[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27028-27041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12407]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CA-64-1-6997; FRL-5202-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California, 
Approval of the Maintenance Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area and 
Redesignation of the San Francisco Bay Area to Attainment; Approval of 
Emissions Inventory; Approval of NO<INF>X Exemption Petition

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a redesignation request and maintenance 
plan for the San Francisco Bay Area as a revision to California's State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In addition, EPA is approving the 
1990 base year emissions inventory and a petition requesting an 
exemption from the section 182(f) nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X) 
requirements for the area.
    On April 13, 1994, EPA notified the State of California that EPA 
had made a finding of incompleteness for required programs under the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). The EPA's redesignation of the San 
Francisco Bay Area to attainment and approval of the 1990 emissions 
inventory abrogates those requirements for the area. Therefore, the 
sanctions and federal implementation plan clocks begun by those 
findings are stopped at the time of this redesignation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will become effective on June 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following locations:

Plans Development Section (A-2-2), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105.
California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 94814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wallace Woo, Chief, Plans Development 
Section, Air & Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region IX, at (415) 744-1207.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A. Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan

    The San Francisco Bay Area ozone nonattainment area has attained 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone based on 
three years of quality assured ambient air quality data, for the period 
1990-1992. Therefore, in accordance with the CAA, as amended in 1990, 
and to ensure continued attainment of the standard for at least 10 
years, the State of California has submitted an ozone maintenance plan 
which projects continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the San 
Francisco Bay Area.
    The maintenance plan submitted for the San Francisco Bay Area meets 
all applicable requirements of the CAA. The San Francisco Bay Area 
submittal complies with section 175A of the Act which sets forth 
maintenance plan requirements for areas seeking redesignation from 
nonattainment to attainment. The plan demonstrates attainment of the 
NAAQS for at least 10 years after the area is redesignated.
    Eight years after the redesignation, the state commits to submit a 
revised maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment for the ten year 
period following the initial ten year period. In the event of a NAAQS 
violation, the maintenance plan contains contingency measures adequate 
to ensure prompt correction of the air quality problem.
    The state submittal being approved today contains a redesignation 
request in which the state demonstrates that the area has fulfilled the 
redesignation requirements of the CAA pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E), 
a NO<INF>X exemption petition pursuant to section 182(f), and a 1990 
emissions inventory of ozone precursors pursuant to section 182(a) for 
the area.
    On September 28, 1994 (59 FR 49361-49370), EPA published a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of California SIP. The NPRM 
proposed that the San Francisco Bay Area be redesignated from 
nonattainment to attainment for ozone and that the maintenance plan 
submitted by the State of California as a revision to the California 
SIP be approved contingent upon EPA taking final rulemaking action to 
approve various SIP deficiencies for the San Francisco Bay Area 
(including volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonable available control 
technology (RACT) corrections, emission statement rule, NSR 
corrections) and California's submittal of the ozone maintenance plan 
amendments to the contingency plan and the 1990 base year emissions 
inventory. In addition, the NPRM proposed approval of a NO<INF>X waiver 
petition and 1990 base year emissions inventory.
    Since that time, the EPA has taken final rulemaking action to 
approve both the volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonable available 
control technology (RACT) rules which resolve the deficiencies and the 
emission statement rule. Below is the list of rules that the EPA has 
approved since the time of proposed rulemaking on the redesignation. 
These approvals remove one of the conditions for redesignation of the 
San Francisco Bay Area.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Rule No.                          Rule title                            Notice of final rulemaking        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-1.................  General Provisions...........................  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-2.................  Miscellaneous Operations.....................  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-4.................  General Solvent and Surface Coating            60 FR 15092, March 22, 1995.               
                       Operations.                                                                              
8-7.................  Gasoline Dispensing Facilities...............  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-8.................  Wastewater (Oil-Water) Separators............  59 FR 43328, August 29, 1994.              
8-11................  Metal Container Closure and Coil Coating.....  59 FR 63721, December 9, 1994.             
8-12................  Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating..............  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-13................  Light and Medium Duty Motor Vehicle Assembly   NFRM signed March 29, 1995--publication    
                       Plants.                                        pending.                                  
8-14................  Surface Coating of Large Appliance and Metal   NFRM signed March 29, 1995--publication    
                       Furniture.                                     pending.                                  
8-15................  Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts...............  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-16................  Solvent Cleaning Operations..................  59 FR 63721, December 9, 1994.             
[[Page 27029]]
                                                                                                                
8-19................  Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts   60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.                
                       and Products.                                                                            
8-20................  Graphic Arts Printing and Coating Operations.  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-22................  Valves and Flanges at Chemical Plants........  60 FR 8949, February 16, 1995.             
8-23................  Coating of Flat Wood Paneling and Wood Flat    NFRM signed March 29, 1995--publication    
                       Stock.                                         pending.                                  
8-24................  Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Manufacturing      60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
                       Operations.                                                                              
8-25................  Pump and Compressor Seals at Petroleum         60 FR 12451, March 7, 1995.                
                       Refineries, Chemical Plants, Bulk Plants,                                                
                       and Bulk Terminals.                                                                      
8-28................  Pressure Relief Valves at Petroleum            59 FR 63721, December 9, 1994.             
                       Refineries and Chemical Plants.                                                          
8-29................  Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating       60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.                
                       Operations.                                                                              
8-30................  Semiconductor Manufacturing Operations.......  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-31................  Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-32................  Wood Product Coatings........................  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-33................  Gasoline Bulk Terminals and Gasoline Delivery  60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.                
                       Vehicles.                                                                                
8-34................  Solid Waste Disposal Sites...................  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-35................  Coating, Ink, and Adhesive Manufacturing.....  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-38................  Flexible and Rigid Disk Manufacturing........  60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.                
8-39................  Gasoline Bulk Plants and Gasoline Delivery     60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.                
                       Vehicles.                                                                                
8-40................  Aeration of Contaminated Soil................  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-41................  Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Operations.......  60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
8-42................  Large Commercial Bakeries....................  60 FR 12451, March 7, 1995.                
8-43................  Surface Coating of Marine Vessel.............  NFRM signed March 29, 1995--publication    
                                                                      pending.                                  
8-45................  Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating     60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.               
                       Operations.                                                                              
8-47................  Air Stripping and Soil Vapor Extraction        NFRM signed March 29, 1995--publication    
                       Operations.                                    pending.                                  
8-50................  Polyester Resin Operations...................  60 FR 12451, March 7, 1995.                
2-1.................  Emission Statement Rule......................  60 FR 16799, April 3, 1995.                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  In addition, the State of California has submitted the amendments 
to the maintenance plan necessary for final approval, including the 
revised 1990 base year emissions inventory and amendments to the 
contingency plan. The ozone maintenance plan amendments include a 
commitment by the Governor to implement the improvements to the basic 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program by the end of 1995 as an early 
contingency measure and a revised contingency process. The reductions 
from these I/M improvements were not included in the maintenance plan 
emission inventory projections. In the event of a violation during the 
maintenance period, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 
(BAAQMD) will meet with the EPA within 30 days of the violation to 
discuss which of the adopted NO<INF>X RACT rules are appropriate to 
submit into the SIP as fully adopted and implemented contingency 
provisions. The list of NO<INF>X controls include six rules which are 
scheduled for implementation through 2001. The improvements to the 
basic I/M program and the NO<INF>X RACT controls supersede the original 
contingency plan submitted in November 1993. The original submittal 
included a commitment to implement an enhanced I/M program in the event 
of a violation during the maintenance period. However, the final 
enabling legislation for enhanced I/M in California prohibited areas 
not explicitly required to implement enhanced I/M by the CAA from 
opting into the centralized portion of the program. Therefore, the 
BAAQMD revised the contingency plan as described above.
    Below is the list of NO<INF>X RACT contingency measures submitted 
by CARB as part of the contingency plan.

                                    BAAQMD NO<INF>X Rules as Contingency Measures                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         NO<INF>X    
                 Title regulation 9                    Adopted          Implementation year(s)        reductions
                                                                                                        (TPD)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO<INF>X and CO from Industrial, Institutional and            9/16/92  1/1/96...........................         14.9
 Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators (rule 7).                                                                 
NO<INF>2 and CO<INF>2 Emissions from Stationary Internal           1/20/93  1/1/97...........................          8.3
 Combustion Engines (rule 8).                                                                                   
NO<INF>X from Stationary Gas Turbines (rule 9)..........       5/5/93  1/1/97...........................          7.0
Refinery Boilers, Steam Generators and Process            1/5/94  5/31/95 (sources already meet              N/A
 Heaters (rule 10).                                                RACT standards).                             
NO<INF>X and CO from Utility Electric Power Generating        2/16/94  5/31/95..........................        1-2.6
 Boilers (rule 11).                                                                                             
NO<INF>X from Glass Melting Furnaces (rule 12)..........      1/19/94  1/1/97-1/1/2001..................          1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In early 1994, new State laws (SB 198, AB 2018, SB 521, SB 629) 
were passed to improve the current decentralized I/M program. The 
improvements will begin implementation in 1995 and include: increased 
cost waiver limits for all models to $450; addition of functional tests 
for the evaporative control system; remote sensing or other roadside 
testing to discover gross polluters; centralized computer system 
reporting; improved quality assurance and enforcement; and improved 
technician training and certification. In addition, loaded-mode testing 
will either be a required program element (to be determined by the 
California Bureau of Automotive Repair), or will be implemented on 
request in the San Francisco Bay Area within one year of successful 
demonstration in areas of the State implementing enhanced I/M programs. 
Below is a chart which [[Page 27030]] estimates the emission reductions 
from these improvements by the year 2000.

   Emission Reduction Estimates From I/M Program Improvements by 2000   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             HC         CO        NO<INF>X   
                                         (percent)  (percent)  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Program........................      16.6       25.3       10.4 
Improved Decentralized.................      22.1   30.0-34.6  15.0-22.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the new source review (NSR) requirement, an EPA policy 
memo dated October 14, 1994 from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, to the Division Directors entitled, ``Part D New 
Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting 
Redesignation to Attainment,'' amended earlier guidance <SUP>1 which 
required areas requesting redesignation to attainment after November 
15, 1992 to have a fully approved NSR rule prior to final 
redesignation. In light of the new policy set forth in the October 14, 
1994 Memorandum, the EPA is no longer obligated to approve the San 
Francisco Bay Area's NSR rule as a condition for final approval of the 
redesignation request. However, the State of California submitted an 
amended NSR rule for the San Francisco Bay Area on January 4, 1995, and 
the emission projections contained in BAAQMD's maintenance plan are 
predicated on continuation of NSR permitting. The BAAQMD must continue 
NSR permitting until such time as it receives delegation of the PSD 
program for VOC. Upon delegation of the PSD program for VOC, the NSR 
permitting program can be moved to the contingency portion of the 
maintenance plan, provided that BAAQMD's ability to show maintenance of 
the standard is not affected.

    \1\ Memorandum entitled, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to 
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' from John Calcagni, Director, Air 
Quality Management Division, to Regional Air Division Directors.
    Memorandum entitled, ``SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting 
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and CO NAAQS 
On or After November 15, 1992,'' from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to Regional Air 
Division Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Section 182(f) NO<INF>X RACT Waiver Petition

    The EPA is finalizing the approval of a petition submitted by the 
Bay Area AQMD requesting that EPA grant an exemption from the section 
182(f) requirements to control major stationary sources of oxides of 
nitrogen (NO<INF>X) emissions. The exemption petition is based on 
ambient monitoring data and demonstrates that additional NO<INF>X 
reductions in the Bay Area would not contribute to attainment of the 
NAAQS for ozone.
    EPA has evaluated the exemption petition for consistency with the 
requirements of the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA interpretation of 
these requirements as expressed in the various EPA policy guidance 
documents.<SUP>2 EPA believes that the petition satisfies the 
applicable EPA requirements and, in accordance with the requirements of 
the CAA, has determined that additional NO<INF>X reductions from major 
stationary sources in the San Francisco Bay Area would not contribute 
to attainment of the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for 
ozone. EPA is finalizing this action to exempt the San Francisco Bay 
Area from implementing the NO<INF>X requirements for RACT, NSR, and the 
applicable general conformity and I/M requirements <SUP>3 of the CAA. 
Because the San Francisco Bay Area is being redesignated to attainment 
of the ozone standard through this action, the transportation 
conformity requirements will consist of meeting the NO<INF>X budget 
established in the maintenance plan.<SUP>4

    \2\ See ``Guidance for Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen 
Oxides Requirements Under Section 182(f)'', issued by EPA's Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December 1993 and EPA's 
NO<INF>X Supplement to the General Preamble, 57 FR 55628, November 
25, 1992.
    \3\ See ``Scope of Nitrogen Oxides (NO<INF>X) Exemptions,'' from 
G.T. Helms, Group Leader, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch (MD-
15), to the Air Branch Chiefs, January 12, 1995. ``I/M Requirements 
in NO<INF>X RACT Exempt Areas'', from Mary T. Smith, Acting 
Director, Office of Mobile Sources, to the Air Division Directors, 
October 14, 1994.
    \4\ EPA's approval of the Bay Area's maintenance plan begins the 
maintenance period as defined in the transportation conformity 
regulation at 40 CFR Part 51.392. During the maintenance period, the 
Bay Area must meet the requirements of parts 51.428 and 51.430 of 
the transportation conformity regulation. These sections specify 
that the transportation plan and transportation improvement program 
(TIP) must be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budgets in 
the applicable implementation plan, which in this case, is the 
maintenance plan. The requirement of parts 51.436 and 51.438 that 
plans and TIPs satisfy the ``build/no build'' test, or demonstrate 
that the plan and TIPs contribute to emissions reductions, no longer 
apply during the maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that all section 182(f) exemptions that are 
approved should be approved only on a contingent basis. As described in 
the EPA's NO<INF>X Supplement to the General Preamble (57 FR 55628, 
November 25, 1992) and further guidance issued by EPA,<SUP>5 section 
182(f) exemptions are granted on a contingent basis and last for only 
as long as the area's monitoring data continue to demonstrate 
attainment. The San Francisco Bay Area is required to continue to 
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area.

    \5\ See ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NO<INF>X) Exemptions--
Revised Process and Criteria'', issued by John S. Seitz, Director, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10), May 27, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a violation of the ozone standard occurs after the San Francisco 
Bay Area is redesignated to attainment of the ozone NAAQS, the NO<INF>X 
requirements are to be implemented as contingency measures as provided 
in the maintenance plan.

C. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory

    In the NPRM, the EPA proposed approval of a revised 1990 base year 
emissions inventory as requested by the state in a letter dated July 
21, 1994. In this letter, the state requested that EPA approve a 
revised 1990 emissions inventory and projections as part of the 
maintenance plan. As discussed in the NPRM, below is a summary of the 
1990 VOC and NO<INF>X emission inventory and projections through the 
year 2005. The projections show that the area will continue to 
demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS with current control measures 
(adopted through December 31, 1992).

                     VOC Emission Inventory Summary*                    
                             [Tons Per Day]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1990   1995   2000   2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................     78     73     75     77
Area........................................    173    154    141    141
Mobile On-Road..............................    300    204    142    104
Mobile Non-Road.............................     81     85     82     84
                                             ---------------------------
    Anthropogenic...........................                            
    Total...................................    631    515    440    406
Biogenics...................................    300    300    300    300
                                             ===========================
    Total...................................    931    815    740    706
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     NO<INF>X Emission Inventory Summary*                    
                             [Tons Per Day]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1990   1995   2000   2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................    131    130    141    146
Area........................................     15     16     17     18
Mobile On-Road..............................    251    194    166    158
Mobile Non-Road.............................    159    164    176    186
    Total...................................    557    504    499   508 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Entries are rounded to the nearest whole number, totals may not equal  
  to sum of column entries.                                             

 [[Page 27031]] II. Public Comment/EPA Response

    The EPA received 17 letters commenting on the proposal. Four 
letters expressed strong support for the redesignation based on the 
tremendous progress the San Francisco Bay Area has made over the past 
30 years by attaining the ozone NAAQS. Nine letters expressed concern 
and/or opposition to the redesignation because of the transport of 
pollution from the San Francisco Bay Area to neighboring areas, and 
three letters voiced opposition to the redesignation for reasons other 
than transport. Finally, one letter addressed the section 182(f) 
NO<INF>X RACT waiver petition only. Below is a summary of the comments 
received and the EPA's response.

A. EPA Response to Comments: Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan

Comment 1
    Several commenters stated that Congress intended EPA to deal with 
interstate transport only, as noted in section 176A of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA), and that the regulation of intrastate transport is outside 
of EPA jurisdiction and not a criteria for redesignation. Other 
comments stated that the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) adequately 
addresses interbasin transport. Furthermore, transport is a complicated 
issue, and the existing data is not sufficiently accurate to provide 
better solutions at this time. Finally, in some cases, the San 
Francisco Bay Area is the recipient of pollution from other air basins 
during certain meteorological conditions when air flow tends to be from 
inland areas and the San Joaquin Valley can model attainment without 
additional measures from the San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco 
Bay Area should not be unfairly singled out for scrutiny of intrastate 
transport, especially when the CCAA provides a workable process.
EPA Response
    As outlined in the General Preamble to Title I of the CAA (57 FR 
13528, April 16, 1992), the CAA assigns responsibility to the states 
for developing and submitting attainment demonstrations which show that 
the standard will be attained by the applicable attainment dates for 
areas where the demonstration of attainment is complicated by transport 
between two areas of different classifications. However, EPA needs to 
be assured that the attainment plans adequately address transport so as 
to ensure attainment for all areas within a state by the applicable 
attainment deadlines.
    CARB has submitted attainment demonstration plans for all areas in 
California, including the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley 
nonattainment areas.<SUP>6 This submittal included modeling of a large 
part of California, including Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay 
Area, as well as the San Joaquin Valley. EPA will review those plans 
and address the adequacy of the submittals through the federal 
rulemaking process.

    \6\  With respect to the Sacramento attainment plan, CARB 
submitted a voluntary ``bump-up'' request from a serious to a severe 
classification pursuant to section 181. The request for ``bump-up'' 
for the Sacramento nonattainment area will be dealt with in a 
separate Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the State has the initial responsibility for dealing with 
intrastate transport issues, such issues are the subject of the Clean 
Air Act and within EPA's jurisdiction. For example, section 
110(a)(2)(A) imposes the same obligation on areas to ensure that 
emissions will not interfere with attainment in downwind intrastate 
areas that section 110(a)(2)(D) imposes with respect to downwind 
interstate areas. At the present time, however, the information 
available to EPA concerning potential transport effects due to 
emissions from the San Francisco Bay Area is not sufficient to warrant 
action on the part of EPA or otherwise affect EPA's action regarding 
the San Francisco Bay Area's redesignation. While the preliminary 
studies conducted to date indicate that there is transport of emissions 
from the San Francisco Bay Area to nearby areas,<SUP>7 EPA believes 
that the state and local agencies can adequately address the issue 
initially. If, however, EPA determines that there are transport 
problems that warrant action on its part, EPA has the authority to 
issue a SIP call under sections 110(k)(5) and 110(a)(2)(A) to require 
the State to deal with those problems.

