[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 78 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21731-21737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-9036]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CA 118-PLANa; FRL-7641-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Finding of 
Attainment, and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 
1-Hour Ozone Standard, East Kern County, CA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is finding that East Kern County, California, has attained 
the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is 
approving the East Kern County 1-hour ozone maintenance plan and motor 
vehicle emissions budgets as revisions to the East Kern County portion 
of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Finally, EPA is 
redesignating the East Kern County area to attainment for the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective June 21, 2004, without 
further notice, unless we receive adverse comments by May 24, 2004. If 
EPA receives adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Please address your comments to: Dave Jesson, EPA Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 or submit comments at 
http://www.regulations.gov.
    You can inspect copies of the docket for this action at EPA's 
Region IX office during normal business hours. You can also inspect 
copies of the submitted SIP revision at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 2700 M Street, Suite 
302, Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3957, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. East Kern Designation, Classification, SIP, and Attainment 
Status
    B. Clean Air Act Provisions for Maintenance Plans
    C. Clean Air Act Provisions for Redesignation
II. EPA Review of the East Kern County Maintenance Plan and 
Redesignation Request and EPA Finding of Attainment
    A. Maintenance Plan
    1. Emissions Inventory
    2. Maintenance Demonstration
    3. Continued Ambient Monitoring
    4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    5. Contingency Provisions
    6. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    B. Redesignation Provisions
    1. Finding of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    2. Fully Approved Implementation Plan under CAA Section 110(k)
    3. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable 
Measures
    4. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
    5. CAA Section 110 and Part D Provisions Satisfied
III. Public Comment and EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. East Kern County Designation, Classification, SIP, and Attainment 
Status

    When the Clean Air Act (CAA) was amended in 1990, each area of the 
country that was designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
was classified by operation of law as marginal, moderate, serious, 
severe, or extreme depending on the severity of the area's air quality 
problem.\1\ The East Kern County nonattainment area (``East Kern'') was 
designated under CAA section 107 as part of the San Joaquin Valley 
nonattainment area, and was classified under CAA section 181 as serious 
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305 and 56 FR 56694 (November 
6, 1991), designating the entire Kern County as part of the ``San 
Joaquin Valley Area'' for ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) 
was promulgated in 1979 (44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979). On July 18, 
1997, we promulgated a revised ozone standard of 0.08 ppm, measured 
over an 8-hour period. In general, the 8-hour standard is more 
protective of public health and more stringent than the 1-hour 
standard. This action addresses only the 1-hour standard. Areas will 
be designated attainment or nonattainment of the 8-hour standard in 
2004. Ground-level ozone can irritate the respiratory system, 
causing coughing, throat irritation, and uncomfortable sensations in 
the chest. Ozone can also reduce lung function and make it more 
difficult to breathe deeply, thereby limiting a person's normal 
activity. Finally, ozone can aggravate asthma and can inflame and 
damage the lining of the lungs, leading to permanent changes in lung 
function. More details on ozone's health effects and the ozone NAAQS 
can be found at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) adopted a 
serious area plan, intended to demonstrate rate-of-progress (ROP) and 
attainment by the applicable deadline of November 15, 1999.\2\ The 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) timely submitted the plan in 
1994, along with the plan adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 
Pollution Control District for the remainder of the San Joaquin Valley 
nonattainment area. We approved the ROP and attainment plans for the 
San Joaquin Valley, including the portion of the SIP applicable to Kern 
County, on January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Rate-of-Progress and Attainment Demonstration Plans for 
the Kern County Air Pollution Control District,'' adopted on 
December 1, 1994, and submitted on December 28, 1994, by the 
Governor's designee. Since 1992, KCAPCD jurisdiction extends only to 
the desert (i.e., eastern) portion of Kern County, while the western 
portion of the County lies within the jurisdiction of the multi-
county San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 21732]]

    On November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56476), we took these actions: (1) We 
determined that the San Joaquin Valley had not attained the 1-hour 
ozone standard by the 1999 deadline, reclassified the area to severe, 
and set a deadline for submittal of a SIP addressing the severe area 
requirements for the area; and (2) we separated the eastern portion of 
Kern County from the San Joaquin Valley area and extended the 
attainment deadline for this new serious area from 1999 to 2001, 
pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5).\3\ In our rulemaking, we noted that, 
``if East Kern County does not record a violation in 2001, the area 
will be eligible for redesignation to attainment for the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS, following submittal by the State and approval by EPA of a 
redesignation request and maintenance plan addressing the provisions of 
CAA section 175A.'' 66 FR 56481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As discussed in the proposed action (66 FR 27616, May 18, 
2001), no exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard were recorded in 
1999 or 2000 in East Kern County. CAA section 181(a)(5) provides 
that, upon application by a state, EPA may extend the 1-hour ozone 
attainment deadline for up to two one-year periods if the state has 
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the 
area in the applicable SIP, and no more than one exceedance of the 
NAAQS has occurred in the area in the year preceding the extension 
year. EPA approved the separation of East Kern County along the 
boundary proposed by CARB. This boundary is the same as the boundary 
between the jurisdictions of the Kern County and the San Joaquin 
Valley air districts, and generally follows the ridge line of the 
Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountain Ranges. The precise description 
of the new boundary appears at 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    East Kern attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 2001 and continued to 
record levels below the NAAQS during 2002 and 2003. Attainment is 
achieved when the average number of expected exceedance days per year 
is 1.0 or less for each monitor during a 3-year period. See discussion 
in Section II.B.1., below.
    On May 1, 2003, KCAPCD adopted the Ozone Attainment Demonstration, 
Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request (``maintenance plan'') to 
address the CAA section 175A provisions relating to 1-hour ozone 
maintenance plans. On December 9, 2003, CARB adopted and submitted 
specified elements of the maintenance plan, and requested that we 
approve these elements and redesignate the area to attainment for the 
1-hour ozone NAAQS. CARB specifically requested that we approve the 
following elements of the plan:
    (a) Appendix A containing ambient air quality data;
    (b) Appendix B containing emissions inventory data for the 1999 
attainment year and future years demonstrating that East Kern County's 
future ozone precursor inventory will not exceed the 1999 attainment 
year inventory;
    (c) Chapter 6 containing contingency measures; and
    (d) Table 5-2 containing motor vehicle emissions budgets.

B. Clean Air Act Provisions for Maintenance Plans

    CAA section 175A sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for 
areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The 
maintenance plan must provide for continued maintenance of the 
applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the area is redesignated 
to attainment (CAA section 175A(a)). To address the possibility of 
future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency 
provisions that are adequate to assure prompt correction of a 
violation, and must include a requirement that the State will implement 
all measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned 
which were contained in the State implementation plan for the area 
before redesignation of the area as an attainment area (CAA section 
175A(d)).
    We have issued maintenance plan and redesignation guidance, 
primarily in the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I 
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (``General Preamble,'' 57 FR 
13498, April 16, 1992); a September 4, 1992 memo from John Calcagni 
titled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment'' (``Calcagni memo'' available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/940904.pdf); a September 17, 1993 memo from 
Michael H. Shapiro titled ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to 
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992''; and a 
November 30, 1993 memo from D. Kent Berry titled ``Use of Actual 
Emissions in the Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas.''
    The Calcagni memo provides that an ozone maintenance plan should 
address five elements: an attainment year emissions inventory (i.e., an 
inventory reflecting actual emissions when the area recorded 
attainment, and thus a level of emissions sufficient to attain the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS), a maintenance demonstration, provisions for 
continued operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring network, 
verification of continued maintenance, and contingency measures.

C. Clean Air Act Provisions for Redesignation

    CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation providing that: 
(1) We determine, at the time of redesignation, that the area has 
attained the NAAQS; (2) we have fully approved the applicable 
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) we determine 
that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, 
applicable Federal regulations, and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions; (4) we fully approve a maintenance plan for the area as 
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and, (5) the State containing 
such area has met all nonattainment area requirements applicable to the 
area under section 110 and part D. We have provided guidance on 
redesignation in the General Preamble and in the guidance memos cited 
above.

II. EPA Review of the East Kern County Maintenance Plan and 
Redesignation Request and EPA Finding of Attainment

A. Maintenance Plan

    As discussed above in Section I.A., CARB submitted the maintenance 
plan on December 9, 2003.\4\ The plan consists of a single volume, 
including appendices on air quality data and projected emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On December 18, 2003, we found that this submittal met the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR 51 appendix V, including the 
requirement for proper public notice and adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Emissions Inventory
    The maintenance plan includes emissions inventories for Volatile 
Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) for 1990, 
1999, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. Emissions forecasts for future 
years take into account projected growth and changes in control 
factors, using established State methodologies.\5\ The emissions 
inventories were updated in March 2003, and are presented as emissions 
in tons per summer day using the State's most recent data for 
stationary, area, and mobile categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The maintenance plan uses the term Reactive Organic 
Compounds (ROC) in place of the Federal terminology, VOC. The terms 
are essentially synonymous. Because VOC is the more common term, we 
use it in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The inventories use current and accurate methodologies, emissions 
factors, and survey information. The onroad emissions inventories 
employ the new CARB motor vehicle emissions factor model, EMFAC2002, 
and the latest planning activity levels. On April 1, 2003 (68 FR 15720-
15723), we

[[Page 21733]]

published a Federal Register notice stating our conclusion that the 
EMFAC2002 emission factor model is acceptable for use in SIP 
development and transportation conformity. Because the inventories are 
current, accurate, and complete, we are approving them under CAA 
section 172(c)(3) and 175A.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    Original maintenance plans must show how the NAAQS will be 
maintained for the next 10 years following redesignation to attainment. 
This is generally performed by assuming that the emissions levels at 
the time attainment is achieved constitute a limit on the emissions 
that can be accommodated without violating the NAAQS. In the case of 
this plan, projected VOC and NOX emissions through 2015 show 
continued attainment, since emissions levels of both of the ozone 
precursors are below 2001 levels. Table 1 below shows baseline and 
projected summer day emissions levels.

          Table 1.--East Kern County Maintenance Demonstration
               [Annual average emissions in tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Year                             VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999..................................................    14.44    36.48
2001..................................................    13.80    36.55
2005..................................................    13.01    36.37
2010..................................................    12.02    35.42
2015..................................................    12.58   36.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: East Kern County Maintenance Plan, Appendix B

    Maintenance is demonstrated since total emissions of the two ozone 
precursors decline from the attainment year inventories. Increasingly 
stringent California and Federal motor vehicle emissions standards and 
fleet turnover account for the bulk of the inventory reductions, and 
the remaining emissions reductions come from fully adopted, permanent, 
and enforceable State, local, and Federal regulations.
    We are approving the maintenance demonstration under CAA section 
175A(a), since the plan shows that emissions will remain below 
attainment levels due to the projected impact of fully adopted, 
permanent, and enforceable regulations.
3. Continued Ambient Monitoring
    The maintenance plan needs to contain provisions for continued 
operation of an air quality monitoring network that meets the 
provisions of 40 CFR part 58 and will verify continued attainment. 
CARB's Executive Order G-03-057 includes a commitment that the State 
will ``work with the Kern County Air Pollution Control District to 
ensure continued ozone air quality monitoring in the East Kern County 
nonattainment area, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, for at least ten 
years following redesignation of the area to attainment, in order to 
verify the attainment status of the area'' (page 5 of the Executive 
Order). This CARB commitment meets the continued monitoring provision, 
and we are approving it under CAA section 175A.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In addition, the Navy has indicated that it intends to 
continue operating its ozone monitor at the China Lake Naval Weapons 
Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    The maintenance plan needs to show how the responsible agencies 
will track progress, and the plan should specifically provide for 
periodic inventory updates. The KCAPCD will meet this obligation 
through triennial updates to the area's attainment plan for the more 
protective State 1-hour ozone standard, which are mandated by the 
California Clean Air Act. These updates include assessments of the 
effectiveness of the control strategy, corrections for deficiencies in 
meeting progress requirements under State law, new emissions inventory 
data and projections, and summaries of monitored air quality data. The 
triennial updates will meet our provisions for verification of 
continued attainment. We are approving this provision under CAA section 
175A.
5. Contingency Provisions
    CAA section 175A(d) provides that maintenance plans include 
contingency provisions ``necessary to assure that the State will 
promptly correct any violation of the standard.* * * Such provisions 
shall include a requirement that the State will implement all measures 
with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned which were 
contained in the State implementation plan for the area before 
redesignation of the area as an attainment area.''
    Table 6-1 of the maintenance plan lists KCAPCD contingency 
measures. These measures are listed below in Table 2, ``Contingency 
Measures.''

               Table 2.--Contingency Measures Source: East Kern County Maintenance Plan, Table 6-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Rule                              Title               Implementing agency      Ozone precursor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
422.1................................  Solid Waste Landfills.......  KCAPCD.................  VOC.
New..................................  Coatings-Aircraft and         KCAPCD.................  VOC.
                                        Aerospace Exterior.
New..................................  Electronics Manufacturing...  KCAPCD.................  VOC.
New..................................  Commercial Charbroiling.....  KCAPCD.................  VOC.
425..................................  Stationary Gas Turbine        KCAPCD.................  NOX.
                                        Engines.
425.3................................  Portland Cement Kilns.......  KCAPCD.................  NOX.
425.1................................  Hot Mix Asphalt Batch         KCAPCD.................  NOX.
                                        Plants--Combustion.
425.2................................  Industrial & Commercial       KCAPCD.................  NOX.
                                        Package Boilers.
427..................................  Stationary Piston Engines...  KCAPCD.................  NOX.
New..................................  Natural Gas Combustion in     KCAPCD.................  NOX
                                        External Combustion Devices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA section 175A(d) and EPA's guidance on contingency 
provisions in maintenance plans do not require that the measures be 
fully adopted. The measures with rule numbers in Table 2 have been 
fully adopted, are now being fully implemented, and will continue to 
deliver excess reductions beyond those required to bring the area into 
attainment.\7\ These rules are not in fact contingent, but rather 
achieve emissions reductions beyond those needed for continued 
maintenance and will be retained as part of the SIP. The measures 
indicated as ``new'' have not yet been adopted, but would be adopted 
and implemented as needed to ensure that any violation of the NAAQS 
that

[[Page 21734]]

occurs after redesignation to attainment will be corrected promptly. We 
are approving the measures as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
175A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In previous rulemaking, we have approved as part of the SIP 
Rules 425, 425.1, 425.2, 425.3, and 427, but we have not yet taken 
action on Rule 422.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    Maintenance plan submittals must specify the maximum emissions of 
transportation-related precursors of ozone allowed in the last year of 
the maintenance period. The submittals must also demonstrate that these 
emissions levels, when considered with emissions from all other 
sources, are consistent with maintenance of the NAAQS. In order for us 
to find these emissions levels or ``budgets'' adequate and approvable, 
the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy provisions of 40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4) and (5), and be approvable under all pertinent SIP 
requirements.
    The budgets defined by this and other plans when they are approved 
into the SIP or, in some cases, when the budgets are found to be 
adequate, are then used to determine the conformity of transportation 
plans, programs, and projects to the SIP, as described by CAA section 
176(c)(3)(A). For more detail on this part of the conformity 
requirements, see 40 CFR 93.118. For transportation conformity 
purposes, the cap on emissions of transportation-related ozone 
precursors is known as the motor vehicle emissions budget. The budget 
must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the 
maintenance demonstration (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v)).
    The motor vehicle emissions budgets are presented in Table 3 below, 
entitled ``East Kern County Maintenance Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Budgets,'' which is taken from Table 5-2.

   Table 3.--East Kern County Maintenance Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions
                                 Budgets
              [Emissions are shown in tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Budget year                         NOX       VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001................................................       8.1       4.8
2005................................................       7.1       3.9
2015................................................       4.0       2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maintenance plan notes that ``the budgets were slightly 
adjusted by adding one tenth of a ton to account for potential emission 
increases associated with recent state legislation affecting smog check 
requirements. Because these emissions budgets are expressed in tenths 
of a ton per day, onroad motor vehicle emissions estimates should be 
rounded up to the next tenth of a ton'' in future conformity 
determinations. (Page 5-5 of the maintenance plan.)
    Under our policy for reviewing the adequacy of motor vehicle 
emissions budget submissions, these budgets were posted on our 
transportation conformity Web site (http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq) for 
public comment. The public comment period on budget adequacy closed on 
January 16, 2004. We received no comments on the adequacy of the 
budgets.
    As discussed above, the motor vehicle emissions portion of these 
budgets (i.e., the evaporative and tailpipe emissions) was developed 
using EMFAC2002 and updated county-specific vehicle data, including the 
latest East Kern County planning assumptions on vehicle fleet and age 
distribution and activity levels. In this action, we are approving the 
motor vehicle emission budgets under CAA section 176(c)(2) because the 
budgets are consistent with the criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 
(5), including consistency with the motor vehicle emissions inventory 
used in the maintenance demonstration.

B. Redesignation Provisions

1. Finding of Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded on average 
more than 1 day per year over any 3-year period at any monitor within 
the area. 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H. Therefore, demonstrating that an 
area has attained the 1-hour standard requires calculating the average 
number of days over the standard per year at each monitor during the 
preceding 3-year period.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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. While explicitly applicable only to 
marginal areas, the general procedures for evaluating attainment in 
this memorandum apply regardless of the initial classification of an 
area because all findings of attainment are made pursuant to the 
same Clean Air Act requirements in section 181(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this proposal, we include Table 4 below, entitled ``East Kern 
County 1-Hour Ozone Maximum Concentrations and Exceedance Days,'' 
showing attainment based on both the design value and the average 
number of exceedance days per year for the period 1999 through 2003. 
The 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 3 years. An area's design value is the highest of the design 
values from the area's monitors.\9\ Attainment is determined using all 
available, quality-assured air quality data for the 3-year period up to 
and including the attainment date.\10\ Consequently, we used all of the 
quality-assured data available to determine whether the East Kern 
County area attained the 1-hour ozone standard. From the available air 
quality data, we have calculated the average number of days over the 
standard and the design value for each ozone monitor in the 
nonattainment area. It should be noted that not all data for the 4th 
quarter of 2003 have yet been quality assured and entered into EPA's 
Aerometric Information Retrieval System-Air Quality Subsystem (AIRS-
AQS) database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The fourth highest value is used as the design value because 
a monitor may record up to 3 exceedances of the standard in a 3-year 
period and still show attainment, since 3 exceedances over 3 years 
would average 1 day per year, the maximum allowed to show attainment 
of the 1-hour ozone standard. If the monitor records a fourth 
exceedance in that period, it would average more than 1 exceedance 
day per year and would no longer show attainment. Therefore, if a 
State can reduce the fourth highest ozone value to below the 
standard, thus preventing a fourth exceedance, then it can 
demonstrate attainment.
    \10\ All quality-assured available data include all data 
available from the state and local/national air monitoring (SLAMS/ 
NAMS) network as submitted to EPA's AIRS system and all data 
available to EPA from special purpose monitoring (SPM) sites that 
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 58.13. See Memorandum John Seitz, 
Director, OAQPS, to Regional Air Directors; ``Agency Policy on the 
Use of Ozone Special Purpose Monitoring Data,'' August 22, 1997, 
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ ambient/criteria/
spms3.pdf.

[[Page 21735]]



               Table 4.--East Kern County 1-Hour Ozone Maximum Concentrations and Exceedance Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   4th  maximum
             Monitor               1st  maximum    2nd  maximum    3rd  maximum   (design value)    Exceedances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mojave:
    1999........................           0.119           0.113           0.112           0.111               0
    2000........................           0.113           0.112           0.112           0.106               0
    2001........................           0.126           0.119           0.118           0.116               1
    2002........................           0.115           0.113           0.111           0.103               0
    2003........................           0.120           0.119           0.116           0.111               0
China Lake:
    1999........................           0.104           0.083           0.082           0.080               0
    2000........................           0.100           0.094           0.093           0.091               0
    2001........................           0.089           0.087           0.086           0.085               0
    2002........................           0.101           0.093           0.092           0.091               0
    2003........................           0.095           0.089           0.084           0.083               0
Edwards AFB:
    1999........................           0.114           0.111           0.111           0.110               0
    2000........................           0.123           0.117           0.115           0.114               0
    2001........................           0.117           0.110           0.109           0.108               0
    2002........................           0.081           0.080           0.079           0.078               0
    2003........................                               Monitor not operated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 data are preliminary. The China Lake and Edwards monitors are SPMs operated by the Navy and Air Force,
  respectively, but must be considered in determining attainment, per EPA's policy on use of ozone SPM data. See
  Memorandum dated August 22, 1997, from John Seitz to Regional Air Directors, entitled ``Agency Policy on the
  Use of Ozone Special Purpose Monitoring Data'' at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ ambient/criteria/
  spms3.pdf.

    Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), we must determine whether an ozone 
nonattainment area has attained the standard by the applicable 
attainment deadline. As discussed above in Section I.A., East Kern did 
not attain by the serious area deadline of 1999, but the area was 
granted two one-year attainment date extensions pursuant to CAA section 
181(a)(5), thus moving the attainment deadline to 2001. 77 FR 56476 
(November 8, 2001). From Table 4, it is apparent that no monitor in 
East Kern recorded more than 3 exceedances of the standard for the 
period 1999-2001. The highest design value at any monitor, and thus the 
design value for East Kern, for 1999-2001 is 0.116 ppm based on the 
highest 4th maximum concentration recorded in 2001 at the Mojave site. 
We are therefore finding under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) that East Kern 
attained the 1-hour ozone standard by the applicable deadline of 2001.
    Table 4 also shows that the highest design value at any monitor for 
the 3-year periods 2000-2002 and 2001-2003. As for the period 1999-
2001, the design value for East Kern for both 2000-2002 and 2001-2003, 
is 0.116 ppm, based on the 4th maximum concentration recorded in 2001 
at the Mojave site. During these 3-year periods, no monitor recorded 
more than 3 exceedances. Table 4 shows that the area has continued to 
maintain the standard through the most recent three-year period of 
2001-2003, and East Kern has thus met this prerequisite to 
redesignation.
2. Fully Approved Implementation Plan under CAA Section 110(k)
    Following adoption of the CAA of 1970, California has adopted and 
submitted and we have fully approved at various times provisions 
addressing the various SIP elements applicable in East Kern County. As 
previously mentioned, we fully approved the 1-hour ozone ROP and 
attainment plan applicable to Kern County on January 8, 1997 (62 FR 
1150).
3. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable Measures
    Chapter 5 of the maintenance plan provides information on activity 
levels in the area, noting that there is a lack of significant 
historical change since 1990 and a lack of change in the future. The 
economy is heavily dependent upon the Naval Air Weapons Station and 
Edwards Air Force Base, along with related private industry aerospace 
activities. Mining is the other economic base. Gold and silver mining 
has diminished since 1992, while borax mining has remained constant. 
Growth is not projected in the industry as a whole. Just as attainment 
cannot be ascribed to unusually reduced activity levels, so it cannot 
be attributed to favorable meteorology. For example, immediately 
adjacent nonattainment areas experienced unfavorable meteorology in 
2003 and dramatic increases in ozone concentrations, but the design 
value in East Kern County remained well below the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
during the past year. Finally, the projected emissions inventory, which 
shows a decline in total VOC and NOX emissions (see Table 1, 
above), takes credit only for reductions that are permanent and 
enforceable. We therefore conclude that attainment was not the result 
of unusual activity or meteorology, but rather the permanent and 
enforceable emissions control measures that continue in force at the 
State, local, and federal level. Examples of these measures are 
presented in Table 3-1 of the maintenance plan.
4. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
    In Section II.A., above, we are proposing to approve the 
maintenance plan as meeting the CAA section 175A provisions.
5. CAA Section 110 and Part D Provisions Satisfied
    We approved the East Kern ozone attainment SIP on January 8, 1997 
(62 FR 1150) with respect to CAA section 110 and Part D provisions 
applicable to a serious ozone nonattainment area. As noted above, we 
have approved other CAA section 110 SIP provisions applicable to East 
Kern County at various times in the past.
    We have not approved the KCAPCD new source review (NSR) rule as 
meeting the part D requirements contained in CAA section 172(c)(5). 
However, consistent with EPA guidance, we are not requiring as a 
prerequisite to redesignation to attainment EPA's full approval of a 
part

[[Page 21736]]

D NSR program.\11\ Under this guidance, nonattainment areas may be 
redesignated to attainment notwithstanding the lack of a fully-approved 
part D NSR program, so long as the program is not relied upon for 
maintenance. The East Kern maintenance plan does not rely on the NSR 
program and, therefore, the area will not need a part D NSR program to 
maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols entitled ``Part D New 
Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting 
Redesignation to Attainment,'' October 14, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Public Comment and EPA Action

    Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), we are finding that the East Kern 
area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment 
deadline of 2001. We are approving the East Kern County Maintenance 
Plan under CAA sections 175A and 110(k)(3). We are approving the 2001, 
2005, and 2015 VOC and NOX motor vehicle emissions budgets 
in Table 5-2 of the maintenance plan under CAA sections 176(c)(2) as 
adequate for attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and 
for transportation conformity purposes. Finally, we are redesignating 
East Kern County area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard under 
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
    We do not think anyone will object to this approval and 
redesignation, so we are finalizing them without proposing it in 
advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal 
Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same 
submitted maintenance plan and request for redesignation to attainment. 
If we receive adverse comments by May 24, 2004, we will publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the 
direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the 
comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do 
not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be 
effective without further notice on June 21, 2004. This will 
incorporate the maintenance plan into the federally enforceable SIP and 
redesignate the area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
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.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
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). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does 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). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, 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. This rule does 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. section 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. 
section 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 June 21, 2004. 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 filed, 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: March 19, 2004.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
are amended as follows:

[[Page 21737]]

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph(c)(322)to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (322) New and amended plan for the following agency was submitted 
on December 9, 2003, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Kern County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) East Kern County Ozone Attainment Demonstration, Maintenance 
Plan and Redesignation Request, adopted on May 1, 2003: Chapter 5--
``Regional Forecast,'' including emissions inventory summary (Table 5-
1) and motor vehicle emissions budgets (Table 5-2); Chapter 6--
``Emission Control Measures,'' including contingency measures (Table 6-
1); and Appendix B--``Emission Inventories.''

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  81.305, the California Ozone (1-Hour Standard) table is 
amended by revising the entry for the East Kern County area to read as 
follows:


Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                                California--Ozone
                                                [1-Hour Standard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Designation                     Classification
                Designated area                -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Date 1           Type            Date 1           Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
East Kern County:
    That portion of Kern County that lies east    6/21/04  Attainment..........  .........  ....................
     and south of a line described below:
     Beginning at the Kern-Los Angeles County
     boundary and running north and east along
     the northwest boundary of the Rancho La
     Liebre Land Grant to the point of
     intersection with the range line common
     to Range 16 West and Range 17 West, San
     Bernardino Base and Meridian; north along
     the range line to the point of
     intersection with the Rancho El Tejon
     Land Grant boundary; then southeast,
     northeast, and northwest along the
     boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Grant to
     the northwest corner of Section 3,
     Township 11 North, Range 17 West; then
     west 1.2 miles; then north to the Rancho
     El Tejon Land Grant boundary; then
     northwest along the Rancho El Tejon line
     to the southeast corner of Section 34,
     Township 32 South, Range 30 East, Mount
     Diablo Base and Meridian; then north to
     the northwest corner of Section 35,
     Township 31 South, Range 30 East, then
     northeast along the boundary of the
     Rancho El Tejon Land Grant to the
     southwest corner of Section 18, Township
     31 South, Range 31 East; then east to the
     southeast corner of Section 13, Township
     31 South, Range 31 East; then north along
     the range line common to Range 31 East
     and Range 32 East, Mount Diablo Base and
     Meridian, to the northwest corner of
     Section 6, Township 29 South, Range 32
     East; then east to the southwest corner
     of Section 31, Township 28 South, Range
     32 East; then north along the range line
     common to Range 31 East and Range 32 East
     to the northwest corner of Section 6,
     Township 28 South, Range 32 East, then
     west to the southeast corner of Section
     36, Township 27 South, Range 31 East,
     then north along the range line common to
     Range 31 East and Range 32 East to the
     Kern-Tulare County Boundary.
                                                 * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-9036 Filed 4-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P