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

77196

Vol. 67, No. 242

Tuesday, December 17, 2002

1We previously received a draft of the plan for 

review.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[CA–276–0374; FRL–7423–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas; California—Indian Wells 

Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the Act) the moderate area plan and 

maintenance plan for the Indian Wells 

Valley planning area in California and 

to redesignate the area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10).

DATES: Comments on this proposal must 

be received in writing by January 16, 

2003.

ADDRESSES: Please address your 

comments to Karen Irwin, Air Planning 

Office (AIR–2), Air Division, U.S. EPA, 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. You may 

inspect and copy the rulemaking docket 

for this notice at the following location 

during normal business hours. We may 

charge you a reasonable fee for copying 

parts of the docket.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

9 Air Division, Air Planning Office (AIR–2) 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901.

Copies of the SIP materials are also 

available for inspection at the addresses 

listed below:

Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 

2700 ‘‘M’’ Street, Suite 302, Bakersfield, CA 

93301. 

California Air Resources Board, 1001 I 

Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Irwin, Air Planning Office (AIR–

2), EPA Region 9, at (415) 947–4116 or: 

irwin.karen@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Action 

II. Introduction 

A. What National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards Are Considered in Today’s 

Rulemaking? 

B. What Is a State Implementation Plan? 

C. What Is the Classification of This Area? 

D. What Are the Applicable CAA 

Provisions for PM–10 Moderate Area 

Plans? 

1. Statutory Provisions 

2. Clean Data Areas Approach 

E. What Are the Applicable Provisions for 

Redesignation to Attainment for PM–10? 

III. Background 

IV. Review of the State Submittal 

A. Is the Moderate Area Plan Approvable? 

1. Did the State Meet the CAA Procedural 

Provisions? 

2. Has the State Demonstrated That the 

Area Qualifies for the Clean Data Policy? 

a. Based on the Past 3 Years of Air Quality 

Data, is the Area Attaining Both the 24-

Hour and Annual PM–10 NAAQS? 

b. Is the State Continuing To Operate an 

Appropriate PM–10 Air Quality 

Monitoring Network? 

c. Has EPA Approved as Meeting the 

CAA’s RACM/RACT Requirements the 

Control Measures Responsible for 

Bringing the Area Into Attainment? 

3. Do the Emissions Inventories Meet CAA 

Provisions? 

4. Are the CAA Provisions for New Source 

Review Satisfied? 

B. Is the Maintenance Plan Approvable? 

1. Does the Plan Contain an Adequate 

Attainment Inventory? 

2. Does the Plan Demonstrate Future 

Maintenance of the NAAQS? 

3. Does the Plan Meet the CAA Provisions 

for Contingency Measures?

4. Has the State Committed To Continue To 

Operate an Appropriate PM–10 Air 

Quality Monitoring Network? 

5. Has the State Provided for Verification 

of Continued Attainment? 

C. Is the Redesignation Request 

Approvable? 

1. Has the Area Attained the 24-Hour and 

Annual PM–10 NAAQS? 

2. Has the Area Met all Relevant 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the Act? 

3. Does the Area Have a Fully Approved 

SIP Under Section 110(k) of the Act? 

4. Has the State Shown That the Air 

Quality Improvement in the Area is 

Permanent and Enforceable? 

5. Does the Area Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the Act? 

D. Conformity 

1. Transportation Conformity 

2. General Conformity 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Summary of Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

moderate area nonattainment plan and 

maintenance plan submitted to EPA by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(ARB) on December 5, 2002.1 If EPA 

takes final action on this proposal, the 

Indian Wells Valley PM–10 

nonattainment area (Indian Wells) 

would be redesignated to attainment for 

the 24-hour and annual PM–10 NAAQS.

II. Introduction 

A. What National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards Are Considered in Today’s 

Rulemaking? 

Particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of 10 

micrometers or less (PM–10) is the 

pollutant that is the subject of this 

action. The NAAQS are safety 

thresholds for certain ambient air 

pollutants set to protect public health 

and welfare. PM–10 is among the 

ambient air pollutants for which we 

have established such 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 July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), we 

revised the NAAQS for particulate 

matter with an indicator that includes 

only those particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers. See 40 

CFR 50.6. 

The annual primary PM–10 standard 

is 50 ug/m3 as an annual arithmetic 

mean. The 24-hour PM–10 standard is 

150 ug/m3 with no more than one 

expected exceedance per year. The 

secondary PM–10 standards, 

promulgated to protect against adverse 

welfare effects, are identical to the 

primary standards. Id.

B. What Is a State Implementation Plan? 

The Clean Air Act requires States to 

attain and maintain ambient air quality 

equal to or better than the NAAQS. The 

State’s commitments for attaining and 

maintaining the NAAQS are outlined in 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 77197

2See memorandum from John Seitz, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) to Regional Division Directors entitled 

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related Requirements for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ May 10, 

1995.

the State Implementation Plan (or SIP) 

for that State. The SIP is a planning 

document that, when implemented, is 

designed to ensure the achievement of 

the NAAQS. Each State currently has a 

SIP in place, and the Act requires that 

SIP revisions be made periodically as 

necessary to provide continued 

compliance with the standards. 

SIPs include, among other things, the 

following: (1) An inventory of emission 

sources; (2) statutes and regulations 

adopted by the State legislature and 

executive agencies; (3) air quality 

analyses that include demonstrations 

that adequate controls are in place to 

meet the NAAQS; and (4) contingency 

measures to be undertaken if an area 

fails to attain the standard or make 

reasonable progress toward attainment 

by the required date. 

The State must make the SIP available 

for public review and comment through 

a public hearing, it must be adopted by 

the State, and submitted to EPA by the 

Governor or his designee. EPA takes 

Federal action on the SIP submittal thus 

rendering the rules and regulations 

Federally enforceable. The approved SIP 

serves as the State’s commitment to take 

actions that will reduce or eliminate air 

quality problems. Any subsequent 

revisions to the SIP must go through the 

formal SIP revision process specified in 

the Act. 

C. What Is the Classification of This 

Area? 

Upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air 

Act Amendments (CAA or Act), PM–10 

areas meeting the requirements of either 

(i) or (ii) of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the 

Act were designated nonattainment for 

PM–10 by operation of law and 

classified ‘‘moderate.’’ These areas 

included all former Group I PM–10 

planning areas identified in 52 FR 

29383 (August 7, 1987) and further 

clarified in 55 FR 45799 (October 31, 

1990), and any other areas violating the 

NAAQS for PM–10 prior to January 1, 

1989 (many of these areas were 

identified by footnote 4 in the October 

31, 1990 FederalRegister document). A 

Federal Register document announcing 

the areas designated nonattainment for 

PM–10 upon enactment of the 1990 

Amendments, known as ‘‘initial’’ PM–

10 nonattainment areas, was published 

on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). A 

subsequent Federal Register document 

correcting some of these areas was 

published on August 8, 1991 (56 FR 

37654). These nonattainment 

designations and moderate area 

classifications were codified in 40 CFR 

part 81 in a Federal Register document 

published on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 

56694).

The Searles Valley planning area was 

designated nonattainment and classified 

as moderate. The area originally 

included three subregions (Coso 

Junction, Indian Wells Valley and 

Trona) under the planning jurisdiction 

of different air pollution control 

agencies. On August 6, 2002, EPA 

changed the boundaries of the Searles 

Valley PM–10 nonattainment area by 

dividing this area into three separate, 

newly created PM–10 nonattainment 

areas. 67 FR 50805. One of these areas 

is Indian Wells Valley which is under 

the jurisdiction of the Kern County Air 

Pollution Control District (APCD or the 

District). The Indian Wells Valley PM–

10 nonattainment area boundaries 

include the portion of Kern County 

contained within the United States 

Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 

#18090205. The Indian Wells Valley 

area covers approximately 300 square 

miles and is populated by about 30,000 

persons, with only one community of 

significant size, Ridgecrest. 

D. What Are the Applicable CAA 

Provisions for PM–10 Moderate Area 

Plans? 

The air quality planning requirements 

for moderate PM–10 nonattainment 

areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of 

title I of the Act. We have issued 

guidance in a General Preamble 

describing our preliminary views on 

how we will review SIPs and SIP 

revisions submitted under title I of the 

Act, including those containing 

moderate PM–10 nonattainment area 

SIP provisions. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 

1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 

The General Preamble provides a 

detailed discussion of our interpretation 

of the title I requirements. 

1. Statutory Provisions 

States with initial moderate PM–10 

nonattainment areas were required to 

submit, among other things, the 

following provisions by November 15, 

1991: 

(a) Provisions to assure that 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) (including such reductions in 

emissions from existing sources in the 

area as may be obtained through the 

adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably 

available control technology (RACT)) 

shall be implemented no later than 

December 10, 1993; 

(b) Either a demonstration (including 

air quality modeling) that the plan will 

provide for attainment as expeditiously 

as practicable but no later than 

December 31, 1994, or a demonstration 

that attainment by that date is 

impracticable; 

(c) Pursuant to section 189(c)(1), for 

plan revisions demonstrating 

attainment, quantitative milestones 

which are to be achieved every 3 years 

and which demonstrate reasonable 

further progress (RFP) toward 

attainment by December 31, 1994; and 

(d) Provisions to assure that the 

control requirements applicable to 

major stationary sources of PM–10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM–10 precursors, except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM–10 levels which exceed the 

NAAQS in the area. 

In addition, States must submit a 

permit program for the construction of 

new and modified major stationary 

sources in 1992 and contingency 

measures in 1993. See sections 189(a) 

and 172(c)(5). 

2. Clean Data Areas Approach 

The clean data areas approach applies 

the clean data policy concept already in 

place for ozone 2 to selected PM–10 

nonattainment areas in order to approve 

control measures for these areas into the 

SIP. The approach only applies to PM–

10 areas with simple PM–10 source 

problems, such as residential wood 

combustion and fugitive dust. If an area 

meets the following requirements, the 

State will no longer be required to 

develop, among other things, an 

attainment demonstration. The 

requirements for the approach are:

(a) The area has attained the PM–10 

NAAQS with the three most recent 

years of quality assured air quality data. 

(b) The State must continue to operate 

an appropriate PM–10 air quality 

monitoring network, in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58, in order to verify the 

attainment status of the area. 

(c) The control measures responsible 

for bringing the area into attainment 

must be approved by EPA as meeting 

the CAA requirements for RACM/RACT. 

(d) An emissions inventory must be 

completed for the area. In addition to 

the above requirements for the use of 

the clean data areas approach, any 

requirements that are connected solely 

to designation or classification, such as 

new source review (NSR) and RACM/

RACT, will remain in effect. However, 

the requirements under CAA sections 

172(c) and 189 for developing 

attainment demonstrations, RFP 

77198 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

3Moreover, the lack of a requirement to submit 

the SIP revisions noted above and the suspension 

of sanction clocks/FIP requirements will exist only 

as long as the area continues to attain the NAAQS. 

If we determine prior to a final redesignation to 

attainment that the area has violated the standards, 

the basis for the determination that the area need 

not make these SIP revisions would no longer exist.

4Note that this requirement and the second 

requirement, SIP approval, discussed previously are 

effectively coterminous.

demonstrations and contingency 

measures are suspended. 

Any sanctions and/or federal 

implementation plan (FIP) clocks that 

may be running for an area due to 

failure to submit, or disapproval of any 

attainment demonstration, RFP or 

contingency measure requirements, are 

stopped. In addition, areas are still 

required to demonstrate transportation 

conformity. Areas typically use the 

build/no-build test or the no-greaterthan-1990 test because the requirements 

for an attainment demonstration and 

RFP, which establish the budgets, no 

longer apply. However, the emissions 

budget test applies once a maintenance 

plan is submitted and its budgets are 

determined adequate. The applicable 

tests for general conformity still apply.

The use of the clean data areas 

approach does not constitute a CAA 

section 107(d) redesignation, but only 

serves to approve nonattainment area 

SIPs required under part D of the CAA.3

E. What Are the Applicable Provisions 

for Redesignation To Attainment for 

PM–10? 

The 1990 CAA Amendments revised 

section 107(d)(3)(E) to provide five 

specific requirements that an area must 

meet in order to be redesignated from 

nonattainment to attainment: 

(1) The area must have attained the 

applicable NAAQS; 

(2) The area has a fully approved SIP 

under section 110(k) of the Act; 

(3) The air quality improvement must 

be due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions; 

(4) The area has met all relevant 

requirements under section 110 and part 

D of the Act; and 

(5) The area must have a fully 

approved maintenance plan pursuant to 

section 175A of the Act. 

Our primary guidance on 

redesignation requests is a September 4, 

1992 memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, to Regional Division Directors, 

entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment’’ (Calcagni memo). Below is 

a summary of the discussion in the 

memo of each of the above statutory 

requirements: 

a. Attainment of the Standard. There 

are two components involved in making 

this demonstration. The first component 

concerns ambient air quality 

monitoring. The ambient air quality 

monitoring data used to demonstrate 

attainment should be representative of 

the area of highest concentration. The 

monitors should remain at the same 

location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. The data 

should be collected and quality-assured 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

recorded in the Air Quality Systems 

(AQS) Database for public review. The 

second component relies on 

supplemental EPA-approved air quality 

modeling to ensure source impacts are 

comprehensively evaluated, however, 

specific circumstances may determine 

whether there is a need for modeling. 

See also section IV.A.2.a of this 

proposed action. 

b. State Implementation Plan 

Approval. The SIP for the area must be 

fully approved under section 110(k) and 

must satisfy all requirements that apply 

to the area. 

c. Permanent and Enforceable 

Improvement in Air Quality. The State 

must be able to reasonably attribute the 

improvement in air quality to emission 

reductions which are permanent and 

enforceable. Attainment resulting from 

temporary reductions in emission rates 

(e.g., reduced production or shutdown 

due to temporary adverse economic 

conditions) or unusually favorable 

meteorology would not qualify as an air 

quality improvement due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions. 

d. Section 110 and part D 

Requirements. A State must meet all 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

that were applicable prior to submittal 

of the complete redesignation request 

except those suspended by the use of 

the clean data approach. These 

requirements must be fully approved 

into the plan at or before the time EPA 

redesignates the area. Section 110(a)(2) 

contains general requirements for 

nonattainment plans and part D consists 

of general requirements applicable to all 

areas which are designated 

nonattainment based on a violation of 

the NAAQS and pollutant-specific 

subparts.4 One of the applicable 

requirements necessary for 

redesignation is that the State show its 

SIP provisions are consistent with 

section 176(c) conformity requirements.

e. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan.

CAA section 175A provides the general 

framework for maintenance plans. The 

Calcagni memo lists five core provisions 

to ensure maintenance of the relevant 

NAAQS in an area seeking 

redesignation: attainment inventory, 

maintenance demonstration, monitoring 

network, verification of continued 

attainment, and contingency plan. 

Below is a summary of each provision: 

1. Attainment Inventory. The State 

should develop an attainment emissions 

inventory to identify the level of 

emissions in the area which is sufficient 

to attain the NAAQS. Where the State 

has made an adequate demonstration 

that air quality has improved as a result 

of the SIP, the attainment inventory will 

generally be the actual inventory at the 

time the area attained the standard. This 

inventory should be consistent with 

EPA’s most recent guidance on 

emissions inventories, including 

emissions during the time period 

associated with the monitoring data 

showing attainment. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration. There 

are two means by which maintenance of 

the NAAQS in the future can be 

demonstrated—a projected inventory 

showing that future emissions for the 

10-year period following redesignation 

will not exceed the level of the 

attainment inventory, or modeling 

showing that the future mix of sources 

and emission rates in the 10-year period 

following redesignation will not cause a 

violation of the NAAQS. The projected 

inventory should consider future 

growth, including population and 

industry, be consistent with the 

attainment inventory, and document 

data inputs and assumptions. Any 

assumptions concerning emission rates 

must reflect permanent, enforceable 

measures.

3. Monitoring Network. Once an area 

has been redesignated, the State should 

continue to operate an appropriate air 

quality monitoring network, in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to 

verify the attainment status of the area. 

4. Verification of Continued 

Attainment. Each State should ensure 

that it has the legal authority to 

implement and enforce all measures 

necessary to attain and to maintain the 

NAAQS. One such measure is ambient 

and source emission data. Also, the 

State should track the progress of the 

maintenance plan. One option is for the 

State to periodically update the 

emissions inventory. Another option is 

a comprehensive review of the factors 

that were used in developing the 

attainment inventory to show no 

significant change; if such review 

showed significant change, the State 

should then perform an update of the 

inventory. In any event, the State should 

monitor the indicators for triggering 

contingency measures. 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 77199

5ARB submitted in October 1993 an initial 

moderate area PM–10 plan for the Searles Valley 

PM–10 nonattainment area, including the Indian 

Wells subregion, entitled ‘‘Searles Valley Planning 

Area State Implementation Plan,’’ November 1991. 

(November 1991 plan).

6While the moderate area nonattainment plan, 

the maintenance plan and the redesignation request 

are contained in one document, each component is 

discussed separately in the sections of this 

proposed action.

7The Calcagni memo notes that air quality 

modeling should be considered in determining 

whether an area has attained the NAAQS. However, 

accurately estimating fugitive dust emissions for 

input to dispersion modeling over a large area is 

much more difficult than for point sources of 

gaseous pollutants, which were the archetypes for 

development of much of our modeling guidance. 

This is due to uncertainty in fugitive dust 

emissions’ temporal and spatial variability. Since 

the Indian Wells September 2002 plan addresses a 

simple PM–10 source problem (fugitive dust) in an 

area that lacks major stationary sources, we believe 

it is adequate for the attainment demonstration to 

be based on representative monitoring data rather 

than dispersion modeling.

5. Contingency Plan. A maintenance 

plan is required to include contingency 

provisions, as necessary, to promptly 

correct any violation of the NAAQS that 

occurs after redesignation of the area. 

For purposes of CAA section 175A, a 

State is not required to have fully 

adopted contingency measures that will 

take effect without further action by the 

State in order for the maintenance plan 

to be approved. However, the 

contingency plan is considered to be an 

enforceable part of the SIP and should 

ensure that the contingency measures 

are adopted expeditiously once they are 

triggered. The plan should clearly 

identify the measures to be adopted, a 

schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation, and a specific time 

limit for action by the State. As a 

necessary part of the plan, the State 

should also identify specific indicators, 

or triggers, which will be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be implemented. The 

EPA will review what constitutes a 

contingency plan on a case-by-case 

basis. At a minimum, it must require 

that the State will implement all 

measures contained in the part D 

nonattainment plan for the area prior to 

redesignation. 

III. Background 

On December 5, 2002, ARB submitted 

to EPA the ‘‘PM–10 (Respirable Dust) 

Attainment Demonstration, 

Maintenance Plan, and Redesignation 

Request; Kern County Portion of Indian 

Wells Valley Segment of ‘Searles Valley’

Federal Planning Area,’’ Kern County 

Air Pollution Control District, 

September 5, 2002 (September 2002 

plan) that is the subject of this proposed 

action.5,6 On December 6, 2002, we 

found that the submittal met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review.

The Indian Wells PM–10 

nonattainment area has two PM–10 

monitoring sites. One is located 

downwind of the City of Ridgecrest and 

the ‘‘main base’’ of the Naval Air 

Weapons Station at China LakePowerline Road (China Lake monitor). 

This site has been monitoring PM–10 

emissions since 1990. The other site is 

located in downtown Ridgecrest at City 

Hall, 100 West California Avenue 

(Ridgecrest monitor). This second site 

began monitoring PM–10 concentrations 

in January 2000. 

On June 13, 2001, EPA proposed to 

find, pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(2), 

that the Indian Wells Valley had not 

attained the 24-hour and annual PM–10 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of December 31, 1994. 66 FR 31873. 

This proposed finding was based on 

inadequate data collection from the 

China Lake monitor during the 1992–

1994 period. If EPA had finalized that 

proposal, the Indian Wells Valley 

nonattainment area would have been 

reclassified by operation of law as a 

serious PM–10 nonattainment area 

under CAA section 188(b)(2)(A). 

When we issued our proposed finding 

of failure to attain, the Indian Wells 

Valley had not recorded any PM–10 

exceedances during 1999 and 2000, but 

ambient air quality data for the year 

2001 in its entirety was not yet 

available. Today’s action proposing to 

redesignate the area to attainment is 

predicated on ambient air quality data 

from the year 2001 in full, in 

combination with the data sets from the 

years 1999 and 2000. 

IV. Review of the State Submittal 

A. Is the Moderate Area Plan 

Approvable? 

1. Did the State Meet the CAA 

Procedural Provisions? 

Prior to adoption by the State, the 

plan received proper public notice and 

was the subject of a public hearing in 

Bakersfield on September 5, 2002. 

2. Has the State Demonstrated that the 

Area Qualifies for the Clean Data 

Policy? 

a. Based on the past 3 years of air 

quality data, is the area attaining both 

the 24-hour and annual PM–10 

NAAQS? 

Attainment of the annual PM–10 

standard is achieved when the annual 

arithmetic mean PM–10 concentration 

over a three year period is equal to or 

less than 50 ug/m 3. Attainment of the 

24-hour standard is determined by 

calculating the expected number of days 

in a year with PM–10 concentrations 

greater than 150 ug/m 3. The 24-hour 

standard is attained when the expected 

number of days with levels above 150 

ug/m 3 (averaged over a three year 

period) is less than or equal to one. 

Three consecutive years of air quality 

data are generally necessary to show 

attainment of the 24-hour and annual 

standards for PM–10. See 40 CFR part 

50 and appendix K. 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. 

All data cited in the following 

discussion are recorded in the AQS 

database. Three years of clean data 

(1999–2001) have been recorded in the 

Indian Wells Valley, with values well 

below both the 24-hour and annual 

NAAQS. The monitoring data meets 

EPA’s minimum requirements for data 

collection and data substitution. The 

following table summarizes the PM–10 

data collected at the China Lake 

monitoring site during the period 

1999—2001.7

Year 

1st max 24-

hr conc. 

(μg/m 3) 

2nd max 

24-hr conc. 

(μg/m 3) 

3rd max 24-

hr conc. 

(μg/m 3) 

4th max 24-

hr conc. 

(μg/m 3) 

Annual average (μg/

m 3) 

3 year annual average (μg/m 3) 

1999 ................................................................................. 28 28 27 24 16 NA 

2000 ................................................................................. 53 38 34 30 15 NA 

2001 ................................................................................. 115 37 27 26 15 NA 

15 

Source: EPA/AQS database. 

77200 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

8September 2002 plan, Chapter 5, pg. 5–1.

9Op. Cit.

10ARB Executive Order G–125–295, pg. 4 of the 

submittal.

11CAA Section 172(c)(1) requires RACT for 

existing sources in PM–10 nonattainment areas and 

CAA Section 189(e) requires RACT provisions for 

gaseous precursors of PM–10 except where EPA 

determines that such sources do not contribute 

significantly to PM–10 levels exceeding the 

standard. There are no major stationary sources of 

PM–10 in the nonattainment area, and total 

emissions associated with all industrial sources 

account for only 0.16 tons per day, or less than 3 

percent of PM–10 emissions in 2001. For this 

reason, no sources within the Indian Wells area are 

subject to the RACT requirement, either with 

respect to primary or secondary PM–10 emissions. 12There have been no recorded exceedances of 

the annual 50 μg/m 3 PM–10 standard in the area 

since the inception of PM–10 monitoring. 

September 2002 plan, Chapter 2, pg. 2–1. 13Appendix D of the September 2002 plan.

14Appendix E of the September 2002 plan ‘‘Map 

of Roadways Paved’’.

15Appendix E of the September 2002 plan.

16Op. Cit.

17Appendix E of the September 2002 plan, letter 

from Hector Villalobos, U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, to Thomas Paxson, Kern County 

APCD, September 9, 2002.

18See Table 4–3 of the September 2002 plan.

19The design day, by definition, is the day with 

the highest ambient concentration determined to be 

the result of local effects, i.e. a worst case day.

20November 1991 plan, pg. 6.

21September 2002 plan, Chapter 4, Table 4–2.

The highest annual arithmetic mean 

calculated during 1999–2001 was 16; 

the highest 24-hour value recorded in 

that time period was 115 μg/m 3. Data 

collected in 2002 through the end of 

October has shown the highest 24-hour 

value recorded as 74 μg/m 3. 

Additional data collected by the Kern 

County APCD at the Ridgecrest 

monitoring site supports our proposed 

finding that the Indian Wells Valley area 

has attained the PM–10 NAAQS. This 

monitor does not have three full years 

of data at this time since it began 

operation in January 2000. The 

following table summarizes the data 

from the Ridgecrest monitoring site.

RIDGECREST PM–10 MONITORING DATA 2000–2001 

Year 

1st max 

conc.

(μg/m 3) 

2nd max 

conc.

(μg/m 3) 

3rd max 

conc.

(μg/m 3) 

4th max 

conc.

(μg/m 3) 

Annual average (μg/

m 3) 

2000 ......................................................................................................... 90 52 48 45 21 

2001 ......................................................................................................... 63 46 41 38 21 

The monitoring site at China Lake 

upon which this proposed finding of 

attainment is based is representative of 

the area of highest PM–10 

concentration, downwind of the City of 

Ridgecrest.8 The China Lake monitor 

readings are affirmed by data showing 

concentrations well within the 

standards collected from the Ridgecrest 

monitor, which also represents a site of 

highest PM–10 concentration.9

Based on quality-assured monitoring 

data from 1999 through 2001 meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K, we propose to find that the 

Indian Wells Valley PM–10 

nonattainment area has attained the 

PM–10 NAAQS. 

b. Is the State continuing to operate an 

appropriate PM–10 air quality 

monitoring network? 

As stated previously, demonstrating 

that an area has attained the PM–10 

NAAQS involves submittal of ambient 

air quality data from an ambient air 

monitoring network representing peak 

PM–10 concentrations which should be 

stored in AQS. Once the area has been 

redesignated, the State will continue to 

operate an appropriate air quality 

monitoring network, in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment 

status of the area. ARB has committed 

to work with Kern County APCD to 

ensure continued PM–10 air quality 

monitoring in the Indian Wells Valley 

PM–10 nonattainment area, in 

accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, for at 

least 10 years following redesignation of 

the area to attainment, in order to verify 

the attainment status of the area.10 This 

commitment satisfies the obligation to 

maintain an adequate monitoring 

program in the area.

c. Has EPA approved as meeting the 

CAA’s RACM/RACT requirements the 

control measures responsible for 

bringing the area into attainment? 

In this action, we are proposing to 

approve the following measures as 

meeting the RACM requirement of CAA 

section 189(a)(1)(C) 11 that we can 

reasonably ascertain were collectively 

responsible for bringing the area into 

attainment of the 24-hour PM–10 

standard: 12

1. Fugitive Dust Control Plan for the 

Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, 

California (September 1, 1994).13 This 

plan establishes controls for unpaved 

roads, disturbed vacant land and open 

storage piles.

2. Paving of unpaved roads between 

1993 and the present.14 The District 

identifies the funding sources for some 

of those road miles as California 

Department of Motor Vehicle funds, 

City of Ridgecrest funds and Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality funds.

3. Kern County 1990 Land Use 

Ordinance—Chapter 18.55 and Kern 

County Development Standards, 

Chapter III. This ordinance requires 

paving of streets for new subdivisions 

according to the County Development 

Standards.15

4. City of Ridgecrest Municipal Code 

1980 which requires paving of streets 

for new subdivisions.16

5. Bureau of Land Management 

closure of 83 miles of unpaved roads/

off-highway vehicle trails, between 1994 

and the present 17, which reduces 

disturbance to open areas and 

corresponding windblown emissions.

6. Rule 401 ‘‘Visible Emissions,’’

November 29, 1993; Rule 404.1 

‘‘Particulate Matter Concentration, April 

18, 1972; and Rule 405 ‘‘Particulate 

Matter Emission Rate,’’ July 18, 1983, 

with respect to control of process 

fugitive emissions. 

This list is a subset of the measures 

attributed in the September 2002 plan as 

responsible for bringing the area into 

attainment.18 We look to the November 

1991 plan for the Searles Valley 

Planning Area to provide information 

on the sources that primarily 

contributed to the area’s exceedences. 

The November 1991 plan provides a 

source category breakdown for 

emissions contributing to the China 

Lake monitor which recorded an 

exceedence of 166 μg/m3 on the selected 

March 13, 1991 design day.19 Unpaved 

roads were estimated to contribute 46 

percent of the emissions, wind erosion 

14 percent, process fugitives 17 percent 

and stationary stack emissions 1 

percent. The remaining contribution (22 

percent) was attributed to government 

aircraft associated with the Naval Air 

Weapons Station. However, since the 

District does not have authority to 

control military flight operations, the 

District focused its control strategy on 

the unpaved road, wind erosion and 

process fugitive categories.20

In the current submittal, Kern County 

APCD only credits emission reductions 

to the unpaved road, wind erosion and 

process fugitive categories,21 further 

confirming that controls on these 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 77201

22See EPA’s Technical Support Document 

associated with this proposed rule for our 

evaluation of other measures listed in the 

September 2002 plan that we are not proposing to 

approve as responsible for bringing the area into 

attainment.

23Calcagni memo, pg. 6.

24September 2002 plan, Chapter 7, Table 7–1.

sources are primarily responsible for the 

area’s ability to attain the 24-hour 

standard.

Our list of control measures 

responsible for bringing the area into 

attainment therefore only includes 

measures that reduced emissions from 

these three areawide source 

categories.22

The September 2002 plan attributes a 

25 percent reduction in process 

fugitives (0.06 tons per day), a 15 

percent reduction in wind erosion PM–

10 emissions (0.08 tons per day) and a 

25 percent reduction in unpaved road 

PM–10 emissions (0.41 tons per day) 

from the measures implemented in the 

area. While the actual reduction 

achieved from each of these categories 

is uncertain, the clean monitoring data 

reported in the 1998–2001 timeframe 

speaks to their success. 

We conclude that the six control 

measures listed in this subsection are 

responsible for bringing the area into 

attainment, and therefore propose to 

approve them into the California SIP as 

meeting the RACM provisions of CAA 

section 189(a)(1)(C). The submittal 

demonstrates that these measures have 

been fully carried out. The measures 

will be approved SIP regulations upon 

finalization of this proposed action. 

The measures have been implemented 

in total with sufficient expedition to 

achieve three years of clean data 

between 1999 and 2001. In addition to 

these six controls, we consider the other 

measures implemented in the Indian 

Wells area as supplemental strategies 

that contributed still further emission 

reductions and public health protection. 

Continued implementation of these 

measures will help ensure that the 

Indian Wells area maintains the 24-hour 

and annual PM–10 NAAQS but we are 

not relying on them for this 

determination. 

3. Do the Emissions Inventories Meet 

CAA Provisions? 

Our guidance specifies that an 

attainment inventory be developed that 

identifies the level of emissions during 

the time period associated with the 

monitoring data showing attainment. 

ARB has developed an actual inventory 

of emissions for the year 2001 and has 

estimated the inventory for the year 

1999. See Chapter 7, Table 7–1 of the 

September 2002 plan. Total tonnage per 

day in 1999 is estimated to be 5.76 and 

total tonnage per day in 2001 is 

estimated to be 5.68. We can assume the 

estimated tonnage per day in 2000 lies 

in between these two values. A detailed 

inventory is provided in Appendix C of 

the September 2002 plan and was 

prepared by ARB using its most recent 

emissions factors. Background 

information on the assumptions 

underlying the emissions inventory 

estimates can be found in a report titled 

‘‘Development of Emission Growth 

Surrogates and Activity Projections 

Used in Forecasting Point and Area 

Source Emissions, Final Report,’’ E.H. 

Pechan and Associates, February 26, 

2001 (Pechan Report). 

For the mobile source component of 

the emissions inventories, ARB uses a 

California-specific model known as 

EMFAC, including the model used to 

calculate exhaust and evaporative 

emissions from motor vehicles and the 

contribution of mobile emissions to the 

PM–10 inventory. We have no evidence 

that supports a conclusion that PM–10 

gaseous precursors (such as nitrogen 

oxides) within the area are a significant 

contributor to the PM–10 nonattainment 

problem, and therefore emissions 

inventories for PM–10 gaseous 

precursors were not included in the 

plan and are not required. See also

footnote 11 and section IV.D.1 of this 

proposed action which discuss 

stationary source and motor vehicle 

exhaust emissions.

We propose to approve the emissions 

inventory under CAA section 172(c)(3) 

as current, accurate, and complete. 

4. Are the CAA Provisions for New 

Source Review Satisfied? 

All new major sources and 

modifications to existing major sources 

are subject to the new source review 

(NSR) and prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) requirements of 

Rule 210.1. We have not yet approved 

the District’s NSR rule into the SIP, but, 

for major sources and modifications of 

PM–10 emissions, we have delegated to 

Kern County APCD the authority to 

administer the PSD program. 

CAA section 172(c)(5) requires NSR 

permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources anywhere in 

nonattainment areas. We have 

determined that areas being 

redesignated from nonattainment to 

attainment do not need to comply with 

the requirement that a NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the standard without 

part D nonattainment NSR in effect. The 

rationale for this decision is described 

in a memorandum from Mary Nichols 

dated October 14, 1994 (‘‘Part D New 

Source Review (part D NSR) 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment’’). We have 

determined that the Indian Wells Valley 

September 2002 plan’s maintenance 

demonstration does not rely on 

nonattainment NSR and, therefore, the 

area need not have a fully approved 

nonattainment NSR program prior to 

approval of the redesignation request. 

The requirements of the Part D NSR 

program will be replaced by the PSD 

program once the area has been 

redesignated.23 Kern County’s PSD 

program pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 will 

become effective in the area with 

respect to PM–10 upon redesignation of 

the area to attainment, per the 

delegation agreement between EPA and 

Kern County APCD dated August 12, 

1999.

B. Is the Maintenance Plan Approvable? 

1. Does the Plan Contain an Adequate 

Attainment Inventory? 

Yes. See section IV.A.3 of this 

proposed action. 

2. Does the Plan Demonstrate Future 

Maintenance of the NAAQS? 

As previously discussed, the Calcagni 

memo identifies two means by which 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

future can be demonstrated—emissions 

inventory projections or modeling for 

the 10-year period following 

redesignation. The Indian Wells Valley 

September 2002 plan relies on the 

former. 

The plan includes a linear model 

forecast that projects emissions in tons 

per day between 2001 and 2013 24 and 

corresponding concentrations. Overall, 

ARB predicts that emissions in the 

Indian Wells Valley PM–10 

nonattainment area will decrease from 

5.68 tons per day in 2001 to 5.18 tons 

per day in 2013. This decrease reflects 

assumptions that fugitive dust 

emissions from farming operations and 

farmland (part of the area source and 

natural wind erosion source categories, 

respectively) will decrease by 

urbanization and attrition of farmland 

throughout Kern County. In contrast, 

increased urbanization would lead to 

slight emissions increases in all other 

categories throughout the county, 

although this effect is so slight on the 

unpaved road and offroad mobile source 

categories that the daily tonnage from 

these two categories remains the same. 

ARB’s projections are based on 

assumptions of statewide population 

growth that are incorporated into the 

77202 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

25Pechan Report, pg. 41.

26September 2002 plan, Chapter 4, pg. 4–5 and 

Chapter 7, pg. 7–1.

27 ‘‘Owens Valley PM–10 Planning Area 

Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation 

Plan’’, Great Basin Unified APCD, November 16, 

1998, pg. S–3.

28Letter from Brian Lamb, Great Basin APCD, to 

Richard Harasick, Los Angeles Department of Water 

and Power, March 12, 2002.

29Op. Cit. Owens Valley PM–10 Plan, pg. S–17.

30Calcagni memo, pg. 12.

31September 2002 plan, Chapter 8, pg. 8–1.

32September 2002 plan, Appendix A, Rule 402, 

section III.F.

33September 2002 plan, Chapter 8, pg. 8–1.

34ARB Executive Order G–125–295, pg. 3 of the 

submittal.

Pechan Report emission factors.25

However, statewide growth assumptions 

may not apply to growth trends in the 

Indian Wells area because the Kern 

County APCD indicates that the area 

experienced a reduction in population 

between 1990 and 2001,26 and no 

significant population increases in the 

area are anticipated in the future. Kern 

County APCD explains that the 

economy is heavily dependent on Naval 

Air Weapon Station activities which 

have declined in recent years and only 

a small amount of farming is conducted 

in the Valley, limited by groundwater 

supplies and weather.

The linear model forecast in the plan 

conservatively assumes a baseline 

‘‘worst case’’ concentration of 149 μg/m3

in the year 2001. Since the highest 

maximum 24-hour value recorded in 

2001 equaled 115 μg/m3 (this is also the 

highest value recorded in the 1998–2001 

time frame), we believe it more 

accurately reflects current conditions. 

Assuming no significant population 

change, the emissions inventory would 

remain the same into the future, thus 

not triggering an exceedence. ARB’s 

calculations (under the population 

growth scenario) show a decrease in 

emissions of 0.5 tons per day after 2001, 

resulting in a maximum concentration 

of 136 μg/m3 in 2013. Even if the 

expected decreases in farming 

operations and farmland do not occur as 

predicted, the result would be an 

emissions increase of only 0.19 tons per 

day by 2013. Based on the highest 24-

hour concentration recorded in the 

1999–2001 time frame (115 μg/m3), this 

increase would be too slight to have an 

impact on maintenance of the 24-hour 

standard. 

Although an exceedence attributable 

to Owens Lake PM–10 transport has not 

been recorded in the area since 1995, for 

purposes of maintaining the NAAQS, 

we consider the possibility for an 

Owens Lake wind event to cause or 

contribute to a future exceedence. 

Indian Wells Valley is located at the 

southern edge of the 50-mile radius 

Owens Lake impact zone with respect to 

NAAQS violations.27 Fugitive dust 

controls are currently being 

implemented on Owens Lake according 

to the adopted and EPA SIP-approved 

Owens Valley PM–10 SIP. As of January 

27, 2002, control measures were 

implemented on ten (10) square miles of 

lake bed 28 and controls on an additional 

3.5 square miles of lake bed are to be 

completed by December 31, 2002.29

Another 3 square miles will be 

controlled by December 31, 2003 and 

the Great Basin APCD has committed to 

revise the Owens Valley PM–10 Plan in 

2003 to provide for controls on any 

additional square milage deemed 

necessary for attainment of the NAAQS 

by December 31, 2006. EPA has 

approved these controls as meeting Best 

Available Control Measures (BACM) for 

the Owens Valley PM–10 nonattainment 

area, required per CAA 189(b) for PM–

10 nonattainment areas classified as 

serious. 64 FR 48305 (September 3, 

1999). Therefore, we believe this 

adequately addresses future PM–10 

transport emissions from Owens Lake 

into surrounding areas. 

3. Does the Plan Meet the CAA 

Provisions for Contingency Measures? 

The maintenance plan must identify 

contingency measures to promptly 

correct any violation of the NAAQS that 

occurs after redesignation of the area.30

See section II.E of this proposed action 

for additional detail.

Kern County APCD has included a 

contingency measure in the Indian 

Wells Valley plan to control unpaved 

roads for an emission reduction of 0.16 

tons per day.31 Kern County APCD has 

also identified a trigger for the 

contingency measure, which is failure of 

the area to maintain the NAAQS.32

Furthermore, Kern County APCD 

indicates that additional contingency 

control measures could be implemented 

as needed, for example control of truck 

tire carryout onto paved roads.33 Since 

it is difficult to predict what source 

category(ies) would potentially 

contribute to a future exceedence, we 

believe it is appropriate for our 

proposed approval to rely on a 

contingency measure that targets 

additional emissions reductions from 

unpaved roads, which constituted the 

single largest source of PM–10 

emissions for the 1991 design day 

exceedence. We conclude that the plan 

satisfies the contingency measure 

provision of CAA Section 175A(d).

4. Has the State Committed to Continue 

to Operate an Appropriate PM–10 Air 

Quality Monitoring Network? 

Yes. See section IV.A.2.b of this 

proposed action. 

5. Has the State Provided for 

Verification of Continued Attainment? 

According to the Calcagni memo, the 

State’s maintenance plan submittal 

should indicate how the State will track 

the progress of the maintenance plan. 

ARB continually updates its inventory 

as new information becomes available, 

and will review impacts of inventory 

changes on the Indian Wells 

maintenance portion of the September 

2002 plan and notify EPA if inventory 

changes necessitates a revision to the 

maintenance strategy and plan.34

C. Is the Redesignation Request 

Approvable? 

1. Has the Area Attained the 24-hour 

and Annual PM–10 NAAQS? 

Yes. See section IV.A.2.a of this 

proposed action. 

2. Has the Area Met All Relevant 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the Act? 

Yes. See section IV.A of this proposed 

action. 

3. Does the Area Have a Fully Approved 

SIP Under Section 110(k) of the Act? 

Yes. We are proposing to approve in 

today’s action the moderate area plan 

for the Indian Wells Valley, and 

confirming that the SIP meets other 

applicable provisions of the CAA. See 

section IV.A of this proposed action. 

4. Has the State Shown That the Air 

Quality Improvement in the Area Is 

Permanent and Enforceable? 

CAA sections 110(a) and 172(c) 

generally require that plan provisions 

include enforceable emissions 

limitations, means or techniques. If an 

implemented measure has resulted in 

permanent emission reductions, we 

need not evaluate it for enforceability. 

Measures 2 through 5 (see section 

IV.A.2.c. of this proposed action) which 

we are proposing as meeting RACM per 

CAA 189(a) are permanent measures for 

the following reasons. Measures 2, 3 and 

4 concern road paving, which is 

permanent by its very nature. Measure 

5 concerns BLM closure of off-highway 

roads/trails which reduces emissions 

from wind erosion through permanent 

prevention of disturbance. 

Measure 1 (Naval Air Weapons 

Fugitive Dust Control Plan) was 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 77203

developed employing a three-step 

process that included identifying/

characterizing potential sources of 

fugitive dust, proposing control 

measures, and establishing a 

compliance schedule for the control 

measures to be completed. The Dust 

Control Plan presents a detailed 

assessment of each fugitive dust source. 

The Plan requires paving of unpaved 

roads with motor vehicle traffic of 25 

vehicle trips per day or more that are 

greater than or equal to 75 feet in length; 

closing off of certain areas of vacant 

land from use and allowing natural 

recrusting or vegetation growth; 

stabilizing unpaved traffic and parking 

areas by applying recycled asphalt or 

concrete, spreading and compacting 

granite, or applying chemical dust 

stabilizers; watering an open pit actively 

disturbed once a week prior to and after 

soil excavation; and covering all open 

storage piles with a tarp or other 

suitable material. Once approved into 

the SIP, the dust control plan will be 

federally enforceable. 

Measure 6 includes Kern County 

APCD Rules 401, 404.1 and 405. These 

rules have been previously approved by 

EPA and remain a federally enforceable 

component of the California SIP. 

5. Does the Area Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the Act? 

We are proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan based on applicable 

EPA guidance as discussed in section 

IV.B. 

D. Conformity 

Section 176(c)(1) of the Act prohibits 

federal agencies from permitting, 

approving, or funding any activity in 

nonattainment or maintenance areas 

that does not conform to a SIP once the 

SIP has been approved by EPA under 

section 110 of the Act. Section 176(c)(1) 

also prohibits metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs), such as the Kern 

County Counsel of Governments, from 

approving any project, program, or plan 

that does not conform to a SIP once the 

SIP has been approved by EPA under 

section 110 of the Act. The 

transportation conformity rule and the 

general conformity rules, which were 

developed in response to Section 

176(c)(1), apply to nonattainment areas 

and attainment areas with maintenance 

plans. Both rules provide that 

conformity can be demonstrated by 

showing that the expected emissions 

from planned actions are consistent 

with the emissions budgets for the area. 

1. Transportation Conformity 

A motor vehicle emissions budget 

consists of the projected vehicle-related 

PM–10 emissions. For Indian Wells, this 

includes PM–10 from paved and 

unpaved roads and construction 

activities. A transportation conformity 

finding is a demonstration that 

emissions associated with regional 

transportation plans (RTPs) and 

transportation improvement plans 

(TIPs) do not exceed emission budgets 

contained in the SIP for the area. The 

transportation conformity budgets 

contained in the Indian Wells Plan are 

1.6 tons per day for 2001 and 1.7 tons 

per day for 2013. 

PM–10 vehicle exhaust is a very small 

portion of the total 2001 PM–10 

inventory, 1.7 percent, and only 6 

percent of the motor vehicle emissions 

budget. Therefore, Kern County APCD 

has concluded that vehicle exhaust PM–

10 is not a significant factor in ensuring 

that future transportation plans will not 

interfere with maintenance of the PM–

10 standard, and has not included the 

exhaust emissions in the budget. 

Our review of the budgets has also 

been announced on EPA’s conformity 

website: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq. 

Once there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’

button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review 

of SIP Submissions for Conformity.’’ We 

are concurrently revising the budgets for 

adequacy against the criteria contained 

in the conformity rule (40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)). In this notice, we propose 

to approve the PM–10 motor vehicle 

emission budgets contained in the plan 

as meeting the purposes of section 

176(c)(1) and the transportation 

conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, 

subpart A. We expect to publish a notice 

announcing our findings on the budgets 

in January 2003. 

2. General Conformity 

For Federal actions which are 

required to address the specific 

requirements of the general conformity 

rule, one set of requirements applies 

particularly to ensuring that emissions 

from the action will not cause or 

contribute to new violations of the 

NAAQS, exacerbate current violations, 

or delay timely attainment. One way 

that this requirement can be met is to 

demonstrate that ‘‘the total of direct and 

indirect emissions from the action (or 

portion thereof) is determined and 

documented by the State agency 

primarily responsible for the applicable 

SIP to result in a level of emissions 

which, together with all other emissions 

in the nonattainment area, would not 

exceed the emissions budgets specified 

in the applicable SIP.’’ 40 CFR 

93.158(a)(5)(i)(A). 

The decision about whether to 

include specific allocations of allowable 

emissions increases to sources is one 

made by the State and local air quality 

agencies. Such emissions budgets are 

unlike and not to be confused with 

those used in transportation conformity. 

Emissions budgets in transportation 

conformity are required to limit and 

restrain emissions. Emissions budgets in 

general conformity allow increases in 

emissions up to specified levels.

Kern County APCD and ARB have not 

chosen to include any specific 

emissions allocations for Federal 

projects that would be subject to the 

provisions of general conformity. 

V. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

moderate area plan and the maintenance 

plan for the Indian Wells Valley, and to 

redesignate the area from nonattainment 

to attainment for the 24-hour and 

annual PM–10 NAAQS. 

VI. 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. For this reason, this proposed 

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). It 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 

would approve 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 proposed 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 

77204 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed 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 proposed 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 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 proposed 

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.).

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control.

Dated: December 6, 2002. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 02–31665 Filed 12–16–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[CA–274–0372; FRL–7422–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; California—Coachella Valley

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

California to provide for attainment of 

the particulate matter (PM–10) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in the Coachella Valley area and to 

establish emissions budgets for 

purposes of transportation conformity. 

EPA is also proposing to grant the 

State’s request for an extension of the 

PM–10 attainment deadline to 

December 31, 2006. EPA is proposing to 

approve the SIP revisions under 

provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, 

SIPs for national primary and secondary 

ambient air quality standards, and plan 

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposal must be received by January 

16, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

mailed to: Eleanor Kaplan, Office of Air 

Planning (AIR–2), EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. The rulemaking docket for 

this notice is available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours at the EPA Region 9 office. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying parts of the docket. 

Copies of the SIP materials are also 

available for inspection at the following 

locations:

California Air Resources Board, 1001 I 

Street, Sacramento, California 95814 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, 

Diamond Bar, California 91765–0932. 

The 2002 plan is electronically 

available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/

aqmp/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eleanor Kaplan, (415) 947–4147 or 

kaplan.eleanor@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. This 

supplementary information is organized 

as follows.

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Summary 

B. Description of the Coachella Valley and 

its PM–10 Problem 

C. Particulate Matter and Health Effects 

D. Design and Classification 

E. CAA Requirements 

II. Evaluation of SIP Submittal 

A. Separation of Rulemaking Actions on 

the Annual and 24-hour Standards 

B. Emissions Inventory 

C. Control Measures 

D. Contingency Measure 

E. Reasonable Further Progress and 

Milestones 

F. Attainment Demonstration 

G. Extension of Attainment Date 

H. Review of the Natural Events Action 

Plan 

I. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

III. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action 

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background 

A. Summary 

We are proposing to approve the SIP 

revisions submitted by the State of 

California to provide for the attainment 

of the particulate matter (PM–10) 

NAAQS for the Coachella Valley 

(Valley) and to grant the State’s request 

that the attainment date be extended 

from December 31, 2001 to December 

31, 2006. We are also proposing to 

approve the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets contained in the revised SIP as 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes. 

B. Description of the Coachella Valley 

and its PM–10 Problem 

The Coachella Valley PM–10 

nonattainment area consists of an 

approximately 2,500 square mile 

portion of central Riverside County in 

California. The Valley, which is part of 

the Salton Sea Air Basin, extends in a 

northwest-southeast direction from the 

Banning Pass to the Salton Sea and is 

bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains 

to the west and the Little San 

Bernardino Mountains to the east. The 

Valley includes ten local jurisdictions, 

namely: the County of Riverside and the 

following cities: Cathedral City, 

Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian 

Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, 

Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage. 

The Valley’s climate is continental 

desert-type with hot summers, mild 

winters and very little annual rainfall. 

Elevation ranges from approximately 

500 feet above sea level in the northern 

part of the Valley to about 150 feet 

below sea level near the Salton Sea. 

The economy of the Valley is mixed. 

The upper portion which includes the 

area north of Indio is used primarily for 

resort and retirement activities. The