[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37258-37280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18272]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[CA-008-BU, FRL-6120-4]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
California; Redesignation of the San Francisco Bay Area to
Nonattainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to redesignate the San Francisco
Bay Area (Bay Area) as a nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Clean
[[Page 37259]]
Air Act (CAA or Act) provides that EPA may at any time revise the
designation of an area on the basis of air quality, planning and
control considerations, following notification to the Governor. On
August 21, 1997, EPA notified the Governor of California that the
Agency intended to propose to redesignate the Bay Area from attainment
to nonattainment of the federal 1-hour ozone standard, based on a total
of 43 exceedances and 17 violations of the standard since the June 1995
redesignation to attainment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on August 10, 1998.
ADDRESSES: A copy of this document and related information are
available in the air programs section of EPA Region 9's website, http:/
/www.epa.gov/region09/air. The docket for this rulemaking is available
for inspection during normal business hours at EPA Region 9, Planning
Office, Air Division, 17th Floor, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying parts of
the docket. Please call (415) 744-1249 or 744-1251 for assistance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina Spindler (415) 744-1251 or
Celia Bloomfield (415) 744-1249, Planning Office (AIR-2), Air Division,
EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. Original Nonattainment Designation and Redesignation and
Redesignation to Attainment
B. Subsequent Violations and Petitions to Redesignate the Bay
Area to Nonattainment
C. Applicable Statutory Provisions
D. Notification to the Governor and Governor's Response
E. Proposed Action
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Response
A. Introduction
B. Response of the State
C. Overview of Public Comments
D. Specific Comments and EPA Response
1. Comments Relating to the Basis of EPA's Proposal to
Redesignate the Bay Area to Nonattainment
a. Air Quality and Emissions
b. Legal Authority
i. General Comments on Mandatory and Discretionary Authorities
to Redesignate
ii. Authority to Redesignate without Classification
c. Policy Issues
i. Public Notification and Public Perception
ii. Impact of the Bay Area Emissions on Downwind Nonattainment
Areas and Issues of Equity
iii. Effect of Redesignation on Limited Air Pollution Control
Resources
iv. Alternatives to Redesignation
2. Comments Relating to EPA's Proposed SIP Requirements
a. Emissions Inventory
b. Attainment Assessment
c. Control Measures
i. Suggested Measures
ii. NOX Waiver and Efficacy of NOX
Controls
d. Attainment Deadline
e. Planning Schedule
3. Comments on Miscellaneous Issues
a. Conformity
b. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funding
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
d. Procedural Obligations under CAA, Section 107 and the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
IV. Final Action
A. Overview
B. SIP Requirements and Deadlines
C. Changes from Proposal
V. Emission Reduction Opportunities
A. Stationary Sources
B. Transportation Control Measures
C. Voluntary Measures
D. Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance
E. Mitigating Emissions Increases from Oakland Seaport and
Airport Expansion Projects
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
I. Executive Summary
On December 19, 1997 EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
to redesignate the Bay Area to nonattainment of the federal 1-hour
ozone standard. During the 60-day public comment period that followed
publication, EPA received comments both in support of and in opposition
to our proposed action. All commenters, regardless of their views on
the proposed redesignation or the proposed requirements associated with
redesignation, expressed strong support for clean air progress in the
Bay Area. EPA appreciates the thoughtful comments on the proposal and
greatly values the commenters' commitment to improved air quality and
public health protection in the Bay Area. EPA has made significant
changes and clarifications in response to the comments and EPA believes
the final action recognizes the innovation and collaborative efforts
that can contribute to clean air in the Bay Area.
After carefully considering all of the comments received, EPA has
decided to finalize the redesignation of the Bay Area to nonattainment
of the 1-hour ozone standard while clarifying and streamlining the
actions necessary to reach attainment. Although the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the California Air Resources
Board (CARB), other regulatory agencies, businesses, and the community
as a whole have made great strides in improving air quality in the Bay
Area, there is still more work to be done. Redesignation is the most
appropriate course of action to assure further air quality improvements
and protection of public health and should place minimal burdens on the
local economy, residents, industry and regulators.
When the federal ozone standard is exceeded, people, and in
particular children, the elderly, and those with respiratory diseases,
may experience ozone's ill effects, such as chest pain, cough, lung
inflammation, respiratory infection, and chronic bronchitis. In light
of these significant public health concerns, EPA believes that it is
important to provide the public with accurate information and the
correct message that ozone pollution is still a problem.
EPA is compelled to redesignate the Bay Area to nonattainment
because of the numerous and widespread violations of the 1-hour ozone
standard, a standard that was designed to protect public health. The
Bay Area's air quality during 1996 ranked as the 6th worst in the
nation and for the three-year period 1995-1997, it was the 8th
smoggiest of the major metropolitan areas in the country. The absence
of violations in 1997 is a positive sign but the Agency does not feel
that the clean smog season last year proves that the serious ozone
problem revealed in 1995 and 1996 has been solved. Compliance with the
standard is measured over a three-year period so as to account for the
effects of weather and other meteorological conditions that can work to
either the advantage or disadvantage of air quality. This is
particularly relevant to the Bay Area's case since the meteorological
conditions prevailing on the West Coast during 1997 were unusually
favorable to good air quality and, according to an October 1997 report
by the BAAQMD, the ozone-conducive meteorology that occurred in 1995
and 1996 is likely to recur. The BAAQMD report also revealed that
during the 1990s ``progress appears to have lapsed; there appears to
have been an increase in ozone potential, after accounting for
meteorology.''
The number of violations of this public health standard that
occurred in the Bay Area during 1995 and 1996 is
[[Page 37260]]
especially significant when compared to the air quality in other parts
of the country and the nonattainment designation and requirements
applicable to those areas. For example, EPA recently reclassified or
``bumped-up'' the Phoenix and Santa Barbara areas from ``moderate'' to
``serious'' nonattainment areas for failure to attain the ozone
standard by 1996. This ``bump-up'' to the ``serious'' nonattainment
classification means that these areas must comply with additional
planning and control requirements (e.g. attainment demonstration,
reasonable further progress demonstration, enhanced vehicle inspection
and maintenance program, Photochemical Assessment Monitoring) and must
attain the ozone standard by 1999 or face ``bump-up'' to the severe
classification, which would impose still more requirements. Phoenix
monitored 13 violations of the ozone standard, and Santa Barbara
recorded 7 violations, during the three-year period 1994-1996. The Bay
Area experienced 17 violations during that same three-year period. Such
a comparison reinforces the appropriateness of a nonattainment
designation for the Bay Area.
EPA concluded that a redesignation to nonattainment not only
accurately describes air quality in the Bay Area, but also provides an
opportunity for reevaluating the causes of the Bay Area's ozone
violations, the quantity of emission reductions needed to attain the
health-based standard, and the measures that will achieve those
reductions quickly. Some believe that EPA should not proceed with
redesignation under the 1-hour standard, and that the BAAQMD should
instead focus all its energies on planning for the revised 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA is convinced, however, that some near-term action is
essential to protecting the health and welfare of the Bay Area
residents. Emission reduction strategies will be evaluated and put in
place much sooner through a redesignation under the 1-hour standard
than under a plan to meet the revised 8-hour ozone standard. In
addition, everything that the Bay Area does to meet the 1-hour standard
will help in meeting the more protective 8-hour standard. The Bay Area
won't have to complete its planning for the 8-hour standard until 2003
or comply with the new standard until 2005 at the earliest. That is
five years during which Bay Area residents would be breathing dirtier
air than they should be. It is the public's right, and EPA's
obligation, to be assured that current health standards are met now.
EPA is redesignating the Bay Area to nonattainment without
assigning it a specific classification. The classification system
(marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme) associated with other
current ozone nonattainment areas was created as part of the 1990 Clean
Air Act amendments to match a nonattainment area's planning and control
requirements with the severity of the area's ozone problem. The Bay
Area is in a unique position. It was designated nonattainment under the
1990 amendments, redesignated to attainment after implementing most of
the moderate nonattainment area requirements, and is now being returned
to nonattainment. The existing Clean Air Act classification system does
not specifically apply to the Bay Area. In order to allow maximum
flexibility and in keeping with the best legal reading of the Act, EPA
is redesignating the Bay Area under the longstanding general
nonattainment provisions of the Act, which have no associated
classifications. During public comment, the flexibility allowed by this
approach generated uncertainty as to the planning and control
requirements for the Bay Area. In response to this concern, and to make
sure the Air District's time and energy are spent on control measures,
not unnecessary paperwork, EPA has been more specific in the final
rulemaking notice describing what is required of the Bay Area.
Redesignation should not result in a burdensome and duplicative
planning effort. EPA wants the District and its co-lead agencies to
focus on emission reductions, not paperwork. EPA is asking for only
three plan elements: the existing 1995 emissions inventory for Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX); an
assessment of emission reductions, using available data and technical
analyses, needed to attain the federal standard; and control measures
to achieve those reductions. EPA will accept, in addition to or in lieu
of adopted regulations, control measures with enforceable commitments
to adopt in regulatory form and implement by specified dates sufficient
to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the attainment date. It is an
additional public safeguard to make the control measures in this plan
federally enforceable elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP),
since only in this way can the EPA and the public ensure that the
commitments in the plan are fully implemented and the plan's promised
air quality benefits are realized.
In response to public comment, EPA has modified both the schedule
and content for State submissions and the attainment date. First, EPA
is requiring only one formal State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal
instead of two. The one formal SIP submittal will include the emissions
inventory, attainment assessment, and control measures so that the
District can avoid having to undergo two public hearing and adoption
processes, one for the inventory and assessment and a second for the
control measures. EPA is allowing the BAAQMD to make a single SIP
submittal with the understanding, pursuant to a letter of commitment
from the Air District and co-lead agencies dated June 23, 1998, that
the emissions inventory and attainment assessment will be made
available to the public and submitted informally to EPA within 5 months
after signature of the final redesignation by the Regional
Administrator. This early, informal submittal will allow EPA to review
the draft inventory and assessment and work with the District to
address any deficiencies.
Second, EPA has extended the deadlines for the formal SIP submittal
from May 1998 for the emissions inventory and attainment assessment,
and from September 1998 for the adopted control measures and/or
enforceable commitments, to June 15, 1999 for both. This extension
gives the BAAQMD and its co-lead agencies more time to address the
substantive requirements of the redesignation and carry out their
formal adoption and submittal processes.
Third, EPA has extended the attainment deadline from November 15,
1999 to November 15, 2000 in order to allow additional time for the
emission reduction strategies to take effect on air quality in the Bay
Area.
Fourth, both CARB and the BAAQMD submitted compelling arguments
that a weekend emissions inventory was too difficult and resource
intensive to complete at this time, and so EPA has streamlined the SIP
requirements still further by eliminating that obligation.
Finally, in response to public comment, EPA has eliminated the
requirement to submit an emissions inventory for carbon monoxide (CO).
The above changes from the proposed redesignation are summarized as
follows:
[[Page 37261]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final--weekend emissions
Proposal--weekend emissions inventory inventory and CO inventory not
and CO inventory required required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions inventory and attainment Final emissions inventory and
assessment due 5/1/98. attainment assessment due 6/15/
99. (Commitment to make draft
available to EPA and the
public by 11/25/98.)
Adopted regulations and/or control Adopted regulations and/or
measures with enforceable commitments control measures with
due 9/1/98. enforceable commitments and
final emissions inventory and
attainment assessment due 6/15/
99.
Attainment date of 11/15/99............ Attainment date of 11/15/2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognizes that innovative methods, including voluntary
measures, have the potential to contribute in a cost-effective manner
to emission reductions needed for progress toward attainment. To
promote the creation and expansion of effective voluntary mobile source
programs, the Agency has developed a new policy that allows SIP credit
for such programs.\1\ The Bay Area has already demonstrated leadership
in crafting innovative approaches to air quality problems through the
``Spare-the-Air'' and Silicon Valley ECOPASS programs. EPA is eager to
work with the local government agencies and members of the business and
environmental communities, who are critical to building public support
for voluntary programs, to explore opportunities for innovation and to
ensure that the voluntary measures stand the test of public
accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum dated October 23, 1997 entitled, ``Guidance on
Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Sourve Emission Reduction Programs in
State Implementation Plans (SIPs).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. Original Nonattainment Designation and Redesignation to Attainment
For more detailed information on the Bay Area's original ozone
nonattainment designation, classification under the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, and redesignation to attainment, the reader is directed to
EPA's proposed redesignation, published on December 19, 1997 (62 FR
66578-66583).
The Bay Area was initially designated under section 107 of the 1977
CAA as nonattainment for ozone on March 3, 1978 (40 CFR part 81.305).
The Bay Area consists of the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa,
Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano (part), and
Sonoma (part).2 Following the 1990 amendments to the Act,
the area was classified by operation of law, under section 181(a), as a
``moderate'' ozone nonattainment area. (56 FR 56694, Nov. 6, 1991). On
May 22, 1995 (60 FR 27028), EPA approved the maintenance plan adopted
by BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and submitted to EPA by
CARB. In the same document, EPA redesignated the area to attainment for
ozone, based on 3 violation-free years of data from the Bay Area's
official monitoring network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For a description of those portions of Solano and Sonoma
County that are included in the Bay Area, the reader is directed to
40 CFR part 81.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Subsequent Violations and Petitions to Redesignate the Bay Area to
Nonattainment
Despite implementation of most of the measures in the Bay Area's
maintenance plan, the monitoring network has recorded 43 exceedances
and 17 violations of the federal 1-hour ozone standard over the years
1995-1996.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ An exceedance of the 1-hour ozone standard occurs when the
hourly average ozone concentration at a given monitoring site is
greater than or equal to .125 parts per million (ppm). A violation
of the standard occurs when the expected number of days per calendar
year with maximum hourly average ozone concentrations at or above
.125 ppm is greater than one. 40 CFR part 50.9. The average number
of days is calculated for a 3-year period. 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
H. This 3-year period was established to reduce the impact of yearly
fluctuations in ozone levels. Table 1 in EPA's proposed
redesignation (62 FR 66579) lists both the exceedances and the 3-
year average number of days over the 1-hour ozone standard for the
period 1994-1996 at Bay Area monitoring sites in the official State
and Local Monitoring (SLAMS) network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has received 2 petitions requesting that the Administrator
redesignate the Bay Area to nonattainment with the federal 1-hour ozone
standard. On March 31, 1997, the Sierra Club and Communities for a
Better Environment (CBE) requested that EPA withdraw the 1995
redesignation action, or alternatively redesignate the area to
nonattainment. The Sierra Club also requested that EPA issue a CAA
section 110(k)(5) SIP call based on the inadequacy of the current SIP.
