
[Federal Register: June 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 121)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 36023-36034]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jn10-17]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0336; FRL-9168-1]

 
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: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State of California's request 
to redesignate to attainment the Coso Junction planning area (CJPA), 
which is currently designated moderate nonattainment for the 
particulate matter of ten microns or less (PM-10) national ambient air 
quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to approve the PM-10 
emissions inventory and the maintenance plan for the CJPA area, which 
includes control measures for Owens Lake, the primary cause of PM-10 
nonattainment for the CJPA. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
has requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the redesignation 
submittal, maintenance plan, and related SIP submissions. Finally, EPA 
is proposing to find the contribution of motor vehicles to the area's 
PM-10 problem insignificant. If this insignificance finding is 
finalized, the area would not have to complete a regional emissions 
analysis for any transportation conformity determinations necessary in 
the CJPA.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0336, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or Deliver: Doris Lo (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be 
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an 
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at 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., CBI). 
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment 
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3959, lo.doris@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The State's Submittal
III. Proposed Redesignation of the CJPA to Attainment for the PM-10 
Standard
    A. EPA Has Determined That the Area has Attained the NAAQS
    B. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of 
Redesignation Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and the Area 
Has a Fully Approved Applicable Implementation Plan Under Section 
110(K) of the CAA
    1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110
    2. SIP Requirements Under Part D
    C. EPA Has Determined That the Improvement in Air Quality Is Due 
to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    D. EPA Has Fully Approved a Maintenance Plan, Including a 
Contingency Plan, for the Area Under Section 175a of the CAA
    1. An Attainment Emissions Inventory to Identify the Level of 
Emissions in the Area Sufficient to Attain the NAAQS
    2. A Demonstration Of Maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 Years 
After Redesignation
    3. Verification of Continued Attainment Through Operation of an 
Appropriate Air Quality Monitoring Network

[[Page 36024]]

    4. Contingency Provisions That EPA Deems Necessary to Promptly 
Correct Any Violation of the NAAQS That Occurs After Redesignation 
of the Area
    E. Transportation Conformity And Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
IV. Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The CJPA was originally part of the Searles Valley PM-10 
nonattainment area which was designated nonattainment and classified as 
moderate by operation of law in 1990. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991) 
and 40 CFR 81.305. In 2002, EPA revised the boundaries of the Searles 
Valley area, dividing it into three separate nonattainment areas: The 
CJPA, Indian Wells and Trona. 67 FR 50805 (August 6, 2002). Our recent 
notices of proposed and final determination of attainment for the CJPA 
provide more background information on the designation and 
classification of the area. 75 FR 13710 (March 23, 2010) and 75 FR 
27944 (May 19, 2010).
    The CJPA is located in eastern California in the southern portion 
of Inyo County. It is an arid desert area that receives less than 5 
inches of rain per year. The area is rural in nature and sparsely 
populated with only 0.5% of the population of Inyo County (2000 U.S. 
Census shows 102 people living in the area). The Great Basin Unified 
Air Pollution Control Agency (GBUAPCD or District) operates the one PM-
10 monitoring site for the CJPA which is located in the Coso Junction 
rest area in the Rose Valley. The Rose Valley is flanked by the Sierra 
Nevada and Coso mountain ranges. The China Lake Naval Air Weapons 
Station (China Lake NAWS) covers most of the CJPA and is generally 
restricted from public access. Air pollution in the CJPA is dominated 
by windblown dust transported from Owens Lake which has been estimated 
to be as much as 1.55 million pounds per day and is overwhelming when 
compared to the daily emissions estimate of 1,478 pounds per day for 
all of the sources within the CJPA. ``2010 PM10 Maintenance Plan and 
Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area,'' adopted 
May 17, 2010 (the 2010 Plan).
    Owens Lake, which is also located in Inyo County and also under the 
jurisdiction of the GBUAPCD, is located in the Owens Valley Planning 
Area which is to the north and adjacent to the CJPA. 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 had drained Owens Lake almost 
completely dry. Strong winds over the dry, alkaline bed of Owens Lake 
have produced among the highest measured concentrations of PM-10 ever 
recorded and can have impacts as far as 150 miles away. See 64 FR 
34173, June 25, 1999. The CJPA is anywhere from 10 to 30 miles from the 
southern end of Owens Lake.
    The impact of Owens Lake dust on Coso Junction and other downwind 
sites was documented in a special purpose monitoring network that was 
operated from 1993 to 1996. The monitoring network measured Owens Lake 
dust impacts at five downwind sites and found exceedances of the 
standard as far as 50 miles from Owens Lake. The five downwind sites 
included Coso Junction, Navy 1, Pearsonville, Inyokern and Ridgecrest. 
Navy 1 and Pearsonville are no longer in operation and Inyokern and 
Ridgecrest are outside the CJPA. See the 2010 Plan.
    The process for developing controls and a plan for the unique 
situation at Owens Lake area has been ongoing for decades. The GBUAPCD 
has developed the controls and plans for the Owens Valley Planning Area 
with many participants including the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB), LADWP, the City of Los Angeles, tribal governments, Federal 
land managers, the Navy, the State Lands Commission, and members of the 
public. These efforts resulted in a unique Board Order by the GBUAPCD 
which requires the City of Los Angeles, by certain timeframes, to 
implement dust control measures including shallow flooding, managed 
vegetation and application of gravel on designated areas of Owens Lake. 
64 FR 34173, June 25, 1999. The original Board Order, which serves as 
the enforceable mechanism for the dust control measures, has been 
revised on several occasions and implementation of the dust control 
measures has led to a 90% decrease in emissions from Owens Lake and to 
significant improvement in the air quality in CJPA. 2010 Plan.
    On May 19, 2010, EPA published a final determination that the CJPA 
has attained the PM-10 NAAQS and that the area's obligation to submit 
certain CAA requirements (i.e., demonstration of attainment, 
demonstration of reasonable further progress, reasonably available 
control measures, and contingency measures) no longer applies for so 
long as the area continues to attain prior to final redesignation. Id.
    On May 28, 2010, CARB submitted to EPA a request for parallel 
processing of the ``2010 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 
Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area'' (the 2010 Plan). The 2010 
Plan addresses the PM-10 maintenance plan and the CAA redesignation 
requirements for the CJPA.

II. The State's Submittal

    EPA has granted CARB's request that EPA ``parallel process'' \1\ 
our review and proposed action on the 2010 Plan's maintenance plan and 
redesignation request for the CJPA. (See May 28, 2010 letter to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, from James N. 
Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB) EPA thus is parallel processing the 
2010 Plan, including proposed SIP approvals of the maintenance plan, 
emissions inventory, and Owens Valley control measures, concurrently 
with the CARB's adoption process. 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \2\ CARB's parallel processing request and SIP submittal 
includes the following documents: (1) May 28, 2010 letter to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9, from James N. 
Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, requesting parallel processing; 
(2) May 19, 2000 transmittal letter to James N. Goldstene, Executive 
Officer, CARB, from Theodore D. Schade, Air Pollution Control 
Officer, GBUAPCD; (3) Proof of Publication of Public Notice for 
``2010 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Coso 
Junction Planning Area'' (2010 Plan) and the May 17, 2010 GBUAPCD 
Board Hearing; (4) Certification by the Clerk of the GBUAPCD Board 
regarding adoption of the 2010 Plan; (5) GBUAPCD Board Resolution of 
Adoption 2010-1 approving and adopting the 2010 Plan; (6) the 
California Environmental Quality Act Notice of Exemption for the 
2010 Plan; (6) the Notice of Public Hearing for consideration of the 
adoption and approval of the 2010 Plan; and (7) The 2010 PM-10 
Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction 
Planning Area, May 17, 2010, GBUAPCD, with Appendices A-D. All of 
these documents are available for review in the docket for today's 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD or 
District) adopted the 2010 Plan on May 17, 2010 and has forwarded it to 
CARB. CARB has scheduled a Board Hearing on June 24, 2010 where it will 
consider approval of the 2010 Plan. All public comments to CARB 
concerning their proposed action on the 2010 Plan are also due by that 
date.

