Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45477 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is 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.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is 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 

• Does 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, the Kentucky SIP is not 

approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area 

where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 14, 2015. 

Heather Mc Teer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18613 Filed 7–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0323; FRL–9931–15– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oregon: Grants 

Pass Second 10-Year PM10 Limited 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the limited maintenance plan submitted 

by the State of Oregon on April 22, 

2015, for the Grants Pass maintenance 

area for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). 

The plan explains how this area will 

continue to meet the PM10 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for a 

second 10-year period through 2025. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 31, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0323, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: edmondson.lucy@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Lucy Edmondson, U.S. EPA 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Lucy 

Edmondson, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–150. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lucy Edmondson at telephone number: 

(360) 753–9082, email address: 

edmondson.lucy@epa.gov, or the above 

EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

direct final action, of the same title, 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. The EPA is 

simultaneously approving the State’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial SIP 

revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the preamble to 

the direct final rule. If the EPA receives 

no adverse comments, the EPA will not 

take further action on this proposed 

rule. 

If the EPA receives adverse 

comments, the EPA will withdraw the 

direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. The EPA will address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if we receive adverse comment on 

an amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

the EPA may adopt as final those 

provisions of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. 

Dated: July 8, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18349 Filed 7–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0279; FRL–9930–98– 

Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; 

Mammoth Lakes; Redesignation 

Request; PM10 Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See Section III in this action for list of 

documents submitted by the California. See the 

docket for this action for copies of the submittal 

documents including the October 21, 2014 

submittal letter from the State. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

as a revision to the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), California’s 

request to redesignate the Mammoth 

Lakes nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 1987 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter of ten microns or less 

(PM10). EPA is also proposing to 

approve the maintenance plan for the 

Mammoth Lakes area and the associated 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for use 

in transportation conformity 

determinations. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve the attainment 

year emissions inventory. EPA is 

proposing these actions because the SIP 

revision meets the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act and EPA guidance for 

maintenance plans and motor vehicle 

emissions budgets. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

August 31, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0279 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

online instructions. 

2. Email: wamsley.jerry@ epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Jerry Wamsley (Air2), 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 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 email. 

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 email 

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. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy format at EPA Region 

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), 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: Jerry 

Wamsley, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4111, wamsley.jerry@ epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Our Proposal 

II. Background of This Action 

A. The PM10 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

B. PM10 Planning Requirements Applicable 

to the Mammoth Lakes Area 

C. Summary of the PM10 Attainment Plan 

for the Mammoth Lakes Area 

III. Procedural Requirements for the 

Adoption and Submittal of SIP Revisions 

IV. Substantive Requirements for 

Redesignation to Attainment of a 

NAAQS 

V. Our Evaluation of California’s 

Redesignation Request for the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Nonattainment Area 

A. Our Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the Applicable NAAQS 

B. The Area Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Meeting Requirements Applicable for 

Purposes of Redesignation Under Section 

110 and Part D of the Clean Air Act 

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under Section 

110 of the Clean Air Act 

2. SIP Requirements Under Part D of the 

Clean Air Act 

a. Permits for New and Modified Major 

Stationary Sources 

b. Control of PM10 Precursor Pollutants 

c. General and Transportation Conformity 

Requirements 

C. The Area Must Show the Improvement 

in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and 

Enforceable Emission Reductions 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Under Clean Air Act 

Section 175A 

1. Attainment and Projected Emissions 

Inventories 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

3. Monitoring Network and Verifying 

Continued Attainment 

4. Contingency Provisions 

E. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Our Proposal 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 redesignation 

and maintenance plan. We are 

proposing this action because 

California’s SIP revision meets the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) requirements and EPA 

guidance concerning redesignations to 

attainment of a National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) 

and maintenance plans. 

First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), 

EPA is proposing to approve the State’s 

request to redesignate the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 nonattainment area to 

attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. Our 

proposal is based on our conclusion that 

the area has met the five criteria for 

redesignation under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E): (1) The area has attained 

the PM10 NAAQS; (2) the required 

portions of the SIP are fully approved 

for the area; (3) the improvement in 

ambient air quality in the area is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in PM10 emissions; (4) California has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 nonattainment 

area with respect to section 110 and part 

D of the CAA; and, (5) the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, as 

described below, meets the 

requirements of CAA section 175A. 

Second, under section 110(k)(3) of the 

CAA, EPA is proposing to approve as a 

revision to the SIP, the maintenance 

plan developed by the Great Basin 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(GBUAPCD) entitled ‘‘2014 Update Air 

Quality Maintenance Plan and 

Redesignation Request for the Town of 

Mammoth Lakes’’ (herein referred to as 

the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan), dated May 5, 2014, submitted by 

California, through the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB), to EPA on 

October 21, 2014.1 EPA is proposing to 

find that the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan meets the 

requirements in section 175A of the 

CAA. The plan’s maintenance 

demonstration shows that the Mammoth 

Lakes area will continue to attain the 

PM10 NAAQS for at least 10 years 

beyond redesignation (i.e., through 

2030). The plan’s contingency 

provisions incorporate a process for 

identifying new or more stringent 

control measures in the event of a future 

monitored violation. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve the plan’s 2012 

emission inventory as meeting the 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45479 

2An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard, 150 mg/ 

m3, after rounding to the nearest 10 mg/m3 (i.e., 

values ending in five or greater are to be rounded 

up). Consequently, a recorded value of 154 mg/m3

would not be an exceedance because it would be 

rounded to 150 mg/m3; whereas, a recorded value 

of 155 mg/m3 would be an exceedance because it 

would be rounded to 160 mg/m3. See 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix K, section 1.0. 

3For the designated boundaries of the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305. 

The Mammoth Lakes PM10 nonattainment area is 

located in the southern portion of Mono County, 

California; see Figures 1–1 and 1–2 within the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, pages 3 

and 4. 

requirements of CAA section 172 and 

175A. 

Third, EPA is proposing to approve 

the motor vehicle emission budgets 

(budgets) in the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan because we find they 

meet the applicable transportation 

conformity requirements under 40 CFR 

93.118(e). With this Federal Register 

notice, EPA is informing the public that 

we are reviewing the plan’s budgets for 

adequacy. With this action, we are 

starting the public comment period on 

adequacy of the proposed budgets. 

Please see the DATES section of this 

proposal for the closing date of the 

comment period. 

II. Background of This Action 

A. The PM10 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard 

EPA sets the NAAQS for certain 

ambient air pollutants at levels required 

to protect public health and welfare. 

Particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to a nominal 

ten micrometers, or PM10, is one of the 

ambient air pollutants for which EPA 

has established health-based standards. 

As discussed below, we have 

promulgated and revised the PM10

NAAQS several times. 

EPA revised the NAAQS for 

particulate matter on July 1, 1987, 

replacing standards for total suspended 

particulates (TSP, particulate less than 

30 microns in diameter) with new 

standards applying only to particulate 

matter up to 10 microns in diameter 

(PM10) (52 FR 24633). In 1987, EPA 

established two PM10 standards, an 

annual standard and a 24-hour standard. 

An area attains the 24-hour PM10

standard of 150 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) when the expected 

number of days per calendar year with 

a 24-hour concentration exceeding the 

standard (referred to as an exceedance), 

is equal to or less than one.2 The annual 

PM10 standard is attained when the 

expected annual arithmetic mean of the 

24-hour samples averaged over a three 

year period does not exceed 50 mg/m3. 

See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix K. 

In a 2006 p.m. NAAQS revision, the 

24-hour PM10 standards were retained 

but the annual standards were revoked, 

effective December 18, 2006 (71 FR 

61144, October 17, 2006). On January 

15, 2013, EPA announced that it was 

again retaining the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS as a 24-hour standard of 150 

mg/m3 (78 FR 3086). California’s 

submittal of the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan addresses the 1987 

24-hour PM10 standard, as originally 

promulgated, and as reaffirmed on 

January 15, 2013. 

B. PM10 Planning Requirements 

Applicable to the Mammoth Lakes Area 

On the date of enactment of the 1990 

CAA Amendments, PM10 areas meeting 

the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) 

of the amended Act, such as Mammoth 

Lakes, were designated nonattainment 

by operation of law (56 FR 11101, 

March 15, 1991). See 40 CFR 81.305. 

Once an area is designated 

nonattainment, section 188 of the CAA 

outlines the process for classification of 

the area and establishes the area’s 

attainment date. Consistent with section 

188(a), at the time of designation, all 

PM10 nonattainment areas were initially 

classified as moderate by operation of 

law, including the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 nonattainment area.3

The 1990 CAA established new 

planning requirements and attainment 

deadlines for the PM10 NAAQS. A 

fundamental nonattainment area 

requirement applicable to the Mammoth 

Lakes area is that the State submit a SIP 

demonstrating attainment of the PM10

NAAQS. This demonstration must be 

based upon enforceable control 

measures producing emission 

reductions and emissions at or below 

the level predicted to result in 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS 

throughout the nonattainment area (see 

CAA section 189(a)). As stated in 

section 189(a)(1) of the CAA, the State 

was required to make the following SIP 

submittals by November 15, 1991: The 

State had to submit a SIP ensuring 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) no 

later than December 10, 1993, as 

required by CAA section 189(a)(1)(C); 

and, the State had to submit a SIP 

providing for expeditious attainment by 

the applicable attainment date, 

December 31, 1994, as required by CAA 

sections 188(c)(1)and 189(a)(1)(B). 

More specifically, Subparts 1 and 4 of 

part D, title 1 of the CAA contain air 

quality planning requirements for PM10

nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 of part 

D, sections 172(c) and 176 contain 

general requirements for areas 

designated as nonattainment. The 

subpart 1 requirements include, among 

other things, provisions for RACM, 

reasonable further progress (RFP), 

emissions inventories, contingency 

measures and conformity. Subpart 4 of 

part D contains specific planning and 

scheduling requirements for PM10

nonattainment areas. Section 189(a), (c), 

and (e) detail requirements that apply 

specifically to moderate PM10

nonattainment areas such as Mammoth 

Lakes. These requirements include the 

following: (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 PM10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors except where the 

Administrator has determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels exceeding the NAAQS 

within the area. 

C. Summary of the PM10 Attainment 

Plan for the Mammoth Lakes Area 

GBUAPCD adopted its moderate area 

Air Quality Management Plan for PM10

in December 1990 (1990 AQMP). 

California submitted the 1990 AQMP for 

the Mammoth Lakes area on September 

11, 1991 with an addenda submitted on 

January 9, 1992. Subsequently, EPA 

approved the 1990 AQMP in 1996 (61 

FR 32341, June 24, 1996). In our 1996 

action, we approved the following 

components of the 1990 AQMP: The 

emissions inventory; its provision for 

implementation of RACM; and, the 

demonstration of attainment. In support 

of the 1990 AQMP, the State submitted 

two local rules: GBUAPCD Rule 431— 

Particulate Emissions; and Town of 

Mammoth Lakes Municipal Code, 

Chapter 8.3, Particulate Emissions 

Regulations. We also approved these 

rules, which control PM10 emissions 

from entrained road dust and wood 

burning fireplaces and appliances, into 

the SIP in our 1996 action (61 FR 

32341). GBUAPCD Rule 431 was revised 

on December 4, 2006 and subsequently 

approved into the SIP in 2007 (72 FR 

61525, October 31, 2007). 

Because of the timing of the 

development of the 1990 AQMP, the 

plan did not address subsequent SIP 

requirements such as contingency 

measures and transportation conformity. 

We will review how these and other 

CAA requirements, such as a permit 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4See Resolution 14–27, State of California, Air 

Resources Board, ‘‘Approval and Submittal of the 

Town of Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Redesignation Request’’, dated September 18, 

2014. 

5See letter from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, 

CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated October 21, 

2014, with attachments. 

6The completeness criteria fall into two 

categories: administrative information and technical 

support information. The administrative 

information provides documentation that the State 

has followed required administrative procedures 

during the SIP-adoption process; thus, ensuring that 

we have a legally-adopted SIP revision before us. 

The technical support information provides us the 

information we need to determine the impact of the 

proposed revision on attainment and maintenance 

of the air quality standards. 

7The General Preamble was first published at 57 

FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and supplemented at 57 

FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 

program for new and modified 

stationary sources, were met by the 

State in section V, below. 

III. Procedural Requirements for the 

Adoption and Submittal of SIP 

Revisions 

The GBUAPCD governing Board 

adopted the ‘‘2014 Air Quality 

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request for the Town of Mammoth 

Lakes’’ on May 5, 2014 and forwarded 

it to CARB on May 22, 2014. CARB held 

a Board Hearing on September 18, 2014 

and adopted the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan.4 California 

submitted their redesignation request 

and the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan to EPA on October 

21, 2014.5

CARB’s SIP submittal includes the 

following documents: (1) A submittal 

letter dated October 21, 2014, from 

Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB 

to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9 

submitting the State’s redesignation 

request and Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan; (2) a transmittal 

letter dated May 22, 2014 from Duane 

Ono, Deputy Air Pollution Control 

Officer, GBUAPCD to Richard Corey, 

Executive Officer, CARB; (3) May 22, 

2014 Affidavit from The Clerk of the 

GBUAPCD Board, providing Proof of 

Publication of Public Notice for Public 

Hearing on ‘‘2014 Update Air Quality 

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request for the Town of Mammoth 

Lakes’’ and the May 5, 2014 GBUAPCD 

Board Hearing; (4) GBUAPCD Board 

Order #140505–03 approving and 

adopting the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan, dated May 5, 2014; 

(5) CARB’s August 8, 2014 Notice of 

Public Hearing for consideration of the 

adoption and approval of the 

redesignation request and Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

associated motor vehicle emissions 

budgets on September 18, 2014; (6) 

‘‘2014 Update Air Quality Maintenance 

Plan and Redesignation Request for the 

Town of Mammoth Lakes’’ dated May 5, 

2014; (7) CARB Board Resolution 14–27 

adopting the redesignation request and 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan; and, (8) the CARB Staff Report, 

dated August 18, 2014, containing the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

adopted at the CARB Board hearing. All 

of these documents are available for 

review in the docket for today’s 

proposed rule. 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) of the 

Act require states to provide reasonable 

notice and public hearing prior to 

adoption of SIP revisions. CARB’s 

submittal of the redesignation request 

and Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan documents the public review 

process followed by GBUAPCD in 

adopting the plan prior to transmittal to 

CARB for subsequent submittal to EPA 

as a revision to the SIP. The 

documentation listed above provides 

evidence that reasonable notice of a 

public hearing was provided to the 

public and that a public hearing was 

conducted prior to adoption. 

Both GBUAPCD and CARB satisfied 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for reasonable public 

notice and hearing prior to adoption of 

the SIP revisions. GBUAPCD conducted 

public workshops, and properly noticed 

the public hearing at which the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan was adopted. The SIP submittal 

included proof of publication for notices 

of the public hearings of CARB and 

GBUAPCD. Consequently, we conclude 

that the SIP submittals have met the 

public notice and involvement 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA. Based on the documentation 

submitted with the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 Maintenance Plan, we find that 

the submittal satisfies the procedural 

requirements of section 110(l) of the Act 

for revising SIPs. 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires 

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. This section also provides that 

any plan that we have not affirmatively 

determined to be complete or 

incomplete will become complete six 

months after the day of submittal by 

operation of law. A completeness 

review allows us to determine if the 

submittal includes all the necessary 

items and information we need to act on 

it. We make completeness 

determinations using criteria we have 

established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

V.6

We notify a state of our completeness 

determination by letter unless the 

submittal becomes complete by 

operation of law. Once a SIP submittal 

is determined to be complete, either by 

letter or by operation of law, EPA is 

under a 12 month time clock for EPA to 

act on the SIP submittal. See CAA 

section 110(k)(2). A finding of 

completeness does not approve the 

submittal as part of the SIP nor does it 

indicate that the submittal is 

approvable. The redesignation request 

and Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan became complete by operation of 

law on April 21, 2015. 

IV. Substantive Requirements for 

Redesignation to Attainment of a 

NAAQS 

In section 107(d)(3)(E), the CAA 

establishes the requirements for 

redesignating an area from 

nonattainment to attainment of a 

NAAQS. The Administrator may not 

redesignate an area unless the following 

criteria are met: (1) EPA determines that 

the area has attained the applicable 

NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under Section 110(k) of the CAA; 

(3) EPA determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions; 

(4) EPA has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of Section 

175A of the CAA; and, (5) the State 

containing such an area has met all 

requirements applicable to the area 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. Section 110 identifies a 

comprehensive list of elements that SIPs 

must include, and part D establishes the 

SIP requirements for nonattainment 

areas. Part D is divided into six 

subparts. The generally-applicable 

nonattainment SIP requirements are 

found in part D, subpart 1, and the 

particulate matter-specific SIP 

requirements are found in part D, 

subpart 4. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignations to states in a 1992 

document entitled ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990’’ (referred to herein as the 

‘‘General Preamble’’).7 Additional 

guidance was issued in a September 4, 

1992 memorandum entitled 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’ from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45481 

8For PM10, a complete set of data includes a 

minimum of 75 percent of the scheduled PM10

samples per quarter. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix 

K, section 2.3(a). Because the annual PM10 standard 

was revoked effective December 18, 2006, our 

action and determination discusses only attainment 

of the 24-hour PM10 standard; see 71 FR 61144, 

October 17, 2006. 

9See EPA letters to GBUAPCD reviewing the 

District’s annual network plans for the years 2009 

to 2014, within the docket for this action. 

10For 2009 to 2014 annual certification letters see 

the docket for this action, e.g., letter from Theodore 

D. Schade, GBUAPCD, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA 

Region IX, dated April 25, 2014. 

11See the Technical System Audit of Primary 

Quality Assurance Organization, California Air 

Resources Board, dated August 18, 2008, conducted 

by Air Quality Analysis Office, US EPA Region 9, 

within the docket for this action. 

12See AQS Design Value Reports dated April 30, 

2015 and AQS Raw Data Reports dated May 7, 2015 

for completeness information. The reports can be 

found in the docket for today’s action. 

13A design value is calculated using a specific 

methodology from monitored air quality data and 

is used to compare an area’s air quality to a 

NAAQS. The methodologies for calculating 

expected exceedances for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 

are found in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, Section 

2.1(a). 

(referred to herein as the Calcagni 

memorandum). Maintenance plan 

submittals are SIP revisions. 

Consequently, under section 110(k) of 

the Act, EPA is obligated to approve or 

disapprove a maintenance plan 

depending on whether it meets the 

applicable CAA requirements for such 

plans. 

As discussed in more detail below in 

section V, we have evaluated the State’s 

submittal and propose to approve 

CARB’s request to redesignate the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 nonattainment 

area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. 

Our proposal is based on our conclusion 

that all the criteria under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) have been satisfied. 

V. Our Evaluation of California’s 

Redesignation Request for the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Nonattainment 

Area 

A. Our Determination That the Area 

Has Attained the Applicable NAAQS 

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

requires that EPA determine that the 

area has attained the NAAQS. 

