[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 13, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56848-56857]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22168]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0549; FRL-8856-01-R9]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 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
proposing these actions because the SIP revision meets the applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements for such plans and motor vehicle
emissions budgets. Lastly, the EPA is beginning the adequacy process
for the 2020 and 2025 motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Plan
through this proposed rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0549, at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted
at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. 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, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. The PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
    B. The Indian Wells Valley PM10 Planning Area
II. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of State
Implementation Plan Revisions
III. Requirements for Second 10-Year Maintenance Plans
IV. Evaluation of the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan
    A. Emissions Inventories
    B. Maintenance Demonstration
    C. Verification of Continued Attainment
    D. Contingency Provisions
    E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
V. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

    Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the EPA
established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as
``criteria pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to
determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be
established. The EPA sets the NAAQS for criteria pollutants at levels
required to protect public health and welfare.\1\ Particulate matter is
one of the ambient pollutants for which the EPA has established
NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a given air pollutant, ``primary'' standards are those
determined by the EPA as requisite to protect the public health.
``Secondary'' standards are those determined by the EPA as requisite
to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the
ambient air. CAA section 109(b).
    \2\ Particulate matter is the generic term for a broad class of
chemically and physically diverse substances that exist as discrete
particles (liquid droplets or solids) over a wide range of sizes.
Particles originate from a variety of anthropogenic stationary and
mobile sources as well as from natural sources. Particles may be
emitted directly or form in the atmosphere by transformations of
gaseous emissions such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and
ammonia (NH3). The chemical and physical properties of
particulate matter vary greatly with time, region, meteorology, and
source category. SO2, NOX, VOC, and
NH3 are referred to as PM10 precursors. As
discussed later in this proposed rule, precursors do not contribute
significantly to elevated ambient PM10 concentrations in
the Indian Wells Valley planning area. Some California air quality
plans use the term reactive organic gases (ROG) instead of VOC. The
terms cover essentially the same compounds, and herein we use the
term VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1987, the EPA established primary and secondary NAAQS for
particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal
10 microns in diameter (PM10).\3\ At that time, the EPA
established two PM10 standards; an annual standard and a 24-
hour standard.\4\ The annual PM10 standard was subsequently
revoked.\5\ More recently, the EPA announced that it was retaining the
24-hour PM10 NAAQS as a 24-hour standard of 150 micrograms
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\).\6\ In this document, ``PM10
NAAQS'' or ``PM10 standard'' refer to the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 52 FR 24634 (July 1, 1987).
    \4\ The primary and secondary standards were set at the same
level for both the 24-hour and the annual PM10 standards.
    \5\ In 2006, the EPA retained the 24-hour PM10
standards but revoked the annual standards. 71 FR 61144 (October 17,
2006).
    \6\ 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An area attains the 24-hour standard of 150 [micro]g/m\3\ when the
expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour

concentration above the standard (referred to as an ``exceedance''),\7\
averaged over three years, is equal to or less than one. The expected
number of exceedances averaged over a three-year period at any given
monitor is known as the PM10 design value. The
PM10 design value for the area is the highest design value
within the nonattainment area.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the
level of the 24-hour standard (i.e., 150 [micro]g/m\3\) after
rounding to the nearest 10 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e., values ending in
five or greater are to be rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154
[micro]g/m\3\ would not be an exceedance because it would be rounded
to 150 [micro]g/m\3\. A recorded value of 155 [micro]g/m\3\ would be
an exceedance because it would be rounded to 160 [micro]g/m\3\. 40
CFR part 50, Appendix K, section 1.0.
    \8\ 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. The comparison
with the allowable expected exceedance rate of one per year is made
in terms of a number rounded to the nearest tenth (fractional values
equal to or greater than 0.05 are to be rounded up; e.g., an
exceedance rate of 1.05 would be rounded to 1.1, which is the lowest
rate for nonattainment). 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the EPA determines whether an area's air quality is
meeting the PM10 NAAQS based on the most recent complete,\9\
quality-assured, and certified data measured at established state and
local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in the nonattainment area and
entered into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. Data from air
monitoring sites operated by state, local, or tribal agencies in
compliance with the EPA's monitoring requirements must be submitted to
AQS. These monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are
accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, the EPA relies
primarily on data in AQS when determining the attainment status of an
area.\10\ All valid data are reviewed to determine the area's air
quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For PM10, a complete year of air quality data
includes all four calendar quarters with each quarter containing a
minimum of 75 percent of the scheduled PM10 sampling
days. 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, section 2.3(a).
    \10\ 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, appendix J; 40 CFR part 53;
and 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D, and E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Indian Wells Valley PM10 Planning Area

    Under section 107 of the CAA, the EPA is required to designate all
areas of the country as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable
for each of the NAAQS. In response to an area designation of
nonattainment, states are required to adopt and submit SIP revisions
that, among other things, provide for attainment of the NAAQS within
such area. Once a nonattainment area attains the NAAQS and meets
certain other prerequisites, the state may request that the EPA
redesignate the area to attainment.
    Through its enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress
designated certain areas of the country as nonattainment areas for the
PM10 NAAQS. The Searles Valley planning area was one of the
areas designated as nonattainment.\11\ In 1991, the EPA classified the
Searles Valley planning area, as a ``Moderate'' PM10
nonattainment area.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CAA section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) and 52 FR 29383 (August 7,
1987).
    \12\ 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Searles Valley planning area included three subregions (Coso
Junction, Indian Wells Valley, and Trona) under the planning
jurisdiction of different air pollution control agencies. On August 6,
2002, the EPA changed the boundaries of the Searles Valley
PM10 nonattainment area by dividing this area into three
separate, newly created PM10 nonattainment areas, including
the Indian Wells Valley planning area.\13\ The Indian Wells Valley
planning area is under the planning jurisdiction of the Eastern Kern
Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD or ``District''). The planning
area boundaries include the portion of Kern County contained within the
United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit #108090205.\14\ It
covers approximately 300 square miles and is populated by about 30,000
persons, with only one community of significant size, Ridgecrest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 67 FR 50805.
    \14\ For the definition of the Indian Wells Valley planning
area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 7, 2003, the EPA determined that the Indian Wells Valley
planning area had attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.\15\ The
determination was based on complete, quality-assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data that showed the area monitored attainment
of the PM10 NAAQS during 1999-2001.\16\ Based on the
determination, the EPA finalized approval of the maintenance plan and
redesignated the Indian Wells Valley planning area to attainment,
effective June 6, 2003.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 68 FR 24368.
    \16\ 67 FR 77196 (December 17, 2002).
    \17\ 68 FR 24368.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EKAPCD is a monitoring organization within the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) Primary Quality Assurance Organization. EKAPCD
operates the PM10 monitoring network in the Indian Wells
Valley area. CARB submits annual monitoring network plans to the EPA
that cover monitors operated by EKAPCD. These network plans describe
the monitoring network operated by EKAPCD within the Indian Wells
Valley area and discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as
required under 40 CFR 58.10. The EPA regularly reviews these annual
plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40
CFR part 58. With respect to PM10, the EPA has found that
CARB's network plans meet the applicable reporting requirements for the
area under 40 CFR part 58, appendix D.\18\ EKAPCD and CARB annually
certify that the data they submit to AQS are complete and quality-
assured.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For example, see letter dated November 5, 2020, from Gwen
Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to
Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment
Branch, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB.
    \19\ For example, see letter dated June 21, 2021, from Sylvia
Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB, to Gwen
Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EKAPCD operates one PM10 SLAMS monitoring site,
Ridgecrest (AQS ID: 06-029-0018), within the Indian Wells Valley
PM10 planning area.\20\ The monitor is located at the
northeast corner of Sydnor Avenue and Primavera Street in Ridgecrest,
California \21\ (see Figure 8 in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance
Plan) and was sited to monitor the highest concentration in the area at
a neighborhood scale. SLAMS monitors produce data comparable to the
NAAQS, and therefore the monitor must be an approved federal reference
method, federal equivalent method (FEM), or approved regional method.
The Ridgecrest monitor measures hourly PM10 concentrations
on a daily, year-round basis using a method that has been designated as
an FEM by the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The EPA approved the relocation of the Ridgecrest monitor
from the California Ave (06-029-0015) site to the Ward Ave site (06-
029-0018) on June 27, 2018. See letter dated June 27, 2018, from
Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, Air Division,
EPA Region IX, to Glen E. Stephens, P.E., Air Pollution Control
Officer, EKAPCD.
    \21\ Monitoring site address is 2051 Ward Ave., Ridgecrest, CA
93555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows the maximum monitored 24-hour PM10
concentrations at the Ridgecrest monitoring site for 2002-2020. The
table reflects that values for the Indian Wells Valley area are
typically well below the PM10 NAAQS of 150 [micro]g/m\3\.

        Table 1--Indian Wells Valley PM10 Maximum 24-Hour Values
 [Ridgecrest monitor, AQS identification number 06-029-0015/06-029-0018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Maximum value
                          Year                              ([micro]g/
                                                               m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002....................................................              84
2003....................................................             162
2004....................................................              47
2005....................................................              55
2006....................................................              65
2007....................................................              72
2008....................................................              57
2009....................................................              46
2010....................................................              52
2011....................................................             143
2012....................................................              43
2013....................................................              56
2014....................................................              51
2015....................................................              44
2016....................................................              66
2017....................................................              60
2018....................................................             107
2019....................................................             177
2020....................................................             401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: EPA Air Quality System Quicklook Report 2001-2021, accessed
  February 8, 2021, and EPA Air Quality System Maximum Values Report
  2019-2020, accessed August 10, 2021.

    Table 2 shows the estimated number of exceedances for the Indian
Wells Valley PM10 area for the three-year design value
periods starting in 2002 and ending in 2020. As shown in Table 1, one
exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS was recorded in 2003 at the
Ridgecrest monitor. The District attributed the February 2, 2003
exceedance to transport of windblown dust from the Owens Lake area,
citing high PM10 concentration readings at several nearby
sites.\22\ Because the monitor operated on a one-in-six day sampling
schedule during that time, the resulting estimated number of
exceedances (i.e., 24-hour design values) for the 2001-2003, 2002-2004,
and 2003-2005 periods are 2.0 at the Ridgecrest monitor. Since that
time, the Indian Wells Valley has attained the PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Email dated August 20, 2021, from Jeremiah Cravens, EKAPCD,
to Ashley Graham, EPA Region IX. See also EPA Air Quality System Raw
Data Qualifier Report 2003, accessed August 10, 2021. The report
shows that the District flagged the February 2, 2003 exceedance with
the ``High Winds'' qualifier with a request to exclude the data as
an exceptional event. The State did not submit documentation and a
request for the EPA to concur on the exceedance as an exceptional
event pursuant to 40 CFR 50.14.

             Table 2--Indian Wells Valley PM10 Design Values
 [Ridgecrest monitor, AQS identification number 06-029-0015/06-029-0018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Design value
                   Design value period                      ([micro]g/
                                                               m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000-2002...............................................             0.0
2001-2003...............................................             2.0
2002-2004...............................................             2.0
2003-2005...............................................             2.0
2004-2006...............................................         \a\ 0.0
2005-2007...............................................         \a\ 0.0
2006-2008...............................................         \a\ 0.0
2007-2009...............................................             0.0
2008-2010...............................................             0.0
2009-2011...............................................             0.0
2010-2012...............................................             0.0
2011-2013...............................................             0.0
2012-2014...............................................             0.0
2013-2015...............................................             0.0
2014-2016...............................................             0.0
2015-2017...............................................             0.0
2016-2018...............................................             0.0
2017-2019...............................................             0.3
2018-2020...............................................             0.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: EPA Air Quality System Design Value Report 2001-2021, accessed
  February 8, 2021 and EPA Air Quality System Design Value Report 2020,
  accessed August 10, 2021.
\a\ Invalid design value due to incomplete data in data years 2004,
  2005, and 2006.

    In California, CARB is the state agency responsible for the
adoption and submission to the EPA of California SIPs and SIP
revisions, and it has broad authority to establish emissions standards
and other requirements for mobile sources. Local and regional air
pollution control districts in California are responsible for the
regulation of stationary sources and are generally responsible for the
development of air quality plans. In the eastern portion of Kern
County, EKAPCD develops and adopts air quality plans to address CAA
planning requirements applicable to the Indian Wells Valley planning
area. Such plans are then submitted to CARB for adoption and submittal
to the EPA as revisions to the California SIP.
    On July 30, 2020, CARB submitted the ``Revised PM10
Maintenance Plan for Indian Wells Valley Attainment/Maintenance Area''
(``Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan'') for the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The submittal package included the following two documents
that make up the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan: ``Revised
PM10 Maintenance Plan for Indian Wells Valley Attainment/
Maintenance Area'' and ``Indian Wells Valley Condensable
PM10 Emission Inventory.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of State
Implementation Plan Revisions

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require states to
provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to
adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet these
procedural requirements, every SIP submission should include evidence
that the state provided adequate public notice and an opportunity for a
public hearing consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40
CFR 51.102.
    CARB's July 30, 2020 SIP submittal package includes documentation
of the public processes used by the District and CARB to adopt the
Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan. As documented in the submittal
package, on April 1, 2020, the District published a notice in the
Bakersfield Californian, a newspaper of general circulation in Kern
County, that a public hearing to consider adoption of the Plan would be
held on May 7, 2020. As documented in EKAPCD Resolution No. 2020-003-05
included in the SIP revision submittal package, the Air Pollution
Control Board of the EKAPCD adopted the Indian Wells Second Maintenance
Plan on May 7, 2020, following the public hearing. On May 22, 2020,
CARB published on its website a notice of public hearing to be held on
June 25, 2020, to consider adoption of the Plan. As evidenced by CARB
Resolution 20-18, CARB adopted the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan
on June 25, 2020, following a public hearing. Based on documentation
included in the July 30, 2020 SIP revision submittal package, we find
that both the District and CARB have satisfied the applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing
prior to adoption and submission of the Plan. Therefore, we find that
the submission of the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan meets the
procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections
110(a) and 110(l) and in 40 CFR 51.102.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ On January 30, 2021, the Indian Wells Second Maintenance
Plan was deemed complete by operation of law under CAA section
110(k)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Requirements for Second 10-Year Maintenance Plans

    Section 175A of the CAA provides the general framework for
maintenance plans. The initial 10-year maintenance plan must provide
for maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation,
including any additional control measures necessary to ensure such
maintenance. In addition, maintenance plans are to contain contingency
provisions necessary to ensure the prompt correction of a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The contingency

measures must include, at a minimum, a requirement that the state will
implement all control measures contained in the nonattainment SIP prior
to redesignation.
    Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires states to submit a subsequent
maintenance plan revision (``second 10-year maintenance plan'') eight
years after redesignation. The Act requires only that this second 10-
year maintenance plan maintain the applicable NAAQS for 10 years after
the expiration of the first 10-year maintenance plan. Beyond these
provisions, section 175A of the CAA does not define the content of a
second 10-year maintenance plan.
    The primary guidance on maintenance plans and redesignation
requests is a September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni, titled
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'' (``Calcagni Memo'').\25\ The Calcagni Memo outlines the
key elements of a maintenance plan, which include an attainment
emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring and
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maintenance plan submittals are SIP revisions, and as such, the EPA
is obligated under CAA section 110(k) to approve them or disapprove
them depending upon whether they meet the applicable CAA requirements
for such plans.

IV. Evaluation of the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan

A. Emissions Inventories

    A maintenance plan for the PM10 NAAQS should include an
inventory of direct PM10 emissions in the area.\26\ The
inventory should be consistent with the EPA's most recent guidance on
emissions inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time;
must be comprehensive, including emissions from stationary point
sources, area sources, and mobile sources; and must be based on actual
emissions during the appropriate season, if applicable.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ PM10 precursor emissions should also be included
depending upon the contribution of secondary particulate matter to
high ambient PM10 concentrations in the area. In this
instance, an inventory of PM10 precursor emissions is not
required because PM10 precursor controls were not relied
upon to achieve attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in the
Indian Wells Valley planning area nor are they relied upon to
demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS (see Indian Wells Second
Maintenance Plan, section IV, and 67 FR 77196, 77201 (December 17,
2002)). While not required, the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan
includes inventories of NOX, SOX, and ammonia
in appendix D (``IWV Precursor Emission Inventories'').
    \27\ CAA section 172(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific PM10 emissions inventory requirements are
set forth in the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements rule,\28\ which
requires that emissions inventories report filterable and condensable
components, as applicable.\29\ The EPA has provided additional guidance
for developing PM10 emissions inventories in
``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
    \29\ 40 CFR 51.15(a)(1)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan includes inventories for
total primary PM10 and for the PM10 precursors
NOX, SOX, and ammonia for the years 2013 (the
final year of the first maintenance period) through 2025 (the final
year of the second maintenance period).\30\ The 2017 emissions
inventory represents current emissions and was used to project
emissions through 2025, as discussed further in section IV.B of this
document. The emissions inventories in the Plan include estimates from
all relevant source categories that the Plan divides among fuel
combustion, waste disposal, cleaning and surface coatings, industrial
processes, miscellaneous processes, on-road motor vehicles, and off-
road motor vehicles.\31\ CARB and the District developed the emissions
inventories based on the methods and assumptions presented in detail in
Appendix D (``IWV Precursor Emission Inventories 2002-2025'').\32\ The
direct PM10 and PM10 precursor emissions are
presented in tables 2 and 3 and Appendix D of the Plan, and the
specific filterable and condensable components of the direct
PM10 emissions estimates are identified in the accompanying
document titled ``Indian Wells Valley Condensable PM10
Emission Inventory.'' Table 3 provides a summary of the 2017 direct
PM10 base year emissions inventory in tons per day (tpd) for
the Indian Wells Valley area. Because the Indian Wells Second
Maintenance Plan depends on direct PM10 emissions to
demonstrate compliance, the EPA reviewed those direct PM10
emissions estimates and not the District's emissions estimates for
PM10 precursor emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, sections IV.B and
IV.D, and Appendix D.
    \31\ Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, sections IV.B and
IV.D.
    \32\ While Appendix D is titled ``IWV Precursor Emission
Inventories 2002-2005,'' the appendix presents the full emissions
inventory documentation for direct PM10 in addition to
PM10 precursors.

     Table 3--Indian Wells PM10 Base Year (2017) Emissions Inventory
                          [Annual average, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Source category                Subcategory             PM10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources.......  Fuel Combustion........           0.031
                                 Waste Disposal.........           0.002
                                 Cleaning & Surface                0.001
                                  Coatings.
                                 Industrial Processes...           0.019
Areawide Sources...............  Miscellaneous Processes           1.199
Mobile Sources.................  On-Road Motor Vehicles.           0.039
                                 Off-Road Motor Vehicles           1.172
                                                         ---------------
    Total......................  All Stationary,                   2.462
                                  Areawide, and Mobile
                                  Sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Table 3 and Appendix D.
\a\ Emissions inventories are required to include direct PM10 emissions,
  separately reported as PM10 filterable and condensable emissions. 40
  CFR 51.15(a)(1)(vii). The accompanying document titled ``Indian Wells
  Valley Condensable PM10 Emission Inventory'' provides this
  information.
Totals may not add up due to rounding.

    As discussed in Appendix D of the Indian Wells Second Maintenance
Plan, direct PM10 emissions estimates for stationary point
sources reflect actual emissions reported to the District in 2017 by
owners or operators of industrial point sources in the Indian Wells
Valley planning area. Areawide sources, such as consumer products and
agricultural burning, occur over a wide geographic area. Emissions for
these categories are estimated by both CARB and the District using
various models and methodologies.
    Emissions from on-road mobile sources, which include passenger
vehicles, buses, and trucks, were estimated using outputs from CARB's
EMFAC2017 model.\33\ These emissions were calculated by applying
EMFAC2017 emissions factors to the transportation activity data
provided by the Kern Council of Governments (KCOG) from their 2018
Regional Transportation Plan/2019 Federal Transportation Improvement
Program (2018 RTP/2019 FTIP).\34\ KCOG is the metropolitan planning
organization representing Kern County and the 11 incorporated cities
within Kern County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor. The EPA approved
EMFAC2017 for SIP development and transportation conformity purposes
in California on August 15, 2019. 84 FR 41717. EMFAC2017 was the
most recently approved version of the EMFAC model that was available
at the time of preparation of the Indian Wells Second Maintenance
Plan.
    \34\ The Kern Council of Governments Board of Directors adopted
the 2018 RTP/2019 FTIP on August 16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emissions from off-road mobile sources (e.g., cargo handling
equipment, pleasure craft, recreational vehicles, and locomotives) were
estimated using a suite of category-specific models or, where a new
model was not available, the OFFROAD2007 model. Many of the newer
models were developed to support recent regulations, including in-use
off-road equipment.
    Based on the estimates for the year 2017 in Table 3, areawide and
off-road mobile sources account for a majority (approximately 96
percent) of total PM10 emissions in the Indian Wells Valley
planning area.\35\ Fugitive windblown dust and unpaved road dust
account for a majority of the areawide emissions (54 percent and 17
percent, respectively), whereas aircraft account for a majority of the
off-road mobile source emissions (98 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA considers the selection of the 2017 base year inventory to
be appropriate given that it is the most recent emissions inventory
associated with the triennial reporting schedule required under the Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements rule. Moreover, preparation of an
annual average daily inventory, as opposed to a seasonal or episodic
inventory, is appropriate given that elevated PM10
concentrations in the Indian Wells Valley do not exhibit a clear
seasonal or episodic pattern. Based on our review of the documentation
provided with the plan, we find that the 2017 emissions inventory for
direct PM10 is based on reasonable assumptions and
methodologies, and that the inventory is comprehensive, current,
accurate, and consistent with applicable CAA provisions and the
Calcagni Memo.

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    Section 175A(a) of the CAA requires that the maintenance plan
``provide for the maintenance of the national primary ambient air
quality standard for such air pollutant in the area concerned for at
least 10 years after the redesignation.'' A state may generally
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 conducting modeling that shows that the
future mix of sources and emissions rates will not cause a violation of
the NAAQS.\36\ Projected emissions inventories for future years must
account for, among other things, the ongoing effects of economic growth
and adopted emissions control requirements, and the inventories are
expected to be the best available representation of future emissions.
The plan submission should include documentation explaining how the
state calculated the emissions data for the base year and projected
inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Calcagni Memo, 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan demonstrates continued
maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS by projecting the direct
PM10 emissions in the area through 2025 and showing that
future emissions of PM10 will not exceed the level of the
attainment inventory. As discussed in section IV.A, the Plan includes
emissions inventories representing actual emissions in 2013 (the final
year of the first maintenance period) through 2017 (the Plan's base
year inventory), and projected emissions for 2018 through 2025 (the
final year of the second maintenance period) for sources in the Indian
Wells Valley planning area.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, sections IV.B and
IV.D, and Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Projected inventories are derived by applying expected growth
trends for each source category and are based on data that reflect
historical trends, current conditions, and recent economic and
demographic forecasts with expected emissions reductions resulting from
adopted control measures to the base year inventory. For the Indian
Wells Second Maintenance Plan, emissions projections for 2018 through
2025 were generated by applying growth and control profiles to the 2017
base year inventory. Growth forecasts for most point and areawide
sources were developed by CARB. Mobile sources were forecast using
total vehicle miles traveled projections provided by KCOG. Off-road
sources were forecast using various growth surrogates as shown in Table
7 of Appendix D of the Plan. Appendix D documents the methods and
assumptions used to develop the emissions projections upon which the
maintenance demonstration relies and presents the detailed source-
category-specific estimates for each of the analysis years.
    Table 4 presents a summary of the Indian Wells Second Maintenance
Plan's estimates of direct PM10 emissions in an interim year
(2020) and the horizon year (2025) along with the corresponding
emissions estimates for the year 2013 (the final year of the first
maintenance period) and the 2017 base year. For simplicity, Table 4
shows emissions for just one of the interim years (i.e., 2020) between
the base year and the horizon year, but as discussed above, the Plan
provides emissions estimates for each year from 2013 through 2025.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id. at Table 2 and Table 3.