III. Proposed Redesignation of the CJPA to Attainment for the PM-10 
Standard

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets forth the following criteria 
for redesignating an area from nonattainment to attainment:
    (1) EPA determines that the area has attained the NAAQS.
    (2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan under 
section 110(k) of the CAA.

[[Page 36025]]

    (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
    (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as 
meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
    (5) The State has met all applicable requirements for the area 
under section 110 and Part D of the CAA.
    These requirements are discussed in more detail in a September 4, 
1992 EPA Memorandum, ``Procedures for Processing Request to Redesignate 
Areas to Attainment, John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division'' (Calcagni memo). Below, we discuss how these requirements 
are met for the CJPA.

A. EPA Has Determined That the Area Has Attained the NAAQS

    In our May 19, 2010 final determination of attainment, EPA 
determined that the CJPA attained the PM-10 standard, based on data 
available to date through 2010.\3\ See 75 FR 13710 and 75 FR 27944. 
Since our May 19, 2010 determination of attainment, the GBUAPCD 
requested certification of the 2009 data (see letter to Jared 
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, from Theodore D. 
Schade, Air Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD). The GBUAPCD recently 
determined, however, that the monitoring site in Coso Junction has 
violated siting criteria since January 2010. Following the occurrence 
of two preliminary exceedances monitored in March 2010, District staff 
began to investigate the cause of the exceedances. On May 27, 2010, the 
GBUAPCD's monitoring staff met with the Coso Operating Company's 
Compliance Officer \4\ to assess the situation at the Coso Junction 
monitoring site. During that meeting and site visit it was determined 
that the vegetation surrounding the monitor site had not been watered 
for several years and had died off. As a result, it was no longer 
providing sufficient ground cover, exposing friable soils that could be 
lofted by the wind to impact monitor readings. In addition, they found 
a deterioration in the condition of the unpaved access road to the 
station, which was located adjacent to the monitor and which had 
previously been covered with gravel. According to the Coso Operating 
Company, beginning in January 2010, a contractor working onsite to 
install an equipment trailer near the monitoring station drove along 
the access road several times each day in order to collect equipment 
from the trailer. The lack of vegetation and the contractor activity 
and increased vehicle trips that forced the gravel deeper into the 
ground combined to expose soils that could be lofted in close proximity 
to the monitor. The District staff therefore concluded that beginning 
in January, 2010, this resulted in the monitoring site's failure to 
meet EPA siting criteria for a PM-10 monitor. See June 2, 2010 GBUAPCD 
Memorandum, Subject: Coso Junction PM10 Monitoring Station Siting 
Review. The District promptly set to work with the Coso Operating 
Company to resolve the siting problems by re-vegetating the area and 
adding another layer of gravel to areas with vehicular travel. The Coso 
Operating Company has also restricted traffic on the unpaved access 
road adjacent to the monitor, limiting it to only the monitoring 
station operators and station support personnel as needed. Furthermore, 
the Company has moved the contractors' trailer, which had previously 
been parked close to the monitor, to a gravel parking lot approximately 
100 meters east of the station. They are developing a plan to apply 
water to the soil surfaces near the monitor to re-vegetate the area and 
facilitate development of a ground surface crust that will help 
minimize localized PM-10 emissions. The GBUAPCD is committed to 
resolving the monitor siting problem, but believes that until the 
problem is resolved, the data collected since January 2010 should not 
be used for regulatory purposes. See June 2, 2010 GBUAPCD Memorandum, 
Subject: Coso Junction PM10 Monitoring Station Siting Review. The 
GBUAPCD has advised EPA that adequate application of water to the 
surrounding soils will begin on July 1, 2010 and that the District 
expects that, as a result of the efforts outlined above to limit 
contractor activities near the site and improve the conditions near the 
monitor, they will be able to rectify the siting problems so that they 
can once again start collecting valid data subsequently in July.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As discussed in our May 19, 2010 determination of 
attainment, the GBUAPCD provided preliminary data for 2010 which 
indicated that there were 2 exceedances in March 2010, but expressed 
concern about the validity of the data and also noted that the 
status of these preliminary exceedances could change after the data 
validation process was concluded and relevant issues addressed. 75 
FR 27944. As set forth in the discussion in this section, the 
GBUAPCD determined that these exceedances, along with the other data 
for the first quarter of 2010, were invalid due to problems at the 
monitoring site, and therefore should not be included in the AQS 
database.
    \4\ The Coso Operating Company is a power generating company and 
the owner of the property upon which the Coso Junction monitor is 
located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA agrees with the GBUAPCD's assessment of the monitoring site for 
the period since January 2010 and that the data collected during the 
first two quarters of 2010 should not be used for regulatory 
purposes.\5\ None of the recorded values have been entered into the AQS 
database, and, instead, the District has entered codes for the first 
quarter 2010 data which indicate that the data are invalid due to 
temporary construction/repair activity in the area. See AQS raw data 
report for Coso Junction, June 4, 2010. 40 CFR part 58 establishes 
criteria and requirements for ambient air monitoring and appendix E 
sets forth the probe and monitoring path siting criteria for ambient 
air quality monitoring. 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006). These include 
both binding requirements and goals. Section 1(b) of appendix E, the 
Introduction, provides that ``[t]he probe and monitoring path siting 
criteria discussed in this appendix must be followed to the maximum 
extent possible.'' Under the principles established in part 58, 
appendix E, EPA believes that it is not a reasonable monitoring 
practice to locate a PM-10 monitor, intended for purposes of 
characterizing large-scale pollution, so close to a dust source such as 
the case with the Coso Junction monitor since January 2010. The 
objective of the Coso Junction monitoring site is to capture transport 
from Owens Lake which is 15 to 20 miles to the north.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The District advised EPA that among the invalid data 
monitored during this period was an additional exceedance monitored 
on May 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 3(a) of appendix E, Spacing from Minor Sources, addresses 
the siting of monitors, including PM-10 monitors. It states that close 
spacing between a monitor and a minor source may be proper if the 
purpose of that monitoring site is to investigate emissions from that 
source and other local sources. However, if, as is the case with the 
Coso Junction monitor here, the site is to be used to determine air 
quality over a larger area representative of many kilometers across, it 
should not be placed near local, minor sources, because the plume from 
the local minor source would inappropriately impact the air quality 
data collected at this site. It is plain that this occurred at the Coso 
Junction situation, where the monitor, since January 2010, has been 
operating in an unvegetated area with exposed soils and with 
unprecedented contractor activity and vehicle traffic traveling 
frequently on an unpaved access road adjacent to the monitoring site.
    EPA will continue to work with the GBUACPD to ensure that the 
issues with

[[Page 36026]]

the monitoring site are resolved as soon as possible. The recent siting 
problem affects only data collected for the period after January, 2010, 
and does not have any impact on EPA's determination that the CJPA 
attained the PM-10 standard based on the two most recent, consecutive 
three-year periods with quality-assured data. (2006-2008 and 2007-
2009). In view of the recent history of continuous attainment in the 
CJPA and the ongoing expansion of and implementation of controls 
discussed elsewhere, EPA finds nothing to contradict EPA's belief that 
the area has attained the PM-10 standard through 2009 and continues to 
attain to date. Therefore EPA believes that the section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) 
requirement for attainment has been met.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA notes that the 2010 Plan also includes air quality 
modeling to demonstrate that the CJPA is attaining the PM-10 NAAQS. 
See 2010 Plan, section 6 Air Quality Modeling and Attainment 
Demonstration and Appendix D. While we do not believe air quality 
modeling is required to substantiate attainment for this purpose, 
EPA has reviewed the modeling and believes that it is supportive of 
the attainment determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of 
Redesignation Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and the Area Has 
a Fully Approved Applicable Implementation Plan Under Section 110(K) of 
the CAA

    Section 107(d)(3)(E), as interpreted by EPA, provides that the SIP 
for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA for 
all requirements that apply to the area for purposes of redesignation. 
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v).
    EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation 
request. Calcagni Memo, p. 3, Wall v. EPA F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2001), 
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 
989-90 (6th Cir. 1998), as well as any additional measure it may 
approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 
(May 12, 2003), and citations therein.
    The Calcagni memo states that a state must meet those requirements 
of section 110 and part D of the CAA that were applicable prior to the 
submittal of the redesignation request. CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110
    The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of 
a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice 
and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate 
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a 
source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C 
requirement for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); 
provisions for the implementation of part D requirements for New Source 
Review (NSR) permit programs; provisions for air pollution modeling; 
and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning 
and emission control rule development.
    On numerous occasions over the past 35 years, CARB and the GBUAPCD 
have submitted and we have approved provisions addressing the basic CAA 
section 110 provisions. There are no outstanding or disapproved 
applicable section 110 SIP submittals with respect to the State and the 
GBUAPCD.\7\ We propose to conclude that CARB and the GBUAPCD have met 
all SIP requirements for the CJPA applicable for purposes of 
redesignation under section 110 of the CAA (General SIP Requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The applicable California SIP for all nonattainment areas 
can be found at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/
Casips?readform&count=100&state=California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, we note that SIPs must be fully approved only with 
respect to applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in 
accordance with CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to 
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air 
quality problems in another state. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) 
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment 
area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that 
the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's 
designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate 
in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal 
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless 
of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, we do 
not believe that these requirements should be construed to be 
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110 elements not 
connected with nonattainment plan area's attainment status are not 
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The State will 
still be subject to these requirements after the CJPA is redesignated. 
The section 110 and part D requirements, which are linked to a 
particular area's designation and classification, are the relevant 
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This policy 
is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of the 
conformity SIP requirement for redesignations. See Reading, 
Pennsylvania propose and final rulemakings at 61 FR 53174-53176 
(October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 
Ohio final rulemaking at 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida 
final rulemaking at 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). See also the 
discussion of this issue in the Cincinnati redesignation at 65 FR 37890 
(June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh redesignation at 66 FR 50399 
(October 19, 2001). See also 73 FR 22307, 22312-22313 (April 25, 2008) 
(San Joaquin PM-10 proposed redesignation). EPA believes that section 
110 elements not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not 
applicable for purposes of redesignation.
2. SIP Requirements Under Part D
    Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title 1 of the CAA contain air quality 
planning requirements for PM-10 nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 of part 
D, sections 172(c) and 176 contains general requirements for areas 
designated as nonattainment. Subpart 4 of part D contains specific 
planning and scheduling requirements for PM-10 nonattainment areas.
    The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions 
for the reasonable available control measures (RACM), reasonable 
further progress (RFP), emissions inventories, contingency measures and 
conformity.
    Subpart 4 of part D, section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply 
specifically to moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. These requirements 
include: (1) An approved permit program for construction of new and 
modified major stationary sources; (2) an attainment demonstration; (3) 
provisions for RACM; (4) quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP 
toward attainment by the applicable attainment date; and (5) provisions 
to ensure that the control requirements applicable to major stationary 
sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10 
precursors except where the Administrator has determined that such 
sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed 
the NAAQS in the area.
    In addition to these subpart 4 requirements, general planning 
requirements in subpart 1, section 172(c) and section 176 include 
requirements for emissions inventories,

[[Page 36027]]

reasonably available control measures, contingency measures and 
conformity.
    For the CJPA, we have determined that the requirements for an 
attainment demonstration 189(a)(1)(B), section 172(c) and section 
189(a)(1)(c) RACM determination, a reasonable further progress 
demonstration under 189(c)(1) and section 172(c)(9) contingency 
measures no longer apply for so long as the area continues to attain 
the PM-10 standard in accordance with EPA's Clean Data Policy. 75 FR 
27944. See also San Joaquin proposed and final determination of 
attainment 71 FR 40952, 40954-5 (July 19, 2006) and 71 FR 63641, 63643-
7 (October 30, 2006). Moreover, in the context of evaluating the area's 
eligibility for redesignation, there is a separate and additional 
justification for finding that the requirements associated with 
attainment are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Prior to 
and independently of the Clean Data Policy, and specifically in the 
context of redesignations, EPA interpreted attainment-linked 
requirements as not applicable for purposes of redesignation. In the 
General Preamble, ``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I 
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' (General Preamble) 57 FR 
13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).

EPA stated that:

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP 
and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no longer 
apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for 
redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans * * * 
provides specific requirements for contingency measures that 
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for 
these areas.
    See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 (``The requirements for 
reasonable further progress and other measures needed for attainment 
will not apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for 
areas not attaining the standard.''). Thus, even if the requirements 
associated with attainment had not previously been suspended, they 
would not apply for purposes of evaluating whether an area that has 
attained the standard qualifies for redesignation. EPA has enunciated 
this position since the General Preamble was published more than 
eighteen years ago, and it represents the Agency's interpretation of 
what constitutes applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E). 
The Courts have recognized the scope of EPA's authority to interpret 
``applicable requirements'' in the redesignation context. See Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
    After application of the Clean Data Policy, the remaining 
applicable Part D requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas 
include an emissions inventory under section 172(c)(3). In this notice, 
EPA is proposing to approve the attainment inventories submitted in the 
2010 Plan as meeting the requirements for a section 172(c) emissions 
inventory. See discussion below in section D.1. In addition, EPA has 
previously approved numerous PM-10 measures into the CJPA SIP. See 
footnote 11, below, and Table 5 of the 2010 Plan.
    With respect to the Part D requirements for a NSR permit program 
for construction of new and modified major stationary sources, EPA has 
previously approved new source review rules (Rules 209-A and 216) for 
the GBUACPD which cover the CJPA. See 47 FR 26380 (June 18, 1982) and 
41 FR 53661 (December 8, 1976).
    Final approval of the NSR program, however, is not a prerequisite 
to finalizing our proposed approval of the State's redesignation 
request. EPA has determined in past redesignations that a NSR program 
does not have to be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the 
area demonstrates maintenance of the standard without part D NSR 
requirements in effect. The rationale for this position is described in 
a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled ``Part D NSR Requirements 
or Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' See the more 
detailed explanations in the following redesignation rulemakings: 
Detroit, MI (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1996); Cleveland-Akron-
Lorrain, OH (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, KY (66 
FR 53665, 53669, October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 FR 31831, 
31836-31837, June 21, 1996); and San Joaquin Valley, CA (73 FR 22307, 
22313, April 25, 2008 and 73 FR 66759, 66766-7, November 12, 2008).
    The requirements of the PSD program will apply to PM-10 once the 
area has been redesignated. Thus, new major sources with significant 
PM-10 emissions and major modifications of PM-10 at major sources as 
defined under 40 CFR 52.21 will be required to obtain a PSD permit or 
include PM-10 emissions in their existing PSD permit. Currently, EPA is 
the PSD permitting authority in the CJPA under a Federal implementation 
plan. See 40 CFR 52.270(a)(3). However, the GBUAPCD can implement the 
Federal PSD program through a delegation agreement with EPA or, 
assuming that the GBUAPCD makes necessary modifications to its NSR 
rules and EPA approves the modifications, under a SIP-approved rule.
    With respect to the conformity requirement, section 176(c) of the 
CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that 
federally supported or funded projects ``conform'' to the air quality 
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine 
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects 
developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal 
Transit Act (``transportation conformity'') as well as to other 
federally supported or funded projects (``general conformity''). State 
conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity 
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability 
that the CAA required EPA to promulgate.
    EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP 
requirements as not applying for purposes of a redesignation request 
under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required 
after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state 
rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 
2001), upholding this interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 (December 
7, 1995).
    Finally, given the extensive documentation throughout the 2010 Plan 
and today's proposed rule that the primary cause of the PM-10 problem 
in the CJPA is windblown dust from Owens Lake, EPA is proposing to 
determine that major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors do not 
contribute significantly to PM-10 levels that exceed the standard in 
the CJPA. Thus, EPA proposes to determine that, if EPA finalizes 
today's proposal and finally approves the emissions inventory for CJPA, 
the State has met and EPA has fully approved all requirements 
applicable under section 110 and part D for the CJPA for purposes of 
redesignation. CAA Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).

C. EPA Has Determined That the Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires EPA, in order to approve a 
redesignation to attainment, to determine that the improvement in air 
quality is due to emission reductions which are permanent and 
enforceable. Improvement should not be a result of temporary reductions 
(e.g., economic

[[Page 36028]]

downturns or shutdowns) or unusually favorable meteorology. Calcagni 
memorandum, p. 4.
    As discussed above in the ``Background'' section, the PM-10 problem 
in the CJPA is caused primarily by transport of windblown dust from the 
Owens Lake. Between 1985 and 2009, there have been 22 exceedances of 
the PM-10 standard, 18 of which were caused by windblown dust from the 
Owens Lake. The remaining 4 exceedances were caused by windblown dust 
from agricultural land (1 exceedance in 1990), wildfire smoke (1 
exceedance in 2002) and an unpaved truck parking area (2 exceedances in 
2007). 2010 Plan, section 3, pp. 4-8. Since 1985, the frequency of 
exceedances has decreased with the expected number of exceedances per 
year at in the CJPA ranging from zero to two (prior to 2004 there were 
many years with six to twelve expected exceedances per year). See 2010 
Plan, Table 3.

  Summary of 24-Hour PM-10 Maximum Exceedances ([mu]g/m\3\) in the CJPA
                          (1985 Through 2009)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Conc.
          Exceedance date            ([mu]g/       Primary cause of
                                      m\3\)           exceedance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/25/1985.........................       307  Owens Lake Dust.
4/2/1986..........................      1175  Owens Lake Dust.
6/7/1986..........................       157  Owens Lake Dust.
1/15/1987.........................       196  Owens Lake Dust.
2/3/1989..........................       227  Owens Lake Dust.
4/23/1990.........................       866  Abandoned Ag Land Dust.
10/26/1993........................       254  Owens Lake Dust.
12/23/1993........................       188  Owens Lake Dust.
1/5/1994..........................       388  Owens Lake Dust.
4/8/1995..........................       692  Owens Lake Dust.
4/9/1995..........................      567*  Owens Lake Dust.
4/21/1995.........................       337  Owens Lake Dust.
4/27/1996.........................      176*  Owens Lake Dust.
5/23/1996.........................       309  Owens Lake Dust.
3/6/1998..........................      246*  Owens Lake Dust.
3/18/1998.........................       409  Owens Lake Dust.
7/25/2002.........................       175  Wildland Fire Smoke.
2/2/2003..........................       484  Owens Lake Dust.
12/28/2006........................       296  Owens Lake Dust.
6/5/2007..........................       217  Coso Junction Parking Area
                                               Dust.
12/6/2007.........................       283  Coso Junction Parking Area
                                               Dust.
12/22/2009........................       168  Owens Lake Dust.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All values were recorded at the Coso Junction monitor site with the
  following exceptions: 4/9/1995 at Navy, 4/27/1996 at Pearsonville and
  3/6/1998 at Navy. See 2010 Plan, Tables 1 and 2.

Control Measures for Owens Lake
    As discussed above, the Owens Valley Planning Area is located to 
the north and adjacent to CJPA and is classified as a serious PM-10 
nonattainment area. Attainment in the CJPA depends on controls on and 
emissions reductions from Owens Lake which is the primary source of 
emissions in the Owens Valley Planning area. The GBUAPCD has 
jurisdiction over air quality planning requirements for Inyo, Mono and 
Alpine Counties. The GBUAPCD has adopted the following plan and 
revisions for the Owens Valley Planning Area, in order to reduce the 
PM-10 emissions from Owens Lake:
     In 1998 the GBUAPCD adopted and CARB submitted the Owens 
Valley SIP requiring dust controls on 16.5 square miles of the Owens 
lakebed. (1998 Owens Valley SIP).
     In 2003 the GBUAPCD adopted and CARB submitted a SIP 
revision to expand dust controls to cover a total 29.8 square miles of 
the Owens lakebed. (2003 Owens Valley SIP revision).
     In 2008 the GBUAPCD adopted and CARB submitted a SIP 
revision to expand dust control requirements to apply to a total of 
43.1 square miles of the Owens lakebed. (2008 Owens Valley SIP 
revision).

See 2010 Plan, section 5, pp. 11-12. EPA has approved the 1998 Owens 
Valley SIP (64 FR 48305, September 3, 1999), but has not acted on the 
State's proposed 2003 and 2008 Owens Valley SIP revisions. In the 
meantime, the GBUAPCD has implemented the 2003 Owens Valley SIP 
revision submission measures and has begun implementation of the 2008 
Owens Valley SIP submission measures.

    The GBUAPCD, which exercises joint jurisdiction over CJPA and Owens 
Valley, has shown that attainment and maintenance of the PM-10 standard 
in the CJPA relies in large part on the control measures in place for 
the Owens Valley Planning Area through 2008. Thus, the GBUAPCD has 
included in its maintenance plan submission for the CJPA area all of 
the control measures in the 1998 Owens Valley SIP, as well as the 2003 
and 2008 SIP revisions for Owens Valley that the District and CARB have 
submitted to EPA. These control measures are contained in the CJPA 2010 
Plan, Appendix C, GBUAPCD Board Order 080128-01, January 28, 
2008/February 1, 2008 (Board Order).\8\ \9\ The 2010 Plan indicates 
that all of the controls required by the 1998 Owens Valley SIP and the 
District's 2003 Owens Valley SIP revision submission (i.e., dust 
controls for 29.8 square miles of the Owens lakebed) have been 
successfully implemented and that the controls have led to a decline in 
the level of frequency of PM-10 exceedances of the 24-hour standard in 
the CJPA. 2010 Plan, section 5, p. 12 and Table 3.\10\ The additional 
controls required by the 2008 SIP revision (for a total of 43.0 square 
miles of controls on Owens Lake) are scheduled for implementation by 
October 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Adopted on February 1, 2008, the GBUAPCD Board Order 
080128-01 provides for the enforcement and implementation 
of 43.0 square miles of BACM level controls on the Owens Lake bed 
found in the 1998 Owens Valley SIP and subsequent SIP revisions. 
Board Order 080128-01 specifies the timing, implementation, 
placement, and management of lake bed controls such as shallow 
flooding, managed vegetation, gravel blanketing, and ``moat and 
row'' controls. Also, Board Order 080128-01 provides for 
contingency procedures for supplemental controls, maintenance of 
existing controls, and a ``performance monitoring plan.''
    \9\ We note that there is a slight difference between the 
discussion in the 2010 Plan (p. 12) and the Board Order (paragraph 
5) for the total square miles controlled. Page 12 of the 2010 Plan 
states the total is 43.1 square miles while the Board Order states 
the total is 43.0 square miles. Since the Board Order is the 
enforceable mechanism, we believe the enforceable controls are for 
43.0 square miles.
    \10\ Table 3 of the 2010 Plan shows a decline in level and 
frequency of the 24-hour PM-10 standard. Table 3 also provides 
information on the annual PM-10 standard, however, EPA revoked this 
standard on October 17, 2006, effective on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 
61144).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the adoption of the 1998 Owens Valley PM-10 SIP, the peak 
24-hour PM-10 concentration levels recorded in the CJPA were as high as 
1175 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) with many years recording 
levels over 300 [mu]g/m\3\, and there were several years where the 
expected number of exceedances were as high as 6 or 12 days. See 2010 
Plan, Table 3 and Summary of 24-hour PM-10 Maximum Exceedances table 
above. Following the adoption of the 1998 Owens Valley SIP and the 2003 
Owens Valley SIP

[[Page 36029]]

revision, which have led to implementation of 29.8 square miles of dust 
controls on Owens Lake by the end of 2006, the peak 24-hour PM-10 
levels and expected number of exceedances have declined. Id. Figure 4 
of the 2010 plan also documents the dramatic decrease in emissions in 
Owens Valley. EPA believes that the data in Table 3 and Figure 4 of the 
2010 plan show there is a direct air quality benefit in the CJPA from 
the dust controls implemented for Owens Lake.
Control Measures in the CJPA
    As mentioned above, 4 of the 22 PM-10 exceedances in the CJPA 
between 1985 and 2009 were caused by sources other than Owens Lake 
emission including windblown dust from an agricultural field, smoke 
from a wildfire and windblown dust from an unpaved truck parking area. 
2010 Plan, section 3, p. 4. These types of exceedances are not 
generally a problem in the CJPA and are not expected to recur. The 
agricultural land just north of the monitor site was stabilized by 
natural vegetation cover in 1991 after the land was fallowed. Since 
that time no agricultural activities have taken place in the CJPA. Dust 
from the unpaved truck parking area, located adjacent to the PM-10 
monitor site was mitigated by covering it with gravel in 2008 and then 
asphalt pavement in 2009. 2010 Plan, section 1. The 2010 Plan also 
provides a summary of the District rules and regulations that apply to 
sources of PM-10 within the CJPA. 2010 Plan, Table 5. While the focus 
of attaining and maintaining the PM-10 standard in the CJPA is on the 
controls for Owens Lake, these measures, many of which have been SIP-
approved, will also benefit air quality.\11\ Those measures that EPA 
has already approved into the CJPA SIP contribute to attainment and 
maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ There are thirteen measures listed in Table 5 of the 2010 
Plan including New Source Review and permitting rules and rules to 
control fugitive dust and controlled burning. We have approved nine 
of these rules into the SIP: Rule 209-A, 47 FR 26380, June 18, 1982; 
Rule 216, 41 FR 53661, December 8, 1976; Rule 400, 42 FR 28883, June 
6, 1977; Rule 401, 42 FR 28883, June 6, 1977; Rule 408, 46 FR 8471, 
January 27, 1981; Rule 409, 42 FR 28883, June 6, 1977; Rule 410, 42 
FR 28883, June 6, 1977; and, Regulation XIII (Rules 1301-1311), 64 
FR 19916, April 23, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA Proposal for Approval of GBUAPCD Board Order Maintenance Plan 
Control
    EPA is proposing to approve the GBUAPCD Board Order 
080128-01, January 28, 2008/February 1, 2008, which is 
included as Appendix C of the 2010 Plan. As discussed above, this Board 
Order is the enforceable mechanism by which the GBUAPCD can require the 
City of Los Angeles to implement, in phases, a total of 43 square miles 
of dust control measures for Owens Lake. The successful implementation 
of 29.8 square miles of controls by December 2006 has resulted in 
significantly improved air quality in the CJPA. 2010 Plan, Table 3, 
Figure 4, section 5. Thus, EPA believes that the improvement in PM-10 
air quality for the CJPA is the result of permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions from Owens Lake, and that this improvement will 
continue if our proposal is finalized. Because of the clear correlation 
between the reductions in emissions from Owens Lake and declining PM-10 
exceedances in the CJPA, EPA believes that the improvement in air 
quality is not the result of temporary reductions (e.g., economic 
downturns or shutdowns) or unusually favorable meteorology. Thus, EPA 
proposes to determine that the improvement in air quality in CJPA is 
due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii).

D. EPA Has Fully Approved a Maintenance Plan for the Area Under Section 
175A of the CAA

    Section 175A of the CAA provides the requirements for maintenance 
plans that must be fully approved under section 107(d)(3)(E) for 
purposes of redesignation to attainment. The provisons to be included 
in a maintenance plan are further addressed in the Calcagni memo. They 
include:
    (1) An attainment emissions inventory to identify the level of 
emissions in the area sufficient to attain the NAAQS;
    (2) A demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 years after 
redesignation;
    (3) Verification of continued attainment through operation of an 
appropriate air quality monitoring network; and
    (4) Contingency provisions that EPA deems necessary to assure that 
the State will promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs 
after redesignation of the area. We discuss below how these 
requirements are met for the SJVAB.
1. An Attainment Emissions Inventory To Identify the Level of Emissions 
in the Area Sufficient To Attain the NAAQS
    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires plan submittals to include a 
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from 
all sources in the nonattainment area. In demonstrating maintenance in 
accordance with CAA section 175A and the Calcagni memo, the State 
should provide an attainment emissions inventory to identify the level 
of emissions in the area sufficient to attain the NAAQS. Where the 
State has made an adequate demonstration that air quality has improved 
as a result of the SIP, the attainment inventory will generally be an 
inventory of actual emissions at the time the area attained the 
standard. EPA's primary guidance in evaluating these inventories is the 
document entitled, ``PM-10 Emissions Inventory Requirements,'' EPA, 
OAQPS, EPA-454/R-94-033 (September 1994) which can be found at: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/pm10eir.pdf.
    The 2010 Plan provides an estimated daily PM-10 emissions inventory 
for 2008 through 2025. The year 2008 was chosen as the attainment year 
because it is one of the attainment years in the most recent three-year 
periods (2006-2008, 2007-2009) in which compliance with the PM-10 NAAQS 
was monitored. The 2010 Plan projects the emissions attainment 
inventory to remain constant from 2008 through 2025, at an estimated 
1,478 pounds per day. See 2010 Plan, section 4, pp. 9-10. In contrast, 
as noted in the Background discussion in section I above, the emissions 
generated within the CJPA are less than 0.1% of the emissions caused by 
windblown dust from the Owens Lake area, which were estimated to be 
1.55 million pounds per day for the CJPA design day (January 5, 2007). 
Id.

  Daily PM-10 Emissions for 2008 Through 2025 for PM-10 Sources in the
                                  CJPA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Pounds
                                                                 per day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources:
    --California Lightweight Pumice...........................       167
    --China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station....................        84

[[Page 36030]]


    --Coso Operating Company..................................       953
    --Halliburton Services....................................        20
    --Twin Mountain Rock......................................        58
      --Total Stationary......................................      1282
Area Sources:
    --Unpaved Roads...........................................        83
    --Paved Roads.............................................       101
      --Total Area Sources....................................       184
Mobile Sources:
    --On-Road Motor Vehicles..................................        12
      Total PM-10 for CJPA....................................      1478
      Source: 2010 Plan, Table 4..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2010 Plan's inventory for sources within the CJPA is subdivided 
into three subcategories: Stationary sources; area sources; and mobile 
sources. Id. In the CJPA, the majority of daily PM-10 emissions are 
estimated to come from stationary sources. Five sources account for 
1,282 pounds or 86.7% of estimated total daily PM-10 emissions. The 
largest stationary source contributor is Coso Operating Company, a 
geothermal, wind and solar energy company, with an estimated 953 pounds 
per day of PM-10 emissions. These emissions estimates are derived from 
GBUAPCD source permits and include unpaved road and haul road PM-10 
emissions for these sources. Id.
    The plan estimates daily area source emissions for unpaved and 
paved roads at 184 pounds per day (12.4% of total).
    CJPA on-road mobile source emissions are estimated to be 12 pounds 
per day (0.8% of total) and are based on CARB's 2008 PM-10 emission 
estimates for Inyo County. CJPA estimates were derived from Inyo County 
estimates by pro-rating the amount of traffic (5.1%) in the CJPA. 2010 
Plan, section 4, p. 10.
    GBUAPCD projects that PM-10 emissions will not grow from 2008 to 
2025 because of the CJPA's continued sparse population and lack of 
population growth, and relative stability of the area's industrial 
activities. The CJPA has only 0.5% of Inyo County's population and, 
according to U.S. Census Bureau figures, Inyo County population 
declined from 18,281 in 1990 to 17,945 in 2000, and further declined to 
17,136 in 2008, a population decrease of 4.5% over this 18-year period. 
2010 Plan, section 4, p. 9-10.
    In conclusion, EPA believes that the selection of 2008 as the 
attainment year inventory and 2025 for the maintenance year inventory 
is appropriate since the area was determined to have attained by 2008, 
and that given the sparse population, the lack of population growth and 
the lack of changes to industrial operations for the area, a constant 
inventory of 1,478 pounds per day from 2008 through 2025 is also 
appropriate for the CJPA. We have reviewed the 2010 Plan's estimated 
attainment year emission inventory and determined that it is current, 
accurate and comprehensive, and meets EPA guidance and the CAA. 
Therefore we are proposing to approve the 2008 inventory, which also 
serves as the maintenance plan's attainment year inventory, under 
section 172(c) of the CAA.
2. A Demonstration of Maintenance of the NAAQS for 10 Years After 
Redesignation
    Section 175A of the CAA requires a demonstration of maintenance of 
the NAAQS for 10 years after redesignation. A state generally may 
demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future 
emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of 
the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the future 
anticipated mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a 
violation of the NAAQS.
    As discussed above, the emissions reductions from Owens Lake 
provided the path to attainment for the CJPA and is also the paramount 
source of emissions that must be addressed in ensuring maintenance for 
the area. The emissions estimates and projections for the Owens Lake 
and the Owens Valley area have decreased significantly since 2000 and 
are expected to continue to decrease until 2011 and then remain 
constant through 2025. 2010 Plan, section 5, pp. 11-13 and Figure 4. 
Figure 4 of the 2010 Plan shows actual and forecasted emissions from 
Owens Lake and from all sources in the Owens Valley area. Since 2000, 
the actual emissions have decreased by 90% as a result of dust control 
measures and the forecasts show emission from Owens Lake and the Owens 
Valley Area either staying constant or decreasing from 2007 through 
2026. EPA believes the forecasted decreases in emissions in 2010 from 
Owens Lake are consistent with the additional control measures 
(discussed above) that are scheduled for implementation.
    In addition, we believe that, while not nearly as significant as 
the emissions reductions from Owens Lake, as discussed in the Inventory 
section above the total daily emissions of PM-10 from sources within 
CJPA will remain constant at 1,478 pounds per day from 2008 through 
2025. 2010 Plan, section 4. Sources within the CJPA are also subject to 
SIP-approved measures. See footnote 11.
    Based on our review of the information presented in the 2010 Plan, 
we believe that the State has shown that attainment of the PM-10 
standard will be maintained in the CJPA for at least ten years after 
redesignation.
3. Verification of Continued Attainment Through Operation of an 
Appropriate Air Quality Monitoring Network
    In demonstrating maintenance, continued attainment of the NAAQS can 
be verified through operation of an appropriate air quality monitoring 
network. The Calcagni memo states that the maintenance plan should 
contain provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors that 
will provide such verification.
    The GBUAPCD has committed to continue daily monitoring of PM-10 at 
the Coso Junction monitoring site and is authorized to do so under the 
California Health and Safety Code section 40001. 2010 Plan, section 
5.1, p. 13 and section 10, p. 23. The Coso Junction monitor is part of 
an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network. See December 1, 2009 
letter to Ted Schade, Air Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD, from 
Joseph Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality Analysis Section, EPA Region 
9. As noted above, EPA and the District have

[[Page 36031]]