    \7\  As one commenter pointed out, the statewide modeling effort 
to date indicates that pollutant transport from Sacramento to the 
San Francisco Bay Area also occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 2
    Several commenters expressed concern or opposition to the 
redesignation due to the issue of transported emissions from the San 
Francisco Bay Area to surrounding areas. Several commenters felt that 
the proposed action to redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area was made 
despite an accurate assessment of the impact of its emissions on 
attainment in neighboring areas, including the San Joaquin Valley and 
Sacramento Area, and requested that EPA delay final action to 
redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area until an accurate assessment and 
mitigation of transported pollution to neighboring areas can be made. 
Several commenters suggested that EPA coordinate a meeting with the 
state, the affected downwind air pollution control agencies, and the 
BAAQMD to resolve the transport issue.
EPA Response
    As noted in the response to Comment 1, the information available 
concerning transport from the San Francisco Bay Area is preliminary in 
nature and EPA does not believe that it should affect EPA's action on 
this redesignation. Moreover, should EPA consider it necessary and 
appropriate to take action in the future, EPA has the authority under 
sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(k)(5) to deal with any such transport 
issues.
    However, to respond to the transport concerns and several 
suggestions that EPA coordinate a meeting with the state and local air 
pollution control agencies affected by transport from the San Francisco 
Bay Area, EPA met with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the 
BAAQMD and the affected downwind air pollution control agencies on 
February 2, 1995 to discuss transport from the San Francisco Bay Area 
to neighboring areas. The affected downwind air pollution control 
agencies include the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (SJVUAPCD), the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 
District (SMAQMD), the Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District 
(YSAPCD), the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), 
the El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District (ECAPCD), and the 
Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD).
    This group, the newly formed Interbasin Transport Group (ITG), 
discussed strategies for dealing with transport from the San Francisco 
Bay Area to downwind areas. The ITG consists of a main policy body of 
Air Directors from EPA, CARB, BAAQMD, and affected downwind air 
pollution control agencies, and a technical subcommittee, consisting of 
modeling experts, which will discuss the ongoing transport studies in 
California. The technical subcommittee will develop a needs assessment 
for gathering additional information on transport and report ongoing 
modeling results to the policy body at regularly scheduled meetings. 
Decisions on how to deal with transport will be made collectively by 
the policy body of the ITG.
    At the first ITG meeting on February 2, 1995, the BAAQMD presented 
an [[Page 27032]] overview of the maintenance plan controls which 
include aggressive stationary source and mobile source controls adopted 
at the local, state and federal level as of December 31, 1992. With 
these control measures in place, the VOC emission trend declines 
through the year 2005, and the NO<INF>X emissions do not exceed the 
1990 attainment year emissions inventory (the emissions ``cap'').
    At the end of the first ITG meeting, after consultation with the 
group, EPA indicated its belief that any issues regarding transport 
from the San Francisco Bay Area to neighboring areas should be dealt 
with separately from the redesignation as new technical information 
becomes available. The group committed to investigate additional short 
and long term measures for the San Francisco Bay Area to be implemented 
to further mitigate any downwind transport effects. The establishment 
of the ITG provides an avenue to deal effectively with the transport 
issue after the redesignation as new information becomes available.
    Since the first meeting of the ITG, the Greater Sacramento Area Air 
Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) revised their original comments 
submitted during the public comment period on the proposed 
redesignation. Specifically, the Sacramento Area APCDs' letter of 
December 15, 1994 urged EPA to delay final action on the redesignation 
until transport was addressed. In a more recent letter <SUP>8 to EPA, 
the Sacramento area now agrees that the transport issue can be dealt 
with separately from the federal redesignation process and concurs with 
EPA's proposal to redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area from 
nonattainment to attainment.

    \8\ In a letter dated February 27, 1995, Kenneth Selover, Air 
Pollution Control Officer from the Yolo-Solano APCD representing the 
Greater Sacramento Area APCD, states that the concerns expressed in 
the comment letter dated December 15, 1994 in response to EPA's 
proposal to redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area from 
nonattainment to attainment, were based on a lack of understanding 
of the BAAQMD's proposed program to further mitigate NO<INF>X and 
other emissions in response to the CCAA. In the December 15, 1994 
letter, the Sacramento APCDs requested an extension of the public 
comment period until the issue of transport was addressed. The 
Sacramento area now agrees that the transport issue can be dealt 
with separately from the federal redesignation process, and the 
redesignation should proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many of the comments were based on a recently released CARB study, 
``Preliminary Assessment of Transport on San Joaquin Valley Ozone,'' 
which discusses recent simulations to assess the impact of transported 
emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. The results discussed in the 
report are based on an extreme scenario in which anthropogenic 
emissions for the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento area are 
set to zero. (In other words, the modeling simulation assumes that 
there are no VOC or NO<INF>X anthropogenic emissions in the San 
Francisco Bay Area or the Sacramento Area. This exercise enables one to 
estimate the proportion of locally generated ozone versus transported 
pollution into the Valley.) The report indicates that there would be a 
decrease in ozone measurements of 27% in the Northern San Joaquin 
Valley, 10% in the Central San Joaquin Valley and 7% in the Southern 
San Joaquin Valley. The modeling study indicates that the Northern San 
Joaquin Valley is most affected by transported emissions. However, the 
attainment plan submitted for the San Joaquin Valley which relies on 
this modeling study purports to show that the San Joaquin Valley models 
attainment by the applicable deadline. In addition, monitoring data for 
the northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley shows that this site has 
collected air quality data which demonstrates attainment of the ozone 
NAAQS.
    The report indicates that the Central and Southern San Joaquin 
Valley ozone concentrations would be reduced by 10% and 7%, 
respectively, if anthropogenic (generated by man) emissions were set to 
zero for the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento. Given that the 
Sacramento Area and the San Joaquin Valley will continue to adopt and 
implement aggressive new controls in response to the Federal and 
California Clean Air Acts and the San Francisco Bay Area will continue 
to adopt and implement new controls in response to the California Clean 
Air Act, the amount of emissions transported and locally generated 
emissions will continue to decrease to the Central and Southern San 
Joaquin Valley in the near future.
    The formation of the ITG and the commitment from all affected 
agencies to work together to resolve potential transport issues, in 
conjunction with the California ozone plans submitted on November 15, 
1994 which purport to demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS for the 
Sacramento Area and the San Joaquin Valley by the applicable attainment 
deadlines, indicates that any intrastate transport issues should be 
effectively handled at the state level initially. EPA is committed to 
the goals of the ITG and will continue to participate in the group to 
offer support and review the adequacy of any new state or local agency 
strategy for dealing with transport.
    With respect to the handling of transport issues at the state 
level, EPA notes that the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted by 
the State of California in 1988, contains provisions which are designed 
to reduce the amount of pollution transport between nonattainment areas 
within the state. Specifically, areas which are the origin of 
transported pollutants, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, must 
include sufficient emission control measures in the state attainment 
plan (the ``clean air plan'') to mitigate the impact of pollution 
sources within their jurisdictions on ozone concentrations downwind. In 
the San Francisco Bay Area, these requirements include VOC and NO<INF>X 
best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) for source 
categories that collectively amount to 75% of the 1987 actual 
hydrocarbon (HC) emissions inventory for stationary sources and 75% of 
1987 actual NO<INF>X emission inventory for permitted stationary 
sources no later than January 1, 1994. The BARCT controls, in most 
cases, exceed the federal RACT requirements. If these recently adopted 
controls were calculated into the projections in the maintenance plan, 
the NO<INF>X emission trend would decrease through the year 2005. In 
addition, the San Francisco Bay Area is required to continue to 
implement a stringent NSR permitting program for new stationary 
sources. The CCAA requires that areas design attainment plans that 
include these controls and ensure attainment of the more stringent 
California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) for ozone (0.09 ppm) by 
the earliest practicable date. According to CARB, the BAAQMD has fully 
complied with the CCAA's transport mitigation requirements and is 
continuing to adopt and implement all feasible control measures in its 
effort to attain the more stringent CAAQS of 0.09 ppm.
    Although the BAAQMD has requested to be exempt from the NO<INF>X 
RACT requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act, the BAAQMD had 
proceeded to adopt NO<INF>X best available retrofit control technology 
(BARCT) and stringent New Source Review (NSR) regulations to comply 
with the transport mitigation requirements of the CCAA. Therefore, the 
maintenance plan controls and additional controls adopted in response 
to the CCAA ensure that any transport of pollutants from the San 
Francisco Bay Area to neighboring areas, whatever its current 
magnitude, will continue to decrease throughout the maintenance period.
    In addition, the CCAA requires CARB to compile a report which 
assesses transport within the State every three [[Page 27033]] years. 
Using several data analysis techniques, CARB determines the level of 
pollutant transport between various California air basins. These 
assessments are used in the process of requiring BARCT as described 
above, and also in the ozone planning process to assign responsibility 
for pollution reductions. CARB leads this effort and meets with the 
local air pollution control agencies on a regular basis to discuss the 
ongoing analysis.
Comment 3
    Since the San Francisco Bay Area will not be subject to additional 
emission reduction requirements, the public health of the citizens of 
San Joaquin Valley will continue to be at risk when EPA redesignates 
the San Francisco Bay Area.
EPA Response
    As discussed above, although the San Francisco Bay Area is not 
subject to additional emission reduction requirements for the federal 
CAA (since the area can demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS for the 10 
year maintenance period without additional controls), the area will 
continue to adopt and implement aggressive VOC and NO<INF>X controls to 
further reduce ozone and meet the more stringent CAAQS for ozone. In 
addition, the emission inventory projections contained in the 
maintenance plan, which include controls adopted through December 1992, 
show a decrease in VOC emissions and show that NO<INF>X emissions are 
not expected to increase over the 1990 attainment levels through 2005 
(the 10 year maintenance plan horizon). Therefore, any transported 
pollution to the San Joaquin Valley from the San Francisco Bay Area 
will continue to decrease in the future. Finally, CARB submitted an 
ozone plan which purports to demonstrate attainment of the ozone 
standard in the San Joaquin Valley by 1999, the statutory deadline for 
attainment under the CAA.
Comment 4
    Several commenters note that San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento 
industries, businesses, and citizens are subject to more onerous 
control requirements, such as more stringent NSR requirements and 
enhanced I/M, in order to compensate for transported pollution. This 
creates an economic disparity between the regions and penalizes the 
citizens in the downwind areas. Arbitrary air pollution control 
boundaries should not be used to create economic disparity among 
regions in the state.
EPA Response
    The classification system under the CAA is based on actual 
monitored air pollution values during 1987 through 1989 for each 
nonattainment area. The CAA requires specific controls for each 
classification, with increasingly stringent control requirements for 
more seriously polluted areas. The air quality data recorded in the San 
Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Area was more serious than the air 
quality monitored in the San Francisco Bay Area during the same time 
period. The Sacramento Area and the San Joaquin Valley air quality 
monitoring data collected during 1987-1989 warranted a ``serious'' 
classification,<SUP>9 whereas the monitoring in the San Francisco Bay 
Area warranted a ``moderate'' classification. Based on the statewide 
modeling effort to date, it appears that both the Sacramento Area and 
the San Joaquin Valley are responsible for the vast majority of the 
ozone pollution monitored in their areas. Therefore, EPA cannot concur 
that there is evidence indicating that the higher classifications 
warranted by the air quality monitoring in the Sacramento area and the 
San Joaquin Valley are due solely to transport.

    \9\ Since that time, CARB has submitted a ``bump-up'' request 
for the Sacramento area from serious to severe. EPA will act on this 
request in a separate Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ozone episode (a single, short period of high ozone readings) 
that was modeled for the Sacramento ozone plan submittal occurred in 
August 1990 and had a small amount of transport from outside the area, 
but was essentially a locally-generated episode. This is important 
because it means that there are days when, with little or no 
transported emissions, Sacramento generates enough ozone pollution to 
exceed the standard. Because this episode was used as the basis for 
determining emission control levels, sources in the Sacramento area 
will be controlled to levels which will address their own effect on 
ozone, rather than transport from the San Francisco Bay Area. An 
episode from July 1990 which included more transported emissions did 
not perform well when the model was applied to it and was therefore not 
included in the Sacramento Area's attainment demonstration. However, 
this episode did indicate that the emission reductions from Sacramento 
sources needed for attainment are no greater than those indicated by 
the August 1990 episode, which was predominately local emissions. 
Therefore, Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley businesses and citizens 
are not subject to more onerous controls to compensate for transported 
pollutants from the San Francisco Bay Area.
    As noted above, the BAAQMD will continue to adopt and implement 
aggressive VOC and NO<INF>X controls to comply with the CCAA which go 
beyond the control measures included in the maintenance plan and its 
emission reduction projections (controls adopted through December 
1992). With respect to the NSR requirement, although the San Francisco 
Bay Area will no longer be required to continue federal NSR permitting 
after redesignation (as soon as a federally delegated PSD program is in 
place), the BAAQMD has fully complied with the transport mitigation 
requirements of the CCAA which include NSR requirements.
    The air pollution control boundaries were not drawn arbitrarily or 
to create economic disparities within the state, but rather reflect the 
natural geographic air basins that exist in Northern California. In 
response to the CAA adopted in November 1990, EPA consulted with, and 
deferred to the State of California on the air pollution control 
boundaries within the State. Section 107(d)(1)(4)(iv) of the CAA 
requires that the entire metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or 
consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) be used for ozone or 
carbon monoxide nonattainment areas classified as serious or above. The 
boundaries of the Sacramento Area and the San Joaquin Valley reflect 
the MSA/CMSA designations. Since promulgation of the current air 
pollution boundaries in November 1991, EPA has not received any 
petitions to re-draw the boundaries in California.
    According to the CAA, areas are required to attain the NAAQS as 
expeditiously as practicable but no later than the applicable 
attainment deadline. Since CARB submitted an ozone attainment plan to 
EPA on November 15, 1994 which purports to demonstrate attainment of 
the NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento area by the 
applicable deadline, the state expects the ozone NAAQS in the San 
Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Area to be attained by the timelines 
required by the CAA.
Comment 5
    Several commenters noted that the proposed action to redesignate 
the San Francisco Bay Area was made despite an adequate assessment of 
the impact of its emissions on attainment in neighboring areas 
(Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley). One commenter specifically noted 
that for the [[Page 27034]] Sacramento Federal Implementation Plan 
(FIP) modeling, only one episode has been modeled. More specifically, 
they noted that NO<INF>X emissions transported into Sacramento from the 
San Francisco Bay Area increase the severity and likelihood of ozone 
episodes and add to the attainment burden for the area. (See discussion 
in EPA Response to Comment 4)
EPA Response
    As discussed above, EPA and the ITG will deal with transport issues 
separately from the redesignation. EPA is aware of the ongoing 
statewide modeling effort, the SARMAP study, and will continue to 
participate in those meetings to evaluate the latest modeling 
information. EPA is committed to addressing the latest transport 
studies and being involved in the ITG to work with state and local 
governments to resolve any transport issues.
    It should be noted that the SARMAP modeling study, portions of 
which were submitted to EPA in the San Joaquin Valley ozone plan, 
looked at an August 1990 episode for Sacramento which includes 
transport from neighboring areas. The results of this episode show that 
the emission reductions required for attainment in the Sacramento area 
are no greater than those indicated by the July 1990 episode, which 
includes mostly local emissions.
Comment 6
    One commenter made several suggestions of items that EPA should 
require prior to redesignation. These include: 1. the completion of the 
technical studies on Sacramento modeling case, including the August 
ozone episode, using SARMAP. The outcome should be assignment of 
emission reductions to the San Francisco Bay Area; 2. the BAAQMD should 
install and maintain monitors to measure ozone and NO<INF>X aloft to 
transport corridors to Sacramento and the San Joaquin Valley; 3. the 
BAAQMD should implement the voluntary ``Spare the Air'' program on days 
when ozone forecast predicts a violation, or near violation, in 
Sacramento; 4. the BAAQMD should contribute to any program efforts that 
are developed for the Sacramento air basins to slow travel on highway 
I-80 during periods when Sacramento is at risk of violating federal 
ozone standards; 5. EPA should coordinate a joint federal/state/local 
effort to assess equity issues in control of transported pollution, and 
consider requiring stationary source, fleet rule and off-road NO<INF>X 
control equivalent to Sacramento rules within portions of the San 
Francisco Bay Area likely to transport to the Sacramento area.
EPA Response
    As discussed above, EPA will continue to meet with the affected 
downwind air pollution control districts at regularly scheduled ITG 
meetings and any transport issues will be dealt with separately from 
the redesignation process. Specifically, CARB is continuing to look at 
episodes in August 1990, and additional monitors are being installed to 
look at pollution transport between the areas. All of the suggestions 
listed above will be examined by the group at upcoming meetings, and 
the technical subcommittee of the ITG will look into the modeling 
suggestions and new technical data on an ongoing basis.
Comment 7
    One commenter opposed the redesignation unless transport is 
assessed because the San Joaquin Valley, which is affected by pollution 
transported from the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento, may be 
unable to make a conformity determination for the area. It is difficult 
to explain this situation to the public and elected officials when 
modeling results show that Stanislaus County would be in attainment if 
transport was addressed.
EPA Response
    As discussed above, the issue of transport will be addressed 
separately from the redesignation process. However, it should be noted 
that the emission trend for the San Francisco Bay Area for VOC 
continually decreases over the 10 year maintenance period and NO<INF>X 
emissions do not exceed the 1990 attainment year level (the emissions 
``cap''). If the NO<INF>X BARCT controls adopted by the BAAQMD were 
included in the maintenance plan, the NO<INF>X emissions would also 
show a continual decrease over the 10 year maintenance period. 
Therefore, any transport impacts from the San Francisco Bay Area on 
other areas will continue to diminish in the future. It should be noted 
that CARB submitted an ozone attainment demonstration plan for the San 
Joaquin Valley which purports to reach attainment by the serious area 
deadline, 1999.
Comment 8
    One commenter asserted that there are no monitoring stations for 
air emissions in the West Oakland area which is comprised of a 
community of predominately low income and color and is near one of the 
busiest highway intersections in the country. Census track analysis 
shows a high incidence of cancer in this area. American Lung 
Association studies show that the acceptable levels for particulates in 
the Clean Air Act are not protective of human health. In addition, 
benzene levels may be above the EPA acceptable 10<SUP>-4 cancer risk 
level. The redesignation sends the wrong message to the community and 
policy makers and will not encourage public transit use. The 
redesignation is based on insufficient data since the monitoring 
network does not address ``hotspots''.
EPA Response
    The proposal which EPA is finalizing today redesignates the area to 
attainment only for ozone. This action does not relate to emissions of 
particulate matter or benzene. This decision is based on clean air 
quality data for ozone recorded at the monitoring network since 1990. 
The BAAQMD currently monitors for ozone in the Oakland MSA.
    With regard to particulate matter, the San Francisco Bay Area is 
currently designated as ``unclassifiable'' for PM-10 (particulate 
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of ten microns or less). However, 
EPA will continue to evaluate the PM-10 monitoring data in the air 
basin and redesignate the area to nonattainment if warranted. EPA is 
also working with the BAAQMD to locate an additional PM-10 monitor in 
the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition, at the national level, EPA is 
currently reassessing the existing particulate matter NAAQS,<SUP>10 and 
the Agency may be promulgating a new particulate matter NAAQS in the 
near future.

