### 56476 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 217/Thursday, November 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

to disapprove a SIP submission for failure touse VCS. Itwould thusbe inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) ofthe 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 ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).The Congressional Review Act, 5U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, 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 ofthe Congress andto the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information tothe U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, andthe Comptroller General ofthe United Statesprior to publication ofthe 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 5U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by January 7, 2002. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affect the finality ofthisrule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 27, 2001. David A.Ulirich, ActingRegional Administrator, Region5.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal 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 P-Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amendedby addingparagraph (c)(144) to read as follows:
§52.770 Identification of plan.

(c) * * * (144) On August 20, 2001 and September 19, 2001, Indiana submitted

aplan in response to Phase I ofthe NOx SIP Call. The plan includes Indiana's Phase INOx Budget Demonstration and supporting documentation including initial unit allocations and two new rules: 326 IAC 10-3 and 326 IAC 10-4. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A)Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 10; Ozone rules, Rule 3: Nitrogen Oxide Reduction Program for Specific Source Categories (326 IAC 10-3). Adopted June 6, 2001. Submitted August 20, 2001 and September 19, 2001. State effective September 16, 2001.

(B) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 10; Ozone rules, Rule 4: Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program (326 IAC 10-4). Adopted June 6, 2001. Submitted August 20, 2001 and September 19, 2001. State effective September 16, 2001.

[FR Doc. 01-27931 Filed 11-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81 [CA-059-RECL, FRL-7093-4]

Clean AirAct Reclassification, San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area; Designation of East Kern County Nonattainment Area and Extension of Attainment Date; California; Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Finalrule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final actionto change the boundary for the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) serious ozone nonattainment area by separating out the eastern portion ofKern County into its own nonattainment area. EPA is extending the attainment deadline for the new EastKern County serious ozone nonattainment area from November 15, 1999 toNovember 15, 2001.

EPA is taking final action to find that the SJV area did not attain the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) bythe November 15, 1999 Clean Air Act (CAA) deadline. As

a result, the SJV ozone nonattainment

area with its revised boundaries is reclassified by operation oflaw as a

severe area. The State must submitby May 31, 2002, a severe area ozone nonattainment plan for the SJV (now excluding the East Kern County ozone nonattainment area) that provides for the attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS as expeditiously aspracticable, but no later thanNovember 15, 2005. This plan
must meet the specific provisions of CAA section 182(d).

EPA is taking final action to find that the approved serious area ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP)for the SJV has not been fully implemented. As a result ofthis finding, the State must adopt and implement the specified

measuresby November 15, 2002 orbe subject to sanctions pursuant to sections 179(a) and (b) ofthe CAA. This finding and any potential sanctions do not apply tothe newly established East Kern County ozone nonattainment area, where the SIP is being fully implemented.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2001. ADDRESSES: The rulemaking docket is available for inspection during normal business hoursin the Air Docket, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. This rule and the Technical Support Documents for the proposed actions are also available in the airprograms section ofEPARegion 9's website, http://www.epa.govl region 09/air. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Planning Office (AIR-2),Air Division,EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, CA94105, (415) 744-1286, or ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.Introduction

OnJune 19, 2000, EPAproposed to findthat the SJV serious ozone nonattainment area did not attain the 1- hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1999, the attainment deadline for serious ozone nonattainment areas underCAA section 181(a). 65 FR 37926. The current SJVnonattainment area includes the counties ofSan Joaquin, Kern, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus andTulare. 40 CFR 81.301. EPA also proposed to findthatthe SJV SIP had not been fully implemented, because the San Joaquin Valley Unified AirPollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) had failed to adopt and implement six measuresby the deadlines in the SIP.Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 217

### /Thursday, November 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

During the public comment period for the proposal, EPAreceived comments requesting thatEPA remove the eastern portion ofKern County from the SJV

ozone nonattainment area and designate it a separate ozone nonattainment area. OnAugust 28, 2000, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) formally requested thatEPA create a separate

ozone nonattainment area for East Kern County and grant this area two 1-year attainment date extensions.

EPA found the State's request compelling and, on May 18, 2001, issued a reproposal torevise the SJV

ozone nonattainment area by changing its boundaries to remove eastern Kern County.' 66 FR 27616. In order to reflect this proposed boundary change, EPA reproposed the Agency's finding that the remaining portion ofSJV did not attain the ozone NAAQS bythe statutory deadline and, accordingly, would be reclassified by operation of law as a severe ozone nonattainment

area ifEPA finalized the finding. EPA proposed that the East Kern County

ozone nonattainment area would keep its serious classification because the

area had not recorded more than one exceedance ofthe ozone NAAQS over the pasttwo years and the EastKern County area otherwise qualified for two 1-year extensions ofthe November 15, 1999 attainment deadline pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5). EPA therefore proposed that the attainment deadline for East Kern County ozone nonattainment area be extended to November 15, 2001.

II. Response toPublic Comments and Final Action

In this document, EPAis responding
to comments submitted in response to the initial proposal (65 FR 37926) and the reproposal (66 FR 27616).

A. Establishmentof EastKern Countyas

aSeparateOzoneNonattainment Area With a SeriousOzoneNonattainment Area ClassificationandanExtended AttainmentDate

As discussed in the reproposal, the public comments submitted in response to the initial proposal supported removal ofEastKern County from the SJV ozone nonattainment area and establishment ofthis new area as a serious ozone nonattainment area with

an extended attainment deadline. No

1 The newboundary line requested by the State is the same as the current boundarybetween the Kern County and San Joaquin Valley air districts and generally follows the ridge lineofthe Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountain Ranges. The precise description ofthe newboundary appears at the end ofthis notice in the revision to 40 CFRpart 81. commenters on either the initial proposal or the reproposal opposed these actions. Therefore, for the reasons setforth in thereproposal (66 FR 27617-27620), EPA is today taking final action to grant the State's requests: (1) To split the SJV ozone nonattainment

area into two separate ozone nonattainment areas pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(D); (2)toretain for the

new East Kern County ozone nonattainment area the serious nonattainment area ozone classification; and (3)to grant two 1-year attainment date extensions pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5), thus establishing an attainment deadline ofNovember 15, 2001.

B. FindingofFailureToAttain forthe SanJoaquinValley Ozone NonattainmentArea

EPA received no comments opposing the Agency's finding that the SJV ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard bythe November 15, 1999 deadline. Accordingly, and for the reasons setforth in theproposals (65 FR 37927-37928 and 66 FR 27617), EPA is today issuing the final finding under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A).

C.AttainmentDeadline forthe San JoaquinValley OzoneNonattainment Area

As a consequence ofEPA's finding of failure to attain, the SJV ozone nonattainment area isreclassified by operation oflawto severe. The CAA provides that severe ozone nonattainment areas must attain the

ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 15 years after enactment ofthe 1990 CAA Amendments, or November 15, 2005. CAA section 181(a)(2) also establishes a "severe 17" classification for areas with

a 1988 ozone design value between 0.190 parts per million (ppm)and 0.280 ppm. 2Areas meeting this criterion are required to attain the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously aspracticable but no later than 17 years after enactment ofthe 1990 CAAAmendments (i.e., by November 15, 2007).

In the reproposal, EPA noted that the design value for the SJV ozone nonattainment area is 0.161 ppm. 66 FR 27617. Although this value isbelow the CAA criterion for the severe-1 7 classification, EPAreferenced a State

2The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.12 ppm. A monitor's design valueis the fourth highest ambient concentration recorded at thatmonitor over the previous three-year period. Anarea's design value is the highest ofthe designvalues from the area's monitors. A design value is one indication ofthe severity ofthe ozone problem in an area. It is also used indetermining the level ofemission reductions needed to attain the standard. suggestion that attainment by 2005 may notbe possible for the SJV ozone nonattainment area, given the area's air quality problem. Accordingly, EPA solicited comment on the viability ofthe 2005 deadline, and on any legal, policy, and technical rationale for allowing a 2007 attainment deadline.

1.Comments Supporting a 2007 Attainment Deadline

State legislators, local governments, CARB, and SJVUAPCD provided the following arguments in support ofa severe-17 classification.

(a)It is not feasible to attain by 2005 based onpreliminary photochemical modeling which identifies the need for

an additional 150 tons per day (tpd)of the two principal ozone precursorsvolatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides ofnitrogen (NOx). This is a 30 percent reduction in ozone precursors beyond projected 2005 levels with all adopted controls. CARB observed that the only extreme ozone nonattainment

area in the country,the South Coast (metropolitan LosAngeles) area, requires the same 150 tpdreduction of VOC emissions to attainbut is allowed, by its CAA classification, until 2010 to achieve these reductions.

(b) SJV's design value is higher than the design value for all other areas in the country with a 2005 attainment deadline. In addition, the magnitude of the attainment task isreflected in the number of days over the standard. SJV has not only a higher design value but also a greater number ofdays over the standard compared to other areas with

a 2007 deadline. Although the 1990 CAA Amendments based classifications solely on design value, itisrelevant to consider the factthat SJVhad atthat timethe third highest number of exceedance days in the country. SJV has already achieved larger emissions reductions than have any areas that are assigned a 2007 date, both in the percentage ofemissions reduced andthe actual tons of emissions reduced. SJV has achieved these reductions but has
notbeen able to reduce its design value. Thismakes clear that SJVhas one ofthe
most severe ozone problems in the country, requiring additional time to achieve the NAAQS.

(c) Any new controls would haveto be implemented by 2003, which isthe firstyear that counts towards a 2005 attainment date. The SJV area already has in place stringent controls. More timeis needed for technology advancements in order to implement the

measures required to bring SJVinto attainment. More time will also decrease the impact ofnew controls on businesses. 

### 56477

### 56478 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 217/Thursday, November 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

(d)Additional time is also critically needed to achieve mobile source fleet
turnover to meet more stringent standards, and to secure and distribute incentive funding to support replacement ofolder vehicles. The problem is greater because State incentive money toretrofit engines is being diverted to buy emissions offsets for new electricity generators required
to meetthe energy crisis. (e) New State and federal controls on heavy-duty trucks, low emission vehicles, and reformulation ofdiesel fuel will be much more effective in 2007 than in 2005 due tophase-in schedules, since many ofthese controls go into effect in 2004 and the penetration rate in the first twoyears is extremely low. (f)A 2007 deadline meets the CAA requirement for attainment as expeditiously as practicable based on SJV's air quality, emission reduction, and control strategy issues.

(g)The SJV ozone nonattainment area is greatly impacted by pollution from the San Francisco Bay Area. Assuming that the Bay Area is granted a 2006 attainment date, the SJV's attainment date shouldbe later.

(h)Emissions reductions from post2003 federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) transportation funding will be needed for attainment, andthese funds cannot be secured until the Transportation Equity Act is reauthorized, which is expected in 2004.

(i) Smart Growth policies have the potential toreduce emissions but require more time for implementation than would be available assuming a 2005 attainment deadline.

(j) Sources under federal control are a significant fraction ofthe SJV emission inventory, especially interstate trucks, farm and construction equipment, and locomotives, andthe problem is exacerbated by the factthat the sources

are particularly active in the harvest (andsmog) season. Given the scale of reductions needed for attainment, the federal government must reduce its share ofthe inventory. Like California, EPA will need to consider notjustnew standards but also retrofits and accelerated turnover ofthe existing fleet. As a regulatory partner, EPA would agree that a 2005 date does not allow sufficient time to accomplish these necessary reductions. The SJV attainment problem is compounded by the presence oftwo major transportation corridors (Interstate 5and Freeway 99) andby EPA's failure to enforce adequately the existing national standard for heavy-duty engines and failure to act in a timely manner onthe manufacturers' consent degree, resulting in asignificant increase in NOx emissions.

(k)EPAhas sufficient authority and discretion under CAA sections 172 and 181 to seta 2007 deadline, based on the severity ofnonattainment, andthe availability andfeasibility ofcontrol

measures.
2.Comments Supporting a 2005 Attainment Deadline

The Center onRace, Poverty &the Environment (CRPE) andEarthjustice Legal Defense Fund submitted
comments opposing the 2007 attainment deadline. These groups stated thatEPA lacks the authority to grant an extension ofthe attainment deadline from 2005 to 2007. The 2005 deadline is explicit in the CAA and so EPA has no administrative discretion to grant an extension beyond that date. In addition
to being patently illegal, granting the 2007 deadline would force the millions ofValley residents to breathe dangerous levels of smog atleast twoyears longer than necessary. This 2007 extension would result in human suffering and medical costs farin excess ofthe temporarily-avoided compliance costs. Granting the SJVUAPCD additional time when itis not implementing its own inadequate plan would reward and perpetuate further inaction. In contrast to the SJVUAPCD, other agencies (such

asthe South Coast Air Quality Management District) have adopted stringent controls and are on a trajectory
to attain the ozone NAAQS, so technical arguments for delaying full implementation ofpublic health protections in the SJV shouldnot be taken seriously.

3.EPA Response to Comments and Final Action

EPA agrees with many ofthe
comments supporting the difficulty of developing a plan to demonstrate attainment ofthe NAAQS by the 2005 date. This deadline presents a remarkable challenge for an area with SJV's characteristics: meteorology and topography providing diverse conditions favorable to the formation of
ozone; large numbers of smallemissions

sources already subject, in many cases, to stringent controls and, in other cases, capable offurther control only through costlyretrofit, rebuild, or replacement programs; substantial mobile source and
process emissions sources associated with the area's dominant agricultural economy andtherefore operating at peak levels during the ozone season; andlarge interstate transportation emissions from truck and rail operations that are not generally susceptible to control atlocal and state levels. Equitable considerations suggest that a 2007 attainment deadline might be at least as appropriate for the SJV ozone nonattainment area as for other areas thatwere assigned severe-17 classifications in accordance with the provisions of1990 CAA Amendments.

EPA has concluded, however, that the CAA does not provide the Agency authority to set a 2007 attainment deadline for the SJV ozone nonattainment area based on these considerations. When EPAfinds that an

ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the ozone standard by its attainment date pursuant to section 181(b)(2), that section provides that the

area "shall be reclassified by operation oflawin accordance with table 1of subsection (a)to the higher of-(i)the
nexthigher classification for the area, or (ii)the classification applicable tothe area's design value as determined at the time ofthe notice required under subparagraph (B)." The phrase "in accordance with table 1"prevents EPA fromproviding a 2007 attainment date for the SJV in this actionbecause, for the severe area class, table 1establishes

an attainment date of "15 years after
enactment [i.e., 2005]." CAA 181(a). The 2007 attainment deadline is set forth not in table 1but in CAA section 181(a)(2), which states: "Notwithstanding table 1, in the case ofa severe area with a 1988

ozone design value between 0.190 and 0.280 ppm, the attainment date shall be 17 years (inlieu of15 years) after the date ofenactment ofthe Clean AirAct Amendments of1990." Thus, the 2007 attainment date is not provided for in Table 1,which is what Congress required EPAto act in accordance with when an area isreclassified pursuant to section 181(b). Consequently, EPA does
notbelieve thatithas the authority to provide the SJV with a 2007 attainment date in this action. However, under section 181(b)(3) ofthe Act,the State may request a reclassification and receive a 2010 attainment deadline in order to have the additional time the Statebelieves is necessary to attain

ozone NAAQS.

Although EPA cannot agree withthe State and other commenters that the Agency has the discretion to grant the State's request for a 2007 attainment deadline, EPA does agree that attainment by 2005requires emission reductions from all quarters, andEPA intends to workclosely with the State and local agencies to explore opportunities for the federal government to contribute additional controls or other assistance to advance attainment in the SJV ozone nonattainment area.

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 217/Thursday, November 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

D.Deadline forSubmittalofa Revised SIPAddressingthe CAA Provisions for Severe OzoneNonattainment Areas

1.EPA's Proposal

EPA's initial proposed finding of failure to attain, proposed thatthe State be required to submit a severe area SIP revision no later than 18 months from the effective date ofthe area's reclassification. 65 FR 37928. However, EPA also proposed thatthe SJVUAPCD be required to submit a revised new

source review (NSR)rule within 180 days ofthe final date ofthe reclassification, in order to ensure that the District's definitions of"Major Source" and "Distance Offset Ratio" reflect the severe area requirements. 65 FR 37928-37929.

EPA's reproposal noted that CAA section 182(i) authorizes EPA to adjust applicable deadlines as appropriate. EPA proposed a SIP submittal deadline ofMay 31, 2002, in order to ensure that control measures are put in place as quickly as possible and there is ample time for the measures totake effect before the attainment deadline. The reproposal stated thatthis deadline is reasonable given the advance notice provided by our initial proposal, issued

onJune 19, 2000, andthe planning efforts already underway at State and local levels. 66 FR 27617.

2.Public Comments

No commenters on the initial proposal addressed the SIP submittal deadline issue. In response tothe reproposal, EPA received four
comments. The SanJoaquin Valley Transportation Planning Agencies Director's Association (TPA) and Tulare County Association ofGovernments (TCAG)requested thatthe deadline be changed to August 31, 2002, in order to allow the revised SIP to incorporate updated transportation planning assumptions. TPA also noted that the reproposal's May 31, 2002 deadline is inconsistent with EPA's policy of allowing 18 months for SIP development. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) requested a six-month extension ofthe SIP sumittal deadline for the following

reasons: The May 31, 2002 deadline would not allow enough time for the regulatory reviewprocess necessary for

new District rules; WSPAhas serious

concerns about basing a control strategy

on a single design-day ozone episode; the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS)is now available but has yet to be fully considered; the SIP needs to focus more on mobile source reduction strategies because previous significant stationary source reductions have not resulted in acorresponding improvement in air quality. Earthjustice supported EPA's May 31, 2002 deadline, noting that this date affords ample time
to prepare the revision since it is 30 months after the area's November 15, 1999 attainment deadline.

3.EPA Response to Comments and Final Action

EPA agrees with TPA andTCAG that the revised SIP should include updated transportation emissions and the latest planning assumptions. However, the
commenters submitted no evidence demonstrating that these updates cannot be completed in time to be incorporated in aSIP submittedby May 31, 2002. EPA believes thatthe transportation plan and emissions updates can, in fact, be prepared on this schedule. EPAis also concerned thatthe SIP needs to be prepared no later than this date in order
to provide areasonable opportunity for the State, local agencies, and affected public to meetthe SIP emission reduction milestone requirements for 2002 under CAA section 182(c)(2)(B).

Regarding the WSPA comments, neither the District northe State commented that the May 31, 2002 deadline would present any ofthe problems suggested byWSPA. EPA
announcements concerning thepending reclassification began in late 1999 and became official in June 2000. This has given the responsible agencies adequate time to plan their rulemaking calendars. EPA acknowledged in itsJune 2000 proposal thatthe results from CCOS may not be fully available tomeet the SIP deadlines. The planning process is dynamic and new information will continue to be developed even after the CCOS information is available; the State always has the option ofrevising its SIP based onnew information. Regarding mobile sources versus stationary
sources, EPA relies on the state to develop a control strategy the takes into
account the mix ofsources affecting the

area. EPA is therefore not extending the SIP deadline, both because neither the State nor the local air pollution control agencies requested the additional time, andbecause the six-month delay would further postpone reductions and planning efforts necessary for air quality improvements in the SJV.

Therefore, EPA isusing the authority provided in the CAA to finalize May 31, 2002, asthe SIP submittal deadline. By this date, the State must submit a plan addressing all ofthe severe area requirements.

As noted in the initial proposal, CAA section 182(d)(3) sets a deadline of December 31, 2000, to submitthe plan revision requiring fees for major sources should the area fail to attain. Pursuant to CAA section 182(i), EPA proposed to adjust this date to coincide with the submittal deadline forthe rest ofthe

severe area requirements. EPA ishere finalizing thatproposal and establishing May 31, 2002, as the deadline for submitting the emissions fee rule responsive to CAA sections 182(d)(3) and 185.

In the initial proposal, EPAproposed
to require that the more stringent severearea NSR rule, which includes a higher offset ratio and lower applicability level,
mustbe submitted no laterthan 180 days from the effective date ofthe SJV area's reclassification to severe. Since this 180-day deadline would now approximate the May 31, 2002 deadline
set forthe comprehensive severe area plan, EPA is not finalizing the proposed 180-day deadline forthe NSR rule revision. Instead, the State will be required to submitby May 31, 2002, a revised NSR rule meeting the severe

area provisions ofCAA section 182(d).

E.Adoption andImplementationof Reasonably Available Control Technology(RACT)Rules

EPA's initial proposal indicated that the revised severe ozone SIP for SJV needed to meetthe RACT requirement for sources subject to the new lower major source applicability cutoff of25
tons peryear (tpy), pursuant to CAA section 182(d). As discussed above, the initial proposal set the deadline for submitting the severe ozone SIP as 18 months from the effective date ofthe reclassification ofthe SJV to severe, and the reproposal setthe deadline asMay 31, 2002. In response to the initial proposal, SJVUAPCD indicated that "the District should be able to adopt RACT rules shortly before the 18-month sanction deadline." 3 EPA presumes that this comment indicates that the District expected tobe able to meettherule adoption deadline inthe reproposal, which is more than 23 months after the initial proposal was published. EPA is finalizing the May 31, 2002 SIP deadline

as applicable to the RACT rulerevisions provided in CAA section 182(d) for major stationary sources atthe severe

area applicability level of25 tpy.

SJVUAPCD's comment on the initial proposal indicated thatthe District would set the final RACT compliance dates to coincide with the 2005 attainment date, "in order to allow as much time aspossible for source operators to install controls." Under CAA section 172(c)(1), nonattainment

3Letterfrom David L. Crow, SJVUAPCD APCO/ Executive Officer, to John Ungvarsky, EPA, dated August 24, 2000. 

### 56479

### 56480 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 217/Thursday, November 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

plans must "provide for the implementation ofallreasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including suchreductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as maybe obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably available control technology) * * *." The SJVUAPCD's RACT compliance schedule shouldbe as expeditious as practicable, both to address this fundamental CAA provision and to speed progress in public health protection. EPA cannot approve RACT compliance schedules that are not as expeditious as practicable but are rather designed to allow as much time as possible for source operators to install controls. Given thatthe District has known about this RACT requirement since EPA's June 19, 2000 proposal, EPA does not believe that 2005 represents expeditious implementation ofthe RACT requirement. Neither the State nor District hasprovided a compelling reason why the new RACT rules could not be implemented prior to 2005. Accordingly, EPA isfinalizing the May 31, 2002 deadline for submittal of

new RACT rules, andEPA strongly
encourages the District to implement the rules within 18 months ofthe effective date ofthereclassification.

F. TransportationConformityBudgets

1.EPA's Proposal

EPA's initial proposal indicated that the revised SJV attainment demonstration may establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for subareas within the region ifthe modeling in the SIP shows that attainment will result when all subarea budgets are met. The initial proposal further statedthat there would be no allowance for shifting of growth from one subarea to another. 65 FR 37929.

2.Public Comments

In response to the initial proposal, CARB supported a singlebudget as providing better alignment with the new region wide attainment demonstration, while providing greater flexibility by allowing higher than expected emissions in one portion ofthe valley to be offsetby lower emissions in the rest oftheregion. On the other hand, several ofthe SJV transportation planning agencies, TPA, and SJVUAPCD endorsed the establishment ofseparate budgets for each subarea, with trading allowedbetween subareas so long as the total ofall subarea budgets does not exceed the region wide total emission budget. SJVUAPCD further indicated that the new SJV SIP will address the maximum amount ofemissions that can be traded andthe distance over which these emissions are traded, and a requirement that all subareas not included in a trade shouldhave currently valid conformity findings for their Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Programs.

3.EPA Response to Public Comments andFinal Action

EPA appreciates the complexity of transportation planning in a vast nonattainment area where the responsibility for preparing, adopting, and amending transportation plans and programs is assigned to 8 separate councils ofgovernment. The State and local agencies may electto address the CAA section 176(c) transportation conformity provisions by means of either a region wide budget or separate budgets for subareas. EPA intends to work with allinvolved parties to ensure that the SIP'sbudget (or budgets) and conformity provisions provide needed flexibility withoutjeopardizing the attainment demonstration or the integrity ofthe regional and local transportation planning processes. In this final action, EPA cautions that subarea budgets must be fully documented andthat the budgets and future conformity determinations must be consistent with the region wide attainment demonstration. A significant shift in growth from one subarea to another may therefore require a new modeled attainment demonstration with revised subarea budgets.

G. NonimplementationFinding

1.EPA's Proposal

The initial proposal included a proposed nonimplementation finding, based onthe failure ofthe SJVUAPCD
to meet its SIP commitments to adopt andimplement 6 rules to achieve specified emissions reductions totaling 8.09tpd ofVOC emissions. Because the proposed nonimplementation finding is based on afailure ofthe SJVUAPCD to adopt andimplement regulations, the finding would apply to western Kern County (whichis under thejurisdiction ofthe SJVUAPCD) but not to East Kern County, which isunder the jurisdiction ofthe Kern County Air Pollution Control District. 65 FR 37930, footnote 12. 65 FR 37929-31. The rules and associated emission reductions are listed in Table 1below. EPAproposed that the rules shouldbe adopted and implemented as expeditiously as practicable but implementation should be no later than November 15, 2002, the first rate ofprogress milestone under the

severe area provisions ofthe CAA. EPA proposed thatthe 2to 1offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply if SJVUAPCD failed to adopt the 6

measures within 18 months ofthe effective date ofthe final finding. EPA further proposed thatthe highway approval andfunding sanction would apply underCAA section 179(b)(1) if SJVUAPCD did not correct the deficiencies within 6 months after the offset sanction isimposed.

2.Public Comments

CRPE commented that an implementation deadline ofNovember 15, 2002, is too late and this delay will unnecessarily threaten the health ofSan Joaquin Valley residents. EPA should require actual implementation ofthe rulesbefore the end ofthe 18 month period. EPA should impose the highway sanctions first, in order to motivate the political forces that will have to be harnessed in order to adopt the rules. EPA should also determine that SJVUAPCD has failed to implement the SIP because the Districthas excluded agricultural operations from itsNSR rule.

SJVUAPCD and CARB commented thatthe District shouldbe allowed the flexibility to correct the nonimplementation by achieving the 8.09 tpdofVOC emissions through any combination ofthe six control measures in the SIP ornewly identified substitute

measures. ARB stated thatthere has been a substantial change in the inventory for several ofthe rule categories, and SJVUAPCD indicated thatthe 8.09 tpd ofVOC reductions might be achieved by implementing fewer than the six delinquent rules. 4

SJVUAPCD requested theEPA extend the implementation deadline to May 15, 2003, in order to allow source operators timeto get controls in place but still achieve the reductions before the beginning ofthe 2003 ozone season.
3.EPA Response to Comments and Final Action

EPA agrees with CRPE thatprompt remedy to the nonimplementation is important,but EPAbelieves thatit may be unreasonable to require the SJVUAPCD and affected sources to implement the delinquent measures

more quickly than EPAproposed. EPA

4ofthe six measures EPA identified, onemeasure (i.e., Rule 4662-Organic Solvent Degreasing) has been adoptedby theDistrict andthree measures (i.e., Rule 4601-Architectural Coatings, Rule 4623- Organic Liquid Storage, and Rule4663-Organic Solvent Waste) arescheduled for adoption by the District in late 2001or early 2002. Theother two

measures (i.e.,Rule 4692-Commercial Charbroiling and Rule 4411-Oil Production Well Cellars) are notscheduled for adoption bythe District at this time.Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 217

### /Thursday, November 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

disagrees with CRPE thatthe agricultural operations exemption in the SJVUAPCD NSR rule constitutes SIP nonimplementation, since the exemption, although inconsistent with CAA provisions, does not evince a failure to carry out provisions in the approved SIP. Finally, EPA sees no compelling need toreverse the presumptive order ofsanction implementation, and therefore the Agency intends to follow the sequence setin 40 CFR 52.31: the offset sanction
atthe 18th month and the highway sanction at the 24th month following the finding.

EPAbelieves thatthe SJVUAPCD is obliged by its existing SIP tomeet the specific requirements ofits commitments. However, CARB and the District have the opportunity to amend the SIP by showing that reasonable further progress and otherrequirements ofthe CAA canbe met with a revised schedule ofcontrols and associated emission reductions. This is especially the case where emissions inventory changes after the original control

measure commitment show thatfar less actual emission reductions canbe achievedby controls on individual

source categories. However, in viewof the magnitude ofthe emission reductions needed for attainment, SJVUAPCD is not free to abandon or postpone any control measure that continues to be available, even though the original SIP'scumulative emission reduction commitment couldbe met without implementing the measure. EPA therefore finalizes the proposed nonimplementation finding and sets November 15, 2002, asthe outside date for adoption and implementation ofthe delinquent control measures.
III. Summary oftheFinal Action and the State's SIP Responsibilities.

A. EastKern County

EPA is taking final action to split the SJV ozone nonattainment area into two separate ozone nonattainment areas pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(D). EPA isretaining for the new East Kern County ozone nonattainment area the serious nonattainment area ozone classification but granting two 1-year attainment date extensions pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5), thus establishing

an attainment deadline ofNovember 15, 2001. IfEast Kern County does not record aviolation 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 ofa redesignation request andmaintenance plan addressing the provisions ofCAA section 175A.

B. SanJoaquinValley

Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), EPA isfinalizing its finding that the SJV

area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the statutory deadline. By operation oflaw, the area isreclassified
to severe andis therefore required, under CAA section 181(a)(1), to attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later thanNovember 15, 2005. Under CAA section 182(i), the State must submit a SIP addressing the

severe area requirements. EPA is establishing May 31, 2002, as the deadline for the submission ofthe

severe area requirements. Under CAA section 182(d), severe area plans must meet all requirements for serious area plans plus the requirements for severe areas, including,but not limited to: (1) A25 tpy major stationary source threshold; (2) additional reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules for sources subject to the new lower major source applicability cutoff; (3)an NSRrule requiring offsets ofat least 1.3 to 1; (4) a rate ofprogress in creditable emission reductions ofozone precursors ofat least 3percent per year from 2000 until the attainment year; (5)

a fee requirement for major sources should the area failto attain by 2005; and (6) a demonstration ofattainment as expeditiously aspracticable but nolater thanNovember 15, 2005. The more stringent RACT provisions must be scheduled for implementation as expeditiously aspracticable, and EPA strongly encourages an implementation deadline ofno laterthan 18 months afterthe effective date ofthe reclassification to severe.

Upon the effective date ofEPA's finding offailure to implement the SIP, SJVUAPCD has until November 15, 2002 to adopt andimplement the six delinquent measures shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1.- DELINQUENT RULE COMMITMENTS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 

### SIP

Emission Rule No. Rule title reductions in tpd VOC

4601

.......................................................... Architectural Coatings

................................................................................................ 1.51 4662

.......................................................... Organic Solvent Degreasing

...................................................................................... 2.44 4692

.......................................................... Com mercial Charbroiling

............................................................................................ 0.39 4623

.......................................................... Organic Liquid Storage

.............................................................................................. 3.0 4411

.......................................................... Oil Production Well Cellars

........................................................................................ 0.56 4663

.......................................................... Organic Solvent Waste

.............................................................................................. 0.19

IfSJVUAPCD has not adopted the

measures listed in Table 1with implementation deadlines ofon or before November 15, 2002, the 2to 1 offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply after 18 months ofthe effective date ofthe finding. Ifthe deficiencies have still notbeen corrected six months after the offset sanction is imposed, then thehighway approval and funding sanction would applyunder CAA section 179(b)(1). IV. Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore isnot subject toreview bythe Office ofManagement and Budget.

EPA has determined that neither the finding offailure to attain, northe finding ofnonimplementation, would result in any ofthe effects identified in Executive Order 12866 sec. 3(f). As discussed above, findings offailure to attainunder section 188(b)(2) ofthe CAA are based solely upon airquality considerations andthe subsequent nonattainment area reclassification must

occur by operation oflawin light of those air quality conditions. These actions donot, in and ofthemselves, impose any newrequirements on any sectors ofthe economy.

In addition,because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect tothe differently classified
areas, andbecause those requirements

are automatically triggered by classifications that,in turn, are triggered by air quality values, findings offailure
to attain and reclassification cannot be said to impose a materially adverse 

### 56481

### 56482 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 217/Thursday, November 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

impact on State, local, or tribal governments or communities. Similarly, the finding offailure to implement the SIP merely ensures the implementation ofalready existing requirements by creating thepotential for the imposition ofsanctions ifthe State does not adopt the rules to which ithas committed under its own State plan, and therefore the finding does not adversely affect entities.

The designation ofEast Kern County

as a new, separate nonattainment area with a serious classification and the attainment date extensions will not impose any new requirements on any sectors ofthe economy because the area is already classified as serious.

For the aforementioned reasons, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 32111, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, orUse" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 etseq.).

These actions donot contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) for the following reasons: (1)The finding offailure to attain is a factual determination based on air quality considerations; (2)the resulting reclassification must occur by operation oflawand will not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate; (3)the designation ofEast Kern County as a separate nonattainment area with a serious classification will not impose any new requirements on any sectors of the economy; and (4) the finding of nonimplementation does not impose any new federal mandates but rather obliges the State to adopt rules to which it has committed under its State plan.

This rule also does not have tribal implications because itwill not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on therelationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government andIndian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). For these same reasons, this rule also does
not have Federalism implications because itdoes not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities amongthe various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). These actions are also
not subject toExecutive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because they

are not economically significant.

As discussed above, findings of failure to attainunder section 188(b)(2) ofthe CAA are based solely upon air quality considerations and the subsequent nonattainment area reclassification must occur byoperation oflawin light ofthose air quality conditions. In addition,the finding of failure to implement the SIP merely

ensures the implementation ofalready existing requirements to which the State has committed under its own plan, and therefore the finding does not adversely affect entities. In this context, it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itmakes a finding of failure to attain and finding offailure to implement the SIP, to use voluntary

consensus standards. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) donot apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the
agencypromulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and tothe Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPAwill submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United Statesprior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it ispublished in the Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by January 7,2002. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affectthe finality ofthis rule for the
purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Dated: October 23, 2001. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator,RegionIX.

Part 81 ofchapter I,title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 81-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.
2. In §81.305 the "California-ozone" table is amended as follows:

a. By adding "East Kern County" as a designated area immediately before the entry for "San Joaquin Valley Area"; and

b. Byrevising the entry for "San Joaquin Valley Area."
§81.305 California.

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 217/Thursday, November 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

CALIFORNIA-OZONE [1-hour standard]

Designation Classification Designated area 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. San Joaquin Valley Area: Fresn o County

................................................................... 12/10/01 Nonattainment

............... 12/10/2001 Serious. 2

11/15/90 Nonattainment

............... 12/10/2001 Severe-15. 56483

### 56484 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 217/Thursday, November 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

CALIFORNIA-OZONE-Continued [1-hour standard]
Designation Classification Designated area Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

Kern County (part) That portion of Kern County that lies west 11/15/90 Nonattainment

............... 12/10/2001 Severe-15.

and north of a line described below: Beginning at the KernLos 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. Kings C ounty

............................................................................ 11/15/90 Nonattainment

............... 12/10/2001 Severe-15. M

adera County

......................................................................... 11/15/90 Nonattainment

............... 12/10/2001 Severe-15. M

erced County

......................................................................... 11/15/90 Nonattainment

............... 12/10/2001 Severe-15. San Joaquin County

................................................................. 11/15/90 Nonattainment

............... 12/10/2001 Severe-15. Stanislaus County

.................................................................... 11/15/90 Nonattainment

............... 12/10/2001 Severe-15. Tulare County

........................................................................... 11/15/90 Nonattainment

............... 12/10/2001 Severe-15.

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted. 2Attainment date isextended to November 15, 2001.

[FR Doc. 01-27289 Filed 11-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300 [FRL-7088-3]

National Oiland Hazardous Substances PollutionContingency Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct Final Deletion ofthe ICG Iselin RailroadYard Site from the National Priorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: EPA Region 4 announces the deletion ofthe ICG Iselin Railroad Yard Site (site) from the NPL and requests public comment onthis action.The NPL constitutes appendix B to part 300 ofthe National and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 ofthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabilityAct of1980 (CERCLA) as amended. The EPA has determined that the site poses no significantthreat to public health or the environment, as defined by CERCLA, andtherefore, no further remedial

measures pursuant to CERCLA is warranted.

DATES: This "direct final" action will be effective January 7,2002, unless EPA receives significant adverse or critical comments by December 10, 2001. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish atimely withdrawal ofthe direct final rule inthe Federal Register informing the public that the rulewill nottake effect. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to RobertWest, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-8806, west.robert@epa.gov. Comprehensive information on this site is available through the public docket which is available for viewing atthe site information repositories at the following locations: U.S. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303; andthe Jackson-Madison County Library, 433 East Lafayette, Jackson, TN 38305, (901) 423-0225. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RobertWest, Remedial Project Manager,