Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31873

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This proposed

rule would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not effect a

taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under

Executive Order 12630m Governmental

Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets the

applicable standards in sections 3(a)

and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988,

Civil Justice Reform, to minimize

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and

reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under Executive Order 13045,

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and does not concern an

environmental risk to health or risk to

safety that may disproportionately affect

children.

Environment

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this regulation

and concluded that, under Figure 2–1,

paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, it will have no

significant environmental impact and it

is categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination

and Environmental Analysis Checklist

will be available for inspection and

copying in the docket to be maintained

at the address listed in ADDRESSES.

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal

implications under Executive Order

13175, Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments,

because it 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Proposed Regulation

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

1. The authority citation for 33 CFR

Part 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g) 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. A new § 165.1120 is added to read

as follows:

§ 165.1120 Security Zone: San Diego, CA.

(a) Location. The following area is a

security zone: the waters of San Diego

Bay, enclosed by lines connecting the

following points: Beginning at

32°40′30.0′′ N, 117°10′03.0′′ W (Point A);

thence running northeasterly to

32°40′54.0′′ N, 117°09′35.5′′ W (Point B);

thence running northeasterly to

32°40′55.0′′ N, 117°09′27.0′′ W (Point C);

thence running southeasterly to

32°40′43.0′′ N, 117°09′09.0′′ W (Point D);

thence running southerly to 32°40′39.0′′

N, 117°09′08.0′′ (Point E); thence

running southwesterly to 32°40′30.0′′ N,

117°09′12.9′′ W (Point F); thence

running a short distance to 32°40′29.0′′

N, 117°09′14.0′′ W (Point G); thence

running southwesterly to 32°40′26.0′′ N,

117°09′17.0′′ W (Point H); thence

running northwesterly to the shoreline

to 32°40′31.0′′ N, 117°09′22.5′′ W (Point

I).

(b) In accordance with the general

regulations in §165.33 of this part, entry

into the area of this zone is prohibited

unless authorized by the Captain of the

Port or the Commanding Officer, Naval

Base, San Diego.

(c) The U.S. Coast Guard may be

assisted in the patrol and enforcement

of this security zone by the U.S. Navy.

Dated: May 22, 2001.

E.R. Riutta,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Eleventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 01–14820 Filed 6–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[CA–034–FIN; FRL–69964]

Clean Air Act Redesignation and

Reclassification, Searles Valley

Nonattainment Area; Designation of

Coso Junction, Indian Wells Valley,

and Trona Nonattainment Areas;

Reclassification of Coso Junction and

Indian Wells Valley Nonattainment

Areas; California; Particulate Matter of

10 Microns or Less (PM–10)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to change

the boundaries of the Searles Valley,

California moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas (NA) by dividing

that area into three separate NAs: Coso

Junction, Indian Wells Valley, and

Trona. Because air quality violations or

inadequate monitoring data, EPA is also

proposing to find that the proposed

Coso Junction and Indian Wells Valley

NAs have not 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.

EPA is further proposing to find that the

proposed Trona NA has attained the 24-

hour and annual NASQS.

If EPA takes final action on this

proposal, the Searles Valley NA would

be split into three new NAs, and the

Coso Junction and Indian Wells Valley

NAs would be reclassified by operation

of law as serious PM–10 NAs under

section 188(b)(2)(A) of the CAA. The

classification of the proposed Trona

PM–10 NA would remain moderate.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

August 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to John Ungvarsky, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office

(AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Ungvarsky, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, Air

Division, Planning Office (AIR–2), 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105, (415) 744–1286,

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The NAAQS are safety thresholds for

certain ambient air pollutants set by

31874 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1 ‘‘PM–10 State Implementation Plan for the

Searles Valley Planning Area, Draft Final,’’

November 1991, pages 2–7.

2Prior to 1997, this area was referred to as the

China Lake subregion.

3Letter from James D. Boyd, Executive Officer,

CARB, to Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator,

EPA Region IX, dated October 28, 1993 (Boyd

letter).

4Subsequent to the October 1993 submittal and

in further support of the Districts’ and CARB’s

assertion that the PM–10 problems in the Searles

Valley nonattainment area are distinct, on July 2,

1996, CARB submitted to EPA a redesignation

request and maintenance plan for the Trona

subregion, and on July 28, 1997, CARB submitted

to EPA a redesignation request and maintenance

plan for the Indian Wells Valley subregion. EPA is

not acting on these submittals in today’s notice.

5Letter from Michael Kenny, Executive Officer,

CARB, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional

Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated May 4, 2001

(Kenny letter).

6Boundary changes are an inherent part of a

designation or redesignation of an area under the

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

7 Data for the 1992–2000 period is provided in

IV.B as support for EPA’s proposed division of the

Searles Valley NA into three separate NAs. For

purposes of the proposed findings discussed in

sections IV and V of this notice, EPA is relying on

data from the 1992–1994 time frame.

8See letter from Duane Ono, Great Basin Unified

APCD, to John Kennedy, EPA Region IX, dated

March 26, 2001 (Ono letter) enclosing Owens

Study.

EPA to protect public health and

welfare. PM–10 is among the ambient

air pollutants for which EPA has

established a health-based standard.

PM–10 causes adverse health effects by

penetrating deep in the lung,

aggravating the cardiopulmonary

system. Children, the elderly, and

people with asthma and heart

conditions are the most vulnerable.

On November 15, 1990, the date of

enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments, PM–10 areas with PM–10

levels exceeding health standards and

meeting the qualifications of section

107(d)(4)(B) of the Act were designated

nonattainment by operation of law.

Once an area is designated

nonattainment, section 188 of the Act

outlines the process for classification of

the area and establishes the area’s

attainment date. Pursuant to section

188(a), all PM–10 nonattainment areas

were initially classified as moderate by

operation of law upon designation as

nonattainment. These nonattainment

designations and moderate area

classification were codified in 40 CFR

part 81 in a Federal Register notice

published on November 6, 1991 (56 FR

56694). The Searles Valley planning

area was designated nonattainment and

classified as moderate. See 40 CFR

81.305.

States containing areas which were

designated as moderate nonattainment

by operation of law under section

107(d)(4)(B) were 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. Pursuant to section 189(a)(2),

those SIP revisions were to be submitted

to EPA by November 15, 1991.

Situated at the southeastern end of the

Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Searles

Valley NA includes portions of three

counties (i.e., Inyo, Kern, and San

Bernardino) with its boundaries defined

by United States Geological Survey

(USGS) Hydrologic Unit #18090205, an

area of approximately 2000 square

miles. 40 CFR 81.305.

Because of the nature of the PM–10

exceedances and the local jurisdictional

boundaries within the NA, the

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

has historically treated the Searles

Valley NA as three separate planning

subregions. When the original moderate

area SIP was developed in 1991, the

PM–10 exceedances that formed the

basis for the planning strategies were

determined to be caused by local

sources in each of the subregions.1

County boundaries have also played a

major role in the apportionment of

planning responsibilities and

development of subregions within the

Searles Valley NA. The Inyo County

portion of the NA is under the

jurisdiction of the Great Basin Air

Pollution Control District (APCD) and is

referred to as the Coso Junction

subregion. The Kern County portion is

under the jurisdiction of the Kern

County APCD and is referred to as the

Indian Wells Valley subregion.2 The San

Bernardino County portion is under the

jurisdiction of the Mojave Desert Air

Quality Management District (AQMD)

and is referred to as the Trona

subregion.

In October 1993, CARB submitted to

EPA a moderate area SIP jointly

developed by the Great Basin Unified

APCD, Kern County APCD, and Mojave

Desert AQMD. The affected districts

asserted, and CARB concurred, that

three distinct, localized and

independent PM–10 problems existed in

the Searles Valley NA.3 To support this

division, CARB explained that the

hydrologic zone that defines the

boundaries of the NA actually

encompasses three separate valleys.

CARB indicated that the valleys are

distinct from one another and do not

appear to share the same PM–10

exceedances and stated that localized

strategies can be justified on the basis of

geography and topography. See Boyd

letter.4

Although CARB has historically

treated the Searles Valley NA as three

separate planning areas, they did not

officially request the area be divided

into three NAs until very recently.

II. Rationale for Establishing Coso

Junction, Indian Wells Valley, and

Trona as new Nonattainment Areas

A. CARB’s Request

On May 4, 2001, 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. Together, the three

proposed NAs would cover the same

geographic area as the existing Searles

Valley PM–10 NA.5

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 6 of any nonattainment area

or portions thereof within the State. 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. Air Quality Data and Related

Considerations

As discussed below, air quality data

for the Searles Valley NA and analysis

of wind patterns indicate that the

recorded exceedances of the 24-hour

PM–10 NAAQS during the 1992 through

2000 7 time frame in the Coso Junction

and Indian Wells Valley subregions are

not the result of transport between the

subregions in the NA area.

1. Coso Junction

From April 1993 through May 1996,

the Great Basin Unified APCD

conducted a study of PM–10 transport

from Owens Valley.8 The study showed

that wind blown dust from the Owens

Valley PM–10 nonattainment area,

specifically emissions from the Owens

(dry) Lake, contributed to the monitored

exceedances at Coso Junction. The study

documented that when exceedances

occurred in Coso Junction, the winds

were from the north. This factor alone

eliminates the possibility of sources

from Indian Wells Valley and Trona

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31875

9See Ono letter. 10See Table 3.

contributing to the exceedances in Coso

Junction since these subregions are

located to the south of Coso Junction.

Since the completion of the transport

study, two exceedances occurred in the

Coso Junction subregion. The Great

Basin Unified APCD has indicated that

at least one of these exceedances was

attributed to wind blown dust from the

Owens Valley NA.9

2. Indian Wells Valley

In April 1995 and March 1998, the

Indian Wells Valley subregion exceeded

the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS. The 1995

exceedance was captured as part of the

Great Basin Unified APCD’s transport

study and, like the same day exceedance

at Coso Junction, appears to have been

caused when winds were from the

north, thus implicating Owens Lake in

the adjacent Owens Valley NA, and not

Trona sources, as a likely contributor to

the exceedance. See Ono letter. The

cause of the 1998 exceedance (165 ug/

m3) is currently being analyzed by

CARB. In this instance, the exceedance

occurred when winds were from the

south, which eliminates the possibility

of sources in Trono or Coso Junction

contributing to the exceedance. In

addition, the corresponding same-day

PM–10 values in Coso Junction (21 ug/

m3) and Trona (24 ug/m3) were well

below the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS, an

indication that the sources causing the

exceedance in Indian Wells Valley did

not impact PM–10 levels in the Coso

Junction or Trono subregions.

3. Trona

The Tronba subregion has not

recorded an exceedance of the 24-hour

PM–10 NAAQS since 1990.

C. Planning and Control Considerations

Each of the subregions in the Searles

Valley NA is associated with a separate

valley in the NA. The corresponding

topography of the valleys limits the

transport of PM–10 emissions between

the Searles Valley subregions. See

Kenny letter. With the exception of

transport of PM–10 from Owens Lake

into Searles Valley, as described above,

there is no indication or record of

sources in any one subregion impacting

PM–10 levels in an adjacent subregion.

The proposed Coso Junction NA

corresponds with the current Coso

Junction subregion planning area and

the Rose Valley. The Rose Valley is

bounded by the Coso Range to the east

and south. The Sierra Nevada Range

bounds the Valley to the west, and the

intersection of the two ranges makes up

the northern boundary.

The proposed Indian Wells Valley NA

corresponds with the current Indian

Wells Valley subregion planning area

and the Indian Wells Valley. This valley

is bounded by the Argus Range to the

east, the Sierra Nevada Range to the

west. The El Paso Mountains bound the

southern area, and the Coso Range

closes off the northern end.

