Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 36023 

number of amendments to the statutory 

requirements governing the Indian 

Housing Block Grant Program (IHBG) 

and Title VI Loan Guarantee programs. 

For more information on the IHBG and 

Title VI of NAHASDA, please see the 

background section of the Notice of 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 

Meeting published on February 22, 2010 

at 75 FR 7579. 

The NAHASDA Reauthorization Act 

amends section 106 of NAHASDA to 

provide that HUD shall initiate a 

negotiated rulemaking in order to 

implement aspects of NAHASDA that 

require rulemaking. On January 5, 2010 

(75 FR 423), HUD published a Federal 

Register notice announcing the final list 

of members of the Native American 

Housing Assistance & SelfDetermination Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee. 

II. Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 

Meeting 

This document announces the sixth 

meeting of the Native American 

Housing Assistance & SelfDetermination Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee. The committee meeting will 

take place as described in the DATES and 

ADDRESSES sections of this document. 

The meeting will be open to the public 

without advance registration. Public 

attendance may be limited to the space 

available. Members of the public may be 

allowed to make statements during the 

meeting, to the extent time permits, and 

to file written statements with the 

committee for its consideration. Written 

statements should be submitted to the 

address listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

Dated: June 18, 2010. 

Rodger J. Boyd, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native 

American Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–15364 Filed 6–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0336; FRL–9168–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of California; PM–10; 

Redesignation of the Coso Junction 

Planning Area to Attainment; Approval 

of PM–10 Maintenance Plan for the 

Coso Junction Planning Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State of California’s request to 

redesignate to attainment the Coso 

Junction planning area (CJPA), which is 

currently designated moderate 

nonattainment for the particulate matter 

of ten microns or less (PM–10) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

PM–10 emissions inventory and the 

maintenance plan for the CJPA area, 

which includes control measures for 

Owens Lake, the primary cause of PM– 

10 nonattainment for the CJPA. The 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

has requested that EPA ‘‘parallel 

process’’ the redesignation submittal, 

maintenance plan, and related SIP 

submissions. Finally, EPA is proposing 

to find the contribution of motor 

vehicles to the area’s PM–10 problem 

insignificant. If this insignificance 

finding is finalized, the area would not 

have to complete a regional emissions 

analysis for any transportation 

conformity determinations necessary in 

the CJPA. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

July 26, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0336, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Deliver: Doris Lo (Air-2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. The State’s Submittal 

III. Proposed Redesignation of the CJPA to 

Attainment for the PM–10 Standard 

A. EPA Has Determined That the Area has 

Attained the NAAQS 

B. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements for Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA and the Area Has a 

Fully Approved Applicable 

Implementation Plan Under Section 

110(K) of the CAA 

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA 

Section 110 

2. SIP Requirements Under Part D 

C. EPA Has Determined That the 

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions 

D. EPA Has Fully Approved a Maintenance 

Plan, Including a Contingency Plan, for 

the Area Under Section 175a of the CAA 

1. An Attainment Emissions Inventory to 

Identify the Level of Emissions in the 

Area Sufficient to Attain the NAAQS 

2. A Demonstration Of Maintenance of the 

NAAQS for 10 Years After Redesignation 

3. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Through Operation of an Appropriate 

Air Quality Monitoring Network 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36024 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1Parallel processing is used for expediting the 

review of a plan. Parallel processing allows a State 

to submit the plan prior to actual adoption by the 

State and provides an opportunity for the State to 

consider EPA comments prior to submittal of the 

final plan for final review and action. 

2CARB’s parallel processing request and SIP 

submittal includes the following documents: (1) 

May 28, 2010 letter to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, from James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, requesting 

parallel processing; (2) May 19, 2000 transmittal 

letter to James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB, from Theodore D. Schade, Air Pollution 

Control Officer, GBUAPCD; (3) Proof of Publication 

of Public Notice for ‘‘2010 Maintenance Plan and 

Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction 

Planning Area’’ (2010 Plan) and the May 17, 2010 

GBUAPCD Board Hearing; (4) Certification by the 

Clerk of the GBUAPCD Board regarding adoption of 

the 2010 Plan; (5) GBUAPCD Board Resolution of 

Adoption 2010–1 approving and adopting the 2010 

Plan; (6) the California Environmental Quality Act 

Notice of Exemption for the 2010 Plan; (6) the 

Notice of Public Hearing for consideration of the 

adoption and approval of the 2010 Plan; and (7) The 

2010 PM–10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area, May 

17, 2010, GBUAPCD, with Appendices A–D. All of 

these documents are available for review in the 

docket for today’s proposed rule. 

4. Contingency Provisions That EPA Deems 

Necessary to Promptly Correct Any 

Violation of the NAAQS That Occurs 

After Redesignation of the Area 

E. Transportation Conformity And Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

IV. Proposed Actions 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The CJPA was originally part of the 

Searles Valley PM–10 nonattainment 

area which was designated 

nonattainment and classified as 

moderate by operation of law in 1990. 

See 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991) and 

40 CFR 81.305. In 2002, EPA revised the 

boundaries of the Searles Valley area, 

dividing it into three separate 

nonattainment areas: The CJPA, Indian 

Wells and Trona. 67 FR 50805 (August 

6, 2002). Our recent notices of proposed 

and final determination of attainment 

for the CJPA provide more background 

information on the designation and 

classification of the area. 75 FR 13710 

(March 23, 2010) and 75 FR 27944 (May 

19, 2010). 

The CJPA is located in eastern 

California in the southern portion of 

Inyo County. It is an arid desert area 

that receives less than 5 inches of rain 

per year. The area is rural in nature and 

sparsely populated with only 0.5% of 

the population of Inyo County (2000 

U.S. Census shows 102 people living in 

the area). The Great Basin Unified Air 

Pollution Control Agency (GBUAPCD or 

District) operates the one PM–10 

monitoring site for the CJPA which is 

located in the Coso Junction rest area in 

the Rose Valley. The Rose Valley is 

flanked by the Sierra Nevada and Coso 

mountain ranges. The China Lake Naval 

Air Weapons Station (China Lake 

NAWS) covers most of the CJPA and is 

generally restricted from public access. 

Air pollution in the CJPA is dominated 

by windblown dust transported from 

Owens Lake which has been estimated 

to be as much as 1.55 million pounds 

per day and is overwhelming when 

compared to the daily emissions 

estimate of 1,478 pounds per day for all 

of the sources within the CJPA. ‘‘2010 

PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

Redesignation Request for the Coso 

Junction Planning Area,’’ adopted May 

17, 2010 (the 2010 Plan). 

Owens Lake, which is also located in 

Inyo County and also under the 

jurisdiction of the GBUAPCD, is located 

in the Owens Valley Planning Area 

which is to the north and adjacent to the 

CJPA. In 1913, the Los Angeles 

Department of Water and Power 

(LADWP) completed an aqueduct 

system and began diverting the waters 

of the Owens River to the City of Los 

Angeles. By 1930, these diversions had 

drained Owens Lake almost completely 

dry. Strong winds over the dry, alkaline 

bed of Owens Lake have produced 

among the highest measured 

concentrations of PM–10 ever recorded 

and can have impacts as far as 150 miles 

away. See 64 FR 34173, June 25, 1999. 

The CJPA is anywhere from 10 to 30 

miles from the southern end of Owens 

Lake. 

The impact of Owens Lake dust on 

Coso Junction and other downwind sites 

was documented in a special purpose 

monitoring network that was operated 

from 1993 to 1996. The monitoring 

network measured Owens Lake dust 

impacts at five downwind sites and 

found exceedances of the standard as far 

as 50 miles from Owens Lake. The five 

downwind sites included Coso Junction, 

Navy 1, Pearsonville, Inyokern and 

Ridgecrest. Navy 1 and Pearsonville are 

no longer in operation and Inyokern and 

Ridgecrest are outside the CJPA. See the 

2010 Plan. 

The process for developing controls 

and a plan for the unique situation at 

Owens Lake area has been ongoing for 

decades. The GBUAPCD has developed 

the controls and plans for the Owens 

Valley Planning Area with many 

participants including the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB), LADWP, the 

City of Los Angeles, tribal governments, 

Federal land managers, the Navy, the 

State Lands Commission, and members 

of the public. These efforts resulted in 

a unique Board Order by the GBUAPCD 

which requires the City of Los Angeles, 

by certain timeframes, to implement 

dust control measures including 

shallow flooding, managed vegetation 

and application of gravel on designated 

areas of Owens Lake. 64 FR 34173, June 

25, 1999. The original Board Order, 

which serves as the enforceable 

mechanism for the dust control 

measures, has been revised on several 

occasions and implementation of the 

dust control measures has led to a 90% 

decrease in emissions from Owens Lake 

and to significant improvement in the 

air quality in CJPA. 2010 Plan. 

On May 19, 2010, EPA published a 

final determination that the CJPA has 

attained the PM–10 NAAQS and that 

the area’s obligation to submit certain 

CAA requirements (i.e., demonstration 

of attainment, demonstration of 

reasonable further progress, reasonably 

available control measures, and 

contingency measures) no longer 

applies for so long as the area continues 

to attain prior to final redesignation. Id. 

On May 28, 2010, CARB submitted to 

EPA a request for parallel processing of 

the ‘‘2010 PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

Redesignation Request for the Coso 

Junction Planning Area’’ (the 2010 Plan). 

The 2010 Plan addresses the PM–10 

maintenance plan and the CAA 

redesignation requirements for the 

CJPA. 

II. The State’s Submittal 

EPA has granted CARB’s request that 

EPA ‘‘parallel process’’ 1 our review and 

proposed action on the 2010 Plan’s 

maintenance plan and redesignation 

request for the CJPA. (See May 28, 2010 

letter to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, from 

James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB) EPA thus is parallel processing 

the 2010 Plan, including proposed SIP 

approvals of the maintenance plan, 

emissions inventory, and Owens Valley 

control measures, concurrently with the 

CARB’s adoption process. 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V.2

The Great Basin Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (GBUAPCD or District) 

adopted the 2010 Plan on May 17, 2010 

and has forwarded it to CARB. CARB 

has scheduled a Board Hearing on June 

24, 2010 where it will consider approval 

of the 2010 Plan. All public comments 

to CARB concerning their proposed 

action on the 2010 Plan are also due by 

that date. 

III. Proposed Redesignation of the CJPA 

to Attainment for the PM–10 Standard 

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets 

forth the following criteria for 

redesignating an area from 

nonattainment to attainment: 

(1) EPA determines that the area has 

attained the NAAQS. 

(2) EPA has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan under 

section 110(k) of the CAA. 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 36025 

3As discussed in our May 19, 2010 determination 

of attainment, the GBUAPCD provided preliminary 

data for 2010 which indicated that there were 2 

exceedances in March 2010, but expressed concern 

about the validity of the data and also noted that 

the status of these preliminary exceedances could 

change after the data validation process was 

concluded and relevant issues addressed. 75 FR 

27944. As set forth in the discussion in this section, 

the GBUAPCD determined that these exceedances, 

along with the other data for the first quarter of 

2010, were invalid due to problems at the 

monitoring site, and therefore should not be 

included in the AQS database. 

4The Coso Operating Company is a power 

generating company and the owner of the property 

upon which the Coso Junction monitor is located. 

5The District advised EPA that among the invalid 

data monitored during this period was an 

additional exceedance monitored on May 9. 

(3) EPA determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions. 

(4) EPA has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA. 

(5) The State has met all applicable 

requirements for the area under section 

110 and Part D of the CAA. 

These requirements are discussed in 

more detail in a September 4, 1992 EPA 

Memorandum, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Request to Redesignate Areas 

to Attainment, John Calcagni, Director, 

Air Quality Management Division’’ 

(Calcagni memo). Below, we discuss 

how these requirements are met for the 

CJPA. 

A. EPA Has Determined That the Area 

Has Attained the NAAQS 

In our May 19, 2010 final 

determination of attainment, EPA 

determined that the CJPA attained the 

PM–10 standard, based on data 

available to date through 2010.3 See 75 

FR 13710 and 75 FR 27944. Since our 

May 19, 2010 determination of 

attainment, the GBUAPCD requested 

certification of the 2009 data (see letter 

to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, from 

Theodore D. Schade, Air Pollution 

Control Officer, GBUAPCD). The 

GBUAPCD recently determined, 

however, that the monitoring site in 

Coso Junction has violated siting criteria 

since January 2010. Following the 

occurrence of two preliminary 

exceedances monitored in March 2010, 

District staff began to investigate the 

cause of the exceedances. On May 27, 

2010, the GBUAPCD’s monitoring staff 

met with the Coso Operating Company’s 

Compliance Officer 4 to assess the 

situation at the Coso Junction 

monitoring site. During that meeting 

and site visit it was determined that the 

vegetation surrounding the monitor site 

had not been watered for several years 

and had died off. As a result, it was no 

longer providing sufficient ground 

cover, exposing friable soils that could 

be lofted by the wind to impact monitor 

readings. In addition, they found a 

deterioration in the condition of the 

unpaved access road to the station, 

which was located adjacent to the 

monitor and which had previously been 

covered with gravel. According to the 

Coso Operating Company, beginning in 

January 2010, a contractor working 

onsite to install an equipment trailer 

near the monitoring station drove along 

the access road several times each day 

in order to collect equipment from the 

trailer. The lack of vegetation and the 

contractor activity and increased vehicle 

trips that forced the gravel deeper into 

the ground combined to expose soils 

that could be lofted in close proximity 

to the monitor. The District staff 

therefore concluded that beginning in 

January, 2010, this resulted in the 

monitoring site’s failure to meet EPA 

siting criteria for a PM–10 monitor. See 

June 2, 2010 GBUAPCD Memorandum, 

Subject: Coso Junction PM10 

Monitoring Station Siting Review. The 

District promptly set to work with the 

Coso Operating Company to resolve the 

siting problems by re-vegetating the area 

and adding another layer of gravel to 

areas with vehicular travel. The Coso 

Operating Company has also restricted 

traffic on the unpaved access road 

adjacent to the monitor, limiting it to 

only the monitoring station operators 

and station support personnel as 

needed. Furthermore, the Company has 

moved the contractors’ trailer, which 

had previously been parked close to the 

monitor, to a gravel parking lot 

approximately 100 meters east of the 

station. They are developing a plan to 

apply water to the soil surfaces near the 

monitor to re-vegetate the area and 

facilitate development of a ground 

surface crust that will help minimize 

localized PM–10 emissions. The 

GBUAPCD is committed to resolving the 

monitor siting problem, but believes 

that until the problem is resolved, the 

data collected since January 2010 

should not be used for regulatory 

purposes. See June 2, 2010 GBUAPCD 

Memorandum, Subject: Coso Junction 

PM10 Monitoring Station Siting Review. 

The GBUAPCD has advised EPA that 

adequate application of water to the 

surrounding soils will begin on July 1, 

2010 and that the District expects that, 

as a result of the efforts outlined above 

to limit contractor activities near the site 

and improve the conditions near the 

monitor, they will be able to rectify the 

siting problems so that they can once 

again start collecting valid data 

subsequently in July. 

EPA agrees with the GBUAPCD’s 

assessment of the monitoring site for the 

period since January 2010 and that the 

data collected during the first two 

quarters of 2010 should not be used for 

regulatory purposes.5 None of the 

recorded values have been entered into 

the AQS database, and, instead, the 

District has entered codes for the first 

quarter 2010 data which indicate that 

the data are invalid due to temporary 

construction/repair activity in the area. 

See AQS raw data report for Coso 

Junction, June 4, 2010. 40 CFR part 58 

establishes criteria and requirements for 

ambient air monitoring and appendix E 

sets forth the probe and monitoring path 

siting criteria for ambient air quality 

monitoring. 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 

2006). These include both binding 

requirements and goals. Section 1(b) of 

appendix E, the Introduction, provides 

that ‘‘[t]he probe and monitoring path 

siting criteria discussed in this 

appendix must be followed to the 

maximum extent possible.’’ Under the 

principles established in part 58, 

appendix E, EPA believes that it is not 

a reasonable monitoring practice to 

locate a PM–10 monitor, intended for 

purposes of characterizing large-scale 

pollution, so close to a dust source such 

as the case with the Coso Junction 

monitor since January 2010. The 

objective of the Coso Junction 

monitoring site is to capture transport 

from Owens Lake which is 15 to 20 

miles to the north. 

Section 3(a) of appendix E, Spacing 

from Minor Sources, addresses the 

siting of monitors, including PM–10 

monitors. It states that close spacing 

between a monitor and a minor source 

may be proper if the purpose of that 

monitoring site is to investigate 

emissions from that source and other 

local sources. However, if, as is the case 

with the Coso Junction monitor here, 

the site is to be used to determine air 

quality over a larger area representative 

of many kilometers across, it should not 

be placed near local, minor sources, 

because the plume from the local minor 

source would inappropriately impact 

the air quality data collected at this site. 

