Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54031 

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. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0336; FRL–9191–1] 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State of 

California’s request to redesignate the 

Coso Junction planning area (CJPA) to 

attainment for the particulate matter of 

ten microns or less (PM–10) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

EPA is also approving the PM–10 

emissions inventory and the 

maintenance plan for the CJPA, 

including control measures for Owens 

Lake, the primary cause of PM–10 

nonattainment in the CJPA. Finally, 

EPA is finding the contribution of motor 

vehicles to the area’s PM–10 problem 

insignificant; consequently, the State 

will not have to complete a regional 

emissions analysis for PM–10 in any 

future transportation conformity 

determination for the CJPA. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on October 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the 

supporting information for this action, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0336, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking portal, 

http://www.regulations.gov, please 

follow the online instructions; or, 

2. Visit our regional office at, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://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., Confidential 

Business Information). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

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. Summary of Proposed Action 

II. The Coso Junction PM–10 Monitoring Site 

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

IV. EPA’s Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

On June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36023), 

based on EPA’s review of the ‘‘2010 PM– 

10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request for the Coso Junction Planning 

Area,’’ (the 2010 Plan) submitted by 

California, air quality monitoring data, 

and other relevant materials, EPA 

proposed to approve the State of 

California’s request to redesignate the 

CJPA to attainment of the PM–10 

NAAQS, pursuant to Clean Air Act 

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

The background for today’s actions is 

discussed in detail in EPA’s June 24 

proposed rulemaking, and in EPA’s 

determination that the CJPA has 

attained the PM–10 NAAQS. 75 FR 

13710 (March 23, 2010) and 75 FR 

27944 (May 19, 2010). 

EPA proposed to approve the State’s 

redesignation request, based on EPA’s 

determination that the most recent three 

years of complete, quality-assured data 

for the period 2007–2009 showed that 

the CJPA had attained the PM–10 

NAAQS, and on EPA’s finding that the 

area meets all other CAA redesignation 

requirements under sections 

107(d)(3)(E) and 175. 

EPA proposed to approve the State’s 

maintenance plan, which includes 

control measures for Owens Lake 

implemented through the Great Basin 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(GBUAPCD) Board Order #080128–01 

(Appendix C of the 2010 Plan). EPA’s 

proposal discussed the historical 

relationship between PM–10 emissions 

from Owens Lake and violations of the 

PM–10 NAAQS in the CJPA, the 

application of control measures on 

Owens Lake that have resulted in 

attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS in the 

CJPA, and the continued controls that 

are expected to provide for maintenance 

of the PM–10 NAAQS into the future. 

We also proposed to approve the 

emissions inventory submitted with the 

maintenance plan as meeting the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3). 

Finally, EPA proposed to find that 

motor vehicle-related PM–10 emissions 

are insignificant contributors to the 

area’s PM–10 problem. As a result of 

this finding, the state would not have to 

complete a regional emissions analysis 

for PM–10 in any future transportation 

conformity determination for the CJPA. 

EPA’s June 24, 2010 proposal was 

based on a ‘‘parallel processing’’ 1

request from the State of California. 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. As expected, 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) adopted the 2010 Plan on June 

24, 2010 and submitted the 2010 Plan to 

EPA on July 14, 2010. The July 14, 2010 

submittal is identical to the materials 

CARB submitted for parallel processing 

on May 28, 2010. Consequently, there is 

no need to revise our June 24, 2010 

proposal and we may proceed with 

today’s final action on the basis of our 

prior proposal. 

II. The Coso Junction PM–10 

Monitoring Site 

In EPA’s proposed rule, we noted that 

the GBUAPCD had determined that the 

Coso Junction monitoring site had been 

violating siting criteria since January 

2010. 75 FR 36023, 36025. As discussed 

in the proposed rule, during a site visit 

on May 27, 2010, the GBUAPCD learned 

that the monitoring site had not been 

watered for several years resulting in a 

lack of vegetation surrounding the site 

thus exposing friable soils that could 

impact monitor readings. In addition, 

the GBUAPCD learned that beginning in 

January 2010 a contractor for the 

property owner, the Coso Operating 

Company, was driving over the unpaved 

access road adjacent to the monitor on 

a regular basis, thus causing the 

deterioration in the condition of the 

unpaved access road which had 

previously been covered by gravel. This 

combination of events near the monitor 

led the District to conclude that the data 

collected from January 2010 through 

May 27, 2010 must be considered 

invalid for regulatory purposes, and 

EPA agreed with the District’s 

assessment. Following the site visit, the 

District and the Coso Operating 

Company promptly started to work on 

resolving the problems in order to be 

able to again collect valid data as soon 

as possible. The Coso Operating 

Company thereafter restricted traffic on 

the unpaved access road to the monitor 

and moved the contractor’s trailer to a 

location away from the monitor site. 

The District and the Coso Operating 

Company also planned to develop a 

mitigation plan to apply water to the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
54032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

monitor site area and to re-vegetate the 

area. Id. 

Since our proposed rule, the 

GBUAPCD has reported that the new 

location of the contractor’s trailer does 

not require the contractors to drive past 

the monitor site, the drive area around 

the monitor site is now covered with 

gravel to reduce dust and the turning 

area pavement was enlarged to prevent 

kicking up dust at the edges. See July 

20, 2010 e-mail from Meredith Kurpius, 

EPA Region 9, Air Quality Assessment 

Office, to Doris Lo, EPA Region 9, Air 

Planning Office, Re: Summary of 

monitoring issues that should be 

addressed by the Great Basin District. 

The GBUAPCD has also reported that 

the Coso Operating Company has begun 

watering of the area around the Coso 

Junction monitor site and that a crust is 

beginning to form which will allow the 

District to begin collecting valid data on 

August 1, 2010. See July 28, 2010 e-mail 

from Ted Schade, Air Pollution Control 

Officer, GBUAPCD, to Doris Lo, EPA 

Region 9, Air Planning Office, with 

attachments. The Coso Operating 

Company has submitted to the 

GBUAPCD a dust control plan (or, as 

referred to in the proposed rule, a 

mitigation plan) for the Coso Junction 

monitor area which includes 

commitments for application and 

monitoring of gravel, application of 

water to form a visual crust, monitoring 

of the visual crust and reapplication of 

water as necessary, re-vegetation in the 

fall season in areas that had previously 

been vegetated, limiting road access to 

authorized personnel and providing 

monthly status reports to GBUAPCD 

through June 2011. See attachment to 

July 28, 2010 e-mail from Ted Schade, 

‘‘Coso PM10 Containment Area Fugitive 

Dust Plan.’’ Moreover, the Coso 

Operating Company is required by 

conditions in a permit to operate issued 

by GBUAPCD to maintain the Coso 

Junction monitor site and to collect PM– 

10 samples using EPA-approved 

reference or equivalent method 

samplers. See attachment to July 28, 

2010 e-mail from Ted Schade, Permit to 

Operate, Permit Number 234, conditions 

27 and 36. Finally, the GBUAPCD plans 

to install a Web camera to help monitor 

activities near the monitor site in the 

future. See July 28, 2010 e-mail from 

Ted Schade to Doris Lo. EPA will 

continue to work with the GBUACPD to 

ensure that the Coso Junction monitor 

site issues are fully resolved and that 

the site is maintained in order for the 

District to meet its commitment to 

continue daily PM–10 monitoring at the 

Coso Junction monitoring site in order 

to verify continued attainment of the 

PM–10 standard in the CJPA. See 75 FR 

36023, 36030. 

III. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA provided for a 30-day public 

comment period on our proposed 

action. This comment period ended on 

July 26, 2010. We received no 

comments. 

IV. EPA’s Final Action 

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 

satisfied all requirements for 

redesignation of the CJPA to attainment, 

pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) 

and 175A. Consequently, EPA is 

approving the State’s request and is 

redesignating the CJPA to attainment for 

the PM–10 NAAQS. EPA is also 

approving the maintenance plan for the 

CJPA, which includes as a SIP revision 

GBUAPCD Board Order #080128–01. 

EPA is also approving the emissions 

inventory submitted with the 

maintenance plan as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). 

Finally, EPA finds that motor vehiclerelated PM–10 emissions are 

insignificant contributors to the area’s 

PM–10 problem; consequently, a 

regional emissions analysis will not be 

required for PM–10 in any future 

transportation conformity determination 

for the CJPA, as of the effective date of 

this final rule. 

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 final 

action does not 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54033 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 2, 2010. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: July 29, 2010. 

Jeff Scott, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

■ Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(380) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(380) The following plan was 

submitted on July 14, 2010, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) ‘‘Board Order #080128–01 

Requiring the City of Los Angeles to 

Undertake Measures to Control PM–10 

Emissions from the Dried Bed of Owens 

Lake,’’ including Attachments A–D, 

adopted February 1, 2008, and included 

as Appendix C to the ‘‘2010 PM–10 

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request for the Coso Junction Planning 

Area,’’ adopted May 17, 2010. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (GBUAPCD). 

(1) Non-regulatory portions of ‘‘The 

2010 PM–10 Maintenance Plan and 

Redesignation Request for the Coso 

Junction Planning Area’’ (the 2010 Plan), 

including Appendices A, B, and D, 

adopted May 17, 2010. 

(2) Letter dated June 10, 2010 from 

Theodore D. Schade, GBUAPCD, to 

Deborah Jordan, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 9, regarding Coso Junction PM– 

10 Contingency Measures. 

(3) GBUAPCD Board Resolution 

2010–01, dated May 17, 2010, adopting 

the 2010 Plan. 

(B) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). 

(1) CARB Resolution 10–25, dated 

June 24, 2010, adopting the 2010 Plan. 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 4. Section 81.305 is amended in the 

table for ‘‘California–PM–10’’ by revising 

the entry under Inyo County for the 

‘‘Coso Junction planning area’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.305 California. 

* * * * * 

CALIFORNIA—PM–10 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

Inyo County 

Coso Junction planning area .......................... October 4, 2010 ......... Attainment.

That portion of Inyo County contained within 

Hydrologic Unit #18090205.

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–21960 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0910; FRL–8842–7] 

Thiabendazole; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of thiabendazole, 

and its metabolites, benzimidazole (free 

and conjugated), [2-(4-thiazolyl) 

benzimidazole], in or on corn. Syngenta 

Crop Protection requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 3, 2010. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before November 2, 2010, and 

must be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0910. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

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

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES