[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78705]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31661]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453; FRL-9940-31-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS51

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant
Management Requirements Under the Clean Air Act; Extension of Comment
Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register on November
9, 2015, proposing to update service practices that reduce emissions of
ozone-depleting refrigerants as well as extend them, as appropriate, to
non-ozone-depleting substitute refrigerants. The November 9, 2015,
proposal provided for a 60-day public comment period ending January 8,
2016. EPA received requests from the public to extend this comment
period. This document extends the comment period for 17 days, from
January 8, 2016, to January 25, 2016.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0453, must be received on or before January 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES
in the Federal Register document of November 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luke Hall-Jordan, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number
(202) 343-9591; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment
period established in the proposed rule published in the Federal
Register on November 9, 2015 (80 FR 69457) (FRL-9933-48-OAR). In that
document, EPA solicited comments and information on its proposed rule
titled ``Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant
Management Requirements under the Clean Air Act.'' EPA received
requests from members of the public to extend the comment period. EPA
is hereby extending the comment period, which was previously set to end
on January 8, 2016, to January 25, 2016. Accordingly, any comments on
this proposed rule must be received on or before January 25, 2016.
    To submit comments, or access the public docket, please follow the
detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the November 9,
2015, Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

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

    Dated: December 10, 2015.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-31661 Filed 12-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 48404-48405]
[DOCID:fr10au10-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62642; File No. SR-CHX-2010-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Order Cancellation Fee

August 4, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 30, 2010, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. CHX has filed
the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Participant Fees and
Assessments (the ``Fee Schedule''), effective August 1, 2010, to amend
its order cancellation fee for Participants entering and subsequently
cancelling orders under certain circumstances. The text of this
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://
www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm and in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Through this proposal, the Exchange is seeking to amend its Fee
Schedule to exempt from its existing Order Cancellation Fee all orders,
transactions and cancellation activity in Exchange Traded Funds
(``ETFs''), Exchange Traded Notes (``ETNs'') or Exchange Traded
Vehicles (``ETVs''), collectively referred to as Exchange Traded
Products (``ETPs''). The Order Cancellation Fee would continue in its
current form and effect with respect to all other securities.
    Beginning in January 2010, the Exchange's published Fee Schedule
imposed a charge for order cancellations submitted by Participants
whose orders rarely are at or near the National Best Bid or Offering
(``NBBO'').\5\ The application of the order cancellation fee depends on
a calculation (done on a Participant-by-Participant basis) involving
the number of wide orders (defined as display-eligible orders in the
Matching System which are 2 or more cents away from the NBBO), quotable
orders (all other display-eligible orders), the number of trades
executed and number of cancellations submitted by a Participant in a
month.\6\ The purpose of the order cancellation fee was to incent
Participants to submit orders which are close to the NBBO (and are
therefore more likely to be executed) or compensate the Exchange for
the systems and operational costs and burdens associated with handling
and recording orders which rarely execute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61392 (Jan. 21,
2010), 75 FR 4436 (Jan. 27, 2010) (SR-CHX-2010-02).
    \6\ The activity also must have occurred in our Regular Trading
Session and be in securities priced $1 per share or more.
Cancellations arising from Immediate or Cancel or Fill or Kill order
types are excluded from the calculation. Executions of cross orders
are also excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the imposition of the order cancellation fee, however, the
Exchange has observed that the number of unexecuted and displayed
orders has actually increased for certain Participants. In order to
avoid application of the cancellation fee, certain Participants are
submitting Quotable orders (i.e., those within 2 cents of the NBBO) to
the CHX's Matching System, but for an extremely short duration (e.g.,
20 milliseconds). Due to the short duration of the order, the amount of
trade activity generated by such orders is negligible. This

quotation activity also tends to exacerbate the operational costs which
the Exchange was seeking to avoid in creating the order cancellation
fee.
    In order to better target the wide quotations which originally were
causing the problems which led to the creation of the order
cancellation fee, we are proposing to exempt ETP activity from the
cancellation fee. The Exchange has observed that those firms entering
the limited durational orders described above conduct much of their
business on our trading facilities in ETP securities. By exempting ETP
securities from the order cancellation fee, we would remove much of
their incentive to submit quotable orders with a very limited lifespan.
The fee would continue to apply to activity in all other securities
where it appears to have the intended impact. The Exchange considered
other alternatives, such as imposing a minimum duration on orders to
qualify as ``quotable'' for purposes of the fee computation. The
Exchange believes, however, that such a requirement would introduce an
excessive amount of complexity to the determination of whether the
order cancellation fee applies and could have the effect of
discouraging Participants from sending any orders to the Exchange for
display and execution. The proposed changes to the Cancellation Fee
would go into effect on August 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its members. Among other things, the Exchange
believes that the exclusion of ETP securities from the existing order
cancellation fee should help the Exchange to better address the
operational costs and burdens associated with the processing and
storage of orders well outside the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments Regarding the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(B)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \10\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member imposed by the self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission
receipt of the filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2010-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2010-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2010-19 and should be
submitted on or before August 31, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19651 Filed 8-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: June 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 121)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36023-36034]
[DOCID:fr24jn10-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3959<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

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

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

I. Background

    The CJPA was originally part of the Searles Valley PM-10
nonattainment area which was designated nonattainment and classified as
moderate by operation of law in 1990. See 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991)
and 40 CFR 81.305. In 2002, EPA revised the boundaries of the Searles
Valley area, dividing it into three separate nonattainment areas: The
CJPA, Indian Wells and Trona. 67 FR 50805 (August 6, 2002). Our recent
notices of proposed and final determination of attainment for the CJPA
provide more background information on the designation and
classification of the area. 75 FR 13710 (March 23, 2010) and 75 FR
27944 (May 19, 2010).
    The CJPA is located in eastern California in the southern portion
of Inyo County. It is an arid desert area that receives less than 5
inches of rain per year. The area is rural in nature and sparsely
populated with only 0.5% of the population of Inyo County (2000 U.S.
Census shows 102 people living in the area). The Great Basin Unified
Air Pollution Control Agency (GBUAPCD or District) operates the one PM-
10 monitoring site for the CJPA which is located in the Coso Junction
rest area in the Rose Valley. The Rose Valley is flanked by the Sierra
Nevada and Coso mountain ranges. The China Lake Naval Air Weapons
Station (China Lake NAWS) covers most of the CJPA and is generally
restricted from public access. Air pollution in the CJPA is dominated
by windblown dust transported from Owens Lake which has been estimated
to be as much as 1.55 million pounds per day and is overwhelming when
compared to the daily emissions estimate of 1,478 pounds per day for
all of the sources within the CJPA. ``2010 PM10 Maintenance Plan and
Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area,'' adopted
May 17, 2010 (the 2010 Plan).
    Owens Lake, which is also located in Inyo County and also under the
jurisdiction of the GBUAPCD, is located in the Owens Valley Planning
Area which is to the north and adjacent to the CJPA. In 1913, the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) completed an aqueduct
system and began diverting the waters of the Owens River to the City of
Los Angeles. By 1930, these diversions had drained Owens Lake almost
completely dry. Strong winds over the dry, alkaline bed of Owens Lake
have produced among the highest measured concentrations of PM-10 ever
recorded and can have impacts as far as 150 miles away. See 64 FR
34173, June 25, 1999. The CJPA is anywhere from 10 to 30 miles from the
southern end of Owens Lake.
    The impact of Owens Lake dust on Coso Junction and other downwind
sites was documented in a special purpose monitoring network that was
operated from 1993 to 1996. The monitoring network measured Owens Lake
dust impacts at five downwind sites and found exceedances of the
standard as far as 50 miles from Owens Lake. The five downwind sites
included Coso Junction, Navy 1, Pearsonville, Inyokern and Ridgecrest.
Navy 1 and Pearsonville are no longer in operation and Inyokern and
Ridgecrest are outside the CJPA. See the 2010 Plan.
    The process for developing controls and a plan for the unique
situation at Owens Lake area has been ongoing for decades. The GBUAPCD
has developed the controls and plans for the Owens Valley Planning Area
with many participants including the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), LADWP, the City of Los Angeles, tribal governments, Federal
land managers, the Navy, the State Lands Commission, and members of the
public. These efforts resulted in a unique Board Order by the GBUAPCD
which requires the City of Los Angeles, by certain timeframes, to
implement dust control measures including shallow flooding, managed
vegetation and application of gravel on designated areas of Owens Lake.
64 FR 34173, June 25, 1999. The original Board Order, which serves as
the enforceable mechanism for the dust control measures, has been
revised on several occasions and implementation of the dust control
measures has led to a 90% decrease in emissions from Owens Lake and to
significant improvement in the air quality in CJPA. 2010 Plan.
    On May 19, 2010, EPA published a final determination that the CJPA
has attained the PM-10 NAAQS and that the area's obligation to submit
certain CAA requirements (i.e., demonstration of attainment,
demonstration of reasonable further progress, reasonably available
control measures, and contingency measures) no longer applies for so
long as the area continues to attain prior to final redesignation. Id.
    On May 28, 2010, CARB submitted to EPA a request for parallel
processing of the ``2010 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation
Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area'' (the 2010 Plan). The 2010
Plan addresses the PM-10 maintenance plan and the CAA redesignation
requirements for the CJPA.

II. The State's Submittal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA stated that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Proposed Actions

    Based on our review of the 2010 Plan submitted by the State, air
quality monitoring data, and other relevant materials, EPA believes the
State has addressed all the necessary requirements for the
redesignation of the CJPA to attainment, pursuant to CAA sections
107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. Assuming that California adopts the maintenance
plan and associated controls as they are currently drafted, EPA is
therefore proposing to redesignate the CJPA to attainment for the PM-10
NAAQS. EPA also proposes to approve the maintenance plan for CJPA which
includes the GBUAPCD Board Order 080128-01 as a SIP revision.
As discussed above the Board Order includes all of the control measures
in the 1998 Owens Valley SIP, and the 2003 and 2008 SIP revisions for
Owens Valley. EPA is also proposing to approve the emissions inventory
submitted with the maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of
section 172(c)(3). If the State substantially revises the submitted
control measures or maintenance plan from the versions proposed by the
State and reviewed here, this will result in the need for additional
proposed rulemaking on the maintenance plan and redesignation. Finally,
EPA is proposing to find the contribution of motor vehicles to the
area's PM-10 problem insignificant, and if this insignificance finding
is finalized, the area would not have to complete a regional emissions
analysis for any transportation conformity determinations necessary in
the CJPA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For these reasons,
these actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

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