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 NOINFX Exemption Petition
Federal RegisterMay 22, 1995
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[CA-64-1-6997; FRL-5202-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California,
Approval of the Maintenance Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area and
Redesignation of the San Francisco Bay Area to Attainment; Approval of
Emissions Inventory; Approval of NOX Exemption Petition
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a redesignation request and maintenance
plan for the San Francisco Bay Area as a revision to California's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In addition, EPA is approving the
1990 base year emissions inventory and a petition requesting an
exemption from the section 182(f) nitrogen oxides (NOX)
requirements for the area.
On April 13, 1994, EPA notified the State of California that EPA
had made a finding of incompleteness for required programs under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). The EPA's redesignation of the San
Francisco Bay Area to attainment and approval of the 1990 emissions
inventory abrogates those requirements for the area. Therefore, the
sanctions and federal implementation plan clocks begun by those
findings are stopped at the time of this redesignation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will become effective on June 21, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following locations:
Plans Development Section (A-2-2), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 94814.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wallace Woo, Chief, Plans Development
Section, Air & Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, at (415) 744-1207.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
A. Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
The San Francisco Bay Area ozone nonattainment area has attained
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone based on
three years of quality assured ambient air quality data, for the period
1990-1992. Therefore, in accordance with the CAA, as amended in 1990,
and to ensure continued attainment of the standard for at least 10
years, the State of California has submitted an ozone maintenance plan
which projects continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
The maintenance plan submitted for the San Francisco Bay Area meets
all applicable requirements of the CAA. The San Francisco Bay Area
submittal complies with section 175A of the Act which sets forth
maintenance plan requirements for areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The plan demonstrates attainment of the
NAAQS for at least 10 years after the area is redesignated.
Eight years after the redesignation, the state commits to submit a
revised maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment for the ten year
period following the initial ten year period. In the event of a NAAQS
violation, the maintenance plan contains contingency measures adequate
to ensure prompt correction of the air quality problem.
The state submittal being approved today contains a redesignation
request in which the state demonstrates that the area has fulfilled the
redesignation requirements of the CAA pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E),
a NOX exemption petition pursuant to section 182(f), and a 1990
emissions inventory of ozone precursors pursuant to section 182(a) for
the area.
On September 28, 1994 (59 FR 49361-49370), EPA published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of California SIP. The NPRM
proposed that the San Francisco Bay Area be redesignated from
nonattainment to attainment for ozone and that the maintenance plan
submitted by the State of California as a revision to the California
SIP be approved contingent upon EPA taking final rulemaking action to
approve various SIP deficiencies for the San Francisco Bay Area
(including volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonable available control
technology (RACT) corrections, emission statement rule, NSR
corrections) and California's submittal of the ozone maintenance plan
amendments to the contingency plan and the 1990 base year emissions
inventory. In addition, the NPRM proposed approval of a NOX waiver
petition and 1990 base year emissions inventory.
Since that time, the EPA has taken final rulemaking action to
approve both the volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonable available
control technology (RACT) rules which resolve the deficiencies and the
emission statement rule. Below is the list of rules that the EPA has
approved since the time of proposed rulemaking on the redesignation.
These approvals remove one of the conditions for redesignation of the
San Francisco Bay Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Rule title Notice of final rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-1................. General Provisions........................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.
8-2................. Miscellaneous Operations..................... 60 FR 15062, March 22, 1995.
8-4................. General Solvent and Surface Coating 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 NOX RACT rules are appropriate to
submit into the SIP as fully adopted and implemented contingency
provisions. The list of NOX controls include six rules which are
scheduled for implementation through 2001. The improvements to the
basic I/M program and the NOX RACT controls supersede the original
contingency plan submitted in November 1993. The original submittal
included a commitment to implement an enhanced I/M program in the event
of a violation during the maintenance period. However, the final
enabling legislation for enhanced I/M in California prohibited areas
not explicitly required to implement enhanced I/M by the CAA from
opting into the centralized portion of the program. Therefore, the
BAAQMD revised the contingency plan as described above.
Below is the list of NOX RACT contingency measures submitted
by CARB as part of the contingency plan.
BAAQMD NOX Rules as Contingency Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX
Title regulation 9 Adopted Implementation year(s) reductions
(TPD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX and CO from Industrial, Institutional and 9/16/92 1/1/96........................... 14.9
Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators (rule 7).
NO2 and CO2 Emissions from Stationary Internal 1/20/93 1/1/97........................... 8.3
Combustion Engines (rule 8).
NOX 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).
NOX and CO from Utility Electric Power Generating 2/16/94 5/31/95.......................... 1-2.6
Boilers (rule 11).
NOX from Glass Melting Furnaces (rule 12).......... 1/19/94 1/1/97-1/1/2001.................. 1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In early 1994, new State laws (SB 198, AB 2018, SB 521, SB 629)
were passed to improve the current decentralized I/M program. The
improvements will begin implementation in 1995 and include: increased
cost waiver limits for all models to $450; addition of functional tests
for the evaporative control system; remote sensing or other roadside
testing to discover gross polluters; centralized computer system
reporting; improved quality assurance and enforcement; and improved
technician training and certification. In addition, loaded-mode testing
will either be a required program element (to be determined by the
California Bureau of Automotive Repair), or will be implemented on
request in the San Francisco Bay Area within one year of successful
demonstration in areas of the State implementing enhanced I/M programs.
Below is a chart which [[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 NOX
(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 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) NOX RACT Waiver Petition
The EPA is finalizing the approval of a petition submitted by the
Bay Area AQMD requesting that EPA grant an exemption from the section
182(f) requirements to control major stationary sources of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) emissions. The exemption petition is based on
ambient monitoring data and demonstrates that additional NOX
reductions in the Bay Area would not contribute to attainment of the
NAAQS for ozone.
EPA has evaluated the exemption petition for consistency with the
requirements of the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA interpretation of
these requirements as expressed in the various EPA policy guidance
documents.2 EPA believes that the petition satisfies the
applicable EPA requirements and, in accordance with the requirements of
the CAA, has determined that additional NOX reductions from major
stationary sources in the San Francisco Bay Area would not contribute
to attainment of the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for
ozone. EPA is finalizing this action to exempt the San Francisco Bay
Area from implementing the NOX requirements for RACT, NSR, and the
applicable general conformity and I/M requirements 3 of the CAA.
Because the San Francisco Bay Area is being redesignated to attainment
of the ozone standard through this action, the transportation
conformity requirements will consist of meeting the NOX budget
established in the maintenance plan.4
\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
NOX Supplement to the General Preamble, 57 FR 55628, November
25, 1992.
\3\ See ``Scope of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Exemptions,'' from
G.T. Helms, Group Leader, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch (MD-
15), to the Air Branch Chiefs, January 12, 1995. ``I/M Requirements
in NOX RACT Exempt Areas'', from Mary T. Smith, Acting
Director, Office of Mobile Sources, to the Air Division Directors,
October 14, 1994.
\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 NOX Supplement to the General Preamble (57 FR 55628,
November 25, 1992) and further guidance issued by EPA,5 section
182(f) exemptions are granted on a contingent basis and last for only
as long as the area's monitoring data continue to demonstrate
attainment. The San Francisco Bay Area is required to continue to
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area.
\5\ See ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Exemptions--
Revised Process and Criteria'', issued by John S. Seitz, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10), May 27, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a violation of the ozone standard occurs after the San Francisco
Bay Area is redesignated to attainment of the ozone NAAQS, the NOX
requirements are to be implemented as contingency measures as provided
in the maintenance plan.
C. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory
In the NPRM, the EPA proposed approval of a revised 1990 base year
emissions inventory as requested by the state in a letter dated July
21, 1994. In this letter, the state requested that EPA approve a
revised 1990 emissions inventory and projections as part of the
maintenance plan. As discussed in the NPRM, below is a summary of the
1990 VOC and NOX emission inventory and projections through the
year 2005. The projections show that the area will continue to
demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS with current control measures
(adopted through December 31, 1992).
VOC Emission Inventory Summary*
[Tons Per Day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 1995 2000 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................................... 78 73 75 77
Area........................................ 173 154 141 141
Mobile On-Road.............................. 300 204 142 104
Mobile Non-Road............................. 81 85 82 84
---------------------------
Anthropogenic...........................
Total................................... 631 515 440 406
Biogenics................................... 300 300 300 300
===========================
Total................................... 931 815 740 706
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emission Inventory Summary*
[Tons Per Day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 1995 2000 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point....................................... 131 130 141 146
Area........................................ 15 16 17 18
Mobile On-Road.............................. 251 194 166 158
Mobile 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)
NOX RACT waiver petition only. Below is a summary of the comments
received and the EPA's response.
A. EPA Response to Comments: Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
Comment 1
Several commenters stated that Congress intended EPA to deal with
interstate transport only, as noted in section 176A of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), and that the regulation of intrastate transport is outside
of EPA jurisdiction and not a criteria for redesignation. Other
comments stated that the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) adequately
addresses interbasin transport. Furthermore, transport is a complicated
issue, and the existing data is not sufficiently accurate to provide
better solutions at this time. Finally, in some cases, the San
Francisco Bay Area is the recipient of pollution from other air basins
during certain meteorological conditions when air flow tends to be from
inland areas and the San Joaquin Valley can model attainment without
additional measures from the San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco
Bay Area should not be unfairly singled out for scrutiny of intrastate
transport, especially when the CCAA provides a workable process.
EPA Response
As outlined in the General Preamble to Title I of the CAA (57 FR
13528, April 16, 1992), the CAA assigns responsibility to the states
for developing and submitting attainment demonstrations which show that
the standard will be attained by the applicable attainment dates for
areas where the demonstration of attainment is complicated by transport
between two areas of different classifications. However, EPA needs to
be assured that the attainment plans adequately address transport so as
to ensure attainment for all areas within a state by the applicable
attainment deadlines.
CARB has submitted attainment demonstration plans for all areas in
California, including the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment areas.6 This submittal included modeling of a large
part of California, including Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay
Area, as well as the San Joaquin Valley. EPA will review those plans
and address the adequacy of the submittals through the federal
rulemaking process.
\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,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 NOX emissions do not exceed the
1990 attainment year emissions inventory (the emissions ``cap'').
At the end of the first ITG meeting, after consultation with the
group, EPA indicated its belief that any issues regarding transport
from the San Francisco Bay Area to neighboring areas should be dealt
with separately from the redesignation as new technical information
becomes available. The group committed to investigate additional short
and long term measures for the San Francisco Bay Area to be implemented
to further mitigate any downwind transport effects. The establishment
of the ITG provides an avenue to deal effectively with the transport
issue after the redesignation as new information becomes available.
Since the first meeting of the ITG, the Greater Sacramento Area Air
Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) revised their original comments
submitted during the public comment period on the proposed
redesignation. Specifically, the Sacramento Area APCDs' letter of
December 15, 1994 urged EPA to delay final action on the redesignation
until transport was addressed. In a more recent letter 8 to EPA,
the Sacramento area now agrees that the transport issue can be dealt
with separately from the federal redesignation process and concurs with
EPA's proposal to redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area from
nonattainment to attainment.
\8\ In a letter dated February 27, 1995, Kenneth Selover, Air
Pollution Control Officer from the Yolo-Solano APCD representing the
Greater Sacramento Area APCD, states that the concerns expressed in
the comment letter dated December 15, 1994 in response to EPA's
proposal to redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area from
nonattainment to attainment, were based on a lack of understanding
of the BAAQMD's proposed program to further mitigate NOX and
other emissions in response to the CCAA. In the December 15, 1994
letter, the Sacramento APCDs requested an extension of the public
comment period until the issue of transport was addressed. The
Sacramento area now agrees that the transport issue can be dealt
with separately from the federal redesignation process, and the
redesignation should proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the comments were based on a recently released CARB study,
``Preliminary Assessment of Transport on San Joaquin Valley Ozone,''
which discusses recent simulations to assess the impact of transported
emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. The results discussed in the
report are based on an extreme scenario in which anthropogenic
emissions for the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento area are
set to zero. (In other words, the modeling simulation assumes that
there are no VOC or NOX anthropogenic emissions in the San
Francisco Bay Area or the Sacramento Area. This exercise enables one to
estimate the proportion of locally generated ozone versus transported
pollution into the Valley.) The report indicates that there would be a
decrease in ozone measurements of 27% in the Northern San Joaquin
Valley, 10% in the Central San Joaquin Valley and 7% in the Southern
San Joaquin Valley. The modeling study indicates that the Northern San
Joaquin Valley is most affected by transported emissions. However, the
attainment plan submitted for the San Joaquin Valley which relies on
this modeling study purports to show that the San Joaquin Valley models
attainment by the applicable deadline. In addition, monitoring data for
the northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley shows that this site has
collected air quality data which demonstrates attainment of the ozone
NAAQS.
The report indicates that the Central and Southern San Joaquin
Valley ozone concentrations would be reduced by 10% and 7%,
respectively, if anthropogenic (generated by man) emissions were set to
zero for the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento. Given that the
Sacramento Area and the San Joaquin Valley will continue to adopt and
implement aggressive new controls in response to the Federal and
California Clean Air Acts and the San Francisco Bay Area will continue
to adopt and implement new controls in response to the California Clean
Air Act, the amount of emissions transported and locally generated
emissions will continue to decrease to the Central and Southern San
Joaquin Valley in the near future.
The formation of the ITG and the commitment from all affected
agencies to work together to resolve potential transport issues, in
conjunction with the California ozone plans submitted on November 15,
1994 which purport to demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS for the
Sacramento Area and the San Joaquin Valley by the applicable attainment
deadlines, indicates that any intrastate transport issues should be
effectively handled at the state level initially. EPA is committed to
the goals of the ITG and will continue to participate in the group to
offer support and review the adequacy of any new state or local agency
strategy for dealing with transport.
With respect to the handling of transport issues at the state
level, EPA notes that the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted by
the State of California in 1988, contains provisions which are designed
to reduce the amount of pollution transport between nonattainment areas
within the state. Specifically, areas which are the origin of
transported pollutants, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, must
include sufficient emission control measures in the state attainment
plan (the ``clean air plan'') to mitigate the impact of pollution
sources within their jurisdictions on ozone concentrations downwind. In
the San Francisco Bay Area, these requirements include VOC and NOX
best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) for source
categories that collectively amount to 75% of the 1987 actual
hydrocarbon (HC) emissions inventory for stationary sources and 75% of
1987 actual NOX emission inventory for permitted stationary
sources no later than January 1, 1994. The BARCT controls, in most
cases, exceed the federal RACT requirements. If these recently adopted
controls were calculated into the projections in the maintenance plan,
the NOX emission trend would decrease through the year 2005. In
addition, the San Francisco Bay Area is required to continue to
implement a stringent NSR permitting program for new stationary
sources. The CCAA requires that areas design attainment plans that
include these controls and ensure attainment of the more stringent
California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) for ozone (0.09 ppm) by
the earliest practicable date. According to CARB, the BAAQMD has fully
complied with the CCAA's transport mitigation requirements and is
continuing to adopt and implement all feasible control measures in its
effort to attain the more stringent CAAQS of 0.09 ppm.
Although the BAAQMD has requested to be exempt from the NOX
RACT requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act, the BAAQMD had
proceeded to adopt NOX best available retrofit control technology
(BARCT) and stringent New Source Review (NSR) regulations to comply
with the transport mitigation requirements of the CCAA. Therefore, the
maintenance plan controls and additional controls adopted in response
to the CCAA ensure that any transport of pollutants from the San
Francisco Bay Area to neighboring areas, whatever its current
magnitude, will continue to decrease throughout the maintenance period.
In addition, the CCAA requires CARB to compile a report which
assesses transport within the State every three [[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 NOX controls to
further reduce ozone and meet the more stringent CAAQS for ozone. In
addition, the emission inventory projections contained in the
maintenance plan, which include controls adopted through December 1992,
show a decrease in VOC emissions and show that NOX emissions are
not expected to increase over the 1990 attainment levels through 2005
(the 10 year maintenance plan horizon). Therefore, any transported
pollution to the San Joaquin Valley from the San Francisco Bay Area
will continue to decrease in the future. Finally, CARB submitted an
ozone plan which purports to demonstrate attainment of the ozone
standard in the San Joaquin Valley by 1999, the statutory deadline for
attainment under the CAA.
Comment 4
Several commenters note that San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento
industries, businesses, and citizens are subject to more onerous
control requirements, such as more stringent NSR requirements and
enhanced I/M, in order to compensate for transported pollution. This
creates an economic disparity between the regions and penalizes the
citizens in the downwind areas. Arbitrary air pollution control
boundaries should not be used to create economic disparity among
regions in the state.
EPA Response
The classification system under the CAA is based on actual
monitored air pollution values during 1987 through 1989 for each
nonattainment area. The CAA requires specific controls for each
classification, with increasingly stringent control requirements for
more seriously polluted areas. The air quality data recorded in the San
Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Area was more serious than the air
quality monitored in the San Francisco Bay Area during the same time
period. The Sacramento Area and the San Joaquin Valley air quality
monitoring data collected during 1987-1989 warranted a ``serious''
classification,9 whereas the monitoring in the San Francisco Bay
Area warranted a ``moderate'' classification. Based on the statewide
modeling effort to date, it appears that both the Sacramento Area and
the San Joaquin Valley are responsible for the vast majority of the
ozone pollution monitored in their areas. Therefore, EPA cannot concur
that there is evidence indicating that the higher classifications
warranted by the air quality monitoring in the Sacramento area and the
San Joaquin Valley are due solely to transport.
\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 NOX controls to comply with the CCAA which go
beyond the control measures included in the maintenance plan and its
emission reduction projections (controls adopted through December
1992). With respect to the NSR requirement, although the San Francisco
Bay Area will no longer be required to continue federal NSR permitting
after redesignation (as soon as a federally delegated PSD program is in
place), the BAAQMD has fully complied with the transport mitigation
requirements of the CCAA which include NSR requirements.
The air pollution control boundaries were not drawn arbitrarily or
to create economic disparities within the state, but rather reflect the
natural geographic air basins that exist in Northern California. In
response to the CAA adopted in November 1990, EPA consulted with, and
deferred to the State of California on the air pollution control
boundaries within the State. Section 107(d)(1)(4)(iv) of the CAA
requires that the entire metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or
consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) be used for ozone or
carbon monoxide nonattainment areas classified as serious or above. The
boundaries of the Sacramento Area and the San Joaquin Valley reflect
the MSA/CMSA designations. Since promulgation of the current air
pollution boundaries in November 1991, EPA has not received any
petitions to re-draw the boundaries in California.
According to the CAA, areas are required to attain the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than the applicable
attainment deadline. Since CARB submitted an ozone attainment plan to
EPA on November 15, 1994 which purports to demonstrate attainment of
the NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento area by the
applicable deadline, the state expects the ozone NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Area to be attained by the timelines
required by the CAA.
Comment 5
Several commenters noted that the proposed action to redesignate
the San Francisco Bay Area was made despite an adequate assessment of
the impact of its emissions on attainment in neighboring areas
(Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley). One commenter specifically noted
that for the [[Page 27034]] Sacramento Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) modeling, only one episode has been modeled. More specifically,
they noted that NOX emissions transported into Sacramento from the
San Francisco Bay Area increase the severity and likelihood of ozone
episodes and add to the attainment burden for the area. (See discussion
in EPA Response to Comment 4)
EPA Response
As discussed above, EPA and the ITG will deal with transport issues
separately from the redesignation. EPA is aware of the ongoing
statewide modeling effort, the SARMAP study, and will continue to
participate in those meetings to evaluate the latest modeling
information. EPA is committed to addressing the latest transport
studies and being involved in the ITG to work with state and local
governments to resolve any transport issues.
It should be noted that the SARMAP modeling study, portions of
which were submitted to EPA in the San Joaquin Valley ozone plan,
looked at an August 1990 episode for Sacramento which includes
transport from neighboring areas. The results of this episode show that
the emission reductions required for attainment in the Sacramento area
are no greater than those indicated by the July 1990 episode, which
includes mostly local emissions.
Comment 6
One commenter made several suggestions of items that EPA should
require prior to redesignation. These include: 1. the completion of the
technical studies on Sacramento modeling case, including the August
ozone episode, using SARMAP. The outcome should be assignment of
emission reductions to the San Francisco Bay Area; 2. the BAAQMD should
install and maintain monitors to measure ozone and NOX aloft to
transport corridors to Sacramento and the San Joaquin Valley; 3. the
BAAQMD should implement the voluntary ``Spare the Air'' program on days
when ozone forecast predicts a violation, or near violation, in
Sacramento; 4. the BAAQMD should contribute to any program efforts that
are developed for the Sacramento air basins to slow travel on highway
I-80 during periods when Sacramento is at risk of violating federal
ozone standards; 5. EPA should coordinate a joint federal/state/local
effort to assess equity issues in control of transported pollution, and
consider requiring stationary source, fleet rule and off-road NOX
control equivalent to Sacramento rules within portions of the San
Francisco Bay Area likely to transport to the Sacramento area.
EPA Response
As discussed above, EPA will continue to meet with the affected
downwind air pollution control districts at regularly scheduled ITG
meetings and any transport issues will be dealt with separately from
the redesignation process. Specifically, CARB is continuing to look at
episodes in August 1990, and additional monitors are being installed to
look at pollution transport between the areas. All of the suggestions
listed above will be examined by the group at upcoming meetings, and
the technical subcommittee of the ITG will look into the modeling
suggestions and new technical data on an ongoing basis.
Comment 7
One commenter opposed the redesignation unless transport is
assessed because the San Joaquin Valley, which is affected by pollution
transported from the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento, may be
unable to make a conformity determination for the area. It is difficult
to explain this situation to the public and elected officials when
modeling results show that Stanislaus County would be in attainment if
transport was addressed.
EPA Response
As discussed above, the issue of transport will be addressed
separately from the redesignation process. However, it should be noted
that the emission trend for the San Francisco Bay Area for VOC
continually decreases over the 10 year maintenance period and NOX
emissions do not exceed the 1990 attainment year level (the emissions
``cap''). If the NOX BARCT controls adopted by the BAAQMD were
included in the maintenance plan, the NOX emissions would also
show a continual decrease over the 10 year maintenance period.
Therefore, any transport impacts from the San Francisco Bay Area on
other areas will continue to diminish in the future. It should be noted
that CARB submitted an ozone attainment demonstration plan for the San
Joaquin Valley which purports to reach attainment by the serious area
deadline, 1999.
Comment 8
One commenter asserted that there are no monitoring stations for
air emissions in the West Oakland area which is comprised of a
community of predominately low income and color and is near one of the
busiest highway intersections in the country. Census track analysis
shows a high incidence of cancer in this area. American Lung
Association studies show that the acceptable levels for particulates in
the Clean Air Act are not protective of human health. In addition,
benzene levels may be above the EPA acceptable 10-4 cancer risk
level. The redesignation sends the wrong message to the community and
policy makers and will not encourage public transit use. The
redesignation is based on insufficient data since the monitoring
network does not address ``hotspots''.
EPA Response
The proposal which EPA is finalizing today redesignates the area to
attainment only for ozone. This action does not relate to emissions of
particulate matter or benzene. This decision is based on clean air
quality data for ozone recorded at the monitoring network since 1990.
The BAAQMD currently monitors for ozone in the Oakland MSA.
With regard to particulate matter, the San Francisco Bay Area is
currently designated as ``unclassifiable'' for PM-10 (particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of ten microns or less). However,
EPA will continue to evaluate the PM-10 monitoring data in the air
basin and redesignate the area to nonattainment if warranted. EPA is
also working with the BAAQMD to locate an additional PM-10 monitor in
the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition, at the national level, EPA is
currently reassessing the existing particulate matter NAAQS,10 and
the Agency may be promulgating a new particulate matter NAAQS in the
near future.
\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 NOX and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight. With
regard to ozone, the BAAQMD's monitoring network meets the federal
requirements and the data collected from this network is sufficient for
redesignation.
Comment 9
With respect to NOX emissions, one commenter asserts that the
maintenance plan shows that the area can continue to meet the ozone
standard even with increasing NOX emissions after 2000.
Furthermore, BAAQMD projects that NOX emissions under their
jurisdiction will increase 18 tons per day (TPD) between 1990 and 2005.
Even though non-jurisdictional sources make up for this increase,
BAAQMD should adopt control measures to reduce jurisdictional NOX
emissions by 18 TPD by 2005. This is particularly important since the
San Joaquin Valley ozone formation is predominately affected by the
level of NOX emissions.
EPA Response
The maintenance plan does not show an overall increase in NOX
emissions during the maintenance period. Through the year 2005, the
level of NOX emissions remains at or below the 1990 attainment
level NOX carrying capacity. In addition, it should be noted that
the NOX projections in the maintenance plan do not include the
NOX BARCT controls adopted by BAAQMD in response to the transport
mitigation requirements of the CCAA. If those controls were included,
the NOX projections would show a continuous decrease through the
year 2005. Specifically, the BAAQMD adopted NOX BARCT controls by
1995 which will be fully implemented by 2002. With these control
measures in place, the NOX emission projections decrease the
emission trend by an additional 74 TPD in 2005 beyond the current trend
line contained in the maintenance plan.
Comment 10
One commenter stated that the area evaluated for attainment and
maintenance of the federal ozone standard for the San Francisco Bay
Area, as required in 40 CFR 50.9, should include data from the
monitoring locations in the portion of adjacent air basins immediately
downwind of the San Francisco Bay Area air basin. These adjacent areas
have experienced ozone concentrations above the federal standard as a
direct consequence of emissions from the San Francisco Bay Area with
little or no contribution from local emissions and may experience
similar events in the future. In addition, the September 1, 1993
Memorandum from Mary Nichols states that EPA intends to apply to
intrastate transport the provision of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(1), which
requires each state's SIP prohibit emissions which will contribute
significantly to nonattainment. There are little or no local emissions
between these monitoring sites and the upwind San Francisco Bay Area.
It appears EPA has expressed a policy which could prohibit the approval
of the San Francisco Bay Area SIP unless violations caused in adjacent
air basins are addressed.
EPA Response
To qualify for redesignation in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E), an area must demonstrate, among other things, that the
ambient air quality monitoring data in the area meets the NAAQS. The
San Francisco Bay Area has satisfied this requirement by submitting
five consecutive years of monitoring data which show no violations of
the ozone NAAQS. As discussed above, EPA is fully aware of the
potential transport issues and is committed to working with the State
and local air pollution control agencies to resolve any issues through
the ITG. EPA has the authority to deal with intrastate transport issues
under the Clean Air Act, but the information presently available does
not warrant action by EPA at this time.
Comment 11
One commenter stated that the 1990 VOC and NOX ``carrying
capacity'' levels in the maintenance plan should be made federally
enforceable. The measures identified as contingencies should be
incorporated into the SIP to mitigate any possible emission reduction
shortfall.
EPA Response
The 1990 VOC and NOX emission inventory and emission
projections through 2005 are based on control measures adopted through
December 31, 1992 at the federal, state, and local level and approved
into the SIP. Those emissions levels are already supported by federally
enforceable requirements. The NOX measures and improvements to the
I/M program identified in the contingency plan are not included in the
maintenance plan projections.
As expressed previously in an EPA policy 11 pursuant to
section 182(f) of the CAA, EPA may allow areas which have demonstrated
attainment of the ozone NAAQS without having implemented NOX
controls to be exempt from the federal NOX RACT requirements.
However, the maintenance plan includes NOX controls as contingency
measures which will be submitted for incorporation into the SIP in the
event of a violation during the maintenance period.
\11\ ''Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Exemption--
Revised Process and Criteria,'' from John S. Seitz, Director, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to the Regional Division
Directors, May 27, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
NOX emissions do not increase over the attainment levels. The San
Francisco Bay Area must maintain its current ozone monitoring network
as part of the maintenance plan. The suggestion that the San Francisco
Bay Area install monitors to detect high ozone levels (or precursor
pollutants at high elevations) will be considered by the ITG.
With regard to protection of air quality in national parks and
forests, the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions
contained in Part C of the CAA are specifically designed to protect air
quality in ``clean air'' areas, and particularly in pristine areas such
as national parks. These requirements provide sufficient protection for
such areas and it is not necessary to include additional requirements
as a condition of redesignation.
Comment 13
One commenter opposes the redesignation because it suggests that
the air quality no longer poses a threat to public health. In addition,
EPA research has shown that there is no safe level for ozone. In
addition, a federal declaration of attainment conflicts with
California's goal of a stricter ozone standard.
EPA Response
EPA's action to redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area means that
the air quality in the region meets the federal NAAQS (health-based
standard) for ozone, and does not address other air pollutants. The EPA
is currently in the process of re-evaluating the ozone NAAQS and
expects to make a final decision in mid-1997. Until any change is made,
EPA is bound to implement the provisions of the Act as they relate to
the current standard, including those relating to designations and
redesignations.
With respect to the California ozone standard and California Clean
Air Act, EPA's action to redesignate the San Francisco Bay Area to
attainment for the federal ozone standard does not impede California or
the BAAQMD from striving for a stricter ozone standard. EPA's action to
redesignate the area to attainment for the federal ozone standard
recognizes the tremendous progress made so far and does not prohibit
the area from adopting additional control measures to control ozone.
Nor does it preclude EPA from requiring emission reductions from
sources in the San Francisco Bay Area should EPA ultimately determine
that such reductions are needed.
Comment 14
One commenter asserted that attainment levels had been recorded
only because of particular meteorological conditions which lead to the
transport of pollutants to nearby air basins. In addition, any current
air quality benefit will be wiped out by the BAAQMD's own calculation
of increased motor vehicle traffic in the future.
EPA Response
According to section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), the Administrator must
determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the implementation
of measures in the applicable plan and applicable federal regulations.
Between 1987 and 1990, the SIP control measures account for an
approximate 69 TPD decrease in VOC emissions. In addition, the
maintenance plan analyzed trend data for summer temperatures and
vehicle miles traveled and employment during the 1990-1992 timeframe to
determine if the improvement in air quality was due to meteorological
circumstances or a downturn in the economy. The analysis showed that
neither exceptionally cool temperatures nor a downturn in the economy
were responsible for the area meeting the federal ozone standard, but
rather the emission reductions and improved air quality were the result
of permanent measures in the SIP. EPA has accepted this analysis. It
should be noted that the San Francisco Bay Area has actually measured
``clean'' air quality data for ozone for five consecutive years.
With respect to transport, CARB released preliminary results from a
modeling study which show that emissions from the San Francisco Bay
Area and the Sacramento Area do impact ozone concentrations in the San
Joaquin Valley (see discussion above). However, for the reasons
described above, EPA cannot concur that the San Francisco Bay Area has
met the ozone NAAQS because of transport of emissions to nearby air
basins. In addition, as discussed above, future control regulations
that are being adopted by the BAAQMD will further reduce any
transported emissions to nearby air basins in the future.
The projections in the maintenance plan do show that vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) will continue to increase in the future. However,
emission projections through 2000 show an overall reduction in ozone
precursor emissions from mobile sources due to the retirement of older
vehicles and the increase in proportion of new, cleaner vehicles.
Comment 15
One commenter asserted that the BAAQMD's transportation control
measure plan in the Clean Air Plan will increase vehicle miles
traveled.
EPA Response
The transportation control measure (TCM) plan in the Bay Area Clean
Air Plan has not been submitted to become part of the SIP, but rather
fulfills the requirements under the California Clean Air Act. EPA has
not reviewed this plan since it is not part of the control strategy
used to demonstrate attainment or maintenance of the federal ozone
standard.
B. EPA Response to Comments: Section 182(f) NOX Waiver Petition
In August 1994, three environmental groups submitted joint comments
on the proposed approvals of NOX exemptions for the Ohio and
Michigan ozone nonattainment areas. The comments address EPA's general
policy regarding NOX exemptions and apply to all actions EPA takes
regarding section 182(f) NOX exemptions. These comments as well as
those received specifically addressing the BAAQMD proposed NOX
RACT exemption are addressed below.
NOX Waiver Comment 1
The commenters argued that NOX exemptions are provided for in
two separate parts of the CAA, section 182(b)(1) and section 182(f).
Because the NOX exemption tests in subsections 182(b)(1) and
182(f)(1) include language indicating that action on such requests
should take place ``when [EPA] approves a plan or plan revision,''
these commenters conclude that all NOX exemption determinations by
the EPA, including exemption actions taken under the petition process
established by subsection 182(f)(3), must occur during consideration of
an approvable attainment or maintenance plan, unless the area has been
redesignated as attainment. These commenters also argue that even if
the petition procedures of subsection 182(f)(3) may be used to relieve
areas of certain NOX requirements, exemptions from the NOX
conformity requirements must follow the process provided in subsection
182(b)(1), since this is the only provision explicitly referenced by
section 176(c), the CAA's conformity provisions.
[[Page 27037]]
EPA Response
Section 182(f) contains very few details regarding the
administrative procedure for acting on NOX exemption requests. The
absence of specific guidelines by Congress leaves EPA with discretion
to establish reasonable procedures, consistent with the requirements of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The EPA disagrees with the commenters regarding the process for
considering exemption requests under section 182(f), and instead
believes that subsections 182(f)(1) and 182(f)(3) provide independent
procedures by which the EPA may act on NOX exemption requests. The
language in subsection 182(f)(1), which indicates that the EPA should
act on NOX exemptions in conjunction with action on a plan or plan
revision, does not appear in subsection 182(f)(3). And, while
subsection 182(f)(3) references subsection 182(f)(1), the EPA believes
that this reference encompasses only the substantive tests in paragraph
(1) [and, by extension, paragraph (2)], not the procedural requirement
that the EPA act on exemptions only when acting on SIPs. Additionally,
paragraph (3) provides that ``person[s]'' (which section 302(e) of the
CAA defines to include States) may petition for NOX exemptions
``at any time,'' and requires the EPA to make its determination within
six months of the petition's submission. These key differences lead EPA
to believe that Congress intended the exemption petition process of
paragraph (3) to be distinct and more expeditious than the longer plan
revision process intended under paragraph (1).
With respect to major stationary sources, section 182(f) requires
States to adopt NOX NSR and RACT rules, unless exempted. These
rules were generally due to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992.
Thus, in order to avoid the CAA sanctions, areas seeking a NOX
exemption would have needed to submit their exemption request for EPA
review and rulemaking action several months before November 15, 1992.
In contrast, the CAA specifies that the attainment demonstrations are
not due until November 1993 or 1994 (and EPA may take 12-18 months to
approve or disapprove the demonstration). For marginal ozone
nonattainment areas (subject to NOX NSR), no attainment
demonstration is called for in the CAA. For maintenance plans, the CAA
does not specify a deadline for submittal of maintenance
demonstrations. Clearly, the CAA envisions the submittal of and EPA
action on exemption requests, in some cases, prior to submittal of
attainment or maintenance demonstrations.
The CAA requires conformity to the applicable SIP with regard to
federally-supported NOX generating activities in relevant
nonattainment and maintenance areas. However, EPA's conformity rules
explicitly provide that these NOX requirements would not apply if
EPA grants an exemption under section 182(f). In response to the
comment that section 182(b)(1) should be the appropriate vehicle for
dealing with exemptions from the NOX requirements of the
conformity rule, EPA notes that this issue has previously been raised
in a formal petition for reconsideration of EPA's final transportation
conformity rule and in litigation pending before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the substance of both
the transportation and general conformity rules. The issue, thus, is
under consideration within EPA, but at this time remains unresolved.
Additionally, subsection 182(f)(3) requires that NOX exemption
petition determinations be made by the EPA within six months. The EPA
has stated in previous guidance that it intends to meet this statutory
deadline as long as doing so is consistent with the Administrative
Procedures Act. The EPA, therefore, believes that until a resolution of
this issue is achieved, the applicable rules governing this issue are
those that appear in EPA's final conformity regulations, and EPA
remains bound by their existing terms.
NOX Waiver Comment 2
The commenters stated that the modeling required by EPA guidance is
insufficient to establish that NOX reductions would not contribute
to attainment since only one level of NOX control, i.e.,
``substantial'' reductions, is required to be analyzed. They further
explained that an area must submit an approvable attainment plan before
EPA can know whether NOX reductions will aid or undermine
attainment.
EPA Response
The EPA does not believe that this comment is applicable to the San
Francisco Bay Area exemption because the demonstration is based on
three years of ambient monitoring data and not modeling.
NOX Waiver Comment 3
The commenters provided a comment that three years of ``clean''
data fail to demonstrate that NOX reductions would not contribute
to attainment, and that EPA's policy erroneously equates the absence of
a violation for one three-year period with ``attainment''.
EPA Response
The EPA has separate criteria for determining if an area should be
redesignated to attainment under section 107 of the CAA. The section
107 criteria are more comprehensive than the CAA requires with respect
to NOX exemptions under section 182(f).
Under section 182(f)(1)(A), an exemption from the NOX
requirements may be granted for nonattainment areas outside an ozone
transport region if EPA determines that ``additional reductions of
[NOX] would not contribute to attainment'' of the ozone NAAQS in
those areas. In some cases, an ozone nonattainment area might attain
the ozone standard, as demonstrated by 3 years of adequate monitoring
data, without having implemented the section 182(f) NOX provisions
over that 3-year period. The EPA believes that, in cases where a
nonattainment area is demonstrating attainment with 3 consecutive years
of air quality monitoring data without having implemented the section
182(f) NOX provisions, it is clear that the section 182(f) test is
met since ``additional reductions of [NOX] would not contribute to
attainment'' of the NAAQS in that area. The EPA's approval of the
exemption, if warranted, would be granted on a contingent basis (i.e.,
the exemption would last for only as long as the area's monitoring data
continue to demonstrate attainment).
NOX Waiver Comment 4
Some commenters provided a comment on all section 182(f) actions
that a waiver of NOX controls is unlawful if such a waiver will
impede attainment and maintenance of the ozone standard in separate
downwind areas.
Some stated specifically that NOX emissions from the Bay Area
are likely to exacerbate ozone nonattainment downwind in the Sacramento
Basin and the San Joaquin Valley, and that until transport of ozone
precursors from the San Francisco Bay Area to the Sacramento Basin and
the San Joaquin Valley are addressed, granting an exemption from the
NOX requirements is not consistent with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act.
The commenters further added that transport of NOX emissions
from the San Francisco Bay Area adds to the attainment burden of the
Sacramento Basin, and results in substantially different air quality
rules in the two regions which translates into economic inequities and
unfair economic [[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 NOX
exemption should not be granted.
The commenters contend that EPA's policy could prohibit approval of
the SIP for the BAAQMD unless violations in adjacent air basins are
addressed. Therefore, because of previous ozone concentrations
monitored above the Federal standard in the San Joaquin Valley which
were a consequence of San Francisco Bay Area emissions, areas evaluated
for attainment, maintenance, and exemptions should include data from
monitoring locations in adjacent air basins downwind of the San
Francisco Bay Area. In addition, until all data, including recent data
showing the Northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley would be in
attainment of the Federal ozone standard in the absence of transported
pollutants from the San Francisco Bay Area, which identifies the San
Francisco Bay Area as a transport couple with the San Joaquin Valley is
adequately assessed to define the effects of San Francisco Bay Area
emissions on the ozone attainment status of the San Joaquin Valley, a
NOX RACT exemption should not be approved.
EPA Response
As a result of these comments and comments received regarding ozone
transport in NOX exemption requests for other areas in the United
States, EPA has reevaluated its position on this issue and decided to
revise the previously issued guidance. 12 As described below, EPA
intends to use its authority under section 110(a)(2)(D) to require a
State to reduce NOX emissions from stationary and/or mobile
sources where there is evidence, such as photochemical grid modeling,
showing that NOX emissions would contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State.
This action would be independent of any action taken by EPA on a
NOX exemption request for stationary sources under section 182(f).
That is, EPA action to grant or deny a NOX exemption request under
section 182(f) would not shield that area from EPA action to require
NOX emission reductions, if necessary, under section 110(a)(2)(D).
\12\ See ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria'', issued February 8, 1995
by John S. Seitz, Director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards.
Modeling analyses are underway in many areas for the purpose of
demonstrating attainment in the 1994 SIP revisions. Recent modeling
data suggest that certain ozone nonattainment areas may benefit from
reductions in NOX emissions far upwind of the nonattainment area.
For example, the northeast corridor and the Lake Michigan areas are
considering attainment strategies which rely in part on NOX
emission reductions hundreds of kilometers upwind. The EPA is working
with the States and other organizations to design and complete studies
which consider upwind sources and quantify their impacts. As the
studies progress, EPA will continue to work with the States and other
organizations to develop mutually acceptable attainment strategies.
At the same time as these large scale modeling analyses are being
conducted, certain nonattainment areas in the modeling domain have
requested exemptions from NOX requirements under section 182(f).
Some areas requesting an exemption may be upwind of and impact upon
downwind nonattainment areas. EPA intends to address the transport
issue through section 110(a)(2)(D) based on a domain-wide modeling
analysis.
Under section 182(f) of the Act, an exemption from the NOX
requirements may be granted for nonattainment areas outside an ozone
transport region if EPA determines that ``additional reductions of
[NOX] would not contribute to attainment of the national ambient
air quality standard for ozone in the area.'' \13\ As described in
section 4.3 of the December 16, 1993 guidance document, EPA believes
that the term ``area'' means the ``nonattainment area'' and that EPA's
determination is limited to consideration of the effects in a single
nonattainment area due to NOX emissions reductions from sources in
the same nonattainment area.
\13\ There are 3 NOX exemption tests specified in section
182(f). Of these, 2 are applicable for areas outside an ozone
transport region; the ``contribute to attainment'' test described
above, and the ``net air quality benefits'' test. EPA must
determine, under the latter test, that the net benefits to air
quality in an area ``are greater in the absence of NOX
reductions'' from relevant sources. Based on the plain language of
section 182(f), EPA believes that each test provides an independent
basis for receiving a full or limited NOX exemption.
Consequently, as stated in section 1.4 of the December 16, 1993 EPA
guidance, ``[w]here any one of the tests is met (even if another
test is failed), the section 182(f) NOX requirements would not
apply or, under the excess reductions provision, a portion of these
requirements would not apply.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4.3 of the guidance goes on to encourage, but not require,
States/petitioners to include consideration of the entire modeling
domain, since the effects of an attainment strategy may extend beyond
the designated nonattainment area. Specifically, the guidance
encourages States to ``consider imposition of the NOX requirements
if needed to avoid adverse impacts in downwind areas, either intra- or
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 NOX exemption
would interfere with attainment or maintenance in downwind areas. The
guidance goes on to explain that section 110(a)(2)(D) [not section
182(f)] prohibits such impacts.
Consistent with the guidance in section 4.3, EPA believes that the
section 110(a)(2)(D) and 182(f) provisions must be considered
independently, and hence is withdrawing the guidance presently
contained in section 4.4. Thus, if there is evidence that NOX
emissions in an upwind area would interfere with attainment or
maintenance in a downwind area, that action should be separately
addressed by the State(s) or, if necessary, by EPA in a section
110(a)(2)(D) action. In addition, a section 182(f) exemption request
should be independently considered by EPA. In some cases, then, EPA may
grant an exemption from across-the-board NOX RACT controls under
section 182(f) and, in a separate action, require NOX controls
from stationary and/or mobile sources under section 110(a)(2)(D). It
should be noted that the controls required under section 110(a)(2)(D)
may be more or less stringent than RACT, depending upon the
circumstances.
NOX Waiver Comment 5
Comments were received regarding exemption of areas from the
NOX requirements of the conformity rules. The commenters argue
that such exemptions waive only the requirements of section 182(b)(1)
to contribute to specific annual reductions, not the requirement that
conformity SIPs contain information showing the maximum amount of motor
vehicle NOX emissions allowed under the transportation conformity
rules and, similarly, the maximum allowable amounts of any such
NOX emissions under the general conformity rules. The commenters
admit that, in prior [[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 NOX, but want EPA in actions on NOX exemptions to
explicitly affirm this obligation and to also avoid granting waivers
until a budget controlling future NOX increases is in place.
EPA Response
With respect to conformity, EPA's conformity rules 14,15
provide a NOX waiver if an area receives a section 182(f)
exemption. In its ``Conformity; General Preamble for Exemption from
Nitrogen Oxides Provisions'', 59 FR 31238, 31241 (June 17, 1994), EPA
reiterated its view that in order to conform, nonattainment and
maintenance areas must demonstrate that the transportation plan and
transportation improvement plan (TIP) are consistent with the motor
vehicle emissions budget for NOX even where a conformity NOX
waiver has been granted. Due to a drafting error, that view is not
reflected in the current transportation conformity rules. As the
commenters correctly note, EPA states in the June 17th notice that it
intends to remedy the problem by amending the conformity rule. Although
that notice specifically mentions only requiring consistency with the
approved maintenance plan's NOX motor vehicle emissions budget,
EPA also intends to require consistency with the attainment
demonstration's NOX motor vehicle emissions budget. However, EPA
is not granting an exemption from the transportation conformity
requirements under section 182(f) in this action for the Bay Area.
Rather, EPA's approval of the Bay Area's redesignation and maintenance
plan begins the maintenance period, and an area's transportation plans
and TIPs must be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget in
the maintenance plan. The requirements of the transportation conformity
regulation that plans and TIPs satisfy the ``build/no build'' test and
achieve emissions reductions, does not apply to areas redesignated and
operating under a maintenance status.
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Waiver Comment 6
Some commenters argue that the CAA does not authorize any waiver of
the NOX reduction requirements until conclusive evidence exists
that such reductions are counter-productive.
EPA Response
The EPA does not agree with this comment since it ignores
Congressional intent as evidenced by the plain language of section
182(f), the structure of the Title I ozone subpart as a whole, and
relevant legislative history. By contrast, in developing and
implementing its NOX exemption policies, EPA has sought an
approach that reasonably accords with Congress' intent. Section 182(f),
in addition to imposing control requirements on major stationary
sources of NOX similar to those that apply for such sources of
VOC, also provides for an exemption (or limitation) from application of
these requirements if, under one of several tests, EPA determines that
in certain areas NOX reductions would generally not be beneficial.
In subsection 182(f)(1), Congress explicitly conditioned action on
NOX exemptions on the results of an ozone precursor study required
under section 185B. Because of the possibility that reducing NOX
in a particular area may either not contribute to ozone attainment or
may cause the ozone problem to worsen, Congress included attenuating
language, not just in section 182(f) but throughout the Title I ozone
subpart, to avoid requiring NOX reductions where it would be
nonbeneficial or counterproductive. In describing these various ozone
provisions (including section 182(f)), the House Conference Committee
Report states in pertinent part: ``[T]he Committee included a separate
NOX/VOC study provision in section [185B] to serve as the basis
for the various findings contemplated in the NOX provisions. The
Committee does not intend NOX reduction for reduction's sake, but
rather as a measure scaled to the value of NOX reductions for
achieving attainment in the particular ozone nonattainment area.'' H.R.
Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 257-258 (1990). As noted in
response to an earlier comment by these same commenters, the command in
subsection 182(f)(1) that EPA ``shall consider'' the 185B report taken
together with the timeframe the Act provides both for completion of the
report and for acting on NOX exemption petitions clearly
demonstrate that Congress believed the information in the completed
section 185B report would provide a sufficient basis for EPA to act on
NOX exemption requests, even absent the additional information
that would be included in affected areas' attainment or maintenance
demonstrations. However, while there is no specific requirement in the
Act that EPA actions granting NOX exemption requests must await
``conclusive evidence'', as the commenters argue, there is also nothing
in the Act to prevent EPA from revisiting an approved NOX
exemption if warranted due to better ambient information.
In addition, the EPA believes (as described in EPA's December 1993
guidance) that section 182(f)(1) of the CAA provides that the new
NOX requirements shall not apply (or may be limited to the extent
necessary to avoid excess reductions) if the Administrator determines
that any one of the following tests is met:
(1) In any area, the net air quality benefits are greater in the
absence of NOX reductions from the sources concerned;
(2) In nonattainment areas not within an ozone transport region,
additional NOX reductions would not contribute to ozone attainment
in the area; or
(3) In nonattainment areas within an ozone transport region,
additional NOX reductions would not produce net ozone air quality
benefits in the transport region.
Based on the plain language of section 182(f), EPA believes that
each test provides an independent basis for receiving a full or limited
NOX exemption.
Only the first test listed above is based on a showing that
NOX reductions are ``counter-productive.'' If one of the tests is
met (even if another test is failed), the section 182(f) NOX
requirements would not apply or, under the excess reductions provision,
a portion of these requirements would not apply.
III. EPA Final Action
In this final action, EPA is approving the San Francisco Bay Area
ozone maintenance plan because it meets the requirements of section
175A. In addition, the Agency is redesignating the San Francisco Bay
Area to attainment for ozone because the State of California has
demonstrated compliance with the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)
for redesignation. Finally, EPA is approving the NOX waiver
petition and 1990 emissions inventory for the San Francisco Bay Area.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each [[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 NOX emission limitations and
restrictions contained in the approved ozone SIP. Changes to the ozone
SIP VOC RACT regulations rendering them less stringent than those
contained in the EPA approved plan cannot be made unless a revised plan
for attainment and maintenance is submitted and approved by EPA.
Unauthorized relaxations, deletions, and changes could result in both a
finding of nonimplementation (section 173(b) of the CAA) and in a SIP
deficiency call made pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the CAA.
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by
an October 14, 1993 memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The OMB has exempted
this regulatory action from the requirements of section 6 of Executive
Order 128866.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities ( 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA, approval of a section 182(f) exemption, and approval of an
emissions inventory do not impose any new requirements on small
entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on
sources. The Administrator certifies that the approval of the
redesignation request will not affect a substantial number of small
entities.
Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of the state implementation plan or plan
revisions approved in this action, the State and any affected local or
tribal governments have elected to adopt the program provided for under
section 175A and 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. Also, EPA's final
action approving the section 182(f) NOX waiver petition relieves
requirements otherwise imposed under the CAA and, hence does not impose
any federal intergovernmental mandate, as defined in section 101 of the
Unfunded Mandates Act. The rules and commitments approved in this
action may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform certain
actions and also may ultimately lead to the private sector being
required to perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules and
commitments being approved by this action will impose or lead to the
imposition of any mandate upon the State, local or tribal governments
either as the owner or operator of a source or as a regulator, or would
impose or lead to the imposition of any mandate upon the private
sector, EPA's action will impose no new requirements; such sources are
already subject to these requirements under State law. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action. Therefore, EPA has determined
that this final action does not include a mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), petitions
for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States
Courts of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 21, 1995. Filing
a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (See section 307(b)(2) of the Act, 42
U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, and Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.
Dated: April 24, 1995.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Parts 52 and 81 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart F--California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(205)(i)(B) and
(212) to read as follows:
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
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.