Generally, EPA determines whether an 

area’s air quality is meeting the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS based upon complete, 

quality-assured, and certified data 

gathered at established state and local 

air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in the 

nonattainment area, and entered into 

the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 

database.8 Data from air monitors 

operated by state, local, or tribal 

agencies in compliance with EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to the AQS. These monitoring 

agencies certify annually that these data 

are accurate to the best of their 

knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies 

primarily on data in AQS when 

determining the attainment status of an 

area. See 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, 

appendices J and K; 40 CFR part 53; 

and, 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, 

D, and E. 

GBUAPCD is responsible for assuring 

that the Mammoth Lakes PM10

nonattainment area meets air quality 

monitoring requirements. Both CARB 

and GBUAPCD submit annual 

monitoring network plans to EPA. 

GBUAPCD’s network plans describe the 

air quality monitoring network they 

operate within the Mammoth Lakes 

nonattainment area and discuss the 

status of the monitoring network, as 

required under 40 CFR 58.10. In the 

Mammoth Lakes nonattainment area, 

GBUAPCD operates an air quality 

monitoring station for PM10 in the 

Gateway Center commercial area within 

the Town of Mammoth Lakes. As 

required by 40 CFR part 58, the District 

conducts an annual review of the air 

quality monitoring station that is 

forwarded to CARB and EPA for 

evaluation. EPA regularly reviews these 

annual plans for compliance with the 

applicable reporting requirements in 40 

CFR part 58. With respect to PM10, EPA 

has found that GBUAPCD’s network 

plans meet the applicable requirements 

of 40 CFR part 58.9 Also, GBUAPCD 

annually certifies that the data it 

submits to AQS are complete and 

quality-assured. All data has been 

certified by GBUAPCD for the period 

under review, 2009 through 2014.10

From its 2007 Technical System 

Audit (TSA) of CARB, the Primary 

Quality Assurance Organization 

(PQAO), EPA concluded that the 

ambient air monitoring program 

operated by GBUAPCD in the Mammoth 

Lakes nonattainment area currently 

meets or exceeds EPA requirements.11 A 

TSA is an on-site review and inspection 

of a state or local ambient air monitoring 

program to assess its compliance with 

established regulations governing the 

collection, analysis, validation, and 

reporting of ambient air quality data. 

See 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A, 

Section 2.5. 

EPA determines attainment of the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS by calculating the 

expected number of exceedances of the 

standard in a year. The 24-hour PM10

standard is attained when the expected 

number of exceedances averaged over a 

three year period is less than or equal 

to one at each monitoring site within the 

nonattainment area. Generally, three 

consecutive years of complete, qualityassured, and certified air quality data is 

sufficient to show attainment of the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 50 

and appendix K. To demonstrate 

attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard 

at a given monitoring site, the monitor 

must provide sufficient data to perform 

the required calculations in 40 CFR part 

50, appendix K described above. The 

amount of data required varies with the 

sampling frequency, data capture rate 

and the number of years of record. In all 

cases, three years of representative 

monitoring data must be complete 

meaning a minimum of 75 percent of 

scheduled PM10 samples must be 

recorded during each calendar quarter 

of the three year period under review. 

The purpose of these calculations and 

data completeness review is to 

determine a valid design value for 

making a determination of attainment 

for the PM10 standard. 

At the Gateway Center monitoring 

site, GBUAPCD operates two PM10

monitors. The first monitor is a Federal 

Reference Method (FRM) monitor (POC 

5) run at a sampling frequency of once 

every three days. The second monitor is 

a Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) 

continuous monitor (POC 6) run at a 

daily sampling frequency. The FEM/

POC 6 monitor is the primary monitor 

we will focus on in our determination 

of attainment. Each monitor produces 

its own data stream, and the data from 

the two monitors produce separate 

design values. Our calculations show 

the highest design value for the 

Mammoth Lakes Planning Area over the 

2009 through 2014 timeframe is 0.7 

expected exceedances, as determined by 

data from the POC 6 monitor. Usually, 

this design value would be sufficient to 

determine that the Mammoth Lakes area 

has attained the PM10 NAAQS, but we 

found that the POC 6 data failed to meet 

the 75 percent completeness standard in 

the third quarter of 2012, showing a 61 

percent completeness record.12 Table 1 

provides the design values or expected 

annual exceedances of the PM10

standard for the Mammoth Lakes area 

over the year 2009 through 2014 for 

both monitors.13


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

14See ‘‘Technical Support Document for the 

Determination of Attainment and Redesignation of 

the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Nonattainment Area: 

Analyses Addressing 2012 Incomplete Data’’, April 

30, 2015, in the docket for this action. 

15 Gateway Center monitors POC 5 and POC 6 24- 

hour concentration data and monthly mean 

summary statistics can be found in the Air Quality 

System, Raw Data Report, dated May 7, 2015, in the 

docket for today’s action. 16For information concerning the Aspen wildfire, 

see the 2013 Cal Fire Large Fire List at 

www.cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/pub/cdf/images/

incidentstatevents_250.pdf. For information 

concerning the French wildfire, see the 2014 Cal 

Fire Large Fire List at www.cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/pub/ 

cdf/images/incidentstatevents_249.pdf. For a map 

showing the relative location of the Aspen and 

French wildfires, see www.wildfiretoday.com/2014/ 

07/30/california-french-fire/. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES AND ANNUAL AVERAGE EXPECTED EXCEEDANCES OF PM10 NAAQS IN MAMMOTH LAKES

NONATTAINMENT AREA, 2009 THROUGH 2014 

Monitor 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 2012–2014 

Gateway Center monitor, Site ID 06–051–0001 POC 5 ................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Gateway Center monitor, Site ID 06–051–0001 POC 6 ................................. 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 

Source: EPA Air Quality System, Design Value Report, April 30, 2015. 

Given the data completeness issue 

with the third quarter 2012 data at POC 

6, we conducted two analyses to 

determine if the missing data could 

reasonably change the design value from 

attaining to violating the PM10

NAAQS.14 In the first analysis, we 

compared the POC 5 data with the POC 

6 data over the 2009 through 2014 time 

period to see if the data correlated 

closely enough to allow the POC 5 data 

to represent the missing POC 6 data. We 

found that the data correlated very well, 

and when POC 6 was not operating 

during the third quarter of 2012, the 

observed PM10 values at POC 5 were 

between 9 and 17 mg/m3, well below the 

150 mg/m3 value of the PM10 NAAQS. 

The two monitors differ, however, in the 

frequency of their observations with 

POC 5 making observations one day in 

three and POC 6 making daily 

observations. Consequently, our second 

analysis examined whether exceedances 

may have reasonably occurred on the 

days POC 5 was not collecting data. 

To determine whether it is reasonable 

to assume that exceedances did not 

occur on the days POC 5 was not 

sampling, we identified the highest 

PM10 values over the 2009 through 2014 

time period. Looking at POC 6, the 

winter months, December, January, and 

February, of 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 

exhibit consistently elevated PM10

concentrations and the highest annual 

concentrations at Mammoth Lakes.15

Then, in 2013 and 2014, the highest 24- 

hour PM10 concentrations at POC 6 were 

measured during the third quarter of 

2013 and 2014; see Table 2. Of these 

highest concentrations, on two days, 

July 28, 2013 and July 29, 2013, 

concentrations were higher than the 150 

mg/m3 standard. 

TABLE 2—FIVE HIGHEST PM10 CONCENTRATIONS OBSERVED AT MAMMOTH LAKES GATEWAY CENTER MONITOR FROM

2009 THROUGH 2014 AND WILDFIRE EVENTS

Date Concentration 

(μg/m3) Wildfire event 

July 28, 2013 .......................................................................................................... 166 Aspen Fire—Exceptional Event Flag. 

July 29, 2013 .......................................................................................................... 182 Aspen Fire—Exceptional Event Flag. 

July 30, 2013 .......................................................................................................... 122 Aspen Fire. 

August 1, 2013 ....................................................................................................... 133 Aspen Fire. 

August 2, 2014 ....................................................................................................... 130 French Fire. 

Source: EPA Air Quality System, Raw Data Report, May 7, 2015; all observations are from Site ID 06–051–0001, POC 6. 

Further examination shows that the 

July 28, 2013 and July 29, 2013 

exceedances measured at the Gateway 

Center monitoring site are flagged as 

wildfire exceptional events within AQS; 

however, an exceptional event 

demonstration package was not 

submitted for the two exceedances. The 

Aspen Wildfire occurred near the 

Mammoth Lakes area over an extended 

period from July 22, 2013 to September 

8, 2013, burning 22,992 acres 

approximately 30 miles south southwest 

of Mammoth Lakes near Mammoth Pool 

Reservoir on the upper San Joaquin 

River in the Sierra National Forest; thus, 

reasonably accounting for four of the 

five highest observed concentrations of 

PM10. In a similar wildfire event, the 

French Fire burned from July 28, 2014 

to August 18, 2014 consuming 13,838 

acres west of and adjacent to the site of 

the Aspen Fire; again, reasonably 

accounting for the August 2, 2014 high 

concentration.16 As a check, we 

examined the 2013 and 2014 data for 

the months with the highest average 

monthly concentration and confirmed 

that in these two years, similar to 2009 

through 2012, January and December 

had the highest monthly average PM10

concentrations observed. In sum, the 

high summertime third quarter 

concentrations observed in 2013 and 

2014 are related to wildfire events and 

are not consistent with the remaining 

2009 through 2014 data showing that 

the winter months, December to 

February, is the period during which 

high PM10 concentrations are most 

likely to be observed in Mammoth 

Lakes. As noted earlier, the State has 

submitted complete data for all first and 

fourth calendar quarters (i.e. winter 

season) during the 2009 through 2014 

time frame and no exceedance of the 

PM10 NAAQS has occurred during these 

quarters. Also, no exceedance occurred 

during the third quarter of the years 

2009, 2010, and 2011. 

To summarize, it is reasonable to 

conclude that the missing third quarter 

2012 p.m.10 data would not have an 

effect on the design value and would 

not overturn our determination of 

attainment for the following reasons: (1) 

The only two exceedances and other 

high ambient values in the last six years 

were due to wildfire events; (2) data 

from the third quarters in 2009, 2010, 

and 2011 show no exceedances and do 

not correspond with the observed 

summer time period of elevated PM10

concentrations in 2013 and 2014; and, 

(3) the POC 5 data correlates well 

enough to be a valid representation of 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45483 

17See the following EPA guidance and court 

decisions: Calcagni memorandum at p. 3; 

Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–90 (6th Cir. 1998). See 

68 FR 25418 and 25426 (May 12, 2003) and 

citations therein concerning EPA’s reliance on 

added measures approved with an action on a 

redesignation request. 

18See discussion in 75 FR 36023 and 36026 (June 

24, 2010). 

19The 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 missing third quarter POC 6 data. 

Consequently, we are proposing to find 

that the design values in Table 1 are 

accurate and representative design 

values for the Mammoth Lakes 

nonattainment area with no expected 

exceedances greater than 0.7 calculated 

over the 2009 through 2014 period. 

Twenty-four hour ambient PM10 levels 

in Mammoth Lakes meet the 

requirement of no more than 1.0 

expected annual average exceedance 

over a three year period. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to determine 

that the Mammoth Lakes PM10

nonattainment area has attained the 24- 

hour PM10 standard and continues to 

attain the standard to date based on the 

most recent available AQS data. In 

addition, preliminary air quality data for 

2015 show that the area is continuing to 

meet the PM10 NAAQS. Before 

finalizing this proposal, EPA will 

include a review of any available 

preliminary data for 2015. 

B. The Area Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Meeting Requirements Applicable for 

Purposes of Redesignation Under 

Section 110 and Part D of the Clean Air 

Act 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) require 

EPA to determine that the area has a 

fully-approved SIP under section 110(k) 

that meets all applicable requirements 

under section 110 and part D for the 

purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely 

on prior SIP approvals in approving a 

redesignation request as well as any 

additional measures it may approve in 

conjunction with a redesignation 

action.17

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under 

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

The general SIP elements and 

requirements provided 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; provision for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

for prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) provisions; 

provisions for the implementation of 

part D requirements for nonattainment 

new source review (nonattainment NSR) 

permit programs; provisions for air 

pollution modeling; and, provisions for 

public and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

We note that SIPs must be fully 

approved only with respect to the 

applicable requirements for 

redesignations consistent with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the Act. The section 

110 (and part D) requirements that are 

linked to a particular nonattainment 

area’s designation and classification are 

the relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. 

Requirements that apply regardless of 

the designation of any particular area in 

the State are not applicable 

requirements for the purposes of 

redesignation, and the State will remain 

subject to these requirements after the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 nonattainment 

area is redesignated to attainment. 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, 

known as ‘‘transport SIPs.’’ Because the 

section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for 

transport SIPs are not linked to a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification but rather 

apply regardless of the attainment 

status, these are not applicable 

requirements for the purposes of 

redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E). 

Similarly, EPA believes that other 

section 110 (and part D) requirements 

that are not linked to nonattainment 

plan submittals or to an area’s 

attainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA believes that the 

section 110 (and part D) requirements 

relating to a particular nonattainment 

area’s designation and classification are 

the relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. This 

view is consistent with EPA’s existing 

policy on applicability of the conformity 

SIP requirement for redesignations.18

Regarding Mammoth Lakes, CARB 

and GBUAPCD have submitted and EPA 

has approved provisions addressing the 

basic CAA section 110 provisions. The 

GBUAPCD portion of the approved 

California SIP contains enforceable 

emissions limitations; requires 

monitoring, compiling, and analyzing of 

ambient air quality data; requires 

preconstruction review of new or 

modified stationary sources; provides 

for adequate funding, staff, and 

associated resources necessary to 

implement its requirements; and, 

provides the necessary assurances that 

the State maintains responsibility for 

ensuring that the CAA requirements are 

satisfied in the event that GBUAPCD is 

unable to meet its CAA requirements. 

There are no outstanding or 

disapproved applicable section 110 SIP 

submittals with respect to the State, the 

GBUAPCD, and Mammoth Lakes.19 In 

sum, we propose to conclude that CARB 

and GBUAPD have met all applicable 

SIP requirements under section 110 of 

the CAA (General SIP Requirements) for 

the Mammoth Lakes nonattainment area 

for purpose of redesignating the area to 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. 

2. SIP Requirements Under Part D of the 

Clean Air Act 

Subparts 1 and 4 of part D within title 

1 of the CAA contain air quality 

planning requirements for PM10

nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 contains 

general requirements for all 

nonattainment areas of any NAAQS 

pollutant, including PM10. Among other 

provisions, the subpart 1 requirements 

include provisions for RACM, RFP, 

emissions inventories, contingency 

measures, and conformity. Subpart 4 

contains specific planning and 

scheduling requirements for PM10

nonattainment areas. Section 189(a), (c), 

and (e) requirements apply specifically 

to moderate PM10 nonattainment areas 

and include: (1) An approved permit 

program for construction of new and 

modified major stationary sources; (2) 

provisions for RACM; (3) an attainment 

demonstration; (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 PM10 also 

apply to major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors except where the 

Administrator has determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels that exceed the NAAQS 

in the area. 

With respect to the subpart 4 

requirements discussed above, 

California submitted a moderate area 

PM10 plan, the 1990 AQMP, for the 

Mammoth Lakes nonattainment area on 

September 11, 1991. This attainment 

plan was developed and adopted by the 

GBUAPCD on December 12, 1990. The 

State submitted a revision to this plan 

on January 9, 1992, also previously 

adopted by the GBUAPCD on November 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

20See our discussion concerning RFP/

quantitative milestones in the General Preamble, 

(57 FR 13498 and 13539, April 16, 1992). 

21See Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

Table 5–1, page 18. 

22See the General Preamble at 57 FR 13498 and 

13564, (April 16, 1992). 

23See the Calcagni memorandum at page 6. 

24For Rule 209–A, see 47 FR 26379, June 18, 

1982, and for Rule 216, see 41 FR 53661, December 

8, 1976. 

6, 1991. This 1990 AQMP for the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Planning Area 

relied on two control measures to 

reduce PM10 emissions sufficient to 

meet the PM10 standard: GBUAPCD, 

Rule 431—Particulate Emissions, 

adopted on November 6, 1991; and, 

Town of Mammoth Lakes Municipal 

Code Chapter (TMLMCC) 8.30— 

Particulate Matter Emissions 

Regulations, dated October 2, 1991. 

Both of these rules were submitted with 

the 1990 AQMP so as to reduce 

emissions from the primary sources of 

PM10 in the nonattainment area, 

fireplaces and woodstoves, and resuspended road dust and pulverized 

cinders from motor vehicles driving on 

paved roads. 

EPA reviewed the 1990 AQMP and its 

companion control measures and in 

1996 approved the moderate area plan, 

GBUAPCD Rule 431, and TMLMCC 

8.30, incorporating them into the SIP 

(61 FR 32341, June 24, 1996). In this 

approval action, we made the following 

findings concerning the 1990 AQMP: 

The plan provided a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current emissions 

inventory meeting the requirements of 

section 172(c)(3); the plan provided for 

all RACM to be implemented by 

December 10, 1993, as required by 

sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C) of the 

Act; the plan provided a demonstration 

of attainment by December 31, 1994, the 

applicable attainment date, as required 

by section 189(a)(1)(B); and, we found 

that precursor pollutants of PM10 do not 

contribute significantly to PM10 levels in 

excess of the NAAQS. Regarding RFP, 

our General Preamble provides that 

initial moderate nonattainment areas, 

such as the Mammoth Lakes area, could 

meet the RFP requirement by 

demonstrating attainment by the 

applicable attainment date, December 

31, 1994.20 As noted above, we 

approved the demonstration of 

attainment as meeting section 

189(a)(1)(B). 

The 1990 AQMP did not provide for 

motor vehicle emissions budgets as 

required by section 176(c) of the Act 

because EPA’s guidance and regulations 

were not published at the time the plan 

was developed and adopted. The 

maintenance plan has provided for 

motor vehicle emission budgets. We 

review them later in this action and 

propose to approve them. 

The 1990 AQMP as approved in 1996 

did not address contingency measures 

required by section 172(c)(9) of the 

CAA. Again, this was because the 1990 

AQMP was developed prior to EPA 

guidance on contingency measures. 

Since our 1996 action on GBUAPCD 

Rule 431, the State has submitted and 

EPA has approved into the SIP a 

subsequent revision to the rule (72 FR 

61525, October 31, 2007). This 2006 

amendment to Rule 431 eliminated the 

operational exemption from no-burn 

day requirements granted to EPAcertified devices. These EPA-certified 

devices comprise 84 percent of the 

residential wood burning device 

inventory.21 Since 2007, all woodburning devices in the Mammoth Lakes 

nonattainment area have been required 

to shut down on designated no-burn 

days, adding an additional increment of 

emission reductions when no-burn days 

are called for under the rule. In general, 

the 2006 revisions to GBUAPCD Rule 

431 are surplus to the rule provisions in 

the 1990 AQMP that represent the 

control strategy that has resulted in the 

Mammoth Lakes area meeting the PM10

standard. In this manner, GBUAPCD 

Rule 431 represents a pre-implemented 

contingency measure and fulfils the 

requirements of section 172(c)(9). 

Separate and distinct from a finding 

of attainment of a standard, EPA has 

taken the position that CAA 

requirements associated with attainment 

of the NAAQS are not applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. In the 

General Preamble, EPA has stated that 

section 172(c)(9) requirements are 

directed at ensuring reasonable further 

progress and attainment by the 

applicable attainment date specified by 

statute. These attainment related 

requirements no longer apply when an 

area has attained a standard and is 

eligible to be redesignated to 

attainment.22 The Calcagni 

memorandum states a similar position 

that requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning and applicability where areas 

do not meet the NAAQS.23 While the 

attainment related provisions of RFP 

and section 172(c)(9) are no longer 

relevant in the context of redesignation, 

the maintenance plan provisions in 

section 175A of the CAA require that 

such plans incorporate contingency 

provisions sufficient for an area to 

expeditiously regain attainment of a 

NAAQS. We review the contingency 

provisions in the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan later in this action 

and propose to approve them. 

a. Permits for New and Modified Major 

Stationary Sources 

CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 

189(a)(1)(A) require the State to submit 

SIP revisions that establish certain 

requirements for new or modified 

stationary sources in nonattainment 

areas, including provisions to ensure 

that major new sources or major 

modifications of existing sources of 

nonattainment pollutants incorporate 

the highest level of control, referred to 

as the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

(LAER), and that increases in emissions 

from such stationary sources are offset 

so as to provide for reasonable further 

progress towards attainment in the 

nonattainment area. The process for 

reviewing permit applications and 

issuing permits for new or modified 

stationary sources in nonattainment 

areas is referred to as ‘‘nonattainment 

New Source Review’’ (nonattainment 

NSR). With respect to the part D 

requirements for a nonattainment NSR 

permit program for construction of new 

and modified major stationary sources, 

EPA has previously approved the 

following nonattainment NSR rules for 

GBUAPCD which apply within the 

Mammoth Lakes nonattainment area: 

GBUAPCD Rule 209–A and 216.24

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 for 

Areas Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ See the more detailed 

explanations in the following 

redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI 

(60 FR 12459, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 

20458, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 

FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand 

Rapids, MI (61 FR 31831, June 21, 

1996); and San Joaquin Valley, CA (73 

FR 22307, April 25, 2008 and 73 FR 

66759, November 12, 2008). 

The requirements of the PSD program 

under Part C will apply to PM10 once 

the area has been redesignated. Thus, 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45485 

25See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), 

upholding this interpretation. Also, see 60 FR 

62748 (December 7, 1995). 

26See the Calcagni memorandum, page 4. 

27See ‘‘Staff Report: Town of Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request,’’ CARB, August 18, 2014, page 5. 

28See Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

Table 5–1, page 18. 

29See ‘‘Staff Report: Town of Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request,’’ CARB, August 18, 2014, page 6. 

30See Table 2–1 in the Mammoth Lakes PM10

maintenance plan, page 10. We note that while the 

Continued 

new major sources of PM10 emissions 

and major modifications at major 

sources of PM10 as defined under 40 

CFR 52.21 will be required to obtain a 

PSD permit or include PM10 emissions 

in their existing PSD permit. Currently, 

EPA is the PSD permitting authority in 

the Mammoth Lakes nonattainment area 

under a federal implementation plan; 

see 40 CFR 52.270(a)(3). GBUAPCD can 

implement the federal PSD program, 

however, either through a delegation 

agreement with EPA, or by making the 

necessary changes to its NSR rules and 

submitting those revisions to EPA for a 

SIP-approved PSD rule. 

b. Control of PM10 Precursor Pollutants 

Section 189(e) of the CAA requires 

that the control requirements applicable 

under the part D SIP for major stationary 

sources of PM10 also apply to major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors, 

except where the Administrator 

determines that such sources do not 

contribute significantly to PM10 levels 

that exceed the standard in the area. As 

noted above, in our approval action on 

the 1990 AQMP, we found that PM10

precursors do not contribute 

significantly to exceedances of the PM10

standard in the Mammoth Lakes PM10

area (61 FR 32344, June 24, 1996). Using 

similar analytical techniques in 

developing the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan, GBUAPCD 

confirmed that direct PM10 emissions 

are most likely to cause or contribute to 

future violations of the NAAQS and 

addressed these sources of direct PM10

in their maintenance plan discussed 

below. 

c. General and Transportation 

Conformity Requirements 

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 regulations must be 

consistent with federal conformity 

regulations that the CAA required EPA 

to promulgate relating to consultation, 

enforcement and enforceability. 

GBUAPCD’s general conformity 

regulation, Regulation 13, was 

submitted to EPA on October 5, 1994 

and approved on April 23, 1999 (64 FR 

19916). 

EPA has not approved a 

transportation conformity regulation for 

Mammoth Lakes and the GBUAPCD. 

EPA believes, however, that 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.25

In conclusion, if EPA finalizes today’s 

proposal approving the PM10 emissions 

inventory and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for the Mammoth Lakes PM10

nonattainment area, then EPA will have 

determined the State has a fullyapproved SIP meeting all requirements 

applicable under section 110 and part D 

for the Mammoth Lakes PM10

nonattainment area for purposes of 

redesignation, per section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. 

C. The Area Must Show the 

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Reductions 

Before redesignating an area to 

attainment of a NAAQS, section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the air quality 

improvement in the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 nonattainment area is due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable federal air pollution 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable regulations. Under this 

criterion, the State must reasonably be 

able to attribute the improvement in air 

quality to emissions reductions that are 

permanent and enforceable. Attainment 

resulting from temporary reductions in 

emissions rates (e.g., reduced 

production or shutdown) or unusually 

favorable meteorology would not qualify 

as an air quality improvement due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions.26 As discussed earlier, EPA 

may rely on prior SIP approvals in 

approving a redesignation request and 

any additional measures it may approve 

in conjunction with a redesignation 

action. As noted earlier, GBUAPCD has 

jurisdiction over air quality planning 

requirements for the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 nonattainment area and produced 

a moderate area PM10 plan, the 1990 

AQMP, and related rules designed to 

reduce PM10 emissions in the Mammoth 

Lakes area so as to meet the PM10

NAAQS. 

As discussed, GBUAPCD developed 

and California submitted the 1990 

AQMP for the Mammoth Lakes 

nonattainment area on September 11, 

1991. The 1990 AQMP relied on two 

control measures to reduce PM10

emissions sufficient to meet the PM10

standard: GBUAPCD Rule 431— 

Particulate Emissions, adopted on 

November 6, 1991; and, Town of 

Mammoth Lakes Municipal Code 

Chapter 8.30—Particulate Matter 

Emissions Regulations, dated October 2, 

1991. Both of these rules were 

implemented so as to reduce emissions 

from the primary sources of PM10 in the 

nonattainment area, fireplaces and 

woodstoves, and re-suspended road 

dust and cinders from motor vehicles 

driving on paved roads. In 1996, EPA 

approved the 1990 AQMP, GBUAPCD 

Rule 431, and TMLMCC 8.30, 

incorporating them into the SIP (61 FR 

32341, June 24, 1996). In this approval 

action, we found that the rules provided 

for RACM and were sufficient to reduce 

PM10 to levels necessary to meet the 

PM10 NAAQS. CARB cites figures from 

1995 showing that from 1990 to 1994 

the percentage of cleaner burning EPA 

certified wood burning devices in the 

area increased from 1 percent to 35 

percent.27 Since 1994, the percentage of 

EPA-certified wood-burning devices has 

increased to 84 percent in 2013.28 With 

regard to entrained road dust PM10

emissions on paved roads, the purchase 

and continued use of high efficiency 

vacuum street sweepers have resulted in 

reducing PM10 emissions by as much as 

68 percent from pre-1990 levels.29

We are proposing to determine that 

the Mammoth Lakes area has attained 

the PM10 standard continuously since 

2009 according to complete, qualityassured, and certified air quality data, 

per our discussion in section V.A. of 

this proposal. In addition to our review 

of air quality data supporting our 

proposed determination, the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan provided 

data showing that over the period these 

two control measures were 

implemented and enforced, 1994 to the 

present, there have been no violations of 

the federal PM10 standard.30 Also, see 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

data record shows falling PM10 levels and PM10

levels below the NAAQS over the period of control 

measure implementation and enforcement, the data 

record shown in Table 2–1 was not sufficient to 

determine attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, until 

recently. For instance, Table 2–1 shows periods 

where the PM10 monitor was not operating and 

therefore not providing a data record complete 

enough to determine attainment of the PM10

NAAQS. See our prior discussion of data 

requirements in our proposed determination that 

the area has attained the PM10 standard in section 

V.A above. 31See Calcagni memorandum, pages 8 through 

13. 

32See Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

Figures 1–1 and 1–2, page 3 and 4. 

33U. S. Census figure. 

34See Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan at 

Section 1.3, page 2. 

35EPA’s primary guidance for evaluating these 

emissions inventories is the document entitled, 

‘‘PM10 Emissions Inventory Requirements,’’ EPA, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA– 

454/R–94–033 (September 1994) which can be 

found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/

PM10eir.pdf. 

Figures 4–1 and 4–2 of the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan showing 

how winter time average and peak 

ambient PM10 levels have fallen since 

1990. 

In conclusion, EPA is proposing to 

find that the improvement in PM10 air 

quality for the Mammoth Lakes 

nonattainment area is the result of 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions from significant sources of 

PM10 in the area and, in accordance 

with 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), is not the result of 

temporary reductions (e.g., economic 

downturns or shutdowns) or unusually 

favorable meteorology. 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan Under 

Clean Air Act Section 175A 

Section 175A of the CAA describes 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. We 

interpret this section of the CAA to 

require the following elements: An 

attainment emissions inventory; a 

maintenance demonstration; a 

monitoring network capable of 

verification of continued attainment 

along with a commitment to do so; and, 

a contingency plan.31 Under CAA 

section 175A, a maintenance plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the relevant NAAQS for at least ten 

years after EPA approves a 

redesignation to attainment. To address 

the possibility of future NAAQS 

violations, the maintenance plan must 

contain contingency provisions that 

EPA finds sufficient to correct promptly 

any violation of the NAAQS that occurs 

after the area’s redesignation. Based on 

our review and evaluation provided 

below, we are proposing to approve the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan because it meets the requirements 

of CAA section 175A. 

Before reviewing the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 Maintenance Plan and its 

components in more detail, it is 

important to provide a description of 

the geography and the economy of the 

region. The Mammoth Lakes area sits on 

the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada 

mountain range on the western edge of 

the Long Valley Caldera in southwestern 

Mono County, California. At the western 

boundary of the nonattainment area, 

there is Mammoth Mountain at an 

elevation of 11,053 feet. From the foot 

of Mammoth Mountain and the 

developed portion of the Town of 

Mammoth Lakes at 7,891 feet elevation, 

the Mammoth Creek Valley slopes to the 

east and down to the eastern edge of the 

PM10 nonattainment area near the 

Mammoth Lakes airport at 7,127 feet 

elevation.32 Much of the area 

surrounding the Town of Mammoth 

Lakes within and without the 

nonattainment area is public land, 

either national forest or national 

monument lands. 

The Town of Mammoth Lakes is the 

area’s only population center and the 

only incorporated community in Mono 

County with an estimated permanent 

population of 8,234 in 2010.33 Within 

the Mammoth Lakes PM10

nonattainment area and the boundaries 

of the Town of Mammoth Lakes is the 

Mammoth Mountain ski area, west of 

the town center. The ski area attracts 1.2 

to 1.5 million visitors every winter, 

swelling the Town of Mammoth Lakes 

population to approximately 35,000 

people on a major winter weekend.34

The large number of winter time visitors 

contribute to PM10 emissions from 

residential wood burning and vehicle 

entrained dust from pulverized cinders 

that have been applied to the paved 

roads to provide better vehicle traction 

on snow-covered roads. In the 1990 

AQMP and in the Maintenance Plan, 

these two sources were determined to be 

the overwhelming contributors of PM10

to potential exceedances of the NAAQS 

in the Mammoth Lakes area. 

1. Attainment and Projected Emissions 

Inventories 

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

plan submittals to include a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of emissions from all sources 

in the nonattainment area. In 

demonstrating maintenance according 

to CAA section 175A and the Calcagni 

memorandum, the State should provide 

an attainment emissions inventory for 

the area so as to identify the emissions 

level 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 emissions inventory will 

generally be an inventory of actual 

emissions at the time the area attained 

the standard.35 A maintenance plan for 

the 24-hour PM10 standard must include 

an inventory of emissions of PM10 in the 

area to identify a level of emissions 

sufficient to attain the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. This inventory must be 

consistent with EPA’s most recent 

guidance on emissions inventories for 

nonattainment areas available at the 

time and should represent emissions 

during the time period associated with 

the monitoring data showing 

attainment. The inventory must also be 

comprehensive, including emissions 

from stationary point sources, area 

sources, and mobile sources. 

The Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan provides an estimated 

daily PM10 emissions inventory for 2012 

and 2030. The year 2012 provides an 

appropriate attainment year inventory 

because it is one of the years in the most 

recent three-year periods (2012 through 

2014) in which attainment of the PM10

NAAQS was monitored. Table 3 

presents the PM10 emissions inventories 

for 2012 and 2030 provided in the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan. 

TABLE 3—2012 AND 2030 MAMMOTH LAKES NONATTAINMENT AREA PEAK 24 HOUR PM10 EMISSIONS

[kilograms/winter day] 

Source category 2012 2030 

Residential Wood Combustion Sources .................................................................................................................. 850 802 

Entrained Road Dust Cinders/Paved Roads ........................................................................................................... 3,455 4,305 

On-road Mobile Sources (exhaust, tire and brake wear) ........................................................................................ 11 14 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45487 

36See Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

Appendix G, ‘‘Chemical Analysis of PM10 and PM2.5

Filters from Mammoth Lakes’’, Desert Research 

Institute, May 21, 2013; see Table 3, page 3. 

37See Calcagni memorandum, page 9. 

38See Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

Figure 1–2, page 4. 

TABLE 3—2012 AND 2030 MAMMOTH LAKES NONATTAINMENT AREA PEAK 24 HOUR PM10 EMISSIONS—Continued 

[kilograms/winter day] 

Source category 2012 2030 

Stationary—Point Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 8 8 

Total PM10 ........................................................................................................................................................ 4,324 5,129 

Source: Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, Tables 5–7, 8–1, and 8–3, pages 22, 36, and 37. 

The Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan’s emissions inventory 

for sources within the Mammoth Lakes 

nonattainment area air basin is 

subdivided into four subcategories: 

residential wood combustion, entrained 

road dust and cinders, on-road mobile 

sources, and stationary sources. Because 

the most consistently elevated values of 

ambient PM10 concentrations occur in 

the winter, sources like construction 

dust and fugitive dust from unpaved 

roads are not accounted for in this 

inventory. In the Mammoth Lakes area, 

construction activity is seasonal and 

inactive during the winter due to the 

wet and cold climate. Similarly, 

unpaved roads are snow covered or 

rarely used due to wet conditions; in 

either case, little fugitive dust is 

generated by vehicle use on unpaved 

roads. As shown in Table 3, direct PM10

emissions in the Mammoth Lakes area 

are dominated by entrained road dust 

from paved roads and residential wood 

combustion. The estimates for peak 

winter day PM10 emissions incorporate 

the highest ski season visitors and 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates 

in the calculation for both entrained 

paved road dust and on-road mobile 

emissions. GBUAPCD used a chemical 

mass balance (CMB) analysis to 

determine if PM10 precursors were 

affecting PM10 values at the Gateway 

Center monitor/receptor. CMB uses 

chemical profiles of emission sources to 

apportion the monitored concentration 

between the various source types. The 

CMB study showed that on 

representative days of high PM10

concentrations the total contribution of 

nitrates, sulfates, and ammonium was 

approximately 1–2% of total mass 

collected. Consistent with the large 

contributions from entrained road dust 

and residential wood combustion the 

largest contributors to PM10

concentrations were organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil.36

GBUAPCD projects that overall, direct 

PM10 emissions will increase from 2012 

to 2030 because of a general and wintertime tourist population increase due to 

build out of the Town of Mammoth 

Lakes. While higher emitting wood 

combustion sources will be replaced by 

cleaner burning devices or removed 

entirely, population growth and 

resulting VMT growth will drive the 

predicted increase in entrained road 

dust. The District’s maintenance 

demonstration modeling and supporting 

analyses indicate that despite the 

population and VMT growth, the 

Mammoth Lakes nonattainment area 

will continue to attain the federal 24- 

hour PM10 standard because of the 

relative importance and continuing 

decline of residential wood combustion 

emissions. The overall predicted result 

is a slight increase in ambient PM10

levels over the 2012 to 2030 timeframe. 

We will review the maintenance 

demonstration and 2030 predicted PM10

concentrations in greater detail in the 

next section of this action. 

In conclusion, GBUAPCD’s selection 

of 2012 as the attainment year inventory 

is appropriate since the area was 

determined to have attained the NAAQS 

during the 2011 to 2013 period. Based 

on our review of the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 Maintenance Plan, we propose to 

find that the emissions inventories for 

2012 and 2030 are comprehensive, 

current, and accurate in that they 

include estimates of PM10 from all of the 

relevant source categories, residential 

wood combustion, entrained road dust, 

on-road mobile sources, and stationary 

sources. Therefore, we are proposing to 

approve the 2012 emissions inventory, 

which serves as the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 Maintenance Plan’s attainment 

year inventory, as satisfying the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA for the purposes of redesignation 

of the Mammoth Lakes PM10

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

Section 175A(a) of the CAA requires 

a demonstration of maintenance of the 

NAAQS for at least 10 years after 

redesignation. Generally, a State 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. For areas that are required 

under the CAA to submit modeled 

attainment demonstrations, the 

maintenance demonstration should use 

the same type of modeling.37

In the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan, GBUAPCD chose to 

use modeling to demonstrate 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS and to show that the future 

anticipated mix of sources and emission 

rates will not cause a violation of the 

NAAQS in the Mammoth Lakes area. 

The maintenance demonstration builds 

upon the previous 1990 AQMP 

attainment plan, and incorporates the 

specifics of the Mammoth Lakes area, 

including geography, the winter-time 

peak visitor population, and the 

contribution of the two major sources of 

PM10, residential wood combustion and 

entrained dust from paved roads. Below, 

we review the maintenance 

demonstration in more detail. 

To be consistent with the 1990 AQMP 

attainment demonstration, GBUAPCD 

limited the area modeled in the 

maintenance demonstration to the Town 

of Mammoth Lakes boundary, somewhat 

smaller than the larger nonattainment 

area boundary.38 This was done for two 

reasons. First, the land east of the Town 

boundary is mostly public lands, is 

sparsely populated, and is downhill 

from the PM10 monitoring station 

located within the Town. Almost all of 

the human population and developed 

land in the nonattainment area is 

situated and concentrated within a 

smaller portion of the larger Township. 

The PM10 monitor/receptor at Gateway 

Center, providing much of the data for 

the maintenance demonstration, is 

located there, too. Meteorologically, an 

analysis of wind speeds and wind 

directions on high winter PM10 days 

shows that hourly wind speeds are low 

(less than 2 meters/second) and 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

39See Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

Chapter 5.0 page 17. 

40See Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

Table 8–3, page 37. 

41See Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

Chapter 6, page 23; Table 6–4, page 26; and 

Appendix G. 

42See the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan, Chapter 8, pages 36–42; Table 8–4, page 38; 

and, the Executive Summary at page x for 

population and VMT discussion. 

43See the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan Chapter 8.3, page 39, for calculations. 

44See the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan Chapter 8.4, page 40, and Table 8–6, page 41. 

45See the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan Chapter 8.4, page 40, and Table 8–7, page 42. 

46See Calcagni memorandum, page 11. 

47See Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

Chapter 9.2.2, page 45. 

primarily from the west.39 In these near 

stagnant air mass conditions, the 

observed wind direction and speed most 

likely result from cold air flows moving 

downhill from higher to lower 

elevations. As a result, on design days 

of likely high PM10 observations, PM10

emissions east of the Town of Mammoth 

Lakes are unlikely to affect the levels 

observed at the PM10 monitor/receptor 

because those emissions would be 

moving away, further downhill and to 

the east. Consequently, an in-Town 

emissions inventory is the more 

appropriate inventory of PM10 sources 

contributing to high PM10 values 

observed at the Gateway Center PM10

monitor. This in-Town emissions 

inventory accounts for 78 percent of the 

total area emissions inventory described 

in the preceding section of this notice.40

The excluded PM10 emissions are 

almost entirely entrained road dust 

produced east and downhill from the 

PM10 monitor/receptor at Gateway 

Center in the Town of Mammoth Lakes. 

The second point of comparison with 

the 1990 AQMP attainment 

demonstration and maintenance 

demonstration is the use of a chemical 

mass balance (CMB) analysis to 

determine the emissions sources 

affecting PM10 values at the monitor/

receptor. CMB uses chemical profiles of 

emission sources to apportion the 

monitored concentration between the 

various source types. The 1990 AQMP’s 

attainment demonstration and 

emissions inventory showed that the 

primary sources contributing to 

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS were 

residential wood combustion and 

entrained dust from vehicle traffic. 

Using a second CMB study and a new 

emissions inventory, GBUAPCD 

confirmed that the same two sources 

continue to disproportionately affect 

PM10 levels in the Mammoth Lakes 

area.41 The 2013 CMB analysis done for 

the maintenance demonstration also 

provides critical inputs for the linear 

rollback analysis described next. 

The maintenance demonstration 

modeling is based on a linear rollback 

methodology. In a linear rollback model, 

a fundamental assumption is that the 

ambient concentration attributed to a 

given source is proportional to 

emissions from that source. The rollback 

model used by GBUAPCD incorporated 

the following parameters: A background 

PM10 concentration of 5 mg/m3; a PM10

design value concentration of 99 mg/m3

based on 2010 through 2012 

observations at the Gateway Center 

monitoring site; peak winter season 

VMT based on peak winter season 

visitor population consistent with a 

2025 Town build out under the 2007 

Town of Mammoth Lakes General Plan; 

and, in-Town peak winter PM10

emissions estimated for residential 

wood combustion and entrained road 

dust on paved roads.42 The maintenance 

demonstration analyzed two worst case 

design day scenarios: (1) a day 

indicative of highest residential wood 

smoke conditions; and, (2) a day 

indicative of highest entrained road dust 

emissions.43 The proportionalities for 

residential wood sources and entrained 

road dust used within the rollback 

model scenarios are derived from the 

2013 CMB source apportionment 

studies discussed in Chapter 6 and 

Appendix G of the maintenance plan. In 

the first scenario of highest residential 

wood smoke emissions, the predicted 

2030 PM10 concentration was 100 mg/

m3.44 In the second scenario of highest 

entrained road dust emissions, the 

predicted 2030 PM10 concentration was 

104.8 mg/m3.45 In either scenario, PM10

concentrations are predicted to remain 

below the PM10 NAAQS of 150 mg/m3

and are slightly higher than the 2010– 

2012 attainment design value 

concentration of 99 mg/m3. 

To conclude, EPA proposes to find 

that the forecasted increases in PM10

levels from 2012 to 2030 are consistent 

with the control measures currently 

implemented and are not anticipated to 

result in PM10 levels above the PM10

NAAQS, as shown in the maintenance 

demonstration described above. Based 

on our review of the information 

presented in the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan, we propose to find 

that the State has shown that attainment 

of the PM10 standard will be maintained 

in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and the 

larger Mammoth Lakes area for at least 

10 years after redesignation. 

3. Monitoring Network and Verifying 

Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the NAAQS 

can be verified through operation of an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network. The Calcagni memorandum 

states that the maintenance plan should 

contain provisions for continued 

operation of air quality monitors that 

will provide such verification.46

GBUAPCD has committed to continue to 

operate an appropriate air quality 

monitoring network in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58, to continue daily 

monitoring of PM10 at the existing 

monitoring site so as to verify the 

ongoing attainment status of the area.47

As we discussed in Section V.A. of this 

proposal, GBUAPCD’s monitoring 

network for PM10 and the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 monitors are part of an EPAapproved air quality monitoring 

network. 

4. Contingency Provisions 

Under section 175A of the CAA, 

contingency provisions are required for 

maintenance plans to correct promptly 

any violations of the NAAQS that occur 

after the area is redesignated to 

attainment. These contingency 

provisions must include a requirement 

that the State will implement all 

measures with respect to the control of 

the air pollutant concerned that were 

contained in the SIP for the area before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

These contingency provisions are 

distinguished from those generally 

required for nonattainment areas under 

section 172(c)(9) because they are not 

required to be fully-adopted measures 

that will take effect without further 

action by the State before the 

maintenance plan can be approved. The 

contingency plan is considered, 

however, to be an enforceable part of the 

SIP and should ensure that the 

contingency measures are adopted 

expeditiously once they are triggered by 

a specified event. 

The Calcagni memorandum 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. 

In several actions, 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 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45489 

48See the Mammoth Lakes Maintenance Plan 

Chapter 9.1.2, page 44. 49See the Mammoth Lakes Maintenance Plan 

Chapter 9.2.1, pages 44–45. 50See the Mammoth Lakes Maintenance Plan 

Chapter 9.3, page 45. 

51See 40 CFR part 93 for the federal conformity 

regulations and 40 CFR 93.118 specifically for how 

budgets are used in conformity. 

52Transportation-related emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and/or oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) emissions must also be specified in 

PM10 areas if EPA or the state finds that 

transportation-related emissions of one or both of 

these precursors within the nonattainment area are 

a significant contributor to the PM10 nonattainment 

problem and has so notified the metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO) and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT), or if the 

applicable SIP revision or SIP revision submittal 

establishes an approved or adequate budget for such 

emissions as part of the RFP, attainment or 

maintenance strategy. See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iii). 

Neither of these conditions apply to the Mammoth 

Lake PM10 nonattainment area. Consequently, the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan 

establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets for 

PM10 only and does not include PM10 precursors. 

53The availability of the SIP submittal with 

budgets can be announced for public comment on 

EPA’s adequacy Web site at http://www.epa.gov/

otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm which 

provides a 30-day public comment period. The 

public can then comment directly on this Web site. 

54For the budgets as presented and adopted by 

CARB, see their ‘‘Staff Report: Town of Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 

Request’’, dated August 18, 2014 at Table 3, page 

10. For evidence of CARB’s public notice and 

hearing see our earlier discussion of procedural 

requirements and CARB’s documentation included 

in the docket for this action. 

RFP under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA 

(62 FR 15844, April 3, 1997), (62 FR 

6627, December 18, 1997), (66 FR 

30811, June 8, 2001), (66 FR 586 and 66 

FR 634, January 3, 2001). This 

interpretation has been upheld in LEAN 

v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004), 

where the court 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 (60 FR 27028, May 22, 1995) 

and (73 FR 66759, November 12, 2008). 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, GBUAPCD adopted a contingency 

plan to address possible future PM10 air 

quality problems. The contingency 

provisions in the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan are contained in 

Chapter 9.1.2 of the plan. In the event 

of a violation of the PM10 NAAQS, the 

District commits to adopt additional 

control measures to meet the PM10

NAAQS within 18 months of the 

violation; the measures cited may 

include reducing the ‘‘no burn day’’ 

trigger threshold, or improving roadway 

clean-up procedures.48 Also, the District 

commits to track the progress of the 

maintenance plan and the continuing 

validity of its analyses and assumptions, 

such as an updated peak winter day 

emissions inventory and an analysis of 

air quality trends.49 Finally, the District 

commits to continued implementation 

of plan’s control measures, continued 

performance of ambient air quality 

monitoring, as well as the progress 

reports described previously.50

To summarize, given the 

commitments described above, EPA is 

proposing to find that the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan is 

consistent with the maintenance plan 

contingency provision requirements of 

the CAA and EPA guidance. The 

contingency provisions of the 

maintenance plan contain tracking and 

triggering mechanisms to determine 

when contingency measures are needed, 

and specific timelines for action. Thus, 

we conclude that the contingency 

provisions of the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan are adequate to 

ensure prompt correction of a violation 

of the PM10 NAAQS and comply with 

section 175A(d) of the Act. 

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 

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

53) must conform to the applicable SIP. 

In short, a transportation plan and 

program conforms 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 budgets 

(budgets) established in the SIP for the 

attainment year, maintenance year and 

other years.51 The budgets serve as a 

ceiling on emissions that would result 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The budget concept is explained 

in the preamble to the transportation 

conformity rule (58 FR 62188, 

November 24, 1993). The preamble 

describes how to establish budgets in 

the SIP and how to revise the budgets. 

Maintenance plan submittals must 

specify the maximum emissions of 

transportation-related PM10 and PM10

precursor emissions allowed in the last 

year of the maintenance period, i.e., the 

budgets.52 Budgets may also be 

specified for additional years during the 

maintenance period. The submittal must 

also demonstrate that these emissions 

levels, when considered with emissions 

from all other sources, are consistent 

with maintenance of the NAAQS. For 

EPA to find these emissions levels or 

budgets adequate and approvable, the 

submittal must meet the conformity 

adequacy provisions of 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5). 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a budget consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of 

a SIP submittal; (2) providing the public 

the opportunity to comment on the 

budget during a public comment period; 

and, (3) making a finding of adequacy or 

inadequacy. The process for 

determining the adequacy of a 

submitted budget is codified at 40 CFR 

93.118(f). EPA can notify the public by 

either posting an announcement that 

EPA has received SIP budgets on EPA’s 

adequacy Web site (40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)), 

or via a Federal Register notice of 

proposed rulemaking when EPA 

reviews the adequacy of an 

implementation plan budget 

simultaneously with its review and 

action on the SIP itself (40 CFR 

93.118(f)(2)).53

Today, we are notifying the public 

that EPA will be reviewing the adequacy 

of the 2012 and 2030 budgets in the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan. The public has a 30-day comment 

period as described in the DATES section 

of this notice. After this comment 

period, EPA will indicate whether the 

budgets are adequate via the final 

rulemaking on this proposed action or 

on the adequacy Web site, according to 

40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii). EPA’s adequacy 

review is provided in the subject 

Memorandum accompanying today’s 

Federal Register notice and included in 

the docket for this action. 

During GBUAPCD’s 30-day comment 

period prior to the District Board 

adopting the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan, District staff 

amended the budgets in a response to 

comments from EPA. Consequently, the 

budget considered and adopted by the 

District Board and transmitted to CARB 

was not the budget released to the 

general public at the start of the 

District’s public comment period. To 

fully comply with public notice 

requirements for SIP revisions prior to 

submittal by the State, CARB provided 

a full 30-day comment period and 

public hearing for the GBUAPCD Board 

adopted version of the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 Maintenance Plan and the budgets 

contained therein.54

The Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan submitted by the 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

55See the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan Chapter 10, page 47. 

56See the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan Chapter 5.7, page 21. Also see 78 FR 14533 

(March 6, 2013) for our approval of EMFAC2011. 

57 January 2011 Version of AP42, Fifth Edition, 

Volume I, Chapter 13.2.1 Miscellaneous Sources, 

Paved Roads: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/

ch13/final/c13s0201.pdf. 

58See the Mammoth Lakes Maintenance Plan, 

Chapter 8.3, page 39 for the maintenance 

demonstration methodology and model equation. 

Also, see our prior discussion of the emissions 

inventory and maintenance demonstration for 

model equation inputs, such as background 

concentration and residential wood smoke 

emissions. For our calculations, see the 

Memorandum regarding our documentation 

supporting our budgets adequacy determination in 

the docket for this action. 

59See EPA memorandum titled, ‘‘EPA’s 

Adequacy Review of Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets in Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan’’, dated July 1, 2015. 

State contains PM10 budgets for the 

entire Mammoth Lakes PM10

nonattainment area for the years 2012 

and 2030. The PM10 budgets for the 

Mammoth Lakes nonattainment area are 

as follows: 2012—3,466 kilograms per 

day; and, 2030—4,319 kilograms per 

day.55 These budgets include direct 

PM10 emissions from vehicle exhaust, 

tire and brake wear emissions, and 

entrained dust on paved roads due to 

vehicle travel. See Table 4. These 

budgets do not include road 

construction dust or fugitive dust from 

vehicle travel on unpaved roads because 

emissions from these sources are 

minimal during the winter; see our 

earlier review of the Mammoth Lakes 

PM10 Maintenance Plan emissions 

inventory. As noted in our emission 

inventory review, PM10 precursors are a 

very small component of the overall 

inventory and a negligible contribution 

to the budgets. The on-road mobile 

source PM10 emissions (motor vehicle 

exhaust, tire and brake wear) were 

calculated using the latest approved 

emission factor model, EMFAC2011.56

The fugitive dust emissions for paved 

roads were calculated using the latest 

version of the Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors (AP–42).57

TABLE 4—MAMMOTH LAKES PM10 MAINTENANCE PLAN 2012 AND 2030 PM10 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

[Kilograms/day] 

Source category 2012 2030 

Entrained Road Dust Cinders/Paved Roads ........................................................................................................... 3,455 4,305 

On-road Mobile Sources (tailpipe, tire and brake wear) ......................................................................................... 11 14 

Total Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget ............................................................................................................ 3,466 4,319 

Peak 24-hour winter PM10 emissions calculated for the entire planning area. 

Source: Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, Tables 5–7, 8–1, and 8–3, pages 22, 36, and 37, respectively; also, see page 47. 

As previously discussed in our review 

of the maintenance demonstration for 

the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan, for reasons related to the 

topography, economy, and winter time 

meteorology of the Mammoth Lakes 

area, GBUAPCD modeled within the 

maintenance demonstration an area 

equivalent to the Township of 

Mammoth Lakes boundaries and smaller 

than the total nonattainment area. 

Although EPA concurs with the 

rationale for using an in-town PM10

emissions inventory in the maintenance 

demonstration, EPA also modeled the 

total area emissions shown in Table 4 to 

ensure that the higher estimated 

emissions do not, as we anticipate, 

cause or contribute to future violations 

of the ambient 24-hour PM10 standard. 

Using the same methodology as the 

maintenance demonstration and the 

modeling scenario of highest ambient 

contribution of entrained road dust 

emissions, we found that the predicted 

2030 ambient PM10 concentration was 

104.8 mg/m3, well below the standard 

and consistent with the concentration 

calculated in the maintenance 

demonstration for the same scenario.58

Based on the information presented in 

the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan and our adequacy review to date, 

we propose to approve the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets in the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan as meeting the requirements of the 

CAA and EPA regulations. EPA has 

determined that the budgets are 

consistent with control measures in the 

SIP and are consistent with 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM10

standard within the Mammoth Lakes 

area through 2030. The details of EPA’s 

evaluation of the budget for compliance 

with the budget adequacy criteria of 40 

CFR 93.118(e) are provided in a separate 

memorandum included within the 

docket for this rulemaking.59 As noted 

earlier, the public comment period for 

EPA’s adequacy finding will be 

concurrent with the public comment 

period for this proposed action on the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan. 

VI. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

Based on our review of the Mammoth 

Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

redesignation request submitted by 

California, air quality monitoring data, 

and other relevant materials contained 

on our docket, EPA is proposing to find 

that the State has addressed all the 

necessary requirements for 

redesignation of the Mammoth Lakes 

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

PM10 NAAQS, pursuant to CAA sections 

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

First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), 

we are proposing to approve the State’s 

request, which accompanied the 

submittal of the Mammoth Lakes PM10

Maintenance Plan, to redesignate the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 nonattainment 

area to attainment for the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. We are doing so based on our 

conclusion that the area has met the five 

criteria for redesignation under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E): (1) The area has 

attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS; (2) 

the relevant portions of the SIP are fully 

approved; (3) the improvement in air 

quality in the Mammoth Lakes area is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in PM10 emissions; (4) 

California has met all requirements 

applicable to the Mammoth Lakes PM10

nonattainment area with respect to 

section 110 and part D of the CAA; and, 

(5) our proposed approval of the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan, as part of this action. 

Second, under section 110(k)(3) of the 

CAA, EPA proposes to approve the 

Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance 

Plan and find that it meets the 

requirements of Section 175A. We 

propose to find that the maintenance 

demonstration shows that the area will 

continue to attain the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS for at least 10 years beyond 

redesignation (i.e., through 2030). We 

propose to find that the Maintenance 

Plan provides a contingency process for 

identifying and adopting new or more 

stringent control measures if a 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 146 / Thursday, July 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 45491 

monitored violation of the PM10 NAAQS 

occurs. Finally, we are proposing to 

approve the 2012 emissions inventory 

as meeting applicable requirements for 

emissions inventories in Section 172 of 

the CAA. 

Last, we propose that the 

Maintenance Plan’s motor vehicle 

emissions budgets meet applicable CAA 

requirements for maintenance plans and 

transportation conformity requirements 

under 40 CFR 93.118(e). With this 

action, we are starting the public 

comment period on the adequacy of 

these proposed motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. 

We are soliciting comments on this 

proposed action. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for 30 days following 

publication of this proposal in the 

Federal Register. We will consider these 

comments before taking final action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 proposed action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is 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.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is 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, 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not apply on any Indian reservation 

land or in any other area where EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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. 

Dated: July 10, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18531 Filed 7–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 106 

[Docket No. USCG–2015–0086] 

RIN 1625–AC23 

Requirements for Vessels With 

Registry Endorsements or ForeignFlagged Vessels That Perform Certain 

Aquaculture Support Operations 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

amend its regulations to implement 

Section 901(c) of the Coast Guard 

Authorization Act of 2010 that grants 

the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) the authority to 

issue a waiver allowing a documented 

vessel with only a registry endorsement 

or a foreign-flagged vessel to be used in 

certain aquaculture operations. 

Specifically, those operations include 

the treatment and/or protection of 

aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic 

infestation, or other threats to their 

health. The proposed part would 

establish the requirement for an owner 

or operator of a vessel who is issued a 

waiver by the Secretary of DOT to notify 

the Coast Guard that the vessel owner or 

operator has been issued a waiver that 

allows the vessel to conduct certain 

aquaculture support operations. The 

proposed part would also establish 

operational and geographic 

requirements for vessels that are issued 

such a waiver. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before October 28, 2015 or reach 

the Docket Management Facility by that 

date. Comments sent to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on the 

collection of information must reach 

OMB on or before October 28, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2015–0086 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

Collection of Information Comments: 

If you have comments on the collection 

of information discussed in section 

VI.D. of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking, you must also send 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 

Management and Budget. To ensure that 

your comments to OIRA are received on 

time, the preferred methods are by email 


Lhorne on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS