Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 50805

sufficient federalism implications for 

which we would prepare a Federalism 

Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation. 

By approving it, the Director certifies 

that it will not have a significant 

economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities because: This 

rule is about the correctional 

management of offenders committed to 

the custody of the Attorney General or 

the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 

and its economic impact is limited to 

the Bureau’s appropriated funds. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not cause State, local 

and tribal governments, or the private 

sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in 

any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. We do not need to take 

action under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by § 804 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996. This rule will not result in an 

annual effect on the economy of 

$100,000,000 or more; a major increase 

in costs or prices; or significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

on the ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

Plain Language Instructions 

We want to make our documents 

easier to read and understand. If you 

can suggest how to improve the clarity 

of these regulations, call or write to 

Sarah Qureshi at the address or 

telephone number listed above.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 542 

Prisoners.

Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, 

Director, Bureau of Prisons.

Under rulemaking authority vested in 

the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and delegated to the Director, Bureau of 

Prisons, we amend 28 CFR part 542 as 

set forth below.

SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL 

MANAGEMENT

PART 542—ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDY 

1. Revise the authority citation for 28 

CFR part 542 to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 

3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed 

in part as to offenses committed on or after 

November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed 

October 12, 1984, as to offenses committed 

after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.

2. Revise § 542.10 to read as follows:

§ 542.10 Purpose and scope. 

(a) Purpose. The purpose of the 

Administrative Remedy Program is to 

allow an inmate to seek formal review 

of an issue relating to any aspect of his/

her own confinement. An inmate may 

not submit a Request or Appeal on 

behalf of another inmate. 

(b) Scope. This Program applies to all 

inmates in institutions operated by the 

Bureau of Prisons, to inmates designated 

to contract Community Corrections 

Centers (CCCs) under Bureau of Prisons 

responsibility, and to former inmates for 

issues that arose during their 

confinement. This Program does not 

apply to inmates confined in other nonfederal facilities. 

(c) Statutorily-mandated procedures.

There are statutorily-mandated 

procedures in place for tort claims (28 

CFR part 543, subpart C), Inmate 

Accident Compensation claims (28 CFR 

part 301), and Freedom of Information 

Act or Privacy Act requests (28 CFR part 

513, subpart D). If an inmate raises an 

issue in a request or appeal that cannot 

be resolved through the Administrative 

Remedy Program, the Bureau will refer 

the inmate to the appropriate 

statutorily-mandated procedures.

§ 542.12 [Removed and Reserved] 

3. Remove and reserve § 542.12.

[FR Doc. 02–19747 Filed 8–5–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[CA–034–FIN; FRL–7256–1] 

Clean Air Act Redesignation and 

Reclassification, Searles Valley 

Nonattainment Area; Designation of 

Coso Junction, Indian Wells Valley, 

and Trona Nonattainment Areas; 

California; Determination of Attainment 

of the PM–10 Standards for the Coso 

Junction Area; Particulate Matter of 10 

microns or less (PM–10)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is changing the 

boundaries of the Searles Valley, 

California moderate PM–10 

nonattainment area (NA) by dividing 

that area into three new, separate 

moderate NAs: Coso Junction, Indian 

Wells Valley, and Trona. EPA is also 

finding that the Trona NA has attained 

the 24-hour and annual PM–10 national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

by the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandated 

attainment date for moderate 

nonattainment areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect a copy of 

the docket for this action at EPA’s 

Region IX office during normal business 

hours. See address below. This 

document and the proposal for this final 

rule are also available as electronic files 

on EPA’s Region 9 Web page at 

www.epa.gov/region09/air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Irwin, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, Air 

Division, Planning Office (AIR–2), 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105, (415) 947–4116, 

irwin.karen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Nonattainment Area Boundary 

Changes 

On November 15, 1990, the date of 

enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments, pursuant to CAA sections 

107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) respectively, the 

Searles Valley planning area was 

designated nonattainment and classified 

as moderate by operation of law. See 40 

CFR 81.305. The Searles Valley NA is 

situated at the southeastern end of the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains and includes 

portions of Inyo, Kern and San 

Bernardino Counties. The boundaries of 

the NA are defined by United States 

50806 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

1Boundary changes are an inherent part of a 

designation or redesignation of an area under the 

CAA. See CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii).

2On June 13, 2001, EPA also proposed to find 

that the proposed Indian Wells and Coso Junction 

NAs have not attained the 24-hour and annual PM–

10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Today’s final 

rule addresses only the finding concerning the 

Trona NA. EPA intends to take additional action 

with respect to the Indian Wells and Coso NAs in 

future rulemakings.

3EPA received a number of comments on its 

proposed nonattainment findings for the proposed 

Indian Wells and Coso Junction NAs. The Agency 

will address these comments in any future 

rulemakings regarding these proposals.

Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic 

Unit #18090205, an area of 

approximately 2000 square miles. Id.

Under section 107(d)(3)(D), the 

Governor of any state, on the Governor’s 

own motion, is authorized to submit to 

the Administrator a revised 

designation 1*COM019* of any 

nonattainment area or portions thereof 

within the State. On May 4, 2001, the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

submitted to EPA a request under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(D) to revise the 

boundaries for the Searles Valley NA by 

dividing the area into three separate 

PM–10 nonattainment areas, Coso 

Junction, Indian Wells Valley and 

Trona, to be separated along the Inyo, 

Kern, and San Bernardino County lines 

within the Searles Valley NA.

In determining whether to approve or 

deny a state’s request for a revision to 

the designation of an area under section 

107(d)(3)(D), EPA uses the same factors 

Congress directed EPA to consider when 

the Agency initiates a revision to a 

designation of an area on its own 

motion under section 107(d)(3)(A). 

These factors include air quality data, 

planning and control considerations, or 

any other air quality-related 

considerations the Administrator deems 

appropriate. 

B. Determinations of Attainment/

Nonattainment 

States containing areas such as 

Searles Valley which were designated as 

moderate nonattainment by operation of 

law under section 107(d)(4)(B) were 

required to develop and submit state 

implementation plans (SIPs) to provide 

for the attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS 

by no later than December 31, 1994. 

EPA has the responsibility, pursuant 

to sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2) of the 

Act, of determining within 6 months of 

the applicable attainment date whether 

PM–10 nonattainment areas have 

attained the NAAQS. Section 179(c)(1) 

of the Act provides that these 

determinations are to be based upon an 

area’s ‘‘air quality as of the attainment 

date’’ and section 188(b)(2) is consistent 

with this requirement. A total of 3 

consecutive years of clean air quality 

data are generally necessary to show 

attainment of the 24-hour and annual 

standards for PM–10. Because the 

attainment deadline for the Searles 

Valley was December 31, 1994, for 

purposes of the attainment finding, EPA 

is using monitoring data from 1992–

1994.

EPA makes the determinations of 

whether an area’s air quality is meeting 

the PM–10 NAAQS based upon air 

quality data gathered at monitoring sites 

in the nonattainment area. These data 

are reviewed to determine the area’s air 

quality status in accordance with EPA 

guidance at 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. 

Pursuant to appendix K, attainment of 

the annual PM–10 standard is achieved 

when the annual arithmetic mean

PM–10 concentration is equal to or less 

than 50 μg/m3. Attainment of the 24-

hour standard is determined by 

calculating the expected number of 

exceedances of the 150 μg/m3 limit per 

year. The 24-hour standard is attained 

when the expected number of 

exceedances is 1.0 or less. 

II. EPA’s Proposed Actions 

On June 13, 2001, EPA proposed to 

divide, pursuant to CAA section 

107(D)(3)(d), the Searles Valley PM–10 

NA into three separate, newly created 

NAs: Coso Junction, Indian Wells Valley 

and Trona. 66 FR 31873. EPA proposed 

that the Coso Junction NA boundaries 

would consist of the portion of Inyo 

County contained within USGS 

Hydrologic Unit #18090205; the 

proposed Indian Wells Valley NA 

boundaries would include the portion of 

Kern County contained within USGS 

Hydrologic Unit #18090205; and the 

proposed Trona NA boundaries would 

include the portion of San Bernardino 

County contained within USGS 

Hydrologic Unit #18090205. The 

combination of these three proposed 

NAs would comprise the same area 

included in the Searles Valley NA as set 

forth in 40 CFR 81.305. EPA’s rationale 

for the boundary revisions is discussed 

in detail in the proposed rule. See 66 FR 

31873, 31874–31875. 

In addition, EPA proposed to find, 

pursuant to CAA sections 179(c) and 

188(b)(2), that the proposed Trona NA 

had attained the 24-hour and annual

PM–10 standards by the moderate area 

attainment deadline, December 31, 

1994.2 This proposed finding was based 

on air quality data showing that the 

Trona area has not recorded any 

exceedances of the 24-hour and annual 

PM–10 NAAQS for the 1992–1994 

period. See 66 FR 31873, 31875–31877.

EPA received comment letters on its 

June 13, 2001 proposed actions from the 

Kern County Air Pollution Control 

District, the Department of the Navy and 

CARB. Both the Navy and CARB 

supported changing the boundaries of 

the Searles Valley NA to create three 

new nonattainment areas and the 

attainment finding for the Trona area. 

EPA received no negative comments on 

these proposed actions.3

III. Today’s Action 

In today’s final action, EPA is 

dividing the Searles Valley NA into 

three, newly created NAs: Coso 

Junction, Indian Wells Valley and 

Trona. EPA is also finding that the 

newly created Trona moderate NA 

attained the 24-hour and annual PM–10 

NAAQS by the CAA mandated deadline 

of December 31, 1994. 

IV. Administrative Requirements 

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. 

The splitting of the Searles Valley NA 

into three new, separate NAs with a 

moderate classification will not impose 

any new requirements on any sectors of 

the economy because the area is already 

classified as moderate. Moreover, under 

the CAA, a determination that the Trona 

area has attained the PM–10 national 

ambient air quality standards is based 

on an objective review of measured air 

quality. As such, the nonattainment area 

split and the attainment determination 

do not impose any new requirements on 

any sectors of the economy and do not 

have any adverse impact on State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

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.).

These actions do not 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) 

because the division of the Searles 

Valley NA into three, new and separate 

NAs with a moderate classification and 

the determination of attainment for the 

new Trona area will not impose any 

new requirements on any sectors of the 

economy. For the same reason, this rule 

also does 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

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 50807

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). For these 

same reasons, these actions will 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). These actions are also 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 

FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because they 

are not economically significant. 

Finally, for these same reasons, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. 

As required by section 3 of Executive 

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 

1996), in issuing these actions, EPA has 

taken the necessary steps to eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. These actions do 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. 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. 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 October 7, 2002. 

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 file, 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 in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: July 25, 2002. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 81 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal 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 et seq.

2. In § 81.305 the ‘‘California-PM–10’’

table is amended as follows: 

a. By adding ‘‘Coso Junction planning 

area’’ as a designated area immediately 

under the entry ‘‘Inyo County; 

b. By revising the entry ‘‘San 

Bernardino, Inyo and Kern Counties’’; 

c. By adding ‘‘Indian Wells Valley 

planning area’’ as a designated area 

immediately under the entry ‘‘Fresno, 

Kern, Kings, Tulare, San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, Madera Counties.’’

§ 81.305 California.

* * * * *

CALIFORNIA—PM–10

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

Inyo County 

Coso Junction planning area ...................................... September 5, 2002 ... Nonattainment ........... September 5, 2002 ... Moderate. 

That portion of Inyo County contained within Hydrologic Unit #18090205.................................... .................................... ....................................

* * * * * * * 

San Bernardino County 

San Bernardino (part): 

Excluding that portion located in the Trona planning area, and 

Excluding that area in the South Coast Air Basin 

Trona planning area: That portion of San Bernardino 

County contained within Hydrolagic Unit 

#18090285.

September 5, 2002 ... Nonattainment ........... September 5, 2002 ...

* * * * * * * 

Fresno, Kern, Kings, Tulare, San Joaquin, Medera Counties: 

Indian Wells Valley Planning area .............................. September 5, 2002 ... Nonattainment ........... September 5, 2002 ... Moderate 

That portions of Kern County contained with 

Hyrdologic Unit #18090205. 