    \10\ Under court order, EPA must complete its review of the 
particulate matter NAAQS by January 31, 1997. American Lung 
Association v. Browner, U.S. District Court for the District of 
Arizona, October 6, 1994 (CIV-93-643-TUC-ACM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to benzene, there is no NAAQS for this pollutant. 
Rather, benzene is one of 189 hazardous air pollutants listed in 
Section 112 of the CAA. Emissions of benzene are regulated at the 
source where they are emitted, rather than through an ambient air 
quality standard, such as that for ozone. The National Emission 
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for benzene, 40 CFR Part 
61, Subpart FF, is an example of such a regulation.
    With respect to public transit use, the federally approved SIP 
contains transportation control measures which encourage public transit 
use. In addition, all of the relevant local agencies continue to have a 
strong commitment to promoting the use of public transit.
    The term ``hotspots'' usually is used to refer to hazardous air 
pollutants or [[Page 27035]] other air pollutants with localized 
effects. While there can be areas of high concentrations of ozone, 
generally ozone is formed over the course of several hours over a large 
area when NO<INF>X and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight. With 
regard to ozone, the BAAQMD's monitoring network meets the federal 
requirements and the data collected from this network is sufficient for 
redesignation.
Comment 9
    With respect to NO<INF>X emissions, one commenter asserts that the 
maintenance plan shows that the area can continue to meet the ozone 
standard even with increasing NO<INF>X emissions after 2000. 
Furthermore, BAAQMD projects that NO<INF>X emissions under their 
jurisdiction will increase 18 tons per day (TPD) between 1990 and 2005. 
Even though non-jurisdictional sources make up for this increase, 
BAAQMD should adopt control measures to reduce jurisdictional NO<INF>X 
emissions by 18 TPD by 2005. This is particularly important since the 
San Joaquin Valley ozone formation is predominately affected by the 
level of NO<INF>X emissions.
EPA Response
    The maintenance plan does not show an overall increase in NO<INF>X 
emissions during the maintenance period. Through the year 2005, the 
level of NO<INF>X emissions remains at or below the 1990 attainment 
level NO<INF>X carrying capacity. In addition, it should be noted that 
the NO<INF>X projections in the maintenance plan do not include the 
NO<INF>X BARCT controls adopted by BAAQMD in response to the transport 
mitigation requirements of the CCAA. If those controls were included, 
the NO<INF>X projections would show a continuous decrease through the 
year 2005. Specifically, the BAAQMD adopted NO<INF>X BARCT controls by 
1995 which will be fully implemented by 2002. With these control 
measures in place, the NO<INF>X emission projections decrease the 
emission trend by an additional 74 TPD in 2005 beyond the current trend 
line contained in the maintenance plan.
Comment 10
    One commenter stated that the area evaluated for attainment and 
maintenance of the federal ozone standard for the San Francisco Bay 
Area, as required in 40 CFR 50.9, should include data from the 
monitoring locations in the portion of adjacent air basins immediately 
downwind of the San Francisco Bay Area air basin. These adjacent areas 
have experienced ozone concentrations above the federal standard as a 
direct consequence of emissions from the San Francisco Bay Area with 
little or no contribution from local emissions and may experience 
similar events in the future. In addition, the September 1, 1993 
Memorandum from Mary Nichols states that EPA intends to apply to 
intrastate transport the provision of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(1), which 
requires each state's SIP prohibit emissions which will contribute 
significantly to nonattainment. There are little or no local emissions 
between these monitoring sites and the upwind San Francisco Bay Area. 
It appears EPA has expressed a policy which could prohibit the approval 
of the San Francisco Bay Area SIP unless violations caused in adjacent 
air basins are addressed.
EPA Response
    To qualify for redesignation in accordance with section 
107(d)(3)(E), an area must demonstrate, among other things, that the 
ambient air quality monitoring data in the area meets the NAAQS. The 
San Francisco Bay Area has satisfied this requirement by submitting 
five consecutive years of monitoring data which show no violations of 
the ozone NAAQS. As discussed above, EPA is fully aware of the 
potential transport issues and is committed to working with the State 
and local air pollution control agencies to resolve any issues through 
the ITG. EPA has the authority to deal with intrastate transport issues 
under the Clean Air Act, but the information presently available does 
not warrant action by EPA at this time.
Comment 11
    One commenter stated that the 1990 VOC and NO<INF>X ``carrying 
capacity'' levels in the maintenance plan should be made federally 
enforceable. The measures identified as contingencies should be 
incorporated into the SIP to mitigate any possible emission reduction 
shortfall.
EPA Response
    The 1990 VOC and NO<INF>X emission inventory and emission 
projections through 2005 are based on control measures adopted through 
December 31, 1992 at the federal, state, and local level and approved 
into the SIP. Those emissions levels are already supported by federally 
enforceable requirements. The NO<INF>X measures and improvements to the 
I/M program identified in the contingency plan are not included in the 
maintenance plan projections.
    As expressed previously in an EPA policy <SUP>11 pursuant to 
section 182(f) of the CAA, EPA may allow areas which have demonstrated 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS without having implemented NO<INF>X 
controls to be exempt from the federal NO<INF>X RACT requirements. 
However, the maintenance plan includes NO<INF>X controls as contingency 
measures which will be submitted for incorporation into the SIP in the 
event of a violation during the maintenance period.

    \11\ ''Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NO<INF>X) Exemption--
Revised Process and Criteria,'' from John S. Seitz, Director, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to the Regional Division 
Directors, May 27, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 12
    One commenter stated that EPA should consider whether the urban 
area for maintenance planning should be extended beyond the air basin 
boundaries to the full extent of the urbanized area since related 
growth of the adjacent urban areas growth is directly controlled by 
policies implemented within the San Francisco Bay Area. EPA should 
ensure that redesignation does not cause ozone levels above the federal 
standard in the San Francisco Bay Area or adjacent air basins. This 
requires that all emission increases caused by urban growth and 
industrialization must be matched by equivalent deceases. EPA should 
ensure that the approval includes provisions which protect the adjacent 
air basins and federally protected forests and national parks. 
Protection should include requirements to maintain an extensive system 
of air monitors to detect high ozone levels, and maintaining emission 
levels for all ozone precursors at or below the level which does not 
cause ozone levels above the federal standard in the San Francisco Bay 
Area and adjacent air basins.
EPA Response
    After the passage of the CAA in 1990, EPA consulted with the State 
of California regarding the appropriate boundaries for nonattainment 
areas within the State. The current boundary of the San Francisco Bay 
Area reflects the State's recommended boundary for the area. Section 
107(d)(4)(A)(iv) of the CAA requires that the boundaries for areas 
classified as serious and above include entire metropolitan statistical 
areas (MSAs) or consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs). 
Transport will be addressed as discussed previously.
    As discussed previously, with respect to the comment concerning 
emissions [[Page 27036]] increases during the maintenance period, the 
maintenance plan for the San Francisco Bay Area projects that future 
emissions for VOC decrease throughout the maintenance period and 
NO<INF>X emissions do not increase over the attainment levels. The San 
Francisco Bay Area must maintain its current ozone monitoring network 
as part of the maintenance plan. The suggestion that the San Francisco 
Bay Area install monitors to detect high ozone levels (or precursor 
pollutants at high elevations) will be considered by the ITG.
    With regard to protection of air quality in national parks and 
forests, the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions 
contained in Part C of the CAA are specifically designed to protect air 
quality in ``clean air'' areas, and particularly in pristine areas such 
as national parks. These requirements provide sufficient protection for 
such areas and it is not necessary to include additional requirements 
as a condition of redesignation.
Comment 13
    One commenter opposes the redesignation because it suggests that 
the air quality no longer poses a threat to public health. In addition, 
EPA research has shown that there is no safe level for ozone. In 
addition, a federal declaration of attainment conflicts with 
California's goal of a stricter ozone standard.
EPA Response
    EPA's action to redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area means that 
the air quality in the region meets the federal NAAQS (health-based 
standard) for ozone, and does not address other air pollutants. The EPA 
is currently in the process of re-evaluating the ozone NAAQS and 
expects to make a final decision in mid-1997. Until any change is made, 
EPA is bound to implement the provisions of the Act as they relate to 
the current standard, including those relating to designations and 
redesignations.
    With respect to the California ozone standard and California Clean 
Air Act, EPA's action to redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area to 
attainment for the federal ozone standard does not impede California or 
the BAAQMD from striving for a stricter ozone standard. EPA's action to 
redesignate the area to attainment for the federal ozone standard 
recognizes the tremendous progress made so far and does not prohibit 
the area from adopting additional control measures to control ozone. 
Nor does it preclude EPA from requiring emission reductions from 
sources in the San Francisco Bay Area should EPA ultimately determine 
that such reductions are needed.
Comment 14
    One commenter asserted that attainment levels had been recorded 
only because of particular meteorological conditions which lead to the 
transport of pollutants to nearby air basins. In addition, any current 
air quality benefit will be wiped out by the BAAQMD's own calculation 
of increased motor vehicle traffic in the future.
EPA Response
    According to section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), the Administrator must 
determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the implementation 
of measures in the applicable plan and applicable federal regulations. 
Between 1987 and 1990, the SIP control measures account for an 
approximate 69 TPD decrease in VOC emissions. In addition, the 
maintenance plan analyzed trend data for summer temperatures and 
vehicle miles traveled and employment during the 1990-1992 timeframe to 
determine if the improvement in air quality was due to meteorological 
circumstances or a downturn in the economy. The analysis showed that 
neither exceptionally cool temperatures nor a downturn in the economy 
were responsible for the area meeting the federal ozone standard, but 
rather the emission reductions and improved air quality were the result 
of permanent measures in the SIP. EPA has accepted this analysis. It 
should be noted that the San Francisco Bay Area has actually measured 
``clean'' air quality data for ozone for five consecutive years.
    With respect to transport, CARB released preliminary results from a 
modeling study which show that emissions from the San Francisco Bay 
Area and the Sacramento Area do impact ozone concentrations in the San 
Joaquin Valley (see discussion above). However, for the reasons 
described above, EPA cannot concur that the San Francisco Bay Area has 
met the ozone NAAQS because of transport of emissions to nearby air 
basins. In addition, as discussed above, future control regulations 
that are being adopted by the BAAQMD will further reduce any 
transported emissions to nearby air basins in the future.
    The projections in the maintenance plan do show that vehicle miles 
travelled (VMT) will continue to increase in the future. However, 
emission projections through 2000 show an overall reduction in ozone 
precursor emissions from mobile sources due to the retirement of older 
vehicles and the increase in proportion of new, cleaner vehicles.
Comment 15
    One commenter asserted that the BAAQMD's transportation control 
measure plan in the Clean Air Plan will increase vehicle miles 
traveled.
EPA Response
    The transportation control measure (TCM) plan in the Bay Area Clean 
Air Plan has not been submitted to become part of the SIP, but rather 
fulfills the requirements under the California Clean Air Act. EPA has 
not reviewed this plan since it is not part of the control strategy 
used to demonstrate attainment or maintenance of the federal ozone 
standard.