The proposed Trona NA corresponds

with the Trona subregion planning area

and the Searles Valley, which contains

the Searles (dry) Lake. This valley is

bounded by the Slate Range to the east

and Argus Range to the west. These two

ranges join together at the north and

south to fully encompass the Searles

(dry) Lake. The Mojave Desert AQMD is

primarily responsible for this subregion,

although a small portion of Inyo County,

which is under the jurisdiction of Great

Basin Unified APCD, falls within the

proposed Trona NA.

These valleys are distinct from one

another and do not share the same PM–

10 exceedances. As a result, separate

NAs with localized strategies on the

basis of the area’s geography and

topography are appropriate.

In addition, as stated earlier, CARB’s

moderate area SIP incorporates an

attainment strategy and demonstration

for each of the respective subregions

corresponding to the jurisdictions of the

three local air districts. Subsequent SIP

revisions for the Searles Valley NA have

been prepared and adopted by the

responsible air district in each

subregion, each reflecting the unique

contributors to nonattainment under its

jurisdiction. These administrative and

planning considerations further support

CARB’s request that the Searles Valley

NA be divided into three separate NAs.

Based on the State’s request and

consideration of the supporting factors

described above, we are today proposing

to change the boundaries for the Searles

Valley NA by dividing the area into the

Coso Junctiuon, Indian Wells Valley and

Trona NAs reflecting the historical

subregional divisions that have been in

place since the early 1990’s.

III. Proposed Boundaries for the

Proposed Coso Junction, Indian Wells

Valley and Trona Nonattainment Areas

The proposed 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. The

proposed Trona NA boundaries would

include the portion of the 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.

IV. Proposed Findings of Attainment

and Nonattainment

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

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. For

the Searles Valley, the attainment date

was December 31, 1994. Therefore, for

purposes of the attainment finding, EPA

must use 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/m 3. Attainment of the 24-hour

standard is determined by calculating

the expected number of exceedances of

the 150 μug/m 3 limit per year. The 24-

hour standard is attained when the

expected number of exceedances is 1.0

or less. 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.

The proposed findings pursuant to

CAA sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2) for

the proposed Coso, Indian Wells Valley

and Trona NAs are discussed below and

are based on air quality data for 1992–

1994, the 3 years up to and including

the attainment deadline year. In

addition, more recent data support our

proposal.10

B. Ambient Air Monitoring Data

As stated above, the 24-hour NAAQS

is attained when the expected number

of days per calendar year with a 24-hour

average concentration above 150 μg/m3

is equal to or less than one. In general,

the number of expected exceedances at

a site which samples every day is

determined by recording the number of

exceedances in each calendar year and

then averaging them over the past three

31876 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

11As stated previously in this notice, in 1997 the

China Lake subregion was renamed Indian Wells

Valley. However the monitoring site which

represents this subregion is still called China Lake

in EPA’s AIRS/AQS database.

calendar years. For sites which do not

sample every day, EPA requires the

adjustment of observed exceedances to

account for days not sampled. The

procedures for making the adjustment

are specified in 40 CFR part 50,

appendix K.

In addition, an important

consideration in making air quality

determinations for both the 24-hour and

annual standards is data completeness.

A complete year of air quality data, as

referred to in 40 CFR part 50, appendix

K, is comprised of all 4 calendar

quarters with each quarter containing

data from at least 75 percent of the

scheduled sampling days. EPA requires

pollutant data sets to be complete

according to this definition in order for

us to determine that an area is in

attainment of the PM—10 NAAQS. For

example, if an area samples for PM–10

on a one in six day sampling schedule,

there would be 60–61 samples

scheduled to be collected in a given

calendar year or 15–16 samples in a

calendar quarter. In order for a PM–10

data set to be deemed complete, an

agency must collect 75 percent of the

scheduled samples in a quarter. See 40

CFR part 50, appendix K.

