[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15305-15312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8416]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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