27620 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

17As noted in footnote 1, EPA’s June 19, 2000

proposal included a finding of failure to fully

implement the SIP. The SIP measures at issue in

that proposal are ones committed to by the

SJVUAPCD, not the KCAPCD. All KCAPCD SIP

measures have been implemented.

rules and serious area requirements

have been fully implemented.17

(3) Data recorded at the three eastern

Kern monitors (TSD, Appendix A) and

confirmed by CARB in its December 15,

2000 letter, indicate no monitored

exceedances during 1999 and 2000.

Because the statutory provisions have

been satisfied, we are proposing to grant

two one-year attainment date extensions

for the proposed East Kern ozone

nonattainment area. If we finalize this

action, the attainment deadline would

be extended from November 15, 1999 to

November 15, 2001.

VI. Summary of EPA Proposed

Rulemaking

We are proposing to change the

boundaries for the SJV ozone

nonattainment area by removing the

eastern portion of Kern County and

proposing the designation of a new East

Kern ozone nonattainment area with a

serious classification. Concurrently,

EPA is proposing to grant the State’s

request for two one-year attainment date

extensions for the proposed East Kern

ozone nonattainment area, which would

make the attainment deadline November

15, 2001.

In order to reflect the proposed

boundary change, we are reproposing

our finding that the SJV ozone

nonattainment area failed to attain the

federal 1-hour ozone standard by its

CAA deadline of November 15, 1999. If

we finalize this nonattainment finding,

the revised SJV nonattainment area will

be reclassified by operation of law to

severe and California must submit to

EPA by May 31, 2002 a severe area

nonattainment plan that meets the

requirements of CAA section 182(d),

including providing for the attainment

of the federal 1-hour ozone standard as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later

than November 15, 2005. We are also

asking for comment on the legal,

technical, and policy justifications for

an alternative November 15, 2007

attainment deadline.

VII. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget.

Under section 188(b)(2) of the CAA,

findings of failure to attain are based

solely upon air quality considerations

and the subsequent nonattainment area

reclassification must occur by operation

of law in light of those air quality

conditions. These actions do not, in and

of themselves, impose any new

requirements on any sectors of the

economy. In addition, because the

statutory requirements are clearly

defined with respect to the differently

classified areas, and because those

requirements are automatically triggered

by classifications that, in turn, are

triggered by air quality values, findings

of failure to attain and reclassification

cannot be said to impose a materially

adverse impact on State, local, or tribal

governments or communities. The

proposed designation of eastern Kern

County as a new, separate

nonattainment area with a serious

classification and the proposed

attainment date extensions will not

impose any new requirements on any

sectors of the economy because the area

is already classified as serious.

Accordingly, the Administrator

certifies that this proposed rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

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

These proposed 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) for the following

reasons: (1) The proposed finding of

failure to attain is a factual

determination based on air quality

considerations; (2) the resulting

reclassification must occur by operation

of law and will not impose any federal

intergovernmental mandate; and (3) the

proposed designation of eastern Kern

County as a separate nonattainment area

with a serious classification will not

impose any new requirements on any

sectors of the economy. For the same

reason, this proposed 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 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 proposed

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

proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed

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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52 and

81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, National

parks, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile

organic compounds, Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: May 10, 2001.

Jane Diamond,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 01–12576 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

42 CFR Part 36

Meetings of the Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee on Joint Tribal

and Federal Self-Governance

AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Health and

Human Services has established a

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on

Joint Tribal and Federal SelfGovernance (Committee) to negotiate

and develop a proposed rule

implementing the Tribal SelfGovernance Amendments of 2000 (the

Act). We intend to publish the proposed

rule for notice and comment no later

than one year after the date of

enactment of the Act (August 18, 2000

+ one year), as required by section

517(a)(2) of the Act.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27621

EFFECTIVE DATES: Meetings of the

Committee are as follows:

1. June 11–12, 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.; June

13, 8:30 a.m.–1:00 p.m., St. Paul, MN.

2. July 10–12, 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m.,

Seattle WA,

3. July 30–August 1, 8:30 a.m.–5:00

p.m., Anchorage, AK.

ADDRESSES: The meeting locations are:

1. St. Paul, MN—Radisson City Center,

411 Minnesota St., St. Paul, MN

55101, Phone: 1–800–333–3333.

2. Seattle, WA—Red Lion Hotel in

South Center Area, 205 Strander

Blvd., Seattle, WA 98188, Phone:

206–575–8220.

3. Anchorage, AK—Hilton Anchorage,

500 West 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, AK

99501, Phone: 1–800–245–2527.

Written statements may be submitted to

Paula Williams, Director, Office of

Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health

Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 5A–

55, Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula Williams, Director, Office of

Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health

Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 5A–

55, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone

301–443–7821. (This is not a toll-free

number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All

meetings are open to the public without

advance registration. Public attendance

may be limited to the space available.

Members of the public may make

statements during the meetings to the

extent time permits and file written

statements with the Committee for its

consideration. Submit your written

statements to the address listed above.

Summaries of the Committee meetings

will be available for public inspection

and copying ten days following each

meeting at the same address.

Dated: May 14, 2001.

Michel E. Lincoln,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 01–12531 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–16–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 578

[Docket No. NHTSA 2001–9404; Notice 1]

RIN 2127–AI42

Civil Penalties

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposed to

adjust certain civil penalties authorized

for violations of odometer tampering

and theft prevention statutes

administered by the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The Federal Civil Monetary Penalty

Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as

amended by the Debt Collection

Improvement Act of 1996, requires us to

take this action at least every four years.

The penalties that would be increased

were last adjusted in March 1997.

DATES: Comments on the proposal are

due June 18, 2001.

Proposed effective date: 30 days after

date of publication of the final rule in

the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: All comments on this

document should refer to the docket and

notice number set forth above and be

submitted to Dockets Management,

Room PL–401, 400 Seventh St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. The docket

room hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00

p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel,

NHTSA, telephone (202) 366–5263,

facsimile (202) 366–3820, electronic

mail ‘‘ATVinson@nhtsa.dot.gov’’, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In order to preserve the remedial

impact of civil penalties and to foster

compliance with the law, the Federal

Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation

Adjustment Act of 1990 ((‘‘Adjustment

Act’’), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2461 note, Public

Law 101–410), as amended by the Debt

Collection Improvement Act of 1996

(‘‘Collection Act,’’ Pub. L. 104–134),

requires us and other Federal agencies

to regularly adjust certain civil penalties

for inflation. Under these laws, each

agency must make an initial inflationary

adjustment for all applicable civil

penalties, and must make further

adjustments of these penalty amounts at

least once every four years. The

Collection Act limited the initial

increase to 10 percent of the penalty

being adjusted.

Our initial adjustment of civil

penalties under these legislative

authorities was published on February

4, 1997 (62 FR 5167). We established 49

CFR part 578, Civil Penalties, which

applies to violations that occur on and

after March 6, 1997. These adjustments

resulted in the maximum permissible

increases of 10 percent. On July 14,

1999, we further adjusted certain

penalties to enhance their deterrent

effect (64 FR 37876), effective August

13, 1999. As we are now at the end of

the four-year period following the initial

adjustment, the purpose of this notice is

to review the penalties that have

remained unchanged since 1997, and to

propose adjusting those penalties where

the statutory formulae authorize it.

Method of Calculation

Under the Adjustment Act as

amended by the Collection Act, we

determine the inflation adjustment for

each applicable civil penalty by

increasing the maximum civil penalty

amount per violation by the cost-ofliving adjustment, and then applying a

rounding factor. Sec. 5(b) of the

Adjustment Act defines the ‘‘cost-ofliving’’ adjustment as:

The percentage (if any) for each civil

monetary penalty by which—

(1) the Consumer Price Index for the month

of June of the calendar year preceding the

adjustment exceeds

(2) the Consumer Price Index for the month

of June of the calendar year in which the

amount of such civil monetary penalty was

last set or adjusted pursuant to law.

Since the proposed adjustment is

intended to be effective before

December 31, 2001, the ‘‘Consumer

Price Index [CPI] for the month of June

of the calendar year preceding the

adjustment’’ would be the CPI for June

2000. This figure is 172.4. NHTSA’s

penalties were initially adjusted in

February 1997 based on the CPI figure

for June 1996, which was 156.7. The

factor that we are using in calculating

the increase, then, is 172.4 divided by

156.7, or 1.1001914. We shall use 1.1 as

the appropriate figure. Any calculated

increase under this adjustment is then

subject to a specific rounding formula

set forth in Sec. 5(a) of the Adjustment

Act. Under the formula:

Any increase shall be rounded to the

nearest

(1) multiple of $10 in the case of

penalties less than or equal to $100;

(2) multiple of $100 in the case of

penalties greater than $100 but less than

or equal to $1,000;

(3) multiple of $1,000 in the case of

penalties greater than $1,000 but less

than or equal to $10,000;

(4) multiple of $5,000 in the case of

penalties greater than $10,000 but less

than or equal to $100,000;

(5) multiple of $10,000 in the case of

penalties greater than $100,000 but less

than or equal to $200,000; and

(6) multiple of $25,000 in the case of

penalties greater than $200,000.