The EPA Acting Regional Administrator, Deborah Jordan, signed the following rule on December 1, 2016 and EPA 

is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this 

version of this rule, it is not the official version. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication 

appearing on the Government Printing Office website, 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR, and on www.regulations.gov in Docket 

Number EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0660.

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0660; FRL-]

Approval of California Air Plan; Owens Valley Serious Area Plan for the 1987 24-Hour PM10

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California and Great Basin Unified 

Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD or “District”) to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) 

requirements applicable to the Owens Valley PM10 nonattainment area (NA). The Owens Valley 

PM10 NA is located in the southern portion of the Owens Valley in Inyo County, California. It is 

classified as a Serious nonattainment area for the national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter of ten microns or less (PM10). The submitted SIP revision is the 

“Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 2016 Owens Valley Planning Area PM10

State Implementation Plan” (“2016 PM10 Plan” or “Plan”). The GBUAPCD’s obligation to 

submit the 2016 PM10 Plan was triggered by the EPA’s 2007 finding that the Owens Valley PM10

NA had failed to meet its December 31, 2006, deadline to attain the PM10 NAAQS. The CAA

requires a Serious PM10 nonattainment area that fails to meet its attainment deadline to submit a 

plan providing for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS and for an annual emission reduction in PM10
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

2

of not less than five percent until attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2016 PM10 Plan as meeting all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by [Insert date 30 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0660, at 

http://www.regualtions.gov, or via email to Vagenas.Ginger@epa.gov. For comments submitted 

at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 

the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically 

any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) 

must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official 

comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on 

the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

EPA’s full public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 

general guidance on making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 415-972-

3964, Vagenas.Ginger@epa.gov.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

3

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and 

“our” mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background: PM10 Air Quality Planning in the Owens Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area

A. Planning History

B. Description of the Owens Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area

C. Public Notice, Public Hearing, and Completeness Requirements for SIP Submittals

D. CAA Requirements for PM10 Serious Area Plans

II. Evaluation of the Owens Valley PM10 Plan’s Compliance with CAA Requirements

A. Review of the Owens Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area Emissions Inventories

B. Demonstration of Attainment

C. Five Percent Requirement

D. BACM/BACT and Adopted Control Strategy

E. Reasonable Further Progress/Quantitative Milestones

F. Contingency Measures

G. Transportation Conformity

III. Summary of the EPA’s Proposed Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background: PM10 Air Quality Planning in the Owens Valley PM10 Nonattainment 

Area

A. Planning History

The NAAQS are standards for certain ambient air pollutants set by the EPA to protect 

public health and welfare. PM10 is among the ambient air pollutants for which the EPA has 

established health-based standards. By penetrating deep in the lungs, PM10 causes adverse health 

effects including lung damage, increased respiratory disease, and premature death. Children, the 

elderly, and people with asthma and heart conditions are the most vulnerable.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

4

On July 1, 1987, the EPA revised the health-based national ambient air quality standards, 

replacing the standards for total suspended particulates with new standards applying only to 

PM10.

1 At that time, the EPA established two PM10 standards, annual and 24-hour. Effective 

December 18, 2006, the EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard but retained the 24-hour PM10

standard.2 The 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3) is attained 

when the expected number of days with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3per 

calendar year averaged over a three-year period, as determined in accordance with appendix K to 

40 CFR part 50, is equal to or less than one.3

On the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, the Owens Valley (along with 

many other areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the amended Act) was 

designated nonattainment by operation of law.4 The Owens Valley PM10 NA is located in Inyo 

County in east-central California. The EPA codified the boundaries of the Owens Valley PM10

NA at 40 CFR 81.305.

Once an area is designated nonattainment for PM10, section 188 of the CAA outlines the 

process for classifying the area as Moderate or Serious and establishes the area's attainment 

deadline. In accordance with section 188(a), at the time of designation, all PM10 nonattainment 

areas, including the Owens Valley PM10 NA, were initially classified as Moderate. A Moderate 

PM10 nonattainment area can subsequently be reclassified as Serious either before the applicable 

attainment date if the EPA determines the area cannot practicably attain the PM10 NAAQS by 

 

1 52 FR 24672.

2 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).

3 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.

4 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991).
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

5

this attainment date, or after the passage of the applicable Moderate area PM10 attainment date if 

the EPA determines that the area has failed to attain the standard. In accordance with section 

188(b)(1) of the CAA, on February 8, 1993, the EPA determined the Owens Valley PM10 NA 

could not practicably attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994 and reclassified the area as 

Serious.5

As a Serious area, the Owens Valley PM10 NA acquired a new attainment deadline of no 

later than December 31, 2001. CAA section 188(c)(2). However, CAA section 188(e) authorizes 

the EPA to grant up to a 5-year extension of that attainment deadline if certain conditions are met 

by the state. In order to obtain the extension, the state must make a SIP submission showing that: 

(1) attainment by the applicable attainment date would be impracticable; (2) the state complied 

with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan for the 

area; and (3) the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures (MSM) that are included 

in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in practice in any state and can feasibly 

be implemented in the specific area.

In its 1998 Owens Valley PM10 Plan (submitted to the EPA on September 10, 1998),

California requested an attainment date extension under CAA section 188(e) for the Owens 

Valley PM10 NA from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2006. On September 3, 1999, the 

EPA approved the Serious area 1998 PM10 Plan for the Owens Valley PM10 NA as meeting the 

requirements for such areas in CAA sections 189(b) and (c), including the requirements for 

implementation of best available control measures (BACM) in section 189(b)(1)(B) and MSM in 

section 188(e). In the same action, the EPA approved the submission with respect to the 

 

5 58 FR 3334 (January 8, 1993).
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

6

requirements of section 188(e) and granted California’s request to extend the attainment date for 

the area to December 31, 2006. This final action and the proposal preceding it provide a more 

detailed discussion of the history of PM10 planning in the Owens Valley PM10 NA.6

On June 6, 2007, the EPA found that the Owens Valley PM10 NA failed to attain the 24-

hour PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 2006.

7 Accordingly, the 

State was required to submit a new plan meeting the requirements of section 189(d) by 

December 31, 2007.

The Governing Board of the GBUAPCD adopted the “2008 Owens Valley PM10

Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment State Implementation Plan” (“2008 Plan”) on 

February 1, 2008. The 2008 Plan, which included a request for an attainment date extension, was 

submitted by the State to the EPA on June 11, 2009. The 2008 Plan was subsequently updated 

and superseded by the submittal of the 2016 PM10 Plan, which reiterates the request for an 

attainment date extension and incorporates agreements reached between the GBUAPCD and the 

City of Los Angeles, and is the subject of this action.8

B. Description of the Owens Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area

Owens Lake is located in Inyo County in east central California in the southern portion of 

the Owens Valley. It is part of a chain of lakes formed over 140,000 thousand years ago.

9

In 

1913, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) completed an aqueduct 

 

6 See 64 FR 34173 (June 25, 1999) and 64 FR 48305 (September 3, 1999).

7 72 FR 31183.

8 See Chapter 8 of the 2016 PM10 Plan and letter from Phillip L. Kiddoo, Air Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD 

to Elizabeth Adams, Acting Air Division Director, U.S. EPA, Region 9, dated October 26, 2016.

9 2016 PM10 Plan, p.7
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

7

system and began diverting the waters of the Owens River to the City of Los Angeles. By 1930, 

these diversions from the Owens River had drained the Owens Lake almost completely dry.10

Strong winds blowing over the surface of the dry, alkaline bed of the Owens Lake have 

produced among the highest measured concentrations of PM10 ever recorded, including a 

monitored reading that exceeded 12,000 μg/m3– more than 80 times over the federal 24-hour 

standard.11 Past data from the EPA’s approval of the 1998 PM10 Plan indicated that during days 

when violations were recorded, 94 percent of the PM10 concentrations came from the Owens 

Lake bed and another five percent came from re-entrained Owens Lake dust already deposited in 

the area.12 Since our approval of the 1998 PM10 Plan, PM10 emissions occurring directly from the 

Owens Lake bed and those attributable to re-entrained Owens Lake dust deposited in the twokilometer area surrounding the Owens Lake bed, particularly the Keeler and Olancha Dunes, 

have declined. Despite this reduction, the predominant source of PM10 emissions contributing to 

nonattainment in the Owens Valley PM10 NA continues to be the dry Owens Lake bed and the

two-kilometer perimeter surrounding it.13

Approximately 40,000 permanent residents live in the area affected by the Owens Lake 

PM10 emissions.14 Some of these residents are members of four Tribes: the Lone Pine 

Paiute/Shoshone Tribe, the Fort Independence Tribe, the Big Pine Tribe, and the Bishop Tribe. 

 

10 Id., p. 8.

11 Id., p. S-2.

12 64 FR 34173 at 34174.

13 2016 PM10 Plan, page S-4, Table S-2, and Chapter 8.

14 Id. at S-2.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

8

Residents and visitors to the area suffer the adverse health effects from high PM10

concentrations.15

As noted previously, the State of California and the GBUAPCD submitted a PM10 Plan in 

1998 that the EPA approved in 1999.16 The EPA recognized in approving the 1998 PM10 Plan 

that the Owens Valley PM10 NA presented one of the most challenging air quality problems 

nationally, requiring a reduction of PM10 concentrations from almost 4000 μg/m3to the 24-hour 

NAAQS of 150 μg/m3. The EPA also recognized that while the origin of the PM10 problem was 

well understood – the draining of Owens Lake by the City of Los Angeles in the early part of this 

century and continued LADWP withdrawals from the Owens River – the solution to the problem 

remained controversial.17 The EPA’s evaluation of the 1998 PM10 Plan noted the unique 

complexities of the Owens Valley PM10 planning process, including the competing authorities 

and responsibilities of the GBUAPCD to protect Owens Valley residents from the harmful 

effects of air pollution and those of the City of Los Angeles to provide its residents with an 

adequate water supply.18

Historically, there have been significant disputes between the GBUAPCD and the City of 

Los Angeles concerning the appropriateness, location, and extent of control measures to reduce 

PM10 emissions from the Owens Lake bed and surrounding areas, which interfered with the 

adoption of a fully approvable plan. The legal history between the GBUAPCD and the City of 

Los Angeles is described in some detail in the EPA’s proposed approval of the 1998 PM10 Plan 

 

15 Id.

16 64 FR 48305.

17 64 FR 34173 at 34174.

18 Id. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

9

and in the 2016 PM10 Plan.19 In summary, California legislation followed by litigation in state

and federal courts resulted in a series of agreements requiring the City of Los Angeles to 

implement a variety of control measures to mitigate PM10 emissions from the dry Owens Lake 

bed. The most recent iteration of these agreements, reached after extensive negotiations, is the 

2014 Stipulated Judgment between the City of Los Angeles and the GBUAPCD.20 It is our 

understanding that the 2014 Stipulated Judgment resolves all disputes between the District and 

the City of Los Angeles and it appears to clearly articulate the responsibilities of both parties, 

providing certainty and eliminating the risk of further litigation regarding the Owens Lake bed 

controls required for attainment and contingency measures. The 2014 Stipulated Judgment adds 

to and incorporates prior agreements between the parties and constitutes the foundation for the 

2016 PM10 Plan that we are proposing to approve in this action.21

The EPA is proposing to approve the 2016 PM10 Plan because it meets the CAA 

requirements for Serious area plans. As was true of the 1998 PM10 Plan, this 2016 PM10 Plan is 

an important blueprint for clean air in one of the most unique and challenging PM10

nonattainment areas in the United States.

22 Successful implementation will require continued 

joint efforts by the GBUAPCD and the City of Los Angeles.

23

 

19 2016 PM10 Plan, pp. 9-12.

20 Id., Appendix II-1.

21 Id., p.12 (“The judgment requires the City of Los Angeles to implement the dust control measures ordered in 2011 

and 2012 and provides for additional dust control measures up to 53.4 square miles in total for all ordered dust 

control areas.”)

22 In 2016, the EPA bestowed its Clean Air Excellence Award for Regulatory and Policy Innovations on the 

GBUAPCD in recognition of the District’s development of leading methods to identify pollution source areas, 

analyze particulate emissions, and determine suitable pollution control measures. The EPA noted the Owens Lake 

project constitutes the world’s largest PM10 emission control project and has led to annual air pollution reductions of 

75,000 tons. See the EPA’s Web site: https://www.epa.gov/caaac/clean-air-excellence-awards.

23 In 2016, the EPA bestowed its Clean Air Excellence Award for Regulatory and Policy Innovations on the 

GBUAPCD in recognition of the District’s development of leading methods to identify pollution source areas, 
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

10

The establishment of controls on the lake bed has resulted in significant improvements to 

air quality in the Owens Valley. Between 1993 and 2014, the number of NAAQS exceedances 

decreased substantially at monitors located in the Owens Valley PM10 NA. For example, the 

peak three-year average number of exceedances at the Dirty Socks monitor declined from 41 to 9 

in 2014, at the Keeler monitor from 20 to 8, and at the Shell Cut monitor from 19 to 5.24 As 

shown in Table 1, the 2016 PM10 Plan demonstrates that PM10 design concentrations are 

predicted to be below the NAAQS when all required controls are implemented by the City of Los 

Angeles and the GBUAPCD.

25 Through the continued efforts of the GBUAPCD and the City of 

Los Angeles, the 2016 PM10 Plan demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS within 

the attainment year of 2017. 

Table 1. Decline in Owens Valley PM10 Concentrations (μg/m 3)

Monitoring Site July 2009 – June 2014

Maximum PM10

Hybrid Model 2017 

Design Concentration 

Predictions

Dirty Socks 1,437 93

Flat Rock 871 94

Keeler 2,994 67

Lizard Tail 4,571 142

Mill Site 754 125

North Beach 1,536 67

Olancha 779 41

Shell Cut 2,149 105

Stanley 286 39

Source: 2016 PM10 Plan, Tables 7-1 and 7-5.

 

analyze particulate emissions, and determine suitable pollution control measures. The EPA noted the Owens Lake 

project constitutes the world’s largest PM10 emission control project and has led to annual air pollution reductions of 

75,000 tons. See the EPA’s Web site: https://www.epa.gov/caaac/clean-air-excellence-awards.

24 2016 PM10 Plan, Appendix III-2, Table 1.

25 Id., Table 7-5.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

11

C. Public Notice, Public Hearing, and Completeness Requirements for SIP Submittals

CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each state to provide reasonable public 

notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP 

revision to the EPA. To meet this requirement, every SIP submission should include evidence 

that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided 

consistent with the EPA’s implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.

Both the GBUAPCD and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) satisfied 

applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to 

adoption of the 2016 PM10 Plan. The District provided a public comment period and conducted a 

public hearing on April 13, 2016, before its Board adopted the 2016 PM10 Plan.26 CARB 

provided the required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its May 19, 

2016 public hearing.27 The submission provides proof of publication of notices for the respective 

public hearings. We find, therefore, that the 2016 PM10 Plan meets the procedural requirements 

for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l). 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submission is 

complete within 60 days of receipt. This section of the CAA also provides that any plan that the 

EPA has not affirmatively determined to be complete will become complete by operation of law 

six months after the date of submission. The EPA’s completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR 

 

26 Id., Chapter 13 – Declaration of Clerk of the Board and Resolutions Certifying the EIR and Approving the SIP.

27 State of California Air Resources Board Resolution 16-3, May 19, 2016.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

12

part 51, Appendix V. The EPA determined the SIP submission dated June 9, 2016, to be 

complete on November 21, 2016.28

D. CAA Requirements for PM10 Serious Area Plans

As a Serious PM10 nonattainment area that failed to meet its applicable attainment date of 

December 31, 2006, the Owens Valley PM10 NA is subject to CAA sections 188 and 189. 

Section 188 establishes attainment dates for Serious PM10 nonattainment areas. However, when 

an area such as the Owens Valley PM10 NA fails to attain the PM10 NAAQS within the time 

prescribed in section 188, a new attainment date may be approved. The new attainment date is 

established by section 179(d)(3), which establishes that the attainment date applicable to the 

revision required under paragraph (1) of section 179(d) shall be the same as provided in the 

provisions of section 172 of the CAA. That section of the statute requires the area attain as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the date of designation.29 It also 

includes a provision that allows the EPA to extend the attainment date for up to an additional

five years (i.e., a period of no greater than 10 years) to the extent the Administrator determines 

appropriate, considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of 

pollution control measures.30

 

28 See letter from Elizabeth Adams, Acting Air Division Director, U.S. EPA Region 9 to Richard Corey, Executive 

Officer, California Air Resource Board.

29 In accordance with CAA section 179(d)(3) and 172(a)(2)(A), the attainment deadline applicable to an area that 

misses the Serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable, but no later than five years from the publication 

date of the nonattainment finding notice. The EPA’s finding that the Owens Valley PM10 NA failed to attain by the 

Serious area nonattainment date was published on June 6, 2007.

30 42 U.S.C. 7502(a)(2)(A). See also Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. United States EPA, 423 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th

Cir. 2015).
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

13

Section 189(d) provides that the state shall submit within 12 months after the applicable 

attainment date, plan revisions that provide for attainment of the PM10 air quality standard and, 

from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual reduction of PM10 or PM10

precursor emissions within the area of not less than five percent of the amount of such emissions 

as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for the area.

The general planning and control requirements for all nonattainment plans are found in 

CAA sections 110 and 172. More specific planning and control requirements relevant to the 

PM10 NAAQS are found in Part D, Subpart 4, in CAA sections 188 and 189, as noted above. The 

EPA has issued a General Preamble31 and Addendum to the General Preamble32 to provide 

guidance to states for meeting the CAA's requirements for the PM10 NAAQS. The General 

Preamble mainly addresses the requirements for moderate nonattainment areas and the 

Addendum addresses requirements for Serious nonattainment areas. The EPA has also issued 

other guidance documents related to PM10 plans that are discussed and cited below. The specific 

PM10 plan requirements addressed by this proposed action are summarized below.

1. Emissions Inventories

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that an attainment plan include a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutants.

 

31 “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

32 “State Implementation Plans for Serious PM10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM10

Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994) (Addendum).
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

14

2. Attainment Demonstration and Five Percent Requirement

For Serious PM10 nonattainment areas that do not attain the PM10 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date, CAA section 189(d) requires the state to submit plan revisions that 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS and provide for an annual five percent reduction in PM10

or PM10 precursor emissions for each year from the date of submission until attainment.33

Section 189(d) specifies that the state must submit these plan revisions within 12 months of the 

applicable attainment date that the area failed to meet. 

3. Best Available Control Measures for Sources of PM10

CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires provisions to assure that BACM, including the best 

available control technology (BACT) for stationary sources, for the control of PM10 shall be 

implemented no later than four years after the date a nonattainment area is reclassified as 

Serious.

When a Moderate area is reclassified to Serious, the requirements to implement 

reasonably available control measures (RACM), including such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of 

reasonably available control technology (RACT), in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) 

remain applicable. Thus, a Serious area PM10 plan must also provide for the implementation of 

RACM and RACT to the extent that the RACM and RACT requirements have not been satisfied 

in the area's Moderate area plan.

 

33 The EPA has previously determined that PM10 precursors are not significant contributors to PM10 levels in the 

Owens Valley PM10 NA. See 64 FR 34173 at 34716 (June 25, 1999). In that rulemaking notice, the EPA noted that 

the contribution from secondary aerosols is insignificant. Inventory information submitted by the GBUAPCD in 

association with the 2016 PM10 Plan also demonstrates that precursors do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels 

that exceed the standard. See section II.D.2.b of this notice. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

15

CAA section 189(e) requires that control requirements applicable to major stationary 

sources of PM10 shall 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 standards in the area.

4. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that implementation plans demonstrate reasonable further 

progress (RFP) as defined in section 171(1). Section 171(1) defines RFP as such annual 

incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by part D of title 

I or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of 

the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date. The general RFP 

requirement of section 172(c)(2) applies to SIP submissions necessary to meet CAA section 

189(d) for the PM10 NAAQS.

In addition, CAA section 189(c)(1), which is specifically applicable to the PM10 NAAQS,

requires that an implementation plan contain quantitative milestones that will be achieved every 

three years and that will demonstrate that RFP is being met.

5. Contingency Measures

CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that implementation plans provide for the 

implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make RFP or to attain 

the NAAQS by the attainment date applicable under part D of title I. Such measures are to take 

effect in any such case without further action by the State or the Administrator. The contingency 

measure requirement of CAA section 179(c)(9) applies to the SIP submissions necessary to meet 

CAA section 189(d) for the PM10 NAAQS.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

16

6. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). Our conformity rule (40 

CFR part 93, subpart A) requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to 

state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining 

whether or not they do so. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the 

NAAQS or any interim milestone. Once a SIP that contains motor vehicle emissions budgets has 

been submitted to the EPA, and the EPA has found them adequate, these budgets are used for 

determining conformity (i.e., emissions from planned transportation activities must be less than 

or equal to the budgets).

II. Evaluation of the Owens Valley PM10 Plan’s Compliance with CAA Requirements

A. Review of the Owens Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area Emissions Inventories

The 2016 PM10 Plan includes PM10 emissions inventories for the Owens Valley PM10 NA

for the years 1999 through 2019. For the most part, the emissions data presented in the Plan were

derived from the CARB 2012 and 2015 emission inventories for Inyo County and apportioned to 

the Owens Valley PM10 NA using factors such as population, roadway miles, and land area.34

The GBUAPCD calculated fugitive windblown dust emissions using a combination of modeling 

and data collected at monitors located around the Owens Lake bed. The unpaved road dust 

 

34 An overview of the 2016 PM10 Plan emissions inventory is provided here. For detailed results and a complete 

discussion of the methodologies used to produce the emissions inventories, see the following sections of the 2016 

PM10 Plan: Summary, S.1; Chapter 4, “PM10 Emissions Inventory and Determination of Significant Sources;” and 

Appendix IV-1, “2016 SIP Inventory.”
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

17

emissions were calculated using the GBUAPCD’s emission factors. These calculations are 

included in Tables 3 and 4 of Appendix IV-1of the 2016 PM10 Plan. 

The District has also provided an inventory of emissions of PM10 precursors (i.e., sulfur 

oxides, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia) for a 2015 exceedance day.35

In this inventory, ammonia emission estimates “were derived from Inyo County emissions that 

were queried from the USEPA’s 2014 National Emissions Inventory.” Estimates for the other 

precursors “were derived from Inyo County emissions that were queried from the CARB 

CEPAM Standard Emissions Tool (2013 Almanac).” In all cases, emissions were apportioned to 

the Owens Valley PM10 NA using various factors.

36 The EPA previously determined that PM10

precursors are not significant contributors to PM10 levels in the Owens Valley PM10 NA.

37 At 

that time, the EPA noted that the contribution from secondary aerosols is insignificant. The EPA 

proposes to find again that precursors do not play a significant part in the PM10 problem in the 

Owens Valley PM10 NA. We discuss this in more detail in Section II.D., below.

The emissions inventories provided in the Plan show that fugitive dust emissions 

resulting from wind erosion on the exposed Owens Lake bed, off-lake deposits of lake bed dust 

such as the Keeler Dunes, and open desert are by far the largest sources of PM10 in the Owens 

Valley PM10 NA. Other, much smaller sources of windblown dust include small mining facilities 

and the Lone Pine Landfill. The remaining sources of PM10 within the Owens Valley PM10 NA

include wood stoves, fireplaces, unpaved and paved road dust, and vehicle tailpipe emissions. 

 

35 See attachment to letter from Phillip L. Kiddoo, Air Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD to Elizabeth Adams, 

Acting Air Division Director, U.S. EPA, Region 9, dated October 26, 2016. 

36 Id. The metrics used to ratio emissions from Inyo County to the Owens Valley PM10 NA are specified in the 

attachment.

37 See 64 FR 34173 at 34716 (June 25, 1999)
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

18

The District also notes that prescribed burning is a source of PM10 in the nonattainment area. 

There are no large industrial sources of PM10 in the Owens Valley PM10 NA.

The GBUAPCD also grouped emissions into three location-based categories: “lake bed

emissions,” “near-lake emissions,” and “remaining Owens Valley NA emissions.” Emissions 

originating from the lake bed are included in the lake bed category. The near-lake category 

consists of emissions generated within a two-kilometer zone surrounding the lake bed and 

includes fugitive windblown dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads and open desert, 

emissions from other sources within two kilometers of the lake bed such as the Lone Pine Dump, 

and the Keeler and Olancha dunes. Emissions generated outside the two-kilometer zone are 

grouped in the remaining Owens Lake NA emissions category. The “Owens Lake Subarea” 

encompasses the lake bed and the near-lake emissions. Emissions from unpaved roads and open 

desert areas generated within the two-kilometer zone surrounding the lake were used in the 

District’s analysis of which sources contribute significantly to nonattainment, thereby allowing

the District to factor in the impact of the distance between emission sources and affected 

monitors. 

Table 2 provides a summary of the annual emissions forecast for all PM10 emission 

source categories in the Owens Valley PM10 NA for 2006, 2007, and for 2016 through 2019 

(tons per year).
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

19

Table 2. Summary of PM10 Annual Emissions in the OVPA

Year 

end38

Lake Bed 

Emissions

Near-Lake Emissions Remaining Owens Valley NA 

Emissions Total

Keeler 

Dunes

Olancha 

Dunes

2-km 

Buffer 

(excluding 

dunes)39

Windblown 

Dust 

Unpaved 

Roads

Windblown 

Dust Open 

Desert40

Misc. 

Sources41

2006 789 5,324 6,395 4,217 416 19,617 854 37,613

2007 7,448 4,476 5,011 3,143 416 19,617 854 40,964

2016 1,222 172 1,506 1,358 416 19,617 747 25,038

2017 355 41 1,093 1,180 416 19,617 747 23,450

2018 355 41 798 1,053 416 19,617 747 23,027

2019 355 41 586 962 416 19,617 750 22,726

Source: 2016 PM10 Plan, Table 4-3.

The EPA is proposing to find that the 2016 PM10 Plan’s emissions inventories for 2006 

through 2019 are comprehensive, accurate, and current inventories of actual emissions from all 

sources in the Owens Valley PM10 NA and that these emissions inventories meet the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA and EPA guidance.42 The GBUAPCD has 

provided a 2006 base year and future year emissions inventories to 2019, comprehensively 

addressing all source categories in the Owens Valley PM10 NA. Consequently, we are proposing 

to find that the emissions inventories provided by the GBUAPCD meet the requirements of 

section 172(c)(3) and provide an adequate basis for the attainment demonstration as well as for 

the BACM and RFP demonstrations.

 

38 Values presented represent the emissions at the end of the calendar year, after all scheduled controls are in place.

39 Includes PM10 emissions from Lone Pine Landfill, which equal on average approximately 60 tons per year. 

40 Emissions assumed constant over time.

41 Miscellaneous sources include: manufacturing and industrial, service and commercial, mineral processes, metal 

processes, residential fuel combustion, construction and demolition, paved and unpaved road dust (activity related), 

windblown dust from agricultural lands, managed burning and disposal, on-road mobile, and wildfires.

42 Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations. U.S. EPA, September 29, 2016 (draft).
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

20

B. Demonstration of Attainment 

The 2016 PM10 Plan must provide a detailed demonstration (including air quality 

modeling) that the specified control strategy will reduce PM10 emissions so that the 24-hour 

NAAQS will be attained as soon as practicable but no later than June 6, 2017, assuming final 

approval of the attainment deadline extension discussed above. CAA section 189(b)(1)(A). 

1. Attainment Deadline

In 2007, the EPA notified the GBUAPCD that it had failed to attain the PM10 NAAQS by 

the attainment date at the end of 2006.43 The GBUAPCD has requested that the EPA extend the 

attainment date for the Owens Valley PM10 NA for an additional 10 years.

44 The EPA is 

proposing to approve the requested attainment date extension because, considering the severity 

of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures, the EPA 

believes such an extension to June 6, 2017 is warranted based on various factors, including the 

following.

First, the EPA acknowledges the severity of the PM10 problem. As discussed above, prior 

to the application of controls, the Owens Valley PM10 NA experienced dust storms of 

unprecedented magnitude that originated from the dry Owens Lake bed under certain 

meteorological conditions. The magnitude of these dust storms from the dry lake bed were 

unique within California and the United States.

 

43 See 72 FR 31183 (June 6, 2007).

44 As discussed above, CAA section 188 and 179 allow up to a 10-year extension of the attainment date after the 

EPA issues a finding that a Serious PM10 nonattainment area has failed to attain the NAAQS. CAA section 172(a) 

authorizes the EPA to extend the attainment deadline to the extent it deems appropriate for a period of no greater 

than 10 years from the publication of the nonattainment finding, considering the severity of nonattainment and the 

availability and feasibility of pollution control measure.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

21

Second, the factors creating the dry Owens Lake bed, specifically the diversion of water 

in the early 20th century to the City of Los Angeles, resulted in complex legal and technical 

agreements for installation of control measures that were untested in kind and scope. Since 

approval of the 1998 PM10 Plan, the GBUAPCD and City of Los Angeles have worked 

consistently to refine and optimize the complex set of control measures leading to substantial 

reductions of PM10 from the dry Owens Lake bed and surrounding near-lake sources. The 

culmination of decades of work on this problem by the GBUAPCD and the City of Los Angeles 

is the Stipulated Judgment leading to the District’s adoption and the EPA’s approval of Rule 433 

into the SIP in 2016.

45 Rule 433 will ensure that the mitigation measures leading to the final 

reductions in PM10 will occur and lead to attainment of the NAAQS.

For these reasons, the EPA concurs that an extension of the attainment deadline to June 6, 

2017 is warranted. 

2. PM10 Attainment Demonstration Approaches

A key part of a PM10 attainment plan is the attainment demonstration. This is a 

demonstration by the state that the existing and planned emission control measures, in this case, 

the controls that have been incorporated into Rule 433 and the Keeler Dunes Project, are 

sufficient to result in attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by the required attainment date (i.e., 2017). 

