Rule2022-28307
Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for the Indian Wells Valley PM10 Planning Area; California
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 18, 2023
Effective
February 17, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve the "Indian Wells Valley Second 10-Year PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan" ("Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan" or "Plan") as a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of California. The Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan includes, among other elements, a base year emissions inventory, a maintenance demonstration, contingency provisions, and motor vehicle emissions budgets for use in transportation conformity determinations. The EPA is finalizing these actions because the SIP revision meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for such plans and motor vehicle emissions budgets.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2839-2843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28307]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0549; FRL-8856-02-R9]
Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for the Indian Wells Valley PM10
Planning Area; California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve the ``Indian Wells Valley Second 10-Year
PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan'' (``Indian Wells Second Maintenance
Plan'' or ``Plan'') as a revision to the state implementation plan
(SIP) for the State of California. The Indian Wells Second Maintenance
Plan includes, among other elements, a base year emissions inventory, a
maintenance demonstration, contingency provisions, and motor vehicle
emissions budgets for use in transportation conformity determinations.
The EPA is finalizing these actions because the SIP revision meets the
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for such plans and
motor vehicle emissions budgets.
DATES: This rule is effective February 17, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0549. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office
(ARD-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3877, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bed9ccdfd6dfd390dfcdd6d2dbc7ccfedbcedf90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2b5a0b3bab3bffcb3a1babeb7aba092b7a2b3fcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Proposed Rule
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
[[Page 2840]]
III. Air Quality Conditions Since Proposal
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Proposed Rule
On October 13, 2021, the EPA proposed to approve the Indian Wells
Second Maintenance Plan submitted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) on July 30, 2020, as a revision to the California SIP.\1\ In
doing so, we proposed to find that the Indian Wells Second Maintenance
Plan adequately demonstrates that the Indian Wells Valley planning area
will maintain the 1987 annual national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS or ``standards'') for particulate matter of ten microns or less
(PM<INF>10</INF>) through the year 2025 (i.e., for more than 10 years
beyond the first 10-year maintenance period). We also proposed to find
that the Plan includes sufficient contingency provisions to promptly
correct any violation of the PM<INF>10</INF> standards that may occur.
Lastly, we proposed to find the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the
Plan for direct PM<INF>10</INF> for the years 2020 and 2025 adequate
and to approve the budgets for transportation conformity purposes
because they meet all applicable criteria for such budgets including
the adequacy criteria under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 86 FR 56848.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motor vehicle emissions budgets that the EPA proposed to find
adequate and to approve are shown in Table 1. The EPA announced the
availability of the Plan and related motor vehicle emissions budgets on
the EPA's transportation conformity website on October 13, 2021, and
requested comments by November 12, 2021. We received no comments in
response to the adequacy review posting.
Table 1--Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Indian Wells Valley
PM10 Area
[PM10 tons per day, annual average]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2020 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget........ 0.40 0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle emissions budgets calculated are rounded up to the nearest
tenth of a ton per day.
Source: Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Table 5.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period
that ended on November 12, 2021. We received one comment submission
from a private citizen.\2\ The comments are included in the docket for
this action and the remainder of this section provides a summary of the
comments and the EPA's responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Comment dated October 14, 2021, from Elaina Porter to Docket
ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Summary
The commenter raises two main concerns with the EPA's proposed
approval of the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan. The commenter's
first concern is that the Plan is ``mostly informed by models that may
have inadequate data supporting them.'' The commenter acknowledges that
``models can be helpful at providing insight into trends in data and
helping to predict what will happen in the future'' but expresses
concern that the Plan ``relies too heavily on them.'' The commenter
notes that there is only one monitoring station in the Indian Wells
Valley planning area and recommends that additional monitoring stations
throughout the planning area (including near one of the airports in the
city of Ridgecrest) would provide greater insight into PM<INF>10</INF>
emissions trends. The commenter also notes that emissions data were
obtained from owners and operators of industrial point sources and
states that these data may not be accurate because they rely on the
owners to track their emissions.
The commenter's second main concern is ``that the plan does not
address how emissions would be limited.'' The commenter asserts that
``the plan shows projections for how the emissions in the area of
concern are expected to change between now and 2025, [but that] they
never specifically stated why there would be any increases in emissions
or how they are hoping to combat these increases in emissions.'' The
commenter asserts that the maintenance plan would be more effective if
it addressed off-road emissions from airplanes and questions the
contribution of emissions from the Naval Air Weapons Station China
Lake, asserting that the facility may contribute fugitive dust
emissions to the Indian Wells Valley planning area.
Aside from these two concerns, the commenter states that ``the plan
is well laid out and should work quite well for the area once it is
implemented.''
EPA Responses
As discussed in the EPA's proposal, the EPA interprets, through
guidance, CAA section 175A's requirement that the state submit a
revision to the SIP ``to provide for the maintenance'' of the NAAQS, to
permit the state to do so using different methods.\3\ One method
permits a state to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS in an area by
showing that projected emissions of a pollutant or its precursors in a
future year will not exceed the actual levels of those same pollutants
and precursors in the attainment inventory, i.e., an inventory of
actual emissions from one of the three years making up the design value
during which the area was attaining the NAAQS. The Indian Wells Second
Maintenance Plan relies on this approach and includes an emissions
inventory representing actual emissions in 2013 (i.e., 10 years after
redesignation, or the final year of the first maintenance period). The
Plan also provides an updated inventory of actual emissions in 2017 and
projected emissions through 2025 (i.e., 12 years beyond the expiration
of the first 10-year maintenance period) for sources in the Indian
Wells Valley planning area. We note that CAA section 175A requires only
that the plan provide for maintenance for 20 years after an area is
redesignated, but the State provided projections demonstrating
maintenance for 22 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 86 FR 56848, 56852, citing memorandum dated September 4,
1992, from John Calcagni, Director, EPA Air Quality Management
Division, to Regional Office Air Division Directors, Subject:
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment'', 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to the commenter's concern that the emissions
inventories in the Plan rely too heavily on models, we note that the
requirements for PM<INF>10</INF> emissions inventories are set forth in
the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) rule.\4\ The EPA has
provided additional guidance to states for developing PM<INF>10</INF>
emissions inventories in ``PM<INF>10</INF> Emissions Inventory
Requirements,'' EPA-454/R-94-033 (September 1994) and ``Emissions
[[Page 2841]]
Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze
Regulations'' (May 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the AERR, states are required to report comprehensive
emissions inventories to the EPA every three years.\5\ All states,
including California, require facilities within their jurisdictions to
report their emissions to the states. CARB estimates stationary point
source emissions based on annual reports submitted by the local air
districts, which reflect actual emissions from industrial point sources
reported to local air districts by facility operators. The local air
districts are responsible for working with facility operators to
compile estimates, using source testing, direct measurement, or
engineering calculations. Because area sources often occur over a large
geographic area, emissions for these source categories are estimated
using various models and methodologies. Similarly, emissions from on-
road mobile sources are estimated using the latest EPA-approved version
of CARB's EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) based on activity data from the
Kern Council of Governments, and off-road mobile source emissions are
estimated using a suite of category-specific models. Projected
inventories are derived by applying expected growth trends for each
source category based on historical trends, current conditions, and
economic and demographic forecasts. CARB provides website links to
additional information on each of the methodologies and models used in
the Plan and has established quality assurance and quality control
processes to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the emissions
inventories.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 40 CFR 51.30(b).
\6\ Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the EPA's proposal, the EPA reviewed CARB's
emissions inventory development methodologies and the resulting
emissions inventories in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan and
determined that the inventories were developed consistent with EPA
regulations and guidance; \7\ that the projected inventories are based
on reasonable methods, growth factors, and assumptions; and that the
inventories are based on the most current information available at the
time the Plan was being developed. Projections of direct
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions show that future emissions increases through
2025 are within 1.6 percent of emissions in 2017 and below emissions in
2013, both of which reflected attainment conditions in the Indian Wells
Valley planning area.\8\ Therefore, we find that the emissions
inventories in the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan rely on actual
emissions information, where available, and that where the State relies
on models and other methodologies to supplement actual emissions
information, that reliance is appropriate. We also find that CARB has
quality assurance and quality control procedures that are complete,
adequate, and acceptable to ensure the accuracy of the model inputs and
model results. Furthermore, to address potential uncertainties in the
emissions inventories, the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District
has committed to continue to review the inputs and assumptions used to
develop the emissions inventories on an annual basis and to monitor
ambient air quality to verify continued attainment.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Air Emissions Reporting Requirements, 40 CFR part 51,
subpart A; ``PM<INF>10</INF> 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).
\8\ 86 FR 56848, 56853.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding ambient air quality monitoring, the EPA disagrees with
the commenter's concerns about the need for additional monitors in the
Indian Wells Valley area. Each year, CARB is required to submit an
Annual Network Plan to establish that its monitoring network meets
applicable statutory requirements and is consistent with applicable
guidance. CARB's most recent Annual Network Monitoring plan addressing
the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS requirements in the Indian Wells Valley
planning area is the ``Annual Network Plan, Covering Monitoring
Operations in 25 California Air Districts, July 2022'' (``Annual
Network Plan''), which contains additional information and analysis on
the planning area's monitoring sites and instrumentation.\10\ This
Annual Network Plan reflects CARB's approach to meeting the federal
monitoring requirements for PM<INF>10</INF>,\11\ which are based on
population and air quality conditions in each Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA). The Indian Wells Valley is located within the Bakersfield,
California MSA (``Bakersfield, CA MSA''). Based on population and air
quality conditions in the Bakersfield, CA MSA, a minimum of four to
eight monitoring sites are required.\12\ There are a total of six
PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring sites in the Bakersfield, CA MSA, including
the Ridgecrest monitoring site located in the Indian Wells Valley
planning area, and the minimum monitoring requirement for
PM<INF>10</INF> is met. The Ridgecrest monitoring site is a
``neighborhood scale'' site within the Bakersfield, CA MSA.\13\
Neighborhood scale PM<INF>10</INF> sites ``represent conditions
throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban sub-region with dimensions
of a few kilometers'' . . . and these ``PM<INF>10</INF> sites provide
information about trends and compliance with standards because they
often represent conditions in areas where people commonly live and work
for extended periods.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ CARB, Annual Network Plan, July 2022.
\11\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.6.
\12\ Annual Network Plan, 31.
\13\ Id. at Appendix A.
\14\ 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.6(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, CARB is required to submit to the EPA a network
assessment every five years that includes a determination of whether
the network meets monitoring objectives, such as compliance with
ambient air quality standards and providing air pollution data to the
public in a timely manner, and whether any new sites are needed to meet
these objectives.\15\ This regular review by CARB evaluates whether the
existing PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring network provides an adequate
measure of PM<INF>10</INF> air quality in the Indian Wells Valley.
CARB's 2020 Monitoring Network Assessment stated that ``the Eastern
Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) believes the existing
monitoring network adequately captures population exposure, transport,
and high concentrations and should be maintained in its current
configuration.'' \16\ CARB provides the public opportunities to comment
on any proposed changes to the monitoring network in the Annual Network
Plan before the plan is submitted to the EPA for formal approval of all
network modifications. The EPA approved CARB's Annual Network Plan on
October 28, 2022.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 40 CFR 58.10(d).
\16\ CARB, 2020 Monitoring Network Assessment, October 2020.
\17\ Letter dated October 28, 2022, from Gwen Yoshimura,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Sylvia
Vanderspek, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the commenter's concern that the Plan does not
sufficiently address how emissions would be limited, we note that the
Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan discusses the development of rules
controlling PM<INF>10</INF> emissions in section II.B (``Rule
Development'') and lists the control measures that contributed to
attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS in section III.B (``Factors
that Contributed
[[Page 2842]]
to Attainment''). These control measures will continue to limit
emissions in the Indian Wells Valley PM<INF>10</INF> planning area. The
Plan describes the methods and assumptions CARB used to develop the
emissions projections upon which the maintenance demonstration relies,
including the growth forecasts for point, areawide, and mobile sources.
Appendix C (``CEPAM Emission Projections by Summary Category'')
presents detailed emissions information for the years 2017 through 2025
by source category, and Appendix D (``IWV Precursor Emission
Inventories'') provides emissions inventory documentation. The Indian
Wells Second Maintenance Plan discusses anticipated population and
industry growth in the area in section IV (``IWV Growth''), noting that
the area ``. . . has not had any significant changes since 1990, and no
significant changes are projected to occur during the second
maintenance period.'' As noted above, the EPA finds that these methods
and assumptions are reasonable and that the inventories are based on
the most current information available at the time the Plan was
developed.
Regarding fugitive dust emissions from the Naval Air Weapons
Station, China Lake, we note that the ``Fugitive Dust Control Plan for
the Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, California (September 1,
1994)'' (``Fugitive Dust Control Plan''), prepared pursuant to District
Rule 402 (``Fugitive Dust''),\18\ established controls to limit
emissions from unpaved roads, disturbed vacant land, and open storage
piles at Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake. On May 7, 2003, as part
of our action redesignating the Indian Wells Valley planning area to
attainment, the EPA approved the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.\19\ We
found that the plan meets the reasonably available control measures
requirement of CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) and concluded that the measure
was responsible, in part, for bringing the Indian Wells Valley planning
area into attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS.\20\ The Indian Wells
Second Maintenance Plan references the Fugitive Dust Control Plan in
section III.B (``Factors that Contributed to Attainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan, Appendix E.
\19\ 68 FR 24368, 24368.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in response to the commenter's suggestion that the Plan
would be more effective if it addressed emissions from aircraft, we
note that of the 1.15 tons per day (tpd) of PM<INF>10</INF> emissions
from aircraft in the Indian Wells Valley, 80 percent (0.92 tpd) are
from military aircraft at the Naval Air Weapons Station, China
Lake.\21\ As discussed above, the fugitive dust sources that contribute
to these emissions are subject to controls outlined in the Fugitive
Dust Control Plan. Thus, a majority of off-road emissions from aircraft
are addressed by the Plan. With regards to aviation, we note that the
authority to establish emissions standards for aircraft lies with the
EPA and that states are preempted from adopting any emissions standard
for aircraft or aircraft engines that differs from any standards
promulgated by the EPA.\22\ Given that the District does not have
authority to control emissions from aircraft engines, including
government aircraft from military flight operations at the Naval Air
Weapons Station, China Lake, it focused its control strategy on the
fugitive dust source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Email dated March 7, 2022, from Jeremiah Cravens, EKAPCD,
to Ashley Graham, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Question re fugitive
dust emissions from aircraft.''
\22\ See 40 CFR part 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Air Quality Conditions Since Proposal
As part of our proposal, we evaluated quality-assured, certified,
and complete data available at the time (i.e., through 2020).\23\ These
data indicated that there had been one exceedance of the
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS in the Indian Wells Valley planning area in 2019
and one exceedance in 2020, resulting in an attaining three-year design
value of 0.7.\24\ In 2021, there were three additional exceedances of
the PM<INF>10</INF> 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. However, we do not think these data contradict the EPA's
finding that the State's plan provides for maintenance of the
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS under CAA section 175A(b). The District and CARB
provided information to the EPA about the five exceedances that
occurred in 2019-2021 that explained that the exceedances were not
within the State's control.\25\ The information provided indicates that
the 2019 exceedance was caused by wildfire smoke and wind gusts, the
2020 and two of the 2021 exceedances were caused by wildfire smoke, and
the third 2021 exceedance was a result of fugitive dust transported by
a high wind event. 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 approval of
the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan as providing for maintenance
of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. We note as well that the State's analysis
and the EPA's evaluation are consistent with the proposed changes to
the maintenance plan that the EPA is approving in this final action to
evaluate data that may have been influenced by certain events in
determining whether contingency provisions should be triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 86 FR 56848, 56850.
\24\ Id.
\25\ See email dated September 2, 2022, from Sylvia Vanderspek,
CARB, to Gwen Yoshimura, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Initial
Notification Submittal--Eastern Kern Indian Wells PM<INF>10</INF>
2nd Maintenance Plan Contingency,'' including attachments. See also
memorandum dated September 8, 2022, from Ashley Graham, EPA Region
IX, to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this final action, the EPA has also reviewed data
available through June 2022, and so far, there has been one additional
exceedance in the Indian Wells Valley planning area.\26\ Given the
EPA's agreement that the 2021 exceedances do not call into question the
EPA's proposal to approve the Indian Wells Second Maintenance Plan as
providing for maintenance of the NAAQS, the State is not required at
this time to submit additional information and analyses for the 2022
exceedance, because such exceedance, without the 2021 exceedances,
would not on its own cause a violation of the NAAQS. Upon the effective
date of this final action, if additional exceedances occur in 2022 or a
later year such that the number of exceedances averaged over three
consecutive years is greater than 1.05, per section V of the Plan, the
State will be required to submit information regarding those
exceedances if it wishes to request that the exceedances be excluded
from the contingency trigger calculation. The EPA will review such
information and will notify the State whether or not the contingency
provisions have been triggered per the schedule outlined in the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ EPA Air Quality System Design Value Report, AMP480,
accessed November 17, 2022 (User ID: STSAI, Report Request ID:
2058650).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
For the reasons discussed in our proposed action and herein, the
EPA is taking final action to approve the Indian Wells Second
Maintenance Plan, submitted by CARB on July 30, 2020, as a revision to
the California SIP. We are approving the maintenance demonstration and
contingency provisions as meeting all of the applicable requirements
for maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA section
[[Page 2843]]
175A. We are also finding the motor vehicle emissions budgets shown in
Table 1 for 2020 and 2025 adequate and approving the budgets for
transportation conformity purposes because we find they meet all
applicable criteria for such budgets including the adequacy criteria
under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goals of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
indigenous peoples.
In addition, there are no areas of Indian country within the Indian
Wells Valley planning area, and the state plan is not approved to apply
on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those
areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 20, 2023. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia,
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: December 22, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(594) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(594) The following plan was submitted on July 30, 2020, by the
Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter dated July 23, 2020.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials. (A) Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control
District.
(1) Indian Wells Valley Second 10-Year PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance
Plan, adopted on June 25, 2020.
(2) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-28307 Filed 1-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 18, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.