recently learned that changed conditions in the area adjacent to the 
Coso Junction monitor have resulted in the monitor not meeting EPA 
siting criteria since January 2010. As a result, data from the monitor 
during this period are not representative of the area for which the 
monitor is designed, and cannot be relied upon for regulatory purposes. 
GBUAPCD has already taken steps to correct the problems identified, 
which are linked to the operations of a nearby contractor. These 
include plans and actions to promote regrowth of vegetation in the area 
surrounding the monitor, and development of a competent crustal surface 
to reduce emissions. The GBUAPCD has already rerouted and restricted 
traffic from an unpaved access road near the monitor, and has directed 
the contractor to remove its equipment trailer from a location near the 
monitor. Additional gravel placement on the access road and areas on 
which vehicles will travel and the application of water will also 
reduce dust emissions near the monitor. The GBUAPCD is committed to 
resolving the siting issues and expects that the monitor will be 
collecting valid data for the area after July 1, 2010. Thus EPA 
believes that all these circumstances demonstrate that the District's 
commitment to continued verification through operation of its monitor 
is credible and sufficient.
4. Contingency Provisions That EPA Deems Necessary To Promptly Correct 
Any Violation of the NAAQS That Occurs After Redesignation of the Area
    Contingency provisions are required for maintenance plans under 
section 175A of the CAA. These contingency measures are distinguished 
from those generally required for nonattainment areas under section 
172(c)(9) in that they are not required to be fully adopted measures 
that will take effect without further action by the state in order for 
the maintenance plan to be approved. The Calcagni memo states that the 
contingency provisions of the maintenance plan should identify the 
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and 
implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. The memo also 
states that the contingency provisions should identify indicators or 
triggers which will be used to determine when the contingency measures 
need to be implemented. While the memo suggests inventory or monitoring 
indicators, it states that contingency provisions will be evaluated on 
a case-by-case basis.
    As discussed in section C above, EPA is proposing to approve the 
GBUAPCD Board Order 080128-01 for Owens Lake dust controls as 
part of the maintenance plan for the CJPA. The Board Order is the 
enforceable mechanism by which the GBUAPCD requires the City of Los 
Angeles to implement, in phases, a total of 43 square miles of dust 
control measures for Owens Lake. EPA believes that the successful 
implementation of 29.8 square miles of controls by December 2006 has 
let to significantly improved air quality in the CJPA and in fact has 
resulted in attainment of the PM-10 standard in the CJPA, beginning in 
2008. Thus, EPA also believes that additional dust controls beyond the 
29.8 square miles of control, and implemented after attainment, can 
serve as contingency measures for the CJPA. The additional controls 
included in the 2008 Board Order which EPA is today proposing to 
approve, include application of another 13.2 square miles of dust 
controls to Owens Lake by October 31, 2010. 2010 Plan, section 5. Since 
the primary source of PM-10 emissions is from Owens Lake, EPA is 
proposing to approve the 13.2 square miles of dust controls for Owens 
Lake as meeting the requirement for 175A maintenance plan contingency 
measures for the CJPA. These dust controls for an additional 13.2 
square miles of Owens Lake are already adopted controls and do not 
require a trigger for implementation.
    EPA has long approved contingency provisions that rely on 
reductions from measures that are already in place but are over and 
above those relied on for attainment and RFP under CAA section 
172(c)(9). See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997); 62 FR 66279 
(December 18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001); 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 
634 (January 3, 2001). See discussion in our final PM-2.5 
implementation rule. 72 FR 20586, 20642-20643 (April 25, 2007). This 
interpretation has also been upheld in LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th 
Cir. 2004), where the court in that case set forth its reasoning for 
accepting excess reductions from already adopted measures as 
contingency measures.
    Our interpretation that excess emission reductions can 
appropriately serve as section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is 
equally applicable to section 175A(d) contingency measures. EPA has 
approved maintenance plans under section 175A that included contingency 
provisions relying on measures to be implemented prior to any post-
redesignation NAAQS violation. See 60 FR 27028, 27029 (May 22, 1995); 
73 FR 66759, 66,769 (November 12, 2008).
    The Board Order also includes contingency measures for the Owens 
Valley Planning Area that are intended to address the CAA section 
172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement for nonattainment area plans. 
The process for developing these contingency measures for Owens Lake is 
triggered by a determination by the GBUAPCD Air Pollution Control 
Officer (APCO) as described in paragraphs 10 through 13 of the Board 
Order. As paragraph 10 explains, these are annual determinations made 
by the GBUAPCD APCO beginning in 2011. Paragraph 11 of the Board Order 
provides criteria and procedures for determining the need for 
contingency measures and supplemental control measures. Paragraph 13 
ensures that the GBUAPCD can require the City of Los Angeles to take 
added reasonable measures not specifically addressed within paragraphs 
10 or 12. EPA believes these procedures for additional measures at 
Owens Lake, which EPA is today proposing to approve, will also help to 
ensure continued attainment in the CJPA.
    Although local emissions within CJPA play a very minor role in 
maintenance of the PM-10 standard in CJPA, EPA notes that in addition 
to the 175A maintenance plan contingency measures directed at Owens 
Valley that we are proposing to approve, the GBUAPCD has also made a 
commitment to address local emissions in CJPA. GBUAPCD commits to 
investigate the cause of any such exceedance within 60 days from the 
end of the calendar quarter in which the exceedance occurs, and to 
address and correct exceedances found to be caused by local sources 
within 18 months of identifying the cause of the exceedance. See 2010 
Plan, sections 5.1 and 10 and June 10, 2010 letter to Deborah Jordan, 
Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, from Theodore D. Schade, Air 
Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD. EPA believes this commitment will 
also help to ensure maintenance in the CJPA.
    Finally, GBUAPCD is not proposing to remove or cease implementing 
any approved SIP measures. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, EPA 
is proposing to approve the contingency measures under section 175A(d).
    In light of the discussion set forth above, EPA is proposing to 
approve the maintenance plan for CJPA as meeting the requirements of 
CAA section 175A.

E. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans, programs and 
projects in the nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or 
approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the

[[Page 36032]]

Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. chapter 53) must conform to the 
applicable SIP. In short, a transportation plan and program are deemed 
to conform to the applicable SIP if the emissions resulting from the 
implementation of that transportation plan and program are less than or 
equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) established in the 
SIP for the attainment year, maintenance year and other analysis years. 
See, generally, 40 CFR part 93.
    Section 93.109(m) of EPA's regulations implementing the 
transportation conformity requirement (40 CFR part 93) states that an 
area is not required to satisfy a regional emissions analysis for a 
pollutant if EPA finds that motor vehicle emissions of that pollutant 
are an insignificant contributor to the area's air quality problem. To 
make this demonstration, the SIP would have to show that it would be 
unreasonable to expect that the area would experience enough motor 
vehicle emissions growth in that pollutant/precursor for a NAAQS 
violation to occur. Factors to consider in such a demonstration include 
the following: the percentage of motor vehicle emissions in the context 
of the total SIP inventory; the current state of air quality as 
determined by monitoring data for that NAAQS; the absence of SIP motor 
vehicle control measures; and historical trends and future projections 
of the growth of motor vehicle emissions.
    Today, we are proposing to find that motor vehicle-related PM-10 
emissions (i.e., tailpipe emissions, brake and tire wear emissions, and 
re-entrained dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads) are 
insignificant contributors to the CJPA's PM-10 nonattainment problem, 
based on our consideration of the factors identified in EPA's 
transportation conformity regulations and on the unique circumstances 
of the PM-10 CJPA.
    As discussed in section 4 of the 2010 Plan, at 196 pounds per day, 
the total on-road-related PM-10 emissions from motor vehicles are 13.3% 
of the 1,478 pounds per day attainment inventory for the CJPA. However, 
as explained elsewhere in this notice, air pollution in the CJPA is 
dominated by windblown dust transported from Owens Lake, which has been 
estimated to be as much as 1.55 million pounds per day. The 
contribution of Owens Lake to the CJPA is overwhelming when compared to 
the daily emissions estimate of 1,478 pounds per day for all of the 
sources within the CJPA, and is even more overwhelming when compared to 
the on-road PM-10 emissions of 196 lbs/day. In comparison with the 
lowest projected annual PM-10 emissions levels for the Owens Valley, 
8,000 tons per year, CJPA motor vehicle related PM-10 emissions are 
insignificant at 196 pounds per day (35.8 tons per year), which means 
that on-road motor vehicle emissions represent just 0.4% of the 
inventory when emissions from Owens Valley are considered.\12\ EPA 
further notes that the four exceedances attributed to CJPA sources were 
caused by windblown dust from fallow agricultural land, wildfire smoke 
and an unpaved truck parking area. See 2010 Plan, section 3, pp. 4-9. 
As discussed above and in the 2010 Plan, exceedances due to these 
sources are not expected to recur because the agricultural land has 
been re-vegetated and the truck parking lot has been paved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Depending on the year, the emissions from the Owens Valley 
area are estimated to be anywhere from approximately 8,000 to 47,000 
tons per year (past actual estimates are anywhere from 10,000 to 
86,000 tons per year). See 2010 Plan, Figure 4. The CJPA PM-10 
emissions of 269.74 tons per year (converted from the 1,478 pounds 
per day estimate found in the 2010 Plan, Table 4) are approximately 
3% when compared to the lowest estimate emissions level (8,000 tons 
per year) for the Owens Valley area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA indicated in its Transportation Conformity final rule 
that mobile source emissions of approximately 10% or less may be 
considered insignificant, EPA further noted that ten percent should be 
viewed as a general guideline only, and that mobile source emissions 
that are above 10% of total emissions could still be found to be 
insignificant, depending on the circumstances. Given the unique 
circumstances of the CJPA, EPA believes that the motor vehicle 
emissions contribution to the CJPA is insignificant.
    In addition to the overwhelming contribution of Owens Valley to the 
CJPA PM-10 problem, EPA considered the control measures adopted for 
Owens Valley as one of the relevant factual circumstances. The GBUAPCD 
exercises joint jurisdiction over Owens Valley and the CJPA and 
therefore has authority to adopt and implement controls in both areas. 
Pursuant to this authority, the GBUAPCD has in fact adopted and 
implemented control measures to address the PM-10 contribution to the 
CJPA from Owens Valley. See section C above for a detailed discussion 
of these control measures.
    Finally, EPA notes that in 1999 (See 64 FR 34173 and 64 FR 48305), 
EPA found that the motor vehicle emissions contribution in Owens Valley 
itself was insignificant. This earlier finding for Owens Valley 
supports the proposed finding for the CJPA--if motor vehicles are not a 
significant contributor to the PM-10 emissions problem in Owens Valley 
itself, where the primary source of PM-10 emissions is located, then it 
is reasonable to conclude that motor vehicle emissions are also not a 
significant contributor to the PM-10 emissions problem in neighboring 
CJPA.
    In the context of these unique factual circumstances, EPA is 
proposing to find that motor vehicle emissions are an insignificant 
contributor to the PM-10 problem in the CJPA. Consideration of the 
other factors specified in EPA's regulations supports this proposed 
finding and is described below.
Current Air Quality as Determined by PM-10 Monitoring Data
    Current air quality as determined by PM-10 monitoring data show 
that the CJPA attains the PM-10 standard. As discussed in section A 
above, for PM-10 in the CJPA, EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality 
data and determined that the CJPA has attained the PM-10 standard 
through 2009 and continues to attain to date. See 75 FR 13710 and 75 FR 
27944.
Absence of SIP Motor Vehicle Control Measures
    There are no local PM-10 motor vehicle control measures for the 
CJPA. With the exception of GBUAPCD Rule 401--Fugitive Dust, that may 
apply to area sources such as unpaved roads, there are no specific CJPA 
only PM-10 motor vehicle control measures. Of course, national and 
state-wide motor vehicle emission controls may apply, but they are not 
GBUAPCD adopted and CJPA specific motor vehicle control measures. 
Furthermore, these state-wide and national emission control measures 
would contribute to reductions in motor vehicle related PM-10 emissions 
in the CJPA.
Historical Trends and Future Projections of the Growth of Motor Vehicle 
Related PM-10 Emissions
    Finally, historical trends and future projections of the growth of 
motor vehicle related PM-10 emissions suggest that motor vehicle 
related PM-10 emissions are not likely to increase, and therefore not 
likely to cause or contribute to violations of the PM-10 standard. The 
CJPA is within a sparsely populated area of Inyo County, California. An 
estimated 102 people live in two communities of Pearsonville and 
Homewood Canyon. These two communities are located at the southern end 
of the CJPA, approximately 25 miles apart and separated by the China 
Lake NAWS. Commuters from these communities most likely travel south 
out of the CJPA to Ridgecrest, a small

[[Page 36033]]

community of approximately 27,600 people.\13\ According to US Census 
figures, in the period 1990 to 2008, Inyo County population did not 
increase, but dropped 4.5%. (See 2010 Plan, Section 4.4, pages 10-11.) 
Within the CJPA, almost all of the land, 98.5%, is controlled by the 
federal government: the Department of Defense through the China Lake 
NAWS controls 63%; the Department of the Interior through the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service controls 32.6% and 2.9%, 
respectively, with just over twelve percent (12.2%) of BLM land 
designated as wilderness.\14\ All of these entities restrict access, 
development, or both within the lands they control. In summary, given a 
sparse population, historically declining or no population growth, the 
absence of any significant commutershed in the CJPA, limited land 
ownership, and restricted access or development, PM-10 related motor 
vehicle emissions are not expected to increase in the CJPA to the point 
where a violation would occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey.
    \14\ Data source is http://www.nationalatlas.gov; http://
nationalatlas.gov/mld/fedlandp.html; shape file from Federal Lands 
of the United States map.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA Proposal for Transportation Conformity and MVEBs in the CJPA
    Given the factors discussed above, we are proposing to find that 
motor vehicle-related PM-10 emissions are insignificant contributors to 
the CJPA's PM-10 nonattainment problem and that it would be 
unreasonable to expect that motor vehicle related PM-10 emissions would 
grow enough within the CJPA to threaten the PM-10 standard. If this 
proposal is finalized, a regional emissions analysis would not be 
required for PM-10 in any future conformity determination in the CJPA.
    Given that the CJPA is an isolated rural area, if EPA takes final 
action finding the motor vehicle emissions PM-10 contribution is 
insignificant, a conformity determination would be necessary only in 
the case where a transportation project needs federal funding or 
approval. Even with an insignificance finding, such a conformity 
determination would need to include a hot-spot analysis, if the project 
is one of the types found in 40 CFR 93.123(b).

IV. Proposed Actions

    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 addressed all the necessary requirements for the 
redesignation of the CJPA to attainment, pursuant to CAA sections 
107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. Assuming that California adopts the maintenance 
plan and associated controls as they are currently drafted, EPA is 
therefore proposing to redesignate the CJPA to attainment for the PM-10 
NAAQS. EPA also proposes to approve the maintenance plan for CJPA which 
includes the GBUAPCD Board Order 080128-01 as a SIP revision. 
As discussed above the Board Order includes all of the control measures 
in the 1998 Owens Valley SIP, and the 2003 and 2008 SIP revisions for 
Owens Valley. EPA is also proposing to approve the emissions inventory 
submitted with the maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of 
section 172(c)(3). If the State substantially revises the submitted 
control measures or maintenance plan from the versions proposed by the 
State and reviewed here, this will result in the need for additional 
proposed rulemaking on the maintenance plan and redesignation. Finally, 
EPA is proposing to find the contribution of motor vehicles to the 
area's PM-10 problem insignificant, and if this insignificance finding 
is finalized, the area would not have to complete a regional emissions 
analysis for any transportation conformity determinations necessary in 
the CJPA.

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:
     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);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     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.);
     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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action 
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     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
     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 SIP is not approved to 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.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

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


[[Page 36034]]


    Dated: June 18, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-15453 Filed 6-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

