[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54031-54033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21960]



[[Page 54031]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0336; FRL-9191-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of 
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California; PM-10; 
Redesignation of the Coso Junction Planning Area to Attainment; 
Approval of PM-10 Maintenance Plan for the Coso Junction Planning Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State of California's request to 
redesignate the Coso Junction planning area (CJPA) to attainment for 
the particulate matter of ten microns or less (PM-10) national ambient 
air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is also approving the PM-10 emissions 
inventory and the maintenance plan for the CJPA, including control 
measures for Owens Lake, the primary cause of PM-10 nonattainment in 
the CJPA. Finally, EPA is finding the contribution of motor vehicles to 
the area's PM-10 problem insignificant; consequently, the State will 
not have to complete a regional emissions analysis for PM-10 in any 
future transportation conformity determination for the CJPA.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on October 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the supporting information for this action, 
identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0336, by one of the 
following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov, please 
follow the online instructions; or,
    2. Visit our regional office at, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all 
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may 
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location 
(e.g., Confidential Business Information). To inspect the hard copy 
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours 
with the contact listed directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3959, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e68a89c88289948f95a6839687c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8a4a7e6aca7baa1bb88adb8a9e6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. The Coso Junction PM-10 Monitoring Site
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. EPA's Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36023), based on EPA's review of the ``2010 
PM-10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction 
Planning Area,'' (the 2010 Plan) submitted by California, air quality 
monitoring data, and other relevant materials, EPA proposed to approve 
the State of California's request to redesignate the CJPA to attainment 
of the PM-10 NAAQS, pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 
107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. The background for today's actions is discussed 
in detail in EPA's June 24 proposed rulemaking, and in EPA's 
determination that the CJPA has attained the PM-10 NAAQS. 75 FR 13710 
(March 23, 2010) and 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010).
    EPA proposed to approve the State's redesignation request, based on 
EPA's determination that the most recent three years of complete, 
quality-assured data for the period 2007-2009 showed that the CJPA had 
attained the PM-10 NAAQS, and on EPA's finding that the area meets all 
other CAA redesignation requirements under sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 
175.
    EPA proposed to approve the State's maintenance plan, which 
includes control measures for Owens Lake implemented through the Great 
Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) Board Order 
<greek-i>080128-01 (Appendix C of the 2010 Plan). EPA's proposal 
discussed the historical relationship between PM-10 emissions from 
Owens Lake and violations of the PM-10 NAAQS in the CJPA, the 
application of control measures on Owens Lake that have resulted in 
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS in the CJPA, and the continued controls 
that are expected to provide for maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS into 
the future. We also proposed to approve the emissions inventory 
submitted with the maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of 
section 172(c)(3).
    Finally, EPA proposed to find that motor vehicle-related PM-10 
emissions are insignificant contributors to the area's PM-10 problem. 
As a result of this finding, the state would not have to complete a 
regional emissions analysis for PM-10 in any future transportation 
conformity determination for the CJPA.
    EPA's June 24, 2010 proposal was based on a ``parallel processing'' 
\1\ request from the State of California. 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. 
As expected, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the 2010 
Plan on June 24, 2010 and submitted the 2010 Plan to EPA on July 14, 
2010. The July 14, 2010 submittal is identical to the materials CARB 
submitted for parallel processing on May 28, 2010. Consequently, there 
is no need to revise our June 24, 2010 proposal and we may proceed with 
today's final action on the basis of our prior proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Parallel processing is used for expediting the review of a 
plan. Parallel processing allows a State to submit the plan prior to 
actual adoption by the State and provides an opportunity for the 
State to consider EPA comments prior to submittal of the final plan 
for final review and action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The Coso Junction PM-10 Monitoring Site

    In EPA's proposed rule, we noted that the GBUAPCD had determined 
that the Coso Junction monitoring site had been violating siting 
criteria since January 2010. 75 FR 36023, 36025. As discussed in the 
proposed rule, during a site visit on May 27, 2010, the GBUAPCD learned 
that the monitoring site had not been watered for several years 
resulting in a lack of vegetation surrounding the site thus exposing 
friable soils that could impact monitor readings. In addition, the 
GBUAPCD learned that beginning in January 2010 a contractor for the 
property owner, the Coso Operating Company, was driving over the 
unpaved access road adjacent to the monitor on a regular basis, thus 
causing the deterioration in the condition of the unpaved access road 
which had previously been covered by gravel. This combination of events 
near the monitor led the District to conclude that the data collected 
from January 2010 through May 27, 2010 must be considered invalid for 
regulatory purposes, and EPA agreed with the District's assessment. 
Following the site visit, the District and the Coso Operating Company 
promptly started to work on resolving the problems in order to be able 
to again collect valid data as soon as possible. The Coso Operating 
Company thereafter restricted traffic on the unpaved access road to the 
monitor and moved the contractor's trailer to a location away from the 
monitor site. The District and the Coso Operating Company also planned 
to develop a mitigation plan to apply water to the

[[Page 54032]]

monitor site area and to re-vegetate the area. Id.
    Since our proposed rule, the GBUAPCD has reported that the new 
location of the contractor's trailer does not require the contractors 
to drive past the monitor site, the drive area around the monitor site 
is now covered with gravel to reduce dust and the turning area pavement 
was enlarged to prevent kicking up dust at the edges. See July 20, 2010 
e-mail from Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region 9, Air Quality Assessment 
Office, to Doris Lo, EPA Region 9, Air Planning Office, Re: Summary of 
monitoring issues that should be addressed by the Great Basin District. 
The GBUAPCD has also reported that the Coso Operating Company has begun 
watering of the area around the Coso Junction monitor site and that a 
crust is beginning to form which will allow the District to begin 
collecting valid data on August 1, 2010. See July 28, 2010 e-mail from 
Ted Schade, Air Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD, to Doris Lo, EPA 
Region 9, Air Planning Office, with attachments. The Coso Operating 
Company has submitted to the GBUAPCD a dust control plan (or, as 
referred to in the proposed rule, a mitigation plan) for the Coso 
Junction monitor area which includes commitments for application and 
monitoring of gravel, application of water to form a visual crust, 
monitoring of the visual crust and reapplication of water as necessary, 
re-vegetation in the fall season in areas that had previously been 
vegetated, limiting road access to authorized personnel and providing 
monthly status reports to GBUAPCD through June 2011. See attachment to 
July 28, 2010 e-mail from Ted Schade, ``Coso PM10 Containment Area 
Fugitive Dust Plan.'' Moreover, the Coso Operating Company is required 
by conditions in a permit to operate issued by GBUAPCD to maintain the 
Coso Junction monitor site and to collect PM-10 samples using EPA-
approved reference or equivalent method samplers. See attachment to 
July 28, 2010 e-mail from Ted Schade, Permit to Operate, Permit Number 
234, conditions 27 and 36. Finally, the GBUAPCD plans to install a Web 
camera to help monitor activities near the monitor site in the future. 
See July 28, 2010 e-mail from Ted Schade to Doris Lo. EPA will continue 
to work with the GBUACPD to ensure that the Coso Junction monitor site 
issues are fully resolved and that the site is maintained in order for 
the District to meet its commitment to continue daily PM-10 monitoring 
at the Coso Junction monitoring site in order to verify continued 
attainment of the PM-10 standard in the CJPA. See 75 FR 36023, 36030.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA provided for a 30-day public comment period on our proposed 
action. This comment period ended on July 26, 2010. We received no 
comments.

IV. EPA's Final Action

    Based on our review of the 2010 Plan submitted by the State, air 
quality monitoring data, and other relevant materials, EPA believes the 
State has satisfied all requirements for redesignation of the CJPA to 
attainment, pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. 
Consequently, EPA is approving the State's request and is redesignating 
the CJPA to attainment for the PM-10 NAAQS. EPA is also approving the 
maintenance plan for the CJPA, which includes as a SIP revision GBUAPCD 
Board Order <greek-i>080128-01. EPA is also approving the emissions 
inventory submitted with the maintenance plan as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). Finally, EPA finds that motor 
vehicle-related PM-10 emissions are insignificant contributors to the 
area's PM-10 problem; consequently, a regional emissions analysis will 
not be required for PM-10 in any future transportation conformity 
determination for the CJPA, as of the effective date of this final 
rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the 
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not 
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those 
imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of 
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the 
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have 
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is 
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions 
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to 
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as 
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For these reasons, 
these actions:
    <bullet> Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
    <bullet> Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Are not an economically significant regulatory action 
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Are not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
    <bullet> Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the final action does not apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and

[[Page 54033]]

the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by November 2, 2010. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: July 29, 2010.
Jeff Scott,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(380) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (380) The following plan was submitted on July 14, 2010, by the 
Governor's Designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) ``Board Order <greek-i>080128-01 Requiring the City of Los 
Angeles to Undertake Measures to Control PM-10 Emissions from the Dried 
Bed of Owens Lake,'' including Attachments A-D, adopted February 1, 
2008, and included as Appendix C to the ``2010 PM-10 Maintenance Plan 
and Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area,'' 
adopted May 17, 2010.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD).
    (1) Non-regulatory portions of ``The 2010 PM-10 Maintenance Plan 
and Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area'' (the 
2010 Plan), including Appendices A, B, and D, adopted May 17, 2010.
    (2) Letter dated June 10, 2010 from Theodore D. Schade, GBUAPCD, to 
Deborah Jordan, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 
regarding Coso Junction PM-10 Contingency Measures.
    (3) GBUAPCD Board Resolution 2010-01, dated May 17, 2010, adopting 
the 2010 Plan.
    (B) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
    (1) CARB Resolution 10-25, dated June 24, 2010, adopting the 2010 
Plan.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
4. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for ``California-PM-10'' by 
revising the entry under Inyo County for the ``Coso Junction planning 
area'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                                California--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                           Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Date                Type                Date                Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inyo County
Coso Junction planning area.....  October 4, 2010...  Attainment........
That portion of Inyo County
 contained within Hydrologic
 Unit <greek-i>18090205.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-21960 Filed 9-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>