This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

27616

Vol. 66, No. 97

Friday, May 18, 2001

1EPA also proposed to find that the approved

serious area ozone California state implementation

plan (SIP) for the SJV nonattainment area has not

been fully implemented. The Agency intends to

take final action on that proposal in a separate

rulemaking.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CA–019–FOI, FRL–6982–5]

Clean Air Act Reclassification, San

Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area;

Designation of East Kern

Nonattainment Area and Extension of

Attainment Date; California; Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to change

the boundary for the San Joaquin Valley

(SJV) serious ozone nonattainment area

by separating out the eastern portion of

Kern County into its own nonattainment

area. We are also proposing to extend

the attainment deadline for the new East

Kern serious ozone nonattainment area

from November 15, 1999 to November

15, 2001.

As a result of this boundary change

proposal, EPA is reproposing its June

19, 2000 proposed finding (65 FR

37926) that the SJV area did not attain

the 1-hour ozone national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS) by the

November 15, 1999 Clean Air Act (CAA)

deadline. If we finalize this proposal,

the SJV nonattainment area with its

revised boundaries will be reclassified

by operation of law as severe, and the

East Kern nonattainment area will

remain classified as serious.

DATES: Comments on these proposed

actions must be received by June 18,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: John Ungvarsky, Planning Office

(AIR–2), Air Division, EPA Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105; ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

Copies of the proposed rule and

technical support document (TSD) are

contained in the docket for this

rulemaking. The docket is available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the address listed above. A

copy of this proposed rule and the TSD

are also available in the air programs

section of EPA Region 9’s website, http:/

/www.epa.gov/region09/air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Ungvarsky, Planning Office (AIR–2), Air

Division, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)

744–1286.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

On June 19, 2000 EPA proposed to

find that the SJV serious ozone

nonattainment area did not attain the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS by November 15,

1999, the CAA attainment deadline for

serious ozone nonattainment areas.1 65

FR 37926. The current SJV

nonattainment area includes the

counties of San Joaquin, Kern, Fresno,

Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus and

Tulare. 40 CFR 81.301. During the

public comment period for the proposal,

EPA received a substantial number of

comments requesting that EPA remove

the eastern portion of Kern County from

the SJV nonattainment area and

designate it a separate ozone

nonattainment area. On August 28,

2000, The California Air Resources

Board (CARB) formally requested that

EPA create a separate ozone

nonattainment area for eastern Kern

County.

Based on the public’s comments, the

State’s request and our own analysis, we

are today proposing to revise the SJV

ozone nonattainment area by changing

its boundaries to remove eastern Kern

County. In order to reflect this proposed

boundary change, we are reproposing

our finding that the SJV did not attain

the ozone NAAQS by the statutory

deadline. If we finalize this proposal,

the SJV nonattainment area with its

revised boundaries will be reclassified

by operation of law to severe.

We are today also proposing to

designate eastern Kern County as a new,

separate ozone nonattainment area,

which would keep its serious

classification. That is because we are

proposing to extend the attainment

deadline for the proposed East Kern

County serious ozone nonattainment

area from November 15, 1999 to

November 15, 2001. This proposed

extension is based in part on monitoring

data that indicate there were no

exceedances of the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS during 1999 and 2000 in

eastern Kern County.

II. Proposed Boundaries for the Revised

San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment

Area and the New East Kern

Nonattainment Area

During the public comment period for

our proposed finding that the SJV had

failed to attain the ozone NAAQS,

CARB, the Kern County Air Pollution

Control District (KCAPCD), and the U.S.

Department of Defense submitted

information supporting the removal of

eastern Kern County from the SJV

nonattainment area.

As stated above, CARB subsequently

requested, pursuant to CAA section

107(d)(3)(D), that EPA create a separate

ozone nonattainment area for East Kern

County. That section provides that the

Governor of any State may submit a

revised designation of any area or

portion of an area within the State.

Based on our analysis of the information

provided and under the authority in

section 107(d)(3)(D), we are proposing

to remove eastern Kern County from the

SJV nonattainment area and to designate

East Kern County as a new, separate

ozone planning area.

The only change to the existing SJV

nonattainment area would be within

Kern County, where the new boundary

would divide the county into two parts,

generally following the ridge line of the

Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountain

Ranges. It would be the same as the

current boundary line for the Kern

County and San Joaquin Valley air

districts. The portion of Kern County

that is west of the proposed split, which

includes the Bakersfield area, would

remain in the SJV ozone nonattainment

area. The area east of the proposed split,

which includes Ridgecrest, Mojave,

California City, and the remainder of

Kern County, would be designated the

East Kern ozone nonattainment area.

The specific boundary proposal for the

new East Kern nonattainment area is as

follows:

Kern County (part)—that portion of Kern

County 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27617

2The revised SJV ozone nonattainment area

would include the following counties: Fresno,

Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,

Tulare, and that portion of Kern County which lies

west and north of the line described above.

3Section 182(d)(3) sets a deadline of December

31, 2000 to submit the plan revision requiring fees

for major sources should the area fail to attain. This

date can be adjusted pursuant to CAA section

182(i). We propose to adjust this date to coincide

with the submittal deadline for the rest of the severe

area plan requirements.

4Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but

is formed through the photochemical reaction of

NOX and VOCs.

5A design value is an ambient ozone

concentration that indicates the severity of the

ozone problem in an area and is used to determine

the level of emission reductions needed to attain

the standard, that is, it is the ozone level around

which a State designs its control strategy for

attaining the ozone standard. A monitor’s design

value is the fourth highest ambient concentration

recorded at that monitor over the previous threeyear period. An area’s design value is the highest

of the design values from the area’s monitors.

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.2

III. Proposed Finding of Failure To

Attain for the Revised San Joaquin

Valley Nonattainment Area

A. June 19, 2000 Proposal

In order to reflect the proposed

change to the boundaries for the SJV

ozone nonattainment area, we must

repropose our June 19, 2000 proposed

finding (65 FR 37926) that the SJV

ozone nonattainment area failed to

attain the ozone NAAQS. In addition to

the proposed boundary change, EPA is

also revising the original proposal by

proposing a new deadline for the State

to submit a severe area attainment plan

(discussed below).

EPA intends to respond to the

comments submitted concerning the

original proposed finding of failure to

attain along with the comments on this

reproposal in the final action for this

rulemaking. A brief summary of the

June 19, 2000 proposed failure to attain

finding follows.

Based on air quality data for the

1997–1999 period, at least twelve ozone

monitoring sites in the current SJV

nonattainment area, excluding monitors

in eastern Kern County, averaged more

than one exceedance per year. Because

the average number of exceedance days

per year for 1997–99 exceeded one, we

proposed to find that the San Joaquin

Valley serious ozone nonattainment area

failed to attain by its applicable CAA

deadline of November 15, 1999. 65 FR

at 37927.

When EPA finalizes a finding of

failure to attain the 1-hour ozone

standard, the area is reclassified by

operation of law to a higher

classification (CAA section 181(b)(2)(a)).

The impact that a reclassification to

severe would have on the San Joaquin

Valley nonattainment area includes the

establishment of a new attainment

deadline, as expeditiously as practicable

but no later than November 15, 2005,

and the requirement to submit a new

attainment plan that meets the CAA

requirements for severe ozone

nonattainment areas (CAA section

182(d)).

Under CAA section 182(d), the new

severe area plan must meet all the

requirements for serious area plans plus

the requirements for severe areas,

including, but not limited to: (1) A 25

ton per year major stationary source

threshold; (2) additional reasonably

available control technology (RACT)

rules for sources subject to the new

lower major source applicability cutoff;

(3) a new source review (NSR) offset

ratio of at least 1.3 to 1; (4) a rate of

progress demonstration showing

emissions reductions of at least 3

percent per year from 2000 until the

attainment year; and (5) a fee

requirement 3 for major sources of

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and

nitrogen oxides (NOX) 4 should the area

fail to attain by the attainment deadline.

Failure to submit the severe area

requirements can result in the start of a

sanctions clock (CAA section 179(a)).

Also, the severe area plan must

include new transportation conformity

emissions budgets for the SJV

nonattainment area. The current SIPapproved attainment year budgets for

VOC and NOX will remain in place until

new severe area budgets are submitted

and have been determined adequate. For

a detailed discussion of the

requirements that the severe area plan

must meet, see 65 FR at 37928–37930;

June 19, 2000.

B. Modifications to June 19, 2000

Proposal

Having been put on notice by the June

19, 2000 proposal, the State has been

working with the San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

(SJVUAPCD) to prepare for the severe

area plan requirements. In recent

discussions with EPA, the State

suggested that despite past progress and

future reductions, attainment by 2005

may not be possible given the air quality

problem in the area. The current design

value in the SJV is .161.5 This design

value is higher than all other areas in

the country with a 2005 attainment

deadline. We are therefore soliciting

comment on the viability of the 2005

attainment deadline. We are also

soliciting comment on any legal, policy,

and technical rationale for allowing a

2007 attainment deadline that would

justify EPA establishing a 2007

attainment deadline when the Agency

takes final action on the proposed

finding. The 2007 date is the attainment

deadline for areas originally classified

as ‘‘severe 17’’ on November 15, 1990

pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(2).

In the June 19, 2000 proposal we

stated that the State would be required

to submit the severe area SIP revisions

no later than 18 months from the

effective date of the area’s

reclassification. 65 FR at 37928.

Pursuant to section 182(i), EPA can

adjust any applicable deadline (other

than the attainment date) as appropriate.

EPA is today proposing a new submittal

deadline of May 31, 2002 to ensure that

control measures are put in place as

quickly as possible and there is ample

time for the control measures to take

effect before the attainment deadline.

EPA believes the May 31, 2002 SIP

submittal deadline is both reasonable

and feasible given the advance notice

provided by our June 19, 2000 proposal

and the planning efforts already under

way at the SJVUAPCD and the State.

IV. Rationale for Establishing a New,

Separate East Kern Nonattainment

Area

A. Background

EPA is proposing the designation of

the new East Kern ozone nonattainment

area pursuant to CAA section

27618 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

6Prior to the formation of the SJVUAPCD in 1992,

the SJV ozone nonattainment area consisted of eight

county air pollution control districts (i.e., San

Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings,

Tulare, and Kern).

7See March 15, 1991 letter from CARB Executive

Officer, James D. Boyd, to Daniel McGovern,

Regional Administrator, EPA, Region IX.

8The SJVUAPCD indicated in its comments that

it supports the split.

9Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but

is formed through the photochemical reaction of

NOX and VOCs.

107(d)(3)(D). CAA section 107(d)(3)(D)

states that the Governor may, on the

Governor’s own motion, submit a

revised designation request to EPA. On

August 28, 2000, in a letter from

Michael Kenny, Executive Director,

CARB, to Felicia Marcus, EPA Region 9

Administrator, the State formally

requested that EPA split the SJV

nonattainment area into two separate

nonattainment areas. While section

107(d)(3)(D) does not contain criteria

upon which to evaluate the request,

EPA believes it can rely on the criteria

listed in an analogous CAA provision,

section 107(d)(3)(A), which authorizes

EPA to notify the Governor that the

designation of an area should be revised

on the basis of air quality data, planning

and control considerations, or any other

air quality-related considerations that

EPA deems appropriate.

The SJV 1-hour ozone nonattainment

area currently includes all of Kern

County, a region that straddles the

Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi

mountains. It is located in two separate

air basins: the SJV and the Southeast

Desert (SED) air basins. The dividing

line between these two air basins

coincides with the jurisdictional

boundary between the KCAPCD and the

SJVUAPCD; 6 it is also consistent with

the boundary that we are today

proposing to draw between eastern Kern

and the rest of the SJV nonattainment

area.

Prior to 1991, the eastern portion of

Kern County was designated

unclassified. 43 FR 8964, 8972 (March

3, 1978). On November 6, 1991, all of

Kern County became part of the SJV

ozone nonattainment area as

recommended by the Governor of

California and promulgated by EPA. 56

FR 56693. In 1991, we generally relied

on the Metropolitan Statistical Area

(MSA) boundaries for the purpose of

designating nonattainment areas

consistent with CAA section

107(d)(4)(A)(iv), and all of Kern County

is in the same MSA as the other

counties in the SJV nonattainment area.

While the State acknowledged that

eastern Kern County did not have any

monitoring sites established in 1991, the

State supported eastern Kern’s inclusion

in the nonattainment area because

‘‘ozone is clearly a regional pollutant,

and violations of both the state and

federal ozone standards have been

measured within 10 miles of Kern

County’s desert border.’’ 7

The 1991 designation also pre-dated

the consolidation of the SJV counties

into a single air district, the SJVUAPD.

With this change, the western portion of

Kern County was annexed into the

newly-formed SJVUAPCD. At the same

time, the eastern portion of Kern

County, which was within the SED air

basin, became an independent air

district, the KCAPCD.

Commenters on EPA’s June 19, 2000

proposal, including the State, KCAPCD,

and the Department of Defense,

provided a compelling technical

justification as to why eastern Kern

County should be designated a separate

ozone planning area.8 A summary of

their reasoning follows, and a more indepth technical discussion is found in

the companion TSD for this notice.

B. Justification for New Boundaries

1. Geography. Eastern Kern is in a

different air basin than the SJV; it is

separated from the SJV by the Sierra

Nevada and Tehachapi Mountain

Ranges at elevations up to 7,500 feet.

Eastern Kern is a vast arid desert, 3,700

square miles in size.

2. Population and Employment. There

are no major or fast growing population

centers in eastern Kern County. Eastern

Kern’s population of approximately

92,000 has stayed constant over the past

10 years. The area has a low population

density of approximately 25 persons per

square mile. People tend to live and

work in eastern Kern, and because of its

geographic isolation there is no

convenient commute to cities outside

the region. The major employers in

eastern Kern are Edwards Air Force

Base (AFB) and China Lake Naval

Weapons Station (NAWS), which

employ over half of the eastern Kern

workforce. Two of the three major towns

within eastern Kern are Ridgecrest,

which is located just outside the China

Lake NAWS, and California City,

located 9 miles from Edwards AFB. This

close correlation between population

and workforce suggests that a large

percentage of the traffic in eastern Kern

is independent of western Kern and

urban areas in the SED nonattainment

area. Ridgecrest, the largest town in

eastern Kern, has a population of

approximately 28,000. It is located in

the portion of eastern Kern with air

quality well below the 1-hour standard

and farthest from any major urban areas

in western Kern or SED. The SED urban

areas nearest to eastern Kern, Palmdale

and Lancaster, are bedroom

communities for the Los Angeles area.

There are no significant commute

patterns from eastern Kern into the SED,

SJV or the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB)

or vice versa.

3. Commercial Development. Eastern

Kern County is not strongly integrated

economically with western Kern County

or the SED urban areas. The economy of

western Kern is largely based on the oil

and agricultural industries. Eastern

Kern’s economy is based largely on the

aerospace, defense, and mineral

extraction industries. Also, eastern Kern

residents are not dependent on western

Kern for economic activities such as

employment, shopping, or other

services.

4. Sources of Emissions. There are

only a handful of major emission

sources in eastern Kern, and projected

industrial growth is minimal. The 1996

annual emissions inventory for eastern

Kern indicates 11 tons per day (tpd) of

VOC and 33 tpd of NOX.9 Total

emissions in the area are not sufficient

to cause violations of the federal 1-hour

ozone standard.

5. Air Quality. During the late 1990s,

eastern Kern County averaged only a

few days over the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

each year; the SJV averaged

approximately 30 days over the NAAQS

each year. Ozone levels in eastern Kern

are markedly lower than the SJV and

marginally lower than the SED. For the

1997–1999 period, the 1-hour design

value for eastern Kern was 0.139 parts

per million (ppm) compared to 0.154

ppm for western Kern, 0.161 ppm for

the highest site in the SJV, and 0.147 for

Victorville in the SED.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27619

13Transport Assessment, November 1996 and

November 1999, California Air Resources Board

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/transport/

transport.htm).

14A review of the ambient air quality ozone data

from the EPA Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS) and special purpose monitors shows

that two of the three air quality monitors located in

the proposed East Kern ozone nonattainment area

recorded exceedances of the NAAQS for ozone

during the three-year period from 1997 to 1999.

There were 6 exceedances at the Edwards AFB

monitor, an average of more than 1.0 over the threeyear period, which constitutes a violation of the

ozone NAAQS for the proposed East Kern area

during this three-year period. Thus, because we

determine attainment status on the basis of the

expected number of exceedances of the NAAQS

over the three-year period up to, and including, the

attainment date (57 FR 13498, 13506, April 16,

1992), the area needs the two 1-year extensions to

avoid a reclassification to severe.

15While explicitly applicable only to marginal

areas, the general procedures for processing

reclassifications and extension requests described

in this memorandum apply regardless of the initial

classification of an area.

16See Memorandum from Sally Shaver, Director,

Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, EPA,

to EPA Regional Offices, titled ‘‘Criteria for

Granting Attainment Date Extensions, Making

Attainment Determinations, and Determinations of

Failure to Attain the NAAQS for Moderate [carbon

monoxide] CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ October 23,

1995. While this memorandum specifically

addresses the CAA extension provisions for CO

nonattainment areas, it applies equally to ozone

areas. Compare the substantially identical language

of sections 181(a)(5) (ozone) and 186(a)(4) (CO).

TABLE 1.—OZONE AIR QUALITY IN EASTERN KERN COUNTY (1997–1999)

Monitoring site

Number of

days over the

standard

1997–1999 10

Average number of exceedance days per

year

Site design

value (ppm)

China Lake NAWS11 ................................................................................................................... 0 0.0 0.083

Mohave ........................................................................................................................................ 2 0.6 0.119

Edwards AFB12 ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 0.139

10 No exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard were recorded in 1999 or 2000 in eastern Kern County. 11The China Lake monitor is a special purpose monitor (SPM) operated by the Navy at China Lake NAWS in eastern Kern County. It began

operation in April, 1998. EPA’s policy on the use of ozone special purpose monitoring data is described in a memorandum entitled ‘‘Agency Policy on the Use of Ozone Special Purpose Monitoring Data’’ from John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to the Regional Air Directors, August 22, 1997. Until three years of data can be collected, the design value for the China Lake monitoring site is based on

its highest recorded value. 12The Edwards AFB monitor is a SPM operated by the Air Force on Edwards AFB in eastern Kern County. We have evaluated the Edwards

site and its quality assurance information and have determined that its data are valid.

6. Pollution Transport. The State has

completed three reviews of the impacts

of pollution transport on ozone

concentrations in California. The State

has determined that the few

exceedances that have occurred in

eastern Kern County were the result of

pollutant transport from the SJV Air

Basin and SCAB.13 Wind patterns are

such that eastern Kern does not

contribute to exceedances in the SJV,

SED, or SCAB.

Based on the above factors, EPA

believes that the criteria listed in CAA

section 107(d)(3)(A) have been met.

Eastern Kern is in a separate air basin

than the SJV and has a small population

that primarily lives and works in the

immediate area. Furthermore, eastern

Kern has minimal VOC and NOX

emission sources with markedly better

air quality than the SJV. In addition, the

few exceedances of the ozone NAAQS

that have occurred in eastern Kern are

a result of overwhelming transport from

outside the eastern Kern air basin. EPA

is therefore proposing to approve the

State’s section 107(d)(3)(D) request to

change the boundaries of the current

SJV ozone nonattainment area to remove

eastern Kern County and make it its

own nonattainment area.

V. Proposed Attainment Date Extension

for Proposed East Kern Nonattainment

Area

Because a new East Kern

nonattainment area would retain the

serious classification that it had as part

of the originally designated SJV

nonattainment area, the attainment

deadline for the area would be

November 15, 1999. CAA section

181(a)(1). On December 15, 2000, the

State requested two one-year attainment

date extensions for the proposed East

Kern ozone nonattainment area.14

CAA section 181(a)(5) provides that,

upon application by any State, the

Administrator may extend the

attainment deadline for one year if the

State has complied with all

requirements and commitments

pertaining to the area in the applicable

implementation plan, and no more than

one exceedance of the NAAQS has

occurred in the area in the year

preceding the extension year. This

section further provides that up to two

one-year extensions may be granted.

We interpret this provision to

authorize the granting of a one-year

extension under the following minimum

conditions: (1) The State requests a oneyear extension; (2) all requirements and

commitments in the EPA-approved SIP

for the area have been complied with;

and (3) at any one monitor, the area has

no more than one measured exceedance

of the NAAQS during the year that

includes the attainment date (or the

subsequent year, if a second one-year

extension is requested). See generally 57

FR 13506 (April 16, 1992) and

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,

Acting Director, Air Quality

Management Division, EPA, to Regional

Air Office Directors; ‘‘Procedures for

Processing Bump Ups and Extensions

for Marginal Ozone Nonattainment

Areas,’’ February 3, 1994.15 Granting

extensions is discretionary; EPA

guidance states that, in exercising this

discretion, the Agency will examine the

air quality progress made in the

nonattainment area. Specifically, EPA

will expect the state to have adopted

and substantially implemented control

measures necessary to reduce emissions

in the area.16

We have determined that both the

mandatory and discretionary

requirements for one-year extensions of

the attainment date for both 1999 and

2000 have been fulfilled as follows:

(1) CARB has formally submitted the

attainment date extension request, in a

letter dated December 15, 2000, from

Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer,

CARB, to Felicia Marcus, EPA Regional

Administrator, Region 9.

(2) California is currently

implementing the EPA-approved SIP.

The State’s letter, cited above, discusses

implementation of State measures in the

SIP, and shows that these measures plus

new State measures have achieved an

overall surplus of emission reductions

beyond those assumed in the SIP. In

addition, a letter dated December 1,

2000 from Thomas Paxson, Air

Pollution Control Officer, KCAPCD,

provides evidence that all District SIP

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.