It is plain that this occurred at the Coso 

Junction situation, where the monitor, 

since January 2010, has been operating 

in an unvegetated area with exposed 

soils and with unprecedented contractor 

activity and vehicle traffic traveling 

frequently on an unpaved access road 

adjacent to the monitoring site. 

EPA will continue to work with the 

GBUACPD to ensure that the issues with 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36026 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

6EPA notes that the 2010 Plan also includes air 

quality modeling to demonstrate that the CJPA is 

attaining the PM–10 NAAQS. See 2010 Plan, 

section 6 Air Quality Modeling and Attainment 

Demonstration and Appendix D. While we do not 

believe air quality modeling is required to 

substantiate attainment for this purpose, EPA has 

reviewed the modeling and believes that it is 

supportive of the attainment determination. 

7The applicable California SIP for all 

nonattainment areas can be found at: http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/ 

Casips?readform&count=100&state=California. 

the monitoring site are resolved as soon 

as possible. The recent siting problem 

affects only data collected for the period 

after January, 2010, and does not have 

any impact on EPA’s determination that 

the CJPA attained the PM–10 standard 

based on the two most recent, 

consecutive three-year periods with 

quality-assured data. (2006–2008 and 

2007–2009). In view of the recent 

history of continuous attainment in the 

CJPA and the ongoing expansion of and 

implementation of controls discussed 

elsewhere, EPA finds nothing to 

contradict EPA’s belief that the area has 

attained the PM–10 standard through 

2009 and continues to attain to date. 

Therefore EPA believes that the section 

107(d)(3)(E)(i) requirement for 

attainment has been met.6

B. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements for Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA and the Area Has a 

Fully Approved Applicable 

Implementation Plan Under Section 

110(K) of the CAA 

Section 107(d)(3)(E), as interpreted by 

EPA, provides that the SIP for the area 

must be fully approved under section 

110(k) of the CAA for all requirements 

that apply to the area for purposes of 

redesignation. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) 

and (v). 

EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals 

in approving a redesignation request. 

Calcagni Memo, p. 3, Wall v. EPA F.3d 

416 (6th Cir. 2001), Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–90 (6th Cir. 

1998), as well as any additional measure 

it may approve in conjunction with a 

redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 

(May 12, 2003), and citations therein. 

The Calcagni memo states that a state 

must meet those requirements of section 

110 and part D of the CAA that were 

applicable prior to the submittal of the 

redesignation request. CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v). 

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA 

Section 110 

The general SIP elements and 

requirements set forth in section 

110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, 

the following: Submittal of a SIP that 

has been adopted by the state after 

reasonable public notice and hearing; 

provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirement 

for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD); provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

for New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs; provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and provisions for public and 

local agency participation in planning 

and emission control rule development. 

On numerous occasions over the past 

35 years, CARB and the GBUAPCD have 

submitted and we have approved 

provisions addressing the basic CAA 

section 110 provisions. There are no 

outstanding or disapproved applicable 

section 110 SIP submittals with respect 

to the State and the GBUAPCD.7 We 

propose to conclude that CARB and the 

GBUAPCD have met all SIP 

requirements for the CJPA applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under section 

110 of the CAA (General SIP 

Requirements). 

Moreover, we note that SIPs must be 

fully approved only with respect to 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for 

example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requires that SIPs contain certain 

measures to prevent sources in a state 

from significantly contributing to air 

quality problems in another state. 

However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requirements for a state are not linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification in that 

state. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classifications are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, we do not 

believe that these requirements should 

be construed to be applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

In addition, EPA believes that the 

other section 110 elements not 

connected with nonattainment plan 

area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The State will still be 

subject to these requirements after the 

CJPA is redesignated. The section 110 

and part D requirements, which are 

linked to a particular area’s designation 

and classification, are the relevant 

measures to evaluate in reviewing a 

redesignation request. This policy is 

consistent with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of the conformity SIP 

requirement for redesignations. See 

Reading, Pennsylvania propose and 

final rulemakings at 61 FR 53174–53176 

(October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio 

final rulemaking at 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida final 

rulemaking at 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion of this 

issue in the Cincinnati redesignation at 

65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in the 

Pittsburgh redesignation at 66 FR 50399 

(October 19, 2001). See also 73 FR 

22307, 22312–22313 (April 25, 2008) 

(San Joaquin PM–10 proposed 

redesignation). EPA believes that 

section 110 elements not linked to the 

area’s nonattainment status are not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

2. SIP Requirements Under Part D 

Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title 1 of 

the CAA contain air quality planning 

requirements for PM–10 nonattainment 

areas. Subpart 1 of part D, sections 

172(c) and 176 contains general 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. Subpart 4 of part D 

contains specific planning and 

scheduling requirements for PM–10 

nonattainment areas. 

The subpart 1 requirements include, 

among other things, provisions for the 

reasonable available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 

(RFP), emissions inventories, 

contingency measures and conformity. 

Subpart 4 of part D, section 189(a), (c) 

and (e) requirements apply specifically 

to moderate PM–10 nonattainment 

areas. These requirements include: (1) 

An approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources; (2) an attainment 

demonstration; (3) provisions for 

RACM; (4) quantitative milestones 

demonstrating RFP toward attainment 

by the applicable attainment date; and 

(5) provisions to ensure 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 has determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM–10 levels which exceed the 

NAAQS in the area. 

In addition to these subpart 4 

requirements, general planning 

requirements in subpart 1, section 

172(c) and section 176 include 

requirements for emissions inventories, 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 36027 

reasonably available control measures, 

contingency measures and conformity. 

For the CJPA, we have determined 

that the requirements for an attainment 

demonstration 189(a)(1)(B), section 

172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(c) RACM 

determination, a reasonable further 

progress demonstration under 189(c)(1) 

and section 172(c)(9) contingency 

measures no longer apply for so long as 

the area continues to attain the PM–10 

standard in accordance with EPA’s 

Clean Data Policy. 75 FR 27944. See also 

San Joaquin proposed and final 

determination of attainment 71 FR 

40952, 40954–5 (July 19, 2006) and 71 

FR 63641, 63643–7 (October 30, 2006). 

Moreover, in the context of evaluating 

the area’s eligibility for redesignation, 

there is a separate and additional 

justification for finding that the 

requirements associated with attainment 

are not applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Prior to and 

independently of the Clean Data Policy, 

and specifically in the context of 

redesignations, EPA interpreted 

attainment-linked requirements as not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. In the General Preamble, 

‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ (General 

Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 

1992). 

EPA stated that: 

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans * * * provides specific requirements 

for contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. 

See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 

(‘‘The requirements for reasonable 

further progress and other measures 

needed for attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’). Thus, even if the 

requirements associated with attainment 

had not previously been suspended, 

they would not apply for purposes of 

evaluating whether an area that has 

attained the standard qualifies for 

redesignation. EPA has enunciated this 

position since the General Preamble was 

published more than eighteen years ago, 

and it represents the Agency’s 

interpretation of what constitutes 

applicable requirements under section 

107(d)(3)(E). The Courts have 

recognized the scope of EPA’s authority 

to interpret ‘‘applicable requirements’’ in 

the redesignation context. See Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 

2004). 

After application of the Clean Data 

Policy, the remaining applicable Part D 

requirements for moderate PM–10 

nonattainment areas include an 

emissions inventory under section 

172(c)(3). In this notice, EPA is 

proposing to approve the attainment 

inventories submitted in the 2010 Plan 

as meeting the requirements for a 

section 172(c) emissions inventory. See 

discussion below in section D.1. In 

addition, EPA has previously approved 

numerous PM–10 measures into the 

CJPA SIP. See footnote 11, below, and 

Table 5 of the 2010 Plan. 

With respect to the Part D 

requirements for a NSR permit program 

for construction of new and modified 

major stationary sources, EPA has 

previously approved new source review 

rules (Rules 209–A and 216) for the 

GBUACPD which cover the CJPA. See 

47 FR 26380 (June 18, 1982) and 41 FR 

53661 (December 8, 1976). 

Final approval of the NSR program, 

however, is not a prerequisite to 

finalizing our proposed approval of the 

State’s redesignation request. EPA has 

determined in past redesignations that a 

NSR program does not have to be 

approved prior to redesignation, 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the standard without 

part D NSR requirements in effect. The 

rationale for this position is described in 

a memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled ‘‘Part D NSR Requirements or 

Areas Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ See the more detailed 

explanations in the following 

redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI 

(60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1996); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, 

October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 

FR 31831, 31836–31837, June 21, 1996); 

and San Joaquin Valley, CA (73 FR 

22307, 22313, April 25, 2008 and 73 FR 

66759, 66766–7, November 12, 2008). 

The requirements of the PSD program 

will apply to PM–10 once the area has 

been redesignated. Thus, new major 

sources with significant PM–10 

emissions and major modifications of 

PM–10 at major sources as defined 

under 40 CFR 52.21 will be required to 

obtain a PSD permit or include PM–10 

emissions in their existing PSD permit. 

Currently, EPA is the PSD permitting 

authority in the CJPA under a Federal 

implementation plan. See 40 CFR 

52.270(a)(3). However, the GBUAPCD 

can implement the Federal PSD program 

through a delegation agreement with 

EPA or, assuming that the GBUAPCD 

makes necessary modifications to its 

NSR rules and EPA approves the 

modifications, under a SIP-approved 

rule. 

With respect to the conformity 

requirement, section 176(c) of the CAA 

requires states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federally 

supported or funded projects ‘‘conform’’ 

to the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal 

Transit Act (‘‘transportation 

conformity’’) as well as to other federally 

supported or funded projects (‘‘general 

conformity’’). State conformity revisions 

must be consistent with Federal 

conformity regulations relating to 

consultation, enforcement and 

enforceability that the CAA required 

EPA to promulgate. 

EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of a redesignation request 

under section 107(d) because state 

conformity rules are still required after 

redesignation and Federal conformity 

rules apply where state rules have not 

been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 

3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 

interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995). 

Finally, given the extensive 

documentation throughout the 2010 

Plan and today’s proposed rule that the 

primary cause of the PM–10 problem in 

the CJPA is windblown dust from 

Owens Lake, EPA is proposing to 

determine that major stationary sources 

of PM–10 precursors do not contribute 

significantly to PM–10 levels that 

exceed the standard in the CJPA. Thus, 

EPA proposes to determine that, if EPA 

finalizes today’s proposal and finally 

approves the emissions inventory for 

CJPA, the State has met and EPA has 

fully approved all requirements 

applicable under section 110 and part D 

for the CJPA for purposes of 

redesignation. CAA Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v). 

C. EPA Has Determined That the 

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires EPA, 

in order to approve a redesignation to 

attainment, to determine that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

emission reductions which are 

permanent and enforceable. 

Improvement should not be a result of 

temporary reductions (e.g., economic 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36028 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

8Adopted on February 1, 2008, the GBUAPCD 

Board Order #080128–01 provides for the 

enforcement and implementation of 43.0 square 

miles of BACM level controls on the Owens Lake 

bed found in the 1998 Owens Valley SIP and 

subsequent SIP revisions. Board Order #080128–01 

specifies the timing, implementation, placement, 

and management of lake bed controls such as 

shallow flooding, managed vegetation, gravel 

blanketing, and ‘‘moat and row’’ controls. Also, 

Board Order #080128–01 provides for contingency 

procedures for supplemental controls, maintenance 

of existing controls, and a ‘‘performance monitoring 

plan.’’ 

9We note that there is a slight difference between 

the discussion in the 2010 Plan (p. 12) and the 

Board Order (paragraph 5) for the total square miles 

controlled. Page 12 of the 2010 Plan states the total 

is 43.1 square miles while the Board Order states 

the total is 43.0 square miles. Since the Board Order 

is the enforceable mechanism, we believe the 

enforceable controls are for 43.0 square miles. 

10Table 3 of the 2010 Plan shows a decline in 

level and frequency of the 24-hour PM–10 standard. 

Table 3 also provides information on the annual 

PM–10 standard, however, EPA revoked this 

standard on October 17, 2006, effective on 

December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144). 

downturns or shutdowns) or unusually 

favorable meteorology. Calcagni 

memorandum, p. 4. 

As discussed above in the 

‘‘Background’’ section, the PM–10 

problem in the CJPA is caused primarily 

by transport of windblown dust from 

the Owens Lake. Between 1985 and 

2009, there have been 22 exceedances of 

the PM–10 standard, 18 of which were 

caused by windblown dust from the 

Owens Lake. The remaining 4 

exceedances were caused by windblown 

dust from agricultural land (1 

exceedance in 1990), wildfire smoke (1 

exceedance in 2002) and an unpaved 

truck parking area (2 exceedances in 

2007). 2010 Plan, section 3, pp. 4–8. 

Since 1985, the frequency of 

exceedances has decreased with the 

expected number of exceedances per 

year at in the CJPA ranging from zero to 

two (prior to 2004 there were many 

years with six to twelve expected 

exceedances per year). See 2010 Plan, 

Table 3. 

SUMMARY OF 24-HOUR PM–10 MAXIMUM EXCEEDANCES (μG/M3) IN THE

CJPA (1985 THROUGH 2009)* 

Exceedance 

date 

Conc. 

(μg/m3) 

Primary cause of 

exceedance 

4/25/1985 ....... 307 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

4/2/1986 ......... 1175 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

6/7/1986 ......... 157 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

1/15/1987 ....... 196 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

2/3/1989 ......... 227 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

4/23/1990 ....... 866 Abandoned Ag 

Land Dust. 

10/26/1993 ..... 254 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

12/23/1993 ..... 188 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

1/5/1994 ......... 388 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

4/8/1995 ......... 692 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

4/9/1995 ......... 567* Owens Lake 

Dust. 

4/21/1995 ....... 337 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

4/27/1996 ....... 176* Owens Lake 

Dust. 

5/23/1996 ....... 309 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

3/6/1998 ......... 246* Owens Lake 

Dust. 

3/18/1998 ....... 409 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

7/25/2002 ....... 175 Wildland Fire 

Smoke. 

2/2/2003 ......... 484 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

12/28/2006 ..... 296 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

SUMMARY OF 24-HOUR PM–10 MAXIMUM EXCEEDANCES (μG/M3) IN THE

CJPA (1985 THROUGH 2009)*— 

Continued 

Exceedance 

date 

Conc. 

(μg/m3) 

Primary cause of 

exceedance 

6/5/2007 ......... 217 Coso Junction 

Parking Area 

Dust. 

12/6/2007 ....... 283 Coso Junction 

Parking Area 

Dust. 

12/22/2009 ..... 168 Owens Lake 

Dust. 

* All values were recorded at the Coso Junction monitor site with the following exceptions: 

4/9/1995 at Navy, 4/27/1996 at Pearsonville 

and 3/6/1998 at Navy. See 2010 Plan, Tables 

1 and 2. 

Control Measures for Owens Lake 

As discussed above, the Owens Valley 

Planning Area is located to the north 

and adjacent to CJPA and is classified as 

a serious PM–10 nonattainment area. 

Attainment in the CJPA depends on 

controls on and emissions reductions 

from Owens Lake which is the primary 

source of emissions in the Owens Valley 

Planning area. The GBUAPCD has 

jurisdiction over air quality planning 

requirements for Inyo, Mono and Alpine 

Counties. The GBUAPCD has adopted 

the following plan and revisions for the 

Owens Valley Planning Area, in order to 

reduce the PM–10 emissions from 

Owens Lake: 

• In 1998 the GBUAPCD adopted and 

CARB submitted the Owens Valley SIP 

requiring dust controls on 16.5 square 

miles of the Owens lakebed. (1998 

Owens Valley SIP). 

• In 2003 the GBUAPCD adopted and 

CARB submitted a SIP revision to 

expand dust controls to cover a total 

29.8 square miles of the Owens lakebed. 

(2003 Owens Valley SIP revision). 

• In 2008 the GBUAPCD adopted and 

CARB submitted a SIP revision to 

expand dust control requirements to 

apply to a total of 43.1 square miles of 

the Owens lakebed. (2008 Owens Valley 

SIP revision). 

See 2010 Plan, section 5, pp. 11–12. 

EPA has approved the 1998 Owens 

Valley SIP (64 FR 48305, September 3, 

1999), but has not acted on the State’s 

proposed 2003 and 2008 Owens Valley 

SIP revisions. In the meantime, the 

GBUAPCD has implemented the 2003 

Owens Valley SIP revision submission 

measures and has begun 

implementation of the 2008 Owens 

Valley SIP submission measures. 

The GBUAPCD, which exercises joint 

jurisdiction over CJPA and Owens 

Valley, has shown that attainment and 

maintenance of the PM–10 standard in 

the CJPA relies in large part on the 

control measures in place for the Owens 

Valley Planning Area through 2008. 

Thus, the GBUAPCD has included in its 

maintenance plan submission for the 

CJPA area all of the control measures in 

the 1998 Owens Valley SIP, as well as 

the 2003 and 2008 SIP revisions for 

Owens Valley that the District and 

CARB have submitted to EPA. These 

control measures are contained in the 

CJPA 2010 Plan, Appendix C, 

GBUAPCD Board Order #080128–01, 

January 28, 2008/February 1, 2008 

(Board Order).8 9 The 2010 Plan 

indicates that all of the controls 

required by the 1998 Owens Valley SIP 

and the District’s 2003 Owens Valley 

SIP revision submission (i.e., dust 

controls for 29.8 square miles of the 

Owens lakebed) have been successfully 

implemented and that the controls have 

led to a decline in the level of frequency 

of PM–10 exceedances of the 24-hour 

standard in the CJPA. 2010 Plan, section 

5, p. 12 and Table 3.10 The additional 

controls required by the 2008 SIP 

revision (for a total of 43.0 square miles 

of controls on Owens Lake) are 

scheduled for implementation by 

October 2010. 

Prior to the adoption of the 1998 

Owens Valley PM–10 SIP, the peak 24- 

hour PM–10 concentration levels 

recorded in the CJPA were as high as 

1175 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/ 

m3) with many years recording levels 

over 300 μg/m3, and there were several 

years where the expected number of 

exceedances were as high as 6 or 12 

days. See 2010 Plan, Table 3 and 

Summary of 24-hour PM–10 Maximum 

Exceedances table above. Following the 

adoption of the 1998 Owens Valley SIP 

and the 2003 Owens Valley SIP 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 36029 

11There are thirteen measures listed in Table 5 

of the 2010 Plan including New Source Review and 

permitting rules and rules to control fugitive dust 

and controlled burning. We have approved nine of 

these rules into the SIP: Rule 209–A, 47 FR 26380, 

June 18, 1982; Rule 216, 41 FR 53661, December 8, 

1976; Rule 400, 42 FR 28883, June 6, 1977; Rule 

401, 42 FR 28883, June 6, 1977; Rule 408, 46 FR 

8471, January 27, 1981; Rule 409, 42 FR 28883, June 

6, 1977; Rule 410, 42 FR 28883, June 6, 1977; and, 

Regulation XIII (Rules 1301–1311), 64 FR 19916, 

April 23, 1999. 

revision, which have led to 

implementation of 29.8 square miles of 

dust controls on Owens Lake by the end 

of 2006, the peak 24-hour PM–10 levels 

and expected number of exceedances 

have declined. Id. Figure 4 of the 2010 

plan also documents the dramatic 

decrease in emissions in Owens Valley. 

EPA believes that the data in Table 3 

and Figure 4 of the 2010 plan show 

there is a direct air quality benefit in the 

CJPA from the dust controls 

implemented for Owens Lake. 

Control Measures in the CJPA 

As mentioned above, 4 of the 22 PM– 

10 exceedances in the CJPA between 

1985 and 2009 were caused by sources 

other than Owens Lake emission 

including windblown dust from an 

agricultural field, smoke from a wildfire 

and windblown dust from an unpaved 

truck parking area. 2010 Plan, section 3, 

p. 4. These types of exceedances are not 

generally a problem in the CJPA and are 

not expected to recur. The agricultural 

land just north of the monitor site was 

stabilized by natural vegetation cover in 

1991 after the land was fallowed. Since 

that time no agricultural activities have 

taken place in the CJPA. Dust from the 

unpaved truck parking area, located 

adjacent to the PM–10 monitor site was 

mitigated by covering it with gravel in 

2008 and then asphalt pavement in 

2009. 2010 Plan, section 1. The 2010 

Plan also provides a summary of the 

District rules and regulations that apply 

to sources of PM–10 within the CJPA. 

2010 Plan, Table 5. While the focus of 

attaining and maintaining the PM–10 

standard in the CJPA is on the controls 

for Owens Lake, these measures, many 

of which have been SIP-approved, will 

also benefit air quality.11 Those 

measures that EPA has already 

approved into the CJPA SIP contribute 

to attainment and maintenance of the 

PM–10 NAAQS. 

EPA Proposal for Approval of 

GBUAPCD Board Order Maintenance 

Plan Control 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

GBUAPCD Board Order #080128–01, 

January 28, 2008/February 1, 2008, 

which is included as Appendix C of the 

2010 Plan. As discussed above, this 

Board Order is the enforceable 

mechanism by which the GBUAPCD can 

require the City of Los Angeles to 

implement, in phases, a total of 43 

square miles of dust control measures 

for Owens Lake. The successful 

implementation of 29.8 square miles of 

controls by December 2006 has resulted 

in significantly improved air quality in 

the CJPA. 2010 Plan, Table 3, Figure 4, 

section 5. Thus, EPA believes that the 

improvement in PM–10 air quality for 

the CJPA is the result of permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

from Owens Lake, and that this 

improvement will continue if our 

proposal is finalized. Because of the 

clear correlation between the reductions 

in emissions from Owens Lake and 

declining PM–10 exceedances in the 

CJPA, EPA believes that the 

improvement in air quality is not the 

result of temporary reductions (e.g., 

economic downturns or shutdowns) or 

unusually favorable meteorology. Thus, 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

improvement in air quality in CJPA is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). 

D. EPA Has Fully Approved a 

Maintenance Plan for the Area Under 

Section 175A of the CAA 

Section 175A of the CAA provides the 

requirements for maintenance plans that 

must be fully approved under section 

107(d)(3)(E) for purposes of 

redesignation to attainment. The 

provisons to be included in a 

maintenance plan are further addressed 

in the Calcagni memo. They include: 

(1) An attainment emissions inventory 

to identify the level of emissions in the 

area sufficient to attain the NAAQS; 

(2) A demonstration of maintenance 

of the NAAQS for 10 years after 

redesignation; 

(3) Verification of continued 

attainment through operation of an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network; and 

(4) Contingency provisions that EPA 

deems necessary to assure that the State 

will promptly correct any violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation of the area. We discuss 

below how these requirements are met 

for the SJVAB. 

1. An Attainment Emissions Inventory 

To Identify the Level of Emissions in the 

Area Sufficient To Attain the NAAQS 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

plan submittals to include a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources in the nonattainment area. In 

demonstrating maintenance in 

accordance with CAA section 175A and 

the Calcagni memo, the State should 

provide an attainment emissions 

inventory to identify the level of 

emissions in the area 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 an inventory of actual 

emissions at the time the area attained 

the standard. EPA’s primary guidance in 

evaluating these inventories is the 

document entitled, ‘‘PM–10 Emissions 

Inventory Requirements,’’ EPA, OAQPS, 

EPA–454/R–94–033 (September 1994) 

which can be found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/ 

pm10eir.pdf. 

The 2010 Plan provides an estimated 

daily PM–10 emissions inventory for 

2008 through 2025. The year 2008 was 

chosen as the attainment year because it 

is one of the attainment years in the 

most recent three-year periods (2006– 

2008, 2007–2009) in which compliance 

with the PM–10 NAAQS was 

monitored. The 2010 Plan projects the 

emissions attainment inventory to 

remain constant from 2008 through 

2025, at an estimated 1,478 pounds per 

day. See 2010 Plan, section 4, pp. 9–10. 

In contrast, as noted in the Background 

discussion in section I above, the 

emissions generated within the CJPA are 

less than 0.1% of the emissions caused 

by windblown dust from the Owens 

Lake area, which were estimated to be 

1.55 million pounds per day for the 

CJPA design day (January 5, 2007). Id. 

DAILY PM–10 EMISSIONS FOR 2008 THROUGH 2025 FOR PM–10 SOURCES IN THE CJPA 

Pounds 

per day 

Stationary Sources: 

—California Lightweight Pumice ............................................................................................................................................................ 167 

—China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station ............................................................................................................................................. 84 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DAILY PM–10 EMISSIONS FOR 2008 THROUGH 2025 FOR PM–10 SOURCES IN THE CJPA—Continued 

Pounds 

per day 

—Coso Operating Company .................................................................................................................................................................. 953 

—Halliburton Services ............................................................................................................................................................................ 20 

—Twin Mountain Rock ........................................................................................................................................................................... 58 

—Total Stationary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1282 

Area Sources: 

—Unpaved Roads .................................................................................................................................................................................. 83 

—Paved Roads ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 101 

—Total Area Sources ......................................................................................................................................................................... 184 

Mobile Sources: 

—On-Road Motor Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 

Total PM–10 for CJPA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1478 

Source: 2010 Plan, Table 4.

The 2010 Plan’s inventory for sources 

within the CJPA is subdivided into three 

subcategories: Stationary sources; area 

sources; and mobile sources. Id. In the 

CJPA, the majority of daily PM–10 

emissions are estimated to come from 

stationary sources. Five sources account 

for 1,282 pounds or 86.7% of estimated 

total daily PM–10 emissions. The largest 

stationary source contributor is Coso 

Operating Company, a geothermal, wind 

and solar energy company, with an 

estimated 953 pounds per day of PM– 

10 emissions. These emissions estimates 

are derived from GBUAPCD source 

permits and include unpaved road and 

haul road PM–10 emissions for these 

sources. Id. 

The plan estimates daily area source 

emissions for unpaved and paved roads 

at 184 pounds per day (12.4% of total). 

CJPA on-road mobile source 

emissions are estimated to be 12 pounds 

per day (0.8% of total) and are based on 

CARB’s 2008 PM–10 emission estimates 

for Inyo County. CJPA estimates were 

derived from Inyo County estimates by 

pro-rating the amount of traffic (5.1%) 

in the CJPA. 2010 Plan, section 4, p. 10. 

GBUAPCD projects that PM–10 

emissions will not grow from 2008 to 

2025 because of the CJPA’s continued 

sparse population and lack of 

population growth, and relative stability 

of the area’s industrial activities. The 

CJPA has only 0.5% of Inyo County’s 

population and, according to U.S. 

Census Bureau figures, Inyo County 

population declined from 18,281 in 

1990 to 17,945 in 2000, and further 

declined to 17,136 in 2008, a population 

decrease of 4.5% over this 18-year 

period. 2010 Plan, section 4, p. 9–10. 

In conclusion, EPA believes that the 

selection of 2008 as the attainment year 

inventory and 2025 for the maintenance 

year inventory is appropriate since the 

area was determined to have attained by 

2008, and that given the sparse 

population, the lack of population 

growth and the lack of changes to 

industrial operations for the area, a 

constant inventory of 1,478 pounds per 

day from 2008 through 2025 is also 

appropriate for the CJPA. We have 

reviewed the 2010 Plan’s estimated 

attainment year emission inventory and 

determined that it is current, accurate 

and comprehensive, and meets EPA 

guidance and the CAA. Therefore we are 

proposing to approve the 2008 

inventory, which also serves as the 

maintenance plan’s attainment year 

inventory, under section 172(c) of the 

CAA. 

2. A Demonstration of Maintenance of 

the NAAQS for 10 Years After 

Redesignation 

Section 175A of the CAA requires a 

demonstration of maintenance of the 

NAAQS for 10 years after redesignation. 

A state generally may demonstrate 

maintenance of the NAAQS by either 

showing that future emissions of a 

pollutant or its precursors will not 

exceed the level of the attainment 

inventory, or by modeling to show that 

the future anticipated mix of sources 

and emission rates will not cause a 

violation of the NAAQS. 

As discussed above, the emissions 

reductions from Owens Lake provided 

the path to attainment for the CJPA and 

is also the paramount source of 

emissions that must be addressed in 

ensuring maintenance for the area. The 

emissions estimates and projections for 

the Owens Lake and the Owens Valley 

area have decreased significantly since 

2000 and are expected to continue to 

decrease until 2011 and then remain 

constant through 2025. 2010 Plan, 

section 5, pp. 11–13 and Figure 4. 

Figure 4 of the 2010 Plan shows actual 

and forecasted emissions from Owens 

Lake and from all sources in the Owens 

Valley area. Since 2000, the actual 

emissions have decreased by 90% as a 

result of dust control measures and the 

forecasts show emission from Owens 

Lake and the Owens Valley Area either 

staying constant or decreasing from 

2007 through 2026. EPA believes the 

forecasted decreases in emissions in 

2010 from Owens Lake are consistent 

with the additional control measures 

(discussed above) that are scheduled for 

implementation. 

In addition, we believe that, while not 

nearly as significant as the emissions 

reductions from Owens Lake, as 

discussed in the Inventory section above 

the total daily emissions of PM–10 from 

sources within CJPA will remain 

constant at 1,478 pounds per day from 

2008 through 2025. 2010 Plan, section 4. 

Sources within the CJPA are also subject 

to SIP-approved measures. See footnote 

11. 

Based on our review of the 

information presented in the 2010 Plan, 

we believe that the State has shown that 

attainment of the PM–10 standard will 

be maintained in the CJPA for at least 

ten years after redesignation. 

3. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Through Operation of an Appropriate 

Air Quality Monitoring Network 

In demonstrating maintenance, 

continued attainment of the NAAQS can 

be verified through operation of an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network. The Calcagni memo states that 

the maintenance plan should contain 

provisions for continued operation of air 

quality monitors that will provide such 

verification. 

The GBUAPCD has committed to 

continue daily monitoring of PM–10 at 

the Coso Junction monitoring site and is 

authorized to do so under the California 

Health and Safety Code section 40001. 

2010 Plan, section 5.1, p. 13 and section 

10, p. 23. The Coso Junction monitor is 

part of an EPA-approved air quality 

monitoring network. See December 1, 

2009 letter to Ted Schade, Air Pollution 

Control Officer, GBUAPCD, from Joseph 

Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality 

Analysis Section, EPA Region 9. As 

noted above, EPA and the District have 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 36031 

recently learned that changed 

conditions in the area adjacent to the 

Coso Junction monitor have resulted in 

the monitor not meeting EPA siting 

criteria since January 2010. As a result, 

data from the monitor during this period 

are not representative of the area for 

which the monitor is designed, and 

cannot be relied upon for regulatory 

purposes. GBUAPCD has already taken 

steps to correct the problems identified, 

which are linked to the operations of a 

nearby contractor. These include plans 

and actions to promote regrowth of 

vegetation in the area surrounding the 

monitor, and development of a 

competent crustal surface to reduce 

emissions. The GBUAPCD has already 

rerouted and restricted traffic from an 

unpaved access road near the monitor, 

and has directed the contractor to 

remove its equipment trailer from a 

location near the monitor. Additional 

gravel placement on the access road and 

areas on which vehicles will travel and 

the application of water will also reduce 

dust emissions near the monitor. The 

GBUAPCD is committed to resolving the 

siting issues and expects that the 

monitor will be collecting valid data for 

the area after July 1, 2010. Thus EPA 

believes that all these circumstances 

demonstrate that the District’s 

commitment to continued verification 

through operation of its monitor is 

credible and sufficient. 

4. Contingency Provisions That EPA 

Deems Necessary To Promptly Correct 

Any Violation of the NAAQS That 

Occurs After Redesignation of the Area 

Contingency provisions are required 

for maintenance plans under section 

175A of the CAA. These contingency 

measures are distinguished from those 

generally required for nonattainment 

areas under section 172(c)(9) in that 

they are not required to be fully adopted 

measures that will take effect without 

further action by the state in order for 

the maintenance plan to be approved. 

The Calcagni memo states that the 

contingency provisions of the 

maintenance plan should identify the 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation, and a time limit for 

action by the state. The memo also 

states that the contingency provisions 

should identify indicators or triggers 

which will be used to determine when 

the contingency measures need to be 

implemented. While the memo suggests 

inventory or monitoring indicators, it 

states that contingency provisions will 

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

As discussed in section C above, EPA 

is proposing to approve the GBUAPCD 

Board Order #080128–01 for Owens 

Lake dust controls as part of the 

maintenance plan for the CJPA. The 

Board Order is the enforceable 

mechanism by which the GBUAPCD 

requires the City of Los Angeles to 

implement, in phases, a total of 43 

square miles of dust control measures 

for Owens Lake. EPA believes that the 

successful implementation of 29.8 

square miles of controls by December 

2006 has let to significantly improved 

air quality in the CJPA and in fact has 

resulted in attainment of the PM–10 

standard in the CJPA, beginning in 

2008. Thus, EPA also believes that 

additional dust controls beyond the 29.8 

square miles of control, and 

implemented after attainment, can serve 

as contingency measures for the CJPA. 

The additional controls included in the 

2008 Board Order which EPA is today 

proposing to approve, include 

application of another 13.2 square miles 

of dust controls to Owens Lake by 

October 31, 2010. 2010 Plan, section 5. 

Since the primary source of PM–10 

emissions is from Owens Lake, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 13.2 square 

miles of dust controls for Owens Lake 

as meeting the requirement for 175A 

maintenance plan contingency measures 

for the CJPA. These dust controls for an 

additional 13.2 square miles of Owens 

Lake are already adopted controls and 

do not require a trigger for 

implementation. 

EPA has long approved contingency 

provisions that rely on reductions from 

measures that are already in place but 

are over and above those relied on for 

attainment and RFP under CAA section 

172(c)(9). See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 (April 

3, 1997); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 

1997); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001); 66 FR 

586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001). 

See discussion in our final PM–2.5 

implementation rule. 72 FR 20586, 

20642–20643 (April 25, 2007). This 

interpretation has also been upheld in 

LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 

2004), where the court in that case set 

forth its reasoning for accepting excess 

reductions from already adopted 

measures as contingency measures. 

Our interpretation that excess 

emission reductions can appropriately 

serve as section 172(c)(9) contingency 

measures is equally applicable to 

section 175A(d) contingency measures. 

EPA has approved maintenance plans 

under section 175A that included 

contingency provisions relying on 

measures to be implemented prior to 

any post-redesignation NAAQS 

violation. See 60 FR 27028, 27029 (May 

22, 1995); 73 FR 66759, 66,769 

(November 12, 2008). 

The Board Order also includes 

contingency measures for the Owens 

Valley Planning Area that are intended 

to address the CAA section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measure requirement for 

nonattainment area plans. The process 

for developing these contingency 

measures for Owens Lake is triggered by 

a determination by the GBUAPCD Air 

Pollution Control Officer (APCO) as 

described in paragraphs 10 through 13 

of the Board Order. As paragraph 10 

explains, these are annual 

determinations made by the GBUAPCD 

APCO beginning in 2011. Paragraph 11 

of the Board Order provides criteria and 

procedures for determining the need for 

contingency measures and 

supplemental control measures. 

Paragraph 13 ensures that the 

GBUAPCD can require the City of Los 

Angeles to take added reasonable 

measures not specifically addressed 

within paragraphs 10 or 12. EPA 

believes these procedures for additional 

measures at Owens Lake, which EPA is 

today proposing to approve, will also 

help to ensure continued attainment in 

the CJPA. 

Although local emissions within CJPA 

play a very minor role in maintenance 

of the PM–10 standard in CJPA, EPA 

notes that in addition to the 175A 

maintenance plan contingency measures 

directed at Owens Valley that we are 

proposing to approve, the GBUAPCD 

has also made a commitment to address 

local emissions in CJPA. GBUAPCD 

commits to investigate the cause of any 

such exceedance within 60 days from 

the end of the calendar quarter in which 

the exceedance occurs, and to address 

and correct exceedances found to be 

caused by local sources within 18 

months of identifying the cause of the 

exceedance. See 2010 Plan, sections 5.1 

and 10 and June 10, 2010 letter to 

Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, 

EPA Region 9, from Theodore D. 

Schade, Air Pollution Control Officer, 

GBUAPCD. EPA believes this 

commitment will also help to ensure 

maintenance in the CJPA. 

Finally, GBUAPCD is not proposing to 

remove or cease implementing any 

approved SIP measures. Thus, for the 

reasons set forth above, EPA is 

proposing to approve the contingency 

measures under section 175A(d). 

In light of the discussion set forth 

above, EPA is proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan for CJPA as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 175A. 

E. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects in the nonattainment or 

maintenance areas that are funded or 

approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

12 Depending on the year, the emissions from the 

Owens Valley area are estimated to be anywhere 

from approximately 8,000 to 47,000 tons per year 

(past actual estimates are anywhere from 10,000 to 

86,000 tons per year). See 2010 Plan, Figure 4. The 

CJPA PM–10 emissions of 269.74 tons per year 

(converted from the 1,478 pounds per day estimate 

found in the 2010 Plan, Table 4) are approximately 

3% when compared to the lowest estimate 

emissions level (8,000 tons per year) for the Owens 

Valley area. 

Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. chapter 

53) must conform to the applicable SIP. 

In short, a transportation plan and 

program are deemed to conform to the 

applicable SIP if the emissions resulting 

from the implementation of that 

transportation plan and program are less 

than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budget (MVEB) established in 

the SIP for the attainment year, 

maintenance year and other analysis 

years. See, generally, 40 CFR part 93. 

Section 93.109(m) of EPA’s 

regulations implementing the 

transportation conformity requirement 

(40 CFR part 93) states that an area is 

not required to satisfy a regional 

emissions analysis for a pollutant if EPA 

finds that motor vehicle emissions of 

that pollutant are an insignificant 

contributor to the area’s air quality 

problem. To make this demonstration, 

the SIP would have to show that it 

would be unreasonable to expect that 

the area would experience enough 

motor vehicle emissions growth in that 

pollutant/precursor for a NAAQS 

violation to occur. Factors to consider in 

such a demonstration include the 

following: the percentage of motor 

vehicle emissions in the context of the 

total SIP inventory; the current state of 

air quality as determined by monitoring 

data for that NAAQS; the absence of SIP 

motor vehicle control measures; and 

historical trends and future projections 

of the growth of motor vehicle 

emissions. 

Today, we are proposing to find that 

motor vehicle-related PM–10 emissions 

(i.e., tailpipe emissions, brake and tire 

wear emissions, and re-entrained dust 

emissions from paved and unpaved 

roads) are insignificant contributors to 

the CJPA’s PM–10 nonattainment 

problem, based on our consideration of 

the factors identified in EPA’s 

transportation conformity regulations 

and on the unique circumstances of the 

PM–10 CJPA. 

As discussed in section 4 of the 2010 

Plan, at 196 pounds per day, the total 

on-road-related PM–10 emissions from 

motor vehicles are 13.3% of the 1,478 

pounds per day attainment inventory for 

the CJPA. However, as explained 

elsewhere in this notice, air pollution in 

the CJPA is dominated by windblown 

dust transported from Owens Lake, 

which has been estimated to be as much 

as 1.55 million pounds per day. The 

contribution of Owens Lake to the CJPA 

is overwhelming when compared to the 

daily emissions estimate of 1,478 

pounds per day for all of the sources 

within the CJPA, and is even more 

overwhelming when compared to the 

on-road PM–10 emissions of 196 lbs/ 

day. In comparison with the lowest 

projected annual PM–10 emissions 

levels for the Owens Valley, 8,000 tons 

per year, CJPA motor vehicle related 

PM–10 emissions are insignificant at 

196 pounds per day (35.8 tons per year), 

which means that on-road motor vehicle 

emissions represent just 0.4% of the 

inventory when emissions from Owens 

Valley are considered.12 EPA further 

notes that the four exceedances 

attributed to CJPA sources were caused 

by windblown dust from fallow 

agricultural land, wildfire smoke and an 

unpaved truck parking area. See 2010 

Plan, section 3, pp. 4–9. As discussed 

above and in the 2010 Plan, 

exceedances due to these sources are 

not expected to recur because the 

agricultural land has been re-vegetated 

and the truck parking lot has been 

paved. 

While EPA indicated in its 

Transportation Conformity final rule 

that mobile source emissions of 

approximately 10% or less may be 

considered insignificant, EPA further 

noted that ten percent should be viewed 

as a general guideline only, and that 

mobile source emissions that are above 

10% of total emissions could still be 

found to be insignificant, depending on 

the circumstances. Given the unique 

circumstances of the CJPA, EPA believes 

that the motor vehicle emissions 

contribution to the CJPA is insignificant. 

In addition to the overwhelming 

contribution of Owens Valley to the 

CJPA PM–10 problem, EPA considered 

the control measures adopted for Owens 

Valley as one of the relevant factual 

circumstances. The GBUAPCD exercises 

joint jurisdiction over Owens Valley and 

the CJPA and therefore has authority to 

adopt and implement controls in both 

areas. Pursuant to this authority, the 

GBUAPCD has in fact adopted and 

implemented control measures to 

address the PM–10 contribution to the 

CJPA from Owens Valley. See section C 

above for a detailed discussion of these 

control measures. 

