61822 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide 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 proposed 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: September 24, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24487 Filed 10–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0781; FRL–9917–86– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of California; PM2.5; 

Redesignation of Yuba City-Marysville 

to Attainment; Approval of PM2.5

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for Yuba CityMarysville 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

as a revision of the California state 

implementation plan (SIP), the State’s 

request to redesignate the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard. EPA is 

also proposing 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, EPA is 

proposing to approve the attainment 

year emissions inventory. EPA is 

proposing this action because the SIP 

revision meets the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act and EPA guidance for 

such plans and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0781, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: John Ungvarsky 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

anonymous access system, and EPA will 

not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket and 

documents in the docket for this action 

are generally 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 EPA. This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

II. What is the background for this action? 

A. The PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Areas 

C. PM2.5 Planning Requirements 

III. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

A. Background 

B. Proposal on This Issue 

IV. Procedural Requirements for Adoption 

and Submittal of SIP Revisions 

V. Substantive Requirements for 

Redesignation 

VI. Evaluation of the State’s Redesignation 

Request for the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully-Approved 

SIP Meeting Requirements Applicable 

for Purposes of Redesignation Under 

Clean Air Act Section 110 and Part D 

C. EPA Has Determined That the 

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Under Clean Air Act 

Section 175A 

VII. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

Under Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the 

Act’’) section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA is 

proposing to approve the State’s request 

to redesignate the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 nonattainment area 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 2009–2011 time period 

and that the area continues to attain the 

PM2.5 standard since that time; (2) that 

relevant portions of the California 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61823 

1See 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. 

2For a given air pollutant, ‘‘primary’’ national 

ambient air quality standards are those determined 

by EPA as requisite to protect the public health, and 

‘‘secondary’’ standards are those determined by 

EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from 

any known or anticipated adverse effects associated 

with the presence of such air pollutant in the 

ambient air. See CAA section 109(b). 

3With respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, this 

area is designated as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ 

4The Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment 

area includes Sutter County and the southwestern 

two-thirds of Yuba County. This nonattainment area 

lies within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin and 

lies between the Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area to 

the north and the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment 

area to the south. 

5 In 1991, the Sutter County Air Pollution Control 

District (APCD) and the Yuba County APCD 

combined to form the FRAQMD. 

6On June 8, 2010, James Goldstene, Executive 

Officer of the California Air Resources Board, 

submitted a request to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, to find the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area had 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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’’) 1

meets the requirements of section 175A 

of the CAA. 

In addition, under section 110(k)(3) of 

the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve 

the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

including the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) as a revision to the 

California SIP because we find the 

MVEBs meet the applicable 

transportation conformity requirements 

under 40 CFR 93.118(e). EPA finds that 

the maintenance demonstration shows 

how the area will continue to attain the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10 

years beyond redesignation (i.e., 

through 2023) 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 

section 175A of the CAA. Finally, EPA 

is proposing to approve the attainment 

year emissions inventory under section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. 

EPA is proposing these actions 

because the SIP revision meets the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA 

guidance for such plans and budgets. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

A. The PM2.5 NAAQS 

Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA 

has established national ambient air 

quality standards for certain pervasive 

air pollutants (referred to as ‘‘criteria 

pollutants’’) and conducts periodic 

reviews of the NAAQS to determine 

whether they should be revised or 

whether new NAAQS should be 

established. EPA sets the NAAQS for 

certain ambient air pollutants at levels 

required to protect public health and 

welfare. PM2.5 is one of these ambient 

air pollutants for which EPA has 

established health-based standards. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the 

NAAQS for particulate matter to add 

new standards for PM2.5, using PM2.5 as 

the indicator for the pollutant. EPA 

established primary and secondary 2

annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5

(62 FR 38652). The annual standard was 

set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3), based on a 3-year average of 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and 

the 24-hour standard was set at 65 mg/ 

m3, based on the 3-year average of the 

98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area. 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA revised the level of the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 mg/m3, based on a 

3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations. EPA also 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

but with tighter constraints on the 

spatial averaging criteria. 

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Areas 

Effective December 14, 2009, EPA 

established the initial air quality 

designations for most areas in the 

United States for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688, (November 

13, 2009). Among the various areas 

designated in 2009, EPA designated the 

Yuba City-Marysville area in California 

as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS.3 The boundaries for this 

area are described in 40 CFR 81.305.4

On January 10, 2013, at 78 FR 2211, 

EPA issued a determination that the 

Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard based on complete, qualityassured, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2009–2011 

monitoring period. 

C. PM2.5 Planning Requirements 

Beginning in the 1970’s and 

continuing to the present, the Feather 

River Air Quality Management District 5

and the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) have adopted a number of rules 

to address planning requirements under 

the CAA, as amended in 1977. CARB 

submitted these rules and plans to EPA 

at various times, and EPA approved a 

number of them into the California SIP. 

An example of a rule adopted by 

FRAQMD and approved by EPA as a 

revision to the California SIP as part of 

the PM2.5 control strategy in the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment 

area is Rule 3.22—Internal Combustion 

Engines. Examples of rules adopted by 

CARB and approved by EPA as 

revisions to the California SIP that have 

reduced PM2.5 in the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 nonattainment area 

include: California Code of Regulations 

(CCR) Title 13, Section 1956.8—Heavy 

Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission 

Standards; CCR, Section 2262— 

California Reformulated Gasoline Phase 

2 and Phase 3 Standards; and CCR, 

Sections 2420–2427—Heavy Duty Diesel 

Cycle Engines. 

Within three years of the effective 

date of designations, states with areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are required to 

submit SIP revisions that, among other 

elements, provide for implementation of 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 

(RFP), attainment of the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than five years from the nonattainment 

designation (in this instance, no later 

than December 14, 2014), as well as 

contingency measures. See CAA section 

172(a)(2), 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and 

172(c)(9). Prior to the due date for 

submittal of these SIP revisions, the 

State of California requested that EPA 

make determinations that the Yuba CityMarysville 6 nonattainment area has 

attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 

that attainment-related SIP submittal 

requirements are not applicable for as 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard. As described above, on 

January 10, 2013, at 78 FR 2211, EPA 

issued a final determination that the 

Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area had attained the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard. Pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.1004(c) and based on this 

determination, the requirements for the 

Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated RACM, a 

RFP plan, contingency measures, and 

other planning SIPs related to the 

attainment of either the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended until such 

time as: The area is redesignated to 

attainment for each standard, at which 

time the requirements no longer apply; 

or EPA determines that the area has 

again violated any of the standards, at 

which time such plans are required to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61824 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7On February 20, 2014, CARB submitted to 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. 

be submitted. However, a determination 

of attainment does not preclude states 

from submitting and EPA from 

approving a SIP revision for the 2006 

PM2.5 standard. 

On May 23, 2013, CARB submitted 

the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan and 

requested that EPA redesignate the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment 

area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. On February 20, 2014, 

CARB submitted to EPA a technical 

supplement to the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Plan (‘‘technical supplement’’).7

We are proposing action today on 

CARB’s May 23, 2013 submittal, 

including the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Plan, as supplemented by CARB 

on February 20, 2014. 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA takes into account a 2013 decision 

by the United States Court of Appeals, 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit). On January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council (‘‘NRDC’’) v. 

EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded to 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) (collectively, the ‘‘PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). 

III. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of 

Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

A. Background 

As discussed above, on January 4, 

2013, in NRDC v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA the PM2.5

Implementation Rule. The Court found 

that EPA erred in implementing the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the 

general implementation provisions of 

subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA 

(subpart 1), rather than the particulatematter-specific provisions of subpart 4 

of Part D of Title I (subpart 4). 

Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, 

the states had worked towards meeting 

the air quality goals of the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with 

the EPA regulations and guidance 

derived from subpart 1 of Part D of Title 

I of the CAA. In rulemaking that 

responds to the Court’s remand, EPA 

takes this history into account by setting 

a new deadline for any remaining 

submissions that may be required of 

moderate nonattainment areas as a 

result of the Court’s decision regarding 

subpart 4. See 78 FR 69806 (November 

21, 2013). On June 2, 2014, EPA 

finalized the PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadline Rule, which identifies the 

classification under subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards. 

See 79 FR 31566. EPA’s final 

rulemaking also sets deadlines for states 

to submit attainment-related and NSR 

SIP elements required for these areas 

pursuant to subpart 4, and identifies the 

EPA guidance that is currently available 

regarding subpart 4 requirements. See 

78 FR 69806 (November 21, 2013). This 

final rule sets a deadline for States to 

submit attainment plans and meet other 

subpart 4 requirements. The final rule 

specifies December 31, 2014 as the 

deadline for the states to submit any 

additional attainment-related SIP 

elements that may be needed to meet 

the applicable requirements of subpart 4 

for areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS and to submit SIPs 

addressing the nonattainment NSR 

requirements in subpart 4. Therefore, for 

California, any additional attainmentrelated SIP elements that may be needed 

for the Yuba City-Marysville 

nonattainment area to meet the 

requirements of subpart 4 were not due 

at the time that California submitted the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan. 

B. Proposal on This Issue 

In this portion of the proposed 

redesignation, EPA addresses the effect 

of the Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling and 

the PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment 

Classification and Deadline Rule (79 FR 

31566, June 2, 2014) on the proposed 

redesignation. As explained below, EPA 

is proposing to determine that the 

Court’s January 4, 2013, decision does 

not prevent EPA from redesignating the 

Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM 2.5 NAAQS. Even in light of the 

Court’s decision, redesignation for this 

area is appropriate under the CAA and 

EPA’s longstanding interpretations of 

the CAA’s provisions regarding 

redesignation. EPA first explains its 

longstanding interpretation that 

requirements that are imposed, or that 

become due, after a complete 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard, are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. 

Second, EPA then shows that, even if 

EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements 

to the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

and disregards the provisions of its 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule recently 

remanded by the Court, the state’s 

request for redesignation of this area 

still qualifies for approval. EPA’s 

discussion takes into account the effect 

of the Court’s ruling and the PM2.5

Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification 

and Deadline Rule (79 FR 31566, June 

2, 2014) on the area’s maintenance plan, 

which EPA views as approvable when 

subpart 4 requirements are considered. 

1. Applicable Requirements for 

Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request 

With respect to the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS solely in accordance with the 

provisions of subpart 1, and remanded 

that matter to EPA, so that it could 

address implementation of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of Part D 

of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating California’s 

redesignation request for the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area, to the 

extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, EPA believes that those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not 

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the Yuba 

City-Marysville redesignation. Under its 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA, 

EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) 

to mean, as a threshold matter, that the 

part D provisions which are 

‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61825 

8Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. CAA section 

175A(c). 

9Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that 

addressed retroactivity in a quite different context, 

where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give 

its regulations retroactive effect. National 

Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 

145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 

958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571 

(2011). 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

of attainment’’).8 In this case, at the time 

that California submitted its 

redesignation request, requirements 

under subpart 4 were not due. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Plan, the subpart 4 requirements 

were not due at the time the State 

submitted the redesignation request is 

in keeping with the EPA’s interpretation 

of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 

ozone areas redesignated subsequent to 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in South 

Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 

472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South 

Coast, the Court found that EPA was not 

permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard solely under subpart 1, 

and held that EPA was required under 

the statute to implement the standard 

under the ozone-specific requirements 

of subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the 

South Coast decision, in evaluating and 

acting upon redesignation requests for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that 

were submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements’’, for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, 

EPA therefore did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of section 107(d)(3) of the 

CAA. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, 

for an area to be redesignated, a state 

must meet ‘‘all requirements 

‘applicable’ to the area under section 

110 and part D.’’ Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) 

provides that the EPA must have fully 

approved the ‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the 

area seeking redesignation. These two 

sections read together support EPA’s 

interpretation of ‘‘applicable’’ as only 

those requirements that came due prior 

to submission of a complete 

redesignation request. First, holding 

states to an ongoing obligation to adopt 

new CAA requirements that arose after 

the state submitted its redesignation 

request, in order to be redesignated, 

would make it problematic or 

impossible for EPA to act on 

redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the Act 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. 

EPA and EPA’s PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadline Rule (79 FR 31566, June 2, 

2014) compound the consequences of 

imposing requirements that come due 

after the redesignation request is 

submitted. The State submitted its 

redesignation request on May 23, 2013, 

which is prior to the deadline by which 

the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area is required to meet the attainment 

plan and other requirements pursuant to 

subpart 4. 

To evaluate the State’s fullycompleted and pending redesignation 

request to comply now with 

requirements of subpart 4 that the Court 

announced only in January 2013, would 

be to give retroactive effect to such 

requirements and contravene EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation of 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The D.C. Circuit 

recognized the inequity of this type of 

retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. 

Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),9

where it upheld the District Court’s 

ruling refusing to make retroactive 

EPA’s determination that the St. Louis 

area did not meet its attainment 

deadline. In that case, petitioners urged 

the Court to make EPA’s nonattainment 

determination effective as of the date 

that the statute required, rather than the 

later date on which EPA actually made 

the determination. The Court rejected 

this view, stating that applying it 

‘‘would likely impose large costs on 

States, which would face fines and suits 

for not implementing air pollution 

prevention plans . . . even though they 

were not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 

68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable 

to penalize the State of California by 

rejecting its redesignation request for an 

area that is already attaining the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard and that met all 

applicable requirements known to be in 

effect at the time of the request. For EPA 

now to reject the redesignation request 

solely because the State did not 

expressly address subpart 4 

requirements which have not yet come 

due and for which it had little to no 

notice, would inflict the same 

unfairness condemned by the Court in 

Sierra Club v. Whitman. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61826 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

10PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

11The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation is discussed below. 

12 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

13As EPA has explained previously, we do not 

believe that the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

should be interpreted so as to impose these 

requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club 

v. Whitman, supra. 

2. Subpart 4 Requirements and 

California’s Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

requires that, in the context of a pending 

redesignation for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, subpart 4 requirements were 

due and in effect at the time the State 

submitted its redesignation request, EPA 

proposes to determine that the Yuba 

City-Marysville area still qualifies for 

redesignation to attainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard. As explained 

below, EPA believes 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. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area, EPA notes that subpart 4 

incorporates components of subpart 1 of 

part D, which contains general air 

quality planning requirements for areas 

designated as nonattainment. See 

section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains 

specific planning and scheduling 

requirements for PM10 10 nonattainment 

areas, and under the Court’s January 4, 

2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA, these 

same statutory requirements also apply 

for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General 

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM10

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, RACM, 

RFP, emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, consistent with EPA’s PM2.5

Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification 

and Deadline Rule (79 FR 31566, June 

2, 2014), we are considering the Yuba 

City-Marysville nonattainment area to 

be a ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment 

area. As EPA explained in its June 2, 

2014 rule, section 188 of the CAA 

provides that all designated 

nonattainment areas under subpart 4 are 

initially be classified by operation of 

law as ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas, 

and remain moderate nonattainment 

areas unless and until EPA reclassifies 

the area as a ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment 

area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it 

is appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.11 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment NSR program is not 

considered an applicable requirement 

for redesignation, provided the area can 

maintain the standard with a prevention 

of significant deterioration (PSD) 

program after redesignation. A detailed 

rationale for this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment’’ (‘‘Nichols 

memorandum’’). See also rulemakings 

for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467– 

12468, March 7, 1995); ClevelandAkron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 

20469–20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, 

Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 

2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 

FR 31834–31837, June 21, 1996). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,12 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is 

attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed 

as having satisfied the attainment 

planning requirements for these 

subparts. For redesignations, EPA has 

for many years interpreted attainmentlinked requirements as not applicable 

for areas attaining the standard. In the 

General Preamble, EPA stated that: 

‘‘The requirements for RFP will not 

apply in evaluating a request for 

redesignation to attainment since, at a 

minimum, the air quality data for the 

area must show that the area has already 

attained. Showing that the State will 

make RFP towards attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that 

point.’’ 57 FR 13564. 

The General Preamble also explained 

that ‘‘[t]he section 172(c)(9) 

requirements are directed at ensuring 

RFP and attainment by the applicable 

date. These requirements no longer 

apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for 

redesignation. Furthermore, section 

175A for maintenance plans . . . 

provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas.’’ Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively 13 and, or prior to 

December 31, 2014 and, thus, were due 

prior to the State’s redesignation 

request, those requirements do not 

apply to an area that is attaining the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, for the 

purpose of evaluating a pending request 

to redesignate the area to attainment. 

EPA has consistently enunciated this 

interpretation of applicable 

requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

since the General Preamble was 

published more than twenty years ago. 

Courts have recognized the scope of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61827 

14The southern portion of Sutter County is also 

within the Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment 

area (SMA), which is classified as Severe-15 for the 

1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards. In 40 CFR 

81.305, the portion of Sutter County within the 

SMA boundaries includes the portion south of a 

line connecting the northern border of Yolo County 

to the SW tip of Yuba County and continuing along 

the southern Yuba County border to Placer County. 

Sources within the SMA are subject to CAA 

requirements for NOX and VOC that may be in 

addition to any requirements relating to the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

15Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard. EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean 

Data Policy’’ rulemakings for the PM10

NAAQS, also governed by the 

requirements of subpart 4, explain 

EPA’s reasoning. They describe the 

effects of a determination of attainment 

on the attainment-related SIP planning 

requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, 

(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

63641, 63643–47 October 30, 2006). In 

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

On January 10, 2013, at 78 FR 2211, 

EPA issued a final determination that 

the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard based on complete, qualityassured, and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for the 2009–2011 

monitoring period. Elsewhere in this 

notice, EPA proposes to determine that 

the area continues to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard. Under its 

longstanding interpretation, EPA is 

proposing to determine here that the 

area meets the attainment-related plan 

requirements of subparts 1 and 4. Thus, 

EPA is proposing to conclude that the 

requirements to submit an attainment 

demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a 

RACM determination under section 

172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP 

demonstration under 189(c)(1), and 

contingency measure requirements 

under section 172(c)(9) are satisfied for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

requests. 

3. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA 

remanded to EPA the two rules at issue 

in the case with instructions to EPA to 

re-promulgate them consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this 

section addresses the Court’s opinion 

with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While 

past implementation of subpart 4 for 

PM10 has allowed for control of PM10

precursors such as oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) from major stationary, mobile, 

and area sources in order to attain the 

standard as expeditiously as practicable, 

CAA section 189(e) specifically 

provides that control requirements for 

major stationary sources of direct PM10

shall also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

(e.g., volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs)) applicable to attainment plans 

and control measures related to those 

plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, 

EPA provided, among other things, that 

a state was ‘‘not required to address 

VOC [and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5

attainment plan precursor[s] and to 

evaluate sources of VOC [and ammonia] 

emissions in the State for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The Court in its January 4, 2013, 

decision made reference to both section 

189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and stated 

that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. 

Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion, 

however, the Court observed, 

‘‘Ammonia is a precursor to fine 

particulate matter, making it a precursor 

to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a PM10

nonattainment area governed by subpart 

4, a precursor is presumptively 

regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e) 

[section 189(e)].’’ Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, EPA believes 

that its proposed redesignation of the 

Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area is consistent with the Court’s 

decision on this aspect of subpart 4. 

First, while the Court, citing section 

189(e), stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

‘presumptively regulated,’’’ the Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s PM2.5

Implementation Rule provisions 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors 

(and any similar provisions reflected in 

the guidance for the 2006 PM2.5

standard), the regulatory consequence 

would be to consider the need for 

regulation of all precursors from any 

sources in the area to demonstrate 

attainment and to apply the section 

189(e) provisions to major stationary 

sources of precursors. In the case of the 

Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area, EPA believes that doing so is 

consistent with proposing redesignation 

of the area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. The Yuba City-Marysville 

nonattainment area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard without 

any specific additional controls of VOC 

and ammonia emissions from any major 

sources in the area.14

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.15

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus 

we must address here whether 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC from major stationary sources are 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61828 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16The Yuba City-Marysville area has reduced 

VOC emissions through the implementation of 

various control programs including VOC 

Reasonably Available Control Technology 

regulations and various on-road and non-road 

motor vehicle control programs. 

17 In the Plan, FRAQMD and CARB indicate that 

based on analyses of inventories and the area 

attaining without the need for additional measures 

to control of ammonia and VOCs, emissions of 

ammonia and VOCs from sources in the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area are an insignificant 

contributor to secondary particulate formation in 

the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

See pages VI–1 in the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

Plan. 

18See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area 

Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual 

PM–10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) 

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SOX, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 19See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

required under section 189(e) of subpart 

4 in order to redesignate the area for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. As 

explained below, we do not believe that 

any additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC are required in the context of this 

redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. 

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOC under other CAA requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13542. In this 

proposed rulemaking action, EPA 

proposes to determine that the SIP has 

met the provisions of section 189(e) 

with respect to ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. This proposed 

determination is based on our findings 

that (1) the Yuba City-Marysville 

nonattainment area contains no major 

stationary sources of ammonia, and (2) 

existing major stationary sources of VOC 

are adequately controlled under other 

provisions of the CAA regulating the 

ozone NAAQS.16 In the alternative, EPA 

proposes to determine that, under the 

express exception provisions of section 

189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the area, which is 

attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, at present ammonia and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard in the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area.17 See 57 

FR 13539–42. 

EPA notes that its PM2.5

Implementation Rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but at SIP 

plans and control measures required to 

bring a nonattainment area into 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

By contrast, redesignation to attainment 

primarily requires the area to have 

already attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision as calling for 

‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of ammonia 

and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment 

planning provisions of subpart 4, those 

provisions in and of themselves do not 

require additional controls of these 

precursors for an area that already 

qualifies for redesignation. Nor does 

EPA believe that requiring California to 

address precursors differently than they 

have already would result in a 

substantively different outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.18 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.19 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the Yuba CityMarysville area has already attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with its 

current approach to regulation of PM2.5

precursors, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to conclude in the context of 

this redesignation that there is no need 

to revisit the attainment control strategy 

with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the Court’s decision 

is construed to impose an obligation, in 

evaluating these redesignation requests, 

to consider additional precursors under 

subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s 

approval here of California’s requests for 

redesignation of the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area. In the 

context of a redesignation, the area has 

shown that it has attained the standard. 

Moreover, the state has shown and EPA 

has proposed to determine that 

attainment in this area is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions on all precursors necessary 

to provide for continued attainment. It 

follows logically that no further control 

of additional precursors is necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA does not view the 

January 4, 2013, decision of the Court as 

precluding redesignation of the Yuba 

City-Marysville nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS at this time. 

In sum, even if California were 

required to address precursors for the 

Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area under subpart 4 rather than under 

subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA’s 

remanded PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 

EPA would still conclude that the area 

had met all applicable requirements for 

purposes of redesignation in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). 

IV. Procedural Requirements for 

Adoption and Submittal of SIP 

Revisions 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) of the 

Act require states to provide reasonable 

notice and public hearing prior to 

adoption of SIP revisions. In this action, 

we are proposing action on CARB’s May 

23, 2013 submittal of the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan, dated April 1, 

2013, as a revision to the California SIP. 

The submittal documents the public 

review process followed by FRAQMD 

and CARB in adopting the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan prior to submittal 

to EPA as a revision to the California 

SIP. The documentation provides 

evidence that reasonable notice of a 

public hearing was provided to the 

public and that a public hearing was 

conducted prior to adoption. 

CARB’s submittal includes a letter 

dated April 2, 2013 from David Valler, 

Air Pollution Control Officer to the 

Board of Directors for the FRAQMD. In 

addition, Enclosure 1, Attachment 3 of 

CARB’s submittal includes a copy of the 

notice to the public published on March 

2, 2013, announcing a public hearing to 

be held on April 1, 2013. These 

materials document the public review 

process followed by FRAQMD in 

adopting the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

Plan prior to transmittal to CARB and 

provide evidence that reasonable notice 

of a public hearing was provided to the 

public and that a public hearing was 

conducted prior to adoption. 

Specifically, the notice for the Board 

hearing was published in the AppealDemocrat, a newspaper of general 

circulation, on March 2, 2013. The Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan was also 

made available for viewing on the 

District’s Web site and at the District 

office on March 2, 2013. 

Resolution 2013–01 in CARB’s 

submittal documents the adoption of the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan by the 

FRAQMD Board of Directors. On April 

1, 2013, the FRAQMD Board of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61829 

20 Ibid. 

21For PM2.5, a year meets data completeness 

requirements when quarterly data capture rates for 

all four quarters are at least 75 percent. Three years 

of valid annual PM2.5 98th percentile mass 

concentrations are required to produce a valid 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS design value. See 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix N, section 4.2. 

22EPA promulgated amendments to the ambient 

air monitoring regulations in 40 CFR parts 53 and 

58 on October 17, 2006. (See 71 FR 61236.) The 

requirements for Special Purpose Monitors were 

revised and moved from 40 CFR 58.14 to 40 CFR 

58.20. 

23The PM2.5 24-hour standard design value is the 

3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour 

average PM2.5 mass concentration values recorded 

at each eligible monitoring site [see 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, section 1.0(c)(2)]. 

Directors approved the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan and directed 

FRAQMD staff to forward the Plan to 

CARB, the Governor of California’s 

designee for SIP matters. 

