Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16265 

from certain requirements of the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

* * * * * 

(c) By administrative order published 

under section 513(f)(3) of the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the 

Commissioner may, on the 

Commissioner’s own initiative, change 

the classification from class III under 

section 513(f)(1) either to class II, if the 

Commissioner determines that special 

controls in addition to general controls 

are necessary and sufficient to provide 

reasonable assurance of the safety and 

effectiveness of the device and there is 

sufficient information to establish 

special controls to provide such 

assurance, or to class I if the 

Commissioner determines that general 

controls alone would provide 

reasonable assurance of the safety and 

effectiveness of the device. The 

procedures are as follows: 

(1) The Commissioner publishes a 

proposed reclassification order in the 

Federal Register seeking comment on 

the proposed reclassification. 

(2) Before or after the publication of 

a proposed reclassification order, the 

Commissioner may consult with the 

appropriate classification panel with 

respect to the reclassification of the 

device. The panel will consider 

reclassification in accordance with the 

consultation procedures of § 860.125. 

(3) Following consideration of 

comments to a public docket and any 

panel recommendations or comments, 

the Commissioner may change the 

classification of a device by final 

administrative order published in the 

Federal Register. 

(d) An administrative order under this 

section changing the classification of a 

device from class III to class II may 

establish the special controls necessary 

to provide reasonable assurance of the 

safety and effectiveness of the device. 

■ 15. Amend § 860.136 as follows: 

■ a. Revise the section heading, 

paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Remove paragraph (b)(3); 

■ c. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(4) 

through (6) as paragraphs (b)(3) through 

(5), respectively; 

■ d. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraph (b)(4); and 

■ e. Add paragraphs (c) and (d). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 860.136 Procedures for transitional 

products under section 520(l) of the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

(a) Section 520(l)(2) of the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act applies to 

reclassification proceedings initiated by 

the Commissioner or in response to a 

request by a manufacturer or importer 

for reclassification of a device currently 

in class III by operation of section 

520(l)(1). This section applies only to 

devices that the Food and Drug 

Administration regarded as ‘‘new 

drugs’’ before May 28, 1976. 

(b) The procedures for effecting 

reclassification under section 520(l) of 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act when initiated by a manufacturer or 

importer are as follows: 

* * * * * 

(4) Within 180 days after the petition 

is filed (where the Commissioner has 

determined it to be adequate for review), 

the Commissioner, by order in the form 

of a letter to the petitioner, either denies 

the petition or classifies the device into 

class I or class II in accordance with the 

criteria set forth in § 860.3. 

* * * * * 

(c) By administrative order, the 

Commissioner may, on the 

Commissioner’s own initiative, change 

the classification from class III under 

section 520(l) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act either to class II, if the 

Commissioner determines that special 

controls in addition to general controls 

are necessary and sufficient to provide 

reasonable assurance of the safety and 

effectiveness of the device and there is 

sufficient information to establish 

special controls to provide such 

assurance, or to class I if the 

Commissioner determines that general 

controls alone would provide 

reasonable assurance of the safety and 

effectiveness of the device. The 

procedures are as follows: 

(1) The Commissioner publishes a 

proposed reclassification order in the 

Federal Register seeking comment on 

the proposed reclassification. 

(2) Before or after the publication of 

a proposed reclassification order, the 

Commissioner may consult with the 

appropriate classification panel with 

respect to the reclassification of the 

device. The panel will consider 

reclassification in accordance with the 

consultation procedures of § 860.125. 

(3) Following consideration of 

comments to a public docket and any 

panel recommendations or comments, 

the Commissioner may change the 

classification of a device by final 

administrative order published in the 

Federal Register. 

(d) An administrative order under this 

section changing the classification of a 

device from class III to class II may 

establish the special controls necessary 

to provide reasonable assurance of the 

safety and effectiveness of the device. 

Dated: March 18, 2014. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06364 Filed 3–21–14; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2014–0182; 

FRL–9908–44–Region–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan, 

Conformity Budgets, Emissions 

Inventories; State of New York 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the New York 

State Department of Environmental 

Conservation. This revision will 

establish an updated ten-year carbon 

monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for 

the New York portion of the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island 

(NYCMA) CO area which includes the 

following seven counties: Bronx, Kings, 

Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond 

and Westchester. In addition, EPA 

proposes to approve a revision to the CO 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for 

New York and revisions to the 2007 

Attainment/Base Year emissions 

inventory. 

The New York portion of the NYCMA 

CO area was redesignated to attainment 

of the CO National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) on April 19, 2002 

and maintenance plans were also 

approved at that time. By this action, 

EPA is proposing to approve the second 

maintenance plan for this area because 

it provides for continued attainment for 

an additional ten years of the CO 

NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2014–0182, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Ruvo.Richard@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16266 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

Hand Delivery: Richard Ruvo, Chief, 

Air Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. The 

Regional Office’s official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2014– 

0182. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if 

at all possible, that you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view 

the hard copy of the docket. You may 

view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Henry Feingersh feingersh.henry@

epa.gov for general questions, Raymond 

Forde forde.raymond@epa.gov for 

emissions inventory questions, or 

Melanie Zeman zeman.melanie@

epa.gov for mobile source related 

questions at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Programs 

Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New 

York, NY 10007–1866, telephone 

number (212) 637–4249, fax number 

(212) 637–3901. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the nature of EPA’s action? 

II. What is the Carbon Monoxide Limited 

Maintenance Plan for the New York 

portion of the New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island Carbon Monoxide 

area? 

III. What is included in a maintenance plan? 

A. Attainment Inventory 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

C. Monitoring Network 

D. Verification of Continued Attainment 

E. Contingency Plan 

1. Control Measures 

2. Contingency Measures 

F. Conformity 

IV. What is the New York emissions 

inventory? 

V. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the nature of EPA’s action? 

EPA is proposing to approve an 

updated ten-year carbon monoxide (CO) 

maintenance plan for the New York 

portion of the New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island (NYCMA) CO area. 

On April 19, 2002, the EPA approved a 

request from New York to redesignate 

the New York portion of the NYCMA 

CO area to attainment of the CO 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) (67 FR 19337). In addition, 

the EPA also approved at that time a 

ten-year CO maintenance plan for the 

area. The Clean Air Act (the Act) 

requires that an area redesignated to 

attainment of the CO NAAQS must 

submit a second ten-year CO 

maintenance Plan to show how the area 

will continue to attain the CO standard 

for an additional ten years. On May 9, 

2013, New York submitted a second tenyear CO maintenance plan for the New 

York portion of the NYCMA CO area 

and requested that EPA approve the 

plan. The following sections describe 

how the EPA made its determination 

proposing to approve the second tenyear maintenance plan. EPA is also 

proposing to approve a revision to the 

CO motor vehicle emissions budgets for 

New York. This additional State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision is 

discussed in section II.B.6. A more 

detailed discussion of EPA’s review and 

proposed action is found in the 

Technical Support Document available 

in the Docket for this action, and by 

contacting the individuals in the For 

Further Information Section. 

II. What is the Carbon Monoxide 

Limited Maintenance Plan for the New 

York portion of the New York-Northern 

New Jersey-Long Island Carbon 

Monoxide area? 

A maintenance plan is a SIP revision 

that must demonstrate continued 

attainment of the applicable NAAQS in 

the maintenance area for at least ten 

years. The Act requires that a second 

ten-year plan be submitted in order to 

assure that the area will continue to stay 

in compliance with the relevant 

NAAQS. For the NYCMA CO area, the 

New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation is 

proposing to utilize EPA’s limited 

maintenance plan approach, as detailed 

in the EPA guidance memorandum, 

‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment 

Areas’’ from Joseph Paisie, Group 

Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies 

Group, Office of Air Quality and 

Planning Standards OAQPS, dated 

October 6, 1995. Pursuant to this 

approach, EPA will consider the 

maintenance demonstration satisfied for 

areas if the monitoring data show the 

design value is at or below 7.65 parts 

per million (ppm), or 85 percent of the 

level of the 8-hour CO NAAQS. The 

design value must be based on eight 

consecutive quarters of data. For such 

areas, there is no requirement to project 

emissions of air quality over the 

maintenance period. EPA believes if the 

area begins the maintenance period at, 

or below, 85 percent of the CO 8 hour 

NAAQS, the applicability of Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

requirements, the control measures 

already in the SIP, and Federal 

measures, should provide adequate 

assurance of maintenance over the 

initial 10-year maintenance period. In 

addition, the design value for the area 

must continue to be at or below 7.65 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16267 

ppm until the time of final EPA action 

on the redesignation. 

III. What is included in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the Act sets forth the 

elements of maintenance plans for areas 

seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. The initial 

and subsequent ten-year plans must 

each demonstrate continued attainment 

of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten 

years after approval. EPA is proposing 

action on the second ten-year 

maintenance plan which covers the 

period from 2012 through 2022. The 

specific elements of a maintenance plan 

are: 

A. Attainment Inventory 

EPA’s October 6, 1995 Limited 

Maintenance Plan guidance states that 

for inventory purposes the state is only 

required to submit an attainment 

inventory to EPA that is based on 

monitoring data which shows 

attainment. There is no requirement to 

project emissions over the maintenance 

period. The calendar year inventory 

selected for the attainment inventory is 

2007. This means if 2007 is a calendar 

year which has monitoring data which 

demonstrates attainment of the 

standard, the 2007 base year inventory 

can be used as the attainment year 

inventory and no projection inventories 

are required over the years of the 

maintenance period. Only calendar year 

2007 summary emissions data (based on 

winter season day) are required. In 

addition, the inventory should be 

consistent with EPA’s most recent 

guidance on emission inventories for 

nonattainment areas available at the 

time and should include emissions 

during the time period associated with 

the monitoring data showing 

attainment. 

New York submitted a limited 

maintenance plan which included a 

2007 base year emissions inventory. The 

2007 inventory is also classified as the 

attainment year inventory for the 

limited maintenance plan. New York 

has elected 2007 because it is the 

attainment year base year that will be 

used for the limited maintenance plan 

and 2007 represents one of the years of 

violation free monitored data in the 

area. The inventory included peak 

winter season daily emissions from 

stationary point, stationary area, nonroad mobile, and on-road mobile 

sources of CO. These emission estimates 

were prepared in accordance with EPA 

guidance. 

EPA is proposing to approve the CO 

inventory for the counties of Bronx, 

Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, 

Richmond and Westchester. Details of 

the inventory review are located in 

section VII. A. of this action. A more 

detailed discussion of how the emission 

inventory was reviewed and the results 

of EPA’s review are presented in the 

technical support document. 

Table 1 presents a summary of the 

2007 CO peak winter season daily 

emissions estimates in tons per day for 

the NYCMA CO area. Again, under the 

Limited Maintenance Plan guidance, 

there is no requirement to project 

emissions over the maintenance period. 

TABLE 1—2007 BASE YEAR INVENTORY NYCMA CO AREA

[Tons/peak winter season day] 

County Point Area Off-highway 

mobile 

Highway 

mobile Total 

Bronx .................................................................................... 1.77 77.18 29.38 156.54 264.87 

Kings .................................................................................... 2.81 149.41 96.40 263.40 510.22 

Nassau ................................................................................. 3.52 81.07 118.93 580.89 784.40 

New York ............................................................................. 4.21 141.96 230.59 202.87 579.64 

Queens ................................................................................. 7.71 125.77 102.03 441.15 675.66 

Richmond ............................................................................. 1.48 25.57 21.12 130.41 178.58 

Westchester ......................................................................... 1.11 60.18 81.66 382.66 525.62 

Total .............................................................................. 22.61 661.14 678.31 2,257.93 3,519.99 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

New York has met the Limited 

Maintenance Plan air quality criteria 

requirement by demonstrating that its 

highest monitored design value is less 

than 85 percent (7.65 parts per million) 

of the CO standard of 9.0 parts per 

million. The highest monitored design 

value in the NYCMA CO area for the 

2012–2013 design year was 2.5 parts per 

million at a monitoring site in New 

Jersey. The highest monitored design 

value measured in the New York State 

portion of the NYCMA CO area was 1.5 

parts per million. In addition, New York 

commits to continued implementation 

of all other Federal and State measures 

already implemented as part of its CO 

SIP. Thus, according to the Limited 

Maintenance Guidance, emission 

projections are not required. 

C. Monitoring Network 

New York continues to operate its CO 

monitoring network and will continue 

to work with the EPA through the air 

monitoring network review process as 

required by 40 CFR Part 58 to determine 

the adequacy of its network. New York 

will continue annual reviews of its data 

in order to verify continued attainment 

of the NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, all 

of New York’s 8-hour design values are 

well below the 9.0 ppm 8-hour NAAQS 

for CO with the highest monitor in the 

New York portion of the NYCMA 

reading 1.5 ppm, as shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUES FOR CO IN

NEW YORK

[8-Hour standard—9 parts per million] 

Monitoring location 

2012–2013 

Design 

value 

(parts per 

million) 

200th Street, Bronx .................. 1.5 

160 Convent Ave., New York ... 1.3 

Queens College, Queens ......... 1.1 

In its SIP revision, New York used the 

2010–2011 design values. EPA reviewed 

more recent data in addition to the 

2010–2011 data and found the 

maximum 2012–2013 design value for 

New York to be 1.5 ppm, which 

continues to show attainment of the 

NAAQS. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

D. Verification of Continued Attainment 

New York will verify that the New 

York portion of the NYCMA CO area 

continues to attain the CO NAAQS 

through an annual review of its 

monitoring data. If any design value 

exceeds 7.65 ppm, New York will 

coordinate with EPA Region 2 to verify 

and evaluate the data and then, if 

warranted, develop a full maintenance 

plan for the affected maintenance area. 

E. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A (d) of the Act requires 

that a maintenance plan include a 

contingency plan which includes 

contingency measures, as necessary, to 

promptly correct any violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation 

of the area. Contingency measures do 

not have to be fully adopted at the time 

of redesignation. However, the 

contingency plan is considered to be an 

enforceable part of the SIP and should 

ensure that the contingency measures 

are adopted expeditiously once they are 

triggered by a specified event. In 

addition, the contingency plan includes 

a requirement that the State continue to 

implement all control measures used to 

bring the area into attainment. 

The triggers specified in New York’s 

previous maintenance plan are included 

in this Limited Maintenance Plan. If air 

quality monitoring data indicate that the 

CO NAAQS were exceeded, New York 

will analyze the data to determine the 

cause of the violation. If it is determined 

that the violation was caused by a nonlocal motor vehicle usage event, then 

the State will institute the contingency 

measures described below. 

1. Control Measures 

New York has implemented a number 

of measures to control motor vehicle CO 

emissions. Emission reductions 

achieved through the implementation of 

these control measures are enforceable. 

These measures include the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Control Program, Federal 

reformulated gasoline, New York’s pre1990 modifications to its inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program, and local 

control measures relied on in the SIP. 

The State of New York has 

demonstrated that actual enforceable 

emission reductions are responsible for 

the air quality improvement and that the 

CO emissions in the base year are not 

artificially low due to local economic 

downturn. EPA finds that the 

combination of existing EPA-approved 

SIP and Federal measures contribute to 

the permanence and enforceability of 

reductions in ambient CO levels that 

have allowed the New York portion of 

the NYCMA CO area to attain the 

NAAQS since 1992. 

New York commits to continuing to 

implement all control measures used to 

bring the area into attainment. 

2. Contingency Measures 

The State plans to continue to use the 

contingency measure from the original 

maintenance plan. The plan included 

implementation of an enhanced I/M 

program. This program is fully 

operational and the State commits to 

meet the performance standard for an 

enhanced I/M program in an effort to 

maintain the CO NAAQS. Although the 

plan is currently in place, EPA guidance 

allows for it to act as a contingency 

measure. In addition, since we had 

approved this measure in the previous 

maintenance plan, we are proposing to 

approve it in this action. 

F. Conformity 

Section 176(c) of the Act defines 

conformity as meeting the SIP’s purpose 

of eliminating or reducing the severity 

and number of violations of the NAAQS 

and achieving expeditious attainment of 

such standards. The Act further defines 

transportation conformity to mean that 

no Federal transportation activity will: 

(1) Cause or contribute to any new 

violation of any standard in any area; (2) 

increase the frequency or severity of any 

existing violation of any standard in any 

area; or (3) delay timely attainment of 

any standard or any required interim 

emission reductions or other milestones 

in any area. The Federal transportation 

conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93 subpart 

A, sets forth the criteria and procedures 

for demonstrating and assuring 

conformity of transportation plans, 

programs and projects which are 

developed, funded or approved by the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, and 

by metropolitan planning organizations 

or other recipients of Federal funds 

under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal 

Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. chapter 53). 

The transportation conformity rule 

applies within all nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. As prescribed by the 

transportation conformity rule, once an 

area has an applicable SIP with motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB), the 

expected emissions from planned 

transportation activities must be 

consistent with such established 

budgets for that area. 

In the case of the NYCMA CO area, 

however, the emissions budgets may be 

treated as essentially not constraining 

for the length of this second 

maintenance period as long as the area 

continues to meet the limited 

maintenance criteria, because there is 

no reason to expect that these areas will 

experience so much growth in that 

period that a violation of the CO 

NAAQS would result. In other words, 

emissions from on-road transportation 

sources need not be capped for the 

maintenance period because it is 

unreasonable to believe that emissions 

from such sources would increase to a 

level that would threaten the air quality 

in this area for the duration of this 

maintenance period. Therefore, for the 

limited maintenance plan CO 

maintenance area, all Federal actions 

that require conformity determinations 

under the transportation conformity rule 

are considered to satisfy the regional 

emissions analysis and ’’budget test’’ 

requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 of the 

rule. 

Since limited maintenance plan areas 

are still maintenance areas, however, 

transportation conformity 

determinations are still required for 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects. Specifically, for such 

determinations, transportation plans, 

transportation improvement programs, 

and projects must still demonstrate that 

they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 

part 108) and must meet the criteria for 

consultation and Transportation Control 

Measure (TCM) implementation in the 

conformity rule (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 

CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition, 

projects in limited maintenance areas 

will still be required to meet the criteria 

for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy 

‘‘project level’’ conformity 

determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 

CFR 93.123) which must incorporate the 

latest planning assumptions and models 

that are available. All aspects of 

transportation conformity (with the 

exception of satisfying the emission 

budget test) will still be required. 

If the NYCMA CO area should 

monitor CO concentrations at or above 

the limited maintenance eligibility 

criteria or 7.65 parts per million then 

this maintenance area would no longer 

qualify for a limited maintenance plan 

and would revert to a full maintenance 

plan. In this event, the limited 

maintenance plan would remain 

applicable for conformity purposes only 

until the full maintenance plan is 

submitted and EPA has found its motor 

vehicle emissions budget adequate for 

conformity purposes or EPA approves 

the full maintenance plan SIP revision. 

At that time regional emissions analyses 

would resume as a transportation 

conformity criteria. 

EPA has also posted the Limited 

Maintenance plan for the NYCMA CO 

area on our Transportation Conformity 

Adequacy Web site for a thirty day 

public comment period beginning June 

11, 2013. No public comments were 

received. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 16269 

IV. What is the New York emissions 

inventory? 

Section 182(a)(3) and 172(c)(3) of the 

Act requires the periodic submission of 

a base inventory for SIP planning 

processes to address the pollutants for 

the eight hour-ozone, PM2.5 and CO 

national ambient air quality standard. 

Identifying the base year gives certainty 

to states that requires submission of the 

ozone, PM2.5 and CO emission 

inventories periodically. These 

requirements allow the EPA, based on 

the states’ progress in reducing 

emissions, to periodically reassess its 

policies and air quality standards and 

revise them as necessary. Most 

important, the ozone, PM2.5 and CO 

inventories will be used to develop and 

assess new control strategies that the 

states will need to submit in their 

attainment demonstration SIPs for the 

new national ambient air quality 

standards for ozone, PM2.5 and for CO. 

The base year inventory may also serve 

as part of statewide inventories for 

purposes of regional modeling in 

transport areas. The base year inventory 

plays an important role in modeling 

demonstrations for areas classified as 

nonattainment and outside transport 

regions. For the reasons stated above, 

ideally EPA would therefore emphasize 

the importance and benefits of 

developing a comprehensive, current, 

and accurate emission inventory 

(similar to the 1990 base year inventory 

effort). In this case, the 2007 base year 

has been selected as the inventory that 

will be used for planning purposes for 

the NYCMA CO area. 

There are specific components of an 

acceptable emission inventory. The 

emission inventory must meet certain 

minimum requirements for reporting 

each source category. Specifically, the 

source requirements are detailed below. 

The review process, which is 

described in supporting documentation, 

is used to determine that all 

components of the base year inventory 

are present. This review also evaluates 

the level of supporting documentation 

provided by the state, assesses whether 

the emissions were developed according 

to current EPA guidance, and evaluates 

the quality of the data. 

The review process is outlined here 

and consists of 8 points that the 

inventory must include. For a base year 

emission inventory to be acceptable, it 

must pass all of the following 

acceptance criteria: 

1. Evidence that the inventory was 

quality assured by the state and its 

implementation documented. 

2. The point source inventory was 

complete. 

3. Point source emissions were 

prepared or calculated according to the 

current EPA guidance. 

4. The area source inventory was 

complete. 

5. The area source emissions were 

prepared or calculated according to the 

current EPA guidance. 

6. Non-road mobile emissions were 

prepared according to current EPA 

guidance for all of the source categories. 

7. The method (e.g., HPMS or a 

network transportation planning model) 

used to develop VMT estimates 

followed EPA guidance. 

8. The MOBILE model was correctly 

used to produce emission factors for 

each of the vehicle classes. 

Based on EPA’s review, New York 

satisfied all of EPA’s requirements for 

purposes of providing a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual 

emissions for CO areas. Where 

applicable, CO peak winter season daily 

emissions are provided for CO 

nonattainment area. The inventory was 

developed in accordance with Emission 

Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulation, 

dated August 2005. A summary of EPA’s 

review is given below: 

1. The Quality Assurance (QA) plan 

was implemented for all portions of the 

inventory. The QA plan included a QA/ 

Quality control (QC) program for 

assessing data completeness and 

standard range checking. Critical data 

elements relative to the inventory 

sources were assessed for completeness. 

QA checks were performed relative to 

data collection and analysis, and double 

counting of emissions from point, area 

and mobile sources. QA/QC checks 

were conducted to ensure accuracy of 

units, unit conversions, transposition of 

figures, and calculations. 

2. The inventory is well documented. 

New York provided documentation 

detailing the methods used to develop 

emissions estimates for each category. In 

addition, New York identified the 

sources of data used in developing the 

inventory. 

3. The point source emissions are 

complete in accordance with EPA 

guidance. 

4. The point source emissions were 

prepared/calculated in accordance with 

EPA guidance. 

5. The area source emissions are 

complete and were prepared/calculated 

in accordance with EPA guidance. 

6. Emission estimates for the non-road 

mobile source categories were correctly 

based on the latest non-road mobile 

model and prepared in accordance with 

EPA guidance. 

7. The method used to develop VMT 

estimates was in accordance with EPA 

guidance and was adequately described 

and documented in the inventory 

report. 

8. Latest Mobile model was used 

correctly for each of the vehicle classes. 

The 2007 base year inventory has been 

developed in accordance with EPA 

guidance. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2007 base year CO 

emission inventory. 

A more detailed discussion of how 

the emission inventory was reviewed 

and the results of the review are 

presented in the technical support 

document. Detailed emission inventory 

development procedures can be found 

in the following document: Emission 

Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulation, 

dated August 2005. See Table 1 for a 

summary of 2007 CO peak winter 

season daily emission estimates by 

source sector and by county for the 

NYCMA CO area. 

V. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA has evaluated New York’s 

submittals for consistency with the Act 

and Agency regulations and policy. EPA 

is proposing to approve New York’s CO 

limited maintenance plan because it 

meets the requirements set forth in 

section 175A of the Act and continues 

to demonstrate that the NAAQS for CO 

will continue to be met for the next ten 

years. EPA is proposing to approve the 

revisions to the CO motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for New York. 

Finally, this notice also proposes to 

approve revisions to the 2007 base year 

emission inventories. 

EPA views the SIP revisions proposed 

in today’s proposal as separable actions. 

This means that if EPA receives adverse 

comments on particular portions of this 

notice and not on other portions, EPA 

may choose not to take final action at 

the same time in a single notice on all 

of these SIP revisions. Instead, EPA may 

choose to take final action on these SIP 

revisions in separate notices. 

Interested parties may participate in 

the Federal rulemaking procedure by 

submitting written comments to the 

EPA Region 2 Office by one of the 

methods discussed in the ADDRESSES

section of this action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16270 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: March 10, 2014. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06585 Filed 3–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0707; A–1–FRL– 

9908–36–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans (Negative Declarations) for 

Designated Facilities and Pollutants: 

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, 

and Vermont; Withdrawal of State Plan 

for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants: New Hampshire; Technical 

Corrections to Approved State Plans 

(Negative Declarations): Rhode Island 

and Vermont 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

negative declarations for hospital/

medical/infectious waste incinerators 

(HMIWI) for the State of Connecticut 

and the State of New Hampshire and 

negative declarations for sewage sludge 

incinerators (SSI) for the State of Maine 

and the State of Vermont. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the withdrawal of 

a previously-approved State Plan for 

HMIWI in the State of New Hampshire. 

Lastly, EPA is proposing technical 

corrections to Clean Air Act Sections 

111(d) and 129 State Plan (Negative 

Declaration) approvals for Other Solid 

Waste Incinerators (OSWI) for the State 

of Rhode Island and the State of 

Vermont. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2012–0707 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: mcdonnell.ida@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0653. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0109’’, 

Ida McDonnell, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Permits, Toxic, & Indoor 

Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Ida McDonnell, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, 

Toxic, & Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post 

Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Bird, Air Permits, Toxic, & 

Indoor Programs Unit, Air Programs 

Branch, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Mail 

Code: OEP05–2, Boston, MA, 02109– 

0287. The telephone number is (617) 

918–1287. Mr. Bird can also be reached 

via electronic mail at bird.patrick@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

State Plan revisions as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action rule, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, the 

direct final rule will be withdrawn and 

all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS