[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77196-77204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31665]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 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.
 
 ========================================================================
 

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

[[Page 77196]]



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: [email protected]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We previously received a draft of the plan for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 77197]]

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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

[[Page 77198]]

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-greater-than-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Moreover, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Note that this requirement and the second requirement, SIP 
approval, discussed previously are effectively coterminous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 77199]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ARB 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).
    \6\ While 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Lake-Powerline 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        3 year
                                    1st max 24-  2nd max 24-  3rd max 24-  4th max 24-     Annual       annual
               Year                   hr conc.     hr conc.     hr conc.     hr conc.     average      average
                                      ([mu]g/m     ([mu]g/m     ([mu]g/m     ([mu]g/m     ([mu]g/m     ([mu]g/m
                                        \3\)         \3\)         \3\)         \3\)         \3\)         \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.


[[Page 77200]]

    The highest annual arithmetic mean calculated during 1999-2001 was 
16; the highest 24-hour value recorded in that time period was 115 
[mu]g/m \3\. Data collected in 2002 through the end of October has 
shown the highest 24-hour value recorded as 74 [mu]g/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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1st max       2nd max       3rd max       4th max       Annual
                                                conc.         conc.         conc.         conc.        average
                   Year                       ([mu]g/m      ([mu]g/m      ([mu]g/m      ([mu]g/m      ([mu]g/m
                                                \3\)          \3\)          \3\)          \3\)          \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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ September 2002 plan, Chapter 5, pg. 5-1.
    \9\ Op. Cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ARB Executive Order G-125-295, pg. 4 of the submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CAA 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.
    \12\ There have been no recorded exceedances of the annual 50 
[mu]g/m \3\ PM-10 standard in the area since the inception of PM-10 
monitoring. September 2002 plan, Chapter 2, pg. 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Appendix D of the September 2002 plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Appendix E of the September 2002 plan ``Map of Roadways 
Paved''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Appendix E of the September 2002 plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. City of Ridgecrest Municipal Code 1980 which requires paving of 
streets for new subdivisions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Op. Cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Appendix 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 []g/m\3\ 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Table 4-3 of the September 2002 plan.
    \19\ The 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.
    \20\ November 1991 plan, pg. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 77201]]

sources are primarily responsible for the area's ability to attain the 
24-hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ September 2002 plan, Chapter 4, Table 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Calcagni memo, pg. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 77202]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ September 2002 plan, Chapter 7, Table 7-1.
    \25\ Pechan Report, pg. 41.
    \26\ September 2002 plan, Chapter 4, pg. 4-5 and Chapter 7, pg. 
7-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The linear model forecast in the plan conservatively assumes a 
baseline ``worst case'' concentration of 149 []g/
m\3\ in the year 2001. Since the highest maximum 24-hour value recorded 
in 2001 equaled 115 []g/m\3\ (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 []g/m\3\ 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 []g/m\3\), 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ``Owens Valley PM-10 Planning Area Demonstration of 
Attainment State Implementation Plan'', Great Basin Unified APCD, 
November 16, 1998, pg. S-3.
    \28\ Letter from Brian Lamb, Great Basin APCD, to Richard 
Harasick, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, March 12, 2002.
    \29\ Op. Cit. Owens Valley PM-10 Plan, pg. S-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Calcagni memo, pg. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ September 2002 plan, Chapter 8, pg. 8-1.
    \32\ September 2002 plan, Appendix A, Rule 402, section III.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ September 2002 plan, Chapter 8, pg. 8-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ ARB Executive Order G-125-295, pg. 3 of the submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 77204]]

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