[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77204-77212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31679]


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

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 
[email protected].

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

[[Page 77205]]

lower portion is also urbanized but is oriented around an agricultural 
economy that extends south of the Riverside County-Imperial County 
boundary. Agricultural commodities such as citrus fruit, dates, grapes, 
etc. are grown almost year round.
    One of the major sources of PM-10 in the Valley is locally 
generated fugitive dust. Fugitive dust usually refers to the dust put 
into the atmosphere by the wind blowing over plowed fields, dirt roads 
or desert or sandy areas with little or no vegetation. There are also 
human caused sources of fugitive dust that include entrained road dust 
from paved and unpaved roads, agriculture and construction activities 
and disturbed vacant land.
    In addition to man-made sources, windblown dust from the desert 
also is a major contributor to PM-10 in the Valley. High winds occur in 
the area because the low elevation in part of the Valley provides a 
natural path for the movement of air from the ocean into the desert 
during the summer and for the passage of storms moving from west to 
east during the winter. These winds can occasionally exceed 60 miles 
per hour and can pick up large amounts of natural desert soils which 
can then be transported over large distances.

C. Particulate Matter and Health Effects

    Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 
micrometers (PM-10) is the pollutant that is the subject of this 
action. The NAAQS are safety thresholds for certain ambient air 
pollutants set by EPA to protect public health and welfare. PM-10 is 
among the ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established a 
health-based standard. There are two separate NAAQS for PM-10, an 
annual standard of 50 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) 
and a 24-hour standard of 150 [mu]g/m3.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter on July 1, 1987 
(52 FR 24672), replacing standards for total suspended particulates 
with new standards applying only to particulate matter up to 10 
microns in diameter (PM-10). At that time, EPA established two PM-10 
standards. The annual PM-10 standard is attained when the expected 
annual arithmetic mean of the 24-hour samples averaged over a 3-year 
period does not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m3). The 24-hour PM-10 standard of 150 [mu]g/
m3 is attained if samples taken for 24-hour periods have 
no more than one expected exceedance per year, averaged over 3 
years. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
    On July 18, 1997 EPA reaffirmed the annual PM-10 standard and 
slightly revised the 24-hour standard (62 FR 38651). In the same 
action, EPA also established two new standards for PM, both applying 
only to particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Design and Classification

    When the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) were enacted in 1990, all 
areas in the United States that were previously designated as federal 
nonattainment areas for PM-10, including the Valley, were initially 
designated as ``moderate'' PM-10 nonattainment. Once an area is 
designated nonattainment, section 188 of the CAA outlines the process 
for classification of the area and establishes the area's attainment 
date.
    EPA determined on January 8, 1993, that the Valley could not 
practicably attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment 
deadline for moderate areas which was December 31, 1994, per section 
188 (c)(1) of the Act, and reclassified the area as serious PM-10 
nonattainment. See 58 FR 3334. In accordance with section 189(b)(2) of 
the Act, the applicable deadline for submittal of SIPs for the Valley 
addressing the requirements for serious PM-10 nonattainment areas in 
section 189(b) and (c) of the Act were:
    (1) August 8, 1994 (18 months after the effective date of the 
reclassification), SIP to ensure the implementation of BACM no later 
than 4 years after reclassification;
    (2) February 8, 1997 (4 years after the effective date of the 
reclassification), SIP to provide for progress and expeditious 
attainment.
    The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which has 
jurisdiction over the Valley, adopted the 1994 Best Available Control 
Measures (BACM) SIP for the Valley on July 8, 1994 and the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the plan to us on August 26, 1994. 
The 1994 plan, in accordance with the provisions of CAA section 
189(b)(1)(B), identified the Best Available Control Measures (BACM) 
that were required for this serious PM-10 nonattainment area and 
committed to implementation of these measures by February 8, 1997.
    Subsequent air quality monitoring data indicated that there were no 
violations of the annual or 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS in the Valley for the 
years 1993-1995. On December 13, 1996 the SCAQMD adopted a Request for 
Redesignation and a Maintenance Plan (``1996 plan'') and on February 5, 
1997 CARB submitted the plan to us. The 1996 plan addressed the 
remaining plan provisions for serious PM-10 nonattainment areas, as 
specified in the CAA sections 188 and 189, and requested redesignation 
to attainment based on three years of clean data. However, before EPA 
acted on the 1996 plan, the area recorded a violation of the annual PM-
10 NAAQS during the period from 1999 through 2001 and was therefore 
unable to meet its attainment date of December 31, 2001.
    On June 21, 2002 and September 13, 2002 the SCAQMD adopted an 
amendment to the 1996 Valley Plan (``2002 Plan''). The California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) submitted the 2002 Plan to EPA on November 18, 
2002. The amendment contains four revisions: (1) It requests an 
extension of the attainment date to December 31, 2006; (2) it 
demonstrates attainment by 2006; (3) it establishes motor vehicle 
emissions budgets for purposes of transportation conformity and (4) it 
formally withdraws the maintenance plan provisions and the 
redesignation request contained in the 1996 plan. On November 20, 2002, 
we found that the 2002 Plan met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 
part 51, appendix V.
    For the 1996 and 2002 Plans the SCAQMD and CARB satisfied 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public 
notice and hearing prior to adoption of both the 1996 and 2002 Plans, 
and the motor vehicle budgets. The SCAQMD conducted public workshops, 
and properly noticed the public hearings at which the Plans were 
adopted. The SIP submittal for the 1996 and 2002 Plans includes proof 
of publication of notices for the public hearings. Therefore, we 
conclude that the 1996 and 2002 Plans met the public notice and 
involvement requirements of sections 110(a)(1) of the CAA.
    Beyond meeting the CAA public notice and involvement requirements, 
the SCAQMD and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) 
conducted an exemplary program involving the public in the SIP 
development process. A Valley Task Force (Task Force) was formed with a 
wide diversity of members including mayors and city council members of 
all Valley cities, tribal chairs or co-chairs from all local Indian 
tribes, city managers, representatives from the local farm bureau, 
building industry association, developers, CALTRANS, and staff from the 
SCAQMD, CARB and EPA. The Task Force operated through sub-committees to 
review and comment on SIP development and implementation issues. The 
Task Force intends to assist adoption and implementation of the control 
measures that it helped develop.

[[Page 77206]]

E. CAA Requirements

    Title I of the CAA was substantially amended in 1990 to establish 
new planning requirements and attainment deadlines for the NAAQS. The 
most fundamental of these nonattainment area provisions applicable to 
the Valley is the requirement that the State submit a SIP demonstrating 
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS. This demonstration must be based upon 
enforceable measures to achieve emission reductions leading to 
emissions at or below the level predicted to result in attainment of 
the NAAQS throughout the nonattainment area. The measures must meet the 
standard for Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and BACM and 
the measures must be implemented expeditiously and ensure attainment no 
later than the applicable CAA deadline.
    EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing the Agency's 
preliminary views on how EPA intends to act on SIPs submitted under 
Title I of the Act. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), 57 FR 18070 
(April 28, 1992). EPA later issued an Addendum to the General Preamble 
providing guidance on SIP requirements for serious PM-10 areas. 59 FR 
41998 (August 16, 1994). The reader should refer to these documents for 
a more detailed discussion of EPA's preliminary interpretations of 
Title I requirements. In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA applies 
these policies to the Valley PM-10 SIP submittal, taking into 
consideration the specific factual issues presented.
    Since the 2002 Plan requests an extension of the attainment date 
beyond the applicable deadline of December 31, 2001, it is also subject 
to the provisions of CAA section 188(e) which deal with the 
requirements for extension of attainment dates for serious PM-10 
nonattainment areas.

II. Evaluation of the SIP Submittals

A. Separation of Rulemaking Actions on the Annual and 24-hour Standards

    Although, as discussed above, the Act contains two PM-10 NAAQS (an 
annual and a 24-hour standard) in this proposed action we are 
evaluating the Valley 2002 Plan only for its compliance with the 
requirements for attaining the annual PM-10 standard.\2\ We need not, 
at this time, evaluate the plan for its compliance with the Act's 
requirements for the 24-hour PM-10 standard because the data indicate 
that there were no violations of the 24-hour standard during the period 
1993-2001.\3\ We find therefore that the area is currently in 
attainment for the 24-hour PM standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The two PM-10 standards are independent and must be 
addressed independently by states in their SIPs. This independence 
was highlighted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ober v. 
EPA, 84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996).
    \3\ There were exceedances of the 24-hour PM-10 standard during 
2000-2001 but not in 1999. Those exceedances were caused by high 
wind events and were flagged by the SCAQMD under the provisions of 
EPA's Natural Events Policy which is discussed in detail in Section 
III of this proposed action. If EPA concurs that data were properly 
flagged under that policy, the data are not used for purposes of 
determining attainment of the NAAQS or for computing a design value 
for the area. EPA has received documentation from CARB justifying 
the flagging of each of these events under the Natural Events Policy 
and concurs with CARB's justification. Given the flagging of all the 
24-hour exceedances during 2000 and 2001, EPA concludes that there 
was no violation of the 24-hour standard during the period from 
1999-2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Valley had attained both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 
NAAQS during the years 1993-1995, increased construction activities in 
the Valley during the period 1999-2001 caused a violation of the annual 
standard at the area's two monitoring sites as shown in Table 1.

                       Table 1.--Annual Arithmetic Mean for PM-10 in the Valley, 1999-2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1999            2000            2001        Expected AAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indio...........................................            52.7            51.9            49.4            51.3
Palm Springs....................................            28.9            24.4            26.7           26.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: samples collected on high wind days are excluded.

B. Emissions Inventory

    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that nonattainment area plans 
include a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual 
emissions from all sources in the nonattainment area.
    The inventory in the 2002 Plan supersedes the 1996 Plan inventory 
and includes a 2000 base year inventory that utilizes the 1995 
inventory representing annual average and 24-hour emissions. 
Information on the methodology that was employed in developing 
estimates for emissions sources for the 1995 inventory is contained in 
Chapter 3 of the 1996 Plan.
    In addition to the 2000 base year inventory, the 2002 Plan provides 
future year inventories for 2003 and 2006. The emission reductions 
assumed from control measure implementation by December 2003 are 
included in the 2003 inventory.
    CARB uses a California-specific model known as EMFAC for the mobile 
source component of the emissions inventories, including the model used 
to calculate exhaust and evaporative emissions from motor vehicles and 
the contribution of mobile emissions to the PM-10 inventory. The 
version of the model that was and remains currently available for use 
in the 1996 and 2002 Plans is known as EMFAC 7G, adopted by CARB in 
1996. (CARB, Methodology for Estimating Emissions from On-Road Motor 
Vehicles, 1996). EPA has approved EMFAC 7G for use in transportation 
plan and program conformity analyses (letter from David Howekamp, EPA 
to Michael P. Kenny, CARB, dated April 16, 1998).
    CARB has recently prepared draft revisions to EMFAC 7G, which CARB 
has committed to finalize and submit in the near future. However, 
because EMFAC 7G represented the best available emissions model at the 
time the plan was developed and submitted, our approval of the 2002 
Plan's emissions inventory and the motor vehicle emissions budgets 
derived from EMFAC 7G is warranted at this time.
    Both SCAQMD and CARB have committed to submit within a very short 
period of time a revised plan with updated and refined emission 
inventories and budgets. The agencies will base the new plan and 
budgets on use of the most current and accurate emissions data, 
including the revised version of the EMFAC model for motor vehicle 
emissions incorporating the latest planning assumptions on vehicle 
fleet and age distribution, and incorporating the latest activity 
levels.
    In proposing to approve the 2002 Plan based on EMFAC 7G, we also 
find it significant that the motor vehicle exhaust and brake and tire 
wear emissions in both the 1996 and 2002

[[Page 77207]]

Plan inventories constitute only about 3% of the total emissions, 
demonstrating that PM-10 from motor vehicles (exclusive of reentrained 
dust from paved and unpaved roads) is not a significant contributor to 
the air quality problem in the Valley. In summary, we are proposing to 
approve the 2002 Plan based on EMFAC 7G because it is the only 
currently approved model, CARB and SCAQMD have committed to revise the 
PM-10 Plan based on the updated version of EMFAC in 2003, and the 
overall contribution of PM-10 from motor vehicles is only about 3%.
    The transportation conformity implications of our proposed approval 
are discussed later in this document in Section II under Motor Vehicle 
Emissions Budgets.

C. Control Measures

1. Applicable Requirements
    Because the Valley is classified as serious nonattainment for PM-
10, the nonattainment plan for the area must include control measures 
that reflect a BACM level of control for each source category that 
contributes significantly to a violation of the annual NAAQS. CAA 
section 189(b)(1)(B).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ When a moderate area is reclassified to serious, the 
requirement to implement RACM in section 189(a)(1)(C) continues to 
apply. Thus, a serious area's PM-10 plan must provide for the 
implementation of RACM as expeditiously as practicable to the extent 
that the RACM requirements have not been satisfied in the area's 
moderate plan. We are not making an independent assessment of the 
Plan's control measures against the RACM and RACT requirements since 
the plan will meet RACM and RACT requirements if it is found to meet 
the BACM requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By analogy to Title I Part C of the Clean Air Act relating to 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), EPA interprets BACM for 
serious PM-10 areas as generally similar to the definition of Best 
Available Control Technology (BACT) for the PSD program. PM-10 BACM is 
therefore defined as ``the maximum degree of emissions reduction of PM-
10 and PM-10 precursors from a source * * * which is determined on a 
case by case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and 
economic impacts and other costs, to be achievable for such source 
through application of production processes and available methods, 
systems, and techniques for control of each such pollutant.'' General 
Preamble Addendum, 59 FR 42010 (August 16, 1994).
    Finally, the control measures in the serious area plan must be 
sufficient to achieve expeditious attainment by the applicable date.

2. Identification of Significant Source Categories

    The 1996 Plan (Tables 4-1 and 4-2) used receptor modeling to 
identify the emission sources that contribute to the PM-10 air quality 
at specific receptor sites. The receptor model used is the Chemical 
Mass Balance (CMB) Model. This method matches the measured chemical 
components of the PM-10 samples with known chemical profiles of 
individual sources of PM-10 particles. The results of this model are 
shown in Table 4-1 of the 1996 Plan ``Annual Average Source 
Contributions for the Coachella Valley.''
    Future year PM-10 concentrations were estimated using a linear 
rollback approach for each primary source. In the linear rollback 
approach, it is presumed that future year PM-10 contributions from each 
source category are a linear function of emission rates for each source 
category. Table 4-3 in the 1996 Plan provides base year and future 
ambient PM-10 concentrations.
    From these evaluations, the 1996 Plan identified significant 
sources and a determination of which categories have ``significant'' 
impacts on PM-10 concentrations. The significant sources identified 
include background, transport, mobile, fugitive dust (including 
construction, paved roads, unpaved roads, agriculture, windblown), and 
vegetative burning.
    We propose to find that the 2002 Plan has not excluded any source 
categories that should be considered significant from its list of 
significant source categories. The 2002 Plan presents acceptable 
modeling to evaluate the impact of various PM-10 sources and source 
categories on PM-10 levels.
    The 2000 inventory in the 2002 Plan indicates that emissions from 
industrial point sources were insignificant--0.29 tons per day out of a 
total of 54.44 tons per day from all sources. Therefore, based on their 
negligible impact on ambient PM-10 levels, we propose to determine that 
major sources of PM-10 precursors do not contribute significantly to 
PM-10 levels which exceed the annual standard in the Valley.
3. Description of Control Measures
(a) BACM: Existing Controls
    In the 1994 plan (Chapter 4) and the 1996 plan (Chapter 1), the 
SCAQMD has provided extensive documentation on both the control 
measures included in the plan and those rejected. The documentation 
quantifies the costs of implementation, discusses the technological 
feasibility of control options, explains the schedule for expeditious 
implementation and examines other factors as part of a comprehensive 
justification of the measures as reflecting BACM. Implementation of 
BACM in the Valley has been carried out through dust control ordinances 
of the local jurisdictions in Valley, and with AQMD Rules 403 and 403.1 
serving as backstop regulations for the Valley's construction activity 
emissions.
    The local ordinances developed by Riverside County, Cathedral City, 
Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm 
Desert, Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage are based on a model fugitive 
dust control ordinance developed by CVAG, local governments, and the 
SCAQMD. The ordinances typically require: (1) Dust control plans for 
each construction project needing a grading permit; (2) plans to pave 
or chemically treat unpaved surfaces if daily vehicle trips exceed 150; 
(3) imposition of 15 mph speed limits for unpaved surfaces if daily 
vehicle trips do not exceed 150; (4) paving or chemical treatment of 
unpaved parking lots; and (5) actions to discourage use of unimproved 
property by off-highway vehicles.
    SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, helps to establish performance 
criteria for the local dust ordinances and also serves as a backstop 
rule for the Valley. The Rule establishes reasonably available and best 
available fugitive dust control measures to reduce fugitive dust 
emissions associated with agricultural operations, construction/
demolition activities (including grading, excavation, loading, 
crushing, cutting, planing, shaping or ground breaking), earth-moving 
activities, track out of bulk material onto public paved roadways, and 
open storage piles or disturbed surface areas.
    The Rule 403 Handbook allows producers to be exempted from Rule 403 
requirements if they implement a specified number of conservation 
practices listed for the particular operation. The handbook includes 
conservation practices for active operations, inactive operations, farm 
yard areas, track-out, unpaved roads, and storage piles. EPA approved 
the handbook into the SIP because implementation of the conservation 
practices should achieve the emission reductions that would otherwise 
be accomplished through compliance with the general provisions of Rule 
403. (65 FR 8057, February 17, 2000).
    SCAQMD Rule 403.1, Wind Entrainment of Fugitive Dust, establishes 
dust control requirements under high wind conditions in the Valley. The 
Rule consists of additional

[[Page 77208]]

fugitive dust measures for agriculture, abandoned disturbed surface 
areas, and bulk material deposits entrained by high winds within the 
Valley. EPA also approved the sections of Rule 403.1 Implementation 
Handbook including the chapters on ``Wind Monitoring'' and ``Storage 
Piles''.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA originally approved a version of Rule 403 into the SIP 
on June 14, 1978. The SCAQMD subsequently revised the rule in 1992, 
1993 and February 14, 1997. On August 11, 1998 (63 FR 42786) EPA 
proposed granting limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 
403 as amended on February 14, 1997 because it did not fully meet 
the CAA provisions regarding plan submissions and requirements for 
nonattainment areas. EPA gave final limited approval and disapproval 
of Rule 403 on December 9, 1998 (63 FR 67784). Following another 
amendment that was submitted by the SCAQMD as a SIP revision on May 
13, 1999, EPA granted full approval of the Rule on February 17, 2000 
(65 FR 8057).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clean Streets Management Program: In order to assure implementation 
of the control measures that had been enacted for entrained road dust, 
which is one of the larger source categories in the Valley, CVAG has 
worked to secure funding for a Clean Streets Management Program through 
the allocation of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds 
which now falls under the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21). Under the Clean Streets Management Program, local 
jurisdictions submit proposals to CVAG requesting funding for 
implementation of clean streets management practices, i.e., 
stabilization of unpaved shoulders, installation of wind breaks, etc. 
CVAG has provided technical assistance to the local jurisdictions to 
identify cost effective eligible projects for CMAQ funding.
(b) Most Stringent Measures (MSM)
    One of the requirements for an extension of attainment date, which 
the Valley has requested (see section II G) is that ``the State 
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for 
that area includes the most stringent measures that are included in the 
implementation plan of any State or are achieved in practice in any 
State, and can feasibly be implemented in the area.'' (CAA section 
188(e)).
    Chapter 4 of the 2002 Plan contains a description of the SCAQMD's 
MSM analysis. That analysis compares the provisions in the Valley's 
local dust control ordinances and applicable SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1 
to regulations from Maricopa County (Arizona), Clark County (Nevada) 
the San Joaquin Valley (California) and the South Coast Air Basin 
(California). These areas were selected because of similar geographic 
conditions (arid climates) as the Valley and because of recent 
planning/rule development efforts in these regions. MSM analyses were 
provided for each fugitive dust category, including construction 
activities, disturbed vacant lands, unpaved roads/parking lots, paved 
road dust and agricultural activities. (See sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 
and 4.5 of the 2002 Plan.)
    The upgraded control measures that resulted from the Valley MSM 
analysis are categorized as Construction (CV BCM 1), Disturbed Lands 
(CV BCM 2), Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots (CV BACM 3), Paved 
Roads (CV BACM 4), and Agriculture (CV BCM 5). The implementing 
agencies are either the local jurisdictions or the SCAQMD or, in the 
instances of Construction and Paved Roads, both parties.
    Chapter 5 of the 2002 Plan provides the control strategy that has 
been developed by the SCAQMD based on their MSM analysis. Table 2 below 
summarizes Tables 5-1 and 5-2 contained in the 2002 Plan which provide 
information on the adoption and implementation schedules for the MSMs, 
the implementing agencies and the estimated tonnage per day reduction 
for each of these control measures.

                          Table 2.--MSM Adoption and Implementation Schedules, and Projected Emission Reductions for the Valley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Implementation       Estimated emission
          Control measure                Source category       Implementing agency     Adoption schedule           schedule           reductions 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV BACM 1..........................  Construction..........  Local Jurisdictions...  Prior to 10/1/03.....  Begin no later than    2.0 tons/day.
                                                                                                             10/1/03.
                                                             AQMD..................  Prior to 1/1/04......  Begin no later than 1/ .....................
                                                                                                             04.
CV BACM 2..........................  Disturbed Lands.......  Local Jurisdictions...  10/03................  Begin no later than    TBD After Survey.
                                                                                                             10/03.
CV BACM 3..........................  Unpaved Roads and lots  Local Jurisdictions...  10/03................  Begin no later than    0.71 tons/day.
                                                                                                             10/1/03, phased
                                                                                                             implementation.
CV BACM 4..........................  Paved Roads...........  Local Jurisdictions...  10/03................  Begin no later than    0.57 tons/day.
                                                                                                             10/1/03.
                                                             AQMD..................  01/04................  Begin no later than 1/ .....................
                                                                                                             04.
CV BCM 5...........................  Agriculture...........  AQMD..................  01/04................  Begin no later than 1/ 0.02 tons/day.
                                                                                                             04.
                                    -------------------------
Total Projected Emission Reductions  ......................  ......................  .....................  .....................  3.3 tons/day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Implementation of Control Measures
    The SCAQMD commits to meet the adoption dates, implementation 
dates, and emission reduction targets, unless a measure, in whole or in 
part, is determined to be infeasible. Should that be the case, the 
SCAQMD commits to achieve equivalent reductions on the same schedule 
through substitute controls. If the SCAQMD determines that a control 
measure is infeasible, SCAQMD staff would document the infeasibility of 
the control measure provision and propose a replacement provision or 
contingency measure (if necessary) to achieve equivalent emissions 
reductions. Significant changes to a control measure would need to be 
documented in a SIP revision and would be subject to EPA review and 
approval. The plan cites the feasibility criteria as: (1) Cost 
feasibility, namely that a control measure is considered cost feasible 
if the cost-effectiveness is less than $5,300 per ton of PM-10 reduced 
on an annual basis, and (2)

[[Page 77209]]

technological feasibility, namely that a control measure is considered 
technically feasible if the following conditions are satisfied: the 
control technology is currently available and the control efficiency is 
at least 10%.
4. Proposed Action on Control Measures
    We conclude that the 2002 Plan demonstrates that the control 
measures for each significant source category are consistent with the 
BACM requirement in terms of the timing, degree, and extent of the 
control program and reflect current MSM.
    We therefore propose to approve the control measures under CAA 
section 110(k)(3), as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a), 
188(e) and 189(b)(1)(B). We are proposing to approve each of the 
control measure commitments to adopt and implement rules and ordinances 
by specified dates and to achieve particular emission reductions by 
milestone years. We are also proposing to approve the commitment made 
by the SCAQMD Board directing the Executive Officer to update the 2002 
Plan, including emissions budgets in 2003, using the latest approved 
motor vehicle emissions model and planning assumptions.

D. Contingency Measure

    The CAA (section 172(c)(9)) requires that the SIP include 
contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet 
progress requirements or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable 
deadline. Implementation of these contingency measures is automatic, 
and requires no further action by the SCAQMD or any other agency.
    The contingency measure identified in the 2002 Plan, CVCTY 3, is 
the requirement to reduce emissions from turf overseeding activities on 
Golf Courses/Turf Areas. Turf overseeding generates fugitive dust 
through the raking process and thatch removal when summer grass is 
replaced with winter rye grasses. According to the SCAQMD, following a 
series of studies, new methods were developed to remove the summer 
grass resulting in fugitive dust emission reduction. The SCAQMD staff 
believes the control measure is currently being adopted voluntarily by 
local golf courses, but in the event of failure of Reasonable Further 
Progress (RFP) or nonattainment by the year 2006 or if voluntary 
compliance drops, SCAQMD would propose to implement the measure with a 
SCAQMD rule or rule amendment.
    EPA concludes that the 2002 Plan satisfies the contingency 
requirements, and proposes to approve the 2002 Plan's contingency 
provisions under section 172(c)(9).

E. Reasonable Further Progress and Milestones

    The 2002 Plan must also include quantitative milestones which are 
to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated to 
attainment, and show Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) toward 
attainment by the applicable attainment deadline. CAA section 189(c).
    Table 3-4 in the 2002 Plan, ``2002 PM-10 Emission Inventory by 
Major Source Category'' shows that the total tpd emissions from all 
sources for 2000 year was 54.44. Table E-1 contained in Appendix E of 
the Plan provides a baseline inventory for 2003 which was selected by 
the SCAQMD as the milestone year and shows that emissions reductions 
resulting from the adoption and implementation of CV BCM-1 
``Construction and Earth Movement Activities,'' would amount to a total 
of 0.96 tpd, reducing the total amount of emissions from all sources in 
2003 to 54.08 tpd, which represents remaining emissions by the end of 
2003. assuming a 50% combined ordinance/rule penetration. The reduction 
in total tpd emissions from 2002 to 2003 demonstrates reasonable 
progress toward the attainment level projected for 2006.
    The SCAQMD made a commitment in resolutions accompanying the 2002 
Plan to update the plan, including emissions budgets in 2003, using the 
latest approved version of EMFAC and the latest approved planning 
assumptions.\6\ In addition, CARB's Executive Order G-125-391, 
accompanying the submittal of the 2002 Plan, stated that CARB, ``upon 
the timely submission by the District of an approvable revision to the 
2002 Coachella Valley PM-10 State Implementation Plan and 2002 
Coachella Valley PM-10 State Implementation Plan Addendum, shall 
process such revision and submit it to the U.S. EPA in 2003.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Resolution No. 02-21 adopted by the SCAQMD Board June 21, 
2002:
    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District Governing Board directs the Executive Officer to 
update the 2002 CVSIP, including emissions budgets in 2003, using 
the latest approved motor vehicle emissions model and planning 
assumptions; and
    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District Governing Board requests that the U.S. EPA 
approve the District's commitment to forward to the CARB for review 
and submittal to the U.S. EPA as a revision to the State Implement 
Plan by 2003 the update to the PM-10 emissions inventory portion of 
the 2002 CVSIP, including revised emission budgets using the latest 
approved motor vehicle emissions model and planning assumptions; and
    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District requests that the U.S. EPA approve the emissions 
budgets based on the 2002 CVSIP for use only until the U.S. EPA 
finds adequate the revised budgets for the same years submitted as 
part of the 2003 revision to the 2002 CVSIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We find that the assumptions regarding the control measures are 
reasonable. Therefore we propose to find that the 2002 Plan meets the 
provisions of CAA section 189(c) requiring quantitative milestones 
showing RFP toward attainment by the attainment date of 2006.

F. Attainment Demonstration

    The SIP must provide a detailed demonstration (including air 
quality modeling) that the specified control strategy will reduce PM-10 
emissions so that the standards will be attained as soon as practicable 
but no later than December 31, 2006, assuming final EPA approval of the 
attainment deadline extension. CAA section 189(b)(1)(A). EPA considers 
the area to be in attainment of the NAAQS if 24-hour concentrations are 
150 [mu]g/m3 or less and the annual arithmetic mean is 50 [mu]g/m3 or 
less.
    The attainment demonstration in the 2002 Plan analyzes both the 24-
hour and annual NAAQS, but since the Valley has not violated the 24-
hour standard during the period from 1993--2001, our review is limited 
to the annual standard.
    A modeled attainment demonstration for the PM-10 annual standard 
should first estimate the temporal and spatial distribution of PM-10 
and PM-10 precursor emissions reductions that result from the adopted 
control measures by the attainment date. It should then simulate the 
ambient air concentration of the remaining emissions in an air quality 
model and show that all locations within the nonattainment area have 
annual average PM-10 concentrations at or below the level of the annual 
PM-10 standard of 50 [mu]g/m3. See ``Guidelines on Air Quality 
Models,'' 40 CFR part 52, appendix W, Sec.  7.2.2 and ``PM-10 SIP 
Development Guideline'', EPA-450/286-001, June 1987.
    The attainment demonstration in the 2002 Plan relies on control 
measures that either are approved or have been proposed for approval 
and meet our SIP enforceability criteria. The emissions estimates 
credited to these control measures in the attainment demonstration are 
reasonable and the measures are being implemented on a schedule that is 
as expeditious as practicable and will result in attainment by the 
earliest practicable date.

[[Page 77210]]

    A complete description of the modeling for the Valley is found in 
the 1996 Plan (Chapter 4). In summary, modeling was based on the 
following:
    The SCAQMD determined primary PM-10 source apportionment by a 
combination of receptor models. Source apportionment information, which 
was used in the 1994 and the 1996 Plan was determined through receptor 
modeling known as the Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) model which is a 
USEPA approved method that matches the measured chemical components of 
the PM-10 samples with known chemical profiles of individual sources of 
PM-10 particles.
    Since secondary particles in the Valley represent a small component 
of the PM-10 problem and are transported from the South Coast Air Basin 
and since the limited number of major sources in the Valley are already 
regulated for NOX, SOX and VOC emissions under 
existing SCAQMD rules, the SCAQMD did not model secondary PM-10 
generated within the Valley. However, the impact of transported 
secondary particulates into the Coachella Valley from the South Coast 
Air Basin was projected using UAM/LC (Urban Airshed Model/Linear 
Chemistry).
    The modeling attainment demonstration for future years in the 2002 
Plan utilized a linear rollback approach for each primary source 
category.
    Based on this modeling, the 2002 Plan (Tables 6-2 and 6-3) compares 
the annual and 24 hour PM design values for the years 2003 and 2006. 
The table provides information on 2006 concentrations both for the 
baseline and control scenarios as shown in Table 3 below. This modeling 
demonstrates attainment of the annual average PM 10 standard by the 
year 2006 and continued attainment of the 24-hour standard in 2006.

                                      Table 3.--2003 and 2006 Modeled PM-10 Concentrations ([mu]g/m3) in the Valley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                            2006 annual    2006 24-hour
                         Source                            2003 baseline   2003 baseline   2006 baseline   2006 baseline     with more       with more
                                                              annual          24-hour         annual          24-hour        controls        controls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background..............................................             3.0             3.0             3.0             3.0             3.0             3.0
Transport...............................................             5.9            14.1             5.9            14.1             5.8            14.1
Mobile..................................................             1.1             3.3             1.1             3.2             1.1             3.2
Fugitive Dust:
    Construction........................................             4.5            16.6             4.7            17.1             4.2            15.4
    Paved Roads.........................................             4.5            16.2             4.6            16.9             3.7            13.3
    Unpaved Roads.......................................             3.2            11.6             3.2            11.6             2.8            10.0
    Agriculture.........................................             0.6             2.1             0.5             2.0             0.5             1.9
    Windblown...........................................            18.3            66.7            18.3            66.7            18.3            66.7
    Veg. Burning........................................             5.5             9.7             5.2             9.2             5.2             9.2
    Others..............................................             3.8             3.1             4.0             3.3             4.0             3.3
                                                         -----------------
        Totals..........................................            50.4           133.0            50.6           147.0            48.6           140.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast to other pollutants, we have not issued detailed 
modeling guidelines for PM-10, nor have we established minimum 
performance requirements for PM-10 modeling. We have reviewed the 
SCAQMD's modeling approaches for both primary PM-10 and secondary PM-
10, using both receptor modeling and dispersion modeling. We believe 
that the modeling in the 1996 and 2002 Plans provides a reasonable 
basis for linking emissions with air quality, for identifying an 
appropriate control strategy, and for determining whether the strategy 
delivers attainment for the 24-hour and annual PM-10 NAAQS.
    The SCAQMD's modeling shows that the level of emissions after 
implementation of the proposed set of control strategies would result 
in ambient concentrations within the Valley in 2006 consistent with 
attainment of annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. We therefore conclude 
that the air quality modeling and attainment demonstration contained in 
Chapter 6 of the 2002 Plan are consistent with existing EPA guidance, 
and we propose to approve the attainment demonstration under CAA 
section 189(b)(1)(A).

G. Extension of Attainment Deadline

    CAA section 188(e) allows states to apply for up to a 5-year 
extension of the serious area attainment deadline of December 31, 2001. 
In order to obtain the extension, there must be a showing that: (1) 
Attainment by 2001 would be impracticable; (2) the state complied with 
all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the 
implementation plan for the area; and (3) the state demonstrates that 
the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures (MSM) that 
are included in the SIP of any state or are achieved in practice in any 
state, and can feasiblely be implemented in the area.
    As discussed in section II C above, we propose to conclude that the 
2002 Plan includes BACM and MSM for each significant source category, 
and that the implementation schedule for each control measure is as 
expeditious as practicable. Using UAM/LC and chemical mass balance 
modeling techniques discussed above in section II F, the SCAQMD 
calculated the annual arithmetic mean for PM-10 based on 1999-2001 data 
for the two sampling sites in the area at Palm Springs and Indio. That 
data showed that the Palm Springs site had an expected annual 
arithmetic mean of 26.7 [mu]g/m3 while the Indio site with 
an expected annual arithmetic mean of 51.6 [mu]g/m3 exceeded 
the annual standard. Table E-2 of Appendix E of the 2002 Plan shows 
that by the end of 2003 the average tons per day would be 54.08. Table 
3-7 of the 2002 Plan shows that in 2006 with all the SIP controls in 
place the tons per day emitted would be 51.11. The 2003 data are above 
the carrying capacity and, based on this, we therefore conclude that 
2006, the requested extension date, is the most expeditious date that 
the Valley can attain the standard.
    We find that the SCAQMD has met the CAA provisions relating to 
attainment date extensions, and we propose to grant, under CAA section 
188(e), a 5-year attainment date extension to December 31, 2006.

H. Review of Natural Events Action Plan

    Section 188(f) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may, on a 
case-by-case basis, waive any requirement

[[Page 77211]]

applicable to any serious area under subpart 4 where the Administrator 
determines that anthropogenic sources of PM-10 do not contribute 
significantly to the violation of the PM-10 standard in the area. In 
May of 1996 EPA issued a Natural Events Policy (Policy) that was 
intended to provide guidance to air districts regarding the exclusion 
of ambient air quality data affected by extraordinary natural events 
such as volcanic and seismic activity, wildland fires and high winds.
    In order to qualify for the exclusion of ambient air quality data, 
the Policy requires the adoption of a Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) 
to minimize emissions and to protect public health. The Policy requires 
that the NEAP (1) establish public notification and education programs, 
(2) minimize public exposures to high concentrations of PM-10 due to 
future natural events, (3) abate or minimize appropriate contributing 
controllable sources of PM-10, (4) identify, study and implement 
practical mitigating measures as necessary, (5) periodically reevaluate 
the conditions causing violations of the PM-10 NAAQS in the area and 
the state of implementation of the NEAP and the adequacy of the actions 
being implemented, (6) document natural events, and (7) develop the 
NEAP in conjunction with the stakeholders affected by the plan.
    In accordance with the requirements of the Policy, the SCAQMD 
included a NEAP in the 1996 Plan and submitted a revised version in the 
2002 Plan. Although EPA does not require that a NEAP be submitted as 
part of a SIP the Policy states that final plans should be submitted to 
EPA for review and comment.
    The revised NEAP describes the status of the commitments made in 
the 1996 NEAP, all of which were fully implemented with the exception 
of the element ``Evaluation and implementation of practical mitigation 
measures,'' which was partially implemented by an initial blowsand 
study. Phase 2 of that study has not been initiated to date owing to 
funding constraints.
    We find that the NEAP in the 2002 Plan meets the requirements of 
the Agency's Natural Events Policy. Further, we would like to commend 
the staff of the SCAQMD and the CVAG on the scope of the plan and the 
wide cooperation and expertise that has been involved in its 
implementation.

I. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Rate of progress and attainment demonstration submittals must 
specify the maximum amount of transportation-related motor vehicle 
emissions allowed in each milestone year and the attainment year and 
demonstrate these emissions levels, when considered with emissions from 
all other sources, are consistent with RFP and attainment. In order for 
us to find these emissions levels or ``budgets'' adequate and 
approvable, the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy provisions 
of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and be approvable under all pertinent SIP 
requirements.
    The budgets defined by this and other plans, when they are approved 
into the SIP or, in some cases, when they are found to be adequate, are 
then used to determine the conformity of transportation plans, 
programs, and projects to the SIP, as described by CAA section 
176(c)(3)(A). For more detail on this part of the conformity 
requirements, see 40 CFR 93.118. For transportation conformity 
purposes, the cap on emissions of transportation-related PM-10 
precursors is known as the motor vehicle emissions budget. The budget 
must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the 
attainment demonstration (40 CFR 93.118()(4)(v)), and must include PM-
10 and PM-10 precursor emissions from the following sources: motor 
vehicles, reentrained dust from traffic on paved and unpaved roads, and 
emissions during construction of highway and rail projects.
    A motor vehicle budget for the Valley for the attainment year 2006 
is presented in Table 3-8 of the 2002 Plan and the budget for milestone 
year 2003 is presented in appendix E, Table E-3. Both budgets appear 
below in Table 4.

       Table 4.--2003 and 2006 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for
                Transportation Conformity for the Valley
                            [PM-10 tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2003 \1\     2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Vehicles....................................       1.04       0.98
Reentrained paved road dust.......................       7.04       6.27
Reentrained unpaved road dust.....................       5.44       4.72
Road Construction.................................       0.06       0.06
                                                   ------------
    Total.........................................      13.58     12.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Presents remaining emissions at the end of the year 2003 with
  implementation of CV BCM-1 and 50% combined ordinance/rule penetration
  by that time.

    As discussed above in section II.B, Emissions Inventory, the motor 
vehicle emissions portion of this budget (the evaporative and tailpipe 
emissions) was developed using the EMFAC 7G motor vehicle emissions 
factors.
    We propose to approve the motor vehicle emission budget contained 
in the 2002 Plan as consistent with the adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4), including consistency with the baseline emission 
inventory, and the reductions needed for continued attainment of the 
standard after the attainment deadline.
    As discussed in section II.B, CARB is finalizing a revised version 
of EMFAC, and both CARB and SCAQMD have committed to adopt and submit a 
comprehensive revision to the PM-10 plan in 2003, using the new EMFAC, 
incorporating the latest planning assumptions on vehicle fleet and age 
distribution, and incorporating the latest activity levels. This 
revised plan will include revised budgets, based on the new inventory 
and attainment demonstration. Assuming that these new budgets are 
adequate and approvable, the new budgets will soon replace the budgets 
in the current submittal.
    Since these revised budgets will be based on the most current and 
accurate motor vehicle emissions data, we intend to allow expedited use 
of the updated budgets in transportation conformity determinations. 
Therefore, we propose to limit our proposed approval of the budgets in 
the current submittal to last only until we find adequate the new 
budgets that are expected to be adopted in 2003 as part of the revised 
PM-10 plan for the Valley. On the effective date of our adequacy 
finding for the new budgets, our approval of the budgets in the current 
submittal would terminate and thus the new budget would apply for 
purposes of transportation conformity. 67 FR 69139 (November 15, 2002).

III. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve the serious area PM-10 SIP submitted by 
the State of California for the Valley. Specifically, we are proposing 
to approve the 1996 Plan and the 2002 Plan with respect to the CAA 
requirements for emissions inventories under section 172(c)(3); control 
measures under section 110(k)(3), as meeting the requirements of 
sections 110(a) and 188(b)(1)(B); RFP under section 189(c); contingency 
measures under section 172(c)(9); demonstration of attainment under 
section 189(b)(1)(A); and motor vehicle emissions budgets under section 
176(c)(2)(A). We are also proposing to approve the State's request for 
an extension of the attainment date from December 31, 2001 to December 
21, 2006 under CAA section 188(e). We show the proposed approvals in 
Table 5 ``Proposed Approvals of South Coast

[[Page 77212]]

PM-10 Submittals for the Coachella area.''

                       Proposed Approvals of South Coast PM-10 Submitttals for the Valley
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             CAA section                      Provision              SIP submittal            Plan citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
172(c)(3)............................  Emission Inventories...  2002 Plan..............  2002 Plan, Ch 3.
110(a), 188(e), and 189(b)(1)(B).....  Control Measures.......  1994 Plan, 1996 Plan,    1996 Plan, Ch. 4, 2002
                                                                 2002 Plan.               Plan, Ch. 4, Ch. 5.
189(c)...............................  Reasonable Further       2002 Plan..............  Appendix E-3, Table E-
                                        Progress.                                         2.
172(c)(9)............................  Contingency Measures...  2002 Plan..............  2002 Plan, Ch. 4, Ch.
                                                                                          5.
189(b)(1)(A).........................  Attainment               2002 Plan..............  2002 Plan, Ch. 6.
                                        Demonstration.
176(c)(2)(A).........................  Motor Vehicle Emissions  2002 Plan..............  2002 Plan, Ch. 3
                                        Budget.                                           Appendix E 2002 Table
                                                                                          E-3.
188(e)...............................  Attainment Date          2002 Plan..............  2002 Plan, Ch. 8.
                                        Extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. 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). This proposed action merely approves state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to 
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 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve 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 thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 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, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: December 6, 2002.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-31679 Filed 12-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P