[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 89407-89418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29758]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0660; FRL-9956-27-Region 9]


Approval of California Air Plan; Owens Valley Serious Area Plan 
for the 1987 24-Hour PM10 Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of California and Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (GBUAPCD or ``District'') to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or 
``Act'') requirements applicable to the Owens Valley PM10 
nonattainment area (NA). The Owens Valley PM10 NA is located 
in the southern portion of the Owens Valley in Inyo County, California. 
It is classified as a Serious nonattainment area for the national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter of ten 
microns or less (PM10). The submitted SIP revision is the 
``Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 2016 Owens Valley 
Planning Area PM10 State Implementation Plan'' (``2016 
PM10 Plan'' or ``Plan''). The GBUAPCD's obligation to submit 
the 2016 PM10 Plan was triggered by the EPA's 2007 finding 
that the Owens Valley PM10 NA had failed to meet its 
December 31, 2006, deadline to attain the PM10 NAAQS. The 
CAA requires a Serious PM10 nonattainment area that fails to 
meet its attainment deadline to submit a plan providing for attainment 
of the PM10 NAAQS and for an annual emission reduction in 
PM10 of not less than five percent until attainment of the 
PM10 NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to approve the 2016 
PM10 Plan as meeting all relevant statutory and regulatory 
requirements.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by January 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2016-0660, at http://www.regualtions.gov, or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia

[[Page 89408]]

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 
EPA's full public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 415-
972-3964, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background: PM10 Air Quality Planning in the Owens 
Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area
    A. Planning History
    B. Description of the Owens Valley PM10 Nonattainment 
Area
    C. Public Notice, Public Hearing, and Completeness Requirements 
for SIP Submittals
    D. CAA Requirements for PM10 Serious Area Plans
II. Evaluation of the Owens Valley PM10 Plan's Compliance 
With CAA Requirements
    A. Review of the Owens Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area 
Emissions Inventories
    B. Demonstration of Attainment
    C. Five Percent Requirement
    D. BACM/BACT and Adopted Control Strategy
    E. Reasonable Further Progress/Quantitative Milestones
    F. Contingency Measures
    G. Transportation Conformity
III. Summary of the EPA's Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background: PM10 Air Quality Planning in the Owens Valley 
PM10 Nonattainment Area

A. Planning History

    The NAAQS are standards for certain ambient air pollutants set by 
the EPA to protect public health and welfare. PM10 is among 
the ambient air pollutants for which the EPA has established health-
based standards. By penetrating deep in the lungs, PM10 
causes adverse health effects including lung damage, increased 
respiratory disease, and premature death. Children, the elderly, and 
people with asthma and heart conditions are the most vulnerable.
    On July 1, 1987, the EPA revised the health-based national ambient 
air quality standards, replacing the standards for total suspended 
particulates with new standards applying only to PM10.\1\ At 
that time, the EPA established two PM10 standards, annual 
and 24-hour. Effective December 18, 2006, the EPA revoked the annual 
PM10 standard but retained the 24-hour PM10 
standard.\2\ The 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) is attained when the expected number of days 
with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 [mu]g/m\3\ per calendar 
year averaged over a three-year period, as determined in accordance 
with appendix K to 40 CFR part 50, is equal to or less than one.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 52 FR 24672.
    \2\ 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).
    \3\ 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, the Owens 
Valley (along with many other areas meeting the qualifications of 
section 107(d)(4)(B) of the amended Act) was designated nonattainment 
by operation of law.\4\ The Owens Valley PM10 NA is located 
in Inyo County in east-central California. The EPA codified the 
boundaries of the Owens Valley PM10 NA at 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once an area is designated nonattainment for PM10, 
section 188 of the CAA outlines the process for classifying the area as 
Moderate or Serious and establishes the area's attainment deadline. In 
accordance with section 188(a), at the time of designation, all 
PM10 nonattainment areas, including the Owens Valley 
PM10 NA, were initially classified as Moderate. A Moderate 
PM10 nonattainment area can subsequently be reclassified as 
Serious either before the applicable attainment date if the EPA 
determines the area cannot practicably attain the PM10 NAAQS 
by this attainment date, or after the passage of the applicable 
Moderate area PM10 attainment date if the EPA determines 
that the area has failed to attain the standard. In accordance with 
section 188(b)(1) of the CAA, on February 8, 1993, the EPA determined 
the Owens Valley PM10 NA could not practicably attain the 
PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994 and reclassified the area as 
Serious.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 58 FR 3334 (January 8, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a Serious area, the Owens Valley PM10 NA acquired a 
new attainment deadline of no later than December 31, 2001. CAA section 
188(c)(2). However, CAA section 188(e) authorizes the EPA to grant up 
to a 5-year extension of that attainment deadline if certain conditions 
are met by the state. In order to obtain the extension, the state must 
make a SIP submission showing that: (1) Attainment by the applicable 
attainment date would be impracticable; (2) the state complied with all 
requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the 
implementation plan for the area; and (3) the plan for the area 
includes the most stringent measures (MSM) that are included in the 
implementation plan of any state or are achieved in practice in any 
state and can feasibly be implemented in the specific area.
    In its 1998 Owens Valley PM10 Plan (submitted to the EPA 
on September 10, 1998), California requested an attainment date 
extension under CAA section 188(e) for the Owens Valley PM10 
NA from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2006. On September 3, 1999, 
the EPA approved the Serious area 1998 PM10 Plan for the 
Owens Valley PM10 NA as meeting the requirements for such 
areas in CAA sections 189(b) and (c), including the requirements for 
implementation of best available control measures (BACM) in section 
189(b)(1)(B) and MSM in section 188(e). In the same action, the EPA 
approved the submission with respect to the requirements of section 
188(e) and granted California's request to extend the attainment date 
for the area to December 31, 2006. This final action and the proposal 
preceding it provide a more detailed discussion of the history of 
PM10 planning in the Owens Valley PM10 NA.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 64 FR 34173 (June 25, 1999) and 64 FR 48305 (September 
3, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 6, 2007, the EPA found that the Owens Valley 
PM10 NA failed to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 
by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 2006.\7\ Accordingly, 
the State was required to submit a new plan meeting the requirements of 
section 189(d) by December 31, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 72 FR 31183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Governing Board of the GBUAPCD adopted the ``2008 Owens Valley 
PM10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment State 
Implementation Plan'' (``2008 Plan'') on February 1, 2008. The 2008 
Plan, which included a request for an attainment date extension, was 
submitted by the State to the EPA on June 11, 2009. The 2008 Plan was 
subsequently updated and superseded by the submittal of the 2016 
PM10 Plan, which reiterates the request for an attainment 
date extension and incorporates agreements reached between the GBUAPCD 
and the City of

[[Page 89409]]

Los Angeles, and is the subject of this action.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Chapter 8 of the 2016 PM10 Plan and letter 
from Phillip L. Kiddoo, Air Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD to 
Elizabeth Adams, Acting Air Division Director, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 
dated October 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Description of the Owens Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area