On July 14, 1997, U.S. Congressman Gary Condit and a coalition of
federal, state and local elected officials and public interest and
industry groups from downwind areas (primarily the San Joaquin Valley)
petitioned EPA to withdraw the 1995 redesignation to attainment, or
alternatively redesignate the area to nonattainment, and issue a SIP
call. Congressman Condit incorporated this petition in his public
comment on the proposed action, and the petition is summarized in more
detail in section III.C., Overview of Public Comments.
C. Applicable Statutory Provisions
Section 107(d)(3) of the Act gives the Administrator the authority
to redesignate areas. Under this provision, the Administrator may
``(O)n the basis of air quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the
Administrator deems appropriate, * * * at any time notify the Governor
of any State that available information indicates that the designation
of any area * * * should be revised.'' Section 107(d)(3)(A). The
Governor then has 120 days to submit the redesignation, as the Governor
considers appropriate. Section 107(d)(3)(B). The Administrator must
promulgate the redesignation within 120 days of the Governor's
response. The Administrator may make any modifications to the
Governor's redesignation which she deems necessary, but must notify the
Governor of such changes 60 days before promulgating a final
redesignation. If the Governor does not submit the redesignation, the
Administrator shall promulgate the redesignation which she deems
appropriate. Section 107(d)(3)(C).
D. Notification to the Governor and the Governor's Response
EPA notified the Governor of California by letter dated August 21,
1997, that EPA believes that the Bay Area should be redesignated to
nonattainment, based on repeated violations of the ozone NAAQS. In the
letter to the Governor, EPA proposed that the Bay Area be classified as
a ``moderate'' nonattainment area, and that the area be required to
submit by March 1, 1998, an emissions inventory and an attainment
assessment; submit by May 1, 1998, a schedule and plan for completing a
field study and modeling; and submit by September 1, 1998, rules and/or
control measures sufficient to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 1999.
The Governor responded to this letter on December 10, 1997. Noting
that the Bay Area had recorded no exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
in 1997, the
[[Page 37262]]
Governor opposed the redesignation, preferring that EPA allow the
BAAQMD maintenance plan, subsequent BAAQMD measures, and CARB measures
to ensure that the area would not violate the ozone NAAQS in the
future. See sections III.B. and III.D. below for a more detailed
summary of the Governor's comments and EPA's response.
E. Proposed Action
On December 11, 1997, EPA issued its proposal to redesignate the
San Francisco Bay Area to nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
because ozone levels have violated the federal standard 17 times over
the 3-year period 1994-1996. The proposal was published on December 19,
1997, and invited public comment through February 17, 1998.
After summarizing applicable CAA provisions and the Bay Area's
record of exceedances and violations, EPA proposed to require the
BAAQMD and its co-lead agencies to develop and submit a SIP revision
designed to provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 1999.
EPA's proposal set forth the Agency's reasons for concluding that the
Bay Area should not be classified under subpart 2 of the CAA, but
should rather be subject to the basic SIP requirements of section 110
and the general nonattainment plan requirements of section 172 (62 FR
66580). Finally, EPA proposed that the State be required to submit SIP
revisions on the schedule in the table reproduced below, labeled
``Proposed Schedule of Submittal of Revisions to the State
Implementation Plan for Ozone for the San Francisco Bay Area.''
Proposed Schedule of Submittal of Revisions to the State Implementation
Plan for Ozone for the San Francisco Bay Area (62 FR 66578, December 19,
1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action/SIP submittal Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current and complete baseline annual average and 5/1/98
summer weekday and weekend day emissions
inventory for volatile organic compounds (VOC),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide.
Assessment, employing available modeling 5/1/98
information, of the level of emission reductions
needed to attain the current 1-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
This assessment should take into account the
meteorological conditions and ambient
concentrations associated with the violations of
the ozone NAAQS in the period 1995-6, and should
be based on likely control measures for reducing
VOC and NOX emissions.
Adopted regulations and/or control measures, with 9/1/98
enforceable commitments to adopt and implement
the control measures in regulatory form by
specified dates, sufficient to meet reasonable
further progress and attain the 1-hour NAAQS
expeditiously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Response
A. Introduction
EPA received 127 comments between EPA's notification to the
Governor on August 21, 1997, and the close of the public comment period
on February 17, 1998. The docket for this notice includes the public
comments. Of the comments, 68 supported the redesignation and 59
opposed the redesignation. In section III.D. below, EPA summarizes and
responds to each of the substantive comments.
B. Response of the State
On the day EPA issued its proposed redesignation, EPA received an
extensive response from the Governor, dated December 10, 1997. This was
supplemented by a letter dated February 17, 1998, from Peter M. Rooney,
Secretary for Environmental Protection, California Environmental
Protection Agency. The Governor's letter was timely, in that it was
received 7 days before the expiration of the 120-day period for the
Governor to respond to EPA's notification letter.
This section provides a general summary of the State's comments,
expressed in the two letters. EPA's response to the State's comments
appears in section III.D., which organizes by subject matter all of the
public comments and EPA's responses.
The State opposed the redesignation as an inefficient use of
resources, in view of the forthcoming planning responsibilities to
address the new, more stringent 8-hour ozone NAAQS.4 The
State preferred that EPA allow the region to pursue additional emission
reductions through the air quality maintenance process and through
implementation of the Bay Area's 1997 Clean Air Plan, rather than force
the Bay Area to divert resources to an unnecessary planning process
triggered by redesignation.5 The State noted that EPA had
followed a similar, flexible approach by not redesignating other areas
that have violated the ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS on July 18,
1997 (62 FR 38856).
\5\ This plan was adopted by the BAAQMD on December 17, 1997, to
address requirements of the California Clean Air Act, including a
triennial update to the area's comprehensive strategy for attaining
the State's air quality standards. The plan was not adopted to
address Federal CAA requirements and it has not been submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both letters from the State attached two legal opinions (CARB
memorandum dated December 8, 1997, from Kathleen Walsh to Michael P.
Kenny; BAAQMD memorandum dated December 4, 1997, from Robert N. Kwong
to Ellen Garvey). These legal analyses concluded that, while EPA has
the authority to redesignate the Bay Area to nonattainment even if the
Governor does not submit a redesignation request, the Act also gives
EPA other preferable options. The BAAQMD memorandum discusses 3
options: federal maintenance plan, SIP call, and Clinton
Administration's common sense plan. The CARB memorandum argues that EPA
should issue a call for a revision to the Bay Area's maintenance plan
under CAA section 110(k)(5) if the Administrator determines that a SIP
revision is necessary to correct a violation, since this approach would
allow a more targeted effort to correct the problem. The BAAQMD
memorandum adds that a maintenance plan is the means Congress
established for addressing exceedances following redesignation to
attainment, and both memoranda conclude that the existing maintenance
plan and the Bay Area's 1997 Clean Air Plan are already at work toward
returning the District to attainment, as indicated by the absence of
any exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Bay Area during 1997.
The State argued that there is no technical basis for determining a
specific emission reduction target by EPA's proposed deadline of May 1,
1998, and that a quasi-technical assessment would not be accepted by
the public or the business community. The State contended that modeling
information is outdated and inadequate for purposes of determining an
emissions reduction target.
The State argued that redesignation would hurt attainment efforts
in the Central Valley, since it would distract the Bay Area from
achieving real
[[Page 37263]]
emissions reductions.6 The Governor stated that he has
directed the Chairman of CARB to work with involved districts to ensure
that the BAAQMD develops additional measures to address the needs of
the Central Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ California's Central Valley comprises the Sacramento Valley
to the northeast of the Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley to the
southeast. CARB has concluded that the Sacramento Valley, the San
Joaquin Valley, and the North Central Coast (to the south of the Bay
Area) are affected by transport of ozone and ozone precursors from
the Bay Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State concluded that EPA's proposed schedule does not provide
sufficient time for planning or attainment, and that accomplishment of
the proposed SIP requirements would be too costly. The State noted that
the BAAQMD had estimated that EPA's proposed planning process, although
streamlined, would still cost in the range of one million dollars or
more, and would require significant investments of staff time, advisory
committee time, and governing board time for all 3 co-lead agencies.
The State specifically argued against EPA's proposed requirements for a
weekend emissions inventory, which would require several person-years
of effort and associated costs in the range of a half-million dollars.
As an additional financial burden, the State asserted that EPA's
proposed redesignation of the Bay Area without a classification
jeopardizes the region's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding.
Finally, the State cited the President's directive that accompanied
the promulgation of the new federal standards for ozone and particulate
matter.7 The State encouraged EPA to comply with the spirit
of the directive, which emphasizes that ``implementation of the air
quality standards is to be carried out to maximize common sense,
flexibility, and cost effectiveness.'' The State concluded that EPA
withdrawal of the redesignation proposal would be most consistent with
this directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Memorandum from the President to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, dated July 16, 1997, entitled
``Implementation of Revised Air Quality Standards for Ozone and
Particulate Matter,'' and attaching ``Implementation Plan for
Revised Air Quality Standards.'' 62 FR 38421 (July 18, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Overview of Public Comments
EPA's proposed redesignation elicited a very large number of
comments, offering strong arguments either in support of, or in
opposition to, redesignation. Many of the letters also provided helpful
information regarding the impacts, beneficial or adverse, expected to
result from redesignation. Regardless of whether or not the writer
favored redesignation, every commenter strongly supported clean air
progress in the Bay Area. It is notable, for example, that many
commenters from the Bay Area business community wished to do their part
to improve air quality and maintain a sound economy, based on their
conviction that investments in air quality directly enhance the area's
economic vitality and their employees' quality of life. EPA appreciates
each comment and greatly values the commenters' commitment to improved
air quality and public health protection.
As previously noted, well over 100 individuals or organizations
submitted comments on the proposed redesignation.
Included among the comments were letters supporting redesignation
from Congressman Gary Condit (Fresno) and from 6 Members of Congress
from the Bay Area (Representatives George Miller, Lynn Woolsey, Nancy
Pelosi, Pete Stark, Anna Eshoo, and Tom Lantos). Four Northern
California Members of Congress (Representatives Ellen Tauscher, Tom
Campbell, Frank Riggs, and Vic Fazio) signed a letter in opposition to
the redesignation.
The Bay Area Members of Congress opposing the redesignation
believed that such an action is neither consistent with the CAA nor in
the spirit of the President's 1997 directive on implementing the ozone
and particulate matter NAAQS. These Representatives noted that the CAA
does not mandate redesignation but allows EPA to recognize the Bay
Area's track record and overall quality of air. The Members felt that
redesignation will trigger a costly, duplicative planning process that
will detract from collaborative efforts to improve air quality and
prepare for compliance with the 8-hour NAAQS. The Representatives
indicated that sources informed them that EPA's proposed action would
provide no new authority, funding and technology. The legislators felt
that declining Bay Area emissions and the clean 1997 ozone season prove
that a region can quickly return to attainment without the economic,
political, and administrative complexities of redesignation. The
Representatives indicated that they are not opposed to the new 8-hour
ozone NAAQS but wish an efficient, common sense transition to achieve
the NAAQS. Finally, if EPA redesignates the Bay Area, the legislators
wanted assurance that the CMAQ funding for the Bay Area will not be
jeopardized by EPA's action.
Congressman Condit fully supported the proposed redesignation and
referenced scientific data relating to Bay Area's exceedances and to
the impact of transported pollutants to downwind areas, such as the San
Joaquin Valley. Congressman Condit asked that a July 14, 1997 petition
to EPA be incorporated in his comment. This petition was signed by 4
Congressmen in addition to Congressman Condit (Representatives George
Radanovich, Richard Pombo, John Doolittle, and Sam Farr), 4 state
legislators, local elected officials, and officials representing farm
and manufacturing organizations, environmental groups, and the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
The petition summarizes the adverse impacts of elevated ozone
levels on public health, health care costs, and crops. The petition
also notes reasons why the years during the early 1990's when the Bay
Area recorded no violations were exceptional: A severe drought limited
biogenic emissions, summer peak temperatures were lower than normal,
the area was experiencing an economic recession, and the 55 mph speed
limit was in effect, reducing emissions of ozone precursors from cars
and trucks.
The petition notes that no modeling supported the redesignation of
the Bay Area to attainment, and that contingency measures in the
maintenance plan yielded no additional air quality benefit,
particularly in light of EPA's decision to waive certain NOX
control requirements. Thus, the maintenance plan failed to comply with
the requirement in CAA section 175A(d) that the plan contain
contingency measures sufficient to assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the
redesignation. The petition adds that it is now apparent that the
maintenance plan failed to comply with the even more fundamental
requirement of section 175(A)(a) that such plans contain additional
measures, if any, as may be necessary to ensure maintenance of the
NAAQS.
The petition recounts the Bay Area's ozone NAAQS violations
immediately following redesignation, some lasting up to 7 hours on 11
different days, with the worst exceedance in excess of .150 ppm, and 13
exceedances at or above .140 ppm. The petition concludes that prompt
action is necessary to achieve the overriding purpose of the Act, since
the SIP controls have been shown to be insufficient for attainment or
maintenance.
The petition asks EPA either to withdraw the redesignation or
redesignate the Bay Area to nonattainment, and further asks EPA to find
that the current Bay Area SIP is inadequate and require the State to
[[Page 37264]]
revise the SIP to attain the NAAQS expeditiously.
The petition states that there is no longer a defensible basis to
believe that the Bay Area has attained or that the approved maintenance
plan is still adequate. The petition continues: ``The existing
attainment designation sends a false signal to the public, the
regulated community, local agencies and the District itself that ozone
pollution is no longer a problem. The complacency created by that
message will hinder rather than help solve the problem within the Bay
Area and the San Joaquin Valley * * *.''
The petitioners requested EPA to establish a SIP requirement that
the State perform a comprehensive analysis of all factors affecting the
ozone precursor ``carrying capacity'' for maintenance of the NAAQS in
the Bay Area, and provide accurate estimates of emission reductions
anticipated to be achieved from additional measures to be included in
the plan, based upon an updated emissions inventory. While the
nonattainment SIP is being prepared, a SIP call should allow the State
1 year to submit a maintenance revision that includes adopted
additional measures to ensure the earliest practicable attainment and
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. The petitioners stated that, ``Given
history, the submittal should demonstrate the reliability and adequacy
of those measures convincingly.'' The subsequent SIP offers an
opportunity to fine tune the maintenance SIP revision and address any
problems that may surface in implementation.
The 6 Bay Area Members of Congress supporting the redesignation
stressed that protecting the health of their constituents is one of
their highest responsibilities as lawmakers. After careful
consideration, these Representatives concluded that the specific
proposed redesignation presented by EPA is the best course of action to
provide the greatest assurance of improving Bay Area air quality and
protecting public health, while placing the fewest burdens on the local
economy, residents, industry and regulators.
The legislators noted as significant a recent BAAQMD report showing
a worsening trend in ozone pollution in the 1990s. While acknowledging
the BAAQMD's new plan for future actions, the Members of Congress
expressed concern that the plan, adopted to meet California Clean Air
Act requirements, is inadequate since it contains only proposals, not
binding commitments, and can be changed at any time. Since the plan is
not enforceable by EPA or the public, the Representatives were unable
to verify that the plan would achieve attainment or genuinely improve
air quality.
The Representatives' letter went on to stress that there is no way
to know whether Bay Area actions are sufficient for attainment until
federal and local regulators have a common understanding of the extent
of local air pollution problems. These Members of Congress considered
that EPA's redesignation proposal allows the maximum flexibility to the
BAAQMD to reach attainment by building on its existing plan and
avoiding redundancy, specifically with respect to emissions inventory
and modeling. The Members stated that it is incumbent upon the BAAQMD
to work with EPA to find common ground on credible and binding actions
and timetables.
While aware of arguments against redesignation based on EPA's
recent adoption of a more stringent 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Members of
Congress still favored redesignation and action now to address the 1-
hour standard, since 10 years may pass before the Bay Area must comply
with the revised ozone standard, and any steps taken to comply with the
current standard will only help, not hinder, the area's ability to meet
the 8-hour standard when it is officially in place. In the meantime,
Bay Area residents are likely to be exposed to harmful pollution levels
if there is no action.
Finally, these 6 Representatives noted that the Department of
Transportation has concluded that EPA's proposed redesignation would
not jeopardize the Bay Area's eligibility for CMAQ funds under either
the existing Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) or pending revisions to the Act.
EPA received numerous letters from State legislators, mayors, and
boards of supervisors, in almost equal number supporting and opposing
the redesignation. Fifteen city councils or county boards of
supervisors in the San Joaquin Valley adopted resolutions supporting
the redesignation and Federal actions to mandate additional controls in
the Bay Area to reduce pollution levels exported into the Valley.
Five California air pollution control districts (Monterey, San
Joaquin, Sacramento, Yolo-Solano, and Placer) wrote to support further
emission reductions in the Bay Area, while the BAAQMD opposed the
redesignation. EPA summarizes and responds to the BAAQMD's extensive
comments in section III.D., below.
EPA received letters from over 20 Bay Area businesses and business
organizations arguing against the proposed redesignation, as well as
several letters from San Joaquin Valley businesses supporting the
redesignation.
Letters supporting the redesignation and encouraging adoption of
specific additional controls were sent by Northern California
environmental groups. These commenters generally perceived a contrast
between the major threat to public health reflected in the recent ozone
violations and the lack of political will shown by State and Bay Area
officials. The commenters supported a stringent timetable for SIP
revisions and attainment, agreeing with EPA that the urgent priority is
to actually adopt measures to ensure that the Bay Area ozone violations
will not recur.
Nineteen public interest groups representing the Bay Area
Environmental Justice Community signed a letter in support of the
redesignation, emphasizing the need to stem job flight to the suburbs
and to increase public transit within the Bay Area. The environmental
justice groups noted that these changes would benefit poor people and
communities of color both by improving their health and by increasing
their access to jobs and essential services.
All letters from downwind areas (including, notably, the San
Joaquin Valley) strongly urged EPA to finalize the redesignation, on
the grounds that the Bay Area exports ozone or ozone precursors to
their region, thus jeopardizing public health, prosperity, and scenic
and resource values. These letters typically noted that the Bay Area,
as an attainment area, does not confront Federal control
responsibilities, and that this double standard unfairly penalizes
downwind nonattainment areas, which face specific CAA mandates
associated with their ``serious'' or ``severe'' ozone classifications.
Letters from Bay Area local officials and businesses generally
pointed to unusual weather during 1995 and 1996 as the cause of the
ozone exceedances; the Bay Area's continuing efforts to reduce
emissions and the BAAQMD's projections that emission levels will
decline significantly in future years; the fact that the Bay Area
recorded no exceedances in 1997; and the importance of not diverting
resources from implementation of existing measures and planning for the
more protective 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The commenters frequently observed
that EPA's proposed SIP timetable was too hasty to allow for good
decision making.
[[Page 37265]]
D. Specific Comments and EPA Response
1. Comments Relating to the Basis of EPA's Proposal to Redesignate the
Bay Area to Nonattainment
a. Air Quality and Emissions
Comment: The primary cause of the recent ozone exceedances is the
very unusual weather patterns of 1995 and 1996. There were fewer
exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 1996 and no exceedances in
1997. The Bay Area should therefore continue to be considered an
attainment area.
Response: The Bay Area is not in compliance with the federal ozone
standard, a standard that was designed to protect public health. The
absence of violations in 1997 is a positive sign, but compliance with
the federal ozone standard is measured over a 3-year period, not on an
annual basis. The primary reason for the 3-year time frame is to
account for the effects of weather and other meteorological conditions
that can work to either the advantage or disadvantage of air quality.
This is particularly relevant in the Bay Area's case, since the
meteorological conditions prevailing on the West Coast during 1997 were
unusually favorable to good air quality. Furthermore, according to a
recent technical analysis by the BAAQMD, the ozone-conducive
meteorology that occurred in 1995 and 1996 is likely to recur (BAAQMD
Evaluation of the 1995 and 1996 Ozone Seasons in the San Francisco Bay
Area, October 1997, attached to Governor Wilson's December 10, 1997
letter to EPA Administrator Browner). Bay Area residents must be
assured of clean air under all weather conditions.
The Bay Area recorded 17 violations of the 1-hour standard over the
3-year period 1994-1996. During that period, exceedances of the ozone
standard were measured at 15 official network monitoring locations
throughout the Bay Area. Although air quality improved between 1995 and
1996, the Bay Area's ranking in 1996 was the 6th worst in the nation
for number of days when ozone levels exceeded the federal standard.
Over the period 1995-1997, the Bay Area recorded 15 violations and had
significantly worse air quality than most other metropolitan areas
designated as nonattainment for ozone (see response to the following
comment). Many of these areas are classified as ``serious'' or higher
under the Clean Air Act, and are subject to specific mandatory
requirements which would not apply to the Bay Area in EPA's
redesignation proposal.
These high ozone levels are harmful to public health in the Bay
Area. Exposure to ambient ozone concentrations, even at relatively low
levels and for brief periods of time, can cause respiratory symptoms
such as a reduction in lung function, chest pain, and cough. Repeated
exposure can make people more susceptible to respiratory infection and
lung inflammation, and can aggravate preexisting respiratory diseases
such as asthma. In consideration of these significant public health
concerns associated with the Bay Area's elevated ozone levels, EPA
continues to believe that redesignation to nonattainment is warranted.
Comment: The Bay Area has the cleanest air of any metropolitan
region in the nation. Since 1990, the Bay Area has been in attainment
99.995% of the time.
Response: There is no question that air quality in the Bay Area has
improved over the last 40 years. However, the Bay Area is not currently
attaining the federal 1-hour ozone standard, a standard that was
designed to protect public health and which has been made more
protective by adoption of a new, 8-hour standard. The magnitude of the
problem is significant as demonstrated by the number of violations (17
since redesignation to attainment in 1995) and the number of days when
the standard was exceeded (19 days between 1995-1997). When comparing
air quality in the Bay Area to other major metropolitan areas, there
are a number of large metropolitan areas, such as Chicago and Detroit,
with fewer violations and exceedance days than experienced in the Bay
Area. Furthermore, the Bay Area ranks among the worst of the 243 Air
Quality Control Regions in the country, based on data from the most
recent 3-year period. Finally, in contrast to most areas of the
Country, there is not a significant downward trend in the number of
ozone exceedances in the Bay Area since 1989.
Comment: EPA's reliance on a statistic ranking the Bay Area the 6th
worst in the nation in number of days over the ozone standard is
misplaced. EPA's simplistic characterization of the number of
exceedances fails to realistically depict the situation. A more
realistic characterization is based on a review of the exceedances in
terms of hours over the standard relative to hours in the ozone season
for six or seven years. Following this approach, the number of hours
over the standard is less than \2/100\ of a percent for 1990-1996. This
analysis properly focuses on long-term trends rather than short-term
data.
Response: When EPA establishes an ambient air quality standard, it
sets not only the level of the standard (in this case, .12 ppm) but
also the averaging time of the standard (1-hour) and the form of the
standard (how compliance is measured). Each of these components of the
NAAQS is set based on EPA's review of the available health effects
data. When EPA set the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA specified that the form
be based on the number of exceedance days per year averaged over 3
years. Therefore, EPA's characterization of the Bay Area air quality in
terms of number of days over the standard is appropriate. The form of
the standard is not based on the number of hours over the standard
relative to hours in the ozone season for 6 or 7 years, so an
examination of the Bay Area's air quality on this basis would not be
appropriate.
Comment: Some commenters concluded that the absence of violations
in 1997, in conjunction with predicted further declines in emissions,
proves that the Bay Area's ozone problem has been solved. Other
commenters noted that the West Coast's extraordinary meteorology in
1997 kept ozone concentrations unusually low, and that emissions in the
Bay Area may in fact not be decreasing as much as predicted, given the
strong economic growth in the area and other factors.
Response: The October 1997 BAAQMD report referenced above
identifies a downtrend in ozone precursor emissions from 1979 through
the early 1990s, but notes that during the 1990s ``progress appears to
have lapsed; there appears to have been an increase in ozone potential,
after accounting for meteorology'' (page v). The report further notes
that the ozone violations in 1995 and 1996 cannot be attributed solely
to unusual circumstances. It identifies possible explanations for
increased emissions over this time period (e.g., increased speed
limits, increased congestion levels, and increased employment levels in
East Bay communities).
EPA believes that a redesignation to nonattainment not only
accurately describes air quality in the Bay Area, but also provides an
opportunity for reevaluating the causes of the Bay Area's ozone
violations, the quantity of emission reductions needed to attain the
health-based standard, and the measures that will achieve those
reductions expeditiously. This may involve not only CARB and BAAQMD but
also MTC and ABAG in cooperative efforts to reduce the motor vehicle
contribution to the Bay Area's continuing smog problem.
[[Page 37266]]
Comment: EPA has not demonstrated that contingency measures in the
Bay Area's maintenance plan in conjunction with other projected
reductions will fail to bring the region back into attainment.
Response: EPA acknowledges that additional emission reductions are
likely to be achieved from measures already in the SIP or submitted for
SIP approval. No commenter, however, has provided any evidence that
these reductions will be sufficient to avoid violations in the future.
Indeed, many commenters, including the BAAQMD and the State, emphasized
that recently adopted control measure commitments in the Bay Area's
1997 Clean Air Plan are important in order to ensure continued air
quality progress.
The Clean Air Act places the burden on the State to demonstrate
that its plan, at all times, provides for attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS, through federally enforceable emission reductions sufficient
to avoid violations of the NAAQS. The Federal CAA also provides
protections to the public in the event that State plans are not fully
and successfully implemented to achieve the scheduled emission
reductions and air quality improvements. These protections include
federally imposed nonimplementation sanctions and opportunities for
citizens to sue to compel implementation.
EPA believes, therefore, that redesignation and new SIP obligations
for the Bay Area are consistent with the overall structure and intent
of the CAA, and provide key public health benefits. The State and
BAAQMD will assess, using available data and technical analyses, the
amount of emission reductions needed to ensure that violations of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS do not recur. The State, BAAQMD, and other
responsible local agencies must then identify control measures that
will achieve these reductions. EPA expects that the agencies will
analyze which control measures from the 1997 Clean Air Plan are needed
to attain the standard and which measures beyond those contained in the
plan are also needed. The State, BAAQMD, and other responsible agencies
will be subject to a schedule for adopting and implementing the
necessary controls. The public will have increased protections as a
result of making control measures needed to attain the standard part of
the SIP, thus providing insurance that the measures will be carried
out, if necessary, through federal enforcement or citizen suit.
Comment: EPA received a number of comments related to the continued
applicability of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in light of the new 8-hour
standard.
Response: EPA is responding to these comments at length below to
further the public's understanding of this issue. However, EPA's
decisions that (1) the 1-hour standard will remain in effect in an area
until it is attained, and (2) that the standard continues to apply in
the Bay Area because the area is not attaining the standard, are not at
issue in this rulemaking action and are not appropriately challenged
here. EPA's views regarding these issues are set forth in 63 FR 31013,
June 5, 1998.
Comment: The Bay Area had attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and,
therefore, rather than being redesignated to nonattainment, the area
was entitled to revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS in conformance with the
President's directive.
Response: The President's ``Implementation Plan for Revised Air
Quality Standards'' (``Implementation Plan'') (62 FR 38424) called for
EPA to revoke the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in all areas that attain the
standard. The President did not direct EPA to revoke the 1-hour ozone
standard in all areas currently designated as maintenance or attainment
areas. The President clearly intended that current air quality be the
basis of EPA's determination of which areas attain. The Implementation
Plan states that ``[f]or areas where the air quality does not currently
attain the 1-hour standard, the 1-hour standard will continue in
effect'' (emphasis added). Moreover, the controlling regulatory
provision, 40 CFR section 50.9(b), specifies that an area must have air
quality that meets the standard at the time of the decision. EPA's
rulemaking action to determine that the 1-hour standard no longer
applies in areas that are not currently violating the standard is
therefore consistent with the Presidential memorandum. 63 FR 31013
(June 5, 1998). Because the Bay Area is currently violating the 1-hour
ozone standard, the area is not currently eligible for this
determination.
Comment: EPA has indicated that if the Agency's review of recent
monitoring data finds that an attainment or maintenance area now
violates the 1-hour standard, EPA will not redesignate these areas to
nonattainment under the 1-hour standard.