                   Table 4--Indian Wells PM10 Emissions Inventory, 2013, 2017, 2020, and 2025
                                              [Annual average, tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Source  category            Subcategory         2013            2017            2020            2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources......  Fuel Combustion.           0.018           0.031           0.027           0.018
                                Waste Disposal..           0.000           0.002           0.002           0.002
                                Cleaning &                 0.000           0.001           0.001           0.001
                                 Surface
                                 Coatings.
                                Industrial                 0.009           0.019           0.020           0.021
                                 Processes.
Areawide Sources..............  Miscellaneous              1.424           1.199           1.193           1.262
                                 Processes.
Mobile Sources................  On-Road Motor              0.051           0.039           0.037           0.036
                                 Vehicles.
                                Off-Road Motor             1.228           1.172           1.167           1.161
                                 Vehicles.
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  All Stationary,            2.679           2.462           2.446           2.501
                                 Areawide, and
                                 Mobile Sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Table 2 and Table 3.
Totals may not add up due to rounding.

    The emissions estimates in the Plan predict a gradual change in
direct PM10 emissions within the Indian Wells Valley
planning area over time, with slight decreases in certain categories
(e.g., fuel combustion, on-road motor vehicles, off-road motor
vehicles) nearly offsetting slight increases in certain other source
categories (i.e., industrial processes, miscellaneous processes)
relative to the 2017 base year emissions. By 2025, overall direct
PM10 emissions are estimated to be approximately 0.039 tpd
(1.6 percent) higher than in the 2017 base year. However, despite the
expected growth in the area, the Plan's projected PM10
emissions through 2025 are approximately 0.178 tpd (6.6 percent) lower
than emissions in 2013, the final year of the first maintenance period
and a year in which there were no recorded exceedances of the
PM10 NAAQS.
    Based on our review, we find that the projected emissions
inventories for direct PM10 for years 2018 through 2025 are
based on reasonable methods, growth factors, and assumptions, and are
based on the most current and accurate information available to CARB
and EKAPCD at the time the Plan and its inventories were being
developed. Given that the projections of direct PM10
emissions show future emissions increases through 2025 are within 1.6
percent of those in 2017 and below those in 2013 (both of which reflect
attainment conditions), we find that the Indian Wells Second
Maintenance Plan provides an adequate basis to demonstrate maintenance
of the PM10 NAAQS within the Indian Wells Valley planning
area through 2025. Lastly, we find that by providing emissions
projections through 2025, the Plan demonstrates maintenance of the
PM10 NAAQS for more than 10 years after the expiration of
the first 10-year maintenance plan (i.e., 2023) in accordance with
section 175A(b) of the CAA.

C. Verification of Continued Attainment

    Once an area has been redesignated, the state should continue to
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area.\39\
Data collected by the monitoring network are also needed to implement
the contingency provisions of the maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Calcagni Memo, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section I.B, EKAPCD monitors ambient concentrations
of PM10 in the Indian Wells Valley planning area at the
Ridgecrest monitoring station. In section V.A (``Tracking'') of the
Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, the District commits to continue
to operate and maintain a PM10 air quality monitor in
Ridgecrest in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. We find that the Indian
Wells Second Maintenance Plan contains adequate provisions for
continued ambient PM10 monitoring to verify continued
attainment through the maintenance period.
    The EPA also recommends that the state verify continued attainment
through methods in addition to the ambient air monitoring program,
e.g., through periodic review of the factors used in development of the
attainment inventory to show no significant change.\40\ In the Indian
Wells Second Maintenance Plan, EKAPCD commits to perform periodic
reviews of the air monitoring data and emissions inventory, to review
the inputs and assumptions used to develop the emissions inventory on
an annual basis, and, if the District finds that these inputs have
changed significantly, to request that CARB update the existing
inventory and to compare the revised inventory with the inventories in
the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan.\41\ We find that the
District's commitment to verify continued attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS through continued ambient air monitoring and
annual review of the inputs and assumptions used to develop the
emissions inventories in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan are
acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, section VI
(``Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Contingency Provisions

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that maintenance plans include
contingency provisions, as the EPA deems necessary, to promptly correct
any violations of the NAAQS that occur after redesignation of the area.
Such provisions must include a requirement that the state will
implement all measures with respect to the control of the relevant air
pollutants that were contained in the SIP for the area before
redesignation of the area as an attainment area. These contingency
provisions are distinguished from contingency measures required for
nonattainment areas under CAA 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 for the maintenance plan to be approved.
However, the contingency provisions of a maintenance plan are
considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that
contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered.
The maintenance plan should clearly identify the measures to be
adopted, include a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation of the measures, and contain a specific timeline for
action by the state. In addition, the state should identify the
specific indicators or triggers that will

be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be
implemented.
    The District has adopted a contingency plan to address possible
future PM10 air quality problems in the Indian Wells Valley
planning area. The contingency plan is included in section V of the
Plan.
    As noted by the District in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance
Plan, contingency provisions are typically implemented when air quality
deteriorates beyond a specified level, such as a certain number of
exceedances of the standard or a violation of the standard. In this
case, the contingency provisions will be triggered when the number of
exceedances at the monitor, averaged over three years, is greater than
1.05. However, the contingency plan also includes a screening process
that allows the District and CARB, subject to EPA review, to exclude
exceedances from the trigger calculation if the agencies collectively
determine that information developed by the District is sufficient to
support exclusion. The purpose of the screening process is to
differentiate between exceedances that are not within the District or
State control (i.e., exceedances that occur despite the implementation
of reasonable measures), and exceedances that are within the District's
or State's control and should be included in the trigger calculation.
It is important to note that, should the District or State exclude an
exceedance from the contingency trigger calculation using this process,
it would not constitute the EPA's concurrence that the exceedance was
caused by an exceptional event. The exceedance will therefore continue
to be included in design value calculations for the Indian Wells Valley
planning area unless CARB, following opportunity for public comment,
submits a request for the EPA to concur on the exceedance as an
exceptional event pursuant to 40 CFR 50.14, and the EPA reviews the
submittal and formally concurs.
    Under the contingency trigger screening process, within 60 days of
the end of each calendar quarter, the District will complete the
following: Provide a list of exceedances that occurred during that
previous quarter to CARB, identify those exceedances that the District
believes to be exceedances that are not within the District's or
State's control, and flag the relevant data and provide an initial
description in AQS. The State then has 60 days to review the
information, during which time it may request additional information
from the District to supplement the District's analysis. Following
CARB's review, CARB will transmit the information to the EPA, including
information for those exceedances the District believes should be
excluded from the contingency plan trigger calculation.
    The Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan anticipates that the EPA
will review the submitted information, notify the District if the
submitted information is insufficient to support exclusion from the
contingency plan trigger calculation, include such exceedances in
calculating the trigger for the contingency plan, and notify the
District if the contingency plan has been triggered. The EPA intends to
notify the District, within 60 days of receipt, whether submitted
information is sufficient or insufficient to support the exclusion of a
given exceedance from the contingency plan trigger calculation and to
take the other actions described in the plan. If the submitted
information is not sufficient, the EPA will include the exceedance in
the calculation to determine if the contingency plan has been
triggered. If the State or District subsequently provide additional
information sufficient to support the conclusion that the exceedance
meets the criteria for exclusion from the trigger calculation, the EPA
will notify the District that the calculation will be adjusted.
    Under the contingency plan, if the EPA determines that contingency
provisions have been triggered, (i.e., the number of exceedances,
averaged over three years, is greater than 1.05 excluding those
exceedances identified through the screening process), EKAPCD commits
to the following steps:

    (1) Within six months of EPA notification, EKAPCD will complete
an analysis of the exceedances and available contingency measures.
During this time, the District will determine the possible cause of
the exceedances and will consult with community and local industry
members to determine if any voluntary or incentive measures could be
implemented to reduce the magnitude of or eliminate the source of
emissions. If voluntary and incentive-based measures do not
adequately address the problem, the EKAPCD will evaluate its
fugitive dust rules (402, 402.2, and 419), or other rules as
appropriate, to determine where such rules could be improved or
expanded to achieve additional emissions reductions. The measures
that EKAPCD would consider and analyze include but are not limited
to those listed in Table 5.
    (2) Within 12 months of completing its analysis, the District
will adopt and implement the new contingency measures.

  Table 5--Emissions Sources and Associated Control Measures; Rules To
                     Revise if Contingency Triggered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Emissions source                           Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction and Earthmoving Activities........................      402
Storage Piles/Bulk Materials...................................      402
Track-out/Carry-out............................................      402
Agricultural Operations........................................    402.2
Paved and Unpaved Roads........................................    402 &
                                                                   402.2
Nuisance.......................................................      419
Open Areas.....................................................    402 &
                                                                     419
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Table 7.

    Based on our review of the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, as
summarized herein, we propose to find that the contingency provisions
of the Plan clearly identify specific contingency measures, contain a
triggering mechanism to determine when contingency measures are needed,
contain a description of the process of recommending and implementing
contingency measures, and contain specific and appropriate timelines
for action. We also propose to find that the contingency trigger
screening process, including the associated EPA review, is reasonably
designed to distinguish between exceedances that are not within the
District or State control, and exceedances that are within the
District's or State's control and for which new or tightened control
measures might be effective. Thus, we propose to conclude that the
contingency plan in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan is
adequate to ensure correction of any violation of the PM10
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation, as required by section 175A(d)
of the CAA.

E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the
SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute
to violations of the NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
    Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified

at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate
with state and local air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA,
FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an area's regional transportation
plans and transportation improvement programs conform to the applicable
SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are
less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (``budgets'')
contained in submitted or approved control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Control strategy SIPs refer to reasonable further progress
and attainment demonstration SIPs. 40 CFR 93.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans typically set
budgets for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address
pollution from cars and trucks. Budgets are generally established for
specific years and specific pollutants or precursors. PM10
maintenance plan submittals should identify budgets for transportation-
related PM10 emissions in the last year of the maintenance
period.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Transportation-related emissions of VOC and NOX
must also be specified in PM10 maintenance plans if the
EPA or the state find that transportation-related emissions of one
or both of these precursors within the nonattainment area are a
significant contributor to the PM10 nonattainment problem
and has so notified the MPO and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), or the applicable SIP (or SIP revision
submission) establishes an approved (or adequate) budget for such
emissions as part of the reasonable further progress, attainment, or
maintenance strategy. 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iii). Neither of these
conditions apply to the Indian Wells PM10 maintenance
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For budgets in a maintenance plan to be approvable, they must meet,
at a minimum, the EPA's adequacy criteria.\44\ To meet these
requirements, the budgets must be consistent, when considered with
emissions from all other sources, with maintenance of the NAAQS and
reflect all the motor vehicle control measures relied upon for the
maintenance demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's process for determining adequacy of a budget consists of
three basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of a SIP submittal, (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the budget during a
public comment period, and (3) making a finding of adequacy or
inadequacy. The process for determining the adequacy of a submitted
budget is codified at 40 CFR 93.118(f). The EPA can notify the public
by either posting an announcement that the EPA has received SIP budgets
on the EPA's adequacy website,\45\ or via a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking when the EPA reviews the adequacy of a maintenance
plan budget simultaneously with its review and action on the SIP
submittal itself.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1).
    \46\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan includes budgets for
direct PM10 for the last year of the maintenance Plan (2025)
and an interim year (2020). The applicable source categories included
in the budgets include vehicle emissions (including exhaust, brake
wear, and tire wear), entrained dust from vehicle travel over paved and
unpaved roads, and road construction dust. To develop the budgets, the
District also rounded up the motor vehicle emissions estimates to the
nearest tenth of a ton and included a safety margin.\47\ The 2020 and
2025 annual average day conformity budgets for PM10 are
provided in Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The text of the Plan identifies the safety margin for VOC
in 2020 only. However, Table 5 in the Plan indicates that the safety
margin is for PM10 emissions. CARB confirmed via email
that the reference to VOC in the text is a typographic error and
that the safety margin is for PM10 emissions. See email
dated February 4, 2021, from Nesamani Kalandiyur, CARB, to Karina
O'Connor, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``RE: Question Regarding Indian
Wells 2nd Maintenance Plan.''

 Table 6--Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Indian Wells Valley
                                PM10 Area
                       [PM10 tpd, annual average]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Source category                   2020            2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicular Exhaust, Tire, and Brake Wear             0.04            0.04
 \a\....................................
SAFE Rule Adjustment....................            0.00            0.00
Re-Entrained Paved Road Dust............            0.11            0.12
Re-Entrained Unpaved Road Dust..........            0.13            0.13
Road Construction Dust..................            0.03            0.10
Safety Margin...........................             0.0            0.10
Total \b\...............................            0.31            0.49
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget \c\......            0.40            0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This reflects the adjustment factor for the Safer Affordable Fuel-
  Efficient (SAFE) Vehicle Rule part one (84 FR 51310, September 27,
  2019) using EMFAC2017.
\b\ Values from California Emissions Projection Analysis Model v1.00 may
  not add up due to rounding.
\c\ Motor vehicle emissions budgets calculated are rounded up to the
  nearest tenth of a tpd.
Source: Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Table 5.

    CARB developed the on-road mobile portion of the emissions
inventory for the maintenance plan using California's on-road mobile
source emissions projection model, EMFAC2017, and vehicle activity data
provided by the KCOG from its 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement
Program, as amended July 2019. The EMFAC2017 model calculated tire
wear, brake wear, and exhaust emissions. Paved road dust emissions were
estimated using AP-42 with California-specific silt loading data.\48\
The unpaved road dust emissions were estimated using CARB's methodology
7.10, updated in 2012 for non-farm roads. The road construction dust
emissions were estimated based on road miles constructed according to
data from KCOG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ AP-42 is an EPA document that includes a compilation of
emissions factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the March 10, 2006 final transportation conformity
rulemaking, unlike the exception for paved and unpaved road dust
emissions in PM2.5 analyses in 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), the
conformity rule does not include an exception for PM10 for
paved and unpaved road dust emissions to be determined significant. The
EPA intends for road dust emissions to be included in all conformity
analyses of direct PM10 emissions because fugitive dust from
roadways and other sources dominate PM10 emissions
inventories. The budgets in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan,
therefore, include paved and unpaved road emissions.
    Regional PM10 emissions analyses for transportation
conformity

determinations in PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas
must account for highway and transit project construction-related
fugitive PM10 emissions if the control strategy or
maintenance plan identifies such emissions as a contributor to the air
quality problem, but it is not required if such emissions are not
identified as a contributor to the air quality problem.\49\ Emissions
estimates developed for the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan show
that fugitive PM10 emissions from highway and transit
project construction represent approximately 1.2 percent and 4.0
percent of the total annual-average daily PM10 emissions in
2020 and 2025, respectively.\50\ Based on these emissions estimates,
the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan concludes that fugitive
PM10 emissions from highways and transit project
construction are significant and must be accounted for in regional
emissions analyses for transportation conformity determinations made
for the Indian Wells Valley planning area. Consequently, the budgets in
the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan reflect highway and transit
project construction-related fugitive dust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 40 CFR 93.122(e).
    \50\ Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We evaluated the budgets against our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and (5) as part of our review of the budget's
approvability and expect to complete the adequacy review of the budgets
concurrent with our final action on the Indian Wells Second Maintenance
Plan. The EPA is not required under its transportation conformity rule
to find budgets adequate prior to proposing approval of them.\51\ In
this document, the EPA is announcing that the adequacy process for
these budgets begins, and the public has 30 days to comment on their
adequacy, per the transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR
93.118(f)(2)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Under the transportation conformity rule, the EPA may
review the adequacy of submitted budgets simultaneously with the
EPA's approval or disapproval of the submitted control strategy or
maintenance plan. 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As documented in the separate memorandum included in the docket for
this rulemaking, we preliminarily conclude that the budgets in the
Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan meet each adequacy criterion.\52\
While adequacy and approval are two separate actions, reviewing the
budgets in terms of the adequacy criteria informs the EPA's decision to
propose to approve the budgets. We have completed our detailed review
of the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan and are proposing herein to
approve the Plan including the demonstration of maintenance of the
PM10 NAAQS in the area through the year 2025. We have also
reviewed the budgets in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan and
found that they are consistent with the maintenance demonstration for
which we are proposing approval, are clearly identified and precisely
quantified, are based on control measures that have already been
adopted and implemented, and meet all other applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and (5). For these reasons, the EPA proposes to approve
the 2020 and 2025 motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Indian Wells
Second Maintenance Plan. At the point when we either finalize the
adequacy process or approve the budgets as proposed (whichever occurs
first, although they could also occur concurrently),\53\ the budgets
must be used by KCOG (i.e., the MPO for this area) for transportation
conformity determinations for the Indian Wells Valley planning area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Memorandum dated February 4, 2021, from Karina O'Connor,
EPA, to Rulemaking Docket ID EPA-R09-OAR-0549, Subject: ``Adequacy
Documentation for Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Indian
Wells Second PM10 Maintenance Plan.''
    \53\ 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons set forth in this
document, the EPA is proposing to approve the Indian Wells Second
Maintenance Plan submitted by CARB by letter on July 30, 2020, as a
revision to the California SIP. We are proposing to approve the
maintenance demonstration and contingency provisions as meeting all of
the applicable requirements for maintenance plans and related
contingency provisions in CAA section 175A, and the motor vehicle
emissions budgets for 2020 and 2025 (shown in Table 6) 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).
    We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions. We will
accept comments from the public for 30 days following publication of
this proposal in the Federal Register and will consider any relevant
comments before taking final action.

VI. 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
proposed action merely proposes to approve a state plan as meeting
federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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);
     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; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, there are no areas of Indian country within the Indian
Wells Valley planning area, and the State plan for which the EPA is
proposing approval does not 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, this proposed action 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 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: October 5, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-22168 Filed 10-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH)

March 1, 2007 Meeting Minutes

 Room N-3437A/B/C, Francis Perkins Building,

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Representatives Attending

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Chair

Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health

Department of Labor

W. Corey Thompson, Jr., Vice Chair – Labor representative

Safety and Health Specialist

American Postal Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO

Donald G. Bathurst – Federal agency representative

Chief of Administrative Services

Department of Homeland Security

Curtis M. Bowling – Federal agency representative

Director of Environmental Readiness and Safety

Department of Defense

Louis P. Cannon – Labor representative

President

Fraternal Order of Police

Jose S. Gonzales – Labor representative

Sergeant at Arms

California State Fraternal Order of Police/Empire Lodge II

Deborah Kleinberg, Esq. - Alternate labor representative

Counsel

Seafarers International Union AGLIWD

Vickers B. Meadows – Federal agency representative

Chief Administrative Officer

Patent and Trademark Office

Department of Commerce

Ron McGraw - Alternate labor representative

International Association of Firefighters

Dennis J. O’Connor – Labor representative

Member

National Union of Labor Investigators

Milagro Rodriquez – Labor representative

Occupational Health and Safety Specialist

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

Gary Steinberg - Alternate federal agency representative

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for

  Human Resources Administration

Department of Veterans Affairs

Richard A. Whitford -– Federal agency representative

Assistant Administrator for Human Capital

Transportation Security Administration

Department of Homeland Security

Also Attending

Diane Brayden – FACOSH Designated Federal Official

Director

OSHA - Office of Federal Agency Programs

Department of Labor

Thomas Galassi

Deputy Director

OSHA - Directorate of Enforcement Programs

Department of Labor

Shelby Hallmark

Director

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

Employment Standards Administration

Department of Labor

David Marciniak

General Services Administration

Laura Mills

OSHA - Office of Federal Agency Programs

Department of Labor

Katharine Newman

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Department of Labor

Sarah Shortall - FACOSH Counsel

Office of the Solicitor

Department of Labor

Michelle Walker

OSHA - Office of Federal Agency Programs

Department of Labor

Call to Order and Introductions

Chair Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, called the meeting of the Federal
Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH or Council)
to order at 10:10 a.m., March 1, 2007.  He thanked Council members for
their service and the audience for attending.  Mr. Foulke introduced
Gabe Sierra, his Chief of Staff and Matt Miller, a new special
assistant, and asked FACOSH members and alternates, and other attendees
to introduce themselves.

Approval of Minutes

Mr. Foulke moved that the Council approve the September 28, 2006, FACOSH
meeting minutes (Exhibit 4*).  The motion was seconded and passed
unanimously.

Updates on Ongoing Activities

Safety, Health, and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) Initiative

SHARE FY 2006 Progress

Mr. Foulke and Shelby Hallmark, Director, Department of Labor (DOL)
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), conducted a joint
presentation on the Presidential Safety, Health, and
Return-to-Employment (SHARE) Initiative to improve safety and health
among federal employees.  Mr. Foulke reported that the SHARE Initiative
established four goals and that OSHA oversees Goals 1 and 2 while OWCP
oversees Goals 3 and 4.  The goals are:

To reduce total injury and illness case rates (TCRs) by at least 3% per
year;

To reduce lost time case rates (LTCRs) by at least 3% per year;

To improve the timely filing of injury and illness notices by at least
5% per year; and

To reduce lost production day rates (LPDRs) by at least 1% per year.

Mr. Foulke pointed out that the SHARE goals are aligned with the
President’s Management Agenda goal on human capital and DOL’s
strategic goal to foster quality workplaces.

For Goal 1, Mr. Foulke reported that in FY 2006, for the first time
since the start of the SHARE Initiative, the federal government as a
whole met its goal of reducing TCRs.  He reported on individual agency
goal achievements (Exhibit 5) and commended the efforts and improvements
of NASA, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), and the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) toward meeting Goal 1.  Mr.
Foulke reported similar government-wide success on Goal 2.  He commended
NASA, DOL, Treasury and DHS for the progress they made in reducing
LTCRs.

Mr. Hallmark provided information on Goals 3 and 4.  He noted that
during the SHARE Initiative the federal government as a whole had
demonstrated more than a 50% improvement on Goal 3.  He also discussed
individual agency achievements toward meeting this goal and pointed out
the improvements of DHS (Exhibit 5).

With respect to Goal 4, Mr. Hallmark explained that it integrates the
safety and case management areas reflecting both reductions in injuries
and quicker return of employees to work when injury occurs.  Mr.
Hallmark noted a steady improvement over the course of the SHARE
Initiative and reported that the federal government had met its goal for
reducing LPDRs in FY 2006.  Mr. Hallmark discussed the progress of
individual agencies, noting DHS’s significant improvements (Exhibit
5).

SHARE Recognition Ceremony and Workshops

Mr. Hallmark reported on the February 15, 2007, ceremony that DOL held
to commemorate the first three years of the SHARE Initiative and
celebrate its three-year extension.  He said several departments and
agencies received awards for their accomplishments in meeting or
exceeding the SHARE goals.  He said the Department of the Navy and
Social Security Administration were recognized for exceeding all four
SHARE goals.  Treasury received an award for the greatest reduction in
TCRs and LTCRs, while DOL was honored for the timeliest submission of
injury and illness claims.  The Department of Defense (DOD) Agencies,
which are comprised of the Department’s non-military activities,
received an award for the greatest reduction in LPDRs.

Mr. Hallmark said the events included a panel of agency representatives
who shared their experiences in achieving their accomplishments and
workshops on workplace safety and health and workers’ compensation
issues.

Ms. Milagro Rodriguez, American Federation of Government Employees,
asked that events such as the SHARE workshops be better publicized so
that labor organizations have opportunities to participate and attend.
Mr. Foulke affirmed that such would occur.

SHARE Initiative Extension

Mr. Hallmark reported that the President has issued a memorandum
authorizing a three-year extension of the SHARE Initiative (Exhibit 6).
He stated that the extension should allow continued improvement in the
federal government’s progress towards improving its performance.

Mr. Hallmark noted that the extension includes several clarifications
and changes:

The baseline data year for the first three goals remains FY 2003;

The minimum acceptable level for Goal 3 (timeliness) is 50% and will
increase by 5% per year regardless of baseline;

The highest expected accomplishment for Goal 3 is now 95% and, once
achieved, the organization is expected to maintain that performance;

The baseline data year for Goal 4 (LPDRs) is now FY 2006 due to
improvements in OWCP’s data processing and analysis capabilities; and

The level of performance for Goal 4, beyond which no reduction is
required, is capped at a rate of 15 lost production days.

Mr. Hallmark explained that in DOL’s role in leading the SHARE
Initiative the Department will continue to:

Measure and track performance;

Provide an annual performance report to the President;

Work cooperatively with the agencies to achieve the program’s goals;
and

Report results at the bureau level and provide that information on the
DOL website.

SHARE FY 2007, Quarter 1 Results

Mr. Foulke and Mr. Hallmark reported on the first quarter performance
trends for FY 2007.  With respect to Goal 1, Mr. Foulke said the federal
government as a whole is on track to achieve its FY 2007 target.  He
also reported that most of the major agencies are demonstrating a
similar trend and called attention to DHS’s progress.  Mr. Foulke
stated that the federal government is also on track to meet Goal 2, as
are several federal Executive Branch departments.

Mr. Hallmark said that, although the government’s first quarter FY
2007 performance on Goal 3 was slightly below the FY 2006 level, it is
still well above the target for FY 2007.  He also provided a break out
of individual agencies’ progress (Exhibit 5).  Mr. Hallmark said he
was very positive about the government’s progress towards meeting Goal
4 and that the first quarter LPDR was nearly three points below the
fiscal year’s target.  He provided a break down of individual agency
progress.

Mr. Curtis Bowling, DOD, asked whether all federal agencies had set
stretch goals.  Diane Brayden, Director of OSHA Office of Federal Agency
Programs (OFAP), said that DOL had asked agencies to inform them if they
wanted to set stretch goals.  Mr. Bowling asked whether the FY 2007 LPDR
target was the SHARE target or a stretch target.  Mr. Foulke said that
he believed it was the SHARE target, and Mr. Hallmark concurred, noting
that he was not aware of any stretch goals for FY 2007.  Mr. Bowling
asked whether specific agencies were setting stretch goals and Ms.
Brayden stated that DOL was working with one agency to set stretch
goals.

Federal Agency Injury and Illness Recordkeeping

Current federal agency recordkeeping systems - Ms. Brayden provided an
update on federal agency recordkeeping.  Ms. Brayden explained there are
analytical limits to the SHARE data because they provide only general
information on a large scale.  She noted that in order for OFAP to
fulfill its mission of providing occupational safety and health

program guidance to federal agencies, more defined and specific data is
needed.  Mr. Foulke also stressed the importance of data collection and
analysis with respect to providing the necessary assistance to federal
agencies.

Ms. Brayden stated that the OSHA 300 records and other applicable
provisions of the Recordkeeping rule (29 CFR Part 1904), which federal
agencies are required to follow, could provide data at the establishment
level and significantly enhance the level of assistance offered to
federal agencies.  Ms. Brayden explained that the current challenge was
to determine the best way to gather and analyze the data and noted that
several systems and methods were in use throughout the government.  She
requested that committee members consider sharing with OFAP their
experience and insight regarding their own departments’ systems.

BLS Injury and Illness Data - Katharine Newman, DOL, Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), presented information on the system BLS uses to
collect and analyze injury and illness data for private industry.  Ms.
Newman explained the types of data BLS collects from OSHA 300 and 301
forms along with the uses and benefits of such data collection and
analysis.  She provided the most recent BLS injury and illness data as
well as information on:

Collection methods;

BLS’s area of concentration for providing and publishing detailed case
data;

Data compilations and trends by industry and occupation;

Data analyses and trends by gender, age, and race;

Different characteristics of injuries and illnesses;

Electronic means of data collection; and

Availability of the system to OSHA.

Ms. Newman explained the procedures for using the BLS system, including
the ease of use for respondents.  She noted the success of the data
collection system and mentioned how to find examples of analyses on
BLS’s website.

New Injury and Illness Data Collection System Development -- Ms. Brayden
briefed the Council on the timeframe for completing the development and
selection of a new injury and illness data collection system for federal
agencies.  She noted that before a new SHARE Initiative could be
implemented, it would be necessary to develop a program for data
collection and collect a year’s worth of baseline data.  She mentioned
the disparity between the recording period requirements of the OSHA
Recordkeeping rule (calendar year) and the SHARE Initiative (fiscal
year) and suggested the possibility of designing the new program on a
calendar year basis.  She said that if the replacement for the SHARE
program collects data on a calendar year basis, the program would be
slated to begin on January 1, 2010.  She stated that such a timeline
required swift program development in order to ensure sufficient
baseline data.  She expressed interest in receiving suggestions and
feedback from the Council with respect to data collection systems and
programmatic designs.

Mr. Foulke proposed that a FACOSH Subcommittee on Recordkeeping be
created.  The motion was seconded.  Ms. Rodriguez asked for
clarification on the Subcommittee’s specific tasks.  She requested
that guidelines be established on Subcommittee setup, composition, lines
of reporting, and membership.  Ms. Brayden stated that guidelines would
be provided at a later time.  Ms. Brayden said the Subcommittee would
need to elicit feedback from federal departments and agencies about
their system needs and implementation capabilities, and the state of
current technology.  She noted that the success of any future program
depended on the quality of the needs analysis.  Mr. Bowling asked
whether the BLS data collection system could provide the necessary
baseline.  Mr. Foulke clarified that the system was currently designed
for the private sector and that the Subcommittee might find that the
government has different needs.  Gary Steinberg, Department of Veterans
Affairs, stressed the importance of a baseline.

Mr. Foulke mentioned several issues the Subcommittee might investigate,
such as whether the new data system should cover volunteers and their
injuries and illnesses.  Mr. Foulke added that it would be beneficial
for the Subcommittee to collect information on current best practices.

The motion to establish a Recordkeeping Subcommittee passed unanimously.
 Mr. Foulke asked that nominations for Subcommittee members and chair be
sent to Ms. Brayden by the end of the month.

Federal Agency Safety and Health Training

Ms. Brayden provided an update on federal agency occupational safety and
health training.  She reported on federal training week (FEDWEEK) held
in November 2006.  She noted that FEDWEEK’s format had been redesigned
to offer half-day courses, allowing the students to complete up to six
courses during the training period.  She stated that at least 60
individuals had participated and that the offerings had received
favorable reviews.  Ms. Brayden noted that FEDWEEK 2007 scheduled for
November 6-8, 2007, would use a similar format, increase the
availability of the more popular classes, and include new classes that
are currently in the development process.  Ms. Brayden asked for input
on topic areas of interest for the training week.

Ms. Brayden also reported on efforts to move forward on providing
distance-learning opportunities for federal personnel.  She stated that
the OSHA Training Institute (OTI) was involved in the endeavor.  Mr.
Foulke noted that he had directed Frank Payne, OTI Director, to update
the Institute’s training programs.  Ms. Brayden asked for suggestions
and assistance from members with regard to distance learning.  Mr. Gary
Steinberg said that establishing web sites or libraries for sharing
federal agency training information would be useful to the federal
community.  He also mentioned that virtual or distance learning could
increase the availability of training.  He suggested that other
departments could explore the possibility of offering training
conferences.  Mr. Foulke also stated that virtual learning and video
conferencing were beneficial tools.  He noted that it would be helpful
to collect information on agencies’ capabilities in these areas to
allow greater training availability.

Mr. Foulke asked whether OSHA had ever investigated other federal agency
occupational safety and health training practices with the purpose of
determining “best practices.”  Ms. Brayden replied that such an
investigation could be done.  Mr. Foulke commented that compiling a list
of federal agency training capabilities and programs would help OSHA to
disseminate knowledge in both the private and public sectors.  Mr.
McGraw, International Association of Fire Fighters, expressed an
interest in learning about the specific programs that agencies were
using to facilitate the decrease in their injury statistics and
subsequently sharing that information throughout the government.  Ms.
Brayden noted that such a panel discussion had occurred during the SHARE
Ceremony and Mr. Foulke stated that a summary of that discussion would
be helpful.

Facility Safety and Health Design

David Marciniak, General Services Administration (GSA), provided an
update on federal facility safety and health design.  Mr. Marciniak said
he wanted to continue discussing the possible formation of a workgroup
on integrating safety and health considerations into federal facility
design requirements.  He stated that, as the second-largest manager of
federal buildings (owned or leased), GSA was concerned about facility
safety for federal employees, contractors, and visitors.  Mr. Marciniak
stated that a workgroup could help to augment current building codes and
specifications by creating a guide for integrating occupant safety and
health considerations into building designs.  He said that GSA proposed
a workgroup to collate and centralize information from federal agencies,
develop guidelines, and then integrate those guidelines into building
standards and codes.

Mr. Marciniak provided specific examples of GSA’s efforts in this area
(Exhibit 8).  He also gave a breakdown of the organization of the
guidelines, from design standards to codes and regulations to
agency-specific requirements to recommendations.  Mr. Marciniak also
cited various health and safety hazards, such as the Legionella
bacterium and walking surface slip resistance, and discussed how hazard
reduction could be figured into a building’s design.  He also
discussed integrating maintenance and inspection considerations.

Donald Bathurst, DHS, provided information on the Department of
Defense’s “whole building design process” and said that such
information could be useful to GSA.  Mr. Foulke asked whether such
information had ever been collated and centralized and Mr. Marciniak
responded that a “whole building design guide” would be a good
repository.

Mr. Foulke stated his willingness to have the Council pursue providing
some assistance to GSA and adjourned the meeting for lunch.

Lunch Break

The Council recessed for lunch.

New Business

Field Federal Safety and Health Councils

Michelle Walker and Laura Mills, both from OFAP, presented information
on the Field Federal Safety and Health Councils (FFSHCs), federal
interagency groups established pursuant to 29 CFR Part 1960.

Ms. Walker provided some background on the purpose and functions of
FFSHCs, including that FFSHCs:

Provide training to federal agencies, employee organizations, federal
executive boards, and federal executive associations;

Provide outreach and education on a variety of occupational safety and
health (OSH) issues;

Serve as clearinghouses for OSH information; and

Establish cooperative relationships with their local communities
(Exhibit 9).

She noted that FFSHCs consist of both management and non-management
members, allow associate memberships for non-federal interested parties,
and do not limit the number of personnel who can participate on a FFSHC.
 She also provided a brief outline of a council’s organization,
officers, and terms of office (Exhibit 9).

Ms. Mills explained the requirements and procedures for forming a FFSHC.
 She presented a map showing the location of the 48 active FFSHCs across
the country (Exhibit 9) and noted that FACOSH members could find more
information on OSHA’s website at   HYPERLINK "http://www.osha.gov"
www.osha.gov .  Mr. Foulke asked about the small number of FFSHCs in two
relatively large geographic areas.  Ms. Walker clarified that the
federal agencies in those regions are widely dispersed over a large
geographic area and the difficulty of regular meeting attendance was a
consideration.

Ms. Mills described OSHA’s provisions for recognizing the annual
achievements of FFSHCs.  She noted that there were three award levels
within each of three different council size categories.  Ms. Mills said
that her office had recently finalized the draft FFSHC Manual that
established policies and procedures for council activities and guidance
on council organization.

Mr. Ron McGraw asked about the requirement for agency heads to appoint
FFSHC representatives and said he thought non-management members should
be chosen by their respective unions or union members.  Ms. Walker
replied that FFSHC appointment by agency heads was a regulatory
requirement (29 CFR 1960.88) as part of a collaborative process between
agency representatives and those interested in council participation.
She also noted that OFAP had been working to encourage agencies to
appoint a balanced number of management and non-management
representatives.

Ms. Rodriguez asked whether the difficulty of labor representatives to
obtain FFSHC membership had changed.  Ms. Walker responded that
participation of labor

organizations was increasing.  Ms. Walker also noted that her office
had begun asking federal agencies to provide information on both their
managerial and non-managerial employees’ participation.

FACOSH Member Nominations

Mr. Foulke noted that two management and three labor representatives’
terms would expire in June 2007.  He thanked the outgoing members and
asked them to think about submitting a request to be considered for
continued FACOSH membership.

Mr. Foulke stated that a request for nominations would be published in
the Federal Register on March 2, 2007, and that all qualified
individuals would receive consideration.  He also reminded the members
that the Secretary reserved the right to nominate qualified candidates.
Mr. Foulke mentioned that the submission period for nominations was 30
days.

Ms. Deborah Kleinberg, Seafarers International Union, asked about
obtaining a nomination package and Ms. Brayden said the Federal Register
notice would provide instructions on what the nomination package must
contain.

Member Certificates and Photographs

Mr. Foulke presented to Council members the FACOSH group photograph
taken at the September 28, 2006, meeting, which he said will be hung in
the OSHA conference room.  He also informed the members that the
Secretary of Labor’s Certificates of FACOSH Appointment were not
available for distribution at the meeting.

Next meeting and adjournment

Mr. Foulke suggested that the next FACOSH meeting be scheduled for
September 2007 and without objection the members agreed on September 27,
2007, for the next FACOSH meeting.  Mr. Foulke thanked members for their
participation and adjourned the meeting at 2:01 p.m.

*  	Exhibits referenced in these minutes are available for copying and
inspection at the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0010, Room
N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Exhibits can also be
accessed at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
http://www.regulations.gov , the federal eRulemaking Portal.

 PAGE

 PAGE   10