Under CAA section 189(b)(1)(A), the attainment demonstration for a Serious nonattainment area 

must include air quality modeling. Please see the EPA’s accompanying Technical Support 

 

45 Because some of the controls required in the 2016 PM10 Plan are required to be installed prior the end of 2017, 

this leaves open the possibility that some of the required controls will not be completed by June of 2017. We do not 

believe this will be an impediment to reaching attainment due to the seasonal nature of PM10 emissions in the Owens 

Lake NA, which are generally elevated in the winter and spring months. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

22

Document (TSD), located in the docket for this action, for our detailed analysis of the air quality 

modeling supporting the District’s demonstration of attainment. In summary, the EPA’s 

preferred PM10 attainment demonstration approach is dispersion modeling, with receptor 

modeling or emissions inventory approaches as adjuncts. However, emissions from fugitive dust 

sources such as the dry Owens Lake bed are uncertain and variable in comparison with the 

typical industrial point sources to which dispersion modeling is usually applied. Also, in a 

fugitive dust-dominated area there are few if any chemical differences between the various 

emitting source regions within the area, so receptor modeling is of limited use. Therefore, 

emissions inventory-based modeling approaches have been used in fugitive dust and other PM10

nonattainment areas. These include the “rollback” of monitored concentrations in proportion to 

emissions, sometimes in conjunction with a dispersion model in order to account for the spatial 

and temporal variation of emissions and their various distances from the monitor(s). In all of the 

approaches, projected emissions reductions due to control measures are applied to the emission 

source contributions, and attainment is demonstrated if the resulting concentrations are below the 

NAAQS.46

 

46 Monitored concentrations meet the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS when the “design value,” the expected number of daily 

exceedances of the NAAQS level of 150 μg/m3, is no more than one per year, 40 CFR 50.6. However, for a modeled 

attainment demonstration, when five years of meteorology are modeled, the 6th highest concentration is used as the 

“design concentration” to compare to the NAAQS level; at most five exceedances of that level are acceptable for 

attainment, one per modeled year. Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 CFR 51 Appendix W, section 7.2.1.1, 

“Design Concentrations for SO2, PM10, CO, Pb, and NO2” The design concentration is sometimes referred to as the 

“design value,” but strictly speaking, the PM10 design value is the expected number of exceedances per year
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

23

3. Modeling in Submittal

The District used a hybrid modeling approach combining the CALPUFF (“California 

Puff”) dispersion model47 with a monitored component. CALPUFF is used to model the effect of 

emissions from sources on the Owens Lake bed and the Keeler Dunes. The monitored 

component is used to represent the effect of other sources off the lake bed (“out-of-network”), 

which are not otherwise included in the CALPUFF modeling; it is a time-varying background 

concentration that declines over time as lake bed emissions are controlled. The District’s hybrid 

model and its inputs are discussed in more detail in our TSD.

The District’s model performance evaluation48 of the hybrid model, which checked

model predictions against monitored observations during the five-year period of July 2009 to 

June 2014, showed a high correlation between them and acceptable model performance. 

The attainment demonstration also examined the effect of the controls through 

implementation of Rule 433 and controls on the Keeler Dunes that would be in place by the end 

of 2017, the attainment year. Each of the five meteorology years was modeled, and for a given 

receptor the highest sixth-high concentration taken as the design concentration. The design 

concentration results for each monitor site for 2014 through 2019 are shown in Table 7-5 of the 

2016 PM10 Plan. For 2017, the highest design concentration is 142 μg/m3and all concentrations 

are less than 150 μg/m3, demonstrating attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.

 

47 Model code and documentation are available at no cost for download from 

http://www.src.com/calpuff/calpuff1.htm.

48 2016 PM10 Plan, Appendix VII-1: Air Quality Modeling Report, sec. 5.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

24

4. Evaluation of Modeled Attainment Demonstration

The dry Owens Lake bed presents a unique situation for which unconventional modeling 

approaches may be appropriate. The EPA has consulted with the District and CARB on the 

modeling approach numerous times over the past decade, including during the year prior to the 

current Plan submittal. As discussed in detail in our TSD and in the summary below, the 

District’s air quality modeling analysis is appropriate for this area.

a. Model Emissions Input

The District’s Dust Identification (ID) Program, described in detail in the TSD, provides 

estimates of PM10 emissions based on real-time measurements at numerous locations. It provides 

a level of detail and accuracy that is unique, and is a considerable refinement over standard 

emission factors, and even over locale-specific emission factors that account for soil type and 

wind speed. It provides a strong foundation for the emission estimates needed for a modeled 

attainment demonstration.

b. Model Choice

The District’s method for estimating PM10 emission factors (i.e., back-calculation from 

monitored concentrations, also discussed in detail in the TSD), depends on good characterization 

of source-receptor relationships (emitting source square and monitor receptor) to determine 

which particular emitting areas are contributing to a given monitored concentration. A 

Lagrangian puff model like CALPUFF, which allows PM10 emissions to follow a realistic curved 

trajectory between the source area and the monitor and allows different wind direction to vary by 

location at any given time, is appropriate for this demonstration. CALPUFF is preferable to a 
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

25

steady-state Gaussian model like AERMOD, which has “straight-line” trajectories along a single 

wind direction within any given hour for all sources.

c. Modeling domain and background concentration. 

The District’s monitoring and modeling network is focused on the lake bed and the 

immediately surrounding area. In order for the attainment demonstration to account for all the 

PM10 emission sources contributing to NAAQS violations, off-lake sources must be adequately 

represented in the background concentration that is added to the model prediction. The District’s 

procedure for determining background concentration is discussed in detail in the TSD. The EPA 

finds the District’s reasoning and supporting documentation for the assumptions convincing. 

d. Modeling receptors

By default, a grid of model receptors is used to cover much of a nonattainment area, to 

ensure that the NAAQS is attained everywhere in the area. In the 2016 PM10 Plan, receptors are 

placed only along the lake bed shoreline, and further, only at monitor locations. As stated in the 

2016 PM10 Plan, the monitoring sites were chosen to be downwind of the largest PM10 source 

areas, i.e. the lake bed, and so are representative of the highest expected impacts.49 Because

concentrations necessarily decline with distance from a non-buoyant source like fugitive dust, 

the EPA agrees that the highest PM10 concentrations would be expected at the shoreline. 

5. The EPA’s Proposed Action

In summary, the attainment demonstration is based on a unique modeling approach that 

incorporates real-world measurements and is well-suited to the special conditions at Owens 

 

49 Id., p.62 sec.7.1.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

26

Lake. The EPA is proposing to find that the attainment demonstration in the 2016 PM10 Plan is

approvable. 

C. Five Percent Requirement 

Section 189(d) of the CAA requires a state with a Serious PM10 nonattainment area that 

fails to attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment deadlines to submit within 12 

months after the attainment applicable attainment date, a plan showing an annual five percent 

reduction in emissions of PM10 in the area from the date of the submission until attainment, 

based on the most recent inventory. 

Table 4-3 in the 2016 PM10 Plan provides a summary of the annual emissions forecast for 

sources of emissions in the nonattainment area for the years 1999 through 2019. The inventory 

values are derived using a combination of modeling data, monitoring results, CARB emissions

inventories and control measure efficiencies.50

The 2016 PM10 Plan includes a demonstration of annual five percent reductions in 

Chapter 8. As noted, fugitive windblown emissions, “which are tied to meteorology and are 

highly irregular year-to-year,”

51 account for most of the emissions in the Owens Valley PM10

NA.52 To accommodate this variability for a more stable and realistic assessment of reductions, 

the District used a three-year rolling average to calculate the annual reductions. Using average 

annual emissions from 2005 – 2007 (62,734 tpy) as the starting point for the required five 

percent per year reductions, the District is required to reduce emissions by 31,367 tons per year 

 

50 Id., at 34-35.

51For example, emissions totaled 109,635 tons in 2005, dropped to 37,613 tons in 2006, then rose to 73,999 tons in 

2009 before beginning to consistently decline. Emissions in 2010 totaled 70,343 tons and by 2017 when attainment 

will be reached, emissions are projected to be 23,450 tons per year. 2016 PM10 Plan, Table 4-3.

52 Id., p. 81.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

27

by the attainment year (2017) to 32,367 tons per year. The GBUAPCD projects three-year annual 

average emissions in 2017 to be 24,783 tons per year, which exceeds the required amount of 

required reductions by 7,584 tons per year. Figure 8-1 in the 2016 PM10 Plan illustrates 

emissions trends for various sources in the nonattainment area from 1999 through 2019 along 

with the three-year average total, and compares these values with a five percent reduction line. 53 

Although annual emissions increase in the first few years of the planning period, a steady 

decline begins in 2009.54 The average emissions reductions catch up with the five percent per 

year reduction target in 2013, and subsequently exceed the required reductions beyond the 

projected attainment year. The EPA recognizes the unprecedented challenges faced by the 

District in achieving this target. In light of the unique nature of the source of emissions in the 

Owens Valley PM10 NA, the groundbreaking technical efforts needed to characterize and control 

emissions from the lake bed, and the unavoidable delays in implementing controls on the lake 

bed caused by litigation, and in recognition of the achievement of reductions beyond those 

required under CAA section 189(d) after 2013, we are proposing to approve the five percent 

demonstration in the 2016 PM10 Plan. 

 

53 The EPA believes the use of 2007 as the baseline for five percent reductions is reasonable and consistent with 

Congress’ intent. Section 189(d) states that plans are due within 12 months of the missed attainment deadline and 

that the plans should provide for annual five percent reductions from the date of the submission until attainment. The 

attainment deadline for the Owens Valley PM10 NA was December 31, 2006. 64 FR 48305 (September 3, 1999). 

Accordingly, a submittal to fulfill section 189(d) was due by December 31, 2007. Arguably, some of the reductions

in the RFP demonstration occurred outside the literal time frame specified by Congress (i.e., “the date of the 

submission” of the Plan) because the 2016 PM10 Plan was not submitted until June 9, 2016. The EPA believes that it 

is appropriate and consistent with Congress’s intent for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS that we consider 

reductions that occurred prior to the submittal of the 2016 PM10 Plan. 

54 The District notes that a substantial portion of the total reductions achieved beginning in 2006 and forecast 

through 2017 occur from 2010 to 2014 with the implementation of the 2008 SIP Control Areas and Phase 8 Control 

Area, which are described in Sections 6.2.1.4 and 6.2.1.5 of the Plan. 2016 PM10 Plan, p 85.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

28

D. BACM/BACT and Adopted Control Strategy

1. Background

Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires areas designated as Serious nonattainment for 

PM10 to implement BACM and BACT55 on all significant sources of direct PM10 and PM10

precursors. The CAA does not define a BACM-level of control for specific sources. In our 

guidance for Serious PM10 nonattainment area plans, the EPA defined BACM to be, among other 

things, the maximum degree of emission reduction achievable from a source or source category 

which is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering energy, economic and environmental 

impacts.56 Consistent with the General Preamble Addendum, a BACM analysis should include 

the following elements for the Owens Valley PM10 NA:

 Preparation of an inventory of PM10 sources; 

 Identification of source categories having a greater than de minimis impact on ambient 

PM10 concentrations;

 Comparative analysis of the controls implemented in the Owens Valley PM10 NA and 

BACM in other Serious nonattainment areas for significant source categories; and 

 Evaluation of reducing emissions from a particular source category and costs associated 

with controls.

2. Analysis

The GBUAPCD BACM analysis, which addresses the four elements described in the

General Preamble Addendum,57 is summarized below. The GBUAPCD’s Rule 433 contains the 

 

55 BACT, which applies to stationary sources, is a subset of BACM.

56 See 59 FR 41998, 42010 (August 16, 1994).

57 2016 PM10 Plan, page 38.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

29

BACM control measures for the Owens Lake bed. The EPA approved Rule 433 into the SIP on 

November 10, 2016.

58 In addition, the GBUAPCD is directly implementing controls at the 

Keeler Dunes as discussed further below.

a. Inventory 

The emissions inventories included in the 2016 PM10 Plan and in additional information 

submitted on October 26, 2016 are summarized and evaluated in section II.A, above. As noted 

previously, the EPA is proposing to find that the 2016 PM10 Plan’s emissions inventories for 

2006 through 2019 are comprehensive, accurate, and current inventories of actual emissions 

from all sources in the Owens Valley PM10 NA and that these emissions inventories meet the 

requirements of Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA and the EPA.

b. Identification of Source Categories

The General Preamble Addendum provides that BACM are required for all categories of 

sources in Serious areas unless the State adequately demonstrates a particular source category 

does not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS. A source category is presumed 

to contribute significantly to a violation of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS if its PM10 impact at the 

location of expected violation would exceed 5 μg/m3.

59

To determine which sources contribute significantly to PM10 violations and are therefore 

subject to BACM level controls, the GBUAPCD selected a day on which measured levels of 

particulate approached the level of the standard and the predominant source of emissions was 

 

58 Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss signed the EPA’s final action approving Rule 433 on November 10, 

2016. It will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.

59 59 FR 41998, 42011.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

30

characterized as “non-lake.” The District noted that its choice is conservative because it 

“produces a small de minimis emissions level and makes it feasible for non-lake sources to be 

considered significant.”60 By dividing the threshold value for a significant contribution (i.e., 5 

μg/m3) by ambient level of PM10 on the chosen day (150.1 μg/m3), Great Basin calculated a de 

minimis factor of 3.33 percent. 

The GBUAPCD provided an inventory of sources of precursor emissions that we used to

determine if sources of precursors contribute significantly to ambient levels of PM10 exceeding 

the standard in the Owens Valley PM10 NA. Because of the gaseous nature of precursor 

emissions, these compounds would have the potential for long distance transport, so emissions 

from the entire nonattainment area are considered. Adding together emissions of PM10 from 

within the near-lake area on a near exceedance day and precursor emissions from throughout the 

nonattainment area results in a total of 535.37 tons per day of emissions. Multiplying this 

number by 3.33 percent yields a de minimis threshold of 17.8 tons per day.

In determining whether sources of precursors contribute significantly to PM10 levels, we 

made two conservative assumptions. First, we assumed that all precursor emissions would result 

in the formation of PM10. Second, we compared the total emissions for all precursors (i.e., 4.7 

tons per day), rather than emissions of each precursor from each source category, to the de 

minimis threshold of 17.8 tons per day. Given total precursor emissions are far below the de 

minimis threshold, we conclude precursors do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels in the 

Owens Valley. 

 

60 2016 PM10 Plan, page S-3.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

31

To determine which sources of direct PM10 are significant, the District multiplied the 

near-exceedance day PM10 emissions inventory (530.65 tons per day61) by the de minimis factor, 

yielding a de minimis emissions threshold of 17.7 tons per day.62

Table 3 below summarizes the sources of PM10 emissions in the Owens Lake subarea, on 

the analyzed day.63 

Table 3. PM10 Exceedance Day Inventory for Owens Lake Subarea (2 km buffer)

Category

2015 (tons per 

day)

64

Fugitive Windblown Dust from Exposed Lake Beds 45.30

Fugitive Windblown Dust from Keeler Dunes 169.20

Fugitive Windblown Dust from Olancha Dunes 312.00

Other sources within the Owens Lake Subarea, including mineral 

processing, paved and unpaved road dust, and the Lone Pine Landfill65

4.15

TOTAL 530.65

Using the 17.7 tons per day threshold, the GBUAPCD identified three significant PM10

source categories in the OVPA:

 Fugitive windblown dust from exposed lake bed.

 Fugitive windblown dust from Keeler Dunes.

 Fugitive windblown dust from Olancha Dunes.

 

61 This number does not include precursor emissions, which is acceptable because precursors do not significantly 

contribute and excluding precursor emissions results in a slightly lower (more conservative) threshold for 

significance. 

62 2016 PM10 Plan, p. 4.

63 The GBUAPCD notes that “monitoring and modeling analyses indicate that emissions from off-lake sources more 

than two kilometers away do not have an impact on achieving attainment” and cites a similar approach taken in the 

“Five Percent Plan for PM10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area.” Id. Page 56.

64 Id. Table S-2.

65 BACT, which applies to stationary sources, is generally not applicable within the Owens Valley PM10 NA where 

all PM10 sources except for wind erosion from the dry Owens Lake bed and the dune systems are de minimis. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

32

Based on this analysis, the District focused its BACM demonstration on the controls 

required on the lake bed and on the Keeler Dunes.66 According to the GBUAPCD, the Olancha 

dunes are primarily natural. If PM10 violations are attributed to these dunes, the violations will be 

treated as natural events and a Natural Events Action Plan will be developed and implemented in 

accordance with the EPA’s guidance and rules on Exceptional Events.67 Further, emissions from 

the Olancha Dunes are expected to be reduced by about 2090 tons per year as the result of lake 

bed controls, which will reduce sand migration from nearby areas and allow redeposited lake bed 

particulate to winnow away until emissions are those of a natural dune system.

68

c. Comparative Analysis 

To fulfill the requirement for a comparative analysis, the GBUAPCD searched for 

requirements for analogous lake bed and dune sources in other PM10 nonattainment areas 

including Imperial County, the San Joaquin Valley, Maricopa County (Phoenix area), the South 

Coast, and Clark County (Las Vegas area). However, the District was unable to identify any 

analogous active controls for these kinds of sources in other areas. The District concludes that

“these measures are unique in the US and are, by definition, the most stringent requirements for 

these sources.”

69 A description of the lake bed and dune controls follows.

 

66 The GBUAPCD has investigated the history and morphology of the Keeler Dunes and determined that the drying 

of the Owens Lake bed resulted in the expansion of the pre-existing, natural dune area. 2016 PM10 Plan, page 61.

67 Id. See Appendix V-1, “OVPA 2016 SIP BACM Assessment,” Appendix E, “2013 GBUAPCD Board Order No. 

130916-01,” p.7.

68 Id., pp. 34 and 56.

69 Id. See Appendix V-1, “OVPA 2016 SIP BACM Assessment,” p. 22.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

33

i. Lake Bed Controls

Lake bed controls are set forth in the GBUAPCD’s Rule 433, which is included in the 

2016 PM10 Plan. The EPA has approved Rule 433 into the SIP in a separate action.70 Rule 433 

requires the control measures described in Chapter 6 of the 2016 PM10 Plan and summarized in 

our TSD to be implemented by the City of Los Angeles on various portions of the dry Owens 

Lake bed.71 In brief, Rule 433 requires the City of Los Angeles to conduct shallow flooding 

through application of water, install managed vegetation or a gravel blanket, or in some cases use 

tillage with a brine back-up. These control measures typically result in a 99 to 100 percent

control efficiency. Beginning in 2001, lake bed controls have been constructed in phases as 

modeling and empirical evidence have demonstrated the need for additional controls. Rule 433

requires ongoing implementation of previously established control requirements and includes an 

enforceable implementation schedule for the most recent phase of controls, with all controls in 

place in the attainment year of 2017.

ii. Dune Controls

The District is in the process of implementing a dust control project on Keeler Dunes that 

involves the placement of approximately 82,000 straw bales and planting of approximately 

246,000 native shrubs.72 The goal of the project is to create a stable, non-emissive, low-impact 

vegetated dune system that requires minimal resources to maintain. The placement of the straw 

bales was completed in 2015 and plantings are scheduled to be complete by the end of 2016. At 

 

70 81 FR 62849 (September 13, 2016); final approval signed November 10, 2016.

71 For more detail on the Owens Lake bed controls, see Chapter 6 of the 2016 PM10 Plan and our TSD. Some of 

these control measures are also described in our proposed approval of the 1998 Plan (64 FR 34173, June 25, 1999).

72 As noted above, no additional active controls are anticipated for the Olancha Dunes.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

34

full build-out, the GBUACPD projects the project will reduce PM10 emissions by approximately 

95 percent and bring the community of Keeler into compliance with state and federal PM10

standards.73 Implementation of this project is made federally enforceable by approval of the 2016 

PM10 Plan, which includes Resolution 2016-03 wherein the Governing Board of the GBUAPCD 

authorizes and commits the District to complete the Keeler Dunes Project as set forth in the Plan. 

In the context of its environmental review of the Keeler Dunes Project, the District 

considered alternatives for reducing the windblown dust from the Keeler Dunes, such as 

covering with geotextile fabric and gravel or excavation and removal of the dunes, but found 

them to be infeasible.74

d. Evaluation of Reducing Emissions from Windblown Dust and Associated Costs.

The GBUAPCD estimated cost and emission impacts of the exposed lake bed and Keeler 

Dune controls as shown in Table 4 below :

Table 4. Impact Analysis: Control Effectiveness, Cost Information, and Cost 

Effectiveness75

Source

Category (and

Windblown

Dust Controls)

Average

Annual

Emissions

(tons)

Control

Effectiveness

Costs Cost 

Effectiveness

Dry Lake Bed

(varied controls, 

including shallow 

flooding, gravel 

blanket, and 

managed vegetation. 

See Rule 433.)

2006: 73,174

2010: 43,325

2014: 1,936

Up to 99 percent

depending on

control and

location

$145.8M

(annualized) for 

2016 SIP

$2,390/ton

Off-Lake Dunes

(straw bales and

re-vegetation)

3,309 95 percent based on 

straw bales with future 

shrub establishment.

$700,000

(annualized)

for straw bales

$222/ton

 

73 2016 PM10 Plan, pp.19 and 50 - 53

74 Id. See Appendix V-1, “OVPA 2016 SIP BACM Assessment,” pp. 16-17.

75 Id. See Appendix V-1, “OVPA 2016 SIP BACM Assessment,” p. 21.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

35

and revegetation

with watering

3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In the 2016 PM10 Plan, the GBUAPCD has provided documentation on Rule 433 and on 

the Keeler Dunes Project, quantifying the cost of construction, materials, operation, and 

maintenance, and examining other factors such as energy and environmental impacts. The EPA 

agrees that adequate time must be allowed to fully implement Rule 433 successfully because the 

control measures in the Rule are uniquely vast in scale, materials, and required construction 

activity. Rule 433 establishes an aggressive, phased, implementation schedule that we are 

proposing to find is as expeditious as practicable. We also find that the implementation schedule 

for the Keeler Dunes project is as expeditious as practicable.

The EPA concludes that the 2016 PM10 Plan demonstrates:

1) Wind erosion from the dry Owens Lake bed (and secondarily, from the Keeler Dunes, 

which have expanded as a result of redeposited particles transported from the dry lake 

bed76), is the predominant source of PM10 emissions that cause or contribute to PM10

violations in the Owens Valley PM10 NA and that applying BACM to other source 

categories would not contribute significantly to achieving the NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable;

 

76 Id., page 61. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

36

2) Rule 433’s control measures to reduce windblown dust from the dry Owens Lake bed 

and area immediately surrounding the bed of Owens Lake are unique and satisfy the 

requirement for BACM.

3) The goal of the Keeler Dunes Project is to create a stable self-sustaining low-impact 

vegetated dune system to reduce wind erosion. Implementation of these controls 

represents BACM since there are no analogous dust control projects or alternative 

controls for this type of source; and 

4) No analogous source has been identified to support the economic and technological 

feasibility of any alternative or additional measures for the control of significant 

sources of wind erosion emissions in the Owens Valley PM10 NA.

E. Reasonable Further Progress/Quantitative Milestones

CAA section 189(c) requires that PM10 nonattainment areas must include quantitative

milestones that are to be achieved every three years and that show RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment deadline. Quantitative milestones may be met in a variety of ways, 

including by establishing a percent implementation of various control strategies, by percent 

compliance with implemented control measures, or adherence to a compliance schedule.77 Prior 

to submittal of the 2016 PM10 Plan, lake bed controls were established that yielded significant 

emissions reductions, as reflected in the annual emissions inventory78 and illustrated in Figure 8-

1 of the Plan. Unsurprisingly, given the variable nature of the emissions sources and the periodic 

delays due to disputed control measures, the decline is not linear; however, as noted previously, 

 

77 59 FR 41998 at 42016. 

78 2016 PM10 Plan, Table 4-3.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

37

reductions sufficient to provide for attainment will be achieved within the required timeframe. 

Under the circumstances, we find that the progress achieved prior to the 2016 adoption of the 

Plan is reasonable.

The GBUAPCD’s Rule 433 and the Keeler Dunes Project establish requirements for 

additional controls that will be completed in 2017 and that provide for additional emissions 

reductions. Under Rule 433, the City of Los Angeles must continue to implement all control 

measures that are already in place,79 and must implement Phase 9/10, which requires the control 

of an additional 3.62 square miles of the Owens Lake bed by December 31, 2017. These control 

requirements include enforceable schedules for implementation of the specified control 

measures, and the Plan includes quantification of the emissions reductions that will be achieved 

by implementation of the control measures. 

In its discussion of the requirement for quantitative milestone reports, the District noted 

that the remaining milestone for the 2016 PM10 Plan is the completion of the Phase 9/10 dust 

controls, which are enforceable through Rule 433. In other words, the final quantitative 

milestone for the 2016 PM10 Plan is 100 percent implementation of the required controls. The 

GBUAPCD commits to submitting a report to the EPA by April 1, 2018, as required by Section 

189(c)(2) of the Act, that demonstrates RFP thorough the achievement of the December 31, 2017 

quantitative milestone. 

 

79 These areas consist of the 2003 Dust Control Area (29.8 square miles), the 2006 Dust Control Area and Channel 

Area (13.2 square miles), and the Phase 8 area (2.0 square miles).
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

38

The EPA proposes to approve the enforceable schedule in Rule 433 and commitment for 

completion of the Keeler Dunes Project in 2016 as meeting the RFP requirements of CAA 

section 189(c).

F. Contingency Measures

The CAA requires that the 2016 PM10 Plan include contingency measures to be 

implemented if the area fails to meet progress requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the 

applicable deadline. These contingency measures should take effect without requiring further 

action by the state or the EPA and should be fully implemented as expeditiously as practicable. 80

Contingency measures should also provide for emissions reductions equivalent to one year’s 

average increment of RFP.81

Because it is not possible to predict which areas of the lake bed may become emissive 

and cause a failure to meet progress requirements or to attain the NAAQS, Rule 433 requires the 

District to evaluate at least once per calendar year whether additional areas of the lake bed 

require controls. If the GBUAPCD determines that the Owens Valley PM10 NA has not met 

progress requirements or will not timely attain, Rule 433 requires the implementation of BACM 

control measures on up to an additional 4.78 square miles of the Owens Lake bed as 

expeditiously as practicable. The implementation of the contingency measure in Rule 433 does 

not require additional rulemaking actions or public hearings. The EPA has concluded, therefore, 

that the contingency measure included in the 2016 PM10 Plan through adopted Rule 433 provides 

for the implementation of contingency measures as expeditiously as practicable. 

 

80 59 FR 41998 at 42015.

81 Id.
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

39

The GBUAPCD has demonstrated that the dry lake bed is the overwhelming contributor 

the exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS, both through PM10 originating directly from the lake bed, 

or from lake bed particles that have been deposited nearby, which then become a secondary 

source of particulate (e.g., the Keeler Dunes).82 Therefore, we have focused our analysis on the 

control of emissions emanating from the lake bed in assessing whether the contingency measure 

in the 2016 PM10 Plan provides a year’s worth of average RFP increment.

Determining the amount of emissions reductions needed for contingency measures (i.e., a 

year’s worth of reductions) presents a unique challenge in the Owens Valley PM10 NA due to the 

nature of the lake bed and the meteorological influence on emissions, which leads to a degree of 

variability in annual emissions that is somewhat independent of the application of controls. For 

this reason, we have used the annual average area of the lake bed on which controls are required 

for the period of 2007 (the year the EPA made a finding of failure to attain) through 2017 (the 

attainment year) as a surrogate for the annual amount (tons) of emissions reductions required. 

This results in an annual average area of 1.8 square miles.83 Rule 433 provides for the 

implementation of controls on an additional 4.78 square miles of lake bed, which is more than 

double the annual average. We therefore conclude the contingency measure provisions in Rule 

433 satisfy the contingency measure requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9).

 

82 For additional discussion, see Chapter 7 of the 2016 PM10 Plan and the attainment demonstration analysis in the 

TSD for this action.

83 A total of 18.2 square miles will be controlled in 10-year period of 2007 through 2017 (the 2006 Dust Control and 

Channel Area encompasses 13.2 square miles; the Phase 8 Area encompasses 2.0 square miles; the Phase 9/10 Area 

encompasses 3.62 – the provisionally excluded Cultural Resource Areas encompass approximately 0.6 square miles)
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

40

G. Transportation Conformity 

Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). Our conformity rule (40 

CFR part 93, subpart A) requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to 

state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining 

whether or not they do so. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the 

NAAQS or the timely achievement of interim milestones. However, if the EPA determines that a 

SIP demonstrates that motor vehicle emissions are an insignificant contributor to the air quality 

problem, states are not required to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets or perform a 

regional emissions analysis for transportation conformity purposes.84

In section 6.1.2 of the Plan, the GBUAPCD provides its argument for why motor vehicle 

emissions are insignificant contributors to the PM10 problem in the Owens Valley PM10 NA. 

First, the District noted that motor vehicle tailpipe emissions and re-entrained roadway dust 

contribute just 1.4 percent of the 2016 PM10 emissions. The District also observed that the State 

estimates the annual population growth (about 0.7 percent) and increase in vehicle miles traveled 

(about 1.2 percent annually) and argued that it is unlikely that “these emissions would grow to 

such an extent as to cause a NAAQS violation in the future.” Finally, the District pointed out the 

absence of measures in the SIP that control motor vehicle emissions. In light of these factors, the 

EPA concurs with the District’s conclusion that motor vehicle emissions are insignificant 

contributors to the PM10 problem in the Owens Valley. Accordingly, the GBUAPCD is not 

 

84 40 CFR 93.109(f).
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

41

required to establish motor vehicle budgets in this plan or to perform regional emissions analyses 

for transportation conformity.

III.Summary of the EPA’s Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to approve the Serious area 2016 PM10 Plan submitted by the State 

of California for the Owens Valley PM10 nonattainment area. Specifically, the EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2016 PM10 Plan with respect to the CAA requirements for public notice and 

involvement under section 110(a)(1); emissions inventories under section 172(c)(3); the control 

measures in Rule 433 under section 110(k)(3), as meeting the requirements of sections 110(a) 

and 189(b)(1)(B); RFP and quantitative milestones under section 189(c); the contingency 

measure in Rule 433 under section 172(c)(9); and demonstration of attainment under section 

189(b)(1)(A). The EPA is also proposing to approve the State’s request for an extension of the 

attainment date to June 6, 2017 pursuant to CAA sections 188 and 179.

IV. 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, the 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); 
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

42

• 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 (Public Law 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 the 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). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by Acting EPA Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on 

December 1, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

43

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area 

where the 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). We intend to offer to consult with local tribes during the comment

period. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

December 1, 2016. __________/s/____________

Dated: Deborah Jordan,

Acting Regional Administrator,

Region IX.