EPA recognizes that data from some

scheduled sampling days may be

missing for any number of reasons, e.g.

damaged filters (sample loss),

miscalibrated equipment, or other

equipment failure. 40 CFR part 50,

appendix K specifies a minimum 75

percent data capture rate of required

PM–10 samples, but states that ‘‘data

not meeting these criteria may also

suffice to show attainment, however,

such exceptions will have to be

approved by the Regional Administrator

in accordance with established

guidelines.’’

EPA has provided guidance on how

and when the Agency can make

attainment findings when the data

capture rate is less than 75 percent per

calendar quarter. See ‘‘Guideline on

Exceptions to Data Requirements for

Determining Attainment of Particulate

Matter Standards,’’ Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, April 1987

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘data

substitution policy’’). There are

minimum criteria that must be met in

order for EPA to utilize this policy. For

areas that have two or more years of

monitoring data, there must be at least

50 percent of the required samples in

each quarter and at least one of the years

must indicate attainment based on

monitored concentrations that meet the

minimum 75 percent data capture

requirement. The policy may also be

used if only one year of every day

sampling is available and the data

capture rate exceeds 75 percent in each

quarter.

In the case of the Searles Valley NA,

there are three monitoring sites that

need to be evaluated in our

determination of the area’s attainment

status. In the 1992–1994 period, the

sites in Coso Junction and Indian Wells

Valley have at least one year that did

not meet the 75 percent data

completeness criteria. Since none of the

sites samples on an every day schedule,

we need to evaluate whether they met

the requirement of having at least 50

percent data capture for those quarters

not meeting the 75 percent data capture

requirement. The guidance document

cited above allows for the substitution

of missing data using monitored data

from the same quarter in anyone of the

years used to determine attainment. The

maximum PM–10 value that was

observed in that quarter over the

attainment period may be substituted

for missing scheduled sampling days,

provided emissions and meteorology for

these quarters are representative of the

emissions and meteorology for the

quarter in question.

In evaluating the data for the

proposed Coso, Indian Wells Valley and

Trona NAs, EPA considered the actual

recorded PM–10 concentrations for

1992–1994, the sampling frequency of

the monitors used in the PM–10

network, and the completeness of the

data collected.

1. 24-hour Standard

Table 1 presents a summary of the

data collected for the 24-hour standard

in the Searles Valley NA during 1992–

1994.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF SEARLES VALLEY 24-HOUR PM–10 AIR QUALITY DATA 1992–1994

[NAAQS=50 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3)]

Site Name Year

Maximum

24-hour

concentration

(μg/m3)

Number of

observed

exceedances

Number of estimated

exceedances

Data 75 percent complete? Y/N

Coso Junction ................................................................ 1992 38 0 Cannot be determined ...... No.

1993 254 2 8.4 ..................................... Yes.

1994 388 1 4.1 ..................................... Yes.

Indian Wells (China Lake)11 .......................................... 1992 39 0 Cannot be determined ...... No.

1993 50 0 Cannot be determined ...... No.

1994 26 0 Cannot be determined ...... No.

Trona .............................................................................. 1992 105 0 0 ........................................ Yes.

1993 79 0 0 ........................................ Yes.

1994 107 0 0 ........................................ Yes.

Source: Aerometric Information Retrieval System/Air Quality Subsystem (AIRS/AQS).

Based on the air quality data

presented above, EPA proposes to find

that the proposed Coso NA did not

attain the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS

during the 1992–1994 period.

For the proposed Indian Wells Valley

NA, data collection was inadequate and

the data substitution policy cannot be

used because the monitor did not collect

at lasts 50 percent of the scheduled

samples during certain quarters in the

1992–1994 period. As a result, EPA

cannot make a fining of attainment of

the proposed Indian Wells Valley NA

for the 24-hour standard and must

propose instead to find that this area

also failed to attain the 24-hour standard

for the 1992–1994 period.

For the proposed Trona NA, EPA

proposes to find that the area attained

the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS during the

1992–1994 period.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31877

12There were no recorded exceedances of the

annual standard during the 1995–2000 period.

However, as discussed in section IV.B.2, there are

significant data gaps for both standards from 1992–

1994 which are relevant to the attainment status of

the area.

14 If EPA takes final action to create the Trona

NA, the area would be redesignated to attainment

upon approval by the Agency of a maintenance plan

pursuant to CAA section 175A.

2. Annual Standard

The 1992–1994 annual average for

each monitoring site is provided in

Table 2.

TABLE 2.—ANNUAL AVERAGE PM–10 CONCENTRATION (μG/M3) FOR SEARLES VALLEY NONATTAINMENT AREA FOR 1992–

1994

[NAAQS = 50μg/m3]

Site name and year

Annual average (μg/

m3)

Data 75 percent

complete? Y/N

3 year annual average (μg/m3)

Coso Junction:

1992 .................................................................................................................................... *14 No ............................ ....................

1993 .................................................................................................................................... 28 Yes .......................... *22

1994 .................................................................................................................................... 23 Yes .......................... ....................

Indian Wells (China Lake):

1992 .................................................................................................................................... *21 No ............................ ....................

1993 .................................................................................................................................... 23 No ............................ *20

1994 .................................................................................................................................... *17 No ............................ ....................

Trona:

1992 .................................................................................................................................... 37 Yes .......................... ....................

1993 .................................................................................................................................... 37 Yes .......................... 34

1994 .................................................................................................................................... 28 Yes .......................... ....................

* Because the data set for the year is not complete, an accurate annual average that meets EPA regulatory requirements cannot be calculated.

Furthermore, since the Coso Junction and Indian Wells Valley monitoring sites have quarters which do not meet the minimum 50 percent capture

rate, EPA cannot utilize the data substitution policy. The number reported here is simply based on the available data.

Source: Aerometric Information Retrieval System/Air Quality Subsystem (AIRS/AQS)

The monitoring sites for the proposed

Coso and Indian Wells Valley NAs did

not meet the 75 percent data

completeness requirement.

Furthermore, some quarters of data at

each site also did not meet the 50

percent minimum data capture

requirement. Therefore, EPA’s data

substitution policy cannot be used and

EPA must propose to find that the

proposed Coso Junction and Indian

Wells Valley NAs failed to attain the

annual standard for the 1992–1994

period.

For the proposed Trona NA, EPA

proposes to find that the area attained

the annual standard during the 1992–

1994 period.

3. Post-1994 Exceedances Support

EPA’s Proposed Action

Exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS 12

occurring during the 1995 through 2000

time frame in the proposed Coso

Junction and Indian Wells Valley NAs

are listed in Table 3. No exceedances

were recorded during the period in the

proposed Trona NA.

TABLE 3.—SEARLES VALLEY NA MONITORING SITES EXCEEDING THE 24-

HOUR PM–10 NAAQS DURING

1995–2000

[NAAQS=150 μg/m3]

Site and Date of Exceedance Exceedance

(μg/m3

Coso Junction, Rest Area on

Hwy 395:

4/8/95 ................................. 692

4/21/95 ............................... 337

5/23/96 ............................... 309

3/18/98 ............................... 409

Coso Junction 10 miles east of

Coso Junction:

4/9/95 ................................. 597

4/21/95 ............................... 268

3/6/98 ................................. 246

Indian Wells Valley13 100 Las

Flores Ave, Ridge Crest:

4/8/95 ................................. 235

Indian Wells Valley, Powerline

Road, China Lake:

3/23/98 ............................... 165

13The Las Flores Avenue monitor was a

special purpose monitor included in the

Owens Lake transport study. It was sporadically operated during the 1993–1996 study,

‘‘Air Quality Impacts Downwind of Owens

Lake,’’ by the Great Basin Unified APCD, June

1997 (Owens Study). EPA’s policy on the use

of special purpose monitoring data is described in an EPA memorandum entitled

‘‘Agency Policy on the Use of Special Purpose

Monitoring Data’’ from John Seitz, Director,

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

to the Regional Air Directors, August 22, 1997.

V. Proposed Reclassifications and SIP

Requirements for Serious Areas

Under CAA section 188(b)(2)(A), a

moderate PM–10 nonattainment area

must be reclassified as serious by

operation of law after the statutory

attainment date if the Administrator

finds that the area has failed to attain

the NAAQS. Pursuant to section

188(b)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA must

publish a notice in Federal Register

identifying those areas that failed to

attain the standard and the resulting

reclassifications. Because the Searles

Valley moderate NA has a statutory

deadline of December 31, 1994, EPA is

required to base its original

determination of whether the area

attained the PM–10 standards on data

from 1992–1994. See section IV above.

For this period, for both the 24-hour and

annual standards, EPA is proposing to

find that the proposed Coso Junction

and Indian Wells Valley NAs did not

attain. Because EPA is proposing to find

that the proposed Trona NA attained the

PM–10 standards, it would remain a

moderate NA.14

PM–10 nonattainment areas

reclassified as serious under section 188

(b) (2) of the CAA are required to

submit, within 18 months of the Area’s

reclassification, SIP revisions providing

for implementation of best available

31878 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

15BACM must be implemented no later than four

years from the date of reclassification.

16 If certain conditions are met, EPA may extend

this attainment deadline to no later than December

31, 2006. CAA section 188 (e).

17See footnote 5.

18EPA’s policy for an exceedance caused by a

natural event is explained in a memorandum

entitled ‘‘Areas Affected by PM–10 Natural Events’’

from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation, to the EPA Regional offices, May 30,

1996. The State is responsible for establishing a

clear casual relationship between the exceedance

and the natural event and submitting the

documentation to EPA within 180 days of the

exceedance, and, at a minimum, developing a

Natural Events Action Plan within 18 months of the

exceedances.

19Memorandum from John Calcagni to Regional

Office Air Directors, ‘‘Procedures for Processing

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’

September 4, 1992.

control measures (BACM)15 and a major

source definition of 70 tons per year.

The SIP must also, among other things,

provide for attainment of the PM–10

NAAQS by December 31, 2001.16 See

CAA sections 188 (c) (2) and 189 (b).

EPA has provided specific guidance on

developing serious area PM–10 SIP

revisions. See 59 FR 41998 (August 16,

1994).

Data from the most recent three year

period (1998–2000) indicates the

proposed Coso Junction and Indian

Wells Valley NAs exceeded the PM–10

24-hour NAAQs. The proposed Coso

Junction NA recorded two exceedance

in March, 1998, and the proposed

Indian Wells Valley NA recorded an

exceedance March, 1998. In their May 4,

2001 letter 17 to EPA, CARB indicated

that it is investigating whether the

exceedance in Indian Wells Valley was

caused by a natural event.18 Because of

these exceedances, the proposed Coso

Junction and Indian Wells Valley NAs

do not qualify for redesignation at this

time. In order for a nonattainment area

to be redesignated to attainment, the

area must have three years of clean data

and meet the redesignation

requirements of section 107 (b) (3) (E) of

the CAA.19

VI. Summary of Today’s Proposals

In today’s action, EPA is proposing to

divide the Searles Valley NA into three,

newly created NAs: Coso Junction,

Indian Wells Valley, and Trona. EPA is

also proposing to find that the proposed

Coso Junction and Indian Wells Valley

NAs did not attain the 24-hour and

annual PM–10 NAAQS.

VII. Request for Public Comment

The EPA is requesting comment on

any or all aspects of today’s proposals.

As indicated at the outset of this notice,

EPA will consider any comments

received by August 13, 2001.

VIII. 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 section of the

economy. In addition, because the

statutory requirements are clearly

defined with respect to the differently

classified areas, and because these

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 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.

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

(Pub. L. 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 splitting of the Searles Valley

NA into three, new and separate NAs

with a moderate 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 Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: June 5, 2001.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 01–14902 Filed 6–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[CC Docket No. 94–102; FCC 01–175]

Wireless E911 Compatibility; Call Back

Capability

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document solicits

comment regarding the Commission’s

options with respect to providing public

safety answering points (PSAPs) with

the ability to call back to obtain further

information from 911 calls made from