Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 72981 

1The boundaries for this area are described in 40 

CFR 81.305. 

2See 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. 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS—Continued 

Indiana citation Subject Indiana 

effective date EPA Approval date Notes 

*******

1EPA 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 

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 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, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72982 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3The 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). 

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 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

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 

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); 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues 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: 

§ 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 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 81–DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 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: 

§ 81.305 California. 

* * * * * 

CALIFORNIA—2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 2 Type 

*******

Yuba City-Marysville, CA 

Sutter County ............................................ January 8, 2015 ........ Attainment.

Yuba County (part) .................................... January 8, 2015 ........ Attainment.


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 2 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. 

1This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted. 

2This 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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Decision on request for waiver 

from testing. 

SUMMARY: EPA denied a request from 

Nation Ford Chemical (NFC) for a 

waiver from testing chloranil (2,3,5,6- 

tetrachloro-2,5-cyclohexadiene-1,4- 

dione). 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) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0261, is 

available at http://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 http://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. 

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 (2,3,5,6- 

tetrachloro-2,5-cyclohexadiene-1,4- 

dione; 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES