Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 78 / Thursday, April 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21731 

1EPA’s 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) was promulgated in 1979 (44 FR 

8202, February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997, we 

promulgated a revised ozone standard of 0.08 ppm, 

measured over an 8-hour period. In general, the 8- 

hour standard is more protective of public health 

and more stringent than the 1-hour standard. This 

action addresses only the 1-hour standard. Areas 

will be designated attainment or nonattainment of 

the 8-hour standard in 2004. Ground-level ozone 

can irritate the respiratory system, causing 

coughing, throat irritation, and uncomfortable 

sensations in the chest. Ozone can also reduce lung 

function and make it more difficult to breathe 

deeply, thereby limiting a person’s normal activity. 

Finally, ozone can aggravate asthma and can 

inflame and damage the lining of the lungs, leading 

to permanent changes in lung function. More 

details on ozone’s health effects and the ozone 

NAAQS can be found at the following Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/ 

s_o3_index.html. 

2 ‘‘Rate-of-Progress and Attainment Demonstration 

Plans for the Kern County Air Pollution Control 

District,’’ adopted on December 1, 1994, and 

submitted on December 28, 1994, by the Governor’s 

designee. Since 1992, KCAPCD jurisdiction extends 

only to the desert (i.e., eastern) portion of Kern 

County, while the western portion of the County 

lies within the jurisdiction of the multi-county San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District. 

Dated: April 1, 2004. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, 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 paragraph (c)(323) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(323) The following plan was 

submitted on November 30, 2001 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by Reference 

(A) Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District 

(1) San Francisco Bay Area Ozone 

Attainment Plan for the 1-hour National 

Ozone Standard (Section 3: Emission 

Inventory; Section 5: Control Strategy, 

except subsection ‘‘Demonstrating 

Reasonable Further Progress’’; 

Appendix B: Control Measure 

Descriptions; Appendix C: Reasonably 

Available Control Measure Analysis; 

Appendix E: Further Study Measure 

Descriptions;) adopted on October 24, 

2001. 

[FR Doc. 04–9142 Filed 4–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[CA 118–PLANa; FRL–7641–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans, Finding of 

Attainment, and Designation of Areas 

for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 1- 

Hour Ozone Standard, East Kern 

County, CA 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finding that East Kern 

County, California, has attained the 1- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is 

approving the East Kern County 1-hour 

ozone maintenance plan and motor 

vehicle emissions budgets as revisions 

to the East Kern County portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). Finally, EPA is redesignating the 

East Kern County area to attainment for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

June 21, 2004, without further notice, 

unless we receive adverse comments by 

May 24, 2004. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Please address your 

comments to: Dave Jesson, EPA Region 

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

CA 94105–3901 or submit comments at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

You can inspect copies of the docket 

for this action at EPA’s Region IX office 

during normal business hours. You can 

also inspect copies of the submitted SIP 

revision at the following locations: 

California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 

2700 M Street, Suite 302, Bakersfield, CA 

93301–2370 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dave Jesson, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–

3957, or Jesson.David@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. East Kern Designation, Classification, 

SIP, and Attainment Status 

B. Clean Air Act Provisions for 

Maintenance Plans 

C. Clean Air Act Provisions for 

Redesignation 

II. EPA Review of the East Kern County 

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request and EPA Finding of Attainment 

A. Maintenance Plan 

1. Emissions Inventory 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

3. Continued Ambient Monitoring 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

5. Contingency Provisions 

6. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

B. Redesignation Provisions 

1. Finding of Attainment of the 1-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS 

2. Fully Approved Implementation Plan 

under CAA Section 110(k) 

3. Improvement in Air Quality Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Measures 

4. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

5. CAA Section 110 and Part D Provisions 

Satisfied 

III. Public Comment and EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. East Kern County Designation, 

Classification, SIP, and Attainment 

Status 

When the Clean Air Act (CAA) was 

amended in 1990, each area of the 

country that was designated 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS was classified by operation of 

law as marginal, moderate, serious, 

severe, or extreme depending on the 

severity of the area’s air quality 

problem.1 The East Kern County 

nonattainment area (‘‘East Kern’’) was 

designated under CAA section 107 as 

part of the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area, and was classified 

under CAA section 181 as serious for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

81.305 and 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 

1991), designating the entire Kern 

County as part of the ‘‘San Joaquin 

Valley Area’’ for ozone. 

The Kern County Air Pollution 

Control District (KCAPCD) adopted a 

serious area plan, intended to 

demonstrate rate-of-progress (ROP) and 

attainment by the applicable deadline of 

November 15, 1999.2 The California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) timely 

submitted the plan in 1994, along with 

the plan adopted by the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District for the remainder of the San 

Joaquin Valley nonattainment area. We 

approved the ROP and attainment plans 

for the San Joaquin Valley, including 

the portion of the SIP applicable to Kern 

County, on January 8, 1997 (62 FR 

1150). 

21732 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 78 / Thursday, April 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

3As discussed in the proposed action (66 FR 

27616, May 18, 2001), no exceedances of the 1-hour 

ozone standard were recorded in 1999 or 2000 in 

East Kern County. CAA section 181(a)(5) provides 

that, upon application by a state, EPA may extend 

the 1-hour ozone attainment deadline for up to two 

one-year periods if the state has complied with all 

requirements and commitments pertaining to the 

area in the applicable SIP, and no more than one 

exceedance of the NAAQS has occurred in the area 

in the year preceding the extension year. EPA 

approved the separation of East Kern County along 

the boundary proposed by CARB. This boundary is 

the same as the boundary between the jurisdictions 

of the Kern County and the San Joaquin Valley air 

districts, and generally follows the ridge line of the 

Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountain Ranges. 

The precise description of the new boundary 

appears at 40 CFR 81.305. 

4On December 18, 2003, we found that this 

submittal met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 

51 appendix V, including the requirement for 

proper public notice and adoption. 

5The maintenance plan uses the term Reactive 

Organic Compounds (ROC) in place of the Federal 

terminology, VOC. The terms are essentially 

synonymous. Because VOC is the more common 

term, we use it in this notice. 

On November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56476), 

we took these actions: (1) We 

determined that the San Joaquin Valley 

had not attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard by the 1999 deadline, 

reclassified the area to severe, and set a 

deadline for submittal of a SIP 

addressing the severe area requirements 

for the area; and (2) we separated the 

eastern portion of Kern County from the 

San Joaquin Valley area and extended 

the attainment deadline for this new 

serious area from 1999 to 2001, 

pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5).3 In 

our rulemaking, we noted that, ‘‘if East 

Kern County does not record a violation 

in 2001, the area will be eligible for 

redesignation to attainment for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS, following 

submittal by the State and approval by 

EPA of a redesignation request and 

maintenance plan addressing the 

provisions of CAA section 175A.’’ 66 FR 

56481. 

East Kern attained the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS in 2001 and continued to 

record levels below the NAAQS during 

2002 and 2003. Attainment is achieved 

when the average number of expected 

exceedance days per year is 1.0 or less 

for each monitor during a 3-year period. 

See discussion in Section II.B.1., below. 

On May 1, 2003, KCAPCD adopted 

the Ozone Attainment Demonstration, 

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request (‘‘maintenance plan’’) to address 

the CAA section 175A provisions 

relating to 1-hour ozone maintenance 

plans. On December 9, 2003, CARB 

adopted and submitted specified 

elements of the maintenance plan, and 

requested that we approve these 

elements and redesignate the area to 

attainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. CARB specifically requested 

that we approve the following elements 

of the plan: 

(a) Appendix A containing ambient 

air quality data; 

(b) Appendix B containing emissions 

inventory data for the 1999 attainment 

year and future years demonstrating that 

East Kern County’s future ozone 

precursor inventory will not exceed the 

1999 attainment year inventory; 

(c) Chapter 6 containing contingency 

measures; and 

(d) Table 5–2 containing motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. 

B. Clean Air Act Provisions for 

Maintenance Plans 

CAA section 175A sets forth the 

elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. The 

maintenance plan must provide for 

continued maintenance of the 

applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years 

after the area is redesignated to 

attainment (CAA section 175A(a)). To 

address the possibility of future NAAQS 

violations, the maintenance plan must 

contain contingency provisions that are 

adequate to assure prompt correction of 

a violation, and must include a 

requirement that the State will 

implement all measures with respect to 

the control of the air pollutant 

concerned which were contained in the 

State implementation plan for the area 

before redesignation of the area as an 

attainment area (CAA section 175A(d)). 

We have issued maintenance plan and 

redesignation guidance, primarily in the 

‘‘General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (‘‘General 

Preamble,’’ 57 FR 13498, April 16, 

1992); a September 4, 1992 memo from 

John Calcagni titled ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’ (‘‘Calcagni memo’’

available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/940904.pdf); a 

September 17, 1993 memo from Michael 

H. Shapiro titled ‘‘State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas 

Submitting Requests for Redesignation 

to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992’’; and a November 

30, 1993 memo from D. Kent Berry titled 

‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in the 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Nonattainment Areas.’’

The Calcagni memo provides that an 

ozone maintenance plan should address 

five elements: an attainment year 

emissions inventory (i.e., an inventory 

reflecting actual emissions when the 

area recorded attainment, and thus a 

level of emissions sufficient to attain the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS), a maintenance 

demonstration, provisions for continued 

operation of an appropriate air quality 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued maintenance, and 

contingency measures. 

C. Clean Air Act Provisions for 

Redesignation 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for 

redesignation providing that: (1) We 

determine, at the time of redesignation, 

that the area has attained the NAAQS; 

(2) we have fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); (3) we 

determine that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP, applicable Federal regulations, and 

other permanent and enforceable 

reductions; (4) we fully approve a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and, (5) the State containing such 

area has met all nonattainment area 

requirements applicable to the area 

under section 110 and part D. We have 

provided guidance on redesignation in 

the General Preamble and in the 

guidance memos cited above. 

II. EPA Review of the East Kern County 

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request and EPA Finding of Attainment 

A. Maintenance Plan 

As discussed above in Section I.A., 

CARB submitted the maintenance plan 

on December 9, 2003.4 The plan consists 

of a single volume, including 

appendices on air quality data and 

projected emissions. 

1. Emissions Inventory 

The maintenance plan includes 

emissions inventories for Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOC) and 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) for 1990, 1999, 

2001, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. 

Emissions forecasts for future years take 

into account projected growth and 

changes in control factors, using 

established State methodologies.5 The 

emissions inventories were updated in 

March 2003, and are presented as 

emissions in tons per summer day using 

the State’s most recent data for 

stationary, area, and mobile categories. 

The inventories use current and 

accurate methodologies, emissions 

factors, and survey information. The 

onroad emissions inventories employ 

the new CARB motor vehicle emissions 

factor model, EMFAC2002, and the 

latest planning activity levels. On April 

1, 2003 (68 FR 15720–15723), we 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 78 / Thursday, April 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21733 

6 In addition, the Navy has indicated that it 

intends to continue operating its ozone monitor at 

the China Lake Naval Weapons Center. 

7 In previous rulemaking, we have approved as 

part of the SIP Rules 425, 425.1, 425.2, 425.3, and 

427, but we have not yet taken action on Rule 422.1. 

published a Federal Register notice 

stating our conclusion that the 

EMFAC2002 emission factor model is 

acceptable for use in SIP development 

and transportation conformity. Because 

the inventories are current, accurate, 

and complete, we are approving them 

under CAA section 172(c)(3) and 175A. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

Original maintenance plans must 

show how the NAAQS will be 

maintained for the next 10 years 

following redesignation to attainment. 

This is generally performed by assuming 

that the emissions levels at the time 

attainment is achieved constitute a limit 

on the emissions that can be 

accommodated without violating the 

NAAQS. In the case of this plan, 

projected VOC and NOX emissions 

through 2015 show continued 

attainment, since emissions levels of 

both of the ozone precursors are below 

2001 levels. Table 1 below shows 

baseline and projected summer day 

emissions levels. 

TABLE 1.—EAST KERN COUNTY

MAINTENANCE DEMONSTRATION

[Annual average emissions in tons per day] 

Year VOC NOX

1999 .................................. 14.44 36.48 

2001 .................................. 13.80 36.55 

2005 .................................. 13.01 36.37 

2010 .................................. 12.02 35.42 

2015 .................................. 12.58 36.49 

Source: East Kern County Maintenance 

Plan, Appendix B 

Maintenance is demonstrated since 

total emissions of the two ozone 

precursors decline from the attainment 

year inventories. Increasingly stringent 

California and Federal motor vehicle 

emissions standards and fleet turnover 

account for the bulk of the inventory 

reductions, and the remaining emissions 

reductions come from fully adopted, 

permanent, and enforceable State, local, 

and Federal regulations. 

We are approving the maintenance 

demonstration under CAA section 

175A(a), since the plan shows that 

emissions will remain below attainment 

levels due to the projected impact of 

fully adopted, permanent, and 

enforceable regulations. 

3. Continued Ambient Monitoring 

The maintenance plan needs to 

contain provisions for continued 

operation of an air quality monitoring 

network that meets the provisions of 40 

CFR part 58 and will verify continued 

attainment. CARB’s Executive Order G–

03–057 includes a commitment that the 

State will ‘‘work with the Kern County 

Air Pollution Control District to ensure 

continued ozone air quality monitoring 

in the East Kern County nonattainment 

area, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, 

for at least ten years following 

redesignation of the area to attainment, 

in order to verify the attainment status 

of the area’’ (page 5 of the Executive 

Order). This CARB commitment meets 

the continued monitoring provision, 

and we are approving it under CAA 

section 175A.6

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The maintenance plan needs to show 

how the responsible agencies will track 

progress, and the plan should 

specifically provide for periodic 

inventory updates. The KCAPCD will 

meet this obligation through triennial 

updates to the area’s attainment plan for 

the more protective State 1-hour ozone 

standard, which are mandated by the 

California Clean Air Act. These updates 

include assessments of the effectiveness 

of the control strategy, corrections for 

deficiencies in meeting progress 

requirements under State law, new 

emissions inventory data and 

projections, and summaries of 

monitored air quality data. The triennial 

updates will meet our provisions for 

verification of continued attainment. We 

are approving this provision under CAA 

section 175A. 

5. Contingency Provisions 

CAA section 175A(d) provides that 

maintenance plans include contingency 

provisions ‘‘necessary to assure that the 

State will promptly correct any 

violation of the standard.* * * Such 

provisions shall include a requirement 

that the State will implement all 

measures with respect to the control of 

the air pollutant concerned which were 

contained in the State implementation 

plan for the area before redesignation of 

the area as an attainment area.’’

Table 6–1 of the maintenance plan 

lists KCAPCD contingency measures. 

These measures are listed below in 

Table 2, ‘‘Contingency Measures.’’

TABLE 2.—CONTINGENCY MEASURES SOURCE: EAST KERN COUNTY MAINTENANCE PLAN, TABLE 6–1 

Rule Title Implementing agency 

Ozone 

precursor 

422.1 .......................................... Solid Waste Landfills ..................................................................... KCAPCD .................................... VOC. 

New ............................................ Coatings-Aircraft and Aerospace Exterior ..................................... KCAPCD .................................... VOC. 

New ............................................ Electronics Manufacturing ............................................................. KCAPCD .................................... VOC. 

New ............................................ Commercial Charbroiling ............................................................... KCAPCD .................................... VOC. 

425 ............................................. Stationary Gas Turbine Engines ................................................... KCAPCD .................................... NOX. 

425.3 .......................................... Portland Cement Kilns ................................................................... KCAPCD .................................... NOX. 

425.1 .......................................... Hot Mix Asphalt Batch Plants—Combustion ................................. KCAPCD .................................... NOX. 

425.2 .......................................... Industrial & Commercial Package Boilers ..................................... KCAPCD .................................... NOX. 

427 ............................................. Stationary Piston Engines ............................................................. KCAPCD .................................... NOX. 

New ............................................ Natural Gas Combustion in External Combustion Devices .......... KCAPCD .................................... NOX

The CAA section 175A(d) and EPA’s 

guidance on contingency provisions in 

maintenance plans do not require that 

the measures be fully adopted. The 

measures with rule numbers in Table 2 

have been fully adopted, are now being 

fully implemented, and will continue to 

deliver excess reductions beyond those 

required to bring the area into 

attainment.7 These rules are not in fact 

contingent, but rather achieve emissions 

reductions beyond those needed for 

continued maintenance and will be 

retained as part of the SIP. The 

measures indicated as ‘‘new’’ have not 

yet been adopted, but would be adopted 

and implemented as needed to ensure 

that any violation of the NAAQS that 

21734 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 78 / Thursday, April 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

8See generally 57 FR 13506 (April 16, 1992) and 

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, 

Air Quality Management Division, EPA, to Regional 

Air Office Directors; ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Bump Ups and Extensions for Marginal Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ February 3, 1994. While 

explicitly applicable only to marginal areas, the 

general procedures for evaluating attainment in this 

memorandum apply regardless of the initial 

classification of an area because all findings of 

attainment are made pursuant to the same Clean Air 

Act requirements in section 181(b)(2). 

9The fourth highest value is used as the design 

value because a monitor may record up to 3 

exceedances of the standard in a 3-year period and 

still show attainment, since 3 exceedances over 3 

years would average 1 day per year, the maximum 

allowed to show attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. If the monitor records a fourth exceedance 

in that period, it would average more than 1 

exceedance day per year and would no longer show 

attainment. Therefore, if a State can reduce the 

fourth highest ozone value to below the standard, 

thus preventing a fourth exceedance, then it can 

demonstrate attainment. 

10All quality-assured available data include all 

data available from the state and local/national air 

monitoring (SLAMS/ NAMS) network as submitted 

to EPA’s AIRS system and all data available to EPA 

from special purpose monitoring (SPM) sites that 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58.13. See 

Memorandum John Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to 

Regional Air Directors; ‘‘Agency Policy on the Use 

of Ozone Special Purpose Monitoring Data,’’ August 

22, 1997, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

amtic/files/ ambient/criteria/spms3.pdf. 

occurs after redesignation to attainment 

will be corrected promptly. We are 

approving the measures as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 175A(d). 

6. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Maintenance plan submittals must 

specify the maximum emissions of 

transportation-related precursors of 

ozone allowed in the last year of the 

maintenance period. The submittals 

must also demonstrate that these 

emissions levels, when considered with 

emissions from all other sources, are 

consistent with maintenance of the 

NAAQS. In order for us to find these 

emissions levels or ‘‘budgets’’ adequate 

and approvable, the submittal must 

meet the conformity adequacy 

provisions of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 

(5), and be approvable under all 

pertinent SIP requirements. 

The budgets defined by this and other 

plans when they are approved into the 

SIP or, in some cases, when the budgets 

are found to be adequate, are then used 

to determine the conformity of 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects to the SIP, as described by CAA 

section 176(c)(3)(A). For more detail on 

this part of the conformity requirements, 

see 40 CFR 93.118. For transportation 

conformity purposes, the cap on 

emissions of transportation-related 

ozone precursors is known as the motor 

vehicle emissions budget. The budget 

must reflect all of the motor vehicle 

control measures contained in the 

maintenance demonstration (40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(v)). 

The motor vehicle emissions budgets 

are presented in Table 3 below, entitled 

‘‘East Kern County Maintenance Plan 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets,’’

which is taken from Table 5–2. 

TABLE 3.—EAST KERN COUNTY MAINTENANCE PLAN MOTOR VEHICLE

EMISSIONS BUDGETS

[Emissions are shown in tons per summer 

day] 

Budget year NOX VOC 

2001 .............................. 8.1 4.8 

TABLE 3.—EAST KERN COUNTY MAINTENANCE PLAN MOTOR VEHICLE

EMISSIONS BUDGETS—Continued 

[Emissions are shown in tons per summer 

day] 

Budget year NOX VOC 

2005 .............................. 7.1 3.9 

2015 .............................. 4.0 2.1 

The maintenance plan notes that ‘‘the 

budgets were slightly adjusted by 

adding one tenth of a ton to account for 

potential emission increases associated 

with recent state legislation affecting 

smog check requirements. Because these 

emissions budgets are expressed in 

tenths of a ton per day, onroad motor 

vehicle emissions estimates should be 

rounded up to the next tenth of a ton’’

in future conformity determinations. 

(Page 5–5 of the maintenance plan.) 

Under our policy for reviewing the 

adequacy of motor vehicle emissions 

budget submissions, these budgets were 

posted on our transportation conformity 

Web site (http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq) 

for public comment. The public 

comment period on budget adequacy 

closed on January 16, 2004. We received 

no comments on the adequacy of the 

budgets. 

As discussed above, the motor vehicle 

emissions portion of these budgets (i.e., 

the evaporative and tailpipe emissions) 

was developed using EMFAC2002 and 

updated county-specific vehicle data, 

including the latest East Kern County 

planning assumptions on vehicle fleet 

and age distribution and activity levels. 

In this action, we are approving the 

motor vehicle emission budgets under 

CAA section 176(c)(2) because the 

budgets are consistent with the criteria 

of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5), 

including consistency with the motor 

vehicle emissions inventory used in the 

maintenance demonstration. 

B. Redesignation Provisions 

1. Finding of Attainment of the 1-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS 

The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.12 

ppm, not to be exceeded on average 

more than 1 day per year over any 3- 

year period at any monitor within the 

area. 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H. 

Therefore, demonstrating that an area 

has attained the 1-hour standard 

requires calculating the average number 

of days over the standard per year at 

each monitor during the preceding 3- 

year period.8

For this proposal, we include Table 4 

below, entitled ‘‘East Kern County 1- 

Hour Ozone Maximum Concentrations 

and Exceedance Days,’’ showing 

attainment based on both the design 

value and the average number of 

exceedance days per year for the period 

1999 through 2003. The design value is 

an ambient ozone concentration that 

indicates the severity of the ozone 

problem in an area and is used to 

determine the level of emission 

reductions needed to attain the 

standard, that is, it is the ozone level 

around which a State designs its control 

strategy for attaining the ozone 

standard. A monitor’s design value is 

the fourth highest ambient 

concentration recorded at that monitor 

over the previous 3 years. An area’s 

design value is the highest of the design 

values from the area’s monitors.9

Attainment is determined using all 

available, quality-assured air quality 

data for the 3-year period up to and 

including the attainment date.10

Consequently, we used all of the 

quality-assured data available to 

determine whether the East Kern 

County area attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard. From the available air quality 

data, we have calculated the average 

number of days over the standard and 

the design value for each ozone monitor 

in the nonattainment area. It should be 

noted that not all data for the 4th 

quarter of 2003 have yet been quality 

assured and entered into EPA’s 

Aerometric Information Retrieval 

System-Air Quality Subsystem (AIRS–

AQS) database. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 78 / Thursday, April 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21735 

TABLE 4.—EAST KERN COUNTY 1-HOUR OZONE MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS AND EXCEEDANCE DAYS

Monitor 1st 

maximum 

2nd 

maximum 

3rd 

maximum 

4th 

maximum 

(design value) 

Exceedances 

Mojave: 

1999 .............................................................................. 0.119 0.113 0.112 0.111 0 

2000 .............................................................................. 0.113 0.112 0.112 0.106 0 

2001 .............................................................................. 0.126 0.119 0.118 0.116 1 

2002 .............................................................................. 0.115 0.113 0.111 0.103 0 

2003 .............................................................................. 0.120 0.119 0.116 0.111 0 

China Lake: 

1999 .............................................................................. 0.104 0.083 0.082 0.080 0 

2000 .............................................................................. 0.100 0.094 0.093 0.091 0 

2001 .............................................................................. 0.089 0.087 0.086 0.085 0 

2002 .............................................................................. 0.101 0.093 0.092 0.091 0 

2003 .............................................................................. 0.095 0.089 0.084 0.083 0 

Edwards AFB: 

1999 .............................................................................. 0.114 0.111 0.111 0.110 0 

2000 .............................................................................. 0.123 0.117 0.115 0.114 0 

2001 .............................................................................. 0.117 0.110 0.109 0.108 0 

2002 .............................................................................. 0.081 0.080 0.079 0.078 0 

2003 .............................................................................. Monitor not operated 

2003 data are preliminary. The China Lake and Edwards monitors are SPMs operated by the Navy and Air Force, respectively, but must be 

considered in determining attainment, per EPA’s policy on use of ozone SPM data. See Memorandum dated August 22, 1997, from John Seitz to 

Regional Air Directors, entitled ‘‘Agency Policy on the Use of Ozone Special Purpose Monitoring Data’’ at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ ambient/criteria/spms3.pdf. 

Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), we 

must determine whether an ozone 

nonattainment area has attained the 

standard by the applicable attainment 

deadline. As discussed above in Section 

I.A., East Kern did not attain by the 

serious area deadline of 1999, but the 

area was granted two one-year 

attainment date extensions pursuant to 

CAA section 181(a)(5), thus moving the 

attainment deadline to 2001. 77 FR 

56476 (November 8, 2001). From Table 

4, it is apparent that no monitor in East 

Kern recorded more than 3 exceedances 

of the standard for the period 1999–

2001. The highest design value at any 

monitor, and thus the design value for 

East Kern, for 1999–2001 is 0.116 ppm 

based on the highest 4th maximum 

concentration recorded in 2001 at the 

Mojave site. We are therefore finding 

under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) that 

East Kern attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard by the applicable deadline of 

2001. 

Table 4 also shows that the highest 

design value at any monitor for the 3- 

year periods 2000–2002 and 2001–2003. 

As for the period 1999–2001, the design 

value for East Kern for both 2000–2002 

and 2001–2003, is 0.116 ppm, based on 

the 4th maximum concentration 

recorded in 2001 at the Mojave site. 

During these 3-year periods, no monitor 

recorded more than 3 exceedances. 

Table 4 shows that the area has 

continued to maintain the standard 

through the most recent three-year 

period of 2001–2003, and East Kern has 

thus met this prerequisite to 

redesignation. 

2. Fully Approved Implementation Plan 

under CAA Section 110(k) 

Following adoption of the CAA of 

1970, California has adopted and 

submitted and we have fully approved 

at various times provisions addressing 

the various SIP elements applicable in 

East Kern County. As previously 

mentioned, we fully approved the 1- 

hour ozone ROP and attainment plan 

applicable to Kern County on January 8, 

1997 (62 FR 1150). 

3. Improvement in Air Quality Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Measures 

Chapter 5 of the maintenance plan 

provides information on activity levels 

in the area, noting that there is a lack 

of significant historical change since 

1990 and a lack of change in the future. 

The economy is heavily dependent 

upon the Naval Air Weapons Station 

and Edwards Air Force Base, along with 

related private industry aerospace 

activities. Mining is the other economic 

base. Gold and silver mining has 

diminished since 1992, while borax 

mining has remained constant. Growth 

is not projected in the industry as a 

whole. Just as attainment cannot be 

ascribed to unusually reduced activity 

levels, so it cannot be attributed to 

favorable meteorology. For example, 

immediately adjacent nonattainment 

areas experienced unfavorable 

meteorology in 2003 and dramatic 

increases in ozone concentrations, but 

the design value in East Kern County 

remained well below the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS during the past year. Finally, 

the projected emissions inventory, 

which shows a decline in total VOC and 

NOX emissions (see Table 1, above), 

takes credit only for reductions that are 

permanent and enforceable. We 

therefore conclude that attainment was 

not the result of unusual activity or 

meteorology, but rather the permanent 

and enforceable emissions control 

measures that continue in force at the 

State, local, and federal level. Examples 

of these measures are presented in Table 

3–1 of the maintenance plan. 

4. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

In Section II.A., above, we are 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

plan as meeting the CAA section 175A 

provisions. 

5. CAA Section 110 and Part D 

Provisions Satisfied 

We approved the East Kern ozone 

attainment SIP on January 8, 1997 (62 

FR 1150) with respect to CAA section 

110 and Part D provisions applicable to 

a serious ozone nonattainment area. As 

noted above, we have approved other 

CAA section 110 SIP provisions 

applicable to East Kern County at 

various times in the past. 

We have not approved the KCAPCD 

new source review (NSR) rule as 

meeting the part D requirements 

contained in CAA section 172(c)(5). 

However, consistent with EPA 

guidance, we are not requiring as a 

prerequisite to redesignation to 

attainment EPA’s full approval of a part 

21736 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 78 / Thursday, April 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

11Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols entitled 

‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) 

Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation 

to Attainment,’’ October 14, 1994. 

D NSR program.11 Under this guidance, 

nonattainment areas may be 

redesignated to attainment 

notwithstanding the lack of a fullyapproved part D NSR program, so long 

as the program is not relied upon for 

maintenance. The East Kern 

maintenance plan does not rely on the 

NSR program and, therefore, the area 

will not need a part D NSR program to 

maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

III. Public Comment and EPA Action 

Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), we 

are finding that the East Kern area 

attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment deadline of 

2001. We are approving the East Kern 

County Maintenance Plan under CAA 

sections 175A and 110(k)(3). We are 

approving the 2001, 2005, and 2015 

VOC and NOX motor vehicle emissions 

budgets in Table 5–2 of the maintenance 

plan under CAA sections 176(c)(2) as 

adequate for attainment and 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS and for transportation 

conformity purposes. Finally, we are 

redesignating East Kern County area to 

attainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E). 

We do not think anyone will object to 

this approval and redesignation, so we 

are finalizing them without proposing it 

in advance. However, in the Proposed 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

we are simultaneously proposing 

approval of the same submitted 

maintenance plan and request for 

redesignation to attainment. If we 

receive adverse comments by May 24, 

2004, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that the direct final 

approval will not take effect and we will 

address the comments in a subsequent 

final action based on the proposal. If we 

do not receive timely adverse 

comments, the direct final approval will 

be effective without further notice on 

June 21, 2004. This will incorporate the 

maintenance plan into the federally 

enforceable SIP and redesignate the area 

to attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this 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 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 action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 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 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, 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 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 

action 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 action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This 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. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, 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. This 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.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

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 21, 2004. 

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, Hydrocarbons, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: March 19, 2004. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations are 

amended as follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 78 / Thursday, April 22, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21737 

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 paragraph(c)(322)to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(322) New and amended plan for the 

following agency was submitted on 

December 9, 2003, by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Kern County Air Pollution Control 

District. 

(1) East Kern County Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration, 

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request, adopted on May 1, 2003: 

Chapter 5—‘‘Regional Forecast,’’

including emissions inventory summary 

(Table 5–1) and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (Table 5–2); Chapter 6—

‘‘Emission Control Measures,’’ including 

contingency measures (Table 6–1); and 

Appendix B—‘‘Emission Inventories.’’

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 § 81.305, the California Ozone (1- 

Hour Standard) table is amended by 

revising the entry for the East Kern 

County area to read as follows: 

§ 81.305 California. 

* * * * * 

CALIFORNIA—OZONE

[1-Hour Standard] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

East Kern County: 

That portion of Kern County that lies east and south of a line described below: Beginning at the Kern-Los Angeles County boundary and running north and east 

along the northwest boundary of the Rancho La Liebre Land Grant to the point of 

intersection with the range line common to Range 16 West and Range 17 West, 

San Bernardino Base and Meridian; north along the range line to the point of 

intersection with the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant boundary; then southeast, 

northeast, and northwest along the boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Grant to the 

northwest corner of Section 3, Township 11 North, Range 17 West; then west 1.2 

miles; then north to the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant boundary; then northwest 

along the Rancho El Tejon line to the southeast corner of Section 34, Township 

32 South, Range 30 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; then north to the 

northwest corner of Section 35, Township 31 South, Range 30 East, then northeast along the boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant to the southwest corner of Section 18, Township 31 South, Range 31 East; then east to the southeast 

corner of Section 13, Township 31 South, Range 31 East; then north along the 

range line common to Range 31 East and Range 32 East, Mount Diablo Base and 

Meridian, to the northwest corner of Section 6, Township 29 South, Range 32 

East; then east to the southwest corner of Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 

32 East; then north along the range line common to Range 31 East and Range 32 

East to the northwest corner of Section 6, Township 28 South, Range 32 East, 

then west to the southeast corner of Section 36, Township 27 South, Range 31 

East, then north along the range line common to Range 31 East and Range 32 

East to the Kern-Tulare County Boundary.

6/21/04 Attainment ... ................

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 04–9036 Filed 4–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 63 and 262 

[OA–2004–0001; FRL–7650–6] 

RIN 2090–AA13 

National Environmental Performance 

Track Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing regulations 

applicable only to members of EPA’s 

National Environmental Performance 

Track Program (Performance Track, or 

the Program). Today’s action includes a 

revision to the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations to 

allow hazardous waste generators who 

are members of Performance Track up to 

180 days, and in certain cases 270 days, 

to accumulate their hazardous waste 

without a RCRA permit or interim 

status; and simplified reporting 

requirements for facilities that are 

members of Performance Track and 

governed by Maximum Available 

Control Technology (MACT) provisions 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Today’s 

final rule reflects EPA’s response to 

comments filed by the public, interested 

stakeholders and associations, the 

Performance Track Participants 

Association, and Performance Track 

members. These provisions are intended 

to serve as incentives for facility 

membership in the National 

Environmental Performance Track 

Program while ensuring the current 

level of environmental protection 

provided by the relevant RCRA and 

MACT provisions. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 22, 2004.