CARB’s submittal includes CARB 

Board Resolution 14–13, which was 

adopted on April 25, 2013 and directed 

the Executive Officer to forward the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan to EPA 

for inclusion in the SIP. On May 23, 

2013, CARB submitted the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan to EPA. On 

February 20, 2014, CARB submitted to 

EPA a technical supplement to the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan.20

Based on the documentation included 

in CARB’s submittal, we find that the 

submittal of the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Plan as a SIP revision satisfies the 

procedural requirements of sections 

110(l) of the Act for revising SIPs. 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires 

EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. This section also provides that 

any plan that we have not affirmatively 

determined to be complete or 

incomplete will become complete six 

months after the day of submittal by 

operation of law. A completeness 

review allows us to determine if the 

submittal includes all the necessary 

items and information we need to act on 

it. 

We make completeness 

determinations using criteria we have 

established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

V. These criteria fall into two categories: 

administrative information and 

technical support information. The 

administrative information provides 

documentation that the State has 

followed basic administrative 

procedures during the SIP-adoption 

process and thus we have a legallyadopted SIP revision in front of us. The 

technical support information provides 

us the information we need to 

determine the impact of the proposed 

revision on attainment and maintenance 

of the air quality standards. 

We notify a state of our completeness 

determination by letter unless the 

submittal becomes complete by 

operation of law. A finding of 

completeness does not approve the 

submittal as part of the SIP nor does it 

indicate that the submittal is 

approvable. It does start a 12-month 

clock for EPA to act on the SIP 

submittal. See CAA section 110(k)(2). 

The Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

became complete by operation of law on 

November 7, 2013. 

V. Substantive Requirements for 

Redesignation 

The CAA establishes the requirements 

for redesignation of a nonattainment 

area to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation 

provided that the following criteria are 

met: (1) EPA determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k); (3) EPA determines that 

the improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP, 

applicable federal air pollution control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions; (4) EPA has 

fully approved a maintenance plan for 

the area as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 175A; and (5) the State 

containing such area has met all 

requirements applicable to the area 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignations in the General Preamble, 

the Calcagni memorandum, the Nichols 

memorandum, and a document entitled 

‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious 

PM10 Nonattainment Areas, and 

Attainment Date Waivers for PM10

Nonattainment Areas Generally; 

Addendum to the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 

FR 41998 (August 16, 1994) (PM10

Addendum). 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA applies these policies to the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan, taking into 

consideration the specific factual issues 

presented. For the reasons set forth 

below in section VI of this document, 

we propose to approve CARB’s request 

for redesignation of the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS based on our conclusion that 

all of the criteria under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) have been satisfied. 

VI. Evaluation of the State’s 

Redesignation Request for the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the PM2.5 NAAQS 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) states that 

for an area to be redesignated to 

attainment, EPA must determine that 

the area has attained the relevant 

NAAQS. In this case, the relevant 

NAAQS is the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Generally, EPA determines whether 

an area’s air quality is meeting the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS based upon 

complete,21 quality-assured, and 

certified data gathered at established 

state and local air monitoring stations 

(SLAMS) in the nonattainment area and 

entered into the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS) database. Data from air monitors 

operated by state, local, or tribal 

agencies in compliance with EPA 

monitoring requirements must be 

submitted to AQS. These monitoring 

agencies certify annually that these data 

are accurate to the best of their 

knowledge. Accordingly, EPA relies 

primarily on data in AQS when 

determining the attainment status of 

areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix L; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 

58, and 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, 

C, D, and E. EPA will also consider air 

quality data from other air monitoring 

stations in the nonattainment area 

provided those stations meet the federal 

monitoring requirements for SLAMS, 

including the quality assurance and 

quality control criteria in 40 CFR part 

58, appendix A. See 40 CFR 58.14 

(2006) and 58.20 (2007); 22 71 FR 61236, 

61242; (October 17, 2006). All valid data 

are reviewed to determine the area’s air 

quality status in accordance with 40 

CFR part 50, appendix N. 

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 

50, section 50.13 and in accordance 

with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard is met when the design 

value is less than or equal to 35 mg/m3

(based on the rounding convention in 40 

CFR part 50, appendix N) at each 

monitoring site within the area.23 The 

PM2.5 24-hour average is considered 

valid if at least 75 percent of the hourly 

averages (i.e. 18 hourly values) for the 

24-hour period are available. 

Generally, three consecutive years of 

complete air quality data are required to 

show attainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard. See 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, section 4.2. 

As described earlier, on January 10, 

2013, at 78 FR 2211, EPA issued a final 

determination that the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area attained 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61830 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

24A primary quality assurance organization is 

defined as a monitoring organization or a 

coordinated aggregation of such organizations that 

is responsible for a set of stations that monitors the 

same pollutant and for which data quality 

assessments can logically be pooled (40 CFR 58, 

Appendix A, section 3.1). 

25The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 

the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 

and the San Diego Air Pollution Control District are 

each designated as the PQAO for their respective 

ambient air monitoring programs. 

26Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air 

Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to 

Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, 

Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB 

(November 1, 2011) (approving CARB’s ‘‘2011 

Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the Small 

Districts in California’’). Letter from Meredith 

Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. 

EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air 

Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical 

Support Division, CARB (September 13, 2013) 

(approving CARB’s ‘‘2012 Annual Monitoring 

Network Plan for the Small Districts in California’’). 

Letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality 

Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen 

Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning 

and Technical Support Division, CARB (March 7, 

2014) (approving CARB’s ‘‘Annual Monitoring 

Network Report for Twenty-Three Districts in 

California’’). 

27See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, transmitting ’’System 

Audit of the Ambient Monitoring Program: 

California Resources Board, June-September: 2011,’’ 

with enclosure, October 22, 2012. 

28See, e.g., letter from Ravi Ramalingham, Chief, 

Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment 

Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, 

CARB, to Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality 

Analysis Office, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, 

certifying calendar year 2013 ambient air quality 

data and quality assurance data, July 2, 2014. 

29 In this context, ‘‘neighborhood’’ spatial scale 

defines concentrations within some extended area 

of the city that has relatively uniform land use with 

dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers range. See 

40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 1.2. 

30See CARB’s 2013 Annual Monitoring Network 

Report for Twenty-three Districts in California (July, 

2013); EPA Air Quality System, Monitor 

Description Report, September 14, 2012. 

31EPA Air Quality System, Monitor Description 

Report, September 14, 2012. 

32Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 

33Quicklook Report and Design Value Report, 

EPA, July 25, 2014. 

34 Ibid. 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, based 

on complete, quality-assured, and 

certified ambient air monitoring data for 

the 2009–2011 monitoring period. 

1. What is EPA’s analysis of the relevant 

air quality data? 

a. Monitoring Network and Data 

Considerations 

The CARB and local Air Pollution 

Control Districts and Air Quality 

Management Districts (‘‘Districts’’) 

operate ambient monitoring stations 

throughout the State. CARB is the lead 

monitoring agency in the Primary 

Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO) 

that includes all the monitoring 

agencies in the State with a few 

exceptions.24 25 CARB is responsible for 

monitoring ambient air quality within 

the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area. In addition, CARB oversees the 

quality assurance of all data collected 

within the CARB PQAO. CARB submits 

annual monitoring network plans to 

EPA that describe the monitoring sites 

CARB operates. These plans discuss the 

status of the air monitoring network, as 

required under 40 CFR part 58.10. 

Since 2007, EPA has regularly 

reviewed these annual plans for 

compliance with the applicable 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 

58. With respect to PM2.5, EPA has 

found that CARB’s network plans meet 

the applicable requirements under 40 

CFR part 58. See EPA letters to CARB 

approving its annual network plans for 

years 2011 through 2013.26 EPA also 

concluded from its Technical System 

Audit of the CARB PQAO (conducted 

during the summer of 2011) that the 

ambient air monitoring network 

operated by CARB currently meets or 

exceeds the requirements for the 

minimum number of SLAMS for PM2.5

in the Yuba City-Marysville 

nonattainment area.27 Also, CARB 

annually certifies that the data it 

submits to AQS are complete and 

quality-assured.28

The existing PM2.5 monitoring 

network in the Yuba City-Marysville 

nonattainment area includes a PM2.5

Federal Reference Method (FRM) 

monitor operating on a daily schedule 

and a non-Federal Equivalent Method 

Beta Attenuation Monitor (BAM) 

running in parallel to the FRM. The two 

instruments complement each other in 

the monitoring network as the FRM 

monitor provides accurate and precise 

data for purposes of area designation, 

while the BAM provides real-time data 

used by the District and CARB for Air 

Quality Index reporting, forecasting, and 

the allocation of agricultural burning. 

For purposes of today’s action, EPA is 

relying on data from the FRM monitor. 

There was one PM2.5 FRM SLAMS 

monitor operating during the 2009–2013 

period in the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. The site is 

operated by CARB and has been 

monitoring PM2.5 concentrations since 

1998. EPA defines specific monitoring 

site types and spatial scales of 

representativeness to characterize the 

nature and location of required 

monitors. With respect to the Yuba CityMarysville site, the spatial scale is 

neighborhood scale,29 30 and the 

monitoring objective (site type) is 

population exposure.31

Consistent with the requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 50, we have 

reviewed the quality-assured, and 

certified PM2.5 ambient air monitoring 

data as recorded in AQS for the 

applicable monitoring period collected 

at the monitoring site in the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area and have 

found the data to be complete. 

b. Evaluation of Continued Attainment 

EPA’s evaluation of whether the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment 

area has continued to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS is based on our 

review of the monitoring data and takes 

into account the adequacy 32 of the 

PM2.5 monitoring network in the 

nonattainment area and the reliability of 

the data collected by the network as 

discussed in the previous section of this 

document. 

Table 1 shows the PM2.5 design values 

for the Yuba City-Marysville 

nonattainment area monitor based on 

ambient air quality monitoring data for 

the most recent complete five-year 

period (2009–2013).33 The data show 

that the design values for the 2009– 

2011, 2010–2012, and 2011–2013 

periods were equal to or less than 35 mg/ 

m3 at the monitor. Therefore, we are 

proposing to determine, based on the 

complete, quality-assured data for 2011– 

2013, that the Yuba City-Marysville area 

continues to attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard. Preliminary data 

available in AQS for 2014 indicate that 

the area continues to attain the 

standard.34


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61831 

35See http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/

Casips?readform&count=100&state=California. 

TABLE 1—2009–2013 24-HOUR PM2.5 MONITORING SITE AND DESIGN VALUE FOR THE YUBA CITY-MARYSVILLE

NONATTAINMENT AREA. 

Monitoring site AQS site identification number 

98th Percentile 

(μg/m 3) 

Design value 

(μg/m 3) 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

Yuba City–Marysville ............. 06–101–0003 28 17 37 24 25 27 26 29 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved SIP Meeting Requirements 

Applicable for Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Clean Air Act 

Section 110 and Part D 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) require 

EPA to determine that the area has a 

fully approved applicable SIP under 

section 110(k) that meets all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and part 

D for the purposes of redesignation. 

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under 

Section 110 

The general SIP elements and 

requirements set forth in section 

110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, 

the following: Submittal of a SIP that 

has been adopted by the State after 

reasonable public notice and hearing; 

provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provision for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

for PSD provisions; provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

for nonattainment new source review 

(nonattainment NSR) permit programs; 

provisions for air pollution modeling; 

and provisions for public and local 

agency participation in planning and 

emission control rule development. 

We note that SIPs must be fully 

approved only with respect to 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). The section 

110(a)(2) (and part D) requirements that 

are linked to a particular nonattainment 

area’s designation and classification are 

the relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. 

Requirements that apply regardless of 

the designation of any particular area on 

the State are not applicable 

requirements for the purposes of 

redesignation, and the State will remain 

subject to these requirements after the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

nonattainment area is redesignated to 

attainment. 

For example, CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain 

certain measures to prevent sources in 

a state from significantly contributing to 

air quality problems in another state, 

known as ‘‘transport SIPs.’’ Because the 

section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for 

transport SIPs are not linked to a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification but rather 

apply regardless of the area’s attainment 

status, these are not applicable 

requirements for the purposes of 

redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E). 

Similarly, EPA believes that other 

section 110(a)(2) (and part D) 

requirements that are not linked to 

nonattainment plan submissions or to 

an area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA believes that the 

section 110 (and part D) requirements 

that relate to a particular nonattainment 

area’s designation and classification are 

the relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. This 

view is consistent with EPA’s existing 

policy on applicability of the conformity 

SIP requirement for redesignations. See 

discussion in 75 FR 36023, 36026 (June 

24, 2010). 

