[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