Response: Both EPA's final regulation promulgating the new ozone
regulation (62 FR 38873) and the Presidential memorandum regarding
implementation of the standards (62 FR 38424) explain that in order to
ensure a smooth transition to the implementation of the 8-hour ozone
standard, the 1-hour standard will remain applicable to an area until
it has attained the 1-hour standard. As long as the 1-hour standard
remains in effect in an area, so does EPA's authority under CAA section
107(d)(3) to redesignate that area as a nonattainment area. EPA's
``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing
PM10 NAAQS'' (December 29, 1997 Memorandum from Richard D.
Wilson, to EPA Regional Administrators) clarifies that ``in certain
cases where air quality data through 1997 show nonattainment, EPA may
be redesignating areas from attainment to nonattainment for the 1-hour
standard.''
Comment: EPA should treat the Bay Area like other maintenance areas
in the Country, where the 1-hour NAAQS is not being revoked because the
areas have had recent violations of the NAAQS. These areas are not
being reclassified to nonattainment.
Response: The Bay Area's number of exceedances and violations and
the Bay Area's peak concentrations (highest monitored value and design
concentration) far exceed those in all other maintenance areas that
have had exceedances since 1994. There are 5 other ozone maintenance
areas in addition to the Bay Area that have experienced violations of
the 1-hour ozone standard after redesignation: Kansas City, Detroit-Ann
Arbor, Dayton-Springfield, Grand Rapids and Memphis. Three of these
maintenance areas (Detroit-Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, and Dayton-
Springfield) already meet the test for attainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS based on 1995-1997 data and are therefore proposed for revocation
of the 1-hour ozone standard (63 FR 27247, May 18, 1998). The remaining
2 areas, Kansas City and Memphis, could meet that test at the end of
1998, assuming that no more than 2 exceedances are recorded at the peak
monitor during 1998. Because the peak monitor in the Bay Area recorded
8 exceedances in 1996, the Bay Area would still violate the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS even if no exceedances occur in 1998, since the average
number of exceedances for the 3-year period 1996-1998 would exceed 1
per year.
b. Legal Authority
(i) General Comments on Mandatory and Discretionary Authorities To
Redesignate
Comment: A number of commenters felt that EPA should not
redesignate the Bay Area to nonattainment because the Clean Air Act
contains no mandatory duty to do so.
Response: EPA agrees that section 107(d)(3)(A) does not require EPA
to redesignate the Bay Area. However,
[[Page 37267]]
section 107(d)(3) of the Act grants the Administrator broad discretion
to redesignate areas when she determines that it is appropriate. For
the reasons discussed at length in the proposal and in today's final
notice, the Administrator believes that it is necessary to redesignate
the Bay Area.
(ii) Authority To Redesignate Without Classification
Comment: The BAAQMD commented that it disagrees with EPA's
interpretation of section 181(b)(1) of the Act, and believes that the
ambiguity contained in the language of this section argues in favor of
a SIP call to strengthen the maintenance plan, rather than
redesignation without classification.
Response: As EPA explained at length in its proposal, section
181(b)(1), which provides for new designations to nonattainment, does
not on its face apply to the Bay Area. (Please refer to 62 FR 66580,
December 19, 1997, for EPA's analysis of the applicability of section
181.) Section 181(b)(1) explicitly sets forth which areas it governs.
Specifically, section 181(b)(1) covers only those areas that were
originally designated attainment or unclassifiable pursuant to section
107(d)(4) of the 1990 amendments. This section is silent with regard to
areas, like the Bay Area, that were designated nonattainment under the
1990 amendments, redesignated to attainment, and that subsequently
returned to nonattainment.
In its comments on the proposal, the BAAQMD cautions EPA against
inferring anything from Congress' silence with regard to areas like the
Bay Area. However, because Congress was silent on this point, some
inference must be made in order to decide how an area like the Bay Area
is to be treated under the Act. The BAAQMD would like us to infer that
we cannot redesignate an area back to nonattainment once it has
attained the standard, but must instead issue a SIP call to address the
inadequacies in the maintenance plan and contingency measures. While a
SIP call is one possible option, it is clearly not the only option
authorized by the Act. There is no ambiguity in the language of section
107(d)(3), which grants the Administrator the authority to redesignate
an area ``any time'' she deems it is appropriate based on air quality
data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-
related considerations.8 EPA continues to believe that
redesignation, rather than a SIP call, is the appropriate action in
this instance. Given the broad discretion granted the Administrator
under section 107(d)(3), EPA is exercising that discretion today to
redesignate the area to nonattainment. Moreover, we also continue to
believe that the ambiguity contained in the language of section
181(b)(1) is best interpreted as placing the Bay Area under subpart 1
of the Act for the following reasons. The plain language of section
181(b)(1) applies only to areas designated attainment under section
107(d)(4) and excludes areas like the Bay Area. Second, as an area that
was previously designated nonattainment, the Bay Area has already done
much of the work required for a nonattainment area SIP and should not
need the lengthy time period granted to new nonattainment areas to
complete its planning process. The Bay Area has already implemented the
section 181 requirements applicable to its previous moderate
classification. Finally, sections 172(a)(1) and (2) contain express
statements that they do not apply to nonattainment areas that are
specifically covered by other provisions of Part D of the Act, thereby
demonstrating that the Act contemplates that some areas will fall under
subpart 1, rather than subpart 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Bay Area recorded 43 exceedances of the ozone standard
in the two-year period 1995-1996. The standard allows no more than
three exceedances at any one monitor over three years. In addition,
the area recorded violations at special purpose monitors (SPMs) from
1992-1993, prior to being redesignated to attainment. While these
violations were not considered in EPA's original decision to
redesignate the area to attainment because the monitors were not
part of the official monitoring network, the Agency has since issued
a policy that requires that any reliable monitoring data be relied
upon in such decisions. (August 22, 1997 memorandum entitled,
``Agency Policy on the Use of Special Purpose Monitoring Data,''
from John Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards.) As we noted in the proposal (62 FR 66579, December 19,
1997), EPA has determined that the SPMs data should have been
considered in the 1995 redesignation action. With the advantage of
hindsight, these violations can be viewed as an indicator that the
air quality problem in the Bay Area has not been solved at the time
the area was redesignated, as was borne out by the high number of
exceedances during 1995-1996. As we have discussed at length herein
and in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the severity of the air
quality problem makes redesignation the appropriate action in this
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Policy Issues
(i) Public Notification and Public Perception
Comment: Some commenters considered redesignation to be simply a
labeling exercise that will have a negative impact on public support
for existing air quality programs by emphasizing redundant and
counterproductive procedural and paperwork tasks above real progress in
emission reductions.
Other commenters noted that the redesignation debate in the Bay
Area shows that labels are significant, and that ``nonattainment''
accurately conveys the message that making the Bay Area's air safe to
breathe is a task still unfinished; there needs to be a clear and
consistent signal to the affected sources and the public about why new
measures are necessary. These commenters concluded that, to win
approval of additional reductions in air pollution, the public needs to
know the actual status of air quality in the Bay Area. The broader
public will not support efforts to reduce pollution if air quality is
deemed to be in attainment of health standards. If local regulators
maintain that air quality is fine and if there is no public
accountability through EPA oversight or the right of public interest
groups to enforce attainment plans, the regulators will not take on the
difficult task of requiring polluters to invest further in pollution
prevention or control technology.
Response: The large number of Bay Area exceedances in 1995 and 1996
indicates that we do not have a convincing basis for predicting an end
to ozone violations without further reductions. Designations of
attainment are intended to apply to areas that have demonstrated clean
air over a 3-year period.
Moreover, EPA does not believe that the Bay Area's current
attainment designation is appropriate since it tells the affected
public, the regulated community, local agencies, and the District that
ozone pollution is no longer a problem. This inaccurate message tends
to undercut collaborative and progressive actions in the near term, and
contributes to confusion and dissension both within the Bay Area and in
downwind populations.
EPA remains convinced that near-term action is needed to protect
the health and welfare of the State's residents. Emission reduction
strategies will be evaluated and put in place 4-5 years sooner through
a redesignation under the 1-hour standard than is expected under a plan
to meet the revised ozone standard (new plans are not expected to be
due under the revised standard until 2003 and the attainment date for
an area such as the Bay Area for the 8-hour standard is expected to be
2005 at the earliest). That is at least 4-5 years during which
Californians would be breathing dirtier air than they should be.
Finally, EPA continues to believe that a redesignation to
nonattainment not only accurately describes air quality in the Bay Area
but also provides an opportunity for reevaluating the causes
[[Page 37268]]
of the Bay Area's ozone violations, the quantity of emission reductions
needed to attain the health-based standard, and the measures that will
achieve those reductions expeditiously.
(ii) Impact of Bay Area Emissions on Downwind Nonattainment Areas and
Issues of Equity
Comment: Commenters from downwind areas and environmental groups
referenced a CARB study indicating that pollution transported from the
Bay Area produces up to 27% of the smog in the Central Valley. Monterey
Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District noted that CARB has found
that half of the exceedances of the State 1-hour ozone standard in the
North Central Coast Air Basin result from overwhelming transport from
the Bay Area (i.e., the exceedances would have occurred even in the
absence of local emissions). Commenters expressed the belief that
continued Bay Area progress toward meeting federal requirements is key
to achieving air quality in these downwind areas, and that further
NOX reductions in the Bay Area are especially important.
Commenters noted high pollution levels in areas downwind of the Bay
Area, and argued that redesignation would help ensure that the Bay Area
pays the price of controlling its pollution rather than passing it on
in the form of health impacts and added regulatory requirements for
downwind areas. Downwind areas stated that enhanced motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (or enhanced I/M, which is known in
California as Smog Check 2) should be required in the Bay Area, just as
it is in urbanized portions of the Central Valley.
The BAAQMD argued that redesignation without classification would
not ensure implementation of Smog Check 2 in the Bay Area under
existing State law. The State argued that redesignation would hurt
attainment efforts in the Central Valley, since it would distract the
Bay Area from achieving real emissions reductions. Bay Area industry
commented that redesignation will not solve pollution transport issues
in California and that any reliance on pollutant transport concerns to
support redesignation is unfounded and legally impermissible.
Response: The basis for the nonattainment designation is the large
number of recent violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Bay Area,
not any new evidence regarding the impact of Bay Area pollution on
downwind areas within the State. EPA believes that primary
responsibility for addressing transport to and from the Bay Area
resides with the State.
With respect to the importance of Smog Check 2 in the Bay Area, EPA
strongly endorses enhanced I/M as one of the most cost-effective
measures that could be added to the Bay Area's existing controls, since
the program has the potential to achieve substantial emissions
reductions in the near term and to ensure that the benefits of
California's stringent motor vehicle standards are not diminished
because of poorly maintained vehicles.
(iii) Effect of Redesignation on Limited Air Pollution Control
Resources
Comment: Redesignation will trigger an expensive, duplicative
planning process that will detract from effective collaborative efforts
to improve air quality. Redesignation provides no new funds, authority,
or technology but simply imposes paperwork and process requirements.
Response: Redesignation should not result in a burdensome and
duplicative planning effort. EPA wants the District and its co-lead
agencies to focus on emission reductions, not paperwork.
EPA is asking, in fact, for only three plan elements: the existing
1995 emissions inventory for VOC and NOX, an assessment of
emissions reductions needed to attain the federal standard, and control
measures to achieve those reductions. EPA is allowing the District to
use available data and technical analyses to establish the emission
reduction targets. Finally, EPA expects that most of the work to
identify potential control measures has also been completed for the
District's recently adopted 1997 Clean Air Plan. EPA expects that the
District will analyze which control measures from this plan are needed
to attain the standard and which measures beyond those contained in the
plan are also needed. Making these control measures federally
enforceable elements of the SIP provides an important public safeguard
since only in this way can EPA and the public ensure that the
commitments in the plan are fully implemented and the plan's promised
air quality benefits are realized. This streamlined planning effort
also provides an opportunity for the Bay Area to quickly determine
whether additional reductions from transportation sources are
appropriate, in the event that attainment requires more near-term
reductions than the Clean Air Plan currently identifies.
While EPA concedes that redesignation may provide no new funds,
authority, or technology, the Agency does not agree that the
redesignation, as finalized in this action, simply imposes burdensome
paperwork and process requirements on the Bay Area. EPA's proposed
streamlined and flexible set of requirements contrasts with extensive
and prescriptive planning and control requirements that apply to ozone
nonattainment areas with 1999 attainment deadlines. Most of these
areas, which were classified as ``serious'' under the Clean Air Act,
have far fewer ozone exceedances and far fewer planning resources than
does the Bay Area. The following are examples of ``serious'' ozone
nonattainment area mandates, which EPA does not propose to require in
the Bay Area: (1) A more stringent definition of major stationary
source for purposes of Title V operating permit requirements; (2) more
stringent applicability thresholds and offset ratios for purposes of
permitting new and modified stationary sources; (3) a more stringent
definition of major stationary source for purposes of applying
reasonably available control technology requirements to existing
stationary sources; (4) specific, detailed plan elements addressing
rate-of-progress; (5) an enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance
program; and (6) specific, detailed provisions relating to
transportation control.
Comment: Redesignation is inconsistent with the President's
directive that the new federal air quality standards be implemented in
a flexible, cost-effective and common-sense manner; that EPA respect
agreements already made by States, communities, and businesses to clean
up the air; and that EPA implement the standards with the minimum
amount of paperwork necessary. Redesignation also fails to promote the
ideals of the President's and Vice President's reinvention report which
calls for the building of partnerships, the reduction of red tape, and
the use of sound science to set priorities.
Response: A key component of the President's implementation plan
for the new federal air quality standards is that continued progress
toward meeting the 1-hour standard will ensure a smooth and effective
transition to the 8-hour standard. EPA's action to redesignate the Bay
Area as a nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard and the
simplified set of planning objectives that accompany this action are
consistent with continuing progress towards meeting the 1-hour
standard. They are also consistent with other elements of the
implementation plan pertaining to respecting existing agreements,
reducing paperwork, and maximizing common sense flexibility, and cost-
effectiveness. As discussed above, EPA is asking for only 3 plan
[[Page 37269]]
elements: the existing 1995 emissions inventory for VOC and
NOX, an assessment of emissions reductions needed to attain
the federal standard, and control measures to achieve those reductions,
without requiring expensive new modeling or unnecessary paperwork. The
District has already identified additional control measures in its 1997
California Clean Air Act plan that could be used for a new federal
plan. In addition, partnerships between the private sector,
environmental groups, and regulators to promote innovative methods for
addressing the air quality problem could be an important part of the
Bay Area's response to the redesignation.
(iv) Alternatives to Redesignation
Comment: EPA should allow the Bay Area to implement and supplement,
if necessary, the contingency measures in the Bay Area's Maintenance
Plan, as the remedy to violations. The CAA recognizes that attainment
areas will experience violations from time to time and that contingency
provisions should be adequate to cure the problem. If EPA determines
that the existing Bay Area Maintenance Plan is inadequate, the CAA
provides a remedy: EPA may issue a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) to
strengthen the maintenance plan.
Response: EPA hoped and expected that the Bay Area's maintenance
plan would be the means to prevent future exceedances of the ozone
standard. Unfortunately, almost all of the emission reductions from the
Bay Area's maintenance and contingency measures were in effect at the
time that the Bay Area experienced so many violations of the ozone
standard in 1995 and 1996. After completing a stakeholder process over
the past several years, EPA concluded that additional public health
protections are needed beyond current Bay Area plans. EPA evaluated all
of the options available under the Clean Air Act to address the public
health problem and continues to believe that redesignation is the most
direct and sensible outcome.
The proposal that EPA rely only on a ``SIP Call'' would apparently
involve EPA using the authority of CAA section 110(k)(5) to mandate
submission of a strengthened maintenance plan. For the reasons
discussed above, EPA believes that redesignation to nonattainment is a
more appropriate course under the framework of the Act. While EPA
considered the ``SIP Call'' option, the Agency concluded that a federal
nonattainment designation for the Bay Area was important to provide the
public with accurate information and the correct message: Pollution
levels must be reduced quickly in order to eliminate unhealthy air
quality within the Bay Area. Since the amount of reductions necessary
to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standard has not yet been
established, EPA believes that the proper SIP remedy is twofold. First,
the BAAQMD must submit its existing 1995 emissions inventory for VOC
and NOX and an assessment, using available data and
technical analyses, of the emissions reductions needed to attain the
standard. Second, the BAAQMD and its co-lead agencies must identify,
adopt, and submit for incorporation in the SIP all of those control
measures that are needed to meet the reduction target expeditiously.
EPA proposed and is now finalizing this simplified SIP remedy, which
does not substantively differ from the planning requirements that would
need to be addressed by the State in revising the Bay Area's
maintenance plan so that it provides for attainment.
Comment: The BAAQMD commented that if redesignation is finalized
EPA should classify the Bay Area as a ``marginal'' ozone nonattainment
area, subject to the requirements specifically delineated in CAA
section 182(a). This certainty would provide a more specific and
defensible foundation for the responsibilities of the co-lead agencies,
CARB, and EPA. The BAAQMD expressed the belief that areas designated as
``marginal'' would have 3 years to develop a SIP submittal and 5 years
to reach attainment. Other commenters recommended a ``moderate''
classification as more appropriate to the Bay Area's air quality.
Response: As discussed above and in the proposal, EPA concluded
that subpart 2 of the Clean Air Act (which includes the ozone
classifications and specific requirements for each classification)
applies, on its face, only to: (1) Areas designated nonattainment under
107(d)(4) at the time the 1990 amendments were passed, and (2) areas
designated nonattainment under 107(d)(3) for the first time after
passage of the 1990 amendments. See CAA 181(b)(1). Thus, the subpart 2
provisions would not seem to apply to the Bay Area, which was initially
nonattainment, redesignated to attainment, and then redesignated back
to nonattainment.
In the proposed redesignation (62 FR 66580), EPA also presented two
policy reasons for not classifying the Bay Area or requiring the
District to meet all of the subpart 2 requirements for a ``moderate''
ozone nonattainment area:
(1) Many of the classification requirements served no purpose for
the Bay Area, because the requirements had already been addressed
previously when the area was nonattainment or because the requirements
would contribute no specific emission reductions. For example,
``moderate'' area requirements include the gasoline vapor recovery
program (which has been approved as part of the Bay Area SIP for many
years) and the rate-of-progress plan (which would be superfluous given
the compressed attainment schedule for the Bay Area). EPA's proposal
stressed the Agency's determination to eliminate paperwork and focus
the Bay Area's energies on achieving the emission reductions needed to
attain the 1-hour NAAQS quickly.
(2) It did not seem appropriate to allow the Bay Area as much time
as subpart 2 gives to newly designated and classified nonattainment
areas. The CAA allows newly designated nonattainment areas the same
amount of time to meet subpart 2 requirements as was given to areas
initially nonattainment under the 1990 CAA amendments. This would mean
that the Bay Area would have either 3 years or 4 years from the
effective date of the final designation to make a ``moderate'' SIP
submittal, depending upon whether sophisticated photochemical modeling
was employed (approximately 6/2001 or 6/2002, instead of the 6/1999
date for SIP submittal set in this action). The Bay Area would also
have 6 years to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (2004, instead of the
2000 date in this action).
The same analysis applies to an even greater extent with respect to
a ``marginal'' classification. The Bay Area has previously addressed
the CAA ``marginal'' area requirements for corrections to RACT rules,
NSR rules, basic I/M, and rules requiring sources to report on their
emissions. If EPA were to classify the area as ``marginal,'' in fact,
the Bay Area would only need to submit a single new SIP element--an
updated emissions inventory--which would not be due until 2 years from
the effective date of the final designation (approximately 6/2000,
instead of the 11/1998 informal submittal date agreed to by the BAAQMD,
and the 6/1999 SIP deadline set in this action). The CAA does not
require ``marginal'' areas to submit attainment assessments, but sets
an attainment deadline 3 years after the effective date of the
nonattainment designation (i.e., 2001).
EPA does not believe that either the ``moderate'' or ``marginal''
classification requirements and schedule represent an efficient,
common-sense, or adequate response to the urgent public health concerns
associated with the Bay Area's large number of recent ozone NAAQS
[[Page 37270]]
violations. EPA continues to conclude that the proposed approach of
redesignation without classification, setting near-term deadlines for
SIP revision and attainment, is not only better supported by the terms
of the CAA but also better fits the goals of this action: To provide
the Act's clean air protections to Bay Area residents as quickly as
possible, with minimal process and paper, and with the greatest
flexibility afforded to the State and local agencies.
Comment: The BAAQMD proposed that, in lieu of redesignation, the
BAAQMD, EPA, CARB, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the
Association of Bay Area Governments, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District, CBE, Earth Justice, and the Sierra Club
could enter into a binding memorandum of understanding or agreement
that would result in additional stationary and mobile source control
measures, with their concomitant emission reductions, being added to
the BAAQMD's Maintenance Plan or SIP. The BAAQMD argued that this
approach was supported by the President's emphasis on regulatory
flexibility.
Response: EPA strongly supports collaborative efforts between all
involved parties, and particularly encourages consultation with
downwind air districts and environmental groups. EPA does not view
broad cooperative efforts such as the BAAQMD proposes as incompatible
with redesignation to nonattainment, and notes that half of the parties
named by the BAAQMD support EPA's proposed redesignation action. EPA is
unclear, however, regarding the scope of the BAAQMD's proposed binding
MOU or MOA, whether all of the parties would have the authority to
enter into a binding MOU or MOA, and whether all necessary parties
would be bound. There are significant statutory constraints, for
example, on EPA's authority to enter into binding agreements.
Nevertheless, EPA would be pleased to participate in any process
established by the BAAQMD.
Comment: EPA should follow the Clinton Administration's ``Common
Sense'' option, and allow the Bay Area simply to focus on the 8-hour
ozone standard on the schedule established for new ozone SIPs.
Response: This option apparently involves no near-term actions by
State and local Bay Area agencies, since most substantive requirements
and deadlines for SIPs addressing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will not come
due for approximately 5 years. The commenter appears to conclude that
we should abandon efforts to reach a less stringent ozone standard on
our way to achieving a more stringent ozone standard.
EPA's final promulgation of the revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
final interim implementation policy, ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-
Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS'' (December 29, 1997), responded
to commenters on the proposals, who argued that abandonment of SIP
obligations to provide attainment plans for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
would be inconsistent with national public health goals, in view of the
fact that new plans addressing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will not be due
until mid-2003. In order to ensure that momentum is maintained by state
and local agencies, the final policy provides that the 1-hour standard
and applicable Clean Air Act requirements will continue to apply to an
area until EPA makes a determination that the area has met the 1-hour
standard. As discussed elsewhere in response to comments, EPA believes
that a compressed and streamlined planning process is necessary for the
Bay Area to expedite efforts to protect public health. EPA agrees with
commenters who concluded that this process will benefit rather than
detract from eventual preparation of a SIP addressing the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
2. Comments Relating to EPA's Proposed SIP Requirements
a. Emissions Inventory
Comment: While the BAAQMD has been maintaining and updating a
weekday inventory for many decades, preparing a weekend day inventory,
as EPA proposes to require, would demand extensive new data gathering
and compilation, several person-years of effort, and one half-million
dollars or more. Although assumptions could be made and best-judgment
factors could be applied to weekday data to generate an estimate of
weekend day data, the resulting uncertainties would hamper planning
efforts based on their use. Such an extensive new requirement would be
more appropriate for a SIP submittal focused on the new 8-hour NAAQS.
Response: Based on these comments from the State and the BAAQMD,
EPA has decided to amend the proposed SIP submittal schedule to delete
the weekend day emission inventory requirement. Nevertheless, EPA
encourages BAAQMD and CARB to work together with State and regional
planning and transportation agencies to assess weekend emissions and
develop appropriate additional control measures as may be necessary and
appropriate to ensure that weekend violations do not persist.
Comment: EPA proposed to require an updated carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions inventory. A commenter noted that, although a CO inventory
may help shed light on sources of ozone precursors, the CO inventory
has no direct bearing on ozone attainment status and EPA should delete
the requirement from the final redesignation.
Response: In order to minimize still further the scope of the Bay
Area SIP obligation, EPA agrees to eliminate this requirement.
Consequently, EPA finalizes in this action a SIP requirement for the
existing 1995 inventory for VOC and NOX emissions only.
b. Attainment Assessment
Comment: Bay Area industry, the State, and the BAAQMD argued that a
credible attainment assessment, particularly one that takes into
account the 1995-6 meteorological conditions and ambient
concentrations, cannot be performed by May 1, 1998, due to data gaps
and lack of modeling capability. If the BAAQMD should attempt an
assessment, it would not be technically defensible and would not be
accepted by the public or business community. Reliable modeling cannot
be performed until the results of a new field study (conducted in 1999
or 2000) are available. Bay Area industry expressed concern that EPA's
unrealistic schedule may lead the BAAQMD to prematurely ``lock in'' a
control strategy that emphasizes counterproductive NOX
reductions.
On the other hand, environmental groups and other commenters felt
that EPA's proposed schedule struck an appropriate balance between the
competing concerns for acting quickly and acting knowledgeably. These
commenters emphasized that the BAAQMD cannot assure compliance with the
1-hour NAAQS without first knowing what emissions are and what
reductions are needed, and any extra time and effort spent to
understand the problem now will pay double dividends in the future, in
helping the regulatory agencies and affected industry comply with the
Federal 8-hour NAAQS and the California 1-hour standard.
Response: EPA continues to believe that available data and
technical analyses can be used to provide, within a very short period
of time, a reasonable estimate of emission reductions needed to attain.
The BAAQMD's October 1997 report, Evaluation of the 1995 and 1996
[[Page 37271]]
Ozone Seasons in the San Francisco Bay Area, recommended such an
assessment. EPA remains willing to work with the BAAQMD to ensure that
the exercise can be completed within the established time limits and
resource constraints, and that the analysis will comply with applicable
federal requirements. EPA notes that there is no CAA requirement that
the Bay Area use Urban Airshed Modeling, and that other approaches may
be appropriate to target the amount of emission reductions needed to
attain the NAAQS expeditiously. The quality of technical data and
analyses techniques will continually improve, but it does not make
sense to wait for the ``perfect'' science to take action. Regulatory
agencies need to use the best information available now to make
reasonable decisions about how to protect public health. In order to
allow more time to assess the reductions needed for attainment, EPA is
extending the formal SIP submittal deadline for the attainment
assessment from May 1, 1998 to June 15, 1999. The District has
committed to submit a draft attainment assessment informally to EPA,
and make it available to the public, by November 25, 1998. (Letter from
BAAQMD, ABAG, and MTC dated June 23, 1998.) This early informal
submittal will allow EPA to review the draft inventory and assessment
and work with the District to address any deficiencies. Finally, with
respect to industry's contention that EPA's schedule may lead the
District to ``lock in'' allegedly counterproductive NOX
controls, EPA does intend to allow CARB and BAAQMD the flexibility to
select the appropriate mix of ozone precursor controls to ensure
attainment. This issue is also discussed below in the context of the
NOX waiver.
c. Control Measures
(i) Suggested Measures
Comment: Several of the commenters recommended particular control
measures that could be adopted to speed Bay Area attainment. The most
frequently mentioned new measure was the Smog Check 2 program.
Sacramento Valley air pollution control districts and environmental
groups also urged implementation of two additional reduction programs:
(1) A heavy duty mobile source NOX control strategy that
includes incentives for early introduction of clean engine and fuel
technologies; and (2) a requirement for permits and controls on smaller
stationary sources, including natural gas fired boilers and internal
combustion engines, and regulation of stationary diesel internal
combustion engines, which are now exempt. The Sierra Club attached to
their comment an extensive list of control measures for inclusion into
the SIP, particularly suggestions for specific improvements to the Bay
Area transportation control measures. CBE provided detailed
recommendations for a variety of specific additional controls at Bay
Area refineries and chemical plants. CBE also endorsed a public comment
on the proposed redesignation from Chesapeake Environmental Group,
Inc., advocating further reductions in VOC emissions from land fills by
prohibitions on the use of petroleum-contaminated soil as a landfill
cover. The Bay Area Environmental Justice Community recommended tough
rules on oil refining and other polluting manufacturing processes,
control on the movement of jobs to the outer suburbs, and commitments
to redirect public funds to transit instead of highway building.
Response: EPA believes that the suggested control measures merit
serious attention by the responsible agencies. EPA has forwarded the
comments to CARB, BAAQMD, MTC and ABAG with encouragements to these
agencies to consider the suggestions for incorporation into the SIP, as
appropriate. In order to allow more time for evaluation of additional
control measures, EPA is extending the SIP submittal deadline for
adopted regulations or enforceable commitments to adopt regulations,
from September 1, 1998, to June 15, 1999.
Comment: The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers,
Inc., the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI), and Toyota
Motor Manufacturing North America, Inc., commented that the adoption
and implementation schedule of rules in the Bay Area's 1997 Clean Air
Plan was coordinated with the implementation schedule of CAA section
183(e) rules for reducing VOC emissions and the Federal schedule for
implementation of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards for automobiles and light duty trucks. The commenters noted
that the respective deadlines for these Federal rules are 2003 and
2000, respectively. The commenters emphasized that any acceleration of
the BAAQMD's current schedule to meet EPA's proposed 1999 attainment
deadline would likely result in duplicative efforts and inconsistent
requirements, and thus increased costs to affected industry.
Response: EPA has asked the State to perform an assessment of
reductions needed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS expeditiously, in
order to prevent recurrence of the violations experienced following the
redesignation to attainment. EPA wishes the State to use its good
judgment to determine which new controls should be adopted or expedited
to meet attainment requirements, assuming that the attainment
assessment identifies the need for more reductions to prevent
exceedances by the attainment year 2000. EPA encourages the BAAQMD and
other responsible agencies to select control approaches that maximize
common sense and cost effectiveness.
Comment: Industry commenters questioned whether controls adopted to
meet the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would necessarily be helpful in meeting the
new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Other commenters, however, noted that controls
adopted to meet the Federal 1-hour ozone standard would contribute to
eventual attainment of California's more stringent 1-hour ozone
standard and could be generally presumed to benefit attainment of the
new 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Response: While EPA believes that the great majority of control
possibilities for meeting the 1-hour ozone NAAQS will also advance
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Bay Area, EPA encourages
CARB, BAAQMD, MTC, and ABAG to assess any new control measures that may
be considered for expeditious attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, in
order to ensure that the measures will also promote attainment of the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Comment: The BAAQMD proposed that new contingency measures be added
to the SIP to augment the ones currently implemented. The BAAQMD stated
that the process for identifying these measures ``can occur quickly
through consultation among EPA, CARB, and the co-lead agencies. Through
this process, we can commit our energies and our limited resources to
pursuing our real shared goal--clean air for all people all the time--
through common sense, flexible, cost-effective, and coordinated
actions.''
In its comment letter, the BAAQMD identified the following options
for supplementing the existing SIP controls:
(1) already adopted measures which have not been submitted into the
SIP, such as controls on refinery fugitive emissions and pressure
relief valves, NOX Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology (BARCT) controls on refineries and utilities, $1 increase in
bridge tolls;
(2) measures that the BAAQMD will be pursuing in the near term,
such as an aqueous solvents rule, new CMAQ-funded projects);
[[Page 37272]]
(3) State measures, such as further improvements to the I/M
program.
Response: EPA shares completely the BAAQMD's goal statement to
provide ``clean air for all people all the time--through common sense,
flexible, cost effective, and coordinated actions.'' EPA also
appreciates the BAAQMD's point that additional control measures can be
identified quickly through consultation with EPA, CARB, and the co-lead
agencies; and EPA would be happy to consult on appropriate measures.
In terms of supplementing the current SIP with additional control
measures, EPA agrees the example measures are feasible. Depending on
the outcome of the attainment assessment, however, additional controls
may be needed. The Bay Area has already identified several feasible
control measures in response to the State requirement for a 1997 Clean
Air Plan. Upon review of the Bay Area's 1997 Clean Air Plan, CARB
suggested a number of modifications to existing Bay Area regulations
and transportation control measures that could result in additional
emission reductions (See letter from Lynn Terry, Assistant Executive
Officer, CARB to Ellen Garvey, Air Pollution Control Officer, BAAQMD,
dated December 1, 1997.) In addition, EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards identified 42 cost effective control measures
that may be appropriate for the Bay Area. (E.H. Pechan & Associates,
Inc., ``Control Measure Analysis of Ozone and PM Alternatives:
Methodology and Results,'' prepared for Innovative Strategies and
Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
EPA, RTP, NC July 17, 1997.) Whatever additional SIP measures are
pursued, they must provide sufficient emission reductions to ensure
expeditious attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Bay Area.
(ii) NOX Waiver and the Efficacy of NOX Controls
Comment: Industry commenters stated that EPA provided no adequate
notice of its retroactive revocation of the NOX waiver and
the waiver remains appropriate to avoid requirements for expensive and
counterproductive NOX controls, since modeling evidence
shows that NOX reductions may elevate ozone concentrations
at locations within the Bay Area under certain meteorological
conditions, and thus could detract from attaining the ozone NAAQS.
Earthjustice, on behalf of Sierra Club and CBE, agreed with EPA's
position that no waiver of NOX control requirements now
applies, but contended that the waiver continued during the maintenance
period. Earthjustice considered that the waiver expired by its own
terms, however, because it was explicitly conditional, lasting only as
long as the area's monitoring data continue to demonstrate attainment.
Finally, Earthjustice concluded that the Bay Area is therefore now
subject to CAA section 182 requirements for NOX control.
Response: Section 182(f) of the Act extends the ozone nonattainment
area VOC requirements of subpart 2 of the Act to emissions of
NOX. This section also provides that the Administrator may,
either on her own or in response to a petition, waive these subpart 2
NOX requirements if, for nonattainment areas outside an
ozone transport region, either of 2 tests are met. The section 182(f)
NOX requirements would not apply if the Administrator
determines that (1) for the sources concerned, net air quality benefits
are greater in the absence of the NOX reductions, or (2)
additional NOX reductions would not contribute to attainment
of the ozone NAAQS. Additionally, the NOX control
requirements, under the same tests, could be relieved as to any portion
of the controls that are shown to result in excess emissions
reductions. On December 16, 1993, EPA issued guidance on obtaining
NOX waivers.9 This guidance was subsequently
revised on May 27, 1994.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Guideline for Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen
Oxide Requirements under Section 182(f),'' John Seitz, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
\10\ ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (No) Exemptions--Revised
Process and Criteria,'' John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time the Bay Area submitted its redesignation request, EPA
guidance governing redesignations required, pursuant to section 107 of
the Act, that an area must meet all applicable requirements of section
110 and part D prior to redesignation. Thus, before EPA could
redesignate the Bay Area to attainment, the Bay Area had to adopt all
required NOX RACT rules. However, based on air quality data
from official SLAMS monitors, EPA determined that the Bay Area had
attained the NAAQS without adopting all of these rules. Based on the
determination that the area was attaining without benefit of additional
NOX reductions, it was apparent that such reductions would
not contribute to attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Thus, the Bay Area
qualified for a waiver under the test provided in subsection
182(f)(1)(A). Therefore, the Bay Area requested, and EPA approved, a
NOX waiver under that subsection. One commenter points out
that the waiver was granted in the same notice as the redesignation to
attainment, arguing that this fact supports the position that the
waiver must remain in effect. However, the waiver was acted on in the
same notice so that the area could be redesignated without first
meeting any remaining part D NOX requirements. Because the
Agency was ready to act on both requests at the same time, it saw no
reason to hold up the redesignation so that it could grant the
NOX waiver first.
The NOX waiver acts only to relieve an ozone
nonattainment area from subpart 2 nonattainment area NOX
requirements. Once an area is redesignated to attainment these
requirements no longer apply and a NOX waiver is irrelevant.
Moreover, as the May 27, 1994 John Seitz guidance memo cited above
points out, the NOX exemption test set forth in section
182(f)(1)(A) asks only if additional reductions of NOX would
contribute to attainment of the ozone NAAQS, not whether they would
contribute to maintenance of the standard once attainment is confirmed
through redesignation to attainment. Recognition of this by both the
BAAQMD and EPA is inherent in the fact that the Bay Area's maintenance
plan contingency measures, approved as part of the redesignation to
attainment, are nearly all NOX measures.
The commenters cite language in the May 27, 1994, guidance to
support their position that EPA must notify the state and provide
notice in the Federal Register in order to revoke NOX
exemptions. However, this language deals with a situation where a
nonattainment area is granted a NOX waiver based upon clean
air quality data, the area is not redesignated to attainment, and the
area subsequently violates the ozone NAAQS. In this situation the
exemption must be revoked because the area remains a nonattainment area
and, unless revoked, the exemption would continue, inappropriately, to
apply. Such is not the case with an area, such as the Bay Area, which
is redesignated to attainment and thereby becomes a maintenance area.
In such areas the exemption, which applies to nonattainment areas, by
its terms no longer applies.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Sections I.C. and II.A. of a later guidance document
entitled ``Conformity: General Preamble for Exemption from Nitrogen
Oxides Provisions expands on this point.'' See 59 FR at 31239-40,
including note 1 (June 17, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters argue that EPA should not take any action to revoke
the NOX exemption because it remains appropriate due to the
commenters'
[[Page 37273]]
position that the Bay Area is ``hydrocarbon limited, and * * *
NOX reduction measures may elevate ozone concentrations * *
*.'' Even assuming that this is true, there is no legal basis for
retaining the NOX exemption. The Bay Area's exemption was
granted based on three years of clean air quality data. After 43
exceedances and 17 violations of the ozone NAAQS in two years, the
basis for the exemption no longer exists.
The commenters' concerns regarding the relationship between
NOX emissions and ozone formation in the Bay Area are
appropriately addressed through the District's SIP revision process.
Because the Bay Area is being redesignated under subpart 1 of the Act,
there are no mandatory NOX measures which must be adopted.
On the other hand, the Bay Area may not eliminate from the SIP any
existing NOX controls without a demonstration that such
revision would not interfere with progress, attainment, or other
applicable requirements of the Act (CAA section 110(l)). In response to
the redesignation, EPA expects CARB and BAAQMD to pursue whatever
combination of VOC and NOX reductions is most consistent
both with expeditious attainment in the Bay Area and with the State's
determination of appropriate and necessary emissions levels in the Bay
Area consistent with the attainment and maintenance requirements of
downwind areas. In view of the fact that nitrates appear to constitute
more than one third of the Bay Area's fine particulate matter, EPA also
recommends that the Bay Area take into account the role of
NOX emissions reductions in the control of fine
particulates.
d. Attainment Deadline
Comment: The 1999 attainment deadline (assuming that attainment is
to be based on 1997-99 air quality) is unrealistic, since most of the
1998 season will have passed before the control measure SIP submittal
to EPA; consequently the plan will affect emissions only for 1999.
Response: The commenters appear to have misunderstood EPA's
proposal. In accordance with the Agency's interpretation of the CAA
requirement that plans ``provide for attainment,'' under a 1999
attainment deadline, the State would need only show that its SIP
includes sufficient emission reductions in effect by the start of the
1999 smog season to ensure that no more than one exceedance at any
monitor will occur in 1999. Moreover, EPA's proposal noted that, under
the terms of CAA section 172(a)(2)(C), the area may be eligible for up
to 2 1-year extensions of the attainment deadline if no more than 1
exceedance occurred in the year preceding the extension and the SIP is
fully implemented. Finally, EPA notes that the same commenters arguing
against a 1999 attainment deadline also claim that there is already
strong evidence that the Bay Area will not experience future
violations, since no exceedances were recorded in 1997 and both CARB
and BAAQMD project that the emissions inventory will continue to
decline. EPA recognizes that the proposed 1999 deadline may be
difficult to meet if the attainment assessment demonstrates that
substantial additional control measures are needed. In an effort to
balance the time constraints associated with SIP adoption and submittal
with the goal of protecting public health as quickly as possible, EPA
has decided to extend the attainment deadline by one year to November
15, 2000.
Comment: Redesignation of the Bay Area will have no effect on air
quality within the time frame proposed by EPA. The time from the start
of rule development to achievement of the reductions is generally well
over 18 months. Consequently, implementation of control measures would
not occur until after the end of the 1999 ozone season. If EPA is
seeking only to add federal enforceability to existing state air
quality control requirements, then redesignation is clearly nothing
more than a paperwork exercise since those control requirements are
already in place.
Response: As discussed earlier, EPA wants the District to focus on
near-term emission reductions, not paperwork. Because the District has
already identified additional control measures in its 1997 California
Clean Air Act plan, these measures could be used for a new federal plan
and implemented sooner than initially planned to achieve near term
emission reductions. Otherwise, under the California Clean Air Act
plan, the Bay Area would not implement these measures until 2000 or
later. EPA also believes that it is important to make federally
enforceable all of the control measures needed to bring the Bay Area
into attainment. This provides further assurance to the public that the
control measures will be implemented and the emission reductions needed
to protect public health achieved.
e. Planning Schedule
Comment: EPA's SIP schedule provides insufficient time to complete
planning processes, public involvement, and adoption, since the co-lead
agency planning process normally requires 15 months, California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for public review must be
satisfied under State law, at least 2 months are required for CARB
review prior to submittal, and the regulated community needs adequate
lead time to change or install new controls. The BAAQMD also concluded
that more time to prepare a plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would not
result in a better plan, better air quality, or better health. The
prudent course, according to the BAAQMD, is to focus on the new 8-hour
NAAQS.
Response: EPA acknowledges the time constraints associated with SIP
development, adoption, and submittal. On the other hand, EPA does not
expect that the agencies will launch a wholly new planning exercise but
rather that they will continue the 1997 Clean Air Plan planning effort,
adding only an attainment assessment using available data and technical
analyses and adjustments to the control measures that may be necessary
to ensure expeditious attainment. In an effort to be responsive to the
District's scheduling concerns without sacrificing near term public
health protections, EPA has agreed to allow the State to submit only
one official SIP revision on June 15, 1999 based on the District's
commitment to submit a draft of the emissions inventory and attainment
assessment to EPA by November 25, 1998. In committing to submit a draft
inventory and assessment within 5 months after signature of the final
redesignation by the Regional Administrator, the District also agreed
to hold an early public workshop on the inventory and assessment.
(Letter from Ellen Garvey, BAAQMD; Eugene Leong, ABAG; and Lawrence
Dahms, MTC to Felicia Marcus dated June 23, 1998.) These changes not
only extend the time frames contained in the proposal but also enable
the District to hold one public hearing for all three elements of the
SIP revision.
3. Comments on Miscellaneous Issues
a. Conformity
Comment: Several commenters questioned the effect of Bay Area
redesignation on transportation conformity. One commenter argued that
it would be inconsistent with CAA section 176(c) if EPA were to
determine that the emissions budget from a new Bay Area SIP submittal
applied simultaneously with the emissions budget in the currently-
approved Bay Area maintenance plan.
Response: Today's action does not have an immediate effect on
transportation conformity in the Bay
[[Page 37274]]
Area. The Bay Area currently has an approved ozone maintenance plan and
the budgets in this plan continue to apply. Any EPA action with
potential effects on transportation conformity will take place in the
context of EPA's review of the Bay Area's June 15, 1999 SIP submittal.
The transportation conformity rule does not directly address a
situation, like that in the Bay Area, where an approved maintenance
plan proves to be inadequate and the area is redesignated and required
to submit a new plan. However, EPA believes the correct interpretation
of the conformity rule would require any new budgets contained in the
June 15, 1999 submittal to become effective after a 45-day review
period unless EPA finds them inadequate. EPA will continue to work with
the US Department of Transportation (DOT) to resolve DOT's concerns
regarding the interpretation of the rule and simultaneous applicability
of budgets and will make a final policy decision in the future.
b. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funding
Comment: Redesignation of the Bay Area to nonattainment without a
classification could jeopardize the Bay Area's continued eligibility
for CMAQ funding pursuant to either current law or the pending bills
for reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA).
Response: Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21), the new transportation funding legislation, signed recently
by the President, redesignation of the Bay Area to nonattainment for
ozone will not affect CMAQ eligibility. In fact, the Bay Area will be
eligible for more CMAQ funding than they were allocated under ISTEA,
the previous transportation funding legislation.
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Comment: Some commenters asserted that EPA failed to comply with
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), and should have prepared a
statement in accordance with section 202 of UMRA. In the proposal, EPA
stated that the redesignation did not trigger section 202, as it did
not contain any federal mandate because it did not impose any
enforceable duties, and that even if it did contain a federal mandate,
the resulting expenditures would not exceed $100 million in any one
year. Commenters argued that the redesignation does impose an
enforceable duty upon California and the BAAQMD, because failure to
adopt a SIP would result in loss of highway funds and, in addition,
result in more stringent emissions offset requirements for new and
modified stationary sources, result in loss of grants, and trigger a
duty for EPA to issue a federal implementation plan (FIP).
One commenter also argued that the redesignation constitutes a
private sector mandate under UMRA, because it requires the District to
submit regulations or enforceable commitments to adopt regulations
imposing duties on emissions sources. However, the test for a private
sector mandate under UMRA is whether it ``would impose an enforceable
duty upon the private sector.'' Clearly the redesignation has created
no duty enforceable against any private party. The commenter also
states that EPA is requiring that new source review permitting
requirements, applicability thresholds and offset ratios be set ``by
analogy'' at the levels otherwise applicable to moderate nonattainment
areas. These are the levels currently in effect in the Bay Area as a
result of the area's previous status as a moderate nonattainment area
and therefore present no new burdens on private parties in any event.
Some commenters also asserted that the redesignation will impose
costs in excess of $100 million. This estimate was based on projected
costs of complying with the types of requirements the commenter
believes would be imposed if the state were to adopt a SIP.
Response: EPA does not believe that it is necessary to resolve the
issues of whether the redesignation constitutes a ``federal mandate''
or requires consideration of costs to private parties, as well as costs
to the state, under UMRA.
EPA believes that even if it were construed as a federal mandate,
with costs to private parties to be considered as well as costs to the
state, those costs could not reasonably be expected to exceed $100
million in any one year. EPA has conducted an analysis of potential
costs to private parties. In terms of the impact on the private sector,
the BAAQMD has yet to determine the amount of needed reductions and the
mix of VOC and NOX measures to achieve the needed
reductions. EPA used cost data developed for the July 1997 ``Regulatory
Impact Analyses for the Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards and Proposed Regional Haze Rule,'' as the basis
of its analysis. This data shows that the national average cost for
reasonably available VOC control measures is higher than the national
average cost for reasonably available NOX control measures
($2,652 per ton per year for VOC; $1,937 per ton per year for
NOX, expressed in 1990 dollars). EPA assumes that reductions
of both VOC and NOX will be necessary to bring the Bay Area
back into attainment. However, for the purpose of this analysis EPA
assumed that all the needed reductions would come from VOC measures
because this approach would over-estimate the actual costs. In
addition, EPA assumed that VOC emissions may need to be reduced by as
much as 80 tons per day (approximately 28,800 tons per year) above and
beyond measures currently underway at the State and local levels. This
amount of reductions is significantly greater than that assumed to be
needed by the various interested parties. During the extensive
stakeholder process EPA has heard that anywhere from 0 to 50 tons per
day in additional reductions will be necessary. Thus, by assuming 80
tons per day for the purposes of this analysis, EPA believes that it is
significantly overestimating the costs. Even by employing cost numbers
and tons to be reduced that are significantly higher than what EPA
believes the actual results will be, the impacts would still be less
than $100 million (i.e., $76,377,600).
As previously discussed in Section III.D.3.b. of this notice, one
commenter indicated that the redesignation without classification under
the Clean Air Act would result in loss of highway funds in excess of
$100 million under ISTEA and that this should be viewed as the cost of
the ``mandate''. The interplay of these two distinct statutes, were it
to result in a significant decrease in highway funding to the Bay Area,
would not be a mandate as it is defined in UMRA, as it would impose no
enforceable duty on State, local or tribal governments. Moreover, as
discussed above in section III.D.3.b., EPA, in consultation with the
Department of Transportation, has determined that the redesignation
will not result in any significant loss of highway funding to the Bay
Area under the recently passed reauthorization of ISTEA.
d. Procedural Obligations Under CAA Section 107 and the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA)
Comment: EPA has failed to follow the procedure set forth in
section 107(d)(3) of the Act for redesignating areas, and consequently
has failed to follow procedural requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
Response: The commenters misinterpret both the plain language of
sections 107(d)(3) (A), (B) and (C), and
[[Page 37275]]
the intent of these sections. As described more fully below, the
exchange of correspondence between EPA and a State provided for by
section 107(d)(3) is intended to address situations where there is
agreement that a redesignation is necessary, but differing opinions
concerning the boundaries of the area, or portion thereof, to be
redesignated.
Section 107(d)(3) of the Act sets forth the procedure for
redesignation of areas and provides that the Administrator may at any
time notify the Governor of any state that available information
indicates that the designation of any area should be revised. Section
107(d)(3)(B) provides that the Governor has 120 days from receipt of
this letter to submit to the Administrator such redesignation, if any,
of the appropriate area (or areas) or portion thereof as the Governor
considers appropriate.
Section 107(d)(3)(C) contemplates four potential outcomes which
flow from a Governor's response to notification from EPA that an area
should be redesignated:
(1) The Governor concurs with EPA's notification and submits a
redesignation of the same area, or portion thereof, that was proposed
by EPA. In this event, section 107(d)(3)(C) provides that EPA must
promulgate the redesignation no later than 120 days after receipt of
the Governor's redesignation submittal. No further correspondence with
the Governor is required.
(2) The Governor concurs with EPA's notification that a
redesignation is necessary, but submits a redesignation of the area
with different boundaries, or submits a redesignation of only a portion
of the area that was proposed by EPA. If EPA agrees with the Governor's
redesignation submittal, section 107(d)(3)(C) provides that EPA must
promulgate the redesignation no later than 120 days after receipt of
the Governor's redesignation submittal. No further correspondence with
the Governor is required.
(3) The Governor concurs with EPA's notification that a
redesignation is necessary, but submits a redesignation of the area
with different boundaries, or submits a redesignation of only a portion
of the area that was proposed by EPA. If EPA disagrees with the
Governor's submittal, section 107(d)(3)(C) provides that EPA may make
such modifications as it deems necessary, but must notify the State 60
days before promulgation of the redesignation in order to provide the
State with an opportunity to demonstrate why any proposed modification
is inappropriate.
(4) The Governor does not submit a redesignation for an area, or
portion thereof. Section 107(d)(3)(C) provides that EPA ``shall
promulgate such redesignation, if any, that the Administrator deems
appropriate.'' No further correspondence with the Governor is required.
In the instance at hand, EPA notified the Governor of California by
letter dated August 21, 1997, that the Bay Area should be redesignated
to nonattainment for ozone, based on available air quality data
demonstrating 43 exceedances and 17 violations of the standard in the
two-year period from 1995 through 1996. The Governor of California did
not submit a redesignation of the Bay Area. Rather, the Governor
responded, by letter dated December 10, 1997, that he does not believe
any redesignation is appropriate. Thus, EPA's action is governed by the
last sentence of section 107(d)(3)(C), which provides that EPA ``shall
promulgate such redesignation, if any, that the Administrator deems
appropriate.''
EPA has complied with the requirements of both the Clean Air Act
and the Administrative Procedure Act in its action to redesignate the
Bay Area. EPA has conducted notice and comment rulemaking, fully
considering all comments received, including those provided by the
Governor. Contrary to the assertions of the commenter, there is nothing
in either statute which precludes EPA from proposing a redesignation at
any time following notification of the Governor. EPA is free to solicit
comment from the general public simultaneously with the Governor's
notification, at any time during the 120 day period for the Governor's
response, or at any time following the Governor's response, so long as
EPA complies with the time periods set forth in section 107(d)(3), and
its general duty to consider and respond to all comments.
While it is true that EPA made minor changes to the redesignation
requirements set out in the Governor's notification when the Agency
published its proposal, the State was in no way prejudiced by this
fact. The changes did not relate to area boundaries, or portions
thereof, and therefore did not invoke the notification procedures.
EPA's proposed rulemaking provided a 60 day public comment period and
the State was provided with a copy of the proposal on December 11,
1997, 8 days before it was published in the Federal Register. The State
provided EPA with comments on its proposal on February 17, 1998. These
comments, as well as the Governor's response letter, have been fully
considered in EPA's decision to redesignate the Bay Area.
IV. Final Action
A. Overview
As discussed in the response to comments, EPA remains convinced
that the Agency's appropriate action, in the face of numerous and
widespread violations of the 1-hour ozone standard in the Bay Area, is
to finalize the redesignation of the San Francisco Bay Area to
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA takes this action under
CAA section 107(d), based specifically on the Bay Area's 17 violations
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS over the 3-year period, 1994-1996.
EPA also finalizes the Agency's determination that the Bay Area
should not be classified under subpart 2 of the CAA, but rather should
be required to meet applicable requirements of CAA subpart 1.
B. SIP Requirements and Deadlines
In accordance with CAA sections 110 and 172, the State must submit
by June 15, 1999 a SIP revision containing: (1) The existing 1995
emissions inventory for NOX and VOC in the Bay Area; (2) an
assessment, using available data and technical analyses, of the
emission reductions needed to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standard;
and (3) adopted regulations and/or control measures with enforceable
commitments to adopt and implement the control measures in regulatory
form by specified dates. The extension for the emissions inventory and
attainment assessment submittal is being granted in response to a
commitment made by the Air District (Letter from Ellen Garvey, BAAQMD
et al. to Felicia Marcus, EPA Region IX, dated June 23, 1998) to
provide the inventory and assessment to EPA in draft within 5 months of
the final redesignation. This early, informal submittal will allow EPA
to review the draft inventory and assessment and work with the District
to address any deficiencies. The District also agreed to hold an early
public workshop on the draft inventory and assessment. The adopted
regulations and control measures, and the schedule for adoption and
implementation of such measures, must be sufficient to meet reasonable
further progress and attain the 1-hour NAAQS expeditiously but no later
than November 15, 2000. EPA emphasizes that the submittal due on June
15, 1999 must include contingency measures that go into effect if the
Bay Area does not attain the NAAQS by the prescribed deadline in order
to address the specific requirement of CAA section 172(c)(9).
[[Page 37276]]
For a more complete discussion of subpart 1 elements applicable to
these SIP submittals, the reader is referred to the proposal (62 FR
66580-66581).
Schedule of Submittals State Implementation Plan for Ozone for the San
Francisco Bay Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action/SIP submittal Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 emissions inventory for VOC and NOX.... Draft--11/25/98 Final--6/
15/99
Assessment, employing available data and Draft--11/25/98 Final--6/
technical analyses, of the level of 15/99
emission reductions needed to attain the
current 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). This assessment
should take into account the meteorological
conditions and ambient concentrations
associated with the violations of the ozone
NAAQS in the period 1995-6, and should be
based on likely control measures for
reducing VOC and NOX emissions.
Adopted regulations and/or control measures, 6/15/99
with enforceable commitments to adopt and
implement the control measures in
regulatory form by specified dates,
sufficient to meet reasonable further
progress and attain the 1-hour NAAQS
expeditiously but no later than November
15, 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Changes from Proposal
In this final action, EPA has amended both the schedule and content
of the proposed SIP requirements in response to public comments, as
discussed above in section III.D.2. The changes are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final--weekend emissions
Proposal--weekend emissions inventory inventory and CO inventory not
and CO inventory required required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions inventory and attainment Emissions inventory and
assessment due to EPA 5/1/98. attainment assessment due to
EPA 6/15/99. (Commitment to
submit draft by 11/25/98.)
Adopted regulations and/or control Adopted regulations and/or
measures with enforceable commitments control measures with
due 9/1/98. enforceable commitments, and
final emissions inventory and
attainment assessment due 6/15/
99.
Attainment date of 11/15/99............ Attainment date of 11/15/2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Emission Reduction Opportunities
Under EPA's final redesignation, the Air District and its co-lead
agencies are responsible for determining the appropriate mix of control
measures that will most effectively bring the Bay Area into attainment
with the 1-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area, like other major
metropolitan areas, is experiencing rapid economic growth and an
increasing population that may lead to emission increases from both the
stationary and mobile source sectors. Given these circumstances, the
Air District may wish to explore new and innovative approaches for
achieving reductions from both source sectors. EPA believes that
traditional control strategies aimed at reducing emissions from
stationary sources are essential to any air pollution control program.
At the same time, EPA supports efforts to develop alternative emission
reduction methods. Mobile source emissions, for example, make up the
majority of the ozone precursor inventory in many urban areas,
including the Bay Area, but air pollution control agencies often have
difficulty regulating these emissions. Mobile sources are therefore
good candidates for non-traditional approaches. EPA encourages the
BAAQMD and its co-lead agencies to identify opportunities for
innovation, in addition to traditional control strategies, as they
develop measures to bring the Bay Area into attainment of the ozone
standard.
A. Stationary Sources
Stationary sources in the Bay Area emit approximately 152 tons of
VOC and 157 tons of NOX per day (Bay Area Clean Air Plan,
Volume 1, p.21). This current level of emissions reflects tremendous
progress in stationary source reductions over the past 20 years.
Nonetheless, BAAQMD will need to assess whether additional stationary
source measures are needed to help the Bay Area attain the federal 1-
hour ozone standard. Recently, BAAQMD proposed in its 1997 Clean Air
Plan several stationary source measures believed to be both feasible to
implement and effective at reducing emissions. EPA expects that the
District will analyze which control measures from this plan are needed
to attain the standard and assess whether any measures beyond those
contained in the plan are also needed. If additional measures are
needed, the District may want to consider stationary source measures
suggested by public commenters on the redesignation proposal such as
improving tank and flare design, eliminating exemptions from certain
District rules, and improving controls on energy sources (e.g., natural
gas fired boilers and privately owned and operated power plants).
However, EPA is not requiring adoption of these or any other specific
controls; it is the BAAQMD's authority and responsibility to determine
the appropriate mix of Bay Area measures.
B. Transportation Control Measures
Given that on-road motor vehicles emit 43% of the total VOC and 47%
of the total NOX emissions in the Bay Area (Bay Area 1997
Clean Air Plan, Volume 1, p.7), that vehicle travel has been steadily
increasing, and that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
directs the allocation of billions of dollars of transit funds, MTC
plays an important role in the Bay Area's overall strategy to attain
the 1-hour ozone standard. MTC is currently updating its 20-year plan
and will continue to revise this plan every two years. MTC's planning
process offers a good opportunity to incorporate air quality goals into
both long term planning and short term projects. In addition, MTC is
required to identify possible transportation control measures (TCMs) as
part of the California Clean Air Plan (CAP). The Bay Area's 1997 CAP
contained an estimated 7 tons per day (3 tpd VOC, 4 tpd NOX)
worth of potential reductions from TCMs for the year 2000 and even more
for later years (Bay Area 1997 Clean Air Plan, Volume 1, p.49). If
these measures were adopted and submitted for SIP approval, they could
make a measurable contribution toward attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard. Finally, MTC may be able to help reduce emissions by
reevaluating
[[Page 37277]]
the way it distributes transportation funds, the way it finances
transportation projects, its policies with respect to land use and
transportation and giving priority to the most cost-effective (i.e.,
tons of emission reduction per dollar spent) investments.
C. Voluntary Measures
EPA encourages the State, District and co-lead agencies to explore
innovative approaches to achieving their air quality goals. One
possible area for innovation is the mobile source arena. Mobile sources
emit 75% of the total NOX emissions and 58% of the total VOC
emissions in the Bay Area (Bay Area 1997 Clean Air Plan, Volume 1, p.
7). Though there have been great strides in reducing vehicle emission
rates, transportation emissions continue to be a problem due to large
increases in vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Regulatory agencies and
others are therefore developing voluntary mobile source strategies that
promote changes in local transportation sector activity levels and
changes in in-use vehicle and engine fleet composition to complement
regulatory programs.
Voluntary mobile source control measures have the potential to
contribute to, in a cost-effective manner, emission reductions needed
for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA believes, therefore, that SIP credit
is appropriate for voluntary mobile source emission reduction programs
(VMEPs) where we have confidence that the measures can achieve emission
reductions. Consistent with that belief, EPA issued its October 23,
1997 ``Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Programs in State Implementation Programs'' (signed by
Richard Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation).
The guidance lays out the terms and conditions for establishing and
implementing VMEPs and the guidelines for SIP approval. In light of the
innovative nature of voluntary measures and EPA's inexperience with
quantifying their emission reductions, EPA's guidance limits the amount
of emission reductions allowed for VMEPs in a SIP to 3% of the total
projected future year emission reductions required to attain the
appropriate NAAQS. In addition, the guidance requires that a state or
local agency track on an annual basis the resulting emissions effect of
the voluntary measure and also commit to remedy any shortfall if the
VMEP does not achieve projected emission reductions.
The BAAQMD and co-lead agencies may wish to take advantage of the
flexibility provided by EPA's voluntary mobile source measures policy
as they develop their SIP control strategies in response to the
redesignation. EPA encourages the three co-lead agencies to work with
the business and environmental communities that may have an interest in
developing or participating in such innovative strategies, as
stakeholder involvement is a critical factor in building community
acceptance and ultimate success. For example, the Silicon Valley
Manufacturing Group has worked with businesses to develop the ECOPASS
program; this is an employer-sponsored alternative commute program that
is designed to get employees out of their cars and onto public transit.
Another example is the BAAQMD's ``Spare-the-Air'' Program, a public
education campaign that encourages citizens to refrain from or reduce
activities that produce emissions of ozone precursors. The program
currently enjoys the participation of 475 businesses and is continuing
to grow with the help of the Bay Area business community. EPA applauds
BAAQMD and the business community for successfully implementing these
innovative and important programs. The BAAQMD has not yet submitted to
EPA its plan for quantifying and tracking the impacts of these programs
on an on-going basis, and therefore EPA has not yet evaluated how the
District will ensure that the criteria presented in the VMEP guidance
will be met. However, EPA is currently consulting with the BAAQMD
regarding quantification and tracking of emissions associated with
these programs and will continue to work with the District to clarify
the VMEP policy. We encourage the District and its co-lead agencies to
consider and pursue other innovative approaches as they evaluate
measures needed to attain the ozone standard.
D. Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance
While the Bay Area has both the flexibility and the responsibility
to determine the appropriate mix of control measures that are needed to
attain the federal 1-hour ozone standard, EPA believes that emission
reductions from implementation of an enhanced inspection and
maintenance program would make a substantial contribution to attainment
in the Bay Area. The California Bureau of Automotive Repair has
indicated that implementation of the California Smog Check 2 program
(California's enhanced I/M program) would result in an incremental
benefit of 12 tons per day VOC and 14 tons per day NOX. EPA
is hopeful that Bay Area leaders will work together to pursue
authorization and expeditious implementation of an enhanced I/M
program. Furthermore, implementation of an enhanced I/M program in the
Bay Area would address some of the equity concerns raised by Bay Area's
downwind neighbors who are impacted by pollution from the Bay Area and
are required under federal and State law to implement an enhanced I/M
program. EPA does not believe, however, that enhanced I/M is the
complete answer to Bay Area's ozone nonattainment problem. EPA believes
that the BAAQMD should evaluate measures aimed at both the stationary
and mobile source sectors that will work together to achieve healthy
air in the Bay Area.
E. Mitigating Emissions Increases From Oakland Seaport and Airport
Expansion Projects
The Port of Oakland is planning to expand its operations over the
next several years. Dredging operations, which will provide larger
vessels with access to the Port, will begin in February 2000. Emissions
of CO and VOCs from dredging and related construction activities are
not expected to be significant. Gas or diesel powered dredging
equipment, however, emits significant quantities of NOX; the
draft EIS/EIR prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for
the port expansion estimates that total construction-related
NOX emissions, gas or diesel powered dredging equipment,
would be in the range of 1500 to 1700 tons over the four-year period
(2000-2004) during which dredging will occur. The COE, however, has
subsequently indicated that it plans to use electric dredging equipment
which would reduce the potential construction-related NOX
emissions to 330 tons over four years, or an average of 83.5 tons per
year. The dredging and related construction activities performed by the
COE are subject to the General Conformity regulations (40 CFR 93.150),
which require federal agencies to demonstrate that emissions from
federal projects conform to the approved State Implementation Plan if
the emissions are above ``de minimis'' levels defined in 40 CFR 93.153.
Because the Corps of Engineers will be employing electric dredging
equipment in its construction activities, and limiting the number of
disposal trips per year, the emissions will be below the 100 ton per
year NOX de minimis level established in the conformity
regulations and a conformity determination is therefore not required.
The Corps' plan to use electric dredging equipment will help to ensure
cleaner air for the surrounding community and the Bay Area as a whole
and contribute
[[Page 37278]]
to efforts to achieve attainment with the ozone standard.
Once construction of the Port expansion project is complete,
operational emissions increases are projected to be significant.
Because the long-term emissions from new vessels, trucks, trains,
terminal operations, and employee vehicles are considered to be
indirect emissions that cannot be practicably controlled by and are not
under a continuing program responsibility of the COE, these activities
are exempt from the conformity requirements. EPA believes however, that
mitigation of these long-term emissions may be an important part of the
Bay Area's strategy for attaining and maintaining not only the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, but the revised 8-hour and PM2.5 NAAQS as well. For this
reason, EPA encourages the Port to work with BAAQMD and MTC to identify
opportunities to mitigate long-term emission increases from the
project. EPA also welcomes opportunities to share information regarding
mitigation techniques that have been identified during discussions with
the South Coast AQMD on ports and airports.
Plans to expand the Oakland Airport are also underway and EPA
believes that the project will be subject to the General Conformity
requirements. EPA believes that there are opportunities to mitigate
emissions increases associated with the expansion and again welcomes
the opportunity to share information resulting from discussions with
the South Coast regarding reducing airport emissions.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
Under E.O. 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA is required
to determine whether today's action is a ``significant regulatory
action'' within the meaning of the E.O., and therefore should be
subject to OMB review, economic analysis, and the requirements of the
E.O. See E.O. 12866, sec. 6(a)(3). The E.O. defines, in sec. 3(f), a
``significant regulatory action'' as a regulatory action that is likely
to result in a rule that may meet at least one of four criteria
identified in section 3(f), including,
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
EPA has determined that the redesignation to nonattainment
finalized today, as well as the establishment of SIP submittal
schedules, would result in none of the effects identified in E.O. 12866
sec. 3(f). Under section 107(d)(3) of the Act, redesignations to
nonattainment are based upon air quality considerations. The finding,
based on air quality data, that the Bay Area is not attaining the ozone
NAAQS and should be redesignated to nonattainment does not, in and of
itself, impose any new requirements on any sectors of the economy.
Similarly, the establishment of new SIP submittal schedules merely
establishes the dates by which SIPs must be submitted, and does not
adversely affect entities.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 601 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.
sections 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will
not have a significant economic 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.
A redesignation to nonattainment under section 107(d)(3), and the
establishment of a SIP submittal schedule for a reclassified area, do
not, in and of themselves, directly impose any new requirements on
small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773
F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider
the rule's impact on entities subject to the requirements of the rule).
Instead, this rulemaking simply makes a factual determination and to
establish a schedule to require the State to submit SIP revisions, and
does not directly regulate any entities. Because EPA is applying the
same permitting applicability thresholds and offset ratios applicable
to moderate areas, no additional sources will be subject to these
requirements as a result of EPA's action. Therefore, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), EPA certifies that today's action does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities within the
meaning of those terms for RFA purposes.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, when EPA promulgates ``any general notice of proposed
rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditures by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more'' in any one year. A ``Federal
mandate'' is defined, under section 101 of UMRA, as a provision that
``would impose an enforceable duty'' upon the private sector or State,
local, or tribal governments,'' with certain exceptions not here
relevant. Under section 203 of UMRA, EPA must develop a small
government agency plan before EPA ``establish[es] any regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.'' Under section 204 of UMRA, EPA is required to develop a
process to facilitate input by elected officers of State, local, and
tribal governments for EPA's ``regulatory proposals'' that contain
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates. Under section 205 of
UMRA, before EPA promulgates ``any rule for which a written statement
is required under [UMRA sec.] 202,'' EPA must identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and either adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, or explain why a different
alternative was selected.
EPA has concluded that this rule is not likely to result in the
promulgation of any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for State, local or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or for the private sector, in any one year. It is not
necessary to resolve here whether a redesignation would constitute a
federal mandate.
Even assuming that a redesignation were considered a Federal
mandate, and it were appropriate to consider both private and public
sector costs, the anticipated annual costs resulting from the mandate
would not exceed $100 million to the private sector, State, local
[[Page 37279]]
and tribal governments. In terms of the impact on the private sector,
the BAAQMD has yet to determine the amount of needed reductions and the
mix of VOC and NOX measures to achieve the needed
reductions. EPA used cost data developed for the July 1997 ``Regulatory
Impact Analyses for the Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards and Proposed Regional Haze Rule,'' as the basis
of its analysis. This data shows that the national average cost for
reasonably available VOC control measures is higher than the national
average cost for reasonably available NOX control measures
($2,652 per ton per year for VOC; $1,937 per ton per year for
NOX, expressed in 1990 dollars). EPA assumes that reductions
of both VOC and NOX will be necessary to bring the Bay Area
back into attainment. However, for the purpose of this analysis EPA
assumed that all the needed reductions would come from VOC measures
because this approach would over-estimate the actual costs. In
addition, EPA assumed that VOC emissions may need to be reduced by as
much as 80 tons per day (approximately 28,800 tons per year) above and
beyond measures currently underway at the State and local levels. This
amount of reductions is significantly greater than that assumed to be
needed by the various interested parties. During the extensive
stakeholder process EPA has heard that anywhere from 0 to 50 tons per
day in additional reductions will be necessary. Thus, by assuming 80
tons per day for the purposes of this analysis, EPA believes that it is
significantly overestimating the costs. Even by employing cost numbers
and tons to be reduced that are significantly higher than what EPA
believes the actual results will be, the impacts would still be less
than $100 million (i.e., $76,377,600).
The cost to the State of California is the cost of developing,
adopting and submitting any necessary SIP revision. Because that cost,
taken in combination with private sector costs, will not exceed $100
million, this action (even assuming it is a federal mandate) is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA (2 U.S.C.
1532 and 1535). EPA has also determined that this action would not
result in regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because only the State would take any action
as result of today's rule, and thus the requirements of section 203 (2
U.S.C. 1533) do not apply.
D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because this is not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866, and because it does not
involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks that
may disproportionately affect children.
E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks.
Dated: June 25, 1998.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 81--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In Sec. 81.305, the table for California--Ozone, is amended by
revising the entry for the San Francisco Bay Area to read as follows:
Sec. 81.305 California.
* * * * *
California-Ozone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated Area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date\1\ Type Date \1\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco--Bay Area:
Alameda County................. August 10, 1998................. Nonattainment...................
Contra Costa County............ ......do ......do
Marin County................... ......do ......do
Napa County.................... ......do ......do
San Francisco County........... ......do ......do
Santa Clara County............. ......do ......do
San Mateo County............... ......do ......do
Solano County (part)........... ......do ......do
Sonoma County (part)........... ......do
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
[[Page 37280]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-18272 Filed 7-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P