[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61822-61843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24489]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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; 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>; Redesignation of Yuba City-Marysville to Attainment; 
Approval of PM<INF>2.5</INF> Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan 
for Yuba City-Marysville

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 City-Marysville 
nonattainment area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate 
matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standard. EPA is 
also proposing to approve the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7c2d9d0c1d6c5c4dcce99ddd8dfd9f7d2c7d699d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d18030a1b0c1f1e061443070205032d081d0c430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcc9d2dbcaddcecfd7c592d6d3d4d2fcd9ccdd92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8cdd6dfced9cacbd3c196d2d7d0d6f8ddc8d996dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Areas
    C. PM<INF>2.5</INF> Planning Requirements
III. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area
    A. Determination That the Area Has Attained the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area to attainment for 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the 2009-2011 time period and that the area 
continues to attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 61823]]

City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area with respect to 
section 110 and part D of the CAA; and (5) that the Yuba City-
Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan 
(``Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan'' or ``Plan'') \1\ meets 
the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, 
California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated May 23, 2013, with attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is proposing 
to approve the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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. 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, using PM<INF>2.5</INF> as the 
indicator for the pollutant. EPA established primary and secondary \2\ 
annual and 24-hour standards for PM<INF>2.5</INF> (62 FR 38652). The 
annual standard was set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations, and the 24-hour standard was set at 65 [mu]g/m\3\, 
based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations at each population-oriented monitor 
within an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the level of the 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average 
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA also retained the 
1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\3\ The boundaries for this area are 
described in 40 CFR 81.305.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ With respect to the annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, this area 
is designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment.''
    \4\ The Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment 
area to the north and the Sacramento PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment 
area to the south.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 10, 2013, at 78 FR 2211, EPA issued a determination that 
the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area attained the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard based on complete, quality-assured, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> control strategy in the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> in 
the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In 1991, the Sutter County Air Pollution Control District 
(APCD) and the Yuba County APCD combined to form the FRAQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within three years of the effective date of designations, states 
with areas designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 City-Marysville \6\ 
nonattainment area has attained the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 61824]]

be submitted. However, a determination of attainment does not preclude 
states from submitting and EPA from approving a SIP revision for the 
2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area had 
attained the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 23, 2013, CARB submitted the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and requested that EPA redesignate the Yuba City-
Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area to attainment for the 
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. On February 20, 2014, CARB 
submitted to EPA a technical supplement to the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan (``technical supplement'').\7\ We are proposing 
action today on CARB's May 23, 2013 submittal, including the Yuba City-
Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, as supplemented by CARB on February 
20, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On February 20, 2014, CARB submitted to EPA a technical 
supplement to the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan 
(``technical supplement''). The technical supplement included: a 
Staff Report titled ``Minor Updates to Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Maintenance Plan and Redesignation 
Request; transcripts from February 20, 2014 CARB Board meeting ; and 
Board Resolution 14-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>)'' 
final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, the 
``PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 
2013).

III. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule. The 
Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of 
part D of title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the particulate-
matter-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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and to submit SIPs addressing the nonattainment 
NSR requirements in subpart 4. Therefore, for California, any 
additional attainment-related 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 <INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and disregards the 
provisions of its PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule, the 
Court's January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA's reasons for implementing 
the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 City-
Marysville 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

[[Page 61825]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Applicable 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the Yuba City-
Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 fully-completed 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Sierra 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).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 61826]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. As explained below, EPA believes that the 
redesignation request for the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area, 
though not expressed in terms of subpart 4 requirements, substantively 
meets the requirements of that subpart for purposes of redesignating 
the area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> \10\ nonattainment areas, and under the Court's 
January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory 
requirements also apply for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ PM<INF>10</INF> refers to particulates nominally 10 
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify any 
additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, consistent 
with EPA's PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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'' 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF>, 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); 
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is 
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning 
requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has for many 
years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for 
areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone 
requirements, contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 61827]]

EPA's authority to interpret ``applicable requirements'' in the 
redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. EPA's prior 
``Clean Data Policy'' rulemakings for the PM<INF>10</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard based on complete, quality-
assured, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for PM<INF>10</INF> 
has allowed for control of PM<INF>10</INF> precursors such as oxides of 
nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
shall also apply to PM<INF>10</INF> precursors from those sources, 
except where EPA determines that major stationary sources of such 
precursors ``do not contribute significantly to PM<INF>10</INF> levels 
which exceed the standard in the area.''
    EPA's 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule, remanded by the 
D.C. Circuit, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning certain 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
. . . PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF>. For a 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 
`presumptively regulated,''' the Court expressly declined to decide the 
specific challenge to EPA's PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursors (and any similar provisions reflected in the guidance for 
the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. The Yuba City-Marysville 
nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard without any specific additional controls of VOC and ammonia 
emissions from any major sources in the area.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC that may 
be in addition to any requirements relating to the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>10</INF> precursors.\15\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior 
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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

[[Page 61828]]

required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the 
area for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. As explained 
below, we do not believe that any additional controls of ammonia and 
VOC are required in the context of this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Under 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, at present ammonia and VOC precursors from 
major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to levels 
exceeding the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in the Yuba City-
Marysville nonattainment area.\17\ See 57 FR 13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The 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 City-Marysville 
nonattainment area are an insignificant contributor to secondary 
particulate formation in the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area. See pages VI-1 in the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that its PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule provisions 
in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP plans and 
control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into attainment 
of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF>.\19\ EPA believes that application of 
this approach to PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors under subpart 4 is 
reasonable. Because the Yuba City-Marysville area has already attained 
the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS with its current approach to 
regulation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 City-Marysville 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
attainment plan that impose controls on direct PM<INF>10</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and did not impose controls on 
SO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, or ammonia emissions).
    \19\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Appeal-Democrat, a newspaper of general 
circulation, on March 2, 2013. The Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan by the FRAQMD Board of 
Directors. On April 1, 2013, the FRAQMD Board of

[[Page 61829]]

Directors approved the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan to EPA for inclusion in 
the SIP. On May 23, 2013, CARB submitted the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan to EPA. On February 20, 2014, CARB submitted to 
EPA a technical supplement to the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the documentation included in CARB's submittal, we find 
that the submittal of the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 legally-adopted 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM<INF>10</INF> 
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) (PM<INF>10</INF> Addendum).
    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA applies these policies to 
the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    Generally, EPA determines whether an area's air quality is meeting 
the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 98th percentile mass concentrations are required to 
produce a valid 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS design value. See 40 
CFR part 50, Appendix N, section 4.2.
    \22\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.13 and in 
accordance with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard 
is met when the design value is less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ 
(based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N) at 
each monitoring site within the area.\23\ The PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The PM<INF>2.5</INF> 24-hour standard design value is the 
3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass concentration values recorded at each eligible 
monitoring site [see 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 1.0(c)(2)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, three consecutive years of complete air quality data are 
required to show attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 City-Marysville 
nonattainment area attained

[[Page 61830]]

the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ A 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).
    \25\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2007, EPA has regularly reviewed these annual plans for 
compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 
58. With respect to PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Letter 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'').
    \27\ See 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.
    \28\ See, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring network in the Yuba City-
Marysville nonattainment area includes a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> FRM SLAMS monitor operating during the 2009-
2013 period in the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment 
area. The site is operated by CARB and has been monitoring 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 City-Marysville site, the spatial scale is neighborhood 
scale,\29\ \30\ and the monitoring objective (site type) is population 
exposure.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \30\ See 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.
    \31\ EPA Air Quality System, Monitor Description Report, 
September 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, we 
have reviewed the quality-assured, and certified PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
ambient air monitoring data as recorded in AQS for the applicable 
monitoring period collected at the monitoring site in the Yuba City-
Marysville nonattainment area and have found the data to be complete.
b. Evaluation of Continued Attainment
    EPA's evaluation of whether the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area has continued to attain the 2006 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS is based on our review of the monitoring 
data and takes into account the adequacy \32\ of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
[micro]g/m\3\ 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. Preliminary data available in AQS for 2014 
indicate that the area continues to attain the standard.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Quicklook Report and Design Value Report, EPA, July 25, 
2014.
    \34\ Ibid.

[[Page 61831]]



                   Table 1--2009-2013 24-Hour PM2.5 Monitoring Site and Design Value for the Yuba City-Marysville Nonattainment Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               AQS site                98th Percentile  ([mu]g/m \3\)                  Design value ([mu]g/m \3\)
             Monitoring site                identification   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                number          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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 City-Marysville 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 City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area for the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Casips?readform&count=100&state=California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. SIP Requirements Under Part D
    Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title 1 of the CAA contain air quality 
planning requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas. Subpart 
1 contains general requirements for all nonattainment areas of any 
pollutant, including PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas. Section 189(a), (c), and (e) 
requirements apply specifically to moderate PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
also apply to major stationary sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors 
except where the Administrator has determined that such sources do not 
contribute significantly to PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the 
NAAQS in the area.
    As noted previously, in 2013, EPA determined that the Yuba City-
Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area attained the 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard or until the area is redesignated to attainment: an attainment 
demonstration under section

[[Page 61832]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> under 
sections 172(c)(5) and 189(a)(1)(A); (3) control requirements for major 
stationary sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors under section 189(e), 
except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not 
contribute significantly to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 City-Marysville 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.

    <bullet> Emissions Inventory

    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires states to submit a comprehensive, 
accurate, current inventory of relevant PM<INF>2.5</INF> pollutants for 
the baseline year from all sources within the nonattainment area. The 
inventory is to address direct and secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan as satisfying 
the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) for the purposes of 
redesignation of the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area to attainment for the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS. The 2011 attainment year inventories are described in VI.D.1 of 
this notice.

    <bullet> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, the 172(c)(5) 
and

[[Page 61833]]

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 PM<INF>2.5,</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor 
emissions from new major sources or major modifications. Thus, new 
major sources with significant PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and major 
modifications of PM<INF>2.5</INF> at major sources as defined under 40 
CFR 51.21 will be required to obtain a PSD permit or include 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ PSD requirements control the growth of new source emissions 
in areas designated as attainment for a NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan adds emission 
reduction credits (ERCs) for PM<INF>10</INF>,\38\ NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
oxides of sulfur (SO<INF>X</INF>) to future projected emissions to 
ensure that the use of ERCs will not be inconsistent with the future 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Email from Sondra Spaethe, FRAQMD, to John Ungvarsky, US 
EPA, Region 9, July 18, 2014.
    \38\ The FRAQMD issues ERCs for PM<INF>10</INF> and has not 
identified the PM<INF>2.5</INF> portion of the ERC. When creating 
the future year inventories for the maintenance demonstration, the 
FRAQMD applied the amount of PM<INF>10</INF> ERCs to the future year 
inventories of PM<INF>2.5</INF>. As PM<INF>2.5</INF> is a portion of 
PM<INF>10</INF>, this approach conservatively estimates the maximum 
pollutant increase if all ERCs were redeemed within the FRAQMD 
during the maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We conclude that Yuba City-Marysville'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.

    <bullet> Control Requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors

    In light of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit decision regarding 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation under subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of 
the CAA, EPA's evaluation of the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan in the context of the CAA section 189(e) requirements for control 
of PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors is described in depth in sections III 
and VI.D.3 of this action.

    <bullet> 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.

    <bullet> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan includes 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Yuba 
City-Marysville 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 City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area. Thus, if EPA later finalizes its approval of the 
Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 61834]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in 
the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area occur in November through 
February. Chemical composition data can be used to understand the types 
of emission sources that contribute to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
City-Almond 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>. See Plan, pp. 
IV-5--IV-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Availability 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> during 
October-April.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment designation that contribute towards 
attainment and maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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,         EPA is currently
                                                                 amended on February 3,   preparing proposed
                                                                 2014.                    rulemaking and direct
                                                                                          final notices acting
                                                                                          on this rule
                                                                                          submittal.
3.21.................................  Industrial,              June 5, 2006...........  Submitted to EPA on
                                        Institutional, and                                February 10, 2014.
                                        Commercial Boilers,
                                        Steam Generators, and
                                        Process Heaters.
3.22.................................  Internal Combustion      June 1, 2009...........  Approved, 77 FR 12493
                                        Engines.                                         (March 1, 2012).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Other FRAQMD measures or programs not in the SIP \41\ \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 off-road vehicles and engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ FRAQMD estimated the Wood Stove Change Out Program offered 
in 2009, 2010, and 2011 reduced PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
    \42\ The 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the need for significant emissions reductions from mobile and 
area sources to meet the ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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-

[[Page 61835]]

40. These measures that have resulted in significant reductions in 
emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors (e.g., 
NO<INF>X</INF>) in the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment area and throughout the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ More 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-authorization 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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   June 14, 2007....  Approved, 75 FR 26653
 Gasoline Program.                                  (May 12, 2010).
Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty       December 16, 2010  Approved, 77 FR
 Trucks.                                            20308, April 4,
                                                    2012.
Clean Up Existing Harbor        November 15, 2007  Authorization
 Crafts.                                            granted, 76 FR
                                                    77521, December 13,
                                                    2011.
Cleaner In-Use Off-Road         December 17, 2010  Authorization
 Equipment (over 25 hp).                            granted, 78 FR
                                                    58090, September 20,
                                                    2013.
New Emissions Standards for     February 2015....  Not yet adopted.
 Recreational Boats.
Expanded Off-Road Recreational  July 25, 2013....  Not yet approved by
 Vehicle Emissions Standards.                       California's Office
                                                    of Administrative
                                                    Law.
Additional Evaporative          September 25,      Similar to federal
 Emission Standards (for Off-    2008.              requirement at 40
 Road Sources) (e.g., Portable                      CFR 1060.105.
 Outboard Marine Tanks and
 Components).
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,      Approved, 77 FR 7535,
                                 2009.              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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and in PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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, area-wide NO<INF>X</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions in the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> and 5 tpd for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
resulting in emissions reductions of 27% in NO<INF>X</INF> and 9% in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. In addition, emissions of SO<INF>X</INF>, ammonia 
(NH<INF>3</INF>), and VOC all declined during the 2005 to 2011 
timeframe.

[[Page 61836]]



          Table 4--Yuba City-Marysville Emissions Inventories for 2005 and 2011 and Net Changes (tpd) a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Year                   Net change
                     Pollutant category                      ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                  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 City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> design 
value for the 2009-2011 period was 27 [micro]g/m\3\, approximately 23% 
below the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Table IV-1 on page IV-3 of the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and Figure 2 in CARB's 2014 Staff Report.
    \46\ Temperature data are collected by CARB at the Yuba City-
Almond Street monitoring site, and the precipitation data are 
collected at the Yuba City Airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, we find that the improvement in air quality in the Yuba City-
Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 61837]]

detailed below, we are proposing to approve the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ This document can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/eiguidfinal_nov2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard 
must include an inventory of emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its 
precursors (i.e., NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>X</INF>, and VOC) in the area 
to identify a level of emissions sufficient to attain the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. Year 2011 is a 
current, accurate, and comprehensive inventory during a period which 
the area continued to attain the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Plan, we find that the emissions inventories in the Plan are 
comprehensive in that they include estimates of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan includes 
2011 (along with 2017 and 2024) inventories of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SOx, VOC, and ammonia for the Yuba City-Marysville 
nonattainment area.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Tables V-1 and VI-1 in the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. For additional details on the 2011, 2017, and 
2024 inventories, see Appendix A to the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The stationary source category of the emissions inventory includes 
non-mobile, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The on-road motor vehicles inventory category consists of trucks, 
automobiles, buses, and motorcycles. California's model for estimating 
emissions from on-road 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 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.
    \52\ Metropolitan Transportation/Sustainable Communities 
Strategy Plan, SACOG, adopted April 19, 2013. For more information, 
go to: http://www.sacog.org/2035/mtpscs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to off-road mobile sources (or ``other mobile'' as 
categorized in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#offroad_motor_vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 presents the direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursor emissions estimates for 2011, 2017, and 2024 in the Yuba 
City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. 
Areawide sources (e.g., residential wood

[[Page 61838]]

burning, farming operations, and managed burning) accounted for 72% of 
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>.

  Table 5--Yuba City-Marysville Emissions Inventories for 2011, 2017, and 2024 and Net Changes Between 2011 to
                                                  2024 (tpd) a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Year                         Net Change
               Pollutant category               ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions in the attainment year. 
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the 2011 inventory, which serves 
as the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area to attainment of the 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan's maintenance 
demonstration is based on the use of proportional rollback to 
demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> in these winter months; however, these 
measurements are not

[[Page 61839]]

routinely collected in the Yuba City-Marysville 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Availability 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> during October-April.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Yuba-City Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan shows that the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 [micro]g/
m\3\ into its components of 14.6 [mu]g/m\3\ TCM, 10.3 [mu]g/m\3\ 
ammonium nitrate, 1.6 [mu]g/m\3\ ammonium sulfate, and 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ 
crustal materials.
    The Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan demonstrates that 
the 2024 maintenance year inventory is well below the 2011 attainment 
year inventory for NO<INF>X</INF>, the most important PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursor and about equal for direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, the largest 
contributor to PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Emissions for SO<INF>X</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions estimates for 
2011, 2017, and 2024 in the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Maintenance Plan. Emissions are projected to change between 2011 and 
2014 for direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> (+3%), NH<INF>3</INF> (-3%), 
NO<INF>X</INF> (-37%), SO<INF>X</INF> (+61%), and VOCs (-8%). Since 
current ambient concentrations are well below the NAAQS, the 
NO<INF>X</INF> decrease together with the slight increase in projected 
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF> 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 City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions for years 
2017 and 2024.\56\ These inventories further support maintenance 
through 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The 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.

     Table 6--Summary of 2011, 2017 and 2024 Projected PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursor Emissions in the Yuba City-
         Marysville PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (Tons Per Day, Average Winter Day), and 2011-2024 Change a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Net change   Net change
                   Pollutants                        2011         2017         2024         tpd           %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, a 3% increase in the estimated 2011 TCM ambient 
contribution (i.e., 14.6 [mu]g/m\3\) corresponds to a 0.45 [mu]g/m\3\ 
increase in ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, NH<INF>3</INF>, and SO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions. Assuming a conservative one-to-one SO<INF>X</INF> to 
ammonium sulfate, a 61% increase in SO<INF>X</INF> corresponds to a 1.0 
[mu]g/m\3\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> increase. NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are 
projected to decrease by 37% and NH<INF>3</INF> is projected to 
decrease by 3%. FRAQMD assumes a one-to-one NO<INF>X</INF> to ammonium 
nitrate resulting in a 3.8 [mu]g/m\3\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> decrease. The 
amount of NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> causes only a 0.7% change in ammonium nitrate. See 78 
FR 44494 at 59261 (July 24, 2013). Using this assumption, the 37% 
NO<INF>X</INF> decrease results in a 2.7 [mu]g/m\3\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
decrease. Taken together, the changes in precursor emissions from 2011 
to 2024 result in an overall decrease of 1.25 [mu]g/m\3\ in the DV. See 
Plan, Table VI-4 p. VI-3.
    The results of the proportional roll-back analysis show that the 
Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area will be well 
below the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in 2024, with the projected DV 
of 25.75 [mu]g/m\3\. This is higher than the 24.6 [micro]g/m\3\ in the 
Plan (based on a one-to-one ammonium nitrate response to NO<INF>X</INF> 
reductions), but is still well below the NAAQS. The effects of the 
declining NO<INF>X</INF> outweigh slight increases in direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF>.
    For the above reasons, EPA believes the area will continue to 
maintain the

[[Page 61840]]

2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS at least through 2024 and that the 
Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> Maintenance Plan shows 
maintenance for a period of ten years following redesignation. Thus, 
EPA proposes approval of the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
Maintenance Plan in 2014, based on a showing, in accordance with 
section 175A, that the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard by 
tracking the levels of the precursors whose control brought about 
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, NH<INF>3</INF>, and VOC are projected to decrease over 
the maintenance period for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. 
See Tables 5 and 6. Given that the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment 
area is already attaining the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF> are both projected to marginally 
increase by 0.2 tpd between 2011 and 2024, the overall emissions 
reductions projected in NO<INF>X</INF>, NH<INF>3</INF>, and VOC would 
be sufficient to offset the very small increase in direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF>. For these reasons, EPA believes 
that emissions from potential PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors will not 
cause monitored PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels to violate the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard during the maintenance period. In addition, 
the 2011-2013 design value for the area is 29 [micro]g/m\3\, which is 
well below the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard of 35 [micro]g/
m\3\. Given that precursor emissions are projected to decrease through 
2024, it is reasonable to conclude that monitored PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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, PM<INF>2.5</INF> is 
currently monitored by CARB within the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area. In the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
monitoring network through the maintenance period. We find that the 
Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 61841]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> air 
quality problems. The contingency provisions in the Yuba City-
Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan are contained in section VII of the 
Plan and were clarified in a subsequent letter from the District.\57\ 
In the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, FRAQMD identifies 
the contingency plan trigger as a violation of the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. If that should occur, FRAQMD commits to the 
following steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Letter 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
    (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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan
    The Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan contains 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> MVEBs for the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area for 2017 and 2024.

[[Page 61842]]

The MVEBs are the on-road mobile source primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> (as a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan and in SACOG's Regional Planning Partnership 
Action Item #3, February 20, 2013.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from road 
construction, paved roads and unpaved roads were evaluated by FRAQMD 
and determined to not be a significant contributor to the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See section VIII.c. in the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.
    \60\ See 40 CFR 93.124(a).

             Table 9--Source Categories and Emissions Comprising the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
                                       [tons per day, average winter day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        2017                      2024
                          Category                           ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                  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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 City-Marysville 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS through at least 2024. Consistent with this 
proposal, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs submitted by the State 
in the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan. EPA is proposing 
that the submitted budgets are consistent with maintenance of the 2006 
24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS through 2024.

VII. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Based on our review of the Yuba City-Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, to redesignate the Yuba City-
Marysville PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area to attainment for the 
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan as part of this action.
    Second, in connection with the Yuba City-Marysville 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS for 10 years

[[Page 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Are not an economically significant regulatory action 
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Are not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>