    Owens Lake is located in Inyo County in east central California in 
the southern portion of the Owens Valley. It is part of a chain of 
lakes formed over 140,000 thousand years ago.\9\ 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 from the Owens River had drained 
the Owens Lake almost completely dry.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 2016 PM10 Plan, p. 7.
    \10\ Id., p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Strong winds blowing over the surface of the dry, alkaline bed of 
the Owens Lake have produced among the highest measured concentrations 
of PM10 ever recorded, including a monitored reading that 
exceeded 12,000 [mu]g/m\3\--more than 80 times over the federal 24-hour 
standard.\11\ Past data from the EPA's approval of the 1998 
PM10 Plan indicated that during days when violations were 
recorded, 94 percent of the PM10 concentrations came from 
the Owens Lake bed and another five percent came from re-entrained 
Owens Lake dust already deposited in the area.\12\ Since our approval 
of the 1998 PM10 Plan, PM10 emissions occurring 
directly from the Owens Lake bed and those attributable to re-entrained 
Owens Lake dust deposited in the two-kilometer area surrounding the 
Owens Lake bed, particularly the Keeler and Olancha Dunes, have 
declined. Despite this reduction, the predominant source of 
PM10 emissions contributing to nonattainment in the Owens 
Valley PM10 NA continues to be the dry Owens Lake bed and 
the two-kilometer perimeter surrounding it.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id., p. S-2.
    \12\ 64 FR 34173 at 34174.
    \13\ 2016 PM10 Plan, page S-4, Table S-2, and Chapter 
8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately 40,000 permanent residents live in the area affected 
by the Owens Lake PM10 emissions.\14\ Some of these 
residents are members of four Tribes: The Lone Pine Paiute/Shoshone 
Tribe, the Fort Independence Tribe, the Big Pine Tribe, and the Bishop 
Tribe. Residents and visitors to the area suffer the adverse health 
effects from high PM10 concentrations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at S-2.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, the State of California and the GBUAPCD 
submitted a PM10 Plan in 1998 that the EPA approved in 
1999.\16\ The EPA recognized in approving the 1998 PM10 Plan 
that the Owens Valley PM10 NA presented one of the most 
challenging air quality problems nationally, requiring a reduction of 
PM10 concentrations from almost 4000 [mu]g/m\3\ to the 24-
hour NAAQS of 150 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA also recognized that while the 
origin of the PM10 problem was well understood--the draining 
of Owens Lake by the City of Los Angeles in the early part of this 
century and continued LADWP withdrawals from the Owens River--the 
solution to the problem remained controversial.\17\ The EPA's 
evaluation of the 1998 PM10 Plan noted the unique 
complexities of the Owens Valley PM10 planning process, 
including the competing authorities and responsibilities of the GBUAPCD 
to protect Owens Valley residents from the harmful effects of air 
pollution and those of the City of Los Angeles to provide its residents 
with an adequate water supply.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 64 FR 48305.
    \17\ 64 FR 34173 at 34174.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Historically, there have been significant disputes between the 
GBUAPCD and the City of Los Angeles concerning the appropriateness, 
location, and extent of control measures to reduce PM10 
emissions from the Owens Lake bed and surrounding areas, which 
interfered with the adoption of a fully approvable plan. The legal 
history between the GBUAPCD and the City of Los Angeles is described in 
some detail in the EPA's proposed approval of the 1998 PM10 
Plan and in the 2016 PM10 Plan.\19\ In summary, California 
legislation followed by litigation in state and federal courts resulted 
in a series of agreements requiring the City of Los Angeles to 
implement a variety of control measures to mitigate PM10 
emissions from the dry Owens Lake bed. The most recent iteration of 
these agreements, reached after extensive negotiations, is the 2014 
Stipulated Judgment between the City of Los Angeles and the 
GBUAPCD.\20\ It is our understanding that the 2014 Stipulated Judgment 
resolves all disputes between the District and the City of Los Angeles 
and it appears to clearly articulate the responsibilities of both 
parties, providing certainty and eliminating the risk of further 
litigation regarding the Owens Lake bed controls required for 
attainment and contingency measures. The 2014 Stipulated Judgment adds 
to and incorporates prior agreements between the parties and 
constitutes the foundation for the 2016 PM10 Plan that we 
are proposing to approve in this action.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 2016 PM10 Plan, pp. 9-12.
    \20\ Id., Appendix II-1.
    \21\ Id., p.12 (``The judgment requires the City of Los Angeles 
to implement the dust control measures ordered in 2011 and 2012 and 
provides for additional dust control measures up to 53.4 square 
miles in total for all ordered dust control areas.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to approve the 2016 PM10 Plan 
because it meets the CAA requirements for Serious area plans. As was 
true of the 1998 PM10 Plan, this 2016 PM10 Plan 
is an important blueprint for clean air in one of the most unique and 
challenging PM10 nonattainment areas in the United 
States.\22\ Successful implementation will require continued joint 
efforts by the GBUAPCD and the City of Los Angeles.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In 2016, the EPA bestowed its Clean Air Excellence Award 
for Regulatory and Policy Innovations on the GBUAPCD in recognition 
of the District's development of leading methods to identify 
pollution source areas, analyze particulate emissions, and determine 
suitable pollution control measures. The EPA noted the Owens Lake 
project constitutes the world's largest PM10 emission 
control project and has led to annual air pollution reductions of 
75,000 tons. See the EPA's Web site: https://www.epa.gov/caaac/clean-air-excellence-awards.
    \23\ In 2016, the EPA bestowed its Clean Air Excellence Award 
for Regulatory and Policy Innovations on the GBUAPCD in recognition 
of the District's development of leading methods to identify 
pollution source areas, analyze particulate emissions, and determine 
suitable pollution control measures. The EPA noted the Owens Lake 
project constitutes the world's largest PM10 emission 
control project and has led to annual air pollution reductions of 
75,000 tons. See the EPA's Web site: https://www.epa.gov/caaac/clean-air-excellence-awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The establishment of controls on the lake bed has resulted in 
significant improvements to air quality in the Owens Valley. Between 
1993 and 2014, the number of NAAQS exceedances decreased substantially 
at monitors located in the Owens Valley PM10 NA. For 
example, the peak three-year average number of exceedances at the Dirty 
Socks monitor declined from 41 to 9 in 2014, at the Keeler monitor from 
20 to 8, and at the Shell Cut monitor from 19 to 5.\24\ As shown in 
Table 1, the 2016 PM10 Plan demonstrates that 
PM10 design concentrations are predicted to be below the 
NAAQS when all required controls are implemented by the City of Los 
Angeles and the GBUAPCD.\25\ Through the continued efforts of the 
GBUAPCD and the City of Los Angeles, the 2016 PM10 Plan 
demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS within the 
attainment year of 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 2016 PM10 Plan, Appendix III-2, Table 1.
    \25\ Id., Table 7-5.

[[Page 89410]]



                              Table 1--Decline in Owens Valley PM10 Concentrations
                                                  [[mu]g/m\3\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Hybrid model 2017
                        Monitoring site                           July 2009-June 2014      design concentration
                                                                      maximum PM10             predictions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dirty Socks...................................................                    1,437                       93
Flat Rock.....................................................                      871                       94
Keeler........................................................                    2,994                       67
Lizard Tail...................................................                    4,571                      142
Mill Site.....................................................                      754                      125
North Beach...................................................                    1,536                       67
Olancha.......................................................                      779                       41
Shell Cut.....................................................                    2,149                      105
Stanley.......................................................                      286                       39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 PM10 Plan, Tables 7-1 and 7-5.

C. Public Notice, Public Hearing, and Completeness Requirements for SIP 
Submittals

    CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require each state to 
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing 
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision to the 
EPA. To meet this requirement, every SIP submission should include 
evidence that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a 
public hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing 
regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
    Both the GBUAPCD and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for 
reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption of the 2016 
PM10 Plan. The District provided a public comment period and 
conducted a public hearing on April 13, 2016, before its Board adopted 
the 2016 PM10 Plan.\26\ CARB provided the required public 
notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its May 19, 2016 
public hearing.\27\ The submission provides proof of publication of 
notices for the respective public hearings. We find, therefore, that 
the 2016 PM10 Plan meets the procedural requirements for 
public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id., Chapter 13--Declaration of Clerk of the Board and 
Resolutions Certifying the EIR and Approving the SIP.
    \27\ State of California Air Resources Board Resolution 16-3, 
May 19, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a 
SIP submission is complete within 60 days of receipt. This section of 
the CAA also provides that any plan that the EPA has not affirmatively 
determined to be complete will become complete by operation of law six 
months after the date of submission. The EPA's completeness criteria 
are found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The EPA determined the SIP 
submission dated June 9, 2016, to be complete on November 21, 2016.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See letter from Elizabeth Adams, Acting Air Division 
Director, U.S. EPA Region 9 to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, 
California Air Resource Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. CAA Requirements for PM10 Serious Area Plans

    As a Serious PM10 nonattainment area that failed to meet 
its applicable attainment date of December 31, 2006, the Owens Valley 
PM10 NA is subject to CAA sections 188 and 189. Section 188 
establishes attainment dates for Serious PM10 nonattainment 
areas. However, when an area such as the Owens Valley PM10 
NA fails to attain the PM10 NAAQS within the time prescribed 
in section 188, a new attainment date may be approved. The new 
attainment date is established by section 179(d)(3), which establishes 
that the attainment date applicable to the revision required under 
paragraph (1) of section 179(d) shall be the same as provided in the 
provisions of section 172 of the CAA. That section of the statute 
requires the area attain as expeditiously as practicable, but no later 
than five years from the date of designation.\29\ It also includes a 
provision that allows the EPA to extend the attainment date for up to 
an additional five years (i.e., a period of no greater than 10 years) 
to the extent the Administrator determines appropriate, considering the 
severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of 
pollution control measures.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In accordance with CAA section 179(d)(3) and 172(a)(2)(A), 
the attainment deadline applicable to an area that misses the 
Serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable, but no later 
than five years from the publication date of the nonattainment 
finding notice. The EPA's finding that the Owens Valley 
PM10 NA failed to attain by the Serious area 
nonattainment date was published on June 6, 2007.
    \30\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(a)(2)(A). See also Ass'n of Irritated 
Residents v. United States EPA, 423 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 189(d) provides that the state shall submit within 12 
months after the applicable attainment date, plan revisions that 
provide for attainment of the PM10 air quality standard and, 
from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual 
reduction of PM10 or PM10 precursor emissions 
within the area of not less than five percent of the amount of such 
emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for the 
area.
    The general planning and control requirements for all nonattainment 
plans are found in CAA sections 110 and 172. More specific planning and 
control requirements relevant to the PM10 NAAQS are found in 
Part D, Subpart 4, in CAA sections 188 and 189, as noted above. The EPA 
has issued a General Preamble \31\ and Addendum to the General Preamble 
\32\ to provide guidance to states for meeting the CAA's requirements 
for the PM10 NAAQS. The General Preamble mainly addresses 
the requirements for moderate nonattainment areas and the Addendum 
addresses requirements for Serious nonattainment areas. The EPA has 
also issued other guidance documents related to PM10 plans 
that are discussed and cited below. The specific PM10 plan 
requirements addressed by this proposed action are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble) and 57 FR 18070 
(April 28, 1992).
    \32\ ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM10 
Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM10 
Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994) (Addendum).

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

[[Page 89411]]

1. Emissions Inventories
    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that an attainment plan include a 
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from 
all sources of the relevant pollutants.
2. Attainment Demonstration and Five Percent Requirement
    For Serious PM10 nonattainment areas that do not attain 
the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, CAA 
section 189(d) requires the state to submit plan revisions that provide 
for attainment of the NAAQS and provide for an annual five percent 
reduction in PM10 or PM10 precursor emissions for 
each year from the date of submission until attainment.\33\ Section 
189(d) specifies that the state must submit these plan revisions within 
12 months of the applicable attainment date that the area failed to 
meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The EPA has previously determined that PM10 
precursors are not significant contributors to PM10 
levels in the Owens Valley PM10 NA. See 64 FR 34173 at 
34716 (June 25, 1999). In that rulemaking notice, the EPA noted that 
the contribution from secondary aerosols is insignificant. Inventory 
information submitted by the GBUAPCD in association with the 2016 
PM10 Plan also demonstrates that precursors do not 
contribute significantly to PM10 levels that exceed the 
standard. See section II.D.2.b of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Best Available Control Measures for Sources of PM10
    CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires provisions to assure that BACM, 
including the best available control technology (BACT) for stationary 
sources, for the control of PM10 shall be implemented no 
later than four years after the date a nonattainment area is 
reclassified as Serious.
    When a Moderate area is reclassified to Serious, the requirements 
to implement reasonably available control measures (RACM), including 
such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may 
be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available 
control technology (RACT), in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) 
remain applicable. Thus, a Serious area PM10 plan must also 
provide for the implementation of RACM and RACT to the extent that the 
RACM and RACT requirements have not been satisfied in the area's 
Moderate area plan.
    CAA section 189(e) requires that control requirements applicable to 
major stationary sources of PM10 shall also apply to major 
stationary sources of PM10 precursors, except where the 
Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM10 levels that exceed the standards in 
the area.
4. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
    CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that implementation plans 
demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) as defined in section 
171(1). Section 171(1) defines RFP as such annual incremental 
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required 
by part D of title I or may reasonably be required by the Administrator 
for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national 
ambient air quality standard by the applicable date. The general RFP 
requirement of section 172(c)(2) applies to SIP submissions necessary 
to meet CAA section 189(d) for the PM10 NAAQS.
    In addition, CAA section 189(c)(1), which is specifically 
applicable to the PM10 NAAQS, requires that an 
implementation plan contain quantitative milestones that will be 
achieved every three years and that will demonstrate that RFP is being 
met.
5. Contingency Measures
    CAA section 172(c)(9) requires that implementation plans provide 
for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the 
area fails to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date 
applicable under part D of title I. Such measures are to take effect in 
any such case without further action by the State or the Administrator. 
The contingency measure requirement of CAA section 179(c)(9) applies to 
the SIP submissions necessary to meet CAA section 189(d) for the 
PM10 NAAQS.
6. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). Our 
conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires that 
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air 
quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and 
procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to a 
SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air 
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely 
attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestone. Once a SIP that 
contains motor vehicle emissions budgets has been submitted to the EPA, 
and the EPA has found them adequate, these budgets are used for 
determining conformity (i.e., emissions from planned transportation 
activities must be less than or equal to the budgets).

II. Evaluation of the Owens Valley PM10 Plan's Compliance 
With CAA Requirements

A. Review of the Owens Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area Emissions 
Inventories

    The 2016 PM10 Plan includes PM10 emissions 
inventories for the Owens Valley PM10 NA for the years 1999 
through 2019. For the most part, the emissions data presented in the 
Plan were derived from the CARB 2012 and 2015 emission inventories for 
Inyo County and apportioned to the Owens Valley PM10 NA 
using factors such as population, roadway miles, and land area.\34\ The 
GBUAPCD calculated fugitive windblown dust emissions using a 
combination of modeling and data collected at monitors located around 
the Owens Lake bed. The unpaved road dust emissions were calculated 
using the GBUAPCD's emission factors. These calculations are included 
in Tables 3 and 4 of Appendix IV-1 of the 2016 PM10 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ An overview of the 2016 PM10 Plan emissions 
inventory is provided here. For detailed results and a complete 
discussion of the methodologies used to produce the emissions 
inventories, see the following sections of the 2016 PM10 
Plan: Summary, S.1; Chapter 4, ``PM10 Emissions Inventory 
and Determination of Significant Sources;'' and Appendix IV-1, 
``2016 SIP Inventory.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District has also provided an inventory of emissions of 
PM10 precursors (i.e., sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, 
volatile organic compounds, and ammonia) for a 2015 exceedance day.\35\ 
In this inventory, ammonia emission estimates ``were derived from Inyo 
County emissions that were queried from the USEPA's 2014 National 
Emissions Inventory.'' Estimates for the other precursors ``were 
derived from Inyo County emissions that were queried from the CARB 
CEPAM Standard Emissions Tool (2013 Almanac).'' In all cases, emissions 
were apportioned to the Owens Valley PM10 NA using various 
factors.\36\ The EPA previously determined that PM10 
precursors are not significant contributors to PM10 levels 
in the Owens Valley PM10 NA.\37\ At that time, the EPA noted 
that the contribution from secondary aerosols is insignificant. The EPA 
proposes to find again that precursors do not play a significant part 
in the PM10 problem in the Owens

[[Page 89412]]

