Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans and Redesignation of California's Ten Federal Carbon Monoxide Planning Areas to Attainment

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CA 041-0067b; FRL-5983-9]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans and

Redesignation of California's Ten Federal Carbon Monoxide Planning

Areas to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on maintenance plans and

redesignation requests submitted by the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) to redesignate ten of California's federal carbon monoxide

planning areas from nonattainment to attainment for the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO). They

are: Bakersfield Metropolitan Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake Tahoe

South Shore Area, Sacramento Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area,

Chico Urbanized Area, Lake Tahoe North Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized

Area, San Diego Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area. Under the Clean Air

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA), designations can be revised if sufficient

data is available to warrant such revisions. In this action, EPA is

approving California's maintenance plans and redesignation requests

because they meet the requirements set forth in the CAA. In addition,

EPA is approving a related State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission

by CARB, an Air Quality Attainment Plan for CO for Fresno.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should

relevant adverse comments be filed.

DATES: This rule is effective June 1, 1998 without further notice

unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by April 30, 1998.

If the effective date is delayed timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: As indicated in the parallel proposed rule, comments should

be addressed to the EPA contact below. The rulemaking docket for this

notice, Docket No. 98-XX, may be inspected and copied at the following

location during normal business hours. A reasonable fee may be charged

for copying parts of the docket.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning

Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street

SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at

the addresses listed below:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 92123-

1095.

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, 1999 Tuolumne St., Suite 200, Fresno,

CA 93721.

Placer County, DeWitt Center, 11464 B Avenue, Auburn, CA 95603.

Sacramento Metropolitan APCD, 8411 Jackson Road, Sacramento, CA 95826.

Bay Area Air, Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San

Francisco, CA 94109.

Butte County, 2525 Dominic Drive, Suite J, Chico, CA 95928-7184.

El Dorado County, 2850 Fairlane Ct., Bldg. C, Placerville, CA 95667-

4100.

Yolo-Solano County, 1947 Galileo Ct., Suite 103, Davis, CA 95616-4882.

San Diego County, Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake

Drive, San Diego, CA 92123-1095.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry A. Biland, Air Planning Office

(AIR-2), Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA, 94105-3901. Telephone: (415) 744-1227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Areas Requesting Redesignation

The ten areas requesting redesignation were determined to be

nonattainment for CO in the November 6, 1991, Federal Register (Vol.

56, No. 215, pp. 56723-56725). CARB's emission control programs,

including strict motor vehicle emission standards and the clean fuels

program, have reduced CO emissions. The decrease in emissions has

improved CO air quality so that they now attain the National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and are therefore eligible for

redesignation to attainment for the national CO standard. The ten areas

are:

Bakersfield Metropolitan Area

Chico Urbanized Area

Fresno Urbanized Area

Lake Tahoe No. Shore Area 1

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

\1\ Placer County part of Lake Tahoe Air Basin.

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

Lake Tahoe So. Shore Area 2

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

\2\ El Dorado County part of Lake Tahoe Air Basin.

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

Modesto Urbanized Area

Sacramento Area 3

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

\3\ Urbanized parts of Sacramento, Placer, and Yolo Counties.

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

San Diego Area 4

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

\4\ Western part of County only.

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

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area 5

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

\5\ Urbanized parts of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San

Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties.

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

Stockton Urbanized Area

Eight of the areas were classified as moderate nonattainment, while

two areas (Lake Tahoe No. Shore Area and Bakersfield Metropolitan Area)

were unclassified. Moderate areas are those with an eight-hour average

CO design

[[Page 15306]]

value between 9.1 and 16.4 parts per million (ppm) or less. (The design

value is the highest of the second high eight-hour concentrations

observed at any site in the area over eight consecutive quarters and is

the value on which the determination of attainment or nonattainment is

based.) An ``unclassified'' nonattainment area is one with data showing

no violations but, because it had been designated as nonattainment

prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments, was continued as nonattainment by

operation of law until redesignation requirements are completed.

II. Evaluation Criteria

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments provides

five specific requirements that an area must meet in order to be

redesignated from nonattainment to attainment.

1. The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS;

2. The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of

CAA;

3. The air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable;

4. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to

section 175A of the CAA;

5. The area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110

and Part D of the CAA.

III. Review of State Submittal

EPA attempts to make completeness determinations within 60 days of

receiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by

operation of law if a completeness determination is not made by EPA six

months after receipt of the submission. In this instance, a

completeness determination was made by operation of law. The

redesignation requests for Bakersfield Metropolitan Area, Fresno

Urbanized Area, Lake Tahoe South Shore Area, Sacramento Area, San

Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area, Chico Urbanized Area, Lake Tahoe North

Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized Area, San Diego Area, and Stockton

Urbanized Area meet the five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E),

noted above. The following is a brief description of how the State has

fulfilled each of these requirements.

1. Attainment of the CO NAAQS

The State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) form the

network of monitoring stations that provide the data used to

demonstrate attainment. This network is reviewed annually by the CARB

and the U.S. EPA as part of the development of the State and Local Air

Monitoring Network Plan, as required by Title 40, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), Part 58. All CO data reviewed to confirm attainment

were retrieved from the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)

maintained by U.S. EPA. These data were reviewed for completeness,

especially for the winter months of November, December, and January,

during which concentrations are highest. The data used to confirm

attainment are the CO eight-hour design values. The design value is the

highest of the second high eight-hour concentrations observed at any

site in the area over eight consecutive quarters. Table 1 lists the

design value for each nonattainment area. EPA has also reviewed the

most recent years' data in AIRS as a further check that the air quality

levels in these areas show no violations; these design values are

provided in the final column of Table 1.

Table 1.--Carbon Monoxide Design Values

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

1995--1996

Attainment Design Design

Nonattainment area period \6\ value value

(ppm) (ppm)

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

Bakersfield..................... \7\ 1992-1994 6.1 5.6

Chico........................... \8\ 1993-1995 5.4 5.3

Fresno.......................... \9\ 1993-1995 9.1 8.3

Lake Tahoe North Shore.......... 1993-1994 3.8 \10\ 3.2

Lake Tahoe South Shore.......... 1993-1994 7.4 5.3

Modesto......................... 1993-1994 6.6 5.6

Sacramento Area................. 1993-1995 9.1 7.1

San Diego....................... 1993-1994 7.0 6.0

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose.. 1993-1994 7.2 5.8

Stockton........................ 1993-1994 7.5 6.7

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

\6\ Except as otherwise noted, data are from calendar years 1993 and

1994.

\7\ Bakersfield: The sites used for the attainment demonstration were

closed during the third quarter of 1994. Therefore, the eight-hour

design value was based on CO data from November 1992 through February

1993 and November 1993 through February 1994.

\8\ Chico: The 1993-1994 period is missing two of the eight months that

have potential for high CO values; therefore, the eight-hour design

value was based on CO data from November 1993 through February 1994

and November 1994 through February 1995.

\9\ Fresno: The site triggering the nonattainment designation, Fresno-

Olive, was closed during 1990. Data supporting the attainment

demonstration are from Fresno-Fisher, a site determined to be

equivalent. CO data from the Fresno-Fisher site are for November 1993

through January of 1994 and December 1994 through February 1995.

\10\ 1994-1995 data.

Air quality data show that the ten areas no longer violate the national

eight-hour CO standard.

2. Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

As set forth in the CAA, the applicable requirements for

redesignation are found in sections 110, part D, and 211 (m)(1). The

required SIP elements were submitted by CARB and are being approved

below.

a. Attainment Demonstration for Fresno

The CAA requires an attainment demonstration for all CO

nonattainment areas that have a design value greater than 12.7 ppm. The

only nonattainment area of the ten included in this action that falls

under this condition is the Fresno-Clovis urbanized area which had a

design value of 13 ppm. The original CO attainment demonstration for

the

[[Page 15307]]

Fresno Urbanized nonattainment area was submitted by California to EPA

on December 28, 1992. Table 2 shows the Rollback Analysis for the

Fresno Nonattainment Area. The demonstration uses a direct proportional

rollback analysis which assumes a linear correlation between CO

emissions and ambient concentrations of CO. The design value was chosen

according to EPA's criteria which is the second highest recorded 8-hour

concentration of CO during 1988 and 1989. The analysis used a design

value of 13.0 ppm and a target of 9.0 ppm (the Federal standard). This

analysis was done for the years 1988 through 1995 to compare target

emissions levels and to allow for meteorological variations which may

have impacted CO levels. Table 2 also lists the wintertime emissions

estimates for 1988 through 1995 based on the 1987 base inventory. The

analysis used the wintertime on-road mobile source inventory since

there are no stationary CO sources near the monitoring sites. The

design monitoring site is located in the urban core of the city

(Shields and First) and there are no industrial CO sites that impact

this location. The vehicle emission estimates, which are based on

relatively new speed correction factors, assume the benefits of the

CARB regulations prescribing the oxygenate content of gasoline. The

estimates do not include the benefits of an Enhanced Inspection and

Maintenance program for on-road motor vehicles or District proposed

transportation control measures. Table 2 also includes the annual

second high ambient CO concentrations for each year used in the

rollback calculations and the resulting ``emission target''. The

emission target is an estimate of the maximum amount of emissions that

should provide for attainment.

Table 2.--Rollback Analysis

[(Data is from the 1992 SIP submittal) Fresno Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Area \10\]

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

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

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

On-road mobile emissions (t/d).. 402 398 371 356 308 294 280 266

Second highest recorded value

(ppm).......................... \11\13.0 \11\12.6 \12\8.8 \12\9.0 ........ ........ ........ ........

Emission Target (t/d){C=(A x 9

ppm)B}................. 278 284 379 356 ........ ........ ........ ........

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

\10\ Carbon monoxide wintertime emission estimates for motor vehicle emissions are calculated using factors

(EMFAC7EPSCFCO) and the benefits of CARB's oxygenated fuel regulation.

\11\ Monitoring site located at Olive Street.

\12\ Monitoring site located at First Street.

The rollback analysis for Fresno projected that attainment would be

achieved by 1995, based on a linear projection of reductions required

to achieve attainment. The actual 1993-1995 design value for the entire

nonattainment area was 9.1 ppm. EPA's review of the 1995-1996 air

quality data entered into the AIRS data base indicates that the actual

1995-1996 design value for the Fresno, 1145 Fisher St. CO monitor was

8.3 ppm. This trend is consistent with evidence that the Fresno Area CO

emissions continue to drop.

b. New Source Review (NSR) SIP Submittals

Consistent with the October 14, 1994 EPA guidance from Mary D.

Nichols entitled ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements

for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' EPA is not

requiring full approval of a Part D NSR program by California as a

prerequisite to redesignation to attainment. Under this guidance,

nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment notwithstanding

the lack of a fully approved Part D NSR program so long as the program

is not relied upon for maintenance. California has stated in their

redesignation request that they have not relied on a NSR program for CO

sources to maintain attainment.

c. Contingency Measures for VMT Exceedances

CAA Section 187(a)(2)(A) requires CO areas with a design value

above 12.7 ppm to submit a forecast of vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

through the attainment date, and to provide for annual updates.

Fresno's ``Federal 1992 Air Quality Attainment Plan for CO'' includes

the VMT projections through 1995 (Table 2) and a commitment to update

the projections. The projections meet applicable EPA guidelines. CAA

Section 187(a)(3) requires SIPs for CO areas with a design value above

12.7 ppm to contain contingency measures to be implemented if VMT

projected levels are exceeded or the area fails to attain by its CAA

deadline. Based on the measures included in the SIP, the Fresno area

attained the CO NAAQS by its scheduled date and did not exceed its VMT

projected levels through 1995. Therefore, EPA approves the SIP for

Fresno with respect to the provisions of Sections 187(a)(2)(A) and

187(a)(3).

d. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable Measures

Improvements in air quality must be shown not to have occurred as a

result of temporary economic conditions or favorable meteorology. One

approach to assessing whether economic conditions contributed to

improved air quality is to review the VMT trends for each CO

nonattainment area. Motor vehicle usage has been observed in the past

to decrease with poor economic conditions. Because motor vehicles are

the primary source of CO, any significant change in VMT should be

reflected as changes in CO emissions. Table 3 shows VMT increased, on

average, 14 percent, for the areas during the period in which CO air

quality was improving. This supports a finding that CO emission

reductions did not occur as a result of decreased VMT associated with

an economic downturn.

Table 3.--Vehicle Miles Traveled 13

[Thousands]

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

Area 1990 1993 1995

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

Bakersfield Metropolitan Area

(Kern Co.)...................... 12606 13728 15196

Chico Urbanized Area (Butte Co.). 3988 4196 4394

Fresno Urbanized Area (Fresno

Co.)............................ 15150 16744 17897

Lake Tahoe No. Shore (Placer Co.) 383 434 451

[[Page 15308]]

Lake Tahoe So. Shore (El Dorado

Co.)............................ 811 897 923

Modesto Urbanized Area

(Stanislaus Co.)................ 8478 9465 10121

Stockton Urbanized Area (San

Joaquin Co)..................... 11508 13084 14139

Placer Co (Sacramento Valley).... 5700 6302 7040

Sacramento Co.................... 22202 24811 26550

Yolo Co.......................... 3598 3990 4252

San Diego Area (San Diego Co.) 14 61990 63272 64121

Alameda Co....................... 25345 26601 27857

Contra Costa Co.................. 15883 17146 17989

Marin Co......................... 5201 5332 5420

Napa Co.......................... 1791 1965 2080

San Francisco Co................. 8347 8670 8886

San Mateo Co..................... 12980 13483 13819

Santa Clara Co................... 28023 29229 30036

Solano Co........................ 5880 6337 6643

Sonoma Co........................ 4909 5265 5504

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

\13\ CARB motor vehicle activity data (BURDEN7F); 1/19/94 run date.

\14\ VMT estimates for San Diego based on data supplied by SANDAG in

August 1994.

The improved air quality also must not have occurred solely because

of favorable meteorology. Stable weather conditions characterized by

cold temperatures, very low inversion layers, and very light to no

winds contribute to higher CO levels. In contrast, unstable weather

conditions characterized by medium to strong, gusty winds provide good

mixing and dispersion which contribute to lower CO levels. An indicator

that can be used to estimate unstable weather conditions during a

season is the number of days with measurable precipitation (>0.01'').

Therefore, one method for assessing favorable meteorology is to compare

the historical average number of days with measurable precipitation in

a CO season (November through February) with the number of days during

the attainment period. Table 4 displays data comparing the historical

(1961-1995) average number of days with measurable precipitation in a

CO season with the number of days in the two CO seasons on which the

attainment demonstration is based.

Table 4.--Measurable Precipitation (0.01'') During CO Season 15

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

35-year average 1992-1993 1993-1994

Station --------------------------------------------------------

Number of days Number of days Number of days

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

Bakersfield............................................ 22 30 20

Chico 16............................................... 38 46 34

Fresno................................................. 27 32 20

Lake Tahoe 17.......................................... ................. 46 32

Modesto 18............................................. 31 45 29

Sacramento............................................. 35 47 32

San Francisco.......................................... 37 46 32

San Diego.............................................. 23 38 23

Stockton............................................... 30 40 28

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

15 Precipitation data were obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

16 Chico precipitation data for 1961 through 1990 based on data gathered at Redding; Chico precipitation data

were used for 1991-1995.

17 Historical precipitation data for Lake Tahoe were not available.

18 Modesto precipitation data for 1961 through 1990 based on data gathered at Stockton; Modesto precipitation

data were used for 1991-1995.

As shown in Table 4, the 1992-1993 CO season had more days of

measurable precipitation than the 35-year average, while the 1993-1994

CO season had, except for San Diego, fewer days of precipitation than

the historical average for all the sites. Although it appears that CO

concentrations during the 1992-1993 season may have been influenced by

favorable meteorology, the decline in CO design values continued during

the 1993-1994 CO season, despite less favorable meteorology. The data

support a finding that favorable meteorology did not account solely for

the lower CO levels during the attainment period.

e. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance

plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.

The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS

for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation

to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must

submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates attainment for the

ten years following the initial ten-year period. In the event of a CO

NAAQS violation, the maintenance plan must contain contingency

measures, with a schedule for implementation adequate to assure prompt

correction of any air quality problems. In this notice EPA is approving

the State of California's maintenance plans for the: Bakersfield

Metropolitan Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake Tahoe South Shore Area,

Sacramento Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area, Chico Urbanized

Area, Lake Tahoe North

[[Page 15309]]

Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized Area, San Diego Area, and Stockton

Urbanized Area because EPA finds that California's submittal meets the

requirements of section 175A.

(i). Emission Inventory. Clean Air Act sections 172(c)(3) and

187(a)(1) require that CO plans include comprehensive, accurate, and

current inventories of actual emissions from all sources. EPA's

guidance for preparing emission inventories is discussed and referenced

in the General Preamble (57 FR 134988, April 16, 1992). California

originally submitted its inventory to EPA on November 13, 1992. The

maintenance plan submittal provides more current inventories for each

area. See Attachment 2, ``Carbon Monoxide Winter Seasonal Emission

Inventory (1990-2010). Motor vehicle emissions were determined using

California's EMFAC7F, which EPA has accepted for purposes of the

California SIP.

EPA is approving these updated CO emission inventories, rather than

the initial submission, as meeting the CAA requirements for these

areas. For further details on EPA's review of the inventories, the

reader is referred to the Technical Support Document.

(ii). Oxygenated Gasoline. Motor vehicles are major contributors of

CO emissions. An important measure toward reducing these emissions is

the use of cleaner-burning oxygenated gasoline. Extra oxygen, contained

within the oxygenate in the fuel, enhances fuel combustion and helps to

offset fuel-rich operating conditions, particularly during vehicle

starting, which are more prevalent in the winter. Section 211(m) of the

CAA requires that CO nonattainment areas, with a design value of 9.5

ppm based on data for the 2-year period of 1988 and 1989, submit a SIP

revision for an oxygenated fuel program for such area. The oxygenated

fuel requirement must apply to all fuel refiners or marketers who sell

or dispense gasoline in the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or

Consolidated Statistical Area (CMSA) in which the nonattainment area is

located. California submitted its motor vehicle fuels regulations on

November 15, 1994. EPA approved the State's fuels regulations,

including its requirements for oxygen content, on August 21, 1995 (60

FR 43379). Consistent with that action, EPA approves the SIP with

respect to the requirements of sections 211(m) and 187(b)(3) for oxygen

content of gasoline.

(iii). Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M). CAA Section 187(a)

(4) requires basic vehicle I/M programs in CO nonattainment areas with

design values equal to or less than 12.7 ppm; Section 187(a)(6)

requires enhanced I/M programs for CO nonattainment areas with design

values above 12.7 ppm. California submitted SIP revisions on June 30,

1995 and January 22, 1996 for both basic and enhanced I/M programs. On

January 8, 1997, EPA approved the California I/M regulations for basic

and enhanced I/M programs (62 FR 1150). Only Fresno is required to have

Enhanced I/M for CO, since at the time of classification Fresno had a

design value greater than 12.7 ppm (56 FR 56694, November 16, 1991).

Fresno does not rely on emission reductions for CO from Enhanced I/M;

however, the State's enhanced I/M Program has received interim approval

to satisfy the enhanced I/M requirements of section 187(a)(6). I/M is

not required in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin since it did not have an

existing I/M program prior to enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments

(section 187(a)(4)).

(iv). Conformity. EPA interprets the conformity requirements as not

being an applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating the

redesignation request under section 1079d). The rationale for this is

based on a combination of two factors. First, the requirement to submit

SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the Act

continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment.

Therefore, the State remains obligated to adopt the transportation and

general conformity rules even after redesignation and would risk

sanctions for failure to do so. While redesignation of an area to

attainment enables the area to avoid further compliance with most

requirements of section 110 and Part D, since those requirements are

linked to the nonattainment status of an area, the conformity

requirements apply to both nonattainment and maintenance areas. Second,

EPA's federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity

analyses in the absence of State-adopted rules. Therefore, a delay in

adopting State rules does not relieve an area from the obligation to

implement conformity requirements. Because areas are subject to the

conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to

attainment and must implement conformity under Federal rules if State

rules are not yet adopted, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these

requirements as not being applicable requirements for purposes of

evaluating a redesignation request. Under this policy, EPA believes

that the CO redesignation request for the: Bakersfield Metropolitan

Area, Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake Tahoe South Shore Area, Sacramento

Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area, Chico Urbanized Area, Lake

Tahoe North Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized Area, San Diego Area, and

Stockton Urbanized Area may be approved notwithstanding the lack of

approved State transportation and general conformity rules.

(v). Demonstration of Maintenance-Projected Inventories.

Maintenance of the standard can be shown by comparing the emissions

inventory for the period during which an area attained the standard to

emission inventory projections for at least ten years beyond the date

of approval by the EPA (see Table 6). The emissions inventory

comparison, which includes the years 1990, 1993, 1995, 2000, 2005, and

2010, shows emissions will continue to decline for all ten

redesignation areas.

Table 6.--Carbon Monoxide Winter Seasonal Emission Inventory Trends 19

[Tons per day]

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

CO nonattainment area 1990 1993 1995 2000 2005 2010

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

Bakersfield 20.................... 423 356 348 329 304 286

Chico............................. 229 189 183 167 155 153

Fresno............................ 511 436 414 362 328 321

Lake Tahoe North Shore............ 32 28 26 22 19 18

Lake Tahoe South Shore............ 100 89 86 76 66 64

Modesto........................... 311 282 270 239 216 212

Sacramento Area 21................ 1214 1026 971 822 690 635

San Diego......................... 1927 1492 1345 1062 904 832

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose 22. 3731 3019 2786 2268 1896 1716

[[Page 15310]]

Stockton.......................... 463 400 380 334 297 285

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

19 CARB 1993 base year emission inventory (10/3/95 run date--based on EMFAC7F). Except where noted, emissions

data reflect county totals.

20 Reflects corrected Kern County emission inventory (1/29/96 run date).

21 Combined emission inventory for Sacramento, Placer, and Yolo Counties.

22 Emission inventory for San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

(vi) Contingency Plan. Maintenance plans for attainment areas must

include contingency provisions, or extra measures beyond those needed

for attainment, to offset any unexpected increase in emissions and

ensure that the standard is maintained (175(A)(d)). Typically,

contingency measures are held in reserve and implemented only if an

area violates the standard in the future. However, California claims

its on-going motor vehicle program creates a unique situation and

allows CARB to offer, as contingency, several regulations that will be

implemented, regardless of monitored CO levels.

Table 7 shows fully adopted CARB regulations with multi-pollutant

benefits which ``come on line'' from 1996 through 2003.

Table 7.--Contingency Measures

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

Date(s) Implementation regulation

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

1996................................... Improved Basic Inspection and

Maintenance Program (Bay Area,

Chico, North and South Shore

Lake Tahoe) 23

1996................................... Enhanced Inspection and

Maintenance Program

(Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto,

Sacramento Area, San Diego,

Stockton)

1996................................... On-Board Diagnostics II

(Statewide).

1996................................... California Cleaner-Burning

Gasoline (Statewide).

1997................................... Off-Highway Recreational

Vehicles (Statewide).

1999................................... Lawn and Garden Equipment--Tier

II (Statewide).

1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean

2002, 2003 and later. Fuels--Post 1995 Standards

(Statewide).

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

23 Inspection required upon change of ownership only. There is no

biannual vehicle inspection in these areas.

California maintains that these adopted regulations will generate

new reductions in CO emissions, above and beyond those needed for

attainment and provide sufficient reductions in future years to

guarantee an ample margin of safety to ensure maintenance of the

standard and to provide adequate additional reductions to cover the

contingency requirements. EPA agrees with California's claims and

approves its contingency plan.

(vii) Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions. In accordance with

section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State has agreed to submit a revised

maintenance SIP eight years after the area is redesignated to

attainment. Such revised SIP will provide for maintenance for an

additional ten years.

f. Meeting Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and Part D

In Section III.2. above, EPA sets forth the basis for its approval

of California's SIP as meeting the applicable requirements of Section

110 and Part D of the CAA. EPA is approving this action without prior

proposal because the Agency views this as noncontroversial and

anticipates no adverse comments. However, if EPA receives relevant

adverse comments by April 30, 1998, then EPA will publish a document

that withdraws only those portions of the action on which EPA received

the adverse comments, informing the public that those portions of the

action did not take effect. EPA will then address those comments in a

final action based upon this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on the proposed rule. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be

effective on June 1, 1998 and no further action will be taken on the

proposed rule.

Final Action

EPA is approving Fresno's attainment plan, a maintenance plan for

California's federal carbon monoxide (CO) planning areas, and a request

to redesignate these areas. They are: Bakersfield Metropolitan Area,

Fresno Urbanized Area, Lake Tahoe South Shore Area, Sacramento Area,

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area, Chico Urbanized Area, Lake Tahoe

North Shore Area, Modesto Urbanized Area, San Diego Area, and Stockton

Urbanized Area. Under the 1990 amendments of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

designations can be revised if sufficient data is available to warrant

such revisions. In this action, EPA is approving California's request

because it meets the maintenance plan and redesignation requirements

set forth in the CAA. This action is being taken under sections 107 and

110 of the CAA. Nothing in this action should be construed as

permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state

implementation plan shall be considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to

relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should

relevant adverse comments be filed. If EPA receives relevant adverse

comments by April 30, 1998, then EPA will publish a document that

withdraws only those portions of the action on which EPA received the

adverse comments, informing the public that those portions of the

action are withdrawn. EPA will then address those comments in a final

action based upon this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second

comment period on the proposed rule. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be

effective on June 1, 1998 and no further action will be taken on the

proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

[[Page 15311]]

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

SIP approvals and redesignation to attainment under sections 107,

110, and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any

new requirements. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval and

redesignation to attainment do not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that the actions do not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of

the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must

select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval and redesignation action

promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This

Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local

law and redesignates areas to attainment, and imposes no new Federal

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

D. 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).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 1, 1998. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such

rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation

Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 4, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(252) and

(253) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(252) Air Quality Management Plan for the following APCD was

submitted on December 28, 1992, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Federal 1992 Air Quality Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide

and Appendices adopted on November 18, 1992.

(253) Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan

for ten federal planning areas submitted on July 3, 1996, by the

Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) California Air Resources Board. (1) Carbon Monoxide

Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the following areas:

Bakersfield Metropolitan Area, Chico Urbanized Area, Fresno Urbanized

Area, Lake Tahoe North Shore, Lake Tahoe South Shore, Modesto Urbanized

Area, Sacramento Area, San Diego Area, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose

Area, and Stockton Urbanized Area adopted on April 26, 1996.

* * * * *

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--Carbon Monoxide is

amended by revising the entries for ``Bakersfield Area,'' ``Chico

Area,'' ``Fresno Area,'' ``Lake Tahoe North Shore Area,'' `` Lake Tahoe

South Shore Area,'' ``Modesto Area,'' ``Sacramento Area,'' ``San Diego

Area,'' ``San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area,'' and ``Stockton Area''

to read as follows:

Sec. 81.305 California.

* * * * *

[[Page 15312]]

California--Carbon Monoxide

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

Designation Classification

Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date\1\ Type Date\1\ Type

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

Bakersfield Area:

Kern County (part)................ April 30, 1998................. Attainment...............

Bakersfield Metropolitan Area

(Urbanized part)

Chico Area:

Butte County (part)............... April 30, 1998................. Attainment...............

Chico Urbanized Area (Census

Bureau Urbanized part).

Fresno Area:

Fresno County (part).............. April 30, 1998................. Attainment...............

Fresno Urbanized Area

Lake Tahoe North Shore Area:

Placer County (part).............. April 30, 1998................. Attainment...............

* * * * * * *

Lake Tahoe South Shore Area:

El Dorado County (part)........... April 30, 1998................. Attainment...............

Modesto Area:

Stanislaus County (part).......... April 30, 1998................. Attainment...............

Modesto Urbanized Area (Census

Bureau Urbanized Area).

Sacramento Area:

Census Bureau Urbanized Areas..... April 30, 1998................. Attainment...............

Placer County (part)

Sacramento County (part)

Yolo County (part)

San Diego Area:

San Diego County (part)........... April 30, 1998................. Attainment...............

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area:

Urbanized Areas................... April 30, 1998................. Attainment...............

Alameda County (part)

Contra Costa County (part)

Marin County (part)

Napa County (part)

San Francisco County

San Mateo County (part)

Santa Clara County (part)

Solano County (part)

Sonoma County (part)

Stockton Area:

San Joaquin County (part)......... April 30, 1998................. Attainment...............

Stockton Urbanized Area:

* * * * * * *

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

\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98-8416 Filed 3-30-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P