Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 89407 

respectively, and adding a new 

paragraph (g)(1)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 1310.04 Maintenance of records. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile and 

its salts, optical isomers, and salts of 

optical isomers (APAAN) 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 1310.09 by adding new 

paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§ 1310.09 Temporary exemption from 

registration. 

* * * * * 

(n)(1) Each person required under 

Sections 302 and 1007 of the Act (21 

U.S.C. 822, 957) to obtain a registration 

to manufacture, distribute, import, or 

export regulated alphaphenylacetoacetonitrile (APAAN) and 

its salts, optical isomers, and salts of 

optical isomers, including regulated 

chemical mixtures pursuant to Section 

1310.12 of this part, is temporarily 

exempted from the registration 

requirement, provided that the DEA 

receives a properly completed 

application for registration or 

application for exemption for a 

chemical mixture containing alphaphenylacetoacetonitrile (APAAN) and 

its salts, optical isomers, and salts of 

optical isomers, pursuant to Section 

1310.13 of this part on or before (30 

days after publication of a Final Rule 

implementing regulations regarding 

APAAN). The exemption will remain in 

effect for each person who has made 

such application until the 

Administration has approved or denied 

that application. This exemption applies 

only to registration; all other chemical 

control requirements set forth in the Act 

and parts 1309, 1310, 1313, and 1316 of 

this chapter remain in full force and 

effect. 

(2) Any person who manufactures, 

distributes, imports or exports a 

chemical mixture containing alphaphenylacetoacetonitrile (APAAN) and 

its salts, optical isomers, and salts of 

optical isomers whose application for 

exemption is subsequently denied by 

the DEA must obtain a registration with 

the DEA. A temporary exemption from 

the registration requirement will also be 

provided for those persons whose 

applications for exemption are denied, 

provided that the DEA receives a 

properly completed application for 

registration on or before 30 days 

following the date of official DEA 

notification that the application for 

exemption has been denied. The 

temporary exemption for such persons 

will remain in effect until the DEA takes 

final action on their registration 

application. 

■ 5. Amend § 1310.12 paragraph (c) by 

adding in alphabetical order an entry 

‘‘Alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile, and its 

salts, optical isomers, and salts of 

optical isomers. (APAAN)’’ in the table 

‘‘Table of Concentration Limits’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 1310.12 Exempt chemical mixtures. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE OF CONCENTRATION LIMITS

DEA chemical 

code No. Concentration Special conditions 

*******

Alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile, and its salts, optical isomers, 

and salts of optical isomers. (APAAN).

8512 Not exempt at any concentration.Chemical mixtures containing 

any amount of APAAN are 

not exempt. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 2, 2016. 

Chuck Rosenberg, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–29523 Filed 12–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0660; FRL–9956–27– 

Region 9] 

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 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 January 11, 2017. 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
89408 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

5 58 FR 3334 (January 8, 1993). 

6See 64 FR 34173 (June 25, 1999) and 64 FR 

48305 (September 3, 1999). 

7 72 FR 31183. 

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/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 415– 

972–3964, Vagenas.Ginger@epa.gov. 

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 healthbased 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. 

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 (mg/m3) is attained when the 

expected number of days with a 24-hour 

average concentration above 150 mg/m3

per calendar year averaged over a threeyear 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 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 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 89409 

8See 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. 

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. 

15 Id. 

16 64 FR 48305. 

17 64 FR 34173 at 34174. 

18 Id. 

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-excellenceawards. 

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, 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-excellenceawards. 

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

25 Id., Table 7–5. 

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 

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 mg/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. 

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 mg/m3

to the 24-hour NAAQS of 150 mg/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 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

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
89410 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

26 Id., Chapter 13—Declaration of Clerk of the 

Board and Resolutions Certifying the EIR and 

Approving the SIP. 

27State of California Air Resources Board 

Resolution 16–3, May 19, 2016. 

28See 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). 

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). 

TABLE 1—DECLINE IN OWENS VALLEY PM10 CONCENTRATIONS

[μg/m3] 

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. 

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 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

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 Preamble 31 and Addendum to 

the General Preamble 32 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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 89411 

33The 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. 

34An 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.’’ 

35See 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. 

37See 64 FR 34173 at 34716 (June 25, 1999). 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 emissions were 

calculated using the GBUAPCD’s 

emission factors. These calculations are 

included in Tables 3 and 4 of Appendix 

IV–1 of 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
89412 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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. 40Emissions assumed constant over time. 41Miscellaneous 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. 

42Emissions 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). 

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

44As 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. 

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, offlake 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. 

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,’’ ‘‘nearlake 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 nearlake 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). 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PM10 ANNUAL EMISSIONS IN THE OVPA 

Year end 38 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 

desert 40

Misc. 

sources 41

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. 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 89413 

45Because 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. 

46Monitored concentrations meet the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS when the ‘‘design value,’’ the 

expected number of daily exceedances of the 

NAAQS level of 150 mg/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. 

47Model 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. 

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 

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

3. Modeling in Submittal 

The District used a hybrid modeling 

approach combining the CALPUFF 

(‘‘California Puff’’) dispersion model 47

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 

evaluation 48 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 mg/ 

m3 and all concentrations are less than 

150 mg/m3, demonstrating attainment of 

the PM10 NAAQS. 

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., backcalculation 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 steady-state Gaussian model like 

AERMOD, which has ‘‘straight-line’’ 

trajectories along a single wind 

direction within any given hour for all 

sources. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
89414 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

49 Id., p. 62 sec.7.1. 

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. 

53The 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. 

54The 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. 

55BACT, which applies to stationary sources, is 

a subset of BACM. 

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

57 2016 PM10 Plan, page 38. 

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 wellsuited to the special conditions at 

Owens 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 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. 

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 BACT 55 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 

BACM control measures for the Owens 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 89415 

58Acting 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. 

60 2016 PM10 Plan, page S–3. 

61This 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. 

63The GBUAPCD notes that ‘‘monitoring and 

modeling analyses indicate that emissions from offlake 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. 

65BACT, 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. 

66The 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. 

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 mg/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 

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 mg/m3) 

by ambient level of PM10 on the chosen 

day (150.1 mg/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. 

To determine which sources of direct 

PM10 are significant, the District 

multiplied the near-exceedance day 

PM10 emissions inventory (530.65 tons 

per day 61) 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 Landfill 65 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
89416 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

68 Id., pp. 34 and 56. 

69 Id. See Appendix V–1, ‘‘OVPA 2016 SIP BACM 

Assessment,’’ p. 22. 

70 81 FR 62849 (September 13, 2016); final 

approval signed November 10, 2016. 

71For 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). 

72As noted above, no additional active controls 

are anticipated for the Olancha Dunes. 

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. 

76 Id., page 61. 

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. 

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 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 EFFECTIVENESS 75

Source category 

(and windblown 

dust controls) 

Average 

annual 

emissions 

(tons) 

Control 

effectiveness Costs 

Cost 

effectiveness 

(tons) 

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 

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 and revegetation with watering.

222 

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 bed 76), 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 89417 

77 59 FR 41998 at 42016. 

78 2016 PM10 Plan, Table 4–3. 

79These 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). 

80 59 FR 41998 at 42015. 

81 Id. 

82For additional discussion, see Chapter 7 of the 

2016 PM10 Plan and the attainment demonstration 

analysis in the TSD for this action. 83A 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). 

other source categories would not 

contribute significantly to achieving the 

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable; 

(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 selfsustaining 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 inventory 78 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, 

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. 

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. 

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). 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
89418 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 238 / Monday, December 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

84 40 CFR 93.109(f). 

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 reentrained 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 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); 

• 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 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). 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: December 1, 2016. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–29758 Filed 12–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 55 

[OAR–2004–0091; FRL–9956–07–Region 9] 

Outer Continental Shelf Air 

Regulations; Consistency Update for 

California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to update 

portions of the Outer Continental Shelf 

(‘‘OCS’’) Air Regulations. Requirements 

applying to OCS sources located within 

25 miles of States’ seaward boundaries 

must be updated periodically to remain 

consistent with the requirements of the 

corresponding onshore area (‘‘COA’’), as 

mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (‘‘the 

Act’’). The portions of the OCS air 

regulations that are being updated 

pertain to the requirements for OCS 

sources for which the Santa Barbara 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(‘‘Santa Barbara County APCD’’) and 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control 

District (‘‘Ventura County APCD’’) are 

the designated COAs. The intended 

effect of approving the OCS 

requirements for the Santa Barbara 

County APCD and Ventura County 

APCD is to regulate emissions from OCS 

sources in accordance with the 

requirements onshore. The changes to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS