ofthe total VOC and 47% of the total NOxemissions in the Bay Area (BayArea 1997 Clean Air Plan, Volume 1,p.7), that vehicle travel has been steadily increasing, and that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) directs the allocation ofbillions ofdollars oftransit funds, MTCplays an important role in the Bay Area's overall strategy to attain the 1-hour ozone standard. MTCis currently updating its 20-year plan and will continue to revise this plan every two years. MTC's planning process offers a good opportunity to incorporate air quality goals into both longterm planning and short term projects. In addition, MTC is required to identify possible transportation control measures (TCMs) aspart ofthe California Clean AirPlan (CAP). The Bay Area's 1997 CAPcontained an estimated 7 tonsper day (3 tpd VOC, 4 tpd NOx) worth of potential reductions from TCMs for the year 2000 and even more for later years (BayArea 1997 Clean Air Plan, Volume 1,p.49). Ifthese measures were adopted and submitted for SIP approval, they could make a measurable contribution toward attainment ofthe 1-hour ozone standard. Finally, MTC may be able to help reduce emissions by reevaluating 

### 37276

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37276 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

the way it distributes transportation funds, the way it finances transportation projects, its policies with respect to land

use and transportation and giving priority to the most cost-effective (i.e.,
tons ofemission reduction per dollar spent)investments.

C. VoluntaryMeasures

EPA encourages the State, District and co-lead agencies to explore innovative approaches to achieving their air quality goals. One possible area for innovation is the mobile source arena. Mobile

sources emit 75% ofthe total NOx emissions and 58% ofthe total VOC emissions in theBay Area (Bay Area 1997 Clean Air Plan, Volume 1,p. 7). Though there have been great strides in reducing vehicle emission rates, transportation emissions continue to be

aproblem due to large increases in vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Regulatory agencies and others are therefore developing voluntary mobile

source strategies that promote changes in local transportation sector activity levels and changes in in-use vehicle and engine fleet composition to complement regulatory programs.

Voluntary mobile source control

measures have the potential to contribute to, in a cost-effective manner, emission reductions needed for attainment ofthe NAAQS. EPA believes, therefore, that SIP credit is appropriate for voluntary mobile source emission reduction programs (VMEPs) where we have confidence that the measures can achieve emission reductions. Consistent with thatbelief,EPA issued its October 23, 1997 "Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Programs" (signed by Richard Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation). The guidance lays out the terms and conditions for establishing and implementing VMEPs and the guidelines for SIP approval. In light of the innovative nature ofvoluntary

measures and EPA's inexperience with quantifying their emission reductions, EPA's guidance limits the amount of emission reductions allowed for VMEPs in a SIP to 3% ofthe total projected future year emission reductions required to attain the appropriate NAAQS. In addition, the guidance requires that a state or local agency track

on an annual basis theresulting emissions effect ofthe voluntary

measure and also commit to remedy any shortfall if the VMEP does not achieve projected emission reductions.

The BAAQMD and co-lead agencies may wish to take advantage ofthe flexibility provided byEPA's voluntary mobile source measures policy asthey develop their SIP control strategies in response to the redesignation. EPA encourages the three co-lead agencies to work with the business and environmental communities that may have an interest in developing or participating in such innovative strategies, as stakeholder involvement is

acritical factor in buildingcommunity acceptance and ultimate success. For example, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group has worked with businesses to develop the ECOPASS program; this is an employer-sponsored alternative commute program thatis designed to get employees out oftheir

cars and onto public transit. Another example is the BAAQMD's "Spare-theAir" Program, a public education campaign that encourages citizens to refrain from or reduce activities that produce emissions ofozone precursors. The program currently enjoys the participation of475 businesses and is continuing to grow with thehelp ofthe Bay Area business community. EPA applauds BAAQMD and the business community for successfully implementing these innovative and important programs. The BAAQMD has
not yet submitted to EPA its plan for quantifying and tracking the impacts of these programs on an on-goingbasis, and therefore EPAhas not yet evaluated how the District will ensure that the criteria presented in the VMEP guidance will be met. However, EPAis currently consulting with the BAAQMD regarding quantification and tracking ofemissions associated with theseprograms and will continue to work with the District to clarify the VMEP policy. We encourage the District and its co-lead agencies to consider and pursue other innovative approaches as they evaluate measures needed to attain the ozone standard.

D.EnhancedInspectionand Maintenance

While the Bay Area has both the flexibility and the responsibility to determine the appropriate mix of control measures that are needed to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standard, EPA believes that emission reductions from implementation ofan enhanced inspection and maintenance program would make a substantial contribution to attainment in the Bay Area. The California Bureau ofAutomotive Repair has indicated that implementation of the California SmogCheck 2program (California's enhanced IM program) would result in an incremental benefit of 12tons per day VOC and 14 tons per day NOx. EPAis hopeful that Bay Area leaders will work together to pursue authorization and expeditious implementation ofan enhanced I/M program. Furthermore, implementation ofan enhanced I/M program in the Bay Area would address some ofthe equity

concerns raised by Bay Area's downwind neighbors who are impacted by pollution from the Bay Area and are required under federal and State law to implement an enhanced I/Mprogram. EPA does notbelieve, however, that enhanced I/M is the complete answer to Bay Area's ozone nonattainment problem. EPAbelieves that the BAAQMD should evaluate measures aimed atboth the stationary and mobile

source sectors that will work together to achieve healthy air in the Bay Area.

E.MitigatingEmissionsIncreasesFrom OaklandSeaportandAirportExpansion Projects

The Port ofOakland is planningto expand its operations over the next several years. Dredging operations, which will provide larger vessels with

access to the Port, will begin in February 2000. Emissions ofCO and VOCs from dredging and related construction activities are not expected
to be significant. Gas or diesel powered dredgingequipment, however, emits significant quantities ofNOx; the draft EIS/EIR prepared by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (COE)for the port expansion estimates that total construction-related NOx emissions, gas
or dieselpowered dredging equipment, would be in the range of 1500 to 1700
tons overthe four-yearperiod (2000- 2004) during which dredgingwill occur. The COE, however, has subsequently indicated that itplans to use electric dredgingequipment which would reduce the potential constructionrelated NOx emissions to 330 tons over fouryears, or an average of83.5 tons per year. The dredging and related construction activities performed by the COE are subject to the General Conformity regulations (40 CFR 93.150), which require federal agencies to demonstrate that emissions from federal projects conform to the approved State Implementation Plan if the emissions

are above "de minimis" levels defined in 40 CFR 93.153. Because the Corps of Engineers willbe employing electric dredgingequipment in its construction activities, and limiting the number of disposal trips per year, the emissions willbe below the 100 ton per year NOx de minimis level established in the conformity regulations and a conformity determination is therefore notrequired. The Corps' plan to use electric dredging equipment willhelp to ensure cleaner air for the surrounding community and the Bay Area as a whole and contribute 

## 37277

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37277 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

to efforts to achieve attainment with the

ozone standard.

Once construction ofthe Port expansion project is complete, operational emissions increases are projected tobe significant. Because the long-term emissions from new vessels, trucks, trains, terminal operations, and employee vehicles areconsidered to be indirect emissions thatcannotbe practicably controlled by and are not under a continuingprogram responsibility ofthe COE,these activities are exempt from the conformity requirements. EPAbelieves however, thatmitigation ofthese longterm emissions may be an important part oftheBay Area's strategy for attainingand maintaining not only the i-hour ozone NAAQS, but therevised 8- hour and PM2.5 NAAQS as well. For this reason, EPA encourages the Portto work with BAAQMD andMTC to identify opportunities tomitigate longterm emission increases from the project.EPA alsowelcomes opportunities to share information regarding mitigation techniques that have been identified during discussions with the South Coast AQMD onports and airports.

Plans to expand theOakland Airport

arealso underway and EPA believes that theproject will be subject tothe General Conformity requirements. EPA believes that there are opportunities to mitigate emissions increases associated with theexpansion and again welcomes the opportunity to share information resultingfrom discussions with the South Coast regardingreducing airport emissions. 

### VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order(E.O.) 12866

Under E.O. 12866, (58 FR51735, October 4, 1993), EPA isrequired to determine whether today's action is a "significant regulatory action" within the meaning oftheE.O., and therefore should be subject to OMB review, economic analysis, and the requirements oftheE.O. See E.O. 12866,

sec. 6(a)(3). TheE.O. defines, in sec. 3(f), a "significant regulatory action" as
aregulatory action thatis likely toresult in a rule that may meetat least one of four criteria identified in section 3(f), including,

(1)have an annual effect on the economy of$100 million ormore or adversely affectin a material waythe economy, a sector ofthe economy, productivity, competition,jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, ortribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned byanother agency; (3) materially alterthe budgetary 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 finalized today, aswell as the establishment ofSIP submittal schedules, would result in none ofthe effects identified in E.O. 12866 sec. 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. section 601 et. seq., EPA must prepare aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. sections 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, smallnot-for-profit 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 makes a factual determination and to establish a schedule to require the State to submit SIP revisions, and does not directly regulate any entities. Because EPAis applyingthe same permitting applicability thresholds and offset ratios applicable to moderate areas, no additional sources will be subject to these requirements as aresult ofEPA's action. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),EPA certifies that today's action does not have a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities within the meaning ofthose terms for RFApurposes.
C. UnfundedMandatesReform Act

Title II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L. 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 "any rule 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 rule is
notlikely to result in thepromulgation ofany Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of$100 million or more for State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or for theprivate sector, in any one year. It is not necessary to resolve here whether aredesignation would constitute a federal mandate.

Even assuming that aredesignation

were considered a Federal mandate, and it were appropriate to considerboth private and public sector costs, the anticipated annual costsresulting from the mandate would not exceed $100 million to the private sector, State, local 

## 37278

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37278 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 132/Friday, July 10, 1998/Rules and Regulations

and tribal governments. In terms ofthe impact on the private sector, the BAAQMD has yet to determine the
amount ofneeded reductions and the mix ofVOC and NOx measures to achieve the needed reductions. EPA used cost data developed for theJuly 1997 "Regulatory Impact Analyses for the Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Proposed Regional Haze Rule," as the basis ofits analysis. This data shows that the national average cost for reasonably available VOC control

measures is higher than the national average cost forreasonably available NOx control measures ($2,652 per ton 

### peryear forVOC; $1,937 pertonper year for NOx,expressed in 1990 dollars). EPA assumes that reductions of both VOC and NOx willbe necessary to bring the Bay Area backinto attainment. However, for the purpose ofthis analysis EPA assumed that all the needed reductions would come from VOC measures because this approach would over-estimate the actual costs. In addition, EPA assumed that VOC emissions may need to be reduced by as much as 80 tonsper day (approximately 28,800 tons per year) above and beyond

measures currently underway at the State and local levels. This amount of reductions is significantly greater than that assumed to be needed by the various interested parties. During the extensive stakeholder process EPA has heard that anywhere from 0to 50 tons per day in additional reductions will be necessary. Thus, by assuming 80 tons per day for thepurposes ofthis analysis, EPA believes that it is significantly overestimating the costs. Even by employing cost numbers and tons to be reduced that are significantly higher than what EPA believes the actual results will be, the impacts would still be less than $100 million (i.e., $76,377,600).

The cost to the State ofCalifornia is the cost ofdeveloping, adopting and submitting any necessary SIP revision. Because that cost, taken in combination with private sectorcosts, will not exceed $100 million, this action (even assuming itis a federal mandate) is not subject to the requirements ofsections 202 and 205 ofUMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535). EPA has also determined that this action would not result in regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because only the State would take any action asresult of today's rule, and thus the requirements ofsection 203 (2 U.S.C. 1533) do not apply.

D.Executive Order13045:Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth Risks andSafety Risks

This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled "Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.

E. Submissionto Congressandthe GeneralAccountingOffice

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule,to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing thisrule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register.This rule is not a "major" rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

ListofSubjects in 40 CFRPart81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks.

Dated:June 25, 1998. Felicia Marcus, RegionalAdministrator, RegionIX.

Part 81, chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:



### PART81-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

2. In §81.305, the table for California-Ozone, is amended by revising the entry for the San Francisco Bay Area to read asfollows: 

### §81.305 California.

CALIFORNIA-OZONE
Designation Classification Designated Area Date1 Type Date 1 Type

San Francisco-Bay Area: Alameda County

....................................................................... August 10, 1998

..... Nonattainment. Contra Costa County

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

...... do MarinCounty

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

...... do Napa County

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

...... do San Francisco County

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

...... do Santa Clara County

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

...... do San Mateo County

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

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

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

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

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

1This date is November 15, 1990, unlessotherwise noted. 

### 37279

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 37279 1998