21194 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 83 / Tuesday, April 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

1The State of Nevada is divided into 14 distinct 

hydrologic units called hydrographic regions. The 

hydrographic regions (or waterbasins or 

watersheds) have been further disaggregated into 

256 hydrographic areas and sub-areas. The 

hydrographic areas and sub-areas, which Nevada 

also uses to define their air quality management 

areas, typically comprise a valley, a portion of a 

valley, or a terminal basin. For simplicity, in this 

notice we use the term ‘‘hydrographic areas’’ to 

refer to both the hydrographic areas and the subareas.

condition of the veteran, inclement 

weather, road conditions, or the mode of 

transportation used by the veteran.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1708)

§ 60.6 Condition of veteran. 

As a condition for receiving 

temporary lodging under this part, the 

veteran must be medically stable and 

must be capable of self-care or be 

accompanied by a caregiver able to 

provide the necessary care. Questions 

regarding these issues will be resolved 

by an appropriate health care provider 

at the VA health care facility of 

jurisdiction.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1708)

§ 60.7 Duration of temporary lodging. 

Temporary lodging may be furnished 

to eligible persons in connection with 

care or C&P examinations provided at a 

VA health care facility. When a veteran 

is undergoing extensive treatment or 

procedures, such as an organ transplant 

or chemotherapy, eligible persons may 

be furnished temporary lodging for the 

duration of the episode of care subject 

to limitations described in this section. 

Temporary lodging may be available the 

night before the day of the scheduled 

care, if the veteran leaving home by 8:00 

AM, would be unable to arrive at the 

health care facility by the time of the 

scheduled care. Temporary lodging may 

be available the night of the scheduled 

care if, after the completion of the care, 

the veteran would be unable to return 

home by 7:00 PM.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1708)

§ 60.8 Lodging availability. 

Fisher Houses are available solely for 

temporary lodging under this part. Nonutilized beds and rooms at a VA health 

care facility will be made available if 

not barred by law and if the Director of 

the VA health care facility determines 

that such action would not have a 

negative impact on patient care. 

Temporary lodging facilities, such as 

hotels or motels, will be utilized based 

on availability of local funding as 

determined by the Director of the health 

care facility of jurisdiction. Temporary 

lodging will be provided on a first-come 

first-serve basis.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1708)

§ 60.9 Decisionmaker. 

Except as otherwise provided in this 

part, the person responsible for 

coordinating the temporary lodging 

program at the VA health care facility of 

jurisdiction is responsible for making 

decisions under this part.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1708)

§ 60.10 Costs. 

Costs for temporary lodging under 

this part shall be borne by VA.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1708)

[FR Doc. 02–10597 Filed 4–29–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[FRL–7203–6] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Redesignation of 

Particulate Matter Unclassifiable 

Areas; Redesignation of Hydrographic 

Area 61 for Particulate Matter, Sulfur 

Dioxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide; State of 

Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is 

proposing to approve requests from the 

State of Nevada, pursuant to section 

107(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act), to 

redesignate the current single 

unclassifiable area for particulate matter 

with an aerodynamic diameter less than 

or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers 

(PM10) into numerous individual areas 

to be consistent with the area 

definitions for other pollutants. EPA is 

also proposing to approve a staterequested subdivision of one of those 

individual areas, referred to as 

hydrographic area 61 (Boulder Flat), 

into two areas. EPA’s approval of these 

requests would establish hydrographic 

areas as the section 107(d) unclassifiable 

areas for PM10 and would replace 

hydrographic area 61 with two new 

section 107(d) areas for PM10, sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2): Upper area 61 and lower area 61. 

In this action, EPA is also proposing to 

delete certain total suspended 

particulate (TSP) area designations that 

are no longer necessary. EPA believes 

that the State’s requests comply with the 

federal standards for approval of section 

107(d) redesignations and that 

approving the State’s request is 

appropriate.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received in writing by May 30, 

2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this 

action should be addressed to Gerardo 

Rios, Chief, Permits Office, Air Division 

(AIR–3), EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 

You can inspect copies of the State’s 

submittal, and other supporting 

documentation relevant to this action, 

during normal business hours at Air 

Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 

You may also see copies of the State’s 

submittal at the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection, 333 W. Nye 

Lane, Room 138, Carson City, Nevada 

89706.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Albright, EPA Region 9, Air 

Division, Permits Office (AIR–3), at 

(415) 972–3971 or 

albright.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. Evaluation of State’s Request To 

Redesignate PM10 Unclassifiable Area 

II. Removing Unnecessary TSP Area 

Designations from Part 81 

III. Proposed Redesignation of Hydrographic 

Area 61 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Request for Public Comment 

VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Evaluation of State’s Request To 

Redesignate PM10 Unclassifiable Area

Section 107(d)(1) of the 1977 

Amendments to the Act required each 

State to submit to the Administrator a 

list identifying those areas which (1) do 

not meet a national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) (nonattainment 

areas), (2) cannot be classified on the 

basis of available ambient data 

(unclassifiable areas), and (3) have 

ambient air quality levels better than the 

NAAQS (attainment areas). In 1978, we 

published the original list of all area 

designations pursuant to section 

107(d)(2) (commonly referred to as 

‘‘section 107 areas’’), including those 

designations for TSP. See 43 FR 8962 

(March 3, 1978). EPA’s designations of 

nonattainment, attainment, and 

unclassifiable areas in the State of 

Nevada are codified at 40 CFR 81.329. 

The designations for Nevada have been 

the subject of a recent technical 

correction by EPA. See 67 FR 12474 

(March 19, 2002). This recent EPA 

action clarified that the TSP (as well as 

the NO 2 and SO2) designations in the 

State of Nevada are based on 

hydrographic areas 1 as delineated by 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 83 / Tuesday, April 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules 21195

2 It is important to note that hydrographic areas 

are already established as the PSD baseline areas for 

PM10 (and other pollutants), so finalization of 

today’s proposal will not effect any change in how 

the State manages their federally delegated PSD 

program. For example, pursuant to 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(14)(iv), minor source baseline dates 

originally established for the TSP increments would 

not be rescinded by finalization of this proposed 

action and would remain in effect and continue to 

apply for purposes of determining the amount of 

available PM10 increment. For further explanation 

see 67 FR 12474 (March 19, 2002), which includes 

a detailed explanation of EPA’s prior approval of 

the use of hydrographic areas for PSD baseline 

purposes.

the Nevada Division of Water Resources 

in 1971 with one exception: the split of 

the Carson Desert hydrographic area 

(101) into two areas: A smaller Carson 

Desert (101) and Packard Valley (101A). 

See 45 FR 46807 (July 11, 1980). The 

total number of TSP section 107 areas in 

the State of Nevada is 255.

EPA revised the primary and 

secondary NAAQS for particulate matter 

on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), 

eliminating TSP as the indicator for the 

NAAQS and replacing it with the PM10

indicator. However, we did not establish 

PM10 area designations at the time we 

established PM10 as the new indicator 

for the particulate matter NAAQS. 

Instead, Congress established a process 

for PM10 area designations in the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990. In 1991, 

pursuant to the 1990 Amendments, the 

State of Nevada submitted their 

recommendations concerning 

nonattainment areas for PM10. Dated 

March 15, 1991, the State’s letter 

containing their recommendations did 

not refer to PM10 attainment or 

unclassifiable areas, instead focusing 

solely on the identification of 

nonattainment areas. Later in 1991, 

based on the State’s recommendations, 

we revised the nonattainment areas 

under section 107(d) for PM10, but we 

did not identify attainment or 

unclassifiable areas for PM10 at that 

time. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 

1991). In 1992, we recognized that we 

had neglected to identify attainment or 

unclassifiable areas for PM10 in our 1991 

rule and thus added the designation 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ for the areas not 

otherwise designated nonattainment for 

PM10, using the term ‘‘rest of state.’’ See 

57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992). In 

this context, the use of the term ‘‘rest of 

state’’ in the PM10 table in 40 CFR 

81.329 was only identifying the portion 

of the State that EPA had not designated 

nonattainment for PM10. However, as 

EPA clarified in our recent action cited 

above, the designation ‘‘rest of state’’ in 

the PM10 table refers to previously 

designated hydrographic areas for the 

purposes of the PSD program. See 67 FR 

12474 (March 19, 2002). 

Pursuant to the redesignation 

procedures of section 107(d)(3) of the 

Act, States may request EPA’s approval 

of area redesignations (including 

boundary changes to existing areas), and 

on April 16, 2002, the State of Nevada 

submitted a request to EPA to 

redesignate the existing PM10 section 

107 unclassifiable area by establishing 

hydrographic areas within the State as 

the PM10 unclassifiable areas. 

The State of Nevada’s request to 

establish the hydrographic areas as 

section 107 unclassifiable areas for PM10

is supported by the fact that the State 

has a long history, dating to the 1970s, 

of relying upon the hydrographic areas 

as air quality management areas. EPA 

approved the use of hydrographic areas 

as section 107 areas in 1978 (see 43 FR 

8962, March 3, 1978). In fact, the 

hydrographic area-based approach has 

been used by the State since 1978 to 

manage particulate matter (and other 

criteria pollutant) emissions, and it 

remains the basis on which they 

implement their federally delegated PSD 

program for all pollutants. Thus, the 

effect of finalizing today’s proposal to 

approve the State’s request to establish 

the hydrographic areas as the section 

107 unclassifiable areas for PM10 would 

be to synchronize the classification of 

designated PM10 section 107 areas with 

the current and longstanding approach 

the State has used to manage its air 

quality. 

In summary, we are proposing to 

approve the State’s request to establish 

the statewide hydrographic areas 

(previously established for TSP) as the 

PM10 unclassifiable areas under section 

107(d) of the Act.2 Our proposed action 

would replace the single unclassifiable 

area designated for Nevada for PM10

with 253 unclassifiable areas. These 

areas would be defined as the 

hydrographic areas delineated by the 

Nevada Division of Water Resources in 

1971, as adjusted in 1980 to recognize 

an additional hydrographic area (101A) 

referred to as Packard Valley. Together 

with the two PM10 nonattainment areas 

in Nevada (Las Vegas and Reno 

planning areas), the total number of 

PM10 section 107 areas would become 

255; these are the same 255 section 107 

areas currently designated for TSP.

II. Removing Unnecessary TSP Area 

Designations from Part 81 

The PSD provisions of part C (of title 

I) of the Act apply in all section 107 

areas that are designated attainment or 

unclassifiable (40 CFR 52.21(i)(3)). 

Under the PSD program, the air quality 

in an attainment or unclassifiable area is 

not allowed to deteriorate beyond 

prescribed maximum allowable 

increases in pollutant concentrations 

(i.e., increments). As discussed above, 

EPA revised the primary and secondary 

NAAQS for particulate matter on July 1, 

1987 (52 FR 24634), eliminating TSP as 

the indicator for the NAAQS and 

replacing it with the PM10 indicator. 

However, EPA did not revise 40 CFR 

part 81 at that time to delete the areas 

designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable for TSP because the 

Agency had not yet promulgated 

increments for PM10. In 1990, Congress 

provided (in section 107(d)(4)(B) of the 

amended Act) that the designations for 

TSP existing immediately prior to the 

enactment date of the amendments 

(November 15, 1990) would remain in 

effect until EPA determined that the 

designations were no longer necessary 

for implementing the maximum 

allowable increases in concentrations of 

particulate matter pursuant to section 

163(b) of the amended Act. 

In 1993, EPA promulgated the PM10

increments and revised the PSD 

regulations accordingly. See 58 FR 

31622 (June 3, 1993). In our 1993 PSD 

rule, we indicated that the replacement 

of the TSP increments with PM10

increments (which operate 

independently from the section 107 area 

designations for TSP) negates the need 

for the TSP attainment or unclassifiable 

area designations to be retained. We also 

indicated that we would delete such 

TSP designations in 40 CFR part 81 

upon the occurrence of one of the 

following events: EPA’s approval of a 

State’s revised PSD program containing 

the PM10 increments; EPA’s 

promulgation of the PM10 increments 

into a State’s SIP where the State 

chooses not to adopt the increments on 

their own; or EPA’s approval of a State’s 

request for delegation of PSD 

responsibility under 40 CFR 52.21(u). 

See 58 FR 31622, 31635 (June 3, 1993). 

In some instances, where a State’s 

request for delegation of PSD 

responsibility (and EPA’s approval of 

that request) occurred prior to our 1993 

PSD rule, the § 52.21 delegation 

automatically extended to subsequent 

revisions to the PSD regulations (such as 

implementation of the PM10 increment). 

Our 1993 PSD rule became effective on 

June 3, 1994. 

For PSD implementation and 

enforcement purposes, the State of 

Nevada is divided into three 

jurisdictions: the Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources 

(DCNR), Washoe County District Health 

Department (WCDHD), and the Clark 

County Department of Air Quality 

Management (CCDAQM). EPA has 

delegated authority under 40 CFR 

52.21(u) to implement and enforce the 

21196 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 83 / Tuesday, April 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

3There is one major source located in 

Hydrographic area 61 (Barrick Goldstrike Mines, 

Inc.); however, the source has not been subject to 

PSD review.

federal PSD program to DCNR for those 

PSD major sources or major 

modifications locating in or 

constructing in its jurisdiction, which 

includes the entire State with the 

exception of Washoe and Clark 

counties. This delegation agreement 

covers any revisions that EPA makes to 

the PSD regulations. See 48 FR 28269 

(June 21, 1983), as amended at 54 FR 

22888 (May 30, 1989). With certain 

exceptions not relevant here, EPA did 

the same for the WCDHD, pursuant to 

an agreement effective May 9, 1985. 

As noted above, for delegated PSD 

programs, such as those administered by 

DCNR and WCDHD, the listing of 

designated TSP attainment or 

unclassifiable areas became unnecessary 

on the effective date of our 1993 PSD 

rule (i.e., June 3, 1994) because, from 

that date onward, the PM10 increments 

and baseline areas replaced the TSP 

increments and baseline areas for the 

purposes of the federal PSD program. 

Therefore, if EPA finalizes today’s 

proposal, we will eliminate the listing of 

designated TSP attainment or 

unclassifiable areas in Nevada, except 

for the designations in Clark County. In 

contrast to NDEP and WCDHD, 

CCDAQM administers an EPA-approved 

PSD program (rather than administering 

a delegated federal PSD program) for 

PSD sources in Clark County (see 47 FR 

26620 (June 21, 1982)). We will delete 

the appropriate TSP designations for 

Clark County when we approve 

revisions to their PSD program that 

include the PM10 increments. 

In summary, we are proposing to 

update the TSP table in 40 CFR part 81 

for Nevada to delete those designations 

that are no longer necessary. 

Specifically, we are proposing to delete 

the TSP attainment and unclassifiable 

area designations statewide, except for 

those in Clark County. 

III. Proposed Redesignation of 

Hydrographic Area 61 

A. Nevada’s Submittal 

In a letter dated November 6, 2001, 

the State of Nevada requested EPA’s 

approval of a redesignation of the 

boundary of hydrographic area 61 to 

create two new PSD baseline areas for 

PM10, NO2, and SO2. The State’s 

redesignation request was made 

pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(D) of the 

Act, which states: ‘‘the Governor of any 

State may, on the Governor’s own 

motion, submit to the Administrator a 

revised designation of any area or 

portion thereof within the State.’’

The State’s redesignation submittal 

included substantial documentation 

supporting their request. They provided 

detailed maps showing the proposed 

subdivision of hydrographic area 61 into 

upper area 61 (156 square miles) and 

lower area 61 (390 square miles). The 

maps include such features as the area’s 

topography, major roads, railroads, 

major and minor sources in the area and 

in nearby areas, and the location of 

Jarbidge Wilderness Area (the only Class 

I area in the State). The State also 

provided a detailed legal description of 

the proposed new baselines areas, data 

regarding emissions from all stationary 

sources in the hydrographic area and 

major sources in nearby areas, 

population characteristics and census 

data for the area, descriptions of the 

principal land uses, and results of 

ambient air quality modeling and 

monitoring, in hydrographic area 61 

specifically, and in the larger regional 

area. Finally, the submittal included the 

State’s perspective on how EPA’s 

approval of the redesignation request 

would promote Nevada’s air quality 

management. 

B. EPA’s Criteria for Evaluating State 

Requests for PSD Baseline Area 

Redesignations 

Section 107(d)(3)(D) of the Act 

provides that, ‘‘within 18 months of 

receipt of a complete State redesignation 

submittal, the Administrator shall 

approve or deny such redesignation.’’

Section 107(d)(3) does not provide 

specific direction to EPA for evaluating 

redesignation requests that involve 

subdivision of existing attainment or 

unclassifiable areas, in contrast to 

requests that involve a change in the 

designation of a given area, e.g., from 

nonattainment to attainment (see 

section 107(d)(3)(E)) or from 

nonattainment to unclassifiable (see 

section 107(d)(3)(F)). However, section 

107(d)(3)(A) of the Act, which describes 

EPA initiation of an area redesignation, 

indicates that redesignations may be 

initiated ‘‘on the basis of air quality 

data, planning and control 

considerations, or any other air-quality 

related considerations the Administrator 

deems appropriate.’’ EPA believes it is 

reasonable to conclude that these 

considerations, provided in the Act as 

an appropriate basis for EPA-initiated 

redesignations, also provide some basis 

for EPA’s evaluation of state-initiated 

redesignation requests. 

In addition to the general statutory 

language of section 107, EPA’s rules also 

guide evaluation of a proposed 

subdivision of existing PSD baseline 

areas, imposing some minimal limits on 

the establishment of new baseline areas. 

These limits include a prohibition on 

the creation of new baseline areas if: (1) 

A PSD source has located in, or 

significantly impacted on the clean area 

being considered for redesignation; or 

(2) the newly created areas either 

intersect the area of impact of any major 

PSD source or have a boundary that is 

smaller than such impact area. EPA’s 

rules currently define ‘‘area of impact’’

as the 1 μg/m3 annual average ambient 

level isopleth around the major PSD 

source. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15) and 45 

FR 52716 (August 7, 1980).

Historically, EPA has relied almost 

exclusively on the regulatory criteria in 

part 52 as the basis for evaluating stateinitiated requests for PSD baseline area 

redesignations. See, for example, 60 FR 

47297 (September 12, 1995) and 58 FR 

50275 (September 27, 1993) (EPA’s 

approvals of redesignation requests 

made by the States of Wyoming and 

Minnesota, respectively). However, 

Federal Land Managers and EPA have 

recently become concerned about the 

existing regulatory criteria for 

redesignation of PSD baseline areas. As 

a result of these concerns, EPA is 

currently evaluating the existing 

regulatory and policy framework for 

PSD baseline area redesignations to 

ensure that it continues to adequately 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in attainment and unclassifiable 

areas. Until EPA has completed its 

evaluation, the Agency will continue to 

evaluate requests based on the currently 

applicable federal requirements and 

policies. Thus, EPA is evaluating 

Nevada’s request based on the 

statutorily derived ‘‘appropriate air 

quality-related considerations’’ and the 

regulatory criteria for PSD baseline 

redesignations in 40 CFR part 52. 

C. Evaluation of Nevada’s Request to 

Redesignate Area 61 

EPA has evaluated the State’s request 

to divide hydrographic area 61 and 

determined that the request adequately 

complies with the currently applicable 

federal requirements and policies for 

PSD baseline area redesignations. 

As described above, EPA’s part 52 

regulations prohibit the creation of new 

baseline areas if a PSD source has 

located in, or significantly impacted on 

the clean area being considered for 

redesignation, or if the newly created 

areas either intersect the area of impact 

of any major PSD source or have a 

boundary that is smaller than such 

impact area. Nevada’s redesignation 

submittal indicates that hydrographic 

area 61 does not presently contain any 

major PSD sources 3 and that no major 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 83 / Tuesday, April 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules 21197

4Some examples of the types of redesignations 

that might interfere with effective air quality 

management are those that would have the effect of 

untriggering a minor source baseline date in an area 

affecting a Class I area or in an area where a 

substantial portion of the available increment has 

been consumed, redesignations that serve to carve 

out small ‘‘postage stamp’’ areas encompassing only 

the significant impact area around a major PSD 

source, or large-scale redesignations creating 

numerous small baseline areas with little or no 

basis in effective management of air quality.

PSD sources are significantly impacting 

hydrographic area 61. Thus, no PSD 

source has located in, or is significantly 

impacting the clean area being 

considered for redesignation 

(hydrographic area 61), and the newly 

created baseline areas (upper and lower 

area 61) do not intersect the area of 

impact of any major PSD source nor do 

they have boundaries that are smaller 

than such impact area. EPA therefore 

concludes that the proposed new 

baseline areas comply with our 

regulatory criteria for the redesignation 

of PSD baseline areas.

In addition, EPA believes that 

consideration of whether the proposed 

PSD baseline area redesignation will 

interfere with the State’s ability to 

effectively manage air quality 

constitutes an appropriate ‘‘air qualityrelated consideration’’ in evaluating the 

State’s request. In this case, the State 

believes that the redesignation will 

promote their air quality management 

objectives by conforming their 

management of hydrographic area 61 to 

the distinct geographic, meteorologic, 

and land use characteristics of the upper 

and lower areas. 

Since EPA’s policy has long been to 

provide States a fair degree of autonomy 

to balance air quality management with 

economic planning, our concern in 

evaluating this request is not necessarily 

to ensure that the redesignation will 

improve air quality management, but to 

ensure that it both complies with 

regulatory standards and does not 

interfere with the State’s management of 

air quality.4

Our evaluation of Nevada’s request 

indicates that approving the subdivision 

of hydrographic area 61 is not likely to 

interfere with the State’s management of 

air quality in the affected area. Since the 

minor source baseline date has not been 

triggered in hydrographic area 61, 

approving the subdivision would not 

untrigger the baseline area and, in 

general, EPA believes that it would not 

likely result in the types of adverse 

effects described in footnote 4. For 

example, since there would not be an 

untriggering of the baseline area, there 

is no elimination of already consumed 

increment and no consumed increment 

would be added to the baseline for the 

area. That is, the amount of pollution 

allowed in hydrographic area 61 would 

not change as a result of EPA’s approval 

of Nevada’s request. In addition, the 

area proposed for redesignation is not 

located in close proximity to Jarbidge 

Wilderness Area (the only Class I area 

in Nevada), and approval of the 

redesignation request is not expected to 

have any impact on air quality related 

values (AQRVs) at Jarbidge or any other 

Class I area. 

IV. Proposed Action 

After considering all of the factors 

described in the above sections, EPA is 

proposing to approve the State of 

Nevada’s request to redesignate the 

current single section 107 unclassifiable 

area for PM10 into 253 individual areas 

to correspond with those areas 

originally designated for TSP and is also 

proposing to remove the section 107 

TSP designations that are no longer 

necessary. Finally, EPA is proposing to 

approve the State’s request to 

redesignate hydrographic area 61 by 

dividing the basin into two section 107 

areas: upper area 61 and lower area 61. 

V. Request for Public Comment

We are soliciting public comment on 

all aspects of this proposal. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. To comment on 

today’s proposal, you should submit 

comments by mail (in triplicate if 

possible) as described in the ADDRESSES

section listed in the front of this 

document. EPA will consider any 

written comments received by May 30, 

2002. 

VI. Administrative Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this proposed 

action is also not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed 

action would redesignate areas for air 

quality planning purposes and would 

not impose additional requirements. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

proposed rule does not impose any 

enforceable duty, it does not contain 

any unfunded mandate or significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

proposed rule also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This proposed rule 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

The requirements of section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. This 

proposed rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 19, 2002. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 02–10628 Filed 4–29–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P