Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0549-0031
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for the Indian Wells Valley PM10 Planning Area
Posted Date: 2023-01-18T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2839-2843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28307]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0549; FRL-8856-02-R9]

Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for the Indian Wells Valley PM10 
Planning Area; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action to approve the ``Indian Wells Valley Second 10-Year 
PM10 Maintenance Plan'' (``Indian Wells Second Maintenance 
Plan'' or ``Plan'') as a revision to the state implementation plan 
(SIP) for the State of California. The Indian Wells Second Maintenance 
Plan includes, among other elements, a base year emissions inventory, a 
maintenance demonstration, contingency provisions, and motor vehicle 
emissions budgets for use in transportation conformity determinations. 
The EPA is finalizing these actions because the SIP revision meets the 
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for such plans and 
motor vehicle emissions budgets.

DATES: This rule is effective February 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0549. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please 
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance 
in a language other than English or if you are a person with 
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, 
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office 
(ARD-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 
(415) 972-3877, or by email at [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Rule
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

[[Page 2840]]

III. Air Quality Conditions Since Proposal
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Rule

    On October 13, 2021, the EPA proposed to approve the Indian Wells 
Second Maintenance Plan submitted by the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB) on July 30, 2020, as a revision to the California SIP.\1\ In 
doing so, we proposed to find that the Indian Wells Second Maintenance 
Plan adequately demonstrates that the Indian Wells Valley planning area 
will maintain the 1987 annual national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS or ``standards'') for particulate matter of ten microns or less 
(PM10) through the year 2025 (i.e., for more than 10 years 
beyond the first 10-year maintenance period). We also proposed to find 
that the Plan includes sufficient contingency provisions to promptly 
correct any violation of the PM10 standards that may occur. 
Lastly, we proposed to find the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 
Plan for direct PM10 for the years 2020 and 2025 adequate 
and to approve the budgets for transportation conformity purposes 
because they meet all applicable criteria for such budgets including 
the adequacy criteria under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 86 FR 56848.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motor vehicle emissions budgets that the EPA proposed to find 
adequate and to approve are shown in Table 1. The EPA announced the 
availability of the Plan and related motor vehicle emissions budgets on 
the EPA's transportation conformity website on October 13, 2021, and 
requested comments by November 12, 2021. We received no comments in 
response to the adequacy review posting.

 Table 1--Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Indian Wells Valley
                                PM10 Area
                   [PM10 tons per day, annual average]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Source category                   2020             2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget........            0.40             0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle emissions budgets calculated are rounded up to the nearest
  tenth of a ton per day.
Source: Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Table 5.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period 
that ended on November 12, 2021. We received one comment submission 
from a private citizen.\2\ The comments are included in the docket for 
this action and the remainder of this section provides a summary of the 
comments and the EPA's responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Comment dated October 14, 2021, from Elaina Porter to Docket 
ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Summary

    The commenter raises two main concerns with the EPA's proposed 
approval of the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan. The commenter's 
first concern is that the Plan is ``mostly informed by models that may 
have inadequate data supporting them.'' The commenter acknowledges that 
``models can be helpful at providing insight into trends in data and 
helping to predict what will happen in the future'' but expresses 
concern that the Plan ``relies too heavily on them.'' The commenter 
notes that there is only one monitoring station in the Indian Wells 
Valley planning area and recommends that additional monitoring stations 
throughout the planning area (including near one of the airports in the 
city of Ridgecrest) would provide greater insight into PM10 
emissions trends. The commenter also notes that emissions data were 
obtained from owners and operators of industrial point sources and 
states that these data may not be accurate because they rely on the 
owners to track their emissions.
    The commenter's second main concern is ``that the plan does not 
address how emissions would be limited.'' The commenter asserts that 
``the plan shows projections for how the emissions in the area of 
concern are expected to change between now and 2025, [but that] they 
never specifically stated why there would be any increases in emissions 
or how they are hoping to combat these increases in emissions.'' The 
commenter asserts that the maintenance plan would be more effective if 
it addressed off-road emissions from airplanes and questions the 
contribution of emissions from the Naval Air Weapons Station China 
Lake, asserting that the facility may contribute fugitive dust 
emissions to the Indian Wells Valley planning area.
    Aside from these two concerns, the commenter states that ``the plan 
is well laid out and should work quite well for the area once it is 
implemented.''

EPA Responses

    As discussed in the EPA's proposal, the EPA interprets, through 
guidance, CAA section 175A's requirement that the state submit a 
revision to the SIP ``to provide for the maintenance'' of the NAAQS, to 
permit the state to do so using different methods.\3\ One method 
permits a state to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS in an area by 
showing that projected emissions of a pollutant or its precursors in a 
future year will not exceed the actual levels of those same pollutants 
and precursors in the attainment inventory, i.e., an inventory of 
actual emissions from one of the three years making up the design value 
during which the area was attaining the NAAQS. The Indian Wells Second 
Maintenance Plan relies on this approach and includes an emissions 
inventory representing actual emissions in 2013 (i.e., 10 years after 
redesignation, or the final year of the first maintenance period). The 
Plan also provides an updated inventory of actual emissions in 2017 and 
projected emissions through 2025 (i.e., 12 years beyond the expiration 
of the first 10-year maintenance period) for sources in the Indian 
Wells Valley planning area. We note that CAA section 175A requires only 
that the plan provide for maintenance for 20 years after an area is 
redesignated, but the State provided projections demonstrating 
maintenance for 22 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 86 FR 56848, 56852, citing memorandum dated September 4, 
1992, from John Calcagni, Director, EPA Air Quality Management 
Division, to Regional Office Air Division Directors, Subject: 
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment'', 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regards to the commenter's concern that the emissions 
inventories in the Plan rely too heavily on models, we note that the 
requirements for PM10 emissions inventories are set forth in 
the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) rule.\4\ The EPA has 
provided additional guidance to states for developing PM10 
emissions inventories in ``PM10 Emissions Inventory 
Requirements,'' EPA-454/R-94-033 (September 1994) and ``Emissions

[[Page 2841]]

Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze 
Regulations'' (May 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the AERR, states are required to report comprehensive 
emissions inventories to the EPA every three years.\5\ All states, 
including California, require facilities within their jurisdictions to 
report their emissions to the states. CARB estimates stationary point 
source emissions based on annual reports submitted by the local air 
districts, which reflect actual emissions from industrial point sources 
reported to local air districts by facility operators. The local air 
districts are responsible for working with facility operators to 
compile estimates, using source testing, direct measurement, or 
engineering calculations. Because area sources often occur over a large 
geographic area, emissions for these source categories are estimated 
using various models and methodologies. Similarly, emissions from on-
road mobile sources are estimated using the latest EPA-approved version 
of CARB's EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) based on activity data from the 
Kern Council of Governments, and off-road mobile source emissions are 
estimated using a suite of category-specific models. Projected 
inventories are derived by applying expected growth trends for each 
source category based on historical trends, current conditions, and 
economic and demographic forecasts. CARB provides website links to 
additional information on each of the methodologies and models used in 
the Plan and has established quality assurance and quality control 
processes to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the emissions 
inventories.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 40 CFR 51.30(b).
    \6\ Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the EPA's proposal, the EPA reviewed CARB's 
emissions inventory development methodologies and the resulting 
emissions inventories in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan and 
determined that the inventories were developed consistent with EPA 
regulations and guidance; \7\ that the projected inventories are based 
on reasonable methods, growth factors, and assumptions; and that the 
inventories are based on the most current information available at the 
time the Plan was being developed. Projections of direct 
PM10 emissions show that future emissions increases through 
2025 are within 1.6 percent of emissions in 2017 and below emissions in 
2013, both of which reflected attainment conditions in the Indian Wells 
Valley planning area.\8\ Therefore, we find that the emissions 
inventories in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan rely on actual 
emissions information, where available, and that where the State relies 
on models and other methodologies to supplement actual emissions 
information, that reliance is appropriate. We also find that CARB has 
quality assurance and quality control procedures that are complete, 
adequate, and acceptable to ensure the accuracy of the model inputs and 
model results. Furthermore, to address potential uncertainties in the 
emissions inventories, the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District 
has committed to continue to review the inputs and assumptions used to 
develop the emissions inventories on an annual basis and to monitor 
ambient air quality to verify continued attainment.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Air Emissions Reporting Requirements, 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart A; ``PM10 Emissions Inventory Requirements,'' 
EPA-454/R-94-033 (September 1994); and ``Emissions Inventory 
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze 
Regulations'' (May 2017).
    \8\ 86 FR 56848, 56853.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding ambient air quality monitoring, the EPA disagrees with 
the commenter's concerns about the need for additional monitors in the 
Indian Wells Valley area. Each year, CARB is required to submit an 
Annual Network Plan to establish that its monitoring network meets 
applicable statutory requirements and is consistent with applicable 
guidance. CARB's most recent Annual Network Monitoring plan addressing 
the PM10 NAAQS requirements in the Indian Wells Valley 
planning area is the ``Annual Network Plan, Covering Monitoring 
Operations in 25 California Air Districts, July 2022'' (``Annual 
Network Plan''), which contains additional information and analysis on 
the planning area's monitoring sites and instrumentation.\10\ This 
Annual Network Plan reflects CARB's approach to meeting the federal 
monitoring requirements for PM10,\11\ which are based on 
population and air quality conditions in each Metropolitan Statistical 
Area (MSA). The Indian Wells Valley is located within the Bakersfield, 
California MSA (``Bakersfield, CA MSA''). Based on population and air 
quality conditions in the Bakersfield, CA MSA, a minimum of four to 
eight monitoring sites are required.\12\ There are a total of six 
PM10 monitoring sites in the Bakersfield, CA MSA, including 
the Ridgecrest monitoring site located in the Indian Wells Valley 
planning area, and the minimum monitoring requirement for 
PM10 is met. The Ridgecrest monitoring site is a 
``neighborhood scale'' site within the Bakersfield, CA MSA.\13\ 
Neighborhood scale PM10 sites ``represent conditions 
throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban sub-region with dimensions 
of a few kilometers'' . . . and these ``PM10 sites provide 
information about trends and compliance with standards because they 
often represent conditions in areas where people commonly live and work 
for extended periods.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CARB, Annual Network Plan, July 2022.
    \11\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.6.
    \12\ Annual Network Plan, 31.
    \13\ Id. at Appendix A.
    \14\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.6(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, CARB is required to submit to the EPA a network 
assessment every five years that includes a determination of whether 
the network meets monitoring objectives, such as compliance with 
ambient air quality standards and providing air pollution data to the 
public in a timely manner, and whether any new sites are needed to meet 
these objectives.\15\ This regular review by CARB evaluates whether the 
existing PM10 monitoring network provides an adequate 
measure of PM10 air quality in the Indian Wells Valley. 
CARB's 2020 Monitoring Network Assessment stated that ``the Eastern 
Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) believes the existing 
monitoring network adequately captures population exposure, transport, 
and high concentrations and should be maintained in its current 
configuration.'' \16\ CARB provides the public opportunities to comment 
on any proposed changes to the monitoring network in the Annual Network 
Plan before the plan is submitted to the EPA for formal approval of all 
network modifications. The EPA approved CARB's Annual Network Plan on 
October 28, 2022.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 40 CFR 58.10(d).
    \16\ CARB, 2020 Monitoring Network Assessment, October 2020.
    \17\ Letter dated October 28, 2022, from Gwen Yoshimura, 
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Sylvia 
Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenter's concern that the Plan does not 
sufficiently address how emissions would be limited, we note that the 
Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan discusses the development of rules 
controlling PM10 emissions in section II.B (``Rule 
Development'') and lists the control measures that contributed to 
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in section III.B (``Factors 
that Contributed

[[Page 2842]]

to Attainment''). These control measures will continue to limit 
emissions in the Indian Wells Valley PM10 planning area. The 
Plan describes the methods and assumptions CARB used to develop the 
emissions projections upon which the maintenance demonstration relies, 
including the growth forecasts for point, areawide, and mobile sources. 
Appendix C (``CEPAM Emission Projections by Summary Category'') 
presents detailed emissions information for the years 2017 through 2025 
by source category, and Appendix D (``IWV Precursor Emission 
Inventories'') provides emissions inventory documentation. The Indian 
Wells Second Maintenance Plan discusses anticipated population and 
industry growth in the area in section IV (``IWV Growth''), noting that 
the area ``. . . has not had any significant changes since 1990, and no 
significant changes are projected to occur during the second 
maintenance period.'' As noted above, the EPA finds that these methods 
and assumptions are reasonable and that the inventories are based on 
the most current information available at the time the Plan was 
developed.
    Regarding fugitive dust emissions from the Naval Air Weapons 
Station, China Lake, we note that the ``Fugitive Dust Control Plan for 
the Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, California (September 1, 
1994)'' (``Fugitive Dust Control Plan''), prepared pursuant to District 
Rule 402 (``Fugitive Dust''),\18\ established controls to limit 
emissions from unpaved roads, disturbed vacant land, and open storage 
piles at Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake. On May 7, 2003, as part 
of our action redesignating the Indian Wells Valley planning area to 
attainment, the EPA approved the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.\19\ We 
found that the plan meets the reasonably available control measures 
requirement of CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) and concluded that the measure 
was responsible, in part, for bringing the Indian Wells Valley planning 
area into attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.\20\ The Indian Wells 
Second Maintenance Plan references the Fugitive Dust Control Plan in 
section III.B (``Factors that Contributed to Attainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix E.
    \19\ 68 FR 24368, 24368.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in response to the commenter's suggestion that the Plan 
would be more effective if it addressed emissions from aircraft, we 
note that of the 1.15 tons per day (tpd) of PM10 emissions 
from aircraft in the Indian Wells Valley, 80 percent (0.92 tpd) are 
from military aircraft at the Naval Air Weapons Station, China 
Lake.\21\ As discussed above, the fugitive dust sources that contribute 
to these emissions are subject to controls outlined in the Fugitive 
Dust Control Plan. Thus, a majority of off-road emissions from aircraft 
are addressed by the Plan. With regards to aviation, we note that the 
authority to establish emissions standards for aircraft lies with the 
EPA and that states are preempted from adopting any emissions standard 
for aircraft or aircraft engines that differs from any standards 
promulgated by the EPA.\22\ Given that the District does not have 
authority to control emissions from aircraft engines, including 
government aircraft from military flight operations at the Naval Air 
Weapons Station, China Lake, it focused its control strategy on the 
fugitive dust source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Email dated March 7, 2022, from Jeremiah Cravens, EKAPCD, 
to Ashley Graham, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Question re fugitive 
dust emissions from aircraft.''
    \22\ See 40 CFR part 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Air Quality Conditions Since Proposal

    As part of our proposal, we evaluated quality-assured, certified, 
and complete data available at the time (i.e., through 2020).\23\ These 
data indicated that there had been one exceedance of the 
PM10 NAAQS in the Indian Wells Valley planning area in 2019 
and one exceedance in 2020, resulting in an attaining three-year design 
value of 0.7.\24\ In 2021, there were three additional exceedances of 
the PM10 NAAQS in the area. These additional exceedances in 
2021 caused the number of exceedances recorded at the air monitor 
averaged over three consecutive years (i.e., 2019-2021) to be greater 
than 1.05. However, we do not think these data contradict the EPA's 
finding that the State's plan provides for maintenance of the 
PM10 NAAQS under CAA section 175A(b). The District and CARB 
provided information to the EPA about the five exceedances that 
occurred in 2019-2021 that explained that the exceedances were not 
within the State's control.\25\ The information provided indicates that 
the 2019 exceedance was caused by wildfire smoke and wind gusts, the 
2020 and two of the 2021 exceedances were caused by wildfire smoke, and 
the third 2021 exceedance was a result of fugitive dust transported by 
a high wind event. The EPA has reviewed the information provided by the 
State regarding the 2019-2021 exceedances, and we agree that this 
information does not call into question the EPA's proposed approval of 
the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan as providing for maintenance 
of the PM10 NAAQS. We note as well that the State's analysis 
and the EPA's evaluation are consistent with the proposed changes to 
the maintenance plan that the EPA is approving in this final action to 
evaluate data that may have been influenced by certain events in 
determining whether contingency provisions should be triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 86 FR 56848, 56850.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ See email dated September 2, 2022, from Sylvia Vanderspek, 
CARB, to Gwen Yoshimura, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Initial 
Notification Submittal--Eastern Kern Indian Wells PM10 
2nd Maintenance Plan Contingency,'' including attachments. See also 
memorandum dated September 8, 2022, from Ashley Graham, EPA Region 
IX, to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of this final action, the EPA has also reviewed data 
available through June 2022, and so far, there has been one additional 
exceedance in the Indian Wells Valley planning area.\26\ Given the 
EPA's agreement that the 2021 exceedances do not call into question the 
EPA's proposal to approve the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan as 
providing for maintenance of the NAAQS, the State is not required at 
this time to submit additional information and analyses for the 2022 
exceedance, because such exceedance, without the 2021 exceedances, 
would not on its own cause a violation of the NAAQS. Upon the effective 
date of this final action, if additional exceedances occur in 2022 or a 
later year such that the number of exceedances averaged over three 
consecutive years is greater than 1.05, per section V of the Plan, the 
State will be required to submit information regarding those 
exceedances if it wishes to request that the exceedances be excluded 
from the contingency trigger calculation. The EPA will review such 
information and will notify the State whether or not the contingency 
provisions have been triggered per the schedule outlined in the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EPA Air Quality System Design Value Report, AMP480, 
accessed November 17, 2022 (User ID: STSAI, Report Request ID: 
2058650).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed in our proposed action and herein, the 
EPA is taking final action to approve the Indian Wells Second 
Maintenance Plan, submitted by CARB on July 30, 2020, as a revision to 
the California SIP. We are approving the maintenance demonstration and 
contingency provisions as meeting all of the applicable requirements 
for maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA section

[[Page 2843]]

175A. We are also finding the motor vehicle emissions budgets shown in 
Table 1 for 2020 and 2025 adequate and approving the budgets for 
transportation conformity purposes because we find they meet all 
applicable criteria for such budgets including the adequacy criteria 
under 40 CFR 93.118(e).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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 CAA.
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as 
part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in the record 
inconsistent with the stated goals of E.O. 12898 of achieving 
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and 
indigenous peoples.
    In addition, there are no areas of Indian country within the Indian 
Wells Valley planning area, and the state plan 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).
    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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and 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 March 20, 2023. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 22, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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)(594) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (594) The following plan was submitted on July 30, 2020, by the 
Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated July 23, 2020.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials. (A) Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control 
District.
    (1) Indian Wells Valley Second 10-Year PM10 Maintenance 
Plan, adopted on June 25, 2020.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-28307 Filed 1-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P