* * * * * * * 

50808 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 02–19798 Filed 8–5–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 93 

[FRL–7256–3] 

RIN 2060–AJ70 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments: Minor Revision of

18-Month Requirement for Initial SIP 

Submissions and Addition of Grace 

Period for Newly Designated 

Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating two 

minor revisions to the transportation 

conformity rule. Transportation 

conformity is required by the Clean Air 

Act to ensure that federally supported 

highway and transit project activities 

are consistent with (‘‘conform to’’) the 

purpose of a state air quality 

implementation plan (SIP). Conformity 

to the purpose of the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing violations, or delay timely 

attainment of the national ambient air 

quality standards. EPA’s transportation 

conformity rule establishes the criteria 

and procedures for determining whether 

transportation activities conform to the 

state air quality plan. 

First, today’s final rule will 

implement a Clean Air Act amendment 

that provides a one-year grace period 

before conformity is required in areas 

that are designated nonattainment for a 

given air quality standard for the first 

time. This Clean Air Act amendment 

was enacted on October 27, 2000. 

Although the grace period is already 

available to newly designated 

nonattainment areas as a matter of law, 

EPA is today incorporating the one-year 

conformity grace period into the 

conformity rule. 

Second, today’s final rule will change 

the point by which a conformity 

determination must be made following 

a State’s submission of a control strategy 

implementation plan or maintenance 

plan for the first time (an ‘‘initial’’ SIP 

submission). Today’s rule requires 

conformity to be determined within 18 

months of EPA’s affirmative finding that 

the SIP’s motor vehicle emissions 

budgets are adequate. Prior to today’s 

action, the conformity rule required a 

new conformity determination within 

18 months of the submission of an 

initial SIP. 

This change to the conformity rule 

better aligns when the 18-month 

requirement for conformity to initial SIP 

submissions is implemented, so that 

state and local agencies have sufficient 

time to redetermine conformity when 

initial SIPs are submitted and after EPA 

finds the SIP budgets adequate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is 

effective on September 5, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this 

rulemaking are in Public Docket

A–2001–12 located at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in 

Room M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground 

floor). Ph: 202–260–7548. The docket is 

open and supporting materials are 

available for review between 8 a.m. and 

5:30 p.m. on all federal government 

workdays. You may have to pay a 

reasonable fee for copying docket 

materials. 

This final rule is available 

electronically from EPA’s Web site. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

information on accessing and 

downloading files.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angela Spickard, State Measures and 

Conformity Group, Transportation and 

Regional Programs Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 

Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 

48105, spickard.angela@epa.gov, (734) 

214–4283.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You can 

access and download today’s final rule 

on your computer by going to the 

following address on EPA’s Internet 

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/traq

(Once at the site, click on 

‘‘conformity.’’).

Regulated Entities 

Entities potentially regulated by the 

transportation conformity rule are those 

that adopt, approve, or fund 

transportation plans, programs, or 

projects under title 23 U.S.C. or title 49 

U.S.C. Regulated categories and entities 

affected by this action include:

Category Examples of regulated entities 

Local government ............................................... Local transportation and air quality agencies, including metropolitan planning organizations. 

State government ............................................... State transportation and air quality agencies. 

Federal government ............................................ Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA)) and EPA. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this rule. This table lists the 

types of entities of which EPA is aware 

that could potentially be regulated by 

the conformity rule. Other types of 

entities not listed in the table could also 

be regulated. To determine whether 

your organization is regulated by this 

action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability requirements in 40 

CFR 93.102 of the transportation 

conformity rule. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

The contents of this preamble are 

listed in the following outline:

I. Background 

II. One-year Conformity Grace Period for 

Newly Designated Nonattainment Areas 

III. Conformity Determinations for Initial SIP 

Submissions 

IV. What Comments That Addressed Topics 

Other Than Those Covered in This 

Rulemaking Did We Receive? 

V. How Does Today’s Final Rule Affect 

Conformity SIPs? 

VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Background 

Transportation conformity is required 

under section 176(c) of the Clean Air 

Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) to ensure that 

federally supported highway and transit 

project activities are consistent with 

(‘‘conform to’’) the purpose of a state air 

quality implementation plan (SIP). 

Conformity to the purpose of the SIP 

means that transportation activities will 

not cause new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards. EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule 

establishes the criteria and procedures 

for determining whether transportation 

activities conform to the state air quality 

plan. 

EPA first published the transportation 

conformity rule on November 24, 1993 

(58 FR 62188), and made subsequent 

minor revisions to the rule in 1995 (60