Finally, EPA notes that in 1999 (See 

64 FR 34173 and 64 FR 48305), EPA 

found that the motor vehicle emissions 

contribution in Owens Valley itself was 

insignificant. This earlier finding for 

Owens Valley supports the proposed 

finding for the CJPA—if motor vehicles 

are not a significant contributor to the 

PM–10 emissions problem in Owens 

Valley itself, where the primary source 

of PM–10 emissions is located, then it 

is reasonable to conclude that motor 

vehicle emissions are also not a 

significant contributor to the PM–10 

emissions problem in neighboring CJPA. 

In the context of these unique factual 

circumstances, EPA is proposing to find 

that motor vehicle emissions are an 

insignificant contributor to the PM–10 

problem in the CJPA. Consideration of 

the other factors specified in EPA’s 

regulations supports this proposed 

finding and is described below. 

Current Air Quality as Determined by 

PM–10 Monitoring Data 

Current air quality as determined by 

PM–10 monitoring data show that the 

CJPA attains the PM–10 standard. As 

discussed in section A above, for PM– 

10 in the CJPA, EPA has reviewed the 

ambient air quality data and determined 

that the CJPA has attained the PM–10 

standard through 2009 and continues to 

attain to date. See 75 FR 13710 and 75 

FR 27944. 

Absence of SIP Motor Vehicle Control 

Measures 

There are no local PM–10 motor 

vehicle control measures for the CJPA. 

With the exception of GBUAPCD Rule 

401—Fugitive Dust, that may apply to 

area sources such as unpaved roads, 

there are no specific CJPA only PM–10 

motor vehicle control measures. Of 

course, national and state-wide motor 

vehicle emission controls may apply, 

but they are not GBUAPCD adopted and 

CJPA specific motor vehicle control 

measures. Furthermore, these state-wide 

and national emission control measures 

would contribute to reductions in motor 

vehicle related PM–10 emissions in the 

CJPA. 

Historical Trends and Future 

Projections of the Growth of Motor 

Vehicle Related PM–10 Emissions 

Finally, historical trends and future 

projections of the growth of motor 

vehicle related PM–10 emissions 

suggest that motor vehicle related PM– 

10 emissions are not likely to increase, 

and therefore not likely to cause or 

contribute to violations of the PM–10 

standard. The CJPA is within a sparsely 

populated area of Inyo County, 

California. An estimated 102 people live 

in two communities of Pearsonville and 

Homewood Canyon. These two 

communities are located at the southern 

end of the CJPA, approximately 25 miles 

apart and separated by the China Lake 

NAWS. Commuters from these 

communities most likely travel south 

out of the CJPA to Ridgecrest, a small 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 36033 

13U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American 

Community Survey. 

14 Data source is http://www.nationalatlas.gov; 

http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/fedlandp.html; shape 

file from Federal Lands of the United States map. 

community of approximately 27,600 

people.13 According to US Census 

figures, in the period 1990 to 2008, Inyo 

County population did not increase, but 

dropped 4.5%. (See 2010 Plan, Section 

4.4, pages 10–11.) Within the CJPA, 

almost all of the land, 98.5%, is 

controlled by the federal government: 

the Department of Defense through the 

China Lake NAWS controls 63%; the 

Department of the Interior through the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

the Forest Service controls 32.6% and 

2.9%, respectively, with just over 

twelve percent (12.2%) of BLM land 

designated as wilderness.14 All of these 

entities restrict access, development, or 

both within the lands they control. In 

summary, given a sparse population, 

historically declining or no population 

growth, the absence of any significant 

commutershed in the CJPA, limited land 

ownership, and restricted access or 

development, PM–10 related motor 

vehicle emissions are not expected to 

increase in the CJPA to the point where 

a violation would occur. 

EPA Proposal for Transportation 

Conformity and MVEBs in the CJPA 

Given the factors discussed above, we 

are proposing to find that motor vehiclerelated PM–10 emissions are 

insignificant contributors to the CJPA’s 

PM–10 nonattainment problem and that 

it would be unreasonable to expect that 

motor vehicle related PM–10 emissions 

would grow enough within the CJPA to 

threaten the PM–10 standard. If this 

proposal is finalized, a regional 

emissions analysis would not be 

required for PM–10 in any future 

conformity determination in the CJPA. 

Given that the CJPA is an isolated 

rural area, if EPA takes final action 

finding the motor vehicle emissions 

PM–10 contribution is insignificant, a 

conformity determination would be 

necessary only in the case where a 

transportation project needs federal 

funding or approval. Even with an 

insignificance finding, such a 

conformity determination would need 

to include a hot-spot analysis, if the 

project is one of the types found in 40 

CFR 93.123(b). 

IV. Proposed Actions 

Based on our review of the 2010 Plan 

submitted by the State, air quality 

monitoring data, and other relevant 

materials, EPA believes the State has 

addressed all the necessary 

requirements for the redesignation of 

the CJPA to attainment, pursuant to 

CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. 

Assuming that California adopts the 

maintenance plan and associated 

controls as they are currently drafted, 

EPA is therefore proposing to 

redesignate the CJPA to attainment for 

the PM–10 NAAQS. EPA also proposes 

to approve the maintenance plan for 

CJPA which includes the GBUAPCD 

Board Order #080128–01 as a SIP 

revision. As discussed above the Board 

Order includes all of the control 

measures in the 1998 Owens Valley SIP, 

and the 2003 and 2008 SIP revisions for 

Owens Valley. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the emissions inventory 

submitted with the maintenance plan as 

meeting the requirements of section 

172(c)(3). If the State substantially 

revises the submitted control measures 

or maintenance plan from the versions 

proposed by the State and reviewed 

here, this will result in the need for 

additional proposed rulemaking on the 

maintenance plan and redesignation. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to find the 

contribution of motor vehicles to the 

area’s PM–10 problem insignificant, and 

if this insignificance finding is finalized, 

the area would not have to complete a 

regional emissions analysis for any 

transportation conformity 

determinations necessary in the CJPA. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by State law. A redesignation 

to attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely approves State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

these reasons, these actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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. 

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


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 121 / Thursday, June 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: June 18, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–15453 Filed 6–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 87 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0294; FRL–9167–4] 

RIN 2060–AP79 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Lead Emissions From 

Piston-Engine Aircraft Using Leaded 

Aviation Gasoline; Extension of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 60-day 

extension of the public comment period 

for the Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Lead Emissions From 

Piston-Engine Aircraft Using Leaded 

Aviation Gasoline (hereinafter referred 

to as the ANPR). EPA published this 

ANPR, which included a request for 

comment, in the Federal Register on 

April 28, 2010. The public comment 

period was to end on June 28, 2010 (60 

days after its publication in the Federal 

Register). This document extends the 

comment period an additional 60 days 

until August 27, 2010. This extension of 

the comment period is provided to 

allow the public additional time to 

provide comment on the ANPR. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

ANPR published April 28, 2010 (75 FR 

22440) is extended. Written comments 

must be received on or before August 

27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–0294, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include 

two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center 

(Air Docket), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room: 

3334 Mail Code: 2822T, Washington, 

DC. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0294. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://www. 

epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For 

additional instructions on submitting 

comments, please refer to the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

How can I get copies of this document, 

the advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking, and other related 

information? 

The EPA has established a docket for 

this action under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2007–0294. The EPA has also 

developed a Web site for aviation, 

including the ANPR, at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm. Please 

refer to the ANPR for detailed 

information on accessing information 

related to this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marion Hoyer, Assessment and 

Standards Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 

Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 

48105; telephone number: (734) 214– 

4513; fax number: (734) 214–4821; email address: hoyer.marion@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: In the ANPR, EPA 

described and invited comment from all 

interested parties on the data available 

for evaluating lead emissions, ambient 

concentrations and potential exposure 

to lead from the use of leaded aviation 

gasoline (avgas) in piston-engine 

powered aircraft. The ANPR is one of 

the steps EPA has taken in response to 

a petition submitted by Friends of the 

Earth (FOE) requesting that EPA find 

endangerment from and regulate lead 

emitted by piston-engine aircraft, or if 

insufficient information exists, to 

commence a study. In addition to 

describing and inviting comment on the 

current data, the ANPR also describes 

considerations regarding emission 

engine standards and requests comment 

on approaches for transitioning the 

piston-engine fleet to unleaded avgas. 

Extension of Comment Period: EPA 

received requests for an extension of the 

ANPR comment period that are 

available in the docket for this rule 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0294). After 

considering the requests, EPA has 

determined that a 60-day extension of 

the comment period would provide the 

public adequate time to provide 

meaningful comment on the ANPR. 

Accordingly, the public comment 

period for the ANPR is extended until 

August 27, 2010. EPA does not 

anticipate any further extension of the 

comment period at this time. 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1