B. EPA Response to Comments: Section 182(f) NO<INF>X Waiver Petition

    In August 1994, three environmental groups submitted joint comments 
on the proposed approvals of NO<INF>X exemptions for the Ohio and 
Michigan ozone nonattainment areas. The comments address EPA's general 
policy regarding NO<INF>X exemptions and apply to all actions EPA takes 
regarding section 182(f) NO<INF>X exemptions. These comments as well as 
those received specifically addressing the BAAQMD proposed NO<INF>X 
RACT exemption are addressed below.
NO<INF>X Waiver Comment 1
    The commenters argued that NO<INF>X exemptions are provided for in 
two separate parts of the CAA, section 182(b)(1) and section 182(f). 
Because the NO<INF>X exemption tests in subsections 182(b)(1) and 
182(f)(1) include language indicating that action on such requests 
should take place ``when [EPA] approves a plan or plan revision,'' 
these commenters conclude that all NO<INF>X exemption determinations by 
the EPA, including exemption actions taken under the petition process 
established by subsection 182(f)(3), must occur during consideration of 
an approvable attainment or maintenance plan, unless the area has been 
redesignated as attainment. These commenters also argue that even if 
the petition procedures of subsection 182(f)(3) may be used to relieve 
areas of certain NO<INF>X requirements, exemptions from the NO<INF>X 
conformity requirements must follow the process provided in subsection 
182(b)(1), since this is the only provision explicitly referenced by 
section 176(c), the CAA's conformity provisions.

[[Page 27037]]

EPA Response
    Section 182(f) contains very few details regarding the 
administrative procedure for acting on NO<INF>X exemption requests. The 
absence of specific guidelines by Congress leaves EPA with discretion 
to establish reasonable procedures, consistent with the requirements of 
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
    The EPA disagrees with the commenters regarding the process for 
considering exemption requests under section 182(f), and instead 
believes that subsections 182(f)(1) and 182(f)(3) provide independent 
procedures by which the EPA may act on NO<INF>X exemption requests. The 
language in subsection 182(f)(1), which indicates that the EPA should 
act on NO<INF>X exemptions in conjunction with action on a plan or plan 
revision, does not appear in subsection 182(f)(3). And, while 
subsection 182(f)(3) references subsection 182(f)(1), the EPA believes 
that this reference encompasses only the substantive tests in paragraph 
(1) [and, by extension, paragraph (2)], not the procedural requirement 
that the EPA act on exemptions only when acting on SIPs. Additionally, 
paragraph (3) provides that ``person[s]'' (which section 302(e) of the 
CAA defines to include States) may petition for NO<INF>X exemptions 
``at any time,'' and requires the EPA to make its determination within 
six months of the petition's submission. These key differences lead EPA 
to believe that Congress intended the exemption petition process of 
paragraph (3) to be distinct and more expeditious than the longer plan 
revision process intended under paragraph (1).
    With respect to major stationary sources, section 182(f) requires 
States to adopt NO<INF>X NSR and RACT rules, unless exempted. These 
rules were generally due to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992. 
Thus, in order to avoid the CAA sanctions, areas seeking a NO<INF>X 
exemption would have needed to submit their exemption request for EPA 
review and rulemaking action several months before November 15, 1992. 
In contrast, the CAA specifies that the attainment demonstrations are 
not due until November 1993 or 1994 (and EPA may take 12-18 months to 
approve or disapprove the demonstration). For marginal ozone 
nonattainment areas (subject to NO<INF>X NSR), no attainment 
demonstration is called for in the CAA. For maintenance plans, the CAA 
does not specify a deadline for submittal of maintenance 
demonstrations. Clearly, the CAA envisions the submittal of and EPA 
action on exemption requests, in some cases, prior to submittal of 
attainment or maintenance demonstrations.
    The CAA requires conformity to the applicable SIP with regard to 
federally-supported NO<INF>X generating activities in relevant 
nonattainment and maintenance areas. However, EPA's conformity rules 
explicitly provide that these NO<INF>X requirements would not apply if 
EPA grants an exemption under section 182(f). In response to the 
comment that section 182(b)(1) should be the appropriate vehicle for 
dealing with exemptions from the NO<INF>X requirements of the 
conformity rule, EPA notes that this issue has previously been raised 
in a formal petition for reconsideration of EPA's final transportation 
conformity rule and in litigation pending before the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the substance of both 
the transportation and general conformity rules. The issue, thus, is 
under consideration within EPA, but at this time remains unresolved. 
Additionally, subsection 182(f)(3) requires that NO<INF>X exemption 
petition determinations be made by the EPA within six months. The EPA 
has stated in previous guidance that it intends to meet this statutory 
deadline as long as doing so is consistent with the Administrative 
Procedures Act. The EPA, therefore, believes that until a resolution of 
this issue is achieved, the applicable rules governing this issue are 
those that appear in EPA's final conformity regulations, and EPA 
remains bound by their existing terms.
NO<INF>X Waiver Comment 2
    The commenters stated that the modeling required by EPA guidance is 
insufficient to establish that NO<INF>X reductions would not contribute 
to attainment since only one level of NO<INF>X control, i.e., 
``substantial'' reductions, is required to be analyzed. They further 
explained that an area must submit an approvable attainment plan before 
EPA can know whether NO<INF>X reductions will aid or undermine 
attainment.
EPA Response
    The EPA does not believe that this comment is applicable to the San 
Francisco Bay Area exemption because the demonstration is based on 
three years of ambient monitoring data and not modeling.
NO<INF>X Waiver Comment 3
    The commenters provided a comment that three years of ``clean'' 
data fail to demonstrate that NO<INF>X reductions would not contribute 
to attainment, and that EPA's policy erroneously equates the absence of 
a violation for one three-year period with ``attainment''.
EPA Response
    The EPA has separate criteria for determining if an area should be 
redesignated to attainment under section 107 of the CAA. The section 
107 criteria are more comprehensive than the CAA requires with respect 
to NO<INF>X exemptions under section 182(f).
    Under section 182(f)(1)(A), an exemption from the NO<INF>X 
requirements may be granted for nonattainment areas outside an ozone 
transport region if EPA determines that ``additional reductions of 
[NO<INF>X] would not contribute to attainment'' of the ozone NAAQS in 
those areas. In some cases, an ozone nonattainment area might attain 
the ozone standard, as demonstrated by 3 years of adequate monitoring 
data, without having implemented the section 182(f) NO<INF>X provisions 
over that 3-year period. The EPA believes that, in cases where a 
nonattainment area is demonstrating attainment with 3 consecutive years 
of air quality monitoring data without having implemented the section 
182(f) NO<INF>X provisions, it is clear that the section 182(f) test is 
met since ``additional reductions of [NO<INF>X] would not contribute to 
attainment'' of the NAAQS in that area. The EPA's approval of the 
exemption, if warranted, would be granted on a contingent basis (i.e., 
the exemption would last for only as long as the area's monitoring data 
continue to demonstrate attainment).
NO<INF>X Waiver Comment 4
    Some commenters provided a comment on all section 182(f) actions 
that a waiver of NO<INF>X controls is unlawful if such a waiver will 
impede attainment and maintenance of the ozone standard in separate 
downwind areas.
    Some stated specifically that NO<INF>X emissions from the Bay Area 
are likely to exacerbate ozone nonattainment downwind in the Sacramento 
Basin and the San Joaquin Valley, and that until transport of ozone 
precursors from the San Francisco Bay Area to the Sacramento Basin and 
the San Joaquin Valley are addressed, granting an exemption from the 
NO<INF>X requirements is not consistent with the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act.
    The commenters further added that transport of NO<INF>X emissions 
from the San Francisco Bay Area adds to the attainment burden of the 
Sacramento Basin, and results in substantially different air quality 
rules in the two regions which translates into economic inequities and 
unfair economic [[Page 27038]] penalties to the Sacramento area 
community. Also, insufficient technical studies have been conducted to 
assess multi-basin transport regarding the San Francisco Bay Area and 
the Sacramento Basin, without which, redesignation and the NO<INF>X 
exemption should not be granted.
    The commenters contend that EPA's policy could prohibit approval of 
the SIP for the BAAQMD unless violations in adjacent air basins are 
addressed. Therefore, because of previous ozone concentrations 
monitored above the Federal standard in the San Joaquin Valley which 
were a consequence of San Francisco Bay Area emissions, areas evaluated 
for attainment, maintenance, and exemptions should include data from 
monitoring locations in adjacent air basins downwind of the San 
Francisco Bay Area. In addition, until all data, including recent data 
showing the Northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley would be in 
attainment of the Federal ozone standard in the absence of transported 
pollutants from the San Francisco Bay Area, which identifies the San 
Francisco Bay Area as a transport couple with the San Joaquin Valley is 
adequately assessed to define the effects of San Francisco Bay Area 
emissions on the ozone attainment status of the San Joaquin Valley, a 
NO<INF>X RACT exemption should not be approved.
EPA Response
    As a result of these comments and comments received regarding ozone 
transport in NO<INF>X exemption requests for other areas in the United 
States, EPA has reevaluated its position on this issue and decided to 
revise the previously issued guidance. <SUP>12 As described below, EPA 
intends to use its authority under section 110(a)(2)(D) to require a 
State to reduce NO<INF>X emissions from stationary and/or mobile 
sources where there is evidence, such as photochemical grid modeling, 
showing that NO<INF>X emissions would contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State. 
This action would be independent of any action taken by EPA on a 
NO<INF>X exemption request for stationary sources under section 182(f). 
That is, EPA action to grant or deny a NO<INF>X exemption request under 
section 182(f) would not shield that area from EPA action to require 
NO<INF>X emission reductions, if necessary, under section 110(a)(2)(D).

    \12\ See ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NO<INF>X) 
Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria'', issued February 8, 1995 
by John S. Seitz, Director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards.
    Modeling analyses are underway in many areas for the purpose of 
demonstrating attainment in the 1994 SIP revisions. Recent modeling 
data suggest that certain ozone nonattainment areas may benefit from 
reductions in NO<INF>X emissions far upwind of the nonattainment area. 
For example, the northeast corridor and the Lake Michigan areas are 
considering attainment strategies which rely in part on NO<INF>X 
emission reductions hundreds of kilometers upwind. The EPA is working 
with the States and other organizations to design and complete studies 
which consider upwind sources and quantify their impacts. As the 
studies progress, EPA will continue to work with the States and other 
organizations to develop mutually acceptable attainment strategies.
    At the same time as these large scale modeling analyses are being 
conducted, certain nonattainment areas in the modeling domain have 
requested exemptions from NO<INF>X requirements under section 182(f). 
Some areas requesting an exemption may be upwind of and impact upon 
downwind nonattainment areas. EPA intends to address the transport 
issue through section 110(a)(2)(D) based on a domain-wide modeling 
analysis.
    Under section 182(f) of the Act, an exemption from the NO<INF>X 
requirements may be granted for nonattainment areas outside an ozone 
transport region if EPA determines that ``additional reductions of 
[NO<INF>X] would not contribute to attainment of the national ambient 
air quality standard for ozone in the area.'' \13\ As described in 
section 4.3 of the December 16, 1993 guidance document, EPA believes 
that the term ``area'' means the ``nonattainment area'' and that EPA's 
determination is limited to consideration of the effects in a single 
nonattainment area due to NO<INF>X emissions reductions from sources in 
the same nonattainment area.

    \13\ There are 3 NO<INF>X exemption tests specified in section 
182(f). Of these, 2 are applicable for areas outside an ozone 
transport region; the ``contribute to attainment'' test described 
above, and the ``net air quality benefits'' test. EPA must 
determine, under the latter test, that the net benefits to air 
quality in an area ``are greater in the absence of NO<INF>X 
reductions'' from relevant sources. Based on the plain language of 
section 182(f), EPA believes that each test provides an independent 
basis for receiving a full or limited NO<INF>X exemption. 
Consequently, as stated in section 1.4 of the December 16, 1993 EPA 
guidance, ``[w]here any one of the tests is met (even if another 
test is failed), the section 182(f) NO<INF>X requirements would not 
apply or, under the excess reductions provision, a portion of these 
requirements would not apply.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4.3 of the guidance goes on to encourage, but not require, 
States/petitioners to include consideration of the entire modeling 
domain, since the effects of an attainment strategy may extend beyond 
the designated nonattainment area. Specifically, the guidance 
encourages States to ``consider imposition of the NO<INF>X requirements 
if needed to avoid adverse impacts in downwind areas, either intra- or 
inter-State. States need to consider such impacts since they are 
ultimately responsible for achieving attainment in all portions of 
their State (see generally section 110) and for ensuring that emissions 
originating in their State do not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State 
[see section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)].''
    In contrast, section 4.4 of the guidance states that the section 
182(f) demonstration would not be approved if there is evidence, such 
as photochemical grid modeling, showing that the NO<INF>X exemption 
would interfere with attainment or maintenance in downwind areas. The 
guidance goes on to explain that section 110(a)(2)(D) [not section 
182(f)] prohibits such impacts.
    Consistent with the guidance in section 4.3, EPA believes that the 
section 110(a)(2)(D) and 182(f) provisions must be considered 
independently, and hence is withdrawing the guidance presently 
contained in section 4.4. Thus, if there is evidence that NO<INF>X 
emissions in an upwind area would interfere with attainment or 
maintenance in a downwind area, that action should be separately 
addressed by the State(s) or, if necessary, by EPA in a section 
110(a)(2)(D) action. In addition, a section 182(f) exemption request 
should be independently considered by EPA. In some cases, then, EPA may 
grant an exemption from across-the-board NO<INF>X RACT controls under 
section 182(f) and, in a separate action, require NO<INF>X controls 
from stationary and/or mobile sources under section 110(a)(2)(D). It 
should be noted that the controls required under section 110(a)(2)(D) 
may be more or less stringent than RACT, depending upon the 
circumstances.
NO<INF>X Waiver Comment 5
    Comments were received regarding exemption of areas from the 
NO<INF>X requirements of the conformity rules. The commenters argue 
that such exemptions waive only the requirements of section 182(b)(1) 
to contribute to specific annual reductions, not the requirement that 
conformity SIPs contain information showing the maximum amount of motor 
vehicle NO<INF>X emissions allowed under the transportation conformity 
rules and, similarly, the maximum allowable amounts of any such 
NO<INF>X emissions under the general conformity rules. The commenters 
admit that, in prior [[Page 27039]] guidance, EPA has acknowledged the 
need to amend a drafting error in the existing transportation 
conformity rules to ensure consistency with motor vehicle emissions 
budgets for NO<INF>X, but want EPA in actions on NO<INF>X exemptions to 
explicitly affirm this obligation and to also avoid granting waivers 
until a budget controlling future NO<INF>X increases is in place.
EPA Response
    With respect to conformity, EPA's conformity rules <SUP>14,15 
provide a NO<INF>X waiver if an area receives a section 182(f) 
exemption. In its ``Conformity; General Preamble for Exemption from 
Nitrogen Oxides Provisions'', 59 FR 31238, 31241 (June 17, 1994), EPA 
reiterated its view that in order to conform, nonattainment and 
maintenance areas must demonstrate that the transportation plan and 
transportation improvement plan (TIP) are consistent with the motor 
vehicle emissions budget for NO<INF>X even where a conformity NO<INF>X 
waiver has been granted. Due to a drafting error, that view is not 
reflected in the current transportation conformity rules. As the 
commenters correctly note, EPA states in the June 17th notice that it 
intends to remedy the problem by amending the conformity rule. Although 
that notice specifically mentions only requiring consistency with the 
approved maintenance plan's NO<INF>X motor vehicle emissions budget, 
EPA also intends to require consistency with the attainment 
demonstration's NO<INF>X motor vehicle emissions budget. However, EPA 
is not granting an exemption from the transportation conformity 
requirements under section 182(f) in this action for the Bay Area. 
Rather, EPA's approval of the Bay Area's redesignation and maintenance 
plan begins the maintenance period, and an area's transportation plans 
and TIPs must be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget in 
the maintenance plan. The requirements of the transportation conformity 
regulation that plans and TIPs satisfy the ``build/no build'' test and 
achieve emissions reductions, does not apply to areas redesignated and 
operating under a maintenance status.

    \14\ ``Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to 
State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, 
Programs, and Projects Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C. of 
the Federal Transit Act,'' November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188).
    \15\ ``Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to 
State or Federal Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' November 30, 
1993 (58 FR 63214).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO<INF>X Waiver Comment 6
    Some commenters argue that the CAA does not authorize any waiver of 
the NO<INF>X reduction requirements until conclusive evidence exists 
that such reductions are counter-productive.
EPA Response
    The EPA does not agree with this comment since it ignores 
Congressional intent as evidenced by the plain language of section 
182(f), the structure of the Title I ozone subpart as a whole, and 
relevant legislative history. By contrast, in developing and 
implementing its NO<INF>X exemption policies, EPA has sought an 
approach that reasonably accords with Congress' intent. Section 182(f), 
in addition to imposing control requirements on major stationary 
sources of NO<INF>X similar to those that apply for such sources of 
VOC, also provides for an exemption (or limitation) from application of 
these requirements if, under one of several tests, EPA determines that 
in certain areas NO<INF>X reductions would generally not be beneficial. 
In subsection 182(f)(1), Congress explicitly conditioned action on 
NO<INF>X exemptions on the results of an ozone precursor study required 
under section 185B. Because of the possibility that reducing NO<INF>X 
in a particular area may either not contribute to ozone attainment or 
may cause the ozone problem to worsen, Congress included attenuating 
language, not just in section 182(f) but throughout the Title I ozone 
subpart, to avoid requiring NO<INF>X reductions where it would be 
nonbeneficial or counterproductive. In describing these various ozone 
provisions (including section 182(f)), the House Conference Committee 
Report states in pertinent part: ``[T]he Committee included a separate 
NO<INF>X/VOC study provision in section [185B] to serve as the basis 
for the various findings contemplated in the NO<INF>X provisions. The 
Committee does not intend NO<INF>X reduction for reduction's sake, but 
rather as a measure scaled to the value of NO<INF>X reductions for 
achieving attainment in the particular ozone nonattainment area.'' H.R. 
Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 257-258 (1990). As noted in 
response to an earlier comment by these same commenters, the command in 
subsection 182(f)(1) that EPA ``shall consider'' the 185B report taken 
together with the timeframe the Act provides both for completion of the 
report and for acting on NO<INF>X exemption petitions clearly 
demonstrate that Congress believed the information in the completed 
section 185B report would provide a sufficient basis for EPA to act on 
NO<INF>X exemption requests, even absent the additional information 
that would be included in affected areas' attainment or maintenance 
demonstrations. However, while there is no specific requirement in the 
Act that EPA actions granting NO<INF>X exemption requests must await 
``conclusive evidence'', as the commenters argue, there is also nothing 
in the Act to prevent EPA from revisiting an approved NO<INF>X 
exemption if warranted due to better ambient information.
    In addition, the EPA believes (as described in EPA's December 1993 
guidance) that section 182(f)(1) of the CAA provides that the new 
NO<INF>X requirements shall not apply (or may be limited to the extent 
necessary to avoid excess reductions) if the Administrator determines 
that any one of the following tests is met:
    (1) In any area, the net air quality benefits are greater in the 
absence of NO<INF>X reductions from the sources concerned;
    (2) In nonattainment areas not within an ozone transport region, 
additional NO<INF>X reductions would not contribute to ozone attainment 
in the area; or
    (3) In nonattainment areas within an ozone transport region, 
additional NO<INF>X reductions would not produce net ozone air quality 
benefits in the transport region.
    Based on the plain language of section 182(f), EPA believes that 
each test provides an independent basis for receiving a full or limited 
NO<INF>X exemption.
    Only the first test listed above is based on a showing that 
NO<INF>X reductions are ``counter-productive.'' If one of the tests is 
met (even if another test is failed), the section 182(f) NO<INF>X 
requirements would not apply or, under the excess reductions provision, 
a portion of these requirements would not apply.

III. EPA Final Action

    In this final action, EPA is approving the San Francisco Bay Area 
ozone maintenance plan because it meets the requirements of section 
175A. In addition, the Agency is redesignating the San Francisco Bay 
Area to attainment for ozone because the State of California has 
demonstrated compliance with the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) 
for redesignation. Finally, EPA is approving the NO<INF>X waiver 
petition and 1990 emissions inventory for the San Francisco Bay Area.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each [[Page 27040]] request for revision shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements. The ozone SIP is designed to satisfy the 
requirements of Part D of the CAA and to provide for attainment and 
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. This final redesignation should not be 
interpreted as authorizing the State of California to delete, alter, or 
rescind any of the VOC or NO<INF>X emission limitations and 
restrictions contained in the approved ozone SIP. Changes to the ozone 
SIP VOC RACT regulations rendering them less stringent than those 
contained in the EPA approved plan cannot be made unless a revised plan 
for attainment and maintenance is submitted and approved by EPA. 
Unauthorized relaxations, deletions, and changes could result in both a 
finding of nonimplementation (section 173(b) of the CAA) and in a SIP 
deficiency call made pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA.
    This action has been classified as a Table 2 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by 
an October 14, 1993 memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The OMB has exempted 
this regulatory action from the requirements of section 6 of Executive 
Order 128866.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities ( 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
of the CAA, approval of a section 182(f) exemption, and approval of an 
emissions inventory do not impose any new requirements on small 
entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a 
geographical area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on 
sources. The Administrator certifies that the approval of the 
redesignation request will not affect a substantial number of small 
entities.
    Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, 
EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State, 
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
    Through submission of the state implementation plan or plan 
revisions approved in this action, the State and any affected local or 
tribal governments have elected to adopt the program provided for under 
section 175A and 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. Also, EPA's final 
action approving the section 182(f) NO<INF>X waiver petition relieves 
requirements otherwise imposed under the CAA and, hence does not impose 
any federal intergovernmental mandate, as defined in section 101 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Act. The rules and commitments approved in this 
action may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform certain 
actions and also may ultimately lead to the private sector being 
required to perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules and 
commitments being approved by this action will impose or lead to the 
imposition of any mandate upon the State, local or tribal governments 
either as the owner or operator of a source or as a regulator, or would 
impose or lead to the imposition of any mandate upon the private 
sector, EPA's action will impose no new requirements; such sources are 
already subject to these requirements under State law. Accordingly, no 
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the 
private sector, result from this action. Therefore, EPA has determined 
that this final action does not include a mandate that may result in 
estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal 
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), petitions 
for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States 
Courts of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 21, 1995. Filing 
a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements (See section 307(b)(2) of the Act, 42 
U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, and Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.

    Dated: April 24, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Parts 52 and 81 continues to read as 
follows:


    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--California

    2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(205)(i)(B) and 
(212) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (205) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Amendments to the San Francisco Bay Area Redesignation Request 
and Maintenance Plan for the National Ozone Standard and 1990 Emissions 
Inventory adopted on September 7, 1994 by the Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District, October 5, 1994 by the Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission, and August 24, 1994 by the Association of Bay Area 
Governments.
* * * * *
    (212) Ozone redesignation request for the Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District submitted on November 5, 1993, by the Governor's 
designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Redesignation request for the San Francisco Bay Area and the 
Ozone Maintenance Plan for the National Ozone Standard adopted on 
September 1, 1993 by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 
September 22, 1993 by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and 
September 16, 1993 by the Association of Bay Area Governments.
* * * * * [[Page 27041]] 

PART 81--[AMENDED]

Subpart B--Designation of Air Quality Control Regions

    3. In section 81.305, the table for ``California--Ozone'' is 
amended by revising the entry ``San Francisco Bay Area'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                                California--Ozone                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                           Classification            
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\              Type                Date                Type       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco-Bay Area:                                                                                         
    Alameda County..............  June 21, 1995.....  Attainment.         ..................  ..................
    Contra Costa County.........  ..................  ......do.           ..................  ..................
    Marin County................  ..................  ......do.           ..................  ..................
    Napa County.................  ..................  ......do.           ..................  ..................
    San Francisco County........  ..................  ......do.           ..................  ..................
    San Clara County............  ..................  ......do.           ..................  ..................
    San Mateo County............  ..................  ......do.           ..................  ..................
    Solano County (part)........  ..................  ......do.           ..................  ..................
That portion of the county that   ..................  ......do.           ..................  ..................
 lies south and west of the line                                                                                
 described that follows:                                                                                        
 Description of boundary in                                                                                     
 Solano County between San                                                                                      
 Francisco and Sacramento:                                                                                      
 Beginning at the intersection                                                                                  
 at the westerly boundary of                                                                                    
 Solano County and the \1/4\                                                                                    
 section line running east and                                                                                  
 west through the center of                                                                                     
 Section 34; T.6 N., R. 2 W.,                                                                                   
 M.D.B.&M., thence east along                                                                                   
 said \1/2\ section line to the                                                                                 
 east boundary of Section 36, T.                                                                                
 6 N., R. 2 W., thence south \1/                                                                                
 2\ mile and east 2.0 miles,                                                                                    
 more or less, along the west                                                                                   
 and south boundary of Los Putos                                                                                
 Rancho to the northwest corner                                                                                 
 of Section 4, T. 5 N., R. 1 W,                                                                                 
 thence east along a line common                                                                                
 to T. 5 N., and T. 6 N. to the                                                                                 
 northeast corner of Section 3,                                                                                 
 T. 5 N., R. 1 E., thence south                                                                                 
 along section lines to the                                                                                     
 southeast corner of Section 10                                                                                 
 T. 3 N., R. 1 E., thence east                                                                                  
 along section lines to the                                                                                     
 south \1/4\ corner of Section 8                                                                                
 T. 3 N., R. 2 E., thence east                                                                                  
 to the boundary between Solano                                                                                 
 and Sacramento Counties.                                                                                       
Sonoma County (part)............  ..................  ......do.                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The date is November 15, 1990 unless otherwise noted.                                                       

[FR Doc. 95-12407 Filed 5-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P