Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for PM2., 72981-72984 [2014-28729]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
72981
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS—Continued
Indiana citation
Indiana
effective date
Subject
*
*
*
EPA Approval date
*
*
*
Notes
*
1 EPA
is approving this rule for the counties of Adams, Allen, Bartholomew, Benton, Blackford, Boone, Brown, Carroll, Cass, Clay, Clinton,
Crawford, Daviess, Dearborn, Decatur, De Kalb, Delaware, Dubois, Elkhart, Fayette, Fountain, Franklin, Fulton, Gibson, Grant, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, Harrison, Hendricks, Henry, Howard, Huntington, Jackson, Jasper, Jay, Jefferson, Jennings, Johnson, Knox, Kosciusko, La Porte,
Lagrange, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Martin, Miami, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Newton, Noble, Ohio, Orange, Owen, Parke,
Perry, Pike, Posey, Pulaski, Putnam, Randolph, Ripley, Rush, St. Joseph, Scott, Shelby, Spencer, Starke, Steuben, Sullivan, Switzerland, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Union, Vanderburgh, Vermillion, Vigo, Wabash, Warren, Warrick, Washington, Wayne, Wells, White, and Whitley.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–28798 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0781; FLR–9920–18–
Region 9]
Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan for PM2.5; Yuba CityMarysville; California
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve, as a revision of the California
state implementation plan (SIP), the
State’s request to redesignate the Yuba
City-Marysville nonattainment area to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard. The EPA
is also taking final action to approve the
PM2.5 maintenance plan and the
associated motor vehicle emissions
budgets for use in transportation
conformity determinations necessary for
the Yuba City-Marysville area. Finally,
the EPA is taking final action to approve
the attainment year emissions
inventory. The EPA is approving this
revision because it meets the
requirements of the Clean Air Act and
EPA guidance for such plans, motor
vehicle emissions budgets, and
inventories.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
January 8, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action: Docket ID No.
EPA–R09–2012–0781. Generally,
documents in the docket for this action
are available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at
www.regulations.gov, some information
may be publicly available only at the
SUMMARY:
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps), and some may not
be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR–2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, (415) 972–3963,
ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
I. Summary of Today’s Final Action
A. Background
II. What comments did the EPA receive on
the proposed rule?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Today’s Final Action
Under Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the
Act’’) section 107(d)(3)(D), the EPA is
approving the State’s request to
redesignate the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 nonattainment area 1 to attainment
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS
or ‘‘standard’’). We are doing so based
on our conclusion that the area has met
the five criteria for redesignation under
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E): (1) That the
area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in the 2010–2012 time period
and that the area continues to attain the
PM2.5 standard since that time; (2) that
relevant portions of the California state
implementation plan (SIP) are fully
approved; (3) that the improvement in
air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions; (4)
that California has met all requirements
applicable to the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 nonattainment area with respect
to section 110 and part D of the CAA;
and (5) that the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 Redesignation Request and
1 The boundaries for this area are described in 40
CFR 81.305.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Maintenance Plan (‘‘Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) 2
meets the requirements of section 175A
of the CAA.
In addition, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA is approving the
Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan as a
revision to the California SIP. The EPA
finds that the maintenance
demonstration shows how the area will
continue to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10 years
beyond redesignation (i.e., through
2024), and that the contingency
provisions describing the actions that
the Feather River Air Quality
Management District (FRAQMD) will
take in the event of a future monitored
violation meet all applicable
requirements for maintenance plans and
related contingency provisions in CAA
section 175A. The EPA is also
approving the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs) in the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan because we find
that the MVEBs meet the applicable
transportation conformity requirements
under 40 CFR 93.118(e). Finally, the
EPA is approving the 2011 emissions
inventory included in the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan as the attainment
year emissions inventory because it
meets the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(3).
The EPA is finalizing these actions
because they meet the requirements of
the CAA, its implementing regulations,
2 See letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
dated May 23, 2013, with attachments. On February
20, 2014, the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) submitted to the EPA a technical
supplement to the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan
(‘‘technical supplement’’). The technical
supplement included: A Staff Report titled ‘‘Minor
Updates to Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Maintenance
Plan and Redesignation Request’’ (‘‘CARB 2014
Staff Report’’); a letter from Christopher D. Brown,
Air Pollution Control Officer, FRAQMD to Deborah
Jordan, Director, Air Division, USEPA Region 9, and
Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, clarify the
contingency plan; a notice of February 20, 2014
public meeting to consider approval of minor
updates to the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request;
transcripts from February 20, 2014 CARB Board
meeting; and Board Resolution 14–6.
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
09DER1
72982
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
and EPA guidance for such plans and
budgets.
A. Background
On October 15, 2014, the EPA issued
a notice of rulemaking proposing to
approve California’s request to
redesignate the Yuba City-Marysville
area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard, as well as proposing to
approve California’s ten-year ozone
maintenance plan for the area, the
MVEBs, and the 2011 emissions
inventory as the attainment year
emissions inventory as revisions of the
California SIP. See 79 FR 61822. The
proposed rulemaking set forth the basis
for determining that California’s
redesignation request meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The
proposed rulemaking provided an
extensive background on the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standard, CAA requirements
for redesignation for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard, and their relationship to
air quality in the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area.
In our October 15, 2014 proposal we
also took into account a January 4, 2013
decision by the United States Court of
Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) regarding Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA. In its
2013 decision, the D.C. Circuit
remanded to the EPA the ‘‘Clean Air
Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72
FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
The effect of the 2013 DC Circuit
decision regarding PM2.5
implementation under subpart 4 of Part
D of Title I of the CAA is discussed at
length in our October 15, 2014 proposed
action. See 79 FR 61824, 61840. In
summary, the EPA proposed that the
redesignation request for the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area, though
not expressed in terms of subpart 4
requirements, substantively meets the
requirements of that subpart for
purposes of redesignating the area to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
Our proposed rulemaking also
described the complete, quality-assured,
and certified air quality monitoring data
for the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area for 2011–2013
showing that this area continued to
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.3
3 The EPA previously determined that the Yuba
City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area attained
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2009–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:49 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
Preliminary data available to date for
2014 are consistent with continued
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard.
II. What comments did the EPA receive
on the proposed rule?
The EPA’s proposed rule provided a
30-day public comment period. During
this period, we did not receive any
comments opposing the proposed rule.
III. What action is the EPA taking?
Based on our review of the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan submitted by the
State, air quality monitoring data, other
relevant materials, and for the reasons
described in depth in the proposed rule,
the EPA finds that the State has
addressed all the necessary
requirements for redesignation of the
Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment
area to attainment of the 2006 24-hr
PM2.5 NAAQS, pursuant to CAA
sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A.
First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D),
we are approving the California Air
Resources Board’s (CARB) request,
which accompanied the submittal of the
Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan, to
redesignate the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 nonattainment area to attainment
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We
are doing so based on our conclusion
that the area has met the five criteria for
redesignation under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion is based on
our determination that the area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS; that relevant portions of the
California SIP are fully approved; that
the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions; that California has met all
requirements applicable to the Yuba
City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment
area with respect to section 110 and part
D of the CAA; and is based on our
approval of the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 Plan as part of this action.
Second, in connection with the Yuba
City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan showing
maintenance through 2024, the EPA
finds that the maintenance
demonstration, which documents how
the area will continue to attain the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 10 years
beyond redesignation (i.e., through
2024) and the actions that FRAQMD
will take if a future monitored violation
triggers the contingency plan, meets all
applicable requirements for
maintenance plans and related
contingency provisions in section 175A
of the CAA. The EPA is also approving
the motor vehicle emissions budgets in
2011 monitoring period. See 78 FR 2211 (January
10, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan
because we find they meet the
applicable transportation conformity
requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
Lastly, the EPA is approving the 2011
inventory, which serves as the Yuba
City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan’s attainment
year inventory, as satisfying the
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an
area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a
maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. Redesignation to
attainment does not in and of itself
create any new requirements, but rather
results in the applicability of
requirements contained in the CAA for
areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, the Administrator
is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, these actions
merely approve a State plan and
redesignation request as meeting federal
requirements and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those
by State law. For these reasons, these
final actions:
• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
09DER1
72983
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
• Are not a significant regulatory
action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this final rule does not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and the EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law. There are no federally
recognized tribes located within the
Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
nonattainment area.
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 February 9, 2015. 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)).
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
Dated: November 20, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(446) A plan was submitted on May
23, 2013, by the Governor’s designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials
(A) Feather River Air Quality
Management District (FRAQMD).
(1) Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan, including motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs) and attainment year
emission inventory, dated April 1, 2013.
(2) FRAQMD Board of Directors
Resolution 2013–01, dated April 1,
2013. ‘‘Resolution Adopting the PM2.5
Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan,’’ including attainment year
emissions inventory and MVEBs for
2017 and 2024.
(B) State of California Air Resources
Board (CARB).
(1) CARB Resolution Number 13–14,
dated April 25, 2013. ‘‘Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and
Redesignation Request.’’
(2) CARB Resolution Number 14–6,
dated February 20, 2014. ‘‘Minor
Updates to Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Maintenance Plan and Redesignation
Request.’’
Part 52 Chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 81–DESIGNATION OF AREAS
FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING
PURPOSES
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
■
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Subpart C—[Amended]
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
*
3. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
■
4. Section 81.305 is amended in the
table for ‘‘California—2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS’’ by revising the entry
under ‘‘Yuba City-Marysville, CA’’ to
read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(446) to read as
follows:
■
§ 81.305
*
*
California.
*
*
*
CALIFORNIA—2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation a
Classification
Designated area
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Date 1
*
*
Yuba City-Marysville, CA
Sutter County ............................................
Yuba County (part) ....................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:49 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
*
*
January 8, 2015 ........
January 8, 2015 ........
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Date 2
Type
Fmt 4700
*
*
Attainment.
Attainment.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
Type
09DER1
*
72984
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
CALIFORNIA—2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS—Continued
[Primary and secondary]
Designation a
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Date 2
Type
Type
That portion of Yuba County which
lies west of the line described as
follows: (Mount Diablo Base and
Meridian) Beginning at the intersection of the Yuba-Nevada county
line and the range line common to
ranges R7E and R8E, north to the
southeast corner of township T18N
R7E, then west along the township
line common to T17N and T18N,
then north along the range line
common to ranges R6E and R7E,
then west along the township line
common to T19N and T18N to the
Yuba-Butte County boundary.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
a Includes
Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
1 This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted.
2 This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–28729 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 766
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0261; FRL–9919–05]
Decision on Request for Waiver From
Testing
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Decision on request for waiver
from testing.
AGENCY:
EPA denied a request from
Nation Ford Chemical (NFC) for a
waiver from testing chloranil (2,3,5,6tetrachloro-2,5-cyclohexadiene-1,4dione). Regulations issued by EPA
under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) require that specified chemical
substances be tested to determine if they
are contaminated with halogenated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (HDDs) or
halogenated dibenzofurans (HDFs), and
that results be reported to EPA.
However, the regulations allow for
exclusion or waiver from these
requirements if an appropriate
application is submitted to EPA and is
approved. EPA received a request for a
waiver from these testing requirements
from NFC.
DATES: EPA denied the NFC waiver on
October 17, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:49 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0261, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket),
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information contact: Hiroshi
Dodahara, National Program Chemicals
Division (7404T), Office Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001;
telephone number: (202) 566–0507;
email address: dodahara.hiroshi@
epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public
in general. As such, the Agency has not
attempted to describe the specific
entities to which this action may apply.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Although others may be affected, this
action applies directly to the submitter
of the request for waiver. If you have
any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
II. Background
A. What action is the Agency taking?
This document announces the denial
of the request from NFC for a waiver
from testing under 40 CFR
766.32(a)(2)(ii) for chloranil (2,3,5,6tetrachloro-2,5-cyclohexadiene-1,4dione; Chemical Abstracts Service
Registry Number (CASRN) 118–75–2).
B. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
This document is issued under
sections 4 and 8 of TSCA (15 U.S.C.
2603 and 2607).
Under 40 CFR part 766, EPA requires
testing of certain chemical substances to
determine whether they may be
contaminated with HDDs and HDFs.
Under 40 CFR 766.32(a)(2)(ii), a waiver
may be granted if, in the judgment of
EPA, the cost of testing would drive the
chemical substance off the market, or
prevent resumption of manufacture or
import of the chemical substance, if it
is not currently manufactured, and the
chemical substance will be produced so
that no unreasonable risk will occur due
to its manufacture, import, processing,
distribution, use, or disposal. In this
case, the manufacturer must submit to
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
09DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72981-72984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28729]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0781; FLR-9920-18-Region 9]
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for
PM[bdi2].[bdi5]; Yuba City-Marysville; California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve, as a revision of the California state implementation
plan (SIP), the State's request to redesignate the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The
EPA is also taking final action to approve the PM2.5
maintenance plan and the associated motor vehicle emissions budgets for
use in transportation conformity determinations necessary for the Yuba
City-Marysville area. Finally, the EPA is taking final action to
approve the attainment year emissions inventory. The EPA is approving
this revision because it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act
and EPA guidance for such plans, motor vehicle emissions budgets, and
inventories.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 8, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID
No. EPA-R09-2012-0781. Generally, documents in the docket for this
action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3963, ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Today's Final Action
A. Background
II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed rule?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Today's Final Action
Under Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'') section 107(d)(3)(D), the
EPA is approving the State's request to redesignate the Yuba City-
Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area \1\ to attainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS or ``standard''). We are doing so based on our conclusion that
the area has met the five criteria for redesignation under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E): (1) That the area has attained the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2010-2012 time period and that the area
continues to attain the PM2.5 standard since that time; (2)
that relevant portions of the California state implementation plan
(SIP) are fully approved; (3) that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; (4) that
California has met all requirements applicable to the Yuba City-
Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area with respect to section
110 and part D of the CAA; and (5) that the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (``Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 Plan'' or ``Plan'') \2\ meets the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The boundaries for this area are described in 40 CFR 81.305.
\2\ See letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer,
California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated May 23, 2013, with attachments.
On February 20, 2014, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted to the EPA a technical supplement to the Yuba City-
Marysville PM2.5 Plan (``technical supplement''). The
technical supplement included: A Staff Report titled ``Minor Updates
to Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and
Redesignation Request'' (``CARB 2014 Staff Report''); a letter from
Christopher D. Brown, Air Pollution Control Officer, FRAQMD to
Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, USEPA Region 9, and Richard
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, clarify the contingency plan; a
notice of February 20, 2014 public meeting to consider approval of
minor updates to the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request; transcripts from
February 20, 2014 CARB Board meeting; and Board Resolution 14-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is approving the
Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan as a revision to the
California SIP. The EPA finds that the maintenance demonstration shows
how the area will continue to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for at least 10 years beyond redesignation (i.e., through 2024),
and that the contingency provisions describing the actions that the
Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) will take in the
event of a future monitored violation meet all applicable requirements
for maintenance plans and related contingency provisions in CAA section
175A. The EPA is also approving the motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs) in the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan because we
find that the MVEBs meet the applicable transportation conformity
requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). Finally, the EPA is approving the
2011 emissions inventory included in the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 Plan as the attainment year emissions inventory
because it meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3).
The EPA is finalizing these actions because they meet the
requirements of the CAA, its implementing regulations,
[[Page 72982]]
and EPA guidance for such plans and budgets.
A. Background
On October 15, 2014, the EPA issued a notice of rulemaking
proposing to approve California's request to redesignate the Yuba City-
Marysville area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard, as well as proposing to approve California's ten-year ozone
maintenance plan for the area, the MVEBs, and the 2011 emissions
inventory as the attainment year emissions inventory as revisions of
the California SIP. See 79 FR 61822. The proposed rulemaking set forth
the basis for determining that California's redesignation request meets
the CAA requirements for redesignation for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard. The proposed rulemaking provided an
extensive background on the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, CAA
requirements for redesignation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard, and their relationship to air quality in the Yuba City-
Marysville nonattainment area.
In our October 15, 2014 proposal we also took into account a
January 4, 2013 decision by the United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) regarding Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA. In its 2013 decision, the D.C. Circuit remanded
to the EPA the ``Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR
20586, April 25, 2007) and the ``Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). 706 F.3d
428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The effect of the 2013 DC Circuit decision
regarding PM2.5 implementation under subpart 4 of Part D of
Title I of the CAA is discussed at length in our October 15, 2014
proposed action. See 79 FR 61824, 61840. In summary, the EPA proposed
that the redesignation request for the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area, though not expressed in terms of subpart 4
requirements, substantively meets the requirements of that subpart for
purposes of redesignating the area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Our proposed rulemaking also described the complete, quality-
assured, and certified air quality monitoring data for the Yuba City-
Marysville nonattainment area for 2011-2013 showing that this area
continued to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.\3\
Preliminary data available to date for 2014 are consistent with
continued attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The EPA previously determined that the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 nonattainment area attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2009-2011 monitoring period. See
78 FR 2211 (January 10, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed rule?
The EPA's proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we did not receive any comments opposing the
proposed rule.
III. What action is the EPA taking?
Based on our review of the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5
Plan submitted by the State, air quality monitoring data, other
relevant materials, and for the reasons described in depth in the
proposed rule, the EPA finds that the State has addressed all the
necessary requirements for redesignation of the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area to attainment of the 2006 24-hr PM2.5
NAAQS, pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A.
First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are approving the
California Air Resources Board's (CARB) request, which accompanied the
submittal of the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan, to
redesignate the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment
area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We are
doing so based on our conclusion that the area has met the five
criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our
conclusion is based on our determination that the area has attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; that relevant portions of the
California SIP are fully approved; that the improvement in air quality
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; that
California has met all requirements applicable to the Yuba City-
Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area with respect to section
110 and part D of the CAA; and is based on our approval of the Yuba
City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan as part of this action.
Second, in connection with the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 Plan showing maintenance through 2024, the EPA finds
that the maintenance demonstration, which documents how the area will
continue to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 10 years
beyond redesignation (i.e., through 2024) and the actions that FRAQMD
will take if a future monitored violation triggers the contingency
plan, meets all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and
related contingency provisions in section 175A of the CAA. The EPA is
also approving the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Yuba City-
Marysville PM2.5 Plan because we find they meet the
applicable transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR
93.118(e). Lastly, the EPA is approving the 2011 inventory, which
serves as the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan's attainment
year inventory, as satisfying the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of
the CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these actions merely approve a State plan and
redesignation request as meeting federal requirements and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those by State law. For these reasons,
these final actions:
Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
[[Page 72983]]
Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Do not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this final rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. There are no
federally recognized tribes located within the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 nonattainment area.
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 February 9, 2015. 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
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: November 20, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52 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)(446) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(446) A plan was submitted on May 23, 2013, by the Governor's
designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials
(A) Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD).
(1) Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan, including motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) and
attainment year emission inventory, dated April 1, 2013.
(2) FRAQMD Board of Directors Resolution 2013-01, dated April 1,
2013. ``Resolution Adopting the PM2.5 Redesignation Request
and Maintenance Plan,'' including attainment year emissions inventory
and MVEBs for 2017 and 2024.
(B) State of California Air Resources Board (CARB).
(1) CARB Resolution Number 13-14, dated April 25, 2013. ``Yuba
City-Marysville PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation
Request.''
(2) CARB Resolution Number 14-6, dated February 20, 2014. ``Minor
Updates to Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and
Redesignation Request.''
PART 81-DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart C--[Amended]
0
4. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for ``California--2006 24-
Hour PM2.5 NAAQS'' by revising the entry under ``Yuba City-
Marysville, CA'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.305 California.
* * * * *
California--2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\ Classification
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \2\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Yuba City-Marysville, CA
Sutter County.............. January 8, 2015.............. Attainment..................
Yuba County (part)......... January 8, 2015.............. Attainment..................
[[Page 72984]]
That portion of Yuba
County which lies west
of the line described
as follows: (Mount
Diablo Base and
Meridian) Beginning at
the intersection of
the Yuba-Nevada county
line and the range
line common to ranges
R7E and R8E, north to
the southeast corner
of township T18N R7E,
then west along the
township line common
to T17N and T18N, then
north along the range
line common to ranges
R6E and R7E, then west
along the township
line common to T19N
and T18N to the Yuba-
Butte County boundary.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-28729 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