Valley PM10 NA. We discuss this in more detail in Section 
II.D., below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See attachment to letter from Phillip L. Kiddoo, Air 
Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD to Elizabeth Adams, Acting Air 
Division Director, U.S. EPA, Region 9, dated October 26, 2016.
    \36\ Id. The metrics used to ratio emissions from Inyo County to 
the Owens Valley PM10 NA are specified in the attachment.
    \37\ See 64 FR 34173 at 34716 (June 25, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions inventories provided in the Plan show that fugitive 
dust emissions resulting from wind erosion on the exposed Owens Lake 
bed, off-lake deposits of lake bed dust such as the Keeler Dunes, and 
open desert are by far the largest sources of PM10 in the 
Owens Valley PM10 NA. Other, much smaller sources of 
windblown dust include small mining facilities and the Lone Pine 
Landfill. The remaining sources of PM10 within the Owens 
Valley PM10 NA include wood stoves, fireplaces, unpaved and 
paved road dust, and vehicle tailpipe emissions. The District also 
notes that prescribed burning is a source of PM10 in the 
nonattainment area. There are no large industrial sources of 
PM10 in the Owens Valley PM10 NA.
    The GBUAPCD also grouped emissions into three location-based 
categories: ``lake bed emissions,'' ``near-lake emissions,'' and 
``remaining Owens Valley NA emissions.'' Emissions originating from the 
lake bed are included in the lake bed category. The near-lake category 
consists of emissions generated within a two-kilometer zone surrounding 
the lake bed and includes fugitive windblown dust emissions from paved 
and unpaved roads and open desert, emissions from other sources within 
two kilometers of the lake bed such as the Lone Pine Dump, and the 
Keeler and Olancha dunes. Emissions generated outside the two-kilometer 
zone are grouped in the remaining Owens Lake NA emissions category. The 
``Owens Lake Subarea'' encompasses the lake bed and the near-lake 
emissions. Emissions from unpaved roads and open desert areas generated 
within the two-kilometer zone surrounding the lake were used in the 
District's analysis of which sources contribute significantly to 
nonattainment, thereby allowing the District to factor in the impact of 
the distance between emission sources and affected monitors.
    Table 2 provides a summary of the annual emissions forecast for all 
PM10 emission source categories in the Owens Valley 
PM10 NA for 2006, 2007, and for 2016 through 2019 (tons per 
year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Values presented represent the emissions at the end of the 
calendar year, after all scheduled controls are in place.
    \39\ Includes PM10 emissions from Lone Pine Landfill, 
which equal on average approximately 60 tons per year.
    \40\ Emissions assumed constant over time.
    \41\ Miscellaneous sources include: Manufacturing and 
industrial, service and commercial, mineral processes, metal 
processes, residential fuel combustion, construction and demolition, 
paved and unpaved road dust (activity related), windblown dust from 
agricultural lands, managed burning and disposal, on-road mobile, 
and wildfires.

                                                  Table 2--Summary of PM10 Annual Emissions in the OVPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Near-lake emissions            Remaining Owens Valley NA emissions
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Lake bed                                           Windblown
                  Year end \38\                    emissions      Keeler      Olancha    2-km buffer      dust      Windblown      Misc.        Total
                                                                  Dunes        Dunes      (excluding    unpaved     dust open     sources
                                                                                         dunes) \39\     roads     desert \40\      \41\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006............................................          789        5,324        6,395        4,217          416       19,617          854       37,613
2007............................................        7,448        4,476        5,011        3,143          416       19,617          854       40,964
2016............................................        1,222          172        1,506        1,358          416       19,617          747       25,038
2017............................................          355           41        1,093        1,180          416       19,617          747       23,450
2018............................................          355           41          798        1,053          416       19,617          747       23,027
2019............................................          355           41          586          962          416       19,617          750       22,726
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 PM10 Plan, Table 4-3.

    The EPA is proposing to find that the 2016 PM10 Plan's 
emissions inventories for 2006 through 2019 are comprehensive, 
accurate, and current inventories of actual emissions from all sources 
in the Owens Valley PM10 NA and that these emissions 
inventories meet the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA and 
EPA guidance.\42\ The GBUAPCD has provided a 2006 base year and future 
year emissions inventories to 2019, comprehensively addressing all 
source categories in the Owens Valley PM10 NA. Consequently, 
we are proposing to find that the emissions inventories provided by the 
GBUAPCD meet the requirements of section 172(c)(3) and provide an 
adequate basis for the attainment demonstration as well as for the BACM 
and RFP demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 
and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations. U.S. EPA, September 29, 2016 
(draft).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Demonstration of Attainment

    The 2016 PM10 Plan must provide a detailed demonstration 
(including air quality modeling) that the specified control strategy 
will reduce PM10 emissions so that the 24-hour NAAQS will be 
attained as soon as practicable but no later than June 6, 2017, 
assuming final approval of the attainment deadline extension discussed 
above. CAA section 189(b)(1)(A).
1. Attainment Deadline
    In 2007, the EPA notified the GBUAPCD that it had failed to attain 
the PM10 NAAQS by the attainment date at the end of 
2006.\43\ The GBUAPCD has requested that the EPA extend the attainment 
date for the Owens Valley PM10 NA for an additional 10 
years.\44\ The EPA is proposing to approve the requested attainment 
date extension because, considering the severity of nonattainment and 
the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures, the EPA 
believes such an extension to June 6, 2017 is warranted based on 
various factors, including the following.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See 72 FR 31183 (June 6, 2007).
    \44\ As discussed above, CAA section 188 and 179 allow up to a 
10-year extension of the attainment date after the EPA issues a 
finding that a Serious PM10 nonattainment area has failed 
to attain the NAAQS. CAA section 172(a) authorizes the EPA to extend 
the attainment deadline to the extent it deems appropriate for a 
period of no greater than 10 years from the publication of the 
nonattainment finding, considering the severity of nonattainment and 
the availability and feasibility of pollution control measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the EPA acknowledges the severity of the PM10 
problem. As discussed above, prior to the application of controls, the 
Owens Valley PM10 NA experienced dust storms of 
unprecedented magnitude that originated from the dry Owens Lake bed 
under certain meteorological conditions. The magnitude of these dust 
storms from the dry lake bed were unique within California and the 
United States.
    Second, the factors creating the dry Owens Lake bed, specifically 
the diversion of water in the early 20th century to the City of Los 
Angeles, resulted in complex legal and technical

[[Page 89413]]

agreements for installation of control measures that were untested in 
kind and scope. Since approval of the 1998 PM10 Plan, the 
GBUAPCD and City of Los Angeles have worked consistently to refine and 
optimize the complex set of control measures leading to substantial 
reductions of PM10 from the dry Owens Lake bed and 
surrounding near-lake sources. The culmination of decades of work on 
this problem by the GBUAPCD and the City of Los Angeles is the 
Stipulated Judgment leading to the District's adoption and the EPA's 
approval of Rule 433 into the SIP in 2016.\45\ Rule 433 will ensure 
that the mitigation measures leading to the final reductions in 
PM10 will occur and lead to attainment of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Because some of the controls required in the 2016 
PM10 Plan are required to be installed prior the end of 
2017, this leaves open the possibility that some of the required 
controls will not be completed by June of 2017. We do not believe 
this will be an impediment to reaching attainment due to the 
seasonal nature of PM10 emissions in the Owens Lake NA, 
which are generally elevated in the winter and spring months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the EPA concurs that an extension of the 
attainment deadline to June 6, 2017 is warranted.
2. PM10 Attainment Demonstration Approaches
    A key part of a PM10 attainment plan is the attainment 
demonstration. This is a demonstration by the state that the existing 
and planned emission control measures, in this case, the controls that 
have been incorporated into Rule 433 and the Keeler Dunes Project, are 
sufficient to result in attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by the 
required attainment date (i.e., 2017). Under CAA section 189(b)(1)(A), 
the attainment demonstration for a Serious nonattainment area must 
include air quality modeling. Please see the EPA's accompanying 
Technical Support Document (TSD), located in the docket for this 
action, for our detailed analysis of the air quality modeling 
supporting the District's demonstration of attainment. In summary, the 
EPA's preferred PM10 attainment demonstration approach is 
dispersion modeling, with receptor modeling or emissions inventory 
approaches as adjuncts. However, emissions from fugitive dust sources 
such as the dry Owens Lake bed are uncertain and variable in comparison 
with the typical industrial point sources to which dispersion modeling 
is usually applied. Also, in a fugitive dust-dominated area there are 
few if any chemical differences between the various emitting source 
regions within the area, so receptor modeling is of limited use. 
Therefore, emissions inventory-based modeling approaches have been used 
in fugitive dust and other PM10 nonattainment areas. These 
include the ``rollback'' of monitored concentrations in proportion to 
emissions, sometimes in conjunction with a dispersion model in order to 
account for the spatial and temporal variation of emissions and their 
various distances from the monitor(s). In all of the approaches, 
projected emissions reductions due to control measures are applied to 
the emission source contributions, and attainment is demonstrated if 
the resulting concentrations are below the NAAQS.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Monitored concentrations meet the 24-hour PM10 
NAAQS when the ``design value,'' the expected number of daily 
exceedances of the NAAQS level of 150 [mu]g/m\3\, is no more than 
one per year, 40 CFR 50.6. However, for a modeled attainment 
demonstration, when five years of meteorology are modeled, the 6th 
highest concentration is used as the ``design concentration'' to 
compare to the NAAQS level; at most five exceedances of that level 
are acceptable for attainment, one per modeled year. Guideline on 
Air Quality Models, 40 CFR 51 Appendix W, section 7.2.1.1, ``Design 
Concentrations for SO2, PM10, CO, Pb, and 
NO2'' The design concentration is sometimes referred to 
as the ``design value,'' but strictly speaking, the PM10 
design value is the expected number of exceedances per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Modeling in Submittal
    The District used a hybrid modeling approach combining the CALPUFF 
(``California Puff'') dispersion model \47\ with a monitored component. 
CALPUFF is used to model the effect of emissions from sources on the 
Owens Lake bed and the Keeler Dunes. The monitored component is used to 
represent the effect of other sources off the lake bed (``out-of-
network''), which are not otherwise included in the CALPUFF modeling; 
it is a time-varying background concentration that declines over time 
as lake bed emissions are controlled. The District's hybrid model and 
its inputs are discussed in more detail in our TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Model code and documentation are available at no cost for 
download from http://www.src.com/calpuff/calpuff1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District's model performance evaluation \48\ of the hybrid 
model, which checked model predictions against monitored observations 
during the five-year period of July 2009 to June 2014, showed a high 
correlation between them and acceptable model performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 2016 PM10 Plan, Appendix VII-1: Air Quality 
Modeling Report, sec. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The attainment demonstration also examined the effect of the 
controls through implementation of Rule 433 and controls on the Keeler 
Dunes that would be in place by the end of 2017, the attainment year. 
Each of the five meteorology years was modeled, and for a given 
receptor the highest sixth-high concentration taken as the design 
concentration. The design concentration results for each monitor site 
for 2014 through 2019 are shown in Table 7-5 of the 2016 
PM10 Plan. For 2017, the highest design concentration is 142 
[mu]g/m\3\ and all concentrations are less than 150 [mu]g/m\3\, 
demonstrating attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.
4. Evaluation of Modeled Attainment Demonstration
    The dry Owens Lake bed presents a unique situation for which 
unconventional modeling approaches may be appropriate. The EPA has 
consulted with the District and CARB on the modeling approach numerous 
times over the past decade, including during the year prior to the 
current Plan submittal. As discussed in detail in our TSD and in the 
summary below, the District's air quality modeling analysis is 
appropriate for this area.
a. Model Emissions Input
    The District's Dust Identification (ID) Program, described in 
detail in the TSD, provides estimates of PM10 emissions 
based on real-time measurements at numerous locations. It provides a 
level of detail and accuracy that is unique, and is a considerable 
refinement over standard emission factors, and even over locale-
specific emission factors that account for soil type and wind speed. It 
provides a strong foundation for the emission estimates needed for a 
modeled attainment demonstration.
b. Model Choice
    The District's method for estimating PM10 emission 
factors (i.e., back-calculation from monitored concentrations, also 
discussed in detail in the TSD), depends on good characterization of 
source-receptor relationships (emitting source square and monitor 
receptor) to determine which particular emitting areas are contributing 
to a given monitored concentration. A Lagrangian puff model like 
CALPUFF, which allows PM10 emissions to follow a realistic 
curved trajectory between the source area and the monitor and allows 
different wind direction to vary by location at any given time, is 
appropriate for this demonstration. CALPUFF is preferable to a steady-
state Gaussian model like AERMOD, which has ``straight-line'' 
trajectories along a single wind direction within any given hour for 
all sources.

[[Page 89414]]

c. Modeling Domain and Background Concentration
    The District's monitoring and modeling network is focused on the 
lake bed and the immediately surrounding area. In order for the 
attainment demonstration to account for all the PM10 
emission sources contributing to NAAQS violations, off-lake sources 
must be adequately represented in the background concentration that is 
added to the model prediction. The District's procedure for determining 
background concentration is discussed in detail in the TSD. The EPA 
finds the District's reasoning and supporting documentation for the 
assumptions convincing.
d. Modeling Receptors
    By default, a grid of model receptors is used to cover much of a 
nonattainment area, to ensure that the NAAQS is attained everywhere in 
the area. In the 2016 PM10 Plan, receptors are placed only 
along the lake bed shoreline, and further, only at monitor locations. 
As stated in the 2016 PM10 Plan, the monitoring sites were 
chosen to be downwind of the largest PM10 source areas, i.e. 
the lake bed, and so are representative of the highest expected 
impacts.\49\ Because concentrations necessarily decline with distance 
from a non-buoyant source like fugitive dust, the EPA agrees that the 
highest PM10 concentrations would be expected at the 
shoreline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id., p. 62 sec.7.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The EPA's Proposed Action
    In summary, the attainment demonstration is based on a unique 
modeling approach that incorporates real-world measurements and is 
well-suited to the special conditions at Owens Lake. The EPA is 
proposing to find that the attainment demonstration in the 2016 
PM10 Plan is approvable.

C. Five Percent Requirement

    Section 189(d) of the CAA requires a state with a Serious 
PM10 nonattainment area that fails to attain the 
PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment deadlines to submit 
within 12 months after the attainment applicable attainment date, a 
plan showing an annual five percent reduction in emissions of 
PM10 in the area from the date of the submission until 
attainment, based on the most recent inventory.
    Table 4-3 in the 2016 PM10 Plan provides a summary of 
the annual emissions forecast for sources of emissions in the 
nonattainment area for the years 1999 through 2019. The inventory 
values are derived using a combination of modeling data, monitoring 
results, CARB emissions inventories and control measure 
efficiencies.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id., at 34-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016 PM10 Plan includes a demonstration of annual 
five percent reductions in Chapter 8. As noted, fugitive windblown 
emissions, ``which are tied to meteorology and are highly irregular 
year-to-year,'' \51\ account for most of the emissions in the Owens 
Valley PM10 NA.\52\ To accommodate this variability for a 
more stable and realistic assessment of reductions, the District used a 
three-year rolling average to calculate the annual reductions. Using 
average annual emissions from 2005-2007 (62,734 tpy) as the starting 
point for the required five percent per year reductions, the District 
is required to reduce emissions by 31,367 tons per year by the 
attainment year (2017) to 32,367 tons per year. The GBUAPCD projects 
three-year annual average emissions in 2017 to be 24,783 tons per year, 
which exceeds the required amount of required reductions by 7,584 tons 
per year. Figure 8-1 in the 2016 PM10 Plan illustrates 
emissions trends for various sources in the nonattainment area from 
1999 through 2019 along with the three-year average total, and compares 
these values with a five percent reduction line.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ For example, emissions totaled 109,635 tons in 2005, 
dropped to 37,613 tons in 2006, then rose to 73,999 tons in 2009 
before beginning to consistently decline. Emissions in 2010 totaled 
70,343 tons and by 2017 when attainment will be reached, emissions 
are projected to be 23,450 tons per year. 2016 PM10 Plan, 
Table 4-3.
    \52\ Id., p. 81.
    \53\ The EPA believes the use of 2007 as the baseline for five 
percent reductions is reasonable and consistent with Congress' 
intent. Section 189(d) states that plans are due within 12 months of 
the missed attainment deadline and that the plans should provide for 
annual five percent reductions from the date of the submission until 
attainment. The attainment deadline for the Owens Valley 
PM10 NA was December 31, 2006. 64 FR 48305 (September 3, 
1999). Accordingly, a submittal to fulfill section 189(d) was due by 
December 31, 2007. Arguably, some of the reductions in the RFP 
demonstration occurred outside the literal time frame specified by 
Congress (i.e., ``the date of the submission'' of the Plan) because 
the 2016 PM10 Plan was not submitted until June 9, 2016. 
The EPA believes that it is appropriate and consistent with 
Congress's intent for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS that we 
consider reductions that occurred prior to the submittal of the 2016 
PM10 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although annual emissions increase in the first few years of the 
planning period, a steady decline begins in 2009.\54\ The average 
emissions reductions catch up with the five percent per year reduction 
target in 2013, and subsequently exceed the required reductions beyond 
the projected attainment year. The EPA recognizes the unprecedented 
challenges faced by the District in achieving this target. In light of 
the unique nature of the source of emissions in the Owens Valley 
PM10 NA, the groundbreaking technical efforts needed to 
characterize and control emissions from the lake bed, and the 
unavoidable delays in implementing controls on the lake bed caused by 
litigation, and in recognition of the achievement of reductions beyond 
those required under CAA section 189(d) after 2013, we are proposing to 
approve the five percent demonstration in the 2016 PM10 
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The District notes that a substantial portion of the total 
reductions achieved beginning in 2006 and forecast through 2017 
occur from 2010 to 2014 with the implementation of the 2008 SIP 
Control Areas and Phase 8 Control Area, which are described in 
Sections 6.2.1.4 and 6.2.1.5 of the Plan. 2016 PM10 Plan, 
p. 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. BACM/BACT and Adopted Control Strategy

1. Background
    Section 189(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires areas designated as 
Serious nonattainment for PM10 to implement BACM and BACT 
\55\ on all significant sources of direct PM10 and 
PM10 precursors. The CAA does not define a BACM-level of 
control for specific sources. In our guidance for Serious 
PM10 nonattainment area plans, the EPA defined BACM to be, 
among other things, the maximum degree of emission reduction achievable 
from a source or source category which is determined on a case-by-case 
basis, considering energy, economic and environmental impacts.\56\ 
Consistent with the General Preamble Addendum, a BACM analysis should 
include the following elements for the Owens Valley PM10 NA:

    \55\ BACT, which applies to stationary sources, is a subset of 
BACM.
    \56\ See 59 FR 41998, 42010 (August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Preparation of an inventory of PM10 sources;
     Identification of source categories having a greater than 
de minimis impact on ambient PM10 concentrations;
     Comparative analysis of the controls implemented in the 
Owens Valley PM10 NA and BACM in other Serious nonattainment 
areas for significant source categories; and
     Evaluation of reducing emissions from a particular source 
category and costs associated with controls.
2. Analysis
    The GBUAPCD BACM analysis, which addresses the four elements 
described in the General Preamble Addendum,\57\ is summarized below. 
The GBUAPCD's Rule 433 contains the BACM control measures for the Owens

[[Page 89415]]

Lake bed. The EPA approved Rule 433 into the SIP on November 10, 
2016.\58\ In addition, the GBUAPCD is directly implementing controls at 
the Keeler Dunes as discussed further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 2016 PM10 Plan, page 38.
    \58\ Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss signed the 
EPA's final action approving Rule 433 on November 10, 2016. It will 
be published in the Federal Register in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Inventory
    The emissions inventories included in the 2016 PM10 Plan 
and in additional information submitted on October 26, 2016 are 
summarized and evaluated in section II.A, above. As noted previously, 
the EPA is proposing to find that the 2016 PM10 Plan's 
emissions inventories for 2006 through 2019 are comprehensive, 
accurate, and current inventories of actual emissions from all sources 
in the Owens Valley PM10 NA and that these emissions 
inventories meet the requirements of Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA and 
the EPA.
b. Identification of Source Categories
    The General Preamble Addendum provides that BACM are required for 
all categories of sources in Serious areas unless the State adequately 
demonstrates a particular source category does not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS. A source category is 
presumed to contribute significantly to a violation of the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS if its PM10 impact at the location of 
expected violation would exceed 5 [mu]g/m\3\.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 59 FR 41998, 42011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine which sources contribute significantly to 
PM10 violations and are therefore subject to BACM level 
controls, the GBUAPCD selected a day on which measured levels of 
particulate approached the level of the standard and the predominant 
source of emissions was characterized as ``non-lake.'' The District 
noted that its choice is conservative because it ``produces a small de 
minimis emissions level and makes it feasible for non-lake sources to 
be considered significant.'' \60\ By dividing the threshold value for a 
significant contribution (i.e., 5 [mu]g/m\3\) by ambient level of 
PM10 on the chosen day (150.1 [mu]g/m\3\), Great Basin 
calculated a de minimis factor of 3.33 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 2016 PM10 Plan, page S-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GBUAPCD provided an inventory of sources of precursor emissions 
that we used to determine if sources of precursors contribute 
significantly to ambient levels of PM10 exceeding the 
standard in the Owens Valley PM10 NA. Because of the gaseous 
nature of precursor emissions, these compounds would have the potential 
for long distance transport, so emissions from the entire nonattainment 
area are considered. Adding together emissions of PM10 from 
within the near-lake area on a near exceedance day and precursor 
emissions from throughout the nonattainment area results in a total of 
535.37 tons per day of emissions. Multiplying this number by 3.33 
percent yields a de minimis threshold of 17.8 tons per day.
    In determining whether sources of precursors contribute 
significantly to PM10 levels, we made two conservative 
assumptions. First, we assumed that all precursor emissions would 
result in the formation of PM10. Second, we compared the 
total emissions for all precursors (i.e., 4.7 tons per day), rather 
than emissions of each precursor from each source category, to the de 
minimis threshold of 17.8 tons per day. Given total precursor emissions 
are far below the de minimis threshold, we conclude precursors do not 
contribute significantly to PM10 levels in the Owens Valley.
    To determine which sources of direct PM10 are 
significant, the District multiplied the near-exceedance day 
PM10 emissions inventory (530.65 tons per day \61\) by the 
de minimis factor, yielding a de minimis emissions threshold of 17.7 
tons per day.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ This number does not include precursor emissions, which is 
acceptable because precursors do not significantly contribute and 
excluding precursor emissions results in a slightly lower (more 
conservative) threshold for significance.
    \62\ 2016 PM10 Plan, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 below summarizes the sources of PM10 emissions 
in the Owens Lake subarea, on the analyzed day.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ The GBUAPCD notes that ``monitoring and modeling analyses 
indicate that emissions from off-lake sources more than two 
kilometers away do not have an impact on achieving attainment'' and 
cites a similar approach taken in the ``Five Percent Plan for 
PM10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area.'' Id. 
Page 56.

      Table 3--PM10 Exceedance Day Inventory for Owens Lake Subarea
                              [2 km buffer]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2015  (tons per
                       Category                            day) \64\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fugitive Windblown Dust from Exposed Lake Beds.......              45.30
Fugitive Windblown Dust from Keeler Dunes............             169.20
Fugitive Windblown Dust from Olancha Dunes...........             312.00
Other sources within the Owens Lake Subarea,                        4.15
 including mineral processing, paved and unpaved road
 dust, and the Lone Pine Landfill \65\...............
                                                      ------------------
    Total............................................             530.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the 17.7 tons per day threshold, the GBUAPCD identified three 
significant PM10 source categories in the OVPA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Id. Table S-2.
    \65\ BACT, which applies to stationary sources, is generally not 
applicable within the Owens Valley PM10 NA where all 
PM10 sources except for wind erosion from the dry Owens 
Lake bed and the dune systems are de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Fugitive windblown dust from exposed lake bed.
     Fugitive windblown dust from Keeler Dunes.
     Fugitive windblown dust from Olancha Dunes.
    Based on this analysis, the District focused its BACM demonstration 
on the controls required on the lake bed and on the Keeler Dunes.\66\ 
According to the GBUAPCD, the Olancha dunes are primarily natural. If 
PM10 violations are attributed to these dunes, the 
violations will be treated as natural events and a Natural Events 
Action Plan will be developed and implemented in accordance with the 
EPA's guidance and rules on Exceptional Events.\67\ Further, emissions 
from the Olancha Dunes are expected to be reduced by

[[Page 89416]]

about 2090 tons per year as the result of lake bed controls, which will 
reduce sand migration from nearby areas and allow redeposited lake bed 
particulate to winnow away until emissions are those of a natural dune 
system.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The GBUAPCD has investigated the history and morphology of 
the Keeler Dunes and determined that the drying of the Owens Lake 
bed resulted in the expansion of the pre-existing, natural dune 
area. 2016 PM10 Plan, page 61.
    \67\ Id. See Appendix V-1, ``OVPA 2016 SIP BACM Assessment,'' 
Appendix E, ``2013 GBUAPCD Board Order No. 130916-01,'' p. 7.
    \68\ Id., pp. 34 and 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Comparative Analysis
    To fulfill the requirement for a comparative analysis, the GBUAPCD 
searched for requirements for analogous lake bed and dune sources in 
other PM10 nonattainment areas including Imperial County, 
the San Joaquin Valley, Maricopa County (Phoenix area), the South 
Coast, and Clark County (Las Vegas area). However, the District was 
unable to identify any analogous active controls for these kinds of 
sources in other areas. The District concludes that ``these measures 
are unique in the US and are, by definition, the most stringent 
requirements for these sources.'' \69\ A description of the lake bed 
and dune controls follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Id. See Appendix V-1, ``OVPA 2016 SIP BACM Assessment,'' p. 
22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Lake Bed Controls
    Lake bed controls are set forth in the GBUAPCD's Rule 433, which is 
included in the 2016 PM10 Plan. The EPA has approved Rule 
433 into the SIP in a separate action.\70\ Rule 433 requires the 
control measures described in Chapter 6 of the 2016 PM10 
Plan and summarized in our TSD to be implemented by the City of Los 
Angeles on various portions of the dry Owens Lake bed.\71\ In brief, 
Rule 433 requires the City of Los Angeles to conduct shallow flooding 
through application of water, install managed vegetation or a gravel 
blanket, or in some cases use tillage with a brine back-up. These 
control measures typically result in a 99 to 100 percent control 
efficiency. Beginning in 2001, lake bed controls have been constructed 
in phases as modeling and empirical evidence have demonstrated the need 
for additional controls. Rule 433 requires ongoing implementation of 
previously established control requirements and includes an enforceable 
implementation schedule for the most recent phase of controls, with all 
controls in place in the attainment year of 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 81 FR 62849 (September 13, 2016); final approval signed 
November 10, 2016.
    \71\ For more detail on the Owens Lake bed controls, see Chapter 
6 of the 2016 PM10 Plan and our TSD. Some of these 
control measures are also described in our proposed approval of the 
1998 Plan (64 FR 34173, June 25, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Dune Controls
    The District is in the process of implementing a dust control 
project on Keeler Dunes that involves the placement of approximately 
82,000 straw bales and planting of approximately 246,000 native 
shrubs.\72\ The goal of the project is to create a stable, non-
emissive, low-impact vegetated dune system that requires minimal 
resources to maintain. The placement of the straw bales was completed 
in 2015 and plantings are scheduled to be complete by the end of 2016. 
At full build-out, the GBUACPD projects the project will reduce 
PM10 emissions by approximately 95 percent and bring the 
community of Keeler into compliance with state and federal 
PM10 standards.\73\ Implementation of this project is made 
federally enforceable by approval of the 2016 PM10 Plan, 
which includes Resolution 2016-03 wherein the Governing Board of the 
GBUAPCD authorizes and commits the District to complete the Keeler 
Dunes Project as set forth in the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ As noted above, no additional active controls are 
anticipated for the Olancha Dunes.
    \73\ 2016 PM10 Plan, pp. 19 and 50-53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the context of its environmental review of the Keeler Dunes 
Project, the District considered alternatives for reducing the 
windblown dust from the Keeler Dunes, such as covering with geotextile 
fabric and gravel or excavation and removal of the dunes, but found 
them to be infeasible.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Id. See Appendix V-1, ``OVPA 2016 SIP BACM Assessment,'' 
pp. 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Evaluation of Reducing Emissions From Windblown Dust and Associated 
Costs
    The GBUAPCD estimated cost and emission impacts of the exposed lake 
bed and Keeler Dune controls as shown in Table 4 below:

         Table 4--Impact Analysis: Control Effectiveness, Cost Information, and Cost Effectiveness \75\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Cost
  Source category (and windblown      Average annual          Control               Costs          effectiveness
          dust controls)             emissions (tons)      effectiveness                              (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Lake Bed (varied controls,     2006: 73,174; 2010:  Up to 99 percent     $145.8M                      $2,390
 including shallow flooding,        43,325; 2014:        depending on         (annualized) for
 gravel blanket, and managed        1,936                control and          2016 SIP.
 vegetation. See Rule 433.).                             location.
Off-Lake Dunes (straw bales and    3,309..............  95 percent based on  $700,000                        222
 re-vegetation).                                         straw bales with     (annualized) for
                                                         future shrub         straw bales and
                                                         establishment.       revegetation with
                                                                              watering.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
    In the 2016 PM10 Plan, the GBUAPCD has provided 
documentation on Rule 433 and on the Keeler Dunes Project, quantifying 
the cost of construction, materials, operation, and maintenance, and 
examining other factors such as energy and environmental impacts. The 
EPA agrees that adequate time must be allowed to fully implement Rule 
433 successfully because the control measures in the Rule are uniquely 
vast in scale, materials, and required construction activity. Rule 433 
establishes an aggressive, phased, implementation schedule that we are 
proposing to find is as expeditious as practicable. We also find that 
the implementation schedule for the Keeler Dunes project is as 
expeditious as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Id. See Appendix V-1, ``OVPA 2016 SIP BACM Assessment,'' p. 
21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA concludes that the 2016 PM10 Plan demonstrates:
    (1) Wind erosion from the dry Owens Lake bed (and secondarily, from 
the Keeler Dunes, which have expanded as a result of redeposited 
particles transported from the dry lake bed \76\), is the predominant 
source of PM10 emissions that cause or contribute to 
PM10 violations in the Owens Valley PM10 NA and 
that applying BACM to

[[Page 89417]]

other source categories would not contribute significantly to achieving 
the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Id., page 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Rule 433's control measures to reduce windblown dust from the 
dry Owens Lake bed and area immediately surrounding the bed of Owens 
Lake are unique and satisfy the requirement for BACM.
    (3) The goal of the Keeler Dunes Project is to create a stable 
self-sustaining low-impact vegetated dune system to reduce wind 
erosion. Implementation of these controls represents BACM since there 
are no analogous dust control projects or alternative controls for this 
type of source; and
    (4) No analogous source has been identified to support the economic 
and technological feasibility of any alternative or additional measures 
for the control of significant sources of wind erosion emissions in the 
Owens Valley PM10 NA.

E. Reasonable Further Progress/Quantitative Milestones

    CAA section 189(c) requires that PM10 nonattainment 
areas must include quantitative milestones that are to be achieved 
every three years and that show RFP toward attainment by the applicable 
attainment deadline. Quantitative milestones may be met in a variety of 
ways, including by establishing a percent implementation of various 
control strategies, by percent compliance with implemented control 
measures, or adherence to a compliance schedule.\77\ Prior to submittal 
of the 2016 PM10 Plan, lake bed controls were established 
that yielded significant emissions reductions, as reflected in the 
annual emissions inventory \78\ and illustrated in Figure 8-1 of the 
Plan. Unsurprisingly, given the variable nature of the emissions 
sources and the periodic delays due to disputed control measures, the 
decline is not linear; however, as noted previously, reductions 
sufficient to provide for attainment will be achieved within the 
required timeframe. Under the circumstances, we find that the progress 
achieved prior to the 2016 adoption of the Plan is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 59 FR 41998 at 42016.
    \78\ 2016 PM10 Plan, Table 4-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GBUAPCD's Rule 433 and the Keeler Dunes Project establish 
requirements for additional controls that will be completed in 2017 and 
that provide for additional emissions reductions. Under Rule 433, the 
City of Los Angeles must continue to implement all control measures 
that are already in place,\79\ and must implement Phase 9/10, which 
requires the control of an additional 3.62 square miles of the Owens 
Lake bed by December 31, 2017. These control requirements include 
enforceable schedules for implementation of the specified control 
measures, and the Plan includes quantification of the emissions 
reductions that will be achieved by implementation of the control 
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ These areas consist of the 2003 Dust Control Area (29.8 
square miles), the 2006 Dust Control Area and Channel Area (13.2 
square miles), and the Phase 8 area (2.0 square miles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its discussion of the requirement for quantitative milestone 
reports, the District noted that the remaining milestone for the 2016 
PM10 Plan is the completion of the Phase 9/10 dust controls, 
which are enforceable through Rule 433. In other words, the final 
quantitative milestone for the 2016 PM10 Plan is 100 percent 
implementation of the required controls. The GBUAPCD commits to 
submitting a report to the EPA by April 1, 2018, as required by Section 
189(c)(2) of the Act, that demonstrates RFP thorough the achievement of 
the December 31, 2017 quantitative milestone.
    The EPA proposes to approve the enforceable schedule in Rule 433 
and commitment for completion of the Keeler Dunes Project in 2016 as 
meeting the RFP requirements of CAA section 189(c).

F. Contingency Measures

    The CAA requires that the 2016 PM10 Plan include 
contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet 
progress requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable 
deadline. These contingency measures should take effect without 
requiring further action by the state or the EPA and should be fully 
implemented as expeditiously as practicable.\80\ Contingency measures 
should also provide for emissions reductions equivalent to one year's 
average increment of RFP.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 59 FR 41998 at 42015.
    \81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because it is not possible to predict which areas of the lake bed 
may become emissive and cause a failure to meet progress requirements 
or to attain the NAAQS, Rule 433 requires the District to evaluate at 
least once per calendar year whether additional areas of the lake bed 
require controls. If the GBUAPCD determines that the Owens Valley 
PM10 NA has not met progress requirements or will not timely 
attain, Rule 433 requires the implementation of BACM control measures 
on up to an additional 4.78 square miles of the Owens Lake bed as 
expeditiously as practicable. The implementation of the contingency 
measure in Rule 433 does not require additional rulemaking actions or 
public hearings. The EPA has concluded, therefore, that the contingency 
measure included in the 2016 PM10 Plan through adopted Rule 
433 provides for the implementation of contingency measures as 
expeditiously as practicable.
    The GBUAPCD has demonstrated that the dry lake bed is the 
overwhelming contributor the exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS, 
both through PM10 originating directly from the lake bed, or 
from lake bed particles that have been deposited nearby, which then 
become a secondary source of particulate (e.g., the Keeler Dunes).\82\ 
Therefore, we have focused our analysis on the control of emissions 
emanating from the lake bed in assessing whether the contingency 
measure in the 2016 PM10 Plan provides a year's worth of 
average RFP increment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ For additional discussion, see Chapter 7 of the 2016 
PM10 Plan and the attainment demonstration analysis in 
the TSD for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Determining the amount of emissions reductions needed for 
contingency measures (i.e., a year's worth of reductions) presents a 
unique challenge in the Owens Valley PM10 NA due to the 
nature of the lake bed and the meteorological influence on emissions, 
which leads to a degree of variability in annual emissions that is 
somewhat independent of the application of controls. For this reason, 
we have used the annual average area of the lake bed on which controls 
are required for the period of 2007 (the year the EPA made a finding of 
failure to attain) through 2017 (the attainment year) as a surrogate 
for the annual amount (tons) of emissions reductions required. This 
results in an annual average area of 1.8 square miles.\83\ Rule 433 
provides for the implementation of controls on an additional 4.78 
square miles of lake bed, which is more than double the annual average. 
We therefore conclude the contingency measure provisions in Rule 433 
satisfy the contingency measure requirements under CAA section 
172(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ A total of 18.2 square miles will be controlled in 10-year 
period of 2007 through 2017 (the 2006 Dust Control and Channel Area 
encompasses 13.2 square miles; the Phase 8 Area encompasses 2.0 
square miles; the Phase 9/10 Area encompasses 3.62--the 
provisionally excluded Cultural Resource Areas encompass 
approximately 0.6 square miles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). Our 
conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires that 
transportation plans, programs, and

[[Page 89418]]

projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and 
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not 
they do so. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities 
will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing 
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or the timely 
achievement of interim milestones. However, if the EPA determines that 
a SIP demonstrates that motor vehicle emissions are an insignificant 
contributor to the air quality problem, states are not required to 
establish motor vehicle emissions budgets or perform a regional 
emissions analysis for transportation conformity purposes.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 40 CFR 93.109(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section 6.1.2 of the Plan, the GBUAPCD provides its argument for 
why motor vehicle emissions are insignificant contributors to the 
PM10 problem in the Owens Valley PM10 NA. First, 
the District noted that motor vehicle tailpipe emissions and re-
entrained roadway dust contribute just 1.4 percent of the 2016 
PM10 emissions. The District also observed that the State 
estimates the annual population growth (about 0.7 percent) and increase 
in vehicle miles traveled (about 1.2 percent annually) and argued that 
it is unlikely that ``these emissions would grow to such an extent as 
to cause a NAAQS violation in the future.'' Finally, the District 
pointed out the absence of measures in the SIP that control motor 
vehicle emissions. In light of these factors, the EPA concurs with the 
District's conclusion that motor vehicle emissions are insignificant 
contributors to the PM10 problem in the Owens Valley. 
Accordingly, the GBUAPCD is not required to establish motor vehicle 
budgets in this plan or to perform regional emissions analyses for 
transportation conformity.

III. Summary of the EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the Serious area 2016 
PM10 Plan submitted by the State of California for the Owens 
Valley PM10 nonattainment area. Specifically, the EPA is 
proposing to approve the 2016 PM10 Plan with respect to the 
CAA requirements for public notice and involvement under section 
110(a)(1); emissions inventories under section 172(c)(3); the control 
measures in Rule 433 under section 110(k)(3), as meeting the 
requirements of sections 110(a) and 189(b)(1)(B); RFP and quantitative 
milestones under section 189(c); the contingency measure in Rule 433 
under section 172(c)(9); and demonstration of attainment under section 
189(b)(1)(A). The EPA is also proposing to approve the State's request 
for an extension of the attainment date to June 6, 2017 pursuant to CAA 
sections 188 and 179.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law 
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000). We intend to offer to consult with local tribes during the 
comment period.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 1, 2016.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-29758 Filed 12-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P