On numerous occasions, CARB and 

FRAQMD have submitted and we have 

approved provisions addressing the 

basic CAA section 110 provisions. The 

Yuba City-Marysville portion of the 

California SIP 35 contains enforceable 

emission limitations; requires 

monitoring, compiling and analyzing of 

ambient air quality data; requires 

preconstruction review of new or 

modified stationary sources; provides 

for adequate funding, staff, and 

associated resources necessary to 

implement its requirements; and 

provides the necessary assurances that 

the State maintains responsibility for 

ensuring that the CAA requirements are 

satisfied in the event that Yuba CityMarysville is unable to meet its CAA 

obligations. There are no outstanding or 

disapproved applicable SIP submittals 

with respect to the Yuba City-Marysville 

portion of the SIP that prevent 

redesignation of the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 nonattainment area for 

the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Therefore, 

we propose to conclude that CARB and 

FRAQMD have met all SIP requirements 

for Yuba City-Marysville applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under section 

110 of the CAA (General SIP 

Requirements). 

2. SIP Requirements Under Part D 

Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title 1 of 

the CAA contain air quality planning 

requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. Subpart 1 contains general 

requirements for all nonattainment areas 

of any pollutant, including PM2.5, 

governed by a NAAQS. The subpart 1 

requirements include, among other 

things, provisions for the RACM, RFP, 

emissions inventories, contingency 

measures, and conformity. Although we 

describe in detail in section III of this 

action the effect of the January 4, 2013, 

D.C. Circuit decision on subpart 4 of 

part D requirements, the subpart 4 

requirements are briefly discussed 

below. Subpart 4 contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Section 

189(a), (c), and (e) requirements apply 

specifically to moderate PM2.5

nonattainment areas and include: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources; (2) provisions for 

RACM; (3) an attainment demonstration; 

(4) quantitative milestones 

demonstrating RFP toward attainment 

by the applicable attainment date; and 

(5) provisions to ensure that the control 

requirements applicable to major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to 

major stationary sources of PM2.5

precursors except where the 

Administrator has determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS 

in the area. 

As noted previously, in 2013, EPA 

determined that the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 nonattainment area 

attained the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

based on 2009–2011 data. See 78 FR 

2211 (January 10, 2013). In accordance 

with EPA’s Clean Data Policy, we 

determined that the following 

requirements do not apply to the State 

for so long as Yuba City-Marysville 

continues to attain the PM2.5 standard or 

until the area is redesignated to 

attainment: an attainment 

demonstration under section 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61832 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

189(a)(1)(B); RACM provisions under 

sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1)(C); 

reasonable further progress provisions 

under section 189(c)(1); and 

contingency measures under section 

172(c)(9). For other rulemaking actions 

applying the Clean Data Policy in the 

context of PM2.5, see 77 FR 31271–72 

(proposed Determination of Attainment 

for Paul Spur/Douglas, Arizona); 76 FR 

10821–22 (proposed Determination of 

Attainment for Truckee Meadows, 

Nevada); 75 FR 13712–14 (proposed 

Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction, California); 75 FR 36027 

(proposed Redesignation for Coso 

Junction, California); 73 FR 22313 

(proposed Redesignation for San 

Joaquin Valley). See also, 40 CFR 

51.918. 

Moreover, in the context of evaluating 

the area’s eligibility for redesignation, 

there is a separate and additional 

justification for finding that 

requirements associated with attainment 

are not applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Prior to and 

independently of the Clean Data Policy, 

and specifically in the context of 

redesignations, EPA interpreted 

attainment-linked requirements as not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. In the General Preamble, 

‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990,’’ (General 

Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 

1992), EPA stated: [t]he section 172(c)(9) 

requirements are directed at ensuring 

RFP and attainment by the applicable 

date. These requirements no longer 

apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for 

redesignation. Furthermore, section 

175A for maintenance plans provides 

specific requirements for contingency 

measures that effectively supersede the 

requirements of section 172(c)(9) for 

these areas. See also Calcagni 

memorandum at 6 (‘‘The requirements 

for reasonable further progress and other 

measures needed for attainment will not 

apply for redesignations because they 

only have meaning for areas not 

attaining the standard.’’). 

Thus, even if the requirements 

associated with attainment had not 

previously been suspended, they would 

not apply for purposes of evaluating 

whether an area that has attained the 

standard qualifies for redesignation. 

EPA has enunciated this position since 

the General Preamble was published 

more than twenty years ago, and it 

represents the Agency’s interpretation of 

what constitutes applicable 

requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E). 

The Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

The remaining applicable Part D 

requirements for moderate PM2.5 areas 

are: (1) An emission inventory under 

section 172(c)(3); (2) a permit program 

for the construction and operation of 

new and modified major stationary 

sources of PM2.5 under sections 

172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A); (3) control 

requirements for major stationary 

sources of PM2.5 precursors under 

section 189(e), except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard 

in the area; (4) requirements under 

section 172(c)(7) that meet the 

applicable provisions of section 

110(a)(2); and (5) provisions to ensure 

that federally supported or funded 

projects conform to the air quality 

planning goals in the applicable SIP 

under section 176(c). The Yuba CityMarysville redesignation request, 

although not expressed in terms of 

subpart 4 (section 189) requirements, 

substantively meets the requirement for 

that subpart for redesignation purposes. 

We discuss each of these requirements 

below. 

• Emissions Inventory 

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires states 

to submit a comprehensive, accurate, 

current inventory of relevant PM2.5

pollutants for the baseline year from all 

sources within the nonattainment area. 

The inventory is to address direct and 

secondary PM2.5 emissions, and all 

stationary (generally referring to larger 

stationary source or ‘‘point’’ sources), 

area (generally referring to smaller 

stationary and fugitive sources), and 

mobile (on-road, non-road, locomotive 

and aircraft) sources are to be included 

in the inventory. We interpret the Act 

such that the emission inventory 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) are 

satisfied by the inventory requirements 

of the maintenance plan. See 57 FR 

13498, at 13564 (April 16, 1992). Thus, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2011 

attainment year inventories submitted 

as part of the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Plan as satisfying the 

requirements of sections 172(c)(3) for 

the purposes of redesignation of the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2011 

attainment year inventories are 

described in VI.D.1 of this notice. 

• Permits for New and Modified 

Major Stationary Sources 

CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 

189(a)(1)(A) require the State to submit 

SIP revisions that establish certain 

requirements for new or modified 

stationary sources in nonattainment 

areas, including provisions to ensure 

that new major sources or major 

modifications of existing sources of 

nonattainment pollutants incorporate 

the highest level of control, referred to 

as the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

(LAER), and that increases in emissions 

from such stationary sources are offset 

so as to provide for reasonable further 

progress towards attainment in the 

nonattainment area. 

The process for reviewing permit 

applications and issuing permits for 

new or modified major stationary 

sources of air pollution is referred to as 

NSR. With respect to nonattainment 

pollutants in nonattainment areas, this 

process is often referred to as 

‘‘nonattainment NSR.’’ With respect to 

pollutants for which an area is 

designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable, states are required to 

submit SIP revisions that ensure that 

major new stationary sources or major 

modifications of existing stationary 

sources meet the federal requirements 

for PSD, including application of ‘‘Best 

Available Control Technology’’ (BACT), 

for each applicable pollutant emitted in 

significant amounts, among other 

requirements. 

FRAQMD is responsible for stationary 

source emissions units, and FRAQMD 

regulations govern air permits issued for 

such units. EPA has partially approved 

and partially disapproved FRAQMD’s 

New Source Review rule (i.e., Rule 

10.1). 78 FR 58461 (September 24, 

2013). Because of the partial 

disapproval, FRAQMD does not 

currently have a fully-approved 

nonattainment NSR program. The NSR 

deficiencies identified in EPA’s partial 

approval and partial disapproval of Rule 

10.1 are limited to the following issues: 

(1) Missing a component of the 

definition for the term ‘‘Regulated NSR 

Pollutant,’’ as it relates to PM2.5

condensable emissions; and (2) Rule 

10.1 contains certain language in new 

sections B.4 and B.5 that entirely 

exempts from regulation certain 

pollutants when EPA redesignates the 

area from nonattainment to attainment. 

As worded, the provision is too broad, 

in that it exempts such pollutants from 

all the requirements of section E of the 

rule, rather than just those provisions 

applicable to major sources of 

nonattainment pollutants. FRAQMD is 

currently working on a revision to Rule 

10.1 to correct the deficiencies. If EPA 

approves a revised Rule 10.1, and the 

approval becomes effective prior to EPA 

finalizing the area’s redesignation to 

attainment for PM2.5, the 172(c)(5) and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61833 

36PSD requirements control the growth of new 

source emissions in areas designated as attainment 

for a NAAQS. 

37Email from Sondra Spaethe, FRAQMD, to John 

Ungvarsky, US EPA, Region 9, July 18, 2014. 

38The FRAQMD issues ERCs for PM10 and has 

not identified the PM2.5 portion of the ERC. When 

creating the future year inventories for the 

maintenance demonstration, the FRAQMD applied 

the amount of PM10 ERCs to the future year 

inventories of PM2.5. As PM2.5 is a portion of PM10, 

this approach conservatively estimates the 

maximum pollutant increase if all ERCs were 

redeemed within the FRAQMD during the 

maintenance period. 

189(a(1)(A) requirements would be 

fulfilled prior to redesignation. 

If EPA does not approve a revised 

Rule 10.1 prior to EPA finalizing the 

area’s redesignation to attainment for 

PM2.5, it would still not affect EPA 

approval of the redesignation request 

because upon redesignation the 

nonattainment permitting program 

requirements would shift to the PSD 

permitting program requirements. Even 

if EPA later finalizes the actions in 

today’s proposed rulemaking, the 

federal PSD requirements under 40 CFR 

52.21 will not apply to new major 

sources or major modifications to 

existing major sources of NOX and VOC 

located in the southern portion of Sutter 

County under FRAQMD’s jurisdiction 

within the Sacramento Metro ozone 

nonattainment area until that area is 

redesignated to attainment for the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard. Because 

FRAQMD does not currently have an 

EPA-approved PSD program, after 

redesignation the federal PSD 

requirements under 40 CFR 52.21 would 

apply to PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor 

emissions from new major sources or 

major modifications. Thus, new major 

sources with significant PM2.5 emissions 

and major modifications of PM2.5 at 

major sources as defined under 40 CFR 

51.21 will be required to obtain a PSD 

permit or include PM2.5 emissions in 

their existing PSD permit. Since PSD 

requirements 36 will apply after 

redesignation, an area being 

redesignated to attainment need not 

comply with the requirement that a 

nonattainment NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation as long 

as the state demonstrates maintenance 

of the NAAQS in the area without 

implementation of nonattainment NSR. 

A more detailed rationale for this view 

is described in a memorandum from 

Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 

1994, titled ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also, 

redesignation rulemakings for Detroit, 

Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 

1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio 

(61 FR 20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 

1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 

53665, October 23, 2001); and, Grand 

Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, 

June 21, 1996). 

Based on our review of the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan, we conclude that 

the maintenance demonstration does 

not rely on implementation of 

nonattainment NSR because the Plan 

applies standard growth factors to 

stationary source emissions and does 

not rely on NSR offsets to reduce the 

rate of increase in emissions over time 

from point sources.37 In addition, the 

PM2.5 Plan adds emission reduction 

credits (ERCs) for PM10,38 NOX, and 

oxides of sulfur (SOX) to future 

projected emissions to ensure that the 

use of ERCs will not be inconsistent 

with the future PM2.5 maintenance 

goals. Therefore, EPA concludes that a 

fully-approved nonattainment NSR 

program is not necessary for approval of 

the State’s redesignation request for the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

nonattainment area. 

We conclude that Yuba CityMarysville’s portion of the California 

SIP adequately meets the requirements 

of section 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A) for 

purposes of this redesignation. 

• Control Requirements for PM2.5

Precursors 

In light of the January 4, 2013, D.C. 

Circuit decision regarding PM2.5

implementation under subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I of the CAA, EPA’s 

evaluation of the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Plan in the context of the CAA 

section 189(e) requirements for control 

of PM2.5 precursors is described in 

depth in sections III and VI.D.3 of this 

action. 

• Compliance with Section 110(a)(2) 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we 

conclude the California SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of this 

redesignation. 

• General and Transportation 

Conformity Requirements 

Under section 176(c) of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990, states are 

required to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. Section 176(c) further 

provides that state conformity 

provisions must be consistent with 

federal conformity regulations that the 

CAA requires EPA to promulgate. EPA’s 

conformity regulations are codified at 40 

CFR part 93, subparts A (referred to 

herein as ‘‘transportation conformity’’) 

and B (referred to herein as ‘‘general 

conformity’’). Transportation conformity 

applies to transportation plans, 

programs, and projects developed, 

funded, and approved under title 23 

U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act, and 

general conformity applies to all other 

federally-supported or funded projects. 

SIP revisions intended to address the 

conformity requirements are referred to 

herein as ‘‘conformity SIPs.’’ 

EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of a redesignation request 

under section 107(d) because state 

conformity rules are still required after 

redesignation and federal conformity 

rules apply where state rules have not 

been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 

3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 

interpretation. See also, 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995). 

The Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

includes PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) for the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area. As 

described in VI.D.6 of today’s action, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

emissions inventory and motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Thus, if EPA later finalizes its approval 

of the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

described in today’s proposal and also 

finalizes its approval of the emissions 

inventory and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 nonattainment area, the State has 

a fully-approved SIP meeting all 

requirements applicable under section 

110 and part D for purposes of 

redesignation. CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v). 

C. EPA Has Determined That the 

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires EPA 

to determine that the improvement in 

air quality is due to emission reductions 

that are permanent and enforceable 

resulting from the implementation of 

the applicable SIP and applicable 

federal air pollution control regulations 

and other permanent and enforceable 

regulations in order to approve a 

redesignation to attainment. Under this 

criterion, a state must be able to 

reasonably attribute the improvement in 

air quality to emissions reductions 

which are permanent and enforceable. 

Attainment resulting from temporary 

reductions in emission rates (e.g., 

reduced production or shutdown due to 

temporary adverse economic 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61834 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

39Availability of New Speciation Data for Some 

Areas that EPA Intends to Designate as 

Nonattainment, Neil Frank, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, September 18, 2008, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/

docs/available_new_speciation_data_pm2.5_

naa.pdf. 

40 Days > 95th percentile of measured PM2.5

during October–April. 

41FRAQMD estimated the Wood Stove Change 

Out Program offered in 2009, 2010, and 2011 

reduced PM2.5 emissions by 2.8 tons per year. 

Memorandum from David Valler, Air Pollution 

Control Officer, FRAQMD to the FRAQMD Board of 

Directors, April 1, 2013. 

42The Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area 

is included in the State’s Sacramento Valley Air 

Basin Smoke Management Program. The program 

describes the policies and procedures used with 

hourly and daily measurements of air quality and 

meteorology to determine how much open biomass 

burning can be allowed in the Sacramento Valley 

Air Basin. The program ensures that agricultural 

burning is prohibited on days meteorologically 

conducive to potentially elevated PM10

concentrations. The area covered by the program is 

referred to as the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, and 

includes all or parts of the following counties: 

Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Placer (portion), Sacramento, 

Shasta, Solano (portion), Sutter, Tehama, Yolo and 

Yuba. See Title 17 California Code of Regulations, 

Subchapter 2, Section 80100 et. seq. The regulations 

can be viewed at http://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/regs/

RevFinRegwTOC.pdf. 

43The 2007 State Strategy was adopted by CARB 

on September 27, 2007 and submitted to EPA on 

November 16, 2007. See CARB Resolution No. 07– 

28, September 27, 2007 with attachments and letter, 

James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to 

Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9, November 16, 2007 with enclosures. 

conditions) or unusually favorable 

meteorology would not qualify as an air 

quality improvement due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions. 

Calcagni memorandum, p. 4. 

Historically, exceedances of the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area occur in 

November through February. Chemical 

composition data can be used to 

understand the types of emission 

sources that contribute to ambient PM2.5

in these winter months, however, these 

measurements are not routinely 

collected in the Yuba City-Marysville 

nonattainment area. A limited chemical 

composition analysis was done on 

samples collected at the Yuba CityAlmond Street monitor (AQS ID: 

061010003) in 2004–2006.39 Archived 

Teflon filters were analyzed by a 

combination of X-ray Fluorescence 

(XRF) to provide elemental 

concentrations and Ion Chromatography 

(IC) to estimate ions (sulfate, nitrate, 

potassium, ammonium, etc.). These data 

show that PM2.5 on days with high 

concentrations during the cool season 40

was made up predominantly of total 

carbonaceous mass (TCM) (54%) and 

ammonium nitrate (38%). The high 

TCM is linked to smoke from residential 

wood burning stoves and fireplaces, 

Sulfate (6%) and crustal materials (2%) 

account for a smaller portion of the 

PM2.5. See Plan, pp. IV–5—IV–7. 

The Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

credits control measures adopted and 

implemented by FRAQMD and CARB 

and approved into the SIP by EPA as 

reducing emissions to attain the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The FRAQMD 

has jurisdiction over air quality 

planning requirements for the Yuba 

City-Marysville nonattainment area and 

is largely responsible for the regulation 

of stationary sources and most area 

sources. Table 2 lists FRAQMD rules 

adopted since the area’s PM2.5

nonattainment designation that 

contribute towards attainment and 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

TABLE 2—FRAQMD CONTROL MEASURES AND PROGRAMS CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS ATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF

THE 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS 

Rule Title Adoption date Status 

2.0 .......................... Open Burning ........................................ October 6, 2008 .................................... EPA is currently preparing proposed 

rulemaking and direct final notices 

acting on this rule submittal. 

3.17 ........................ Wood Heating Devices ......................... October 5, 2009, amended on February 3, 2014.EPA is currently preparing proposed 

rulemaking and direct final notices 

acting on this rule submittal. 

3.21 ........................ Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters.

June 5, 2006 ......................................... Submitted to EPA on February 10, 

2014. 

3.22 ........................ Internal Combustion Engines ............... June 1, 2009 ......................................... Approved, 77 FR 12493 

(March 1, 2012). 

Other FRAQMD measures or programs not in the SIP41 42

— 2011/2012 Wood Stove Change Out Program. 

— Stoplight: Check Before You Burn Program. 

Source categories for which CARB has 

primary responsibility for reducing 

emissions in California include most 

new and existing on- and off-road 

engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products. In 

addition, California has unique 

authority under CAA section 209 

(subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt 

and implement new emission standards 

for many categories of on-road vehicles 

and engines, and new and in-use offroad vehicles and engines. 

Given the need for significant 

emissions reductions from mobile and 

area sources to meet the ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS in California 

nonattainment areas, California has 

been a leader in the development of 

some of the most stringent control 

measures nationwide for on-road and 

off-road mobile sources and the fuels 

that power them. These standards have 

reduced new car emissions by 99 

percent and new truck emissions by 90 

percent from uncontrolled levels. 2007 

State Strategy, p. 37.43 In addition, the 

State has standards for lawn and garden 

equipment, recreational vehicles and 

boats, and other off-road sources that 

require newly manufactured equipment 

to be 80–98 percent cleaner than their 

uncontrolled counterparts. Id. Finally, 

the State has adopted many measures 

that focus on achieving reductions from 

in-use mobile sources that include more 

stringent inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) or ‘‘Smog Check’’ requirements, 

truck and bus idling restrictions, and 

various incentive programs. Since 1994 

alone, the State has taken more than 45 

rulemaking actions and achieved most 

of the emissions reductions needed for 

attainment in the State’s nonattainment 

areas. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 36– 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61835 

44More information on this public process, 

including presentations from the workshops and 

symposium that preceded the adoption of the 2007 State Strategy, can be found at www.arb.ca.gov/

planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm. 

40. These measures that have resulted in 

significant reductions in emissions of 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors (e.g., NOX) 

in the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

nonattainment area and throughout the 

State. 

CARB developed its 2007 State 

Strategy after an extensive public 

consultation process to identify 

potential SIP measures.44 From this 

process, CARB identified and 

committed to propose 15 new defined 

measures. These measures focus on 

cleaning up the in-use fleet as well as 

increasing the stringency of emissions 

standards for a number of engine 

categories, fuels, and consumer 

products. Many, if not most, of these 

measures have been adopted or are 

being proposed for adoption for the first 

time anywhere in the nation. They build 

on CARB’s already comprehensive 

program described above that addresses 

emissions from all types of mobile 

sources and consumer products, 

through both regulations and incentive 

programs. 

In April 2009, CARB adopted the 

Revised 2007 State Strategy. This 

submittal updated the 2007 State 

Strategy to reflect its implementation 

during 2007 and 2008. These measures 

fall into two categories: Measures that 

are subject to a waiver of federal 

preemption or authorization to adopt 

under CAA section 209 (‘‘waiver or 

authorization measures’’) and those for 

which the State is not required to obtain 

a waiver or authorization (‘‘non-waiver 

or non-authorization measures’’). 

Emissions reductions from waiver or 

authorization measures are fully 

creditable in attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and may be used to 

meet other CAA requirements, such as 

contingency measures. The State’s 

baseline non-waiver or nonauthorization measures have generally 

all been approved by EPA into the SIP 

and as such are fully creditable for 

meeting CAA requirements. The 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

includes tables of local and State 

measures adopted since 1990 and their 

current status. 

Finally, in addition to the local 

district and State rules discussed above, 

the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

nonattainment area has also benefitted 

from emission reductions from federal 

measures. These federal measures 

include EPA’s national emissions 

standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks, 

certain emissions standards for new 

construction and farm equipment (i.e., 

Tier 2 and 3 non-road engines 

standards, and Tier 4 diesel non-road 

engine standards), and locomotive 

engine standards. See 66 FR 5001 

(January 18, 2001), 63 FR 56968 

(October 23, 1998), 69 FR 38958 (June 

29, 2004), 63 FR 18978 (April 16, 1998) 

and 73 FR 37096 (June 30, 2008). 

The on-road and off-road vehicle and 

engine standards cited above have 

contributed to improved air quality 

through the gradual, continued turnover 

and replacement of older vehicle 

models with newer models 

manufactured to meet increasingly 

stringent emissions standards. 

Table 3 includes CARB State Strategy 

measures adopted since 2007 and 

included in the Yuba City-Marysville 

Plan as measures contributing towards 

attainment and maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard in the Yuba 

City-Marysville nonattainment area. 

TABLE 3—CONTROL MEASURES IN CARB’S 2007 STATE STRATEGY CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS ATTAINMENT AND/OR

CONTINUED ATTAINMENT OF THE 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 NAAQS IN THE YUBA CITY-MARYSVILLE AREA

Defined state measure Adoption date Current status 

Smog Check Improvements ............................................. August 31, 2009 ................. Elements approved, 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010). 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement .......................................... June 26, 2009 .................... Not submitted to EPA. 

Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program ............ June 14, 2007 .................... Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010). 

Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty Trucks .................................. December 16, 2010 ........... Approved, 77 FR 20308, April 4, 2012. 

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts ...................................... November 15, 2007 ........... Authorization granted, 76 FR 77521, December 13, 

2011. 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (over 25 hp) ........... December 17, 2010 ........... Authorization granted, 78 FR 58090, September 20, 

2013. 

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats ........... February 2015 .................... Not yet adopted. 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions 

Standards.

July 25, 2013 ...................... Not yet approved by California’s Office of Administrative Law. 

Additional Evaporative Emission Standards (for Off-Road 

Sources) (e.g., Portable Outboard Marine Tanks and 

Components).

September 25, 2008 .......... Similar to federal requirement at 40 CFR 1060.105. 

Consumer Products Program ........................................... November 17, 2007 ........... Approved, 74 FR 57074, November 4, 2009. 

June 26, 2008 .................... Approved, 76 FR 27613, May 12, 2011. 

September 24, 2009 .......... Approved, 77 FR 7535, February 13, 2012. 

November 18, 2010 ........... Proposed rulemaking and direct final notices signed on 

August 5, 2014 and pending publication. 

We note that many of the control 

measures cited above and in the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan have 

provided emissions reductions after 

2007, and thus, the improvement in air 

quality may reasonably be attributed to 

them. In addition, as documented in the 

TSD, CARB adopted and implemented 

numerous measures during and prior to 

2007 that, through fleet turnover, 

provided reductions in direct PM2.5 and 

in PM2.5 precursors that also contributed 

towards attainment. 

Table 4 provides a comparison of 

2005 nonattainment year and 2011 

attainment year inventories to show the 

impact of the permanent and 

enforceable reductions. In 2005, areawide NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

nonattainment area were estimated to be 

approximately 26 and 6 tons per day 

(tpd) (winter day), respectively. In 2011, 

area-wide emissions had declined to 19 

tpd for NOX and 5 tpd for PM2.5, 

resulting in emissions reductions of 

27% in NOX and 9% in PM2.5. In 

addition, emissions of SOX, ammonia 

(NH3), and VOC all declined during the 

2005 to 2011 timeframe. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61836 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

45See Table IV–1 on page IV–3 of the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan and Figure 2 in CARB’s 2014 

Staff Report. 

46Temperature data are collected by CARB at the 

Yuba City-Almond Street monitoring site, and the 

precipitation data are collected at the Yuba City 

Airport. 

TABLE 4—YUBA CITY-MARYSVILLE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR 2005 AND 2011 AND NET CHANGES (TPD) a

Pollutant category 

Year Net change 

2005 2011 2005–2011 % 

NOx

Stationary Sources ................................................................................................... 4.5 4.4 ¥0.1 ¥2 

Areawide Sources .................................................................................................... 1.1 1.1 0.0 ¥2 

On-Road Mobile Sources ......................................................................................... 12.9 8.4 ¥4.5 ¥35 

Other Mobile Sources ............................................................................................... 8.0 5.4 ¥2.6 ¥32 

Total ................................................................................................................... 26.5 19.3 ¥7.3 ¥27 

PM2.5

Stationary Sources ................................................................................................... 1.0 0.9 ¥0.1 ¥11 

Areawide Sources .................................................................................................... 4.0 3.8 ¥0.2 ¥5 

On-Road Mobile Sources ......................................................................................... 0.4 0.3 ¥0.1 ¥24 

Other Mobile Sources ............................................................................................... 0.4 0.3 ¥0.1 ¥30 

Total ................................................................................................................... 5.8 5.3 ¥0.5 ¥9 

SOX

Stationary Sources ................................................................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.0 ¥3 

Areawide Sources .................................................................................................... 0.2 0.1 0.0 ¥5 

On-Road Mobile Sources ......................................................................................... 0.1 0.0 ¥0.1 ¥72 

Other Mobile Sources ............................................................................................... 0.2 0.1 ¥0.1 ¥72 

Total ................................................................................................................... 0.6 0.4 ¥0.2 ¥38 

NH3

Stationary Sources ................................................................................................... 0.3 0.4 0.1 17 

Areawide Sources .................................................................................................... 4.6 4.5 ¥0.1 ¥1 

On-Road Mobile Sources ......................................................................................... 0.2 0.2 0.0 ¥13 

Other Mobile Sources ............................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

Total ................................................................................................................... 5.1 5.0 0.0 ¥1 

VOC 

Stationary Sources ................................................................................................... 3.8 4.0 0.2 5 

Areawide Sources .................................................................................................... 5.8 5.5 ¥0.3 ¥5 

On-Road Mobile Sources ......................................................................................... 3.7 2.8 ¥0.9 ¥25 

Other Mobile Sources ............................................................................................... 3.0 2.3 ¥0.6 ¥21 

Total ................................................................................................................... 16.3 14.6 ¥1.6 ¥10 

a Source: Table 1 in CARB’s 2014 Staff Report. Net percent change is computed using the original figures having four decimal places, but values in Table 5 for 2005, 2011, and net tpd change are rounded to the nearest tenth of a tpd, and, as a result, adding rounded values may not 

equal totals in table. 

With respect to the connection 

between the emissions reductions and 

the improvement in air quality, we also 

conclude that the air quality 

improvement in the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 nonattainment area 

between 2005 and 2011 was not the 

result of a local economic downturn or 

unusual or extreme weather patterns. 

Despite a significant economic 

slowdown nationally starting in 2008, 

gross domestic product in the Yuba 

City-Marysville Metropolitan Statistical 

Area grew by approximately 17 percent 

between 2005 and 2012. We also note 

the downward trend in PM2.5 beginning 

in 2000 and continuing through 2012.45

Meteorological conditions (e.g., average 

temperatures) for the 2005–2007 

nonattainment period were similar to 

the 2009–2011 attainment period,46 yet 

the PM2.5 design value for the 2009– 

2011 period was 27 mg/m3, 

approximately 23% below the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard. 

Thus, we find that the improvement 

in air quality in the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 nonattainment area is 

the result of permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions from a 

combination of EPA-approved local and 

State control measures and federal 

control measures. As such, we propose 

to find that the criterion for 

redesignation set forth at CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) is satisfied. 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan Under 

Clean Air Act Section 175A 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. We 

interpret this section of the Act to 

require, in general, the following core 

elements: Attainment inventory, 

maintenance demonstration plus a 

commitment to submit a second 

maintenance plan eight years after 

redesignation, monitoring network, 

verification of continued attainment, 

and contingency plan. See Calcagni 

memorandum, pages 8 through 13. 

Under CAA section 175A, a 

maintenance plan must demonstrate 

continued attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA 

approves a redesignation to attainment. 

Eight years after redesignation, the State 

must submit a revised maintenance plan 

that demonstrates continued attainment 

for the subsequent ten-year period 

following the initial ten-year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency provisions that EPA deems 

necessary to promptly correct any 

violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation of the area. Based on our 

review and evaluation of the plan, as 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61837 

47This document can be found at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/eiguidfinal_

nov2005.pdf. 

48See Tables V–1 and VI–1 in the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan. For additional details on the 

2011, 2017, and 2024 inventories, see Appendix A 

to the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan and 2017 

and 2024 on-road mobile source inventories in 

attachment to email from Binu Abraham, SACOG, 

to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9, December 11, 

2013. 

49The CEIDARS database consists of two 

categories of information: source information and 

utility information. Source information includes the 

basic inventory information generated and collected 

on all point and area sources. Utility information 

generally includes auxiliary data, which helps 

categorize and further define the source 

information. Used together, CEIDARS is capable of 

generating complex reports based on a multitude of 

category and source selection criteria. 

50 Detailed information on the area-wide source 

category emissions is found on the CARB Web site: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/areameth.htm. 

51See 78 FR 14533 (March 6, 2013) regarding EPA 

approval of the 2011 version of the California 

EMFAC model and announcement of its 

availability. The software and detailed information 

on the EMFAC vehicle emission model can be 

found on the following CARB Web site: http://

www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm. 

52Metropolitan Transportation/Sustainable 

Communities Strategy Plan, SACOG, adopted April 

19, 2013. For more information, go to: http://

www.sacog.org/2035/mtpscs/. 

53Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/

categories.htm#offroad_motor_vehicles. 

detailed below, we are proposing to 

approve the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

Plan because we believe that it meets 

the requirements of CAA section 175A. 

1. Attainment Inventory 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

plan submittals to include a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources in the nonattainment area. In 

demonstrating maintenance in 

accordance with CAA section 175A and 

the Calcagni memorandum, the State 

should provide an attainment emissions 

inventory to identify the level of 

emissions in the area sufficient to attain 

the NAAQS. Where the State has made 

an adequate demonstration that air 

quality has improved as a result of the 

SIP, the attainment inventory will 

generally be an inventory of actual 

emissions at the time the area attained 

the standard. EPA’s primary guidance in 

evaluating these inventories is the 

document entitled, ‘‘Emissions 

Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations,’’ EPA, OAQPS, EPA–454/

R–05–011 (August 2005).47

A maintenance plan for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard must include an 

inventory of emissions of PM2.5 and its 

precursors (i.e., NOX, SOX, and VOC) in 

the area to identify a level of emissions 

sufficient to attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard. This inventory must be 

consistent with EPA’s most recent 

guidance on emissions inventories for 

nonattainment areas available at the 

time and should represent emissions 

during the time period associated with 

the monitoring data showing 

attainment. The inventory must also be 

comprehensive, including emissions 

from stationary point sources, area 

sources, and mobile sources. 

FRAQMD selected year 2011 as the 

year for the attainment inventory in the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan. Year 

2011 is a current, accurate, and 

comprehensive inventory during a 

period which the area continued to 

attain the 24-hour PM2.5 standard prior 

to adoption and submittal of the 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan. The attainment inventory will 

generally be the actual inventory during 

the time period the area attained the 

standard. EPA previously made an 

attainment determination for the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment 

area. See 67 FR 7082, February 15, 2002. 

Thus, FRAQMD’s selection of 2011 for 

the attainment inventory is acceptable. 

Based on our review of the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan, we find that the 

emissions inventories in the Plan are 

comprehensive in that they include 

estimates of PM2.5 and its precursors 

from all of the relevant source 

categories, which the Plan divides 

among stationary, area wide, on-road 

motor vehicles, and other mobile. The 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

includes 2011 (along with 2017 and 

2024) inventories of direct PM2.5, NOX, 

SOx, VOC, and ammonia for the Yuba 

City-Marysville nonattainment area.48

The stationary source category of the 

emissions inventory includes nonmobile, fixed sources of air pollution 

comprised of individual industrial, 

manufacturing, and commercial 

facilities. Examples of stationary sources 

(aka, point sources) include fuel 

combustion (e.g., electric utilities), 

waste disposal (e.g., landfills), cleaning 

and surface coatings (e.g., printing), 

petroleum production and marketing, 

and industrial processes (e.g., chemical). 

Stationary source operators report to the 

Districts the process and emissions data 

used to calculate emissions from point 

sources. FRAQMD’s 2011 (and 

subsequent year inventories) for 

stationary sources were developed using 

information reported to FRAQMD by 

emission sources and entered into the 

California Emission Inventory 

Development and Reporting System 

(CEIDARS) database.49

The area sources category includes 

aggregated emissions data from 

processes that are individually small 

and widespread or not well-defined 

point sources. The area source 

subcategories include solvent 

evaporation (e.g., consumer products 

and architectural coatings) and 

miscellaneous processes (e.g., 

residential fuel combustion and farming 

operations). Emissions from these 

sources are calculated through area 

source methodologies that rely on 

emission factors and activity data such 

as product sales, population, 

employment data, and other parameters 

for a wide range of activities that 

generate air pollution across the 

Sacramento nonattainment region.50

The on-road motor vehicles inventory 

category consists of trucks, automobiles, 

buses, and motorcycles. California’s 

model for estimating emissions from onroad motor vehicles operating in 

California is referred to as ‘‘EMFAC’’ 

(short for EMission FACtor). EMFAC 

has undergone many revisions over the 

years, and the current on-road motor 

vehicles emission model is 

EMFAC2011, the CARB model approved 

by EPA for estimating on-road motor 

source emissions.51 The on-road 

emissions inventory estimates in the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan were 

prepared by CARB using EMFAC2011. 

The vehicle miles traveled were 

developed from Sacramento Area 

Council of Governments (SACOG) 

activity data using transportation 

modeling in Metropolitan 

Transportation/Sustainable 

Communities Strategy Plan for 2035.52

With respect to off-road mobile 

sources (or ‘‘other mobile’’ as 

categorized in the PM2.5 Plan), the 

category includes aircraft, trains, boats, 

and off-road vehicles and equipment 

used for construction, farming, 

commercial, industrial, and recreational 

activities. In general, off-road emissions 

are calculated using equipment 

population, engine size and load, usage 

activity, and emission factors. Off-road 

mobile source emissions were 

calculated using CARB category specific 

methods and inventory models.53 For 

unlisted categories, CARB’s 

OFFROAD2007 model was used to 

calculate emissions. 

Table 5 presents the direct PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursor emissions estimates for 

2011, 2017, and 2024 in the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan. Based on the 

2011 inventory estimates in Table 4, the 

on-road and off-road mobile sources 

accounted for 44% and 28%, 

respectively, of the NOX emissions. 

Areawide sources (e.g., residential wood 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61838 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

burning, farming operations, and managed burning) accounted for 72% of 

direct PM2.5. 

TABLE 5—YUBA CITY-MARYSVILLE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR 2011, 2017, AND 2024 AND NET CHANGES BETWEEN

2011 TO 2024 (TPD) a

Pollutant category 

Year Net Change 

2011 2017 2024 2011–2024 % 

NOX

Stationary Sources ........................................................................... 4.4 4.8 4.3 ¥0.1 ¥2 

Areawide Sources ............................................................................. 1.1 1.3 1.3 0.2 17 

On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................. 8.4 5.3 3.1 ¥5.3 ¥63 

Other Mobile Sources ....................................................................... 5.4 4.6 3.4 ¥2.1 ¥38 

Total ........................................................................................... 19.3 16.0 12.1 ¥7.2 ¥37 

PM2.5

Stationary Sources ........................................................................... 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.3 29 

Areawide Sources ............................................................................. 3.8 4.1 4.0 0.1 4 

On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................. 0.3 0.2 0.2 ¥0.1 ¥26 

Other Mobile Sources ....................................................................... 0.3 0.2 0.1 ¥0.1 ¥50 

Total ........................................................................................... 5.3 5.5 5.4 0.2 3 

SOX

Stationary Sources ........................................................................... 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 90 

Areawide Sources ............................................................................. 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 67 

On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 

Other Mobile Sources ....................................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1 

Total ........................................................................................... 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 61 

NH3

Stationary Sources ........................................................................... 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.1 35 

Areawide Sources ............................................................................. 4.5 4.3 4.3 ¥0.2 ¥5 

On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................. 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 ¥16 

Other Mobile Sources ....................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

Total ........................................................................................... 5.0 4.9 4.9 ¥0.1 ¥3 

VOCs 

Stationary Sources ........................................................................... 4.0 4.5 4.1 0.1 2 

Areawide Sources ............................................................................. 5.5 6.3 6.5 1.0 19 

On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................. 2.8 1.5 1.1 ¥1.7 ¥60 

Other Mobile Sources ....................................................................... 2.3 2.0 1.7 ¥0.6 ¥26 

Total ........................................................................................... 14.6 14.2 13.4 ¥1.2 ¥8 

a Source: Table 1 in CARB’s 2014 Staff Report. Net percent change is computed using the original figures having four decimal places, but values for 2011, 2017, 2018, and net tpd change are rounded to the nearest tenth of a tpd and, as a result, adding rounded values may not equal 

totals in table. 

Based on our review of the emissions 

inventories (and related documentation) 

from the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

Plan, we find that the inventories for 

2011 are comprehensive, that the 

methods and assumptions used by 

CARB and FRAQMD to develop the 

emission inventories are reasonable, and 

that the 2011 inventory reasonably 

estimates actual PM2.5 emissions in the 

attainment year. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve 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 for the purposes of redesignation 

of the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

Section 175A(a) of the CAA requires 

that the maintenance plan ‘‘provide for 

the maintenance of the national primary 

ambient air quality standard for such air 

pollutant in the area concerned for at 

least 10 years after the redesignation.’’ 

Generally, a state may demonstrate 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS by modeling to show that the 

future mix of sources and emissions 

rates will not cause a violation of the 

NAAQS. A showing that future 

emissions will not exceed the level of 

the attainment year inventory can also 

be used to further support of a 

maintenance demonstration. For areas 

that are required under the Act to 

submit modeled attainment 

demonstrations, the maintenance 

demonstration should use the same type 

of modeling. Calcagni memorandum, 

page 9. 

The Yuba-City Marysville PM2.5

Plan’s maintenance demonstration is 

based on the use of proportional 

rollback to demonstrate maintenance of 

the 24-hour PM2.5 standard until the 

maintenance year 2024. See Plan, pp. 

VI–1—VI–3. FRAQMD assumes that the 

2011 design value (DV) will change in 

proportion to the change in the 

corresponding species components of 

the emission inventory between 2011 

and 2024. 

As described previously, exceedances 

of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area have occurred November through 

February. Chemical composition data 

can be used to understand the types of 

emission sources that contribute to 

ambient PM2.5 in these winter months; 

however, these measurements are not 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61839 

54Availability of New Speciation Data for Some 

Areas that EPA Intends to Designate as 

Nonattainment, Neil Frank, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, September 18, 2008 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/

docs/available_new_speciation_data_pm2.5_

naa.pdf. 

55 Days with concentrations above the 95th 

percentile of measured PM2.5 during October–April. 

56The 2024 emission inventory includes 

emissions reductions from State measures adopted 

through June 2011 plus reductions from the 

Advanced Clean Cars Program. Emails from Kasia 

Turkiewicz, CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA, August 

20, 2014, and September 8, 2014. 

routinely collected in the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area. A 

limited chemical composition analysis 

was done on samples collected at the 

Yuba City-Almond Street monitor (AQS 

ID: 061010003) in 2004–2006.54

Archived Teflon filters were analyzed 

by a combination of X-ray Fluorescence 

(XRF) to provide elemental 

concentrations and Ion Chromatography 

(IC) to estimate ions (sulfate, nitrate, 

potassium, ammonium, etc.). These data 

show that PM2.5 on days with high 

concentrations during the cool season 55

was made up of TCM (54%), ammonium 

nitrate (38%), ammonium sulfate (6%), 

and crustal materials (2%). See Plan, pp. 

IV–5—IV–7. 

The Yuba-City Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

shows that the PM2.5 composition on 

high concentration days likely did not 

change between 2004–2006 and the 

emission inventory year 2011. See 

CARB 2014 Staff Report p. 8–9. 

FRAQMD argues that while emission 

reductions have reduced the frequency 

and magnitude of high concentration 

day events, there would be little impact 

on exceedance day composition due to 

consistent meteorology and control 

programs targeting all contributors to 

PM2.5 mass. As additional evidence, 

data from the Sacramento-T Street site 

(AQS ID: 060670010), the closest 

monitor with routine composition data 

and similar meteorology, is presented. 

These data shows that despite decreases 

in emissions over the years the 

composition in 2010–2012 was very 

similar to that in 2004–2006. We find 

the assumption that the chemical 

composition was consistent between 

2004–2006 and 2011 to be reasonable. 

FRAQMD used the composition data for 

2004–2006 to partition the 2011 DV of 

27 mg/m3 into its components of 14.6 mg/ 

m3 TCM, 10.3 mg/m3 ammonium nitrate, 

1.6 mg/m3 ammonium sulfate, and 0.5 

mg/m3 crustal materials. 

The Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

demonstrates that the 2024 maintenance 

year inventory is well below the 2011 

attainment year inventory for NOX, the 

most important PM2.5 precursor and 

about equal for direct PM2.5, the largest 

contributor to PM2.5. Emissions for SOX

are projected to increase, but sulfate is 

a very small contributor. Emissions for 

VOC and ammonia, the other potential 

precursors, are projected to decrease. 

Table 6 presents a summary of the direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions 

estimates for 2011, 2017, and 2024 in 

the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

Maintenance Plan. Emissions are 

projected to change between 2011 and 

2014 for direct PM2.5 (+3%), NH3

(¥3%), NOX (¥37%), SOX (+61%), and 

VOCs (¥8%). Since current ambient 

concentrations are well below the 

NAAQS, the NOX decrease together 

with the slight increase in projected 

direct PM2.5 and SOX emissions are 

consistent with maintenance of the 

NAAQS, as discussed below. 

Based on our review of the 2017 and 

2024 emissions inventories and related 

documentation from the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan, we find that the 

2017 and 2024 emissions inventories in 

the Plan reflect the latest planning 

assumptions and emissions models 

available at the time the Plan was 

developed, and provide a 

comprehensive and reasonably accurate 

basis upon which to forecast direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions for 

years 2017 and 2024.56 These 

inventories further support maintenance 

through 2024. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF 2011, 2017 AND 2024 PROJECTED PM2.5 AND PM2.5 PRECURSOR EMISSIONS IN THE YUBA CITYMARYSVILLE PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AREA (TONS PER DAY, AVERAGE WINTER DAY), AND 2011–2024 CHANGE a

Pollutants 2011 2017 2024 Net change 

tpd 

Net change 

% 

PM2.5 ........................................................................................................ 5.3 5.5 5.4 0.2 3 

NOX .......................................................................................................... 19.3 16.0 12.1 ¥7.2 ¥37 

SOX .......................................................................................................... 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 61 

NH3 .......................................................................................................... 5.0 4.9 4.9 ¥0.1 ¥3 

VOC ......................................................................................................... 14.6 14.2 13.4 ¥1.2 ¥8 

a Source: Table 1 in CARB’s 2014 Staff Report. Net percent change is computed using the original figures having four decimal places, but values 2011, 2017, 2024, and net tpd change are rounded to the nearest tenth of a tpd, and, as a result, adding rounded values may not equal net 

change in table. 

Assuming TCM and crustal material 

are from directly emitted PM2.5, a 3% 

increase in the estimated 2011 TCM 

ambient contribution (i.e., 14.6 mg/m3) 

corresponds to a 0.45 mg/m3 increase in 

ambient PM2.5. Ammonium nitrate and 

ammonium sulfate are secondary PM, 

that is, they are formed from chemical 

reactions in the air, and so do not 

necessarily scale one-to-one with the 

precursor NOX, NH3, and SOX

emissions. Assuming a conservative 

one-to-one SOX to ammonium sulfate, a 

61% increase in SOX corresponds to a 

1.0 mg/m3 PM2.5 increase. NOX

emissions are projected to decrease by 

37% and NH3 is projected to decrease 

by 3%. FRAQMD assumes a one-to-one 

NOX to ammonium nitrate resulting in 

a 3.8 mg/m3 PM2.5 decrease. The amount 

of NOX to ammonium nitrate formation, 

however, can vary depending on a 

number of chemical and meteorological 

factors. Photochemical modeling for the 

Sacramento region shows that a 1% 

change in NOX causes only a 0.7% 

change in ammonium nitrate. See 78 FR 

44494 at 59261 (July 24, 2013). Using 

this assumption, the 37% NOX decrease 

results in a 2.7 mg/m3 PM2.5 decrease. 

Taken together, the changes in precursor 

emissions from 2011 to 2024 result in an 

overall decrease of 1.25 mg/m3 in the 

DV. See Plan, Table VI–4 p. VI–3. 

The results of the proportional rollback analysis show that the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 nonattainment area 

will be well below the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in 2024, with the projected DV 

of 25.75 mg/m3. This is higher than the 

24.6 mg/m3 in the Plan (based on a oneto-one ammonium nitrate response to 

NOX reductions), but is still well below 

the NAAQS. The effects of the declining 

NOX outweigh slight increases in direct 

PM2.5 and SOX. 

For the above reasons, EPA believes 

the area will continue to maintain the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61840 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at least 

through 2024 and that the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Maintenance Plan 

shows maintenance for a period of ten 

years following redesignation. Thus, 

EPA proposes approval of the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 Maintenance Plan 

in 2014, based on a showing, in 

accordance with section 175A, that the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

Maintenance Plan provides for 

maintenance for at least ten years after 

redesignation. 

3. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

VOC and Ammonia Precursors 

With regard to the redesignation of 

Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area, in evaluating the effect of the 

Court’s remand of EPA’s 

implementation rule, which included 

presumptions against consideration of 

VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, 

EPA in this proposal is also considering 

the impact of the decision on the 

maintenance plan required under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To 

begin with, EPA notes that the area has 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard and that the State has shown 

that attainment of that standard is due 

to permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

State’s maintenance plan shows 

continued maintenance of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard by tracking the 

levels of the precursors whose control 

brought about attainment of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard in the Yuba 

City-Marysville nonattainment area. 

EPA, therefore, believes that the only 

additional consideration related to the 

maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision is that of assessing the 

potential role of VOC and ammonia in 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

in this area. As explained below, based 

upon documentation provided by the 

State and supporting information, EPA 

believes that the maintenance plan for 

the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area need not include any additional 

emission reductions of VOC or ammonia 

in order to provide for continued 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hr PM2.5

standard. 

First, as noted above in EPA’s 

discussion of section 189(e), VOC 

emission levels in this area have 

historically been controlled under SIP 

requirements related to ozone and other 

pollutants, and the area has no major 

stationary sources of ammonia. Second 

and as described below, available 

information shows that precursor 

emissions, including VOC and 

ammonia, are not expected to increase 

over the maintenance period so as to 

interfere with or undermine the State’s 

maintenance demonstration. 

In the Yuba City-Marysville 

nonattainment area, emissions of NOX, 

NH3, and VOC are projected to decrease 

over the maintenance period for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. See Tables 

5 and 6. Given that the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area is 

already attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS even with the current level of 

emissions from sources in the area, the 

downward trend of emissions 

inventories would be consistent with 

continued attainment. Indeed, projected 

emissions reductions for the precursors 

that the State is addressing for purposes 

of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

indicate that the area should continue to 

attain the standard following the 

precursor control strategy that the State 

has already elected to pursue. Even 

though direct PM2.5 and SOX are both 

projected to marginally increase by 0.2 

tpd between 2011 and 2024, the overall 

emissions reductions projected in NOX, 

NH3, and VOC would be sufficient to 

offset the very small increase in direct 

PM2.5 and SOX. For these reasons, EPA 

believes that emissions from potential 

PM2.5 precursors will not cause 

monitored PM2.5 levels to violate the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard during the 

maintenance period. In addition, the 

2011–2013 design value for the area is 

29 mg/m3, which is well below the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 mg/m3. 

Given that precursor emissions are 

projected to decrease through 2024, it is 

reasonable to conclude that monitored 

PM2.5 levels in this area will also 

continue to decrease through 2024. 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area should be redesignated, even taking 

into consideration the emissions of 

other precursors potentially relevant to 

PM2.5. Even if the requirements of 

section 189(e) were deemed applicable 

at the time the State submitted the 

redesignation request, and for the 

reasons set forth in this notice, EPA 

proposes to approve the State’s 

maintenance plan and its request to 

redesignate the Yuba City-Marysville 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 annual standard. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

In demonstrating maintenance, 

continued attainment of the NAAQS can 

be verified through operation of an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network. The Calcagni memorandum 

states that the maintenance plan should 

contain provisions for continued 

operation of air quality monitors that 

will provide such verification. Calcagni 

memorandum, p. 11. As discussed in 

section VI.A of this document, PM2.5 is 

currently monitored by CARB within 

the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

nonattainment area. In the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan (see Plan, p. VII– 

1), the District indicates it will work 

with CARB in the continued operation 

of the Yuba City-Marysville monitoring 

site (i.e., AQS site 06–101–0003) and 

maintain compliance with federal 

requirements in 40 CFR Part 58. The 

Plan also indicates that CARB intends to 

maintain an appropriate PM2.5

monitoring network through the 

maintenance period. We find that the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

contains adequate provisions for 

continued operation of air quality 

monitors that will provide verification 

of continued attainment. 

Second, the transportation conformity 

process, which would require a 

comparison of on-road motor vehicle 

emissions that would occur under new 

or amended regional transportation 

plans and programs with the MVEBs in 

the Plan, represents another means by 

which to verify continued attainment of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Yuba 

City-Marysville nonattainment area. 

Lastly, CARB and FRAQMD must 

inventory emissions sources and report 

to EPA on a periodic basis under 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart A (‘‘Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements’’). These 

emissions inventory updates will 

provide a third way to evaluate 

emissions trends in the area and thereby 

verify continued attainment of the 

NAAQS. These methods are sufficient 

for the purpose of verifying continued 

attainment. 

5. Contingency Provisions 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that maintenance plans include 

contingency provisions, as EPA deems 

necessary, to promptly correct any 

violations of the NAAQS that occur after 

redesignation of the area. Such 

provisions must include a requirement 

that the State will implement all 

measures with respect to the control of 

the air pollutant concerned that were 

contained in the SIP for the area before 

redesignation of the area as an 

attainment area. These contingency 

provisions are distinguished from those 

generally required for nonattainment 

areas under section 172(c)(9) in that 

they are not required to be fully-adopted 

measures that will take effect without 

further action by the state in order for 

the maintenance plan to be approved. 

However, the contingency plan is 

considered to be an enforceable part of 

the SIP and should ensure that the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61841 

57Letter from Christopher D. Brown, Air 

Pollution Control Officer, FRAQMD, to Deborah 

Jordan, Director, Air Division, US EPA, Region 9, and Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, 

dated December 19, 2013. 

contingency measures are adopted 

expeditiously once they are triggered by 

a specified event. 

Under section 175A(d), contingency 

measures identified in the contingency 

plan 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. The 

maintenance plan should clearly 

identify the measures to be adopted, a 

schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation, and a specific 

timeline for action by the State. As a 

necessary part of the plan, the State 

should also identify specific indicators 

or triggers, which will be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be implemented. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, FRAQMD has adopted a 

contingency plan to address possible 

future PM2.5 air quality problems. The 

contingency provisions in the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan are 

contained in section VII of the Plan and 

were clarified in a subsequent letter 

from the District.57 In the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan, FRAQMD 

identifies the contingency plan trigger 

as a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. If that should occur, FRAQMD 

commits to the following steps. 

(1) Within 60 days of the trigger, 

FRAQMD will commence an analysis to 

determine if the violation was caused by 

a natural event or instrument 

malfunction, and evaluate 

meteorological conditions and 

emissions inventory. 

(2) FRAQMD will consult with 

interested parties, community 

organizations, and industry to identify 

and implement, within nine months 

after the trigger, voluntary and incentive 

measures to reduce directly emitted 

PM2.5. 

(3) If the violation occurred because of 

emissions from sources within Sutter or 

Yuba counties, the FRAQMD will 

promptly adopt and implement, no later 

than 18–24 months after the violation, 

new or revised measures necessary to 

ensure attainment. The measures that 

FRAQMD would consider and analyze 

are listed in Table 7. Additional rules 

may be considered depending on the 

cause of the violation of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard. 

TABLE 7—MEASURES FOR CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS IN STEP 3 OF THE FRAQMD CONTINGENCY PLAN

Source category Control measures 

Stationary Sources .............................................. Combustion Devices (boilers, incinerators, engines, and turbines). 

Industrial Processes (manufacturing, industrial, agricultural, oil and gas). 

Opening Burning Restrictions ............................. Managed Burning (agricultural and residential opening burning). 

Prescribed Burning. 

Fugitive Dust ....................................................... Paved Roads (truck covering, construction site measures, storm water drainage). 

Unpaved Roads (paving and surface improvements, chemical stabilization, speed reduction). 

Construction and Demolition (truck covering, access areas, watering). 

Storage Piles (wet suppression and dust control). 

Agricultural Processes (reducing dust from tilling, harvesting, processing; also conservation). 

Opacity Restrictions ............................................ Visible emissions limitations. 

Residential Wood Burning Devices ..................... Mandatory curtailment, conversion/upgrade of existing devices, restrictions on new devices. 

In their December 19, 2013 letter, 

FRAQMD clarified that all three of the 

aforementioned steps will be completed, 

including the implementation of 

additional control measures, within 18– 

24 months of trigger activation. 

Upon our review of the Plan, as 

summarized above, we find that the 

contingency provisions of the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan clearly 

identify specific contingency measures, 

contain tracking and triggering 

mechanisms to determine when 

contingency measures are needed, 

contain a description of the process of 

recommending and implementing 

contingency measures, and contain 

specific timelines for action. Thus, we 

conclude that the contingency 

provisions of the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Plan are adequate to ensure 

prompt correction of a violation and 

therefore comply with section 175A(d) 

of the CAA. For the reasons set forth 

above, EPA is proposing to find that the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan is 

consistent with the maintenance plan 

contingency provision requirements of 

the CAA and EPA guidance. 

6. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

a. Requirements for Transportation 

Conformity and Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects in the nonattainment or 

maintenance areas that are funded or 

approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the 

Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. chapter 

53) must conform to the applicable SIP. 

In short, a transportation plan and 

program are deemed to conform to the 

applicable SIP if the emissions resulting 

from the implementation of that 

transportation plan and program are less 

than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (budgets) established 

in the SIP for the attainment year, 

maintenance year and other years. See, 

generally, 40 CFR part 93 for the federal 

conformity regulations and 40 CFR 

93.118 specifically for how budgets are 

used in conformity. 

The budgets serve as a ceiling on 

emissions that would result from an 

area’s planned transportation system. 

The budget concept is further explained 

in the preamble to the November 24, 

1993, transportation conformity rule (58 

FR 62188). Maintenance plan submittals 

must specify the maximum emissions of 

transportation-related PM2.5 and NOX

emissions allowed in the last year of the 

maintenance period, i.e., the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs). 

(MVEBs may also be specified for 

additional years during the maintenance 

period.) The submittal must also 

demonstrate that these emissions levels, 

when considered with emissions from 

all other sources, are consistent with 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

b. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

The Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan 

contains PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

nonattainment area for 2017 and 2024. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61842 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

58 Included in the docket for this action. 59See section VIII.c. in the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Plan. 

60See 40 CFR 93.124(a). 

The MVEBs are the on-road mobile 

source primary PM2.5 and NOX (as a 

PM2.5 precursor) emissions for Yuba 

City-Marysville nonattainment area for 

2017 and 2024. The derivation of the 

MVEBs is discussed in section VIII of 

the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan and 

in SACOG’s Regional Planning 

Partnership Action Item #3, February 

20, 2013.58

The details for each component of the 

budgets are shown in Table 9 and are 

comprised of direct on-road mobile 

source emissions, safety margins, and an 

adjustment for reductions from the 

State’s Advanced Clean Car Program. 

Direct PM2.5 emissions from road 

construction, paved roads and unpaved 

roads were evaluated by FRAQMD and 

determined to not be a significant 

contributor to the PM2.5 nonattainment 

problem, and, as such, do not need to 

be evaluated as part of a conformity 

determination.59 See 40 CFR 93.124(a). 

A state may choose to apply a safety 

margin under our transportation 

conformity rule so long as such margins 

are explicitly quantified in the 

applicable plan and are shown to be 

consistent with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS (whichever 

is relevant to the particular plan).60 In 

this instance, the safety margin has been 

explicitly quantified and shown to be 

consistent with continued maintenance 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS through the 

applicable maintenance period, through 

2024. The State’s MVEB analysis 

considered: (1) On-road motor vehicle 

emission inventory factors of 

EMFAC2011; and (2) updated recent 

vehicle activity data from SACOG’s 

Sacramento Activity-Based Travel 

Demand Simulation Model 

transportation modeling system. 

TABLE 9—SOURCE CATEGORIES AND EMISSIONS COMPRISING THE MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

[tons per day, average winter day] 

Category 

2017 2024 

NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5

On-road emissions inventory a ......................................................................................... 4.6 0.15 2.7 0.15 

Safety Margin ................................................................................................................... 0.7 — 0.5 — 

Advanced Clean Car Program Adjustment ..................................................................... 0.0 — ¥0.1 — 

Totals ........................................................................................................................ 5.3 0.2 3.1 0.2 

a Rounded up to nearest tenth of a ton, includes PM2.5 from tire and brake wear. 

c. Initial Adequacy Review of Budgets 

On May 20, 2014, EPA announced the 

availability of the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Plan with MVEBs and a 30-day 

public comment period on EPA’s 

Adequacy Web site at: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/reg9sips.htm#ca. The 

comment period for this notification 

ended on June 19, 2014, and EPA 

received no comments from the public. 

On August 25, 2014, EPA published in 

the Federal Register (79 FR 50646) a 

finding of adequacy for the PM2.5

MVEBs for the years 2017 and 2024. The 

new MVEBs became effective on 

September 9, 2014. After the effective 

date of the adequacy finding, the new 

MVEBs must be used in future 

transportation conformity 

determinations in the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area. EPA is 

not required under its transportation 

conformity rule to find budgets 

adequate prior to proposing approval of 

them, but in this instance, we have 

completed the adequacy review of these 

budgets prior to our action on the Yuba 

City-Marysville PM2.5 Plan. 

d. Proposed Actions on the Budgets 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

MVEBs for 2017 and 2024 as part of our 

approval of Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

Plan. EPA has determined that the 

MVEB emission targets are consistent 

with emission control measures in the 

SIP and that Yuba City-Marysville 

nonattainment area can maintain 

attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Because the budgets EPA 

found adequate in 79 FR 50646 (August 

25, 2014) are the same budgets EPA is 

proposing to approve in this action, if 

EPA approves the MVEBs in the final 

rulemaking action, it would not change 

the budgets currently in use for future 

transportation conformity 

determinations for Yuba City-Marysville 

County. As discussed in section V.D.2 of 

this notice, EPA is proposing that if this 

approval is finalized in 2014 the area 

will continue to maintain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS through at least 

2024. Consistent with this proposal, 

EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs 

submitted by the State in the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan. EPA is proposing 

that the submitted budgets are 

consistent with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 2024. 

VII. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

Based on our review of the Yuba CityMarysville PM2.5 Plan submitted by the 

State, air quality monitoring data, and 

other relevant materials, EPA is 

proposing to find that the State has 

addressed all the necessary 

requirements for redesignation of the 

Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 

area to attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) 

and 175A. 

First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), 

we are proposing to approve CARB’s 

request, which accompanied the 

submittal of the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Plan, to redesignate the Yuba CityMarysville 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 proposed 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 proposed 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, EPA is 

proposing to find that the maintenance 

demonstration, which documents how 

the area will continue to attain the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for 10 years 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61843 

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. EPA is also proposing to 

approve 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, EPA is proposing to approve 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. 

We are soliciting comments on these 

proposed actions. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for 30 days following 

publication of this proposal in the 

Federal Register. We will consider these 

comments before taking final action. 

VIII. 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, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these 

actions merely propose to 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 proposed 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); 

• 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 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 proposed 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. There are no federally 

recognized tribes located within the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5

nonattainment area. 

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: September 29, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24489 Filed 10–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0895; FRL–9917–93– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ11 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys 

Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; correction. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects our 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking to the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

for the Ferroalloys Production source 

category published in the Federal 

Register on October 6, 2014. In that 

action, there is an incorrect location for 

the public hearing. This document 

amends the public hearing location and 

the date the hearing will be held, if 

requested. 

DATES: This correction is made on 

October 15, 2014. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

October 20, 2014, the EPA will hold a 

public hearing on October 30, 2014 from 

1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 

5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

building located at 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711. If the EPA holds a public 

hearing, the EPA will keep the record of 

the hearing open for 30 days after 

completion of the hearing to provide an 

opportunity for submission of rebuttal 

and supplementary information. 

ADDRESSES: To request a hearing, 

register to speak at the hearing or to 

inquire as to whether or not a hearing 

will be held, please contact Ms. Virginia 

Hunt of the Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: 919–541–0832; 

email address: hunt.virginia@epa.gov. 

The last day to pre-register to speak at 

the hearing will be October 27, 2014. 

Additionally, requests to speak will be 

taken the day of the hearing at the 

hearing registration desk, although 

preferences on speaking times may not 

be able to be fulfilled. If you require the 

service of a translator or special 

accommodations, such as audio 

description, we ask that you pre-register 

for the hearing, as we may not be able 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS