[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19034-19045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06578]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0972; FRL-R9-10529-01]
Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for the Coso Junction PM-10
Planning Area; California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the ``Coso Junction PM10 Planning Area Second 10-
Year Maintenance Plan'' (``Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan'' or
``Plan'') as a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) for the
State of California. The Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan
includes, among other elements, a base year emissions inventory, a
maintenance demonstration, and contingency provisions. The EPA is
proposing this action because the SIP revision meets the applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements for such plans. The EPA is also
proposing to find the contribution of motor vehicles to the area's
continued attainment of the 1987 PM10 standard to be
insignificant and is initiating the adequacy review process for this
insignificance finding through this Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM). If this insignificance finding is finalized, the area would not
have to complete a regional emissions analysis for any transportation
conformity determinations necessary for the Coso Junction Planning Area
(CJPA).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0972 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lindsay Wickersham, EPA Region IX
(ARD-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415)
947-4192, or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. The PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
B. The Coso Junction PM10 Planning Area
C. Air Quality in the Coso Junction Planning Area
II. California's State Implementation Plan Submittal
III. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of State
Implementation Plan Revisions
IV. Requirements for Second 10-Year Maintenance Plans
V. Evaluation of the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan
A. Emissions Inventories Overview
B. Maintenance Demonstration
C. PM10 Air Quality Monitoring Network
D. Verification of Continued Attainment
E. Contingency Provisions
F. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
VI. Environmental Justice Considerations
VII. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. The PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the ``Act'') grants the
EPA the authority to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or ``standards'') for certain ambient air pollutants in order to
protect public health and welfare.\1\ Particulate matter (PM) refers to
the mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. PM
is among the ambient air pollutants for which the EPA has established
health-based standards. PM10 is defined as inhalable
particles with diameters that are 10 micrometers or less.
PM10 can cause adverse health effects by penetrating deep
into the lungs and blood stream, leading to lung damage, increased
respiratory disease, and premature death. Children, the elderly, and
people with asthma and heart conditions are the most vulnerable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAA section 109(b). For a given air pollutant, ``primary''
standards are those determined by the EPA as requisite to protect
the public health. ``Secondary'' standards are those determined by
the EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air
pollutant in the ambient air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 1, 1987, the EPA established primary and secondary NAAQS
for PM10.\2\ At that time, the EPA established two
PM10 standards: an annual standard and a 24-hour
standard.\3\ Effective December 18, 2006, the EPA revoked the annual
PM10 standard but retained the 24-hour PM10
standard.\4\ An area attains the 24-hour standard of 150 micrograms per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) when the expected number of days per
calendar year with a 24-hour concentration above the standard (referred
to as an ``exceedance''),\5\ averaged over three years, is equal to or
less than one. The expected number of exceedances averaged over a
three-year period at any regulatory monitor is known as the
PM10 design value. The PM10 design value for the
area is the highest design value within the nonattainment area.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 52 FR 24634.
\3\ The primary and secondary standards were set at the same
level for both the 24-hour and the annual PM10 standards.
\4\ 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).
\5\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the
level of the 24-hour standard (i.e., 150 [micro]g/m\3\) after
rounding to the nearest 10 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e., values ending in
five or greater are to be rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154
[micro]g/m\3\ would not be an exceedance because it would be rounded
to 150 [micro]g/m\3\. A recorded value of 155 [micro]g/m\3\ would be
an exceedance because it would be rounded to 160 [micro]g/m\3\. 40
CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0.
\6\ 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. The comparison
with the allowable expected exceedance rate of one per year averaged
over three years is made in terms of a number rounded to the nearest
tenth (fractional values equal to or greater than 0.05 are to be
rounded up; e.g., an exceedance rate of 1.05 would be rounded to
1.1, which is the minimum design value for nonattainment). 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K, section 2.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, the EPA determines whether an area's air quality is
meeting the PM10 NAAQS based on the most
[[Page 19035]]
recent complete,\7\ quality-assured, and certified data measured at
established state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in the
nonattainment area and entered into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
database. Data from air monitoring sites operated by state, local, or
tribal agencies in compliance with the EPA's monitoring requirements
must be submitted to AQS. These monitoring agencies annually certify
that these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge.
Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when determining
the attainment status of an area.\8\ All valid data are reviewed to
determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part
50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For PM10, a complete year of air quality data
includes all four calendar quarters with each quarter having valid
data on a minimum of 75 percent of the scheduled PM10
sampling days. 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3(a).
\8\ 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; and
40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D, and E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Coso Junction PM10 Planning Area
Through its enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress
designated certain areas of the country as nonattainment areas for the
PM10 NAAQS. The Searles Valley Planning Area was one of the
areas designated as nonattainment. In 1991, the EPA classified the
Searles Valley planning area as a ``Moderate'' PM10
nonattainment area.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Searles Valley Planning Area included three subregions (Coso
Junction, Indian Wells Valley, and Trona) under the planning
jurisdiction of different air pollution control agencies. On August 6,
2002, the EPA changed the boundaries of the Searles Valley
PM10 nonattainment area by dividing this area into three
separate, newly-created PM10 nonattainment areas, one of
which is the CJPA.\10\ The CJPA is under the planning jurisdiction of
the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD or
``District'').\11\ It covers approximately 792 square miles of sparsely
populated, arid, high desert that receives less than five inches of
rain per year. The CJPA is flanked by the Sierra Nevada Mountains to
the west and the Coso Range to the east. A majority of the CJPA is
covered by the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, which is generally
restricted from public access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 67 FR 50805 (August 6, 2002).
\11\ For a description of the geographic boundaries of the CJPA,
see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Lake, located in neighboring Inyo County and within the Owens
Valley Planning Area, is also under the jurisdiction of GBUAPCD.\12\
Starting in 1913, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power began
diverting water from Owens Lake until the lake was almost completely
dry. Winds blowing over the dry, alkaline bed of Owens Lake have
produced among the highest measured concentrations of PM10
ever recorded and can have impacts as far as 150 miles away.\13\ To
mitigate impacts of Owens Lake dust, the GBUAPCD developed the controls
and plans for the Owens Valley Planning Area with many participants
including the California Air Resources Board (CARB), Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, the City of Los Angeles, tribal
governments, federal land managers, the Navy, the State Lands
Commission, and members of the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For the history of Owens Lake and its impact on the CJPA,
see 75 FR 36023 (June 24, 2010).
\13\ 64 FR 34173 (June 25, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since approval of the 1998 PM10 Plan for the Owens
Valley Planning Area,\14\ 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 Lakebed and surrounding near-lake sources. Decades of work by
the GBUAPCD and the City of Los Angeles culminated in the District's
adoption and the EPA's approval of Rule 433, ``Control of Particulate
Emissions at Owens Lake,'' into the SIP in 2016.\15\ Rule 433 requires
the City of Los Angeles to implement dust control measures, including
shallow flooding, managed vegetation, and application of gravel on
designated areas of Owens Lake.\16\ The implementation of these dust
control measures has led to more than a 90 percent decrease in
emissions from Owens Lake \17\ and significant improvement in the air
quality in the CJPA.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 82 FR 13390 (March 13, 2017).
\15\ 81 FR 95473 (December 28, 2016).
\16\ GPUAPCD Rule 433, ``Control of Particulate Emissions at
Owens lake,'' adopted April 13, 2016.
\17\ 75 FR 36023.
\18\ The number of monitored and expected exceedances at the
Rose Valley monitoring station in the CJPA has dropped from a high
of 12 exceedances per year to the value of 1 per year, excluding
exceptional events, in 2020. See Table 2 in the Coso Junction Second
Maintenance Plan for a summary of exceedances from 1985 through
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2010, the EPA determined that the CJPA had attained the
24-hour PM10 NAAQS.\19\ The determination was based on
complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data
that showed the area monitored attainment of the PM10 NAAQS
during 2006-2008.\20\ On September 3, 2010, the EPA finalized approval
of the submitted ``2010 PM10 Maintenance Plan and
Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area'' (``2010
Maintenance Plan'') and redesignated the CJPA to attainment, effective
October 4, 2010.\21\ This redesignation was based on EPA's review of
the 2010 Maintenance Plan, air quality monitoring data, and other
relevant materials that satisfied all requirements for redesignation of
the CJPA to attainment, pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A.
Additionally, the maintenance plan was approved as it was consistent
with applicable CAA provisions and EPA guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 75 FR 27944.
\20\ Id.
\21\ 75 FR 54031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBUAPCD is a monitoring organization within the CARB Primary
Quality Assurance Organization. GBUAPCD operates the PM10
monitoring network in the CJPA. GBUAPCD submits annual monitoring
network plans to the EPA that describe the monitoring network operated
by GBUAPCD within the CJPA and discuss the status of the air monitoring
network, as required under 40 CFR 58.10.\22\ The EPA regularly reviews
these annual plans for compliance with the applicable reporting
requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With respect to PM10, the
EPA has found that GBUAPCD's network plans meet the applicable
reporting requirements for the area under 40 CFR part 58, appendix
D.\23\ GBUAPCD annually certifies that the data it submits to AQS are
complete and quality-assured.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The most recent annual network plan was submitted via email
dated April 26, 2022, from Chris Howard, GBUAPCD, to Gwen Yoshimura,
EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Great Basin Unified APCD Ambient Air
Monitoring Data Certification for 2021,'' with attachment.
\23\ For example, see letter dated December 19, 2022, from Gwen
Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to
Phillip Kiddoo, Air Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD.
\24\ See email dated April 26, 2022, from Chris Howard, GBUAPCD,
to Gwen Yoshimura, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Great Basin Unified
APCD Ambient Air Monitoring Data Certification for 2021,'' with
attachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District operates one PM10 monitoring station for
the CJPA. The monitoring station is located near the State of
California Coso Junction rest area in Rose Valley.\25\ The monitoring
site is a designated SLAMS and collects hourly PM10 data in
accordance with 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Figure 3 in the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19036]]
C. Air Quality in the Coso Junction Planning Area
While the CJPA has had annual average PM10
concentrations of less than 20 [micro]g/m\3\ over the past 10 years,
the PM10 monitoring data within the CJPA includes 17
exceedances of the standard recorded during 2010-2020, as detailed in
Table 1 of the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan.\26\ Since the
submittal of the Plan, an additional three exceedances occurred in
2021; these exceedances occurred on September 19, September 27, and
October 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix A includes
the daily average PM10 monitor readings from the CJPA and
surrounding monitor stations for every day from January 1, 2010, to
December 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 1, 2022, the District and CARB submitted a document
titled, ``Discussion of Coso Junction Federal PM10
Exceedances Not Requested for Exclusion from the NAAQS, 2010 through
2021,'' (``Exceedance Discussion'').\27\ The Exceedance Discussion
documents the District's response to the exceedances that were not
requested for exclusion as exceptional events between the years of 2010
and 2021. For exceedances that occurred before the adoption of the Coso
Junction Second Maintenance Plan by the State on September 23, 2021,
the District implemented its contingency plan as outlined in Section
5.1 of the 2010 Maintenance Plan. Exceedances that occurred after
September 23, 2021, were subject to the contingency plan described in
Section 7 of the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, and in Section
V.E of this document. Details of the subsequent investigations and
District actions taken are outlined in Table 3 of the Exceedance
Discussion and are consistent with the language of both the 2010
Maintenance Plan and the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan.\28\
Table 1 of this document lists the exceedances that occurred, the
source of the exceedance, and the action taken by the District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Submitted via email on September 1, 2022 from Sylvia
Vanderspek, CARB, to Gwen Yoshimura, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``FW:
Coso Junction Initial Notification Forms for 2nd PM10 MP
Contingency.'' with attachments.
\28\ Id., attachment titled ``Discussion of PM10
Exceedances at Coso Junction 2010 through 2021.pdf.''
Table 1--Exceedances in Coso Junction From 2010 Through 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceedance date Source of exceedance District course of action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/8/2011...................... North wind: regional event... 2010 Maintenance Plan contingency provisions
triggered. Phase 7a and Phase 8 dust controls
ordered and implemented on Owens Lake.
11/30/2011.................... North wind: regional event... 2010 Maintenance Plan contingency provisions
triggered. Phase 7a and Phase 8 dust controls
ordered and implemented on Owens Lake.
12/1/2011..................... North wind: regional event 2010 Maintenance Plan contingency provisions
compounded by Owens Lake triggered. Phase 7a and Phase 8 dust controls
emissions, notably Phase 8 ordered and implemented on Owens Lake.
pre-gravel.
3/6/2012...................... West wind: local sources..... Not requested for exclusion as an Exceptional
Event. No local sources identified as requiring
control. No contingency provisions triggered.
8/7/2013...................... West wind: flash flood Requested for exclusion as Exceptional Event; the
deposits. EPA deferred review.
9/25/2013..................... West wind: flash flood Requested for exclusion as Exceptional Event; the
deposits. EPA deferred review.
2/16/2014..................... West wind: flash flood Requested for exclusion as Exceptional Event; the
deposits. EPA deferred review.
4/25/2014..................... West wind: flash flood Requested for exclusion as Exceptional Event; The
deposits. EPA deferred review.
12/31/2014.................... North wind: regional event, No Owens Lake or other sources identified as
compounded by sources south requiring control. No contingency provisions
of Owens Lake. triggered.
11/16/2016.................... West wind: local sources..... Utilized existing District regulations, including
District Rule 401, to ensure compliance with
local sources.
3/31/2017..................... North wind: regional event... 2010 Maintenance Plan contingency provisions
triggered. District enforced timeline for
ordered Owens Lake BACM construction and
implementation. District continued to monitor,
evaluate emissions from Owens Lake and
surrounding areas.
7/29/2017..................... Local sources: paving District took enforcement action to bring the
operations \a\. local emissive stationary source into compliance
under District Rule 401. No additional actions
or contingency provisions required.
12/20/2017.................... West wind: local sources..... Utilize existing District regulations, including
District Rule 401, to ensure compliance with
local sources. No additional contingency
provisions triggered.
2/11/2018..................... West wind: local sources..... Utilize existing District regulations, including
District Rule 401, to ensure compliance with
local stationary sources. No additional
contingency provisions triggered.
9/2/2019...................... Regional windblown dust: Not requested for exclusion as an Exceptional
local sources. Event at this time due to mixed source
contributions. Health advisories issued per
District Rule 701 and the 2018 Coso Junction
Exceptional Event Mitigation Plan.
9/7/2020...................... Creek Fire/SQF Complex Exceptional Event demonstration submitted and
wildfire smoke. concurred on by the EPA.
9/8/2020...................... Creek Fire/SQF Complex Not requested for exclusion as an Exceptional
wildfire smoke followed by Event at this time due to mixed source
regional windblown dust. contributions. Health advisories issued per
District Rule 701 and the 2018 Coso Junction
Exceptional Event Mitigation Plan.
9/19/2021..................... Windy Fire/KNP Complex The District submitted request for exclusion from
wildfire smoke. contingency measure trigger calculation; the EPA
concurred.
9/27/2021..................... Windy Fire/KNP Complex The District submitted request for exclusion from
wildfire smoke. contingency measure trigger calculation; the EPA
concurred.
10/11/2021.................... West Wind: local sources..... The District took enforcement action to bring the
source into compliance under existing District
rules and regulations including District Rule
401. No additional contingency provisions
triggered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ AQS information qualifier code ``J-construction.''
Source: Exceedance Discussion, Table 1 and Table 3.
[[Page 19037]]
1. Exceedances in the Coso Junction Planning Area
The District requested exclusion of 5 of the 17 exceedances due to
exceptional events as defined in section 319(b) of the Act and its
implementing regulations, referred to herein as the Exceptional Events
Rule.\29\ The Exceptional Events Rule defines an exceptional event as
an event and its resulting emissions that the EPA determines affects
air quality in such a way that there is a clear causal relationship
between the event and a monitored exceedance (or violation) that is not
reasonably controllable or preventable. Such events can be natural (for
example, high winds or wildfires) or can be caused by human activity
that is unlikely to recur.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 72 FR 13560 (March 22, 2007); revised 81 FR 68216 (October
3, 2016).
\30\ 40 CFR 50.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 3, 2016, the District submitted an initial notification of
intent (INI) form to request exclusion under the Exceptional Events
Rule for exceedances that occurred on four days: August 7, 2013,
September 25, 2013, February 16, 2014, and April 25, 2014.\31\ The EPA
deferred review of the data from these events because we did not
anticipate the events will affect any future regulatory decision.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Email dated May 3, 2016, from Chris Lanane, Air Monitoring
Specialist, GBUAPCD, to Randall Chang, EPA Region IX, Subject:
``Fwd: Exceptional Event Documentation for Coso Junction,'' with
attachment.
\32\ Email dated June 1, 2016, from Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region
IX, to Chris Lanane, GBUAPCD, and Theresa Najita, CARB, Subject:
``Coso Junction PM10 High Wind Exceptional Events.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 24, 2021, CARB submitted a demonstration for a wildfire
smoke PM10 exceptional event for an exceedance recorded on
September 7, 2020, at the CJPA monitoring station.\33\ The
demonstration includes a narrative conceptual model of the event that
describes the event-specific characteristics, evidence showing the
exceedance was not reasonably controllable or preventable, and evidence
of the clear causal relationship between the wildfire smoke event and
the exceedance flagged as an exceptional event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Email dated August 24, 2021, from Clawson Candance, CARB,
to Michael Benjamin, CARB, Subject: ``CARB letter to EPA GBUAPCD
PM10 NEE_signed, EPA Cvr Ltr--2021 2nd Maint. Plan-EE
Submittal-2021073_signed and GBUAPCD Exceptional Event Demonstration
September 7 2020 FINAL,'' with three attachments. While submitted by
CARB, the demonstrations and addendums were developed through a
joint effort by CARB and the GBUAPCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA reviewed the documentation that CARB and the District
developed to demonstrate that the exceedance on September 7, 2020,
meets the criteria for an exceptional event under the Exceptional
Events Rule. As conveyed in the EPA's concurrence letter, we concurred
that, based on the weight of evidence, the September 7, 2020 exceedance
was caused by exceptional events due to the Creek Fire in the Sierra
National Forest and the SQF Complex wildfire in the Sequoia National
Forest.\34\ Accordingly, the EPA determined that the monitored
exceedances associated with this exceptional event should be excluded
from use in determinations of exceedances and violations, including the
evaluation of whether the Coso Junction PM10 nonattainment
area has maintained the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Email dated July 12, 2022, from Anna Mebust, EPA Region IX,
to Sylvia Vanderspek, CARB, Subject: ``EPA Concurrence on 2020
PM10 Wildfire Exceptional Event,'' with attachments,
``DD_Concurrence_Letter.pdf;''
``CosoJunctionWildfirePM10_ConcurrenceTSD.pdf.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly before the State submitted the Coso Junction Second
Maintenance Plan, three additional exceedances of the PM10
NAAQS were recorded on September 19, 2021, September 27, 2021, and
October 11, 2021. The District has submitted INI forms and additional
supporting information for two of the three exceedances and the EPA has
reviewed this information as discussed further in Section I.C.2 of this
document.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Submitted via email on September 1, 2022, from Sylvia
Vanderspek, CARB to Gwen Yoshimura, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``FW:
Coso Junction Initial Notification Forms for 2nd PM10 MP
Contingency,'' with attachments, ``INI 2010-2020 Coso Junction
PM10.pdf,'' ``Discussion of PM10 Exceedances
at Coso Junction 2010 through 2021.pdf,'' ``INI 2021 Coso Junction
PM10.pdf,'' and ``Coso Junction 2021 Wildfire Smoke
Exceedances.pdf.'' For INI forms, see attachment ``INI 2021 Coso
Junction PM10.pdf'' and for additional information
documenting the District's claim, see ``Coso Junction 2021 Wildfire
Smoke Exceedances.pdf.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Design Value in the Coso Junction Planning Area
Based on a review of air quality data during the three-year period
covered by the Plan (2018-2020), excluding the exceedance flagged by
CARB and GBUAPCD and concurred with by the EPA as an exceptional event,
we find that the 2020 design value for the Coso Junction
PM10 nonattainment area is 1.0 and therefore is consistent
with maintenance of the standard.
As discussed in Section I.C.1 of this document, in 2021 there were
three additional exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in the area.
These additional exceedances in 2021 caused the number of exceedances
recorded at the air monitor averaged over three consecutive years
(i.e., 2019-2021) to be greater than 1.05. The District and CARB
provided information to the EPA about the six exceedances that occurred
in 2019-2021 that explained that three of the exceedances were not
within the State's or the District's control.\36\ The information CARB
and the District provided indicates that the September 7, 2020,
September 19, 2021, and September 27, 2021 exceedances were all caused
by wildfire smoke. The EPA has reviewed the information provided by the
State regarding the 2019-2021 exceedances, and we agree that this
information does not call into question the EPA's proposed action
herein to approve the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan as
providing for maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id.
\37\ Letter dated November 14, 2022, from Gwen Yoshimura,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Sylvia
Vanderspek, Branch Chief, CARB, titled, ``Re: EPA Response to Coso
Junction initial Notification Forms for 2nd PM10 MP
Contingency, September 1, 2022.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. California's State Implementation Plan Submittal
In California, CARB is the state agency responsible for the
adoption and submission to the EPA of California SIPs and SIP
revisions, and it has broad authority to establish emissions standards
and other requirements for mobile sources. Local and regional air
pollution control districts in California are responsible for the
regulation of stationary sources and are generally responsible for the
development of air quality plans. In the portion of Inyo County that
contains the CJPA, GBUAPCD develops and adopts air quality plans to
address CAA planning requirements applicable to the CJPA. Such plans
are then submitted to CARB for adoption and submittal to the EPA as
revisions to the California SIP.
On October 21, 2021, CARB submitted the ``Coso Junction
PM10 Planning Area Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan (July
2019)'' (``Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan'' or ``the Plan'') for
the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.\38\ The Coso Junction Second
Maintenance Plan includes a demonstration that the area is expected to
remain in attainment for the PM10 NAAQS through the last
year of the second 10-year maintenance period, through 2030. If
approval of this plan is finalized, the maintenance period for the CJPA
will end on October 4, 2030, along with the conformity requirements for
this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Letter dated October 20, 2021, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX (submitted electronically October 21,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19038]]
III. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of State
Implementation Plan Revisions
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and section 110(l) require states to
provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to
adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet these
procedural requirements, every SIP submission should include evidence
that the state provided adequate public notice and an opportunity for a
public hearing consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40
CFR 51.102.
CARB's October 21, 2021 SIP submittal package includes
documentation of the public processes used by the District and CARB to
adopt the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan.\39\ As documented in
the submittal package, on May 28, 2021, the District published a notice
in the Tahoe Daily Tribune, a newspaper in general circulation in South
Lake Tahoe, that a public hearing to consider adoption of the Plan
would be held on July 1, 2021.\40\ This same notice was re-published by
the District on May 29, 2021, in The Sheet and in The Inyo Register,
newspapers in general circulation in Mono and Inyo counties,
respectively.\41\ As documented in GBUAPCD Resolution No. 2021-04
included in the SIP revision submittal package, the Governing Board of
the GBUAPCD adopted the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan on July
1, 2021, following the public hearing.\42\ CARB published on its
website a notice of public hearing to be held on September 23, 2021, to
consider adoption of the Plan.\43\ As evidenced by CARB Resolution 21-
19, CARB adopted the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan on September
23, 2021, following a public hearing.\44\ Based on documentation
included in the October 21, 2021 SIP revision submittal package, both
the District and CARB have satisfied the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior
to adoption and submission of the Plan. Therefore, the submission of
the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan meets the procedural
requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and
110(l) and in 40 CFR 51.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ In this package, CARB submitted an unsigned version of its
``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Coso Junction PM10
Maintenance Plan SIP Submittal.'' On December 28, 2022, the EPA
received a signed and dated copy of this document from the District.
Both documents are included in the docket for this action.
\40\ ``Notice of Public Hearing Adoption and Approval of 2021
Coso Junction PM10 Planning Area Second 10-Year
Maintenance Plan,'' Phillip L. Kiddoo, Air Pollution Control
Officer, GBUAPCD.
\41\ Id.
\42\ GBUAPCD, ``B/O #210701-05,'' dated July 1, 2021, attested
by Tori DeHaven, Clerk of the Board.
\43\ ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Coso Junction
PM10 Maintenance Plan SIP Submittal,'' Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/cosojunctionpm10sipnotice.pdf.
\44\ Proposed agenda dated September 23, 2021, ``Coso Junction
PM10 Planning Area Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan,
Resolution 21-19,'' CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Requirements for Second 10-Year Maintenance Plans
Section 175A of the CAA provides the general framework for
maintenance plans. The initial 10-year maintenance plan must provide
for maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation,
including any additional control measures necessary to ensure such
maintenance. In addition, maintenance plans are to contain contingency
provisions necessary to ensure the prompt correction of a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The contingency measures
must include, at a minimum, a requirement that the state will implement
all control measures contained in the nonattainment SIP prior to
redesignation.
Section 175A(b) of the CAA requires states to submit a subsequent
maintenance plan revision (``second 10-year maintenance plan'') eight
years after redesignation. The Act requires only that this second 10-
year maintenance plan maintain the applicable NAAQS for 10 years after
the expiration of the first 10-year maintenance plan. Beyond these
provisions, section 175A of the CAA does not define the content of a
second 10-year maintenance plan.
The primary guidance on maintenance plans and redesignation
requests is a 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni, titled ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment''
(``Calcagni Memo'').\45\ The Calcagni Memo outlines the key elements of
a maintenance plan, which include an attainment emissions inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring and verification of continued
attainment, and a contingency plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Memorandum dated September 4, 1992, from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA, to EPA Regional
Office Air Division Directors, Subject: ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance plan submittals are SIP revisions, and therefore, the
EPA is obligated under CAA section 110(k) to approve them or disapprove
them depending upon whether they meet the applicable CAA requirements
for such plans.
V. Evaluation of the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan
A. Emissions Inventories Overview
A maintenance plan for the PM10 NAAQS should include an
inventory of direct PM10 emissions in the area.\46\ The
inventory should be consistent with the EPA's most recent guidance on
emissions inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time;
must be comprehensive, including emissions from stationary point
sources, area sources, and mobile sources; and must be based on actual
emissions during the appropriate season, if applicable.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ PM10 precursor emissions should also be included
depending upon the contribution of secondary particulate matter to
high ambient PM10 concentrations in the area. In this
instance, an inventory of PM10 precursor emissions is not
required because PM10 precursor controls were not relied
upon to achieve attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in the CJPA
nor are they relied upon to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS
(see Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, sections 2 and 4, and 75
FR 36023, 36027). While not required, the CARB Staff Report
submitted with the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan includes
inventories of NOX, SOX, ROG, and ammonia in
Inyo County for 2008, the base year of the first maintenance plan,
and for 2030, the horizon year for the Coso Junction Second
Maintenance Plan (``Table 1. Inyo County Annual Average Day
PM10 and Precursor Emissions (ton/day)'').
\47\ CAA section 172(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The specific PM10 emissions inventory requirements are
set forth in the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements rule,\48\ which
requires that emissions inventories report filterable and condensable
components, as applicable.\49\ The EPA has provided additional guidance
for developing PM10 emissions inventories in
``PM10 Emissions Inventory Requirements,'' EPA-454/R-94-033
(September 1994) and ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation
of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations'' (May 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
\49\ 40 CFR 51.15(a)(1)(vii). The primary emissions source in
the CJPA is windblown dust. Therefore, reporting condensible
components of PM10 was not applicable in this plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan includes inventories for
total primary PM10 for the years 2008 (the base year of the
first maintenance period), 2020 (the base year of the second
maintenance period), and 2030 (the final year of the second maintenance
period) as summarized in Table 2 of this document and further detailed
in Appendix C of the Plan.\50\
[[Page 19039]]
The 2020 emissions inventory represents current emissions and was used
to project emissions through 2030, as discussed further in Section I.B
of this document. CARB and the District developed the PM10
emissions inventories based on the methods and assumptions presented in
detail in Appendix C of the Plan and summarized herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix C consists
of an email memorandum dated June 9, 2021, from Emily Weissinger and
Julia Lester, Ramboll US Consulting, Inc., to Ann Logan, GBUAPCD,
Subject: ``24-Hour PM10 Emissions Inventory for the 2nd
Maintenance Plan for the Coso Junction Planning Area, Inyo County,
California.'' Appendix C provides emission analyses for the years
2020-2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District forecasts that the PM10 precursors nitrogen
oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs),\51\ and ammonia will decline in Inyo County
from 2008 to 2030; however, this small decline does not influence
attainment.\52\ As discussed in Section 4 of the Plan, the emissions
estimates from windblown dust from open areas constitute over 98
percent of the PM10 emissions inventory for 2020 and 2030.
Due to the nature of exceedances in the CJPA, the Coso Junction
maintenance demonstration is based entirely on emissions of directly
emitted PM10 pollution. Thus, the EPA review focuses on
direct PM10 emissions estimates and does not include an in-
depth analysis of the District's emissions estimates for
PM10 precursor emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Some California air quality plans use the term reactive
organic gases (ROG) instead of VOC. The terms cover essentially the
same compounds, and herein we use the term VOC.
\52\ See CARB Staff Report Table 1, ``Inyo County Annual Average
Day PM10 and Precursor Emissions (tons/day).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions inventories in the Plan include PM10
estimates from all source categories the District deems relevant i.e.,
stationary sources, entrained dust from vehicle travel, windblown dust
from unpaved roads, windblown dust from open areas, and mobile
sources.\53\ The District did not include windblown dust sources within
the CJPA in the previous 2010 Maintenance Plan inventories because it
considered the dust from Owens Lake to be a natural source, and the
inventory was designed to include only emissions from anthropogenic
sources. The District included this source in the inventories for the
Coso Junction Second Maintenance plan due to the magnitude of the
source of windblown dust contribution to current inventories.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Section 4,
``Emissions Inventory.''
\54\ See CARB Staff Report, ``Attainment Year Emission
Inventory.'' Windblown dust accounts for 98.2 percent of the current
emissions inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Stationary Sources
As discussed in Section 4.1 and Appendix C of the Coso Junction
Second Maintenance Plan, the District used information in District and
federal Title V permit files as well as reporting from facilities to
develop direct PM10 emissions estimates for stationary point
sources. The District calculated daily annual average values by
dividing the total annual estimated PM10 emissions from each
site by 365 days.\55\ There are five stationary sources that emit an
annual average of at least 50 pounds of PM10 per day located
within the CJPA: Coso Energy Developers, Twin Mountain Rock Venture,
China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, Southwest Pumice, LLC, and Bowman
Asphalt, Inc.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Unpaved road and haul road emissions for permitted sources
are included in the daily emissions for each facility.
\56\ These sources are listed in descending order of annual
averages of PM10 emissions in pounds per day and are the
following: 289 pounds per day, 235 pounds per day, 191 pounds per
day, 185 pounds per day, and 86 pounds per day of PM10,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District does not expect a significant increase in stationary
source emissions through 2030 because 97 percent of the land in the
CJPA is federally controlled and little of the remaining land is
undeveloped and/or zoned for commercial or industrial uses needed for
substantial stationary source operation. Consequently, the District
concludes new stationary sources are unlikely to be built in the CJPA.
Additionally, the District observes that the construction of any major
sources or major modifications to existing facilities will be subject
to the District's new source review rules, although it notes it has no
knowledge of any planned expansions in the existing stationary source
facilities.\57\ Finally, the District notes that new minor sources or
sources that wish to undergo minor modifications must obtain District
Permits to Operate, which include provisions to ensure protection of
and compliance with the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ GBUAPCD Rule 209-A, ``Standards for Authorities to
Construct'' (adopted May 12, 1993) and Rule 216, ``New Source Review
Requirements for Determining Impact on Air Quality'' (adopted March
10, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Re-Entrained Road Dust
Fugitive emissions from re-entrained dust from vehicle travel
result when dust on roadways is disturbed by vehicle activity and re-
entrained into the air. The District calculated dust emissions
generated from paved and unpaved roads separately.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ For detailed explanations of the calculations for paved
roads and unpaved roads, see Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan,
Section 4.2 and Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For paved roads, the District calculated emissions using CARB's
California Emissions Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM) 2016v1.05
emissions inventory for paved road dust in Inyo County, as described in
Section 4.2 and Appendix C of the Plan.\59\ Using the method described
in Appendix C, the District used geographic information systems to
determine that 6.5 percent of the total paved road length in Inyo
County is located within the CJPA.\60\ This factor was applied to the
Inyo County emissions data obtained from CEPAM to estimate the
PM10 dust emissions resulting from paved roads within the
CJPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ CEPAM2016v1.05 was the most recent version of the CEPAM
model available during SIP development and when the SIP was
submitted in 2021. It has since been updated to CEPAM 2019 v1.03.
\60\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix C, Figure 1
and Figure 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated PM10 emissions from re-entrained road dust
from unpaved roads is based on an adjusted emissions factor calculated
by the methodology in the EPA's Compilation of Air Pollution Emission
Factors, AP-42, Section 13.2.2 and is described in detail in Section
4.2 and Appendix C of the Plan.\61\ The District applied the adjusted
emissions factor of 0.76 pounds per vehicle miles traveled to estimated
vehicle traffic on unpaved roads to calculate emissions.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ EPA, ``AP-42, Fifth Edition Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources,
Section 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads,'' November 2006.
\62\ Vehicle traffic on unpaved roads was calculated assuming an
average of 2 trips per day along 50 miles of regularly traveled
unpaved public roads in the CJPA, consistent with the 2010
Maintenance Plan. This assumption is reasonable considering the
sparse population of the CJPA and that most of the unpaved roads are
located on federally controlled land where access and development
are restricted. Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Windblown Dust
Windblown dust is generated when wind moves across open areas and
unpaved roads and can contribute to ambient PM10. Potential
windblown dust emissions from all unpaved roads and open areas across
the CJPA were estimated to determine its contribution to ambient
PM10, consistent with other planning areas in Inyo County.
The District applied an emission factor to the estimated area of
unpaved roads within the CJPA to estimate emissions from windblown dust
from unpaved roads.\63\ The methodology is
[[Page 19040]]
described in the District's 2010 technical memorandum and is consistent
with other SIPs in Inyo County, such as the 2016 Owens Valley Planning
Area PM10 State Implementation Plan, (``2016 Owens Valley
SIP'').\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix C. An
emission factor of 0.0241 tons/acre/year for ``barren'' land uses
was applied to the unpaved roadway area of the estimated 675 miles
of unpaved roads in the CJPA, with an assumed roadway width of 20
feet.
\64\ See 81 FR 89407, 89411 (December 12, 2016) and GBUAPCD
technical memorandum dated May 3, 2010, ``Unpaved Road Dust Inyo
County (Revised).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windblown dust emissions from open areas vary with the category of
land use, with some surfaces more emissive than others. The land use
types with the potential to emit PM10 in the CJPA are
developed or urban areas, shrublands, forests, and barren land. The
District estimated the area of each of these land use types using the
2011 National Land Cover Database and adjusted the total to remove
acreage related to unpaved roads, as these are emissions that are
already accounted for.\65\ Emission factors for each land use type were
multiplied by the acreages of the corresponding land use type.\66\ This
methodology is described in detail in Appendix C of the Plan, and is
consistent with other SIPs in Inyo County, such as the 2016 Owens
Valley SIP.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Available at https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/national-
land-cover-database-2011-nlcd-
2011#:~:text=National%20Land%20Cover%20Database%202011%20%28NLCD%2020
11%29%20is,across%20the%20United%20States%20from%202001%20to%202011.
Since the submission of this plan, newer landcover products became
available, however no significant differences were observed within
the CJPA when comparing the newer landcover data to the 2011
landcover data.
\66\ Emission factors for urban areas, shrublands, forest, and
barren land are 0.0001, 0.0272, 0.0034, and 0.0241 respectively.
\67\ See 81 FR 89407, 89411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Mobile Sources
The District calculated emissions from on-road mobile sources,
which include tailpipe emissions, tire wear, and brake wear using
CARB's EMFAC2017 model for Inyo County.\68\ The District further
estimated emissions generated within the CJPA by adjusting the total
Inyo County emissions by the same factor used to calculate re-entrained
road dust from paved roads (6.5 percent).\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor. The EPA approved
EMFAC2017 for SIP development and transportation conformity purposes
in California on August 15, 2019. 84 FR 41717. EMFAC2017 was the
most recently approved version of the EMFAC model that was available
at the time of preparation of the Coso Junction Second Maintenance
Plan.
\69\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix C, Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The category of off-road mobile sources includes planes, trains,
and farm and construction equipment and was estimated for the entirety
of Inyo County at 0.017 tons per day using CEPAM.\70\ Approximately
half of these county level emissions were identified as resulting from
commercial aircraft. The CJPA has no commercial airports or identified
agricultural acreage. Therefore, off-road mobile sources for the CJPA
were excluded as negligible from this inventory, and not included in
the analysis for maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ CEPAM2016v1.05 was the most recent version of the CEPAM
model available during SIP development and when the SIP was
submitted in 2021. It has since been updated to CEPAM 2019 v1.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Emissions Summary
Based on the emission estimates for the year 2020 as shown in Table
2 of this document, the District finds that windblown dust from open
areas accounts for over 98 percent of total PM10 emissions
in CJPA.\71\ The second highest source of emissions comes from
stationary sources, which contribute 1.3 percent of the total
PM10 emissions in the CJPA. Windblown dust from unpaved
roads, entrained dust from vehicle travel, and mobile source emission,
together contribute less than 0.5 percent of the total PM10
emissions.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Table 4, ``Emissions
Inventory Summary for the Coso Junction PM10 Planning
Area.''
\72\ Windblown dust from unpaved road contributes 0.29 percent
(0.11 tons/day), entrained dust from vehicle travel contributes 0.16
percent (0.06 tons/day), and mobile sources contribute 0.02 percent
(0.01 ton/day) of the total PM10 emissions in the CJPA.
Table 2--Coso Junction PM10 Emission Inventory, 2008, 2020, 2030
[Annual average, tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions source 2008 2020 2030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Sources.............................................. 0.64 0.49 0.49
Entrained Dust from Vehicle Travel.............................. 0.09 0.06 0.06
Mobile Sources.................................................. 0.01 0.01 0.01
Total....................................................... 0.74 0.56 0.56
Windblown dust--unpaved roads................................... .............. 0.11 0.11
Windblown dust--Open Areas...................................... .............. 36.34 36.34
Total including windblown dust.............................. .............. 37.01 37.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Table 4 and Appendix C.
Totals may not add up due to rounding.
The 2010 Maintenance plan did not include windblown dust in the Plan's emissions inventory. The missing values
are represented here with a hyphen.
Due to the sparse population of the CJPA, and the fact that over 97
percent of land in this maintenance area is federally controlled and
operated, the District concludes that future projected growth of
emissions and population in the CJPA is unlikely and would be limited
in scope.\73\ The majority of unpaved roads and open areas within the
CJPA are located on federally controlled lands, where access and
development are limited to the public.\74\ In addition, any substantive
development on federal lands is subject to general conformity
requirements under District Regulation XIII.\75\ Due to these reasons,
the District has determined that emissions in the CJPA will remain
relatively constant over the 2020-2030 maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The 2020 US census showed a population of 241 people living
in the CJPA, approximately 1.3 percent of the 17,900 people living
in Inyo County. While this number did grow from the 2010 US Census
of 64 people, the population remains a small portion of Inyo County.
Further population growth is also limited by the lack of land
available for development.
\74\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix C, Figure
2.
\75\ GBUAPCD, Regulation XIII, ``General Conformity,'' adopted
October 5, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes the selection of the 2020 base year inventory is
appropriate given that it is the most recent emissions inventory
associated with the triennial reporting schedule required under the Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements rule. Moreover,
[[Page 19041]]
preparation of an annual average daily inventory, as opposed to a
seasonal or episodic inventory, is appropriate given that elevated
PM10 concentrations in CJPA do not exhibit a clear seasonal
or episodic pattern. Based on our review of the documentation provided
with the plan, we are proposing to find that the 2020 emissions
inventory for direct PM10 is based on reasonable assumptions
and methodologies, and that the inventory is comprehensive, current,
accurate, and consistent with applicable CAA provisions and the
Calcagni Memo, and are therefore proposing that the 2020 inventory is
acceptable for use in demonstrating maintenance of the PM10
NAAQS.
B. Maintenance Demonstration
Section 175A(a) of the CAA requires that the maintenance plan
``provide for the maintenance of the national primary ambient air
quality standard for such air pollutant in the area concerned for at
least 10 years after the redesignation.'' A state may generally
demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future
emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of
the attainment inventory, or by conducting modeling that shows that the
future mix of sources and emissions rates will not cause a violation of
the NAAQS.\76\ Projected emissions inventories for future years must
account for, among other things, the ongoing effects of economic growth
and adopted emissions control requirements, and the inventories are
expected to be the best available representation of future emissions.
The plan submission should include documentation explaining how the
state calculated the emissions data for the base year and projected
inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Calcagni Memo, pp. 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, the District
demonstrates continued maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS by
projecting the direct PM10 emissions in the area through
2030 and showing that future emissions of PM10 will not
exceed the level of the attainment inventory. As discussed in Section
V.A of this document, the Plan includes emissions inventories
representing actual emissions in 2020 (the Plan's base year) and
projected emissions through 2030 (the final year of the second
maintenance period) for sources in the CJPA.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Section 4 and
Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District derived projected inventories by applying expected
growth trends for each source category based on data that reflect
historical trends, current conditions, and recent economic and
demographic forecasts with expected emissions reductions resulting from
adopted control measures to the base year inventory. For the Coso
Junction Second Maintenance Plan, emission methodologies used in the
2010 Maintenance Plan were reviewed by the District and updated as
appropriate to generate emissions for this Plan. Appendix C of the Plan
documents the methods and assumptions used to develop the emissions
projections upon which the maintenance demonstration relies and
presents the detailed source category-specific estimates for each of
the analysis years.
As discussed in Section I.B of this document, the emissions
reductions from Owens Lake were the primary factor leading to
attainment for the CJPA, and Owens Lake is the paramount source of
emissions that must be addressed to ensure maintenance for the
area.\78\ District Rule 433, ``Control of Particulate Emissions at
Owens Lake,'' \79\ provides a federally enforceable regulatory
mechanism to ensure continued success of the established dust control
strategy on Owens Lake, and ensures that emissions from Owens Lake do
not cause or contribute to exceedances in the CJPA.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 75 FR 36023, 36030.
\79\ Rule 433 was adopted by GBUAPCD on April 13, 2016, and
approved by EPA on December 28, 2016 (81 FR 95473).
\80\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Section 6.1 and
Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, and due to the unique nature of the CJPA, the
EPA believes that the District's determination that the total daily
emissions of PM10 from sources within the CJPA will remain
constant at 37.01 tons per day from 2020 through 2030 is reasonable. We
agree that the projected emissions inventories for direct
PM10 for years 2020 through 2030 are based on reasonable
methods, growth factors, and assumptions, and are based on the most
current and accurate information available to CARB and GBUAPCD at the
time the Plan and its inventories were being developed. We also agree
that the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan provides an adequate
basis to demonstrate maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS within
the CJPA through 2030. Consequently, we are proposing to approve the
Plan because it demonstrates maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS
for more than 10 years after the expiration of the first 10-year
maintenance plan, in accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA.
C. PM10 Air Quality Monitoring Network
After an area has been redesignated, the state should continue to
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Calcagni Memo, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section I.B of this document, GBUAPCD monitors
ambient concentrations of PM10 in the CJPA near the State of
California Coso Junction Rest Area in the Rose Valley.\82\ In Section
10 of the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, the District commits
to continue to operate and maintain a PM10 ambient air
quality monitor in the CJPA in accordance with 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and
58 to verify the attainment status of the area. The monitoring will
also allow the District to notify the public during air pollution
episodes as provided for in District Rule 701, ``Air Pollution Episode
Plan'' and in the District's 2018 Exceptional Events Mitigation Plan
for the CJPA.\83\ Data collected by the monitoring network are also
needed to implement the contingency provisions of the maintenance plan.
We are proposing that the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan
contains adequate provisions for continued ambient PM10
monitoring to verify continued attainment through the full maintenance
period, ending on October 4, 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ AQS Site No. 06-027-1001.
\83\ GBUAPCD, Rule 701, ``Air Pollution Episode Plan,'' adopted
March 3, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Verification of Continued Attainment
The EPA recommends that the state verify continued attainment
through methods in addition to the ambient air monitoring program,
e.g., through periodic review of the factors used in development of the
attainment inventory to show no significant change.\84\ GBUAPCD commits
to review the emissions inventory inputs on an annual basis and, if the
District finds that these inputs have changed significantly, to request
that CARB update the existing inventory and to compare the revised
inventory with the inventories in the Coso Junction Second Maintenance
Plan.\85\ Additionally, the District commits to updating its calculated
three-year design value for the CJPA annually. This design value will
also be included in the annual network monitoring plan submitted to the
EPA to confirm the area continues to meet the PM10 NAAQS. We
are proposing to find that the District's
[[Page 19042]]
commitments are acceptable to verify continued attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Calcagni Memo, p. 11.
\85\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Section 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Contingency Provisions
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that maintenance plans include
contingency provisions, as the EPA deems necessary, to promptly correct
any violations of the NAAQS that occur after redesignation of the area.
Such provisions must include a requirement that the state will
implement all measures with respect to the control of the relevant air
pollutants that were contained in the SIP for the area before
redesignation of the area as an attainment area. These contingency
provisions are distinguished from contingency measures required for
nonattainment areas under CAA section 172(c)(9) in that they are not
required to be fully adopted measures that will take effect without
further action by the state for the maintenance plan to be approved.
However, the contingency provisions of a maintenance plan are an
enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that contingency measures
are adopted expeditiously once they are triggered. The maintenance plan
should clearly identify the measures to be adopted, include a schedule
and procedure for adoption and implementation of the measures, and
contain a specific timeline for action by the state. In addition, the
state should identify the specific indicators or triggers that will be
used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented.
The District has adopted a contingency plan to address possible
future PM10 air quality problems in the CJPA. The
contingency plan is detailed in Section 7 of the Plan. As noted by the
District in the Plan, contingency provisions are typically implemented
when air quality deteriorates beyond a specified level, such as a
certain number of exceedances of the standard or a violation of the
standard. In this case, the contingency provisions will be triggered if
an exceedance of the federal PM10 standard is monitored
within the CJPA.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ An exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS is determined
when the number of exceedances at the monitor, averaged over three
years, is greater than 1.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contingency plan also includes a screening process that allows
the District and CARB, subject to the EPA's review, to exclude
exceedances from the trigger calculation if the agencies collectively
determine that information developed by the District is sufficient to
support exclusion. The purpose of the screening process is to
differentiate between exceedances that are not within the District or
State control (i.e., exceedances that occur despite the implementation
of reasonable measures), and exceedances that are within the District's
or State's control and should be included in the trigger calculation.
It is important to note that, should the District or State exclude an
exceedance from the contingency trigger calculation using this process,
it would not constitute the EPA's concurrence that the exceedance was
caused by an exceptional event. The exceedance will therefore continue
to be included in design value calculations for the CJPA unless CARB,
following opportunity for public comment, submits a request for the EPA
to concur on the exceedance as an exceptional event pursuant to 40 CFR
50.14, and the EPA reviews the submittal and formally concurs.
If an exceedance occurs, the District will start the screening
process to investigate the cause of the exceedance within 60 days
following the end of the calendar quarter during which the event
occurred. An exceedance determined by the District to be caused by or
significantly contributed to by emissions from the Owens Lake area
would trigger contingency measures, as outlined in Section 7.1, ``Owens
Valley Planning Area Contingency Measures,'' of the Coso Junction
Second Maintenance Plan. In brief, the District will investigate the
exceedance within 60 days of the end of the calendar quarter in which
it occurred to determine whether the required control measures on Owens
Lake were properly implemented in accordance with District Rule 433 or
if the emissions are from a new source on Owens Lake.\87\ For
exceedances found to be caused by dust from existing dust control
areas, the District will order corrective actions no more than 18
months after the 60 day period of investigation. Exceedances found to
be caused by dust from a new source on Owens Lake will be subject to
the contingency provisions under section C of District Rule 433.
Mitigation of emissions from uncontrolled areas of Owens Lake will be
addressed as expeditiously as possible by the District under the legal
constraints of the 2014 Stipulated Judgement, the 2016 Owens Valley
SIP, and District Rule 433.\88\ Additionally, at least once per year,
the District will make an additional best available control measure
contingency determination to evaluate if uncontrolled areas on the
Owens Lakebed or implemented controls are not sufficient to mitigate
emissions to attain the NAAQS in the Owens Valley Planning Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ District Rule 433, ``Control of Particulate Emissions at
Owens Lake,'' contains contingency measures for the Owens Valley
Planning Area and provides the following: clearly identified control
measures, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation
of the measures, a time limit in which to take action, and an
established threshold that triggers the contingency measures. See
Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix D.
\88\ The EPA approved District Rule 433 into the California SIP
on December 27, 2016 (81 FR 95473).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An exceedance determined to be caused by emissions from sources
located within the CJPA would trigger the contingency provisions
outlined in Section 7.2, ``Additional Contingency Measures,'' of the
Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan. Following the end of the
calendar quarter in which the exceedance occurs, the District will
investigate the cause of the exceedance within 60 days. Exceedances
found to be caused by emissions from local sources already subject to
District regulations will be promptly addressed no more than 18 months
after the 60-day period of investigation.\89\ If the exceedance cannot
be addressed through existing District rules and regulations and is not
covered by the EPA Exceptional Events Policy, the District will adopt
and implement additional control measures necessary to meet and
maintain the NAAQS within 18 months after the 60 day period of
investigation. Control measures could include expanding existing rules
or utilizing measures from outside existing rules and regulations to
achieve the necessary emissions reductions within 18 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Table 5 in the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan lists
existing District rules and regulations to control sources of
PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 60 days of the end of each calendar quarter, the District
will provide a list of exceedances that occurred during that previous
quarter to CARB, identify those exceedances that the District believes
to be exceedances that are not within the District's or State's
control, and flag the relevant data and provide an initial description
in AQS.
If the District seeks to exclude an exceedance from the contingency
measures trigger calculation, the District will notify CARB and the EPA
by submitting an INI. The EPA, CARB, and the District will confer to
determine whether additional information should be submitted along with
the INI. The District will submit the INI and any additional requested
information to CARB and the EPA for review. After review, CARB and the
EPA will notify
[[Page 19043]]
the District if the Agencies agree that the exceedance appears to be an
uncontrollable event and therefore will not be counted towards the
contingency measure trigger calculation, or if the Agencies determine
that the exceedance was likely caused by an exceptional event and that
the District must include the event in the contingency measure trigger
calculation. If the District still considers the event in question to
be exceptional, the District may then opt to submit a full Exceptional
Events Demonstration.
Based on our review of the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan,
as summarized herein, we propose to find that the contingency
provisions of the Plan clearly identify specific contingency measures,
contain a triggering mechanism to determine when contingency measures
are needed, contain a description of the process of recommending and
implementing contingency measures, and contain specific and appropriate
timelines for action. We also propose to find that the contingency
trigger screening process, including the associated EPA review, is
reasonably designed to distinguish between exceedances that are not
within the District or State control, and exceedances that are within
the District's or State's control and for which new or tightened
control measures might be effective. Thus, we propose to conclude that
the contingency plan in the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan is
adequate to ensure correction of any violation of the PM10
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation, as required by section 175A(d)
of the CAA.
F. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the
SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) cause or contribute
to violations of the NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
Transportation actions involving Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are
subject to the EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR
part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate
with state and local air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA,
FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an area's regional transportation
plans and transportation improvement programs conform to the applicable
SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are
less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (``budgets'')
contained in submitted or approved control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Control strategy SIPs refer plans that contain specific
strategies for controlling the emissions of and reducing ambient
levels of pollutants in order to satisfy CAA requirements for
demonstrations of reasonable further progress and attainment. 40 CFR
93.101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, an isolated rural area does not have an MPO and is not
required to prepare transportation plans or transportation improvement
programs. Therefore, in isolated rural areas such as the CJPA,
conformity is determined only when a nonexempt FHWA or FTA project
needs approval or funding.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ 40 CFR 93.109(g)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans typically set budgets
for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution
from cars and trucks. Budgets are generally established for specific
years and specific pollutants or precursors. PM10
maintenance plan submittals should identify budgets for transportation-
related PM10 emissions in the last year of the maintenance
period.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Transportation-related emissions of VOC and NOX
must also be specified in PM10 maintenance plans if the
EPA or the state find that transportation-related emissions of one
or both of these precursors within the nonattainment area are a
significant contributor to the PM10 nonattainment problem
and has so notified the MPO and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), or the applicable SIP (or SIP revision
submission) establishes an approved (or adequate) budget for such
emissions as part of the reasonable further progress, attainment, or
maintenance strategy. 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iii). Neither of these
conditions apply to the Coso Junction PM10 maintenance
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 93.109(f) of EPA's transportation conformity regulation (40
CFR part 93) states that an area is not required to satisfy a regional
emissions analysis for a pollutant if the 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 submitted
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 percentage of motor vehicle
emissions in the context of the total attainment plan 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.
In our rulemaking approving the 2010 Maintenance Plan for the CJPA,
the EPA found the contribution of motor vehicles to be an insignificant
source of PM10 to the CJPA.\93\ As part of the Coso Junction
Second Maintenance Plan, GBUAPCD requested that the EPA find that on-
road emissions of PM10 are insignificant for conformity
purposes, and therefore the District did not submit any motor vehicle
emissions budgets. The EPA is proposing to approve GBUAPCD's
insignificance demonstration for the on-road motor vehicle contribution
of PM10 emissions to the overall PM10 emissions
in the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan. Additionally, in this
notice, the EPA is initiating the adequacy review process for this
insignificance finding. The EPA invites the public to comment on the
adequacy of this insignificance finding as well as other actions the
EPA is proposing in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ 75 FR 54031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This insignificance finding is based on the following consideration
of the factors identified in the EPA's transportation conformity
regulations, as discussed in sections 4 and 8 of the Coso Junction
Second Maintenance Plan, and on the unique circumstances of the CJPA.
1. The Percentage of Motor Vehicle Emissions in the Context of the
Total SIP Inventory
The District calculated the percentage of on-road motor vehicle
emissions by adding together direct emissions from on-mobile source
emissions,\94\ entrained dust from vehicle travel on paved roads, and
entrained dust from vehicle travel on unpaved roads, and dividing the
sum by the total PM10 emissions including windblown dust.
These values can be found in Table 2 of this notice. On-road mobile
emissions constitutes less than 0.2 percent of the PM10
emissions inventory in the CJPA.\95\ The District attributes this to
the low population of the CJPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Direct emissions from vehicle exhaust tire wear and brake
wear comprised this source category and accounted for 0.010 tpd of
the CJPA PM10 emissions inventory
\95\ Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, p. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Coso Junction Planning Area Is Attaining the PM10
NAAQS
As discussed in Section 3 of the Coso Junction Second Maintenance
Plan and
[[Page 19044]]
in Section I.C.2 of this document, the 2018-2020 PM10
monitoring data show that the CJPA is in attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS. The District observes that this current state of
air quality coincides with the improvements in the Owens Valley area as
emissions from Owens Lake have been mitigated over time, and notes that
these continual improvements in air quality have resulted in annual
average PM10 concentrations of less than 20 [micro]g/m\3\
over the past ten years.
3. Motor Vehicle Control Measures Were Not Adopted for the Purpose of
Bringing the Area Into Attainment
As discussed in Section V.A of this document, the control measures
relied upon in the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan are primarily
related to windblown dust, which accounts for over 98 percent of the
PM10 emissions in the CJPA. As discussed in Section 4 of the
Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan and in Section V.A of this
notice, on-road mobile emissions in the CJPA, including exhaust, tire
wear, brake wear, and re-entrained road dust from paved and unpaved
roads, make up less than 0.2 percent of the daily PM10
emissions in the CJPA.\96\ There are currently no GBUAPCD adopted motor
vehicle control measures specific to the CJPA. Any national and
statewide motor vehicle emission control measures that may apply would
contribute to reductions in motor vehicle related PM10
emissions in the CJPA, which as noted previously, amount to less than
0.2 percent of the total PM10 emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Table 6 in the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan
provides specific breakdowns of each category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Historical Trends and Future Projections Indicate Motor Vehicle
PM10 Emissions Are Consistent Over Time
Historical on-road mobile emissions have constituted a tiny
fraction of the overall PM10 emissions inventory in the
CJPA.\97\ The District attributes this to the low population of the
CJPA. Despite some population growth in the area, the population of the
CJPA occupies only 1.3 percent of the land area of Inyo County, and
substantial population growth is limited by the high percentage of
federally controlled land where access, development, or both are
restricted.\98\ For these reasons, the District states that on-road
mobile emissions can reasonably be expected to remain relatively small
and unchanging over the 2020-2030 maintenance period.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ In the 2010 Maintenance Plan, on-road mobile emissions
constituted less than 1 percent of the daily PM10
emissions (12 of 1478 pounds of PM10 per day), excluding
windblown dust.
\98\ According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 102 people lived in
Pearsonville and Homewood Canyon, which are located at the southern
end of the CJPA. The 2010 U.S. Census reported a decrease to 61
people, and the 2020 U.S. Census reports 241 people. Despite the
population growth, the population still represents less than 2
percent of Inyo County's population and is not expected to have a
significant effect on on-road mobile emissions.
\99\ See Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan, Section 8.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these factors, we are proposing to find that motor vehicle-
related PM10 emissions are insignificant contributors to
PM10 in the CJPA and that it would be unreasonable to expect
that PM10 emissions from motor vehicles would grow enough
within the CJPA to cause a violation of the PM10 standard.
If this insignificance finding is finalized as proposed, a regional
emissions analysis would not be required for PM10 in any
future conformity determination for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS in
the CJPA.\100\ The EPA's insignificance finding should, however, be
noted in any transportation conformity documentation that is prepared
for this area. Areas with insignificant regional motor vehicle
emissions for a pollutant or precursor are still required to make a
conformity determination that satisfies other relevant conformity
requirements such as fiscal constraint, timely implementation of
transportation control measures, interagency consultation, and hot-spot
analyses for projects, if required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Upon the completion of the adequacy finding, conformity
can be determined without a regional emissions analysis regardless
of the finalization of the rest of the items proposed in this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Environmental Justice Considerations
The EPA performed and reviewed a screening-level analysis using the
EPA's environmental justice (EJ) screening and mapping tool
(``EJSCREEN''). Our screening-level analysis included multiple
environmental and demographic indicators, including the EJSCREEN
``Demographic Index,'' which is the average of an area's percentage of
minority and low-income populations. The Demographic Index for the
southwest portion of Inyo County, which contains the CJPA, is at the
52nd percentile, compared to the United States as a whole.\101\ The
results of this analysis are being provided for informational purposes.
The results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for populations
within the CJPA, the percentage of people of color (persons who
reported their race as a category other than White alone (not Hispanic
or Latino)) is similar to the national average, both at 40 percent. The
percent of people living below the poverty level in the CJPA is 21
percent, which is lower than the national average of 30 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Coso Junction PM10 NAA EJSCREEN Report, dated
January 18, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed action addresses a plan for continued maintenance of
the 1987 PM10 NAAQS for the CJPA. Approval of this plan does
not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond
those imposed by state law. As discussed in this document, California
has demonstrated that the CJPA is attaining the 1987 PM10
NAAQS and the Coso Junction Second Maintenance Plan provides for the
maintenance of the NAAQS for the reminder of the maintenance period. At
a minimum, this action would not worsen any existing air quality and is
expected to ensure the area is meeting requirements to maintain air
quality standards. Further, there is no information in the record
indicating that this action is expected to have disproportionately high
or adverse human health or environmental effects on a particular group
of people.
VII. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons set forth in this
document, the EPA is proposing to approve the Coso Junction Second
Maintenance Plan submitted electronically on October 21, 2021, by CARB,
as a revision to the California SIP. We are proposing to approve the
maintenance demonstration and contingency provisions as meeting all the
applicable requirements for maintenance plans and related contingency
provisions in CAA section 175A, and we are proposing an insignificance
finding for motor vehicle emissions in the CJPA. Additionally, the EPA
is also initiating the adequacy process for this insignificance finding
included in this SIP submission.
We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions and on the
adequacy of the maintenance plan's demonstration that motor vehicle
emissions are insignificant. We will accept comments from the public
for 30 days following publication of this proposal in the Federal
Register and will consider any relevant comments before taking final
action or making an adequacy determination.
VIII. 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
[[Page 19045]]
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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
In addition, there are no areas of Indian country within the CJPA,
and the state plan for which the EPA is proposing approval does not
apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA
or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.
Therefore, this proposed action does not have tribal implications and
would not, if approved, impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require an evaluation.
EPA performed an environmental justice analysis, as is described above
in the section titled, ``Environmental Justice Considerations.'' The
analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and
information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the
action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action
is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of
the affected area. In addition, there is no information in the record
upon which this decision is based that is inconsistent with the stated
goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of
color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 24, 2023.
Kerry Drake,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-06578 Filed 3-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P