[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44792-44794]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18390]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0683]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Spaceport Sheboygan Corporate Rocket Challenge,
Sheboygan Harbor, Sheboygan, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a safety zone for
certain waters of the Sheboygan Harbor and Lake Michigan. This action
is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable
waters near Sheboygan, WI during a rocket launch event on September 28,
2019. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from
being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or a designated representative. We invite your comments
on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0683 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Petty Officer Kyle Weitzell,
Sector Lake Michigan Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Great Lakes Aerospace Science and Education Center notified the
Coast Guard that it will be conducting a rocket launch event from 9
a.m. through 12 noon on September 28, 2019. The rocket is to be
launched from shore at the Sheboygan South Pier. Hazards from rocket
launches over the water include accidental discharge of the ignition
system, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.
The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the rockets to be used in this event
would be a safety concern for anyone within a 1,500-yard radius of the
rocket launch site.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within a 1,500-yard radius of the Sheboygan
South Pier launch site located at coordinates 43[deg]44.914' N,
087[deg]41.869' W before, during, and after the scheduled event. The
Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 9 a.m.
through 4 p.m. on September 28, 2019. The safety zone would cover all
navigable waters within 1,500 yards of the Sheboygan South Pier launch
site located at coordinates 43[deg]44.914' N, 087[deg]41.869' W near
Sheboygan, WI. The duration of the zone is intended to protect the
safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after
the scheduled 9 a.m. through 12 noon rocket launch event. No vessel or
person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory
text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) has not been designated a ``significant regulatory
action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of
Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
duration of this action. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on navigable
waters. This rule will prohibit entry into an area of the Sheboygan
Harbor and Lake Michigan in Sheboygan, WI that is within 1,500 yards of
the Sheboygan South Pier launch site located at coordinates
43[deg]44.914' N, 087[deg]41.869' W during the rocket launch event, not
to exceed seven hours in duration. Thus, restrictions on vessel
movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under
certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the
safety zone when permitted by the COTP.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting no more than seven hours that would prohibit entry within
1,500 yards of a rocket launch site. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in
Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing
Procedures. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination will be available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES once it is completed. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0683 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0683   Safety Zone; Spaceport Sheboygan Corporate Rocket
Challenge, Sheboygan Harbor, Sheboygan, WI.

    (a) Location. All navigable waters of the Sheboygan Harbor and Lake
Michigan near Sheboygan, WI within 1,500 yards of the Sheboygan South
Pier rocket launch site located at coordinates 43[deg]44.914' N,
087[deg]41.869' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 9 a.m.
through 4 p.m. on September 28, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan (COTP) or a designated on-scene
representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the
COTP to act on his or her behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or an on-scene representative to obtain
permission to do so. The COTP or an on-scene representative may be
contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to
enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions
given to them by the COTP or an on-scene representative.

    Dated: August 21, 2019.
T.J. Stuhlreyer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2019-18390 Filed 8-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


February 17, 2005 1 February 17, 2005 MEMORANDUM From: William H. Maxwell CG/ ESD ( C439 01)

To: Utility rulemaking e docket OAR 2002 0056 Subject: Meeting with Alliant Energy, February 17, 2005 Attendees Alliant Energy: Michele Pluta, Alliant Energy Phil Moeller, Alliant Energy Michael Rossler, Edison Electric Institute EPA: Bill Wehrum, OAR/ AA Jason Burnett, OAR/ AA Bill Maxwell, OAR/ OAQPS ( by phone)

Discussion The attached materials related to applicability and definition of an " electric utility steam generating unit" were discussed.

Attachment February 17, 2005 2 Applicability of Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) Rules There are two MACT rules to consider, one final and one proposed:

1) Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters ( 40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD)

Reference Name  Industrial Boiler ( IB) MACT Final Rule  November 12, 2004 ( effective date) Initial Notification of Affected Units  March 12, 2005 Compliance with Emissions Standards  September 12, 2007 Applicability  Industrial Boilers less than 25 MW Regulates  Mercury, Total Select Metals, and Hydrogen Chloride   Mercury " Hg" = 9 lbs/ TBtu;   Hydrogen Chloride " HCl" = 0.09 lbs/ mmBtu; and,   Total Select Metals " TSM" = 0.001 lbs/ mmBtu ( may be monitored as Particulate Matter " PM" = 0.07 lbs/ mmBtu)

2) Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Reference Name  Utility MACT Final Rule  March 15, 2005 ( issuance required by court order) Compliance  2008 ( alternative, 2010 & 2018) Applicability   Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Regulates  Mercury   5.8 lbs/ TBtu ( subituminous) by 2008 facility wide; or,   alternative two phase trading rule ~ 70% by 2018 Issue Summary The issue is how units co located at the same facility are subject to either the " IB MACT" versus the " Utility MACT" when there is a common steam header.

  Electric utility steam generating units are not subject to the final IB MACT rule.   Historical Acid Rain determinations have considered < 25 MW units as " Utility" when there is a common steam header from multiple boilers physically connected to a same steam turbine generator of greater than 25 MWe output capacity. February 17, 2005 3 Question to EPA Headquarters Is there a position on treatment of units with combined steam headers for the IB MACT versus Utility MACT?

Recommended policy solution is that combustion units less than 25 MW ( nameplate) that are currently classified as " existing utility units" under Acid Rain regulations ( 40 CFR 72.2)  because of common steam header piping systems serving a turbine generator of greater than 25 MWe output capacity  may also be classified as " electric utility steam generating units" to be regulated under the forthcoming Utility MACT.

Reasons to Support Recommended Policy Solution   There should be a consistent regulatory interpretation of what is considered a " Utility" unit in the situation of combined steam headers serving turbine generators of greater than 25 MWe output capacity.   Units will comply with a more stringent mercury limit under Utility MACT.   Units will be subject to Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) that should address other emissions standards covered by IB MACT ( but not in Utility MACT).   Classification of all units at a plant under one set of rules provides for streamlined compliance and eliminates issues of apportionment of emissions standards between differing standards.

Industrial Boiler MACT Explanation ( from FINAL Rule Preamble)

D. What Is the Relationship Between the Final Rule and Other Combustion Rules?

The final rule regulates source categories covering industrial boilers, institutional and commercial boilers, and process heaters. These source categories potentially include combustion units that are already regulated by other MACT standards. Therefore, we are excluding from the final rule any combustion units that are already or will be subject to regulation under another MACT standard under 40 CFR part 63. Combustion units that are regulated by other standards and are therefore excluded from the final rule include solid waste incineration units covered by section 129 of the CAA; boilers or process heaters required to have a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act or covered by the hazardous waste combustor NESHAP in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE 1; and recovery boilers or furnaces covered by 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM.

With regards to solid waste incineration units covered by section 129 of the CAA, EPA solicited on February 17, 2004 ( 69 FR 7390) public comments on the definition of `` commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit'' for the purpose of determining which combustion sources to regulate under section 129 and which to regulate under section 112 ( e. g., boilers and process heaters). As stated above, combustion units covered under section 129 are not subject to the final rule.

Electric utility steam generating units are not subject to the final rule. An electric utility steam generating unit is a fossil fuel fired combustion unit of more than 25 megawatts that serves a generator that produces electricity for sale. A fossil fuel fired unit that cogenerates steam and February 17, 2005 4 electricity and supplies more than one third of its potential electric output capacity and more than 25 megawatts electrical output to any utility power distribution system for sale is considered an electric utility steam generating unit. Non fossil fuel fired utility boilers and electric utility steam generating units less than 25 megawatts are covered by the final rule.

In 1986, EPA codified the NSPS for industrial boilers ( 40 CFR part 60, subparts Db and Dc) and revised portions of them in 1999. The NSPS regulates emissions of particulate matter ( PM), sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides from boilers constructed after June 19, 1984. Sources subject to the NSPS are also subject to the final rule because the final rule regulates sources of hazardous air pollutants while the NSPS does not. However, in developing the final rule for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters, EPA minimized the monitoring requirements, testing requirements, and recordkeeping requirements to avoid duplicating requirements.

Because of the broad applicability of the final rule due to the definition of a process heater, certain process heaters could appear to fit the applicability of another existing MACT rule. We have, therefore, included in the list of combustion units not subject to the final rule refining kettles subject to the secondary lead MACT rule ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart X); ethylene cracking furnaces covered by 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY; and blast furnace stoves described in the EPA document entitled `` National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Plants   Background Information for Proposed Standards'' ( EPA   453/ R   01   005).

Utility MACT Explanation ( from PROPOSED Rule Preamble)

B. What is the relationship between the proposed rule and other combustion rules?

The EPA has previously developed two other combustion related MACT standards in addition to today's proposed rule for coal and oil fired Utility Units. The EPA proposed standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters ( IB) on January 13, 2003 ( 68 FR 1660) and promulgated standards for stationary combustion turbines ( CT) in 2003. These regulations have been issued pursuant to CAA section 112, but not under CAA section 112( n)( 1)( A), as is today's proposal, because section 112( n)( 1)( A) is uniquely applicable to Utility Units as defined by the CAA.

All three of the rules pertain to HAP emission sources that combust fossil fuels for electrical power, process operations, or heating. The differences among these rules are due to the size of the unit megawatts electric ( MWe) or British thermal unit per hour ( Btu/ hr)) they regulate, the boiler/ furnace technology they employ, or the portion of their electrical output ( if any) for sale to any utility power distribution systems.

Section 112( a)( 8) of the CAA defines an " electric utility steam generating unit" as " any fossil fuel fired combustion unit of more than 25 megawatts that serves a generator that produces electricity for sale." A unit that cogenerates steam and electricity and supplies more than one third of its potential electric output capacity and more than 25 MWe output to any utility power distribution system for sale is also considered an Utility Unit. All of the MWe ratings quoted in the proposed rule are considered to be the original nameplate rated capacity of the unit. Cogeneration is defined February 17, 2005 5 as the simultaneous production of power ( electricity) and another form of useful thermal energy ( usually steam or hot water) from a single fuel consuming process. Today's proposed section 112 MACT rule would not regulate a unit that meets the definition of an Utility Unit but combusts natural gas greater than 98 percent of the time.

The CT rule regulates HAP emissions from all simple cycle and combined cycle turbines producing electricity or steam for any purpose. Because of their combustion technology, simple cycle and combined cycle turbines ( with the exception of integrated gasification combined cycle ( IGCC) units that burn gasified coal gas) are not considered Utility Units for purposes of today's proposed rule.

Any combustion unit that produces steam to serve a generator that produces electricity exclusively for industrial, commercial, or institutional purposes is considered an IB unit. A fossil fuel   fired combustion unit that serves a generator that produces electricity for sale is not considered to be a Utility Unit under the proposed rule if its size is less than or equal to 25 MWe. Also, a cogeneration facility that sells electricity to any utility power distribution system equal to more than one third of their potential electric output capacity and more than 25 MWe is considered to be an electric utility steam generating unit. However, a cogeneration facility that meets the above definition of an Utility Unit during any portion of a year would be subject to the proposed rule.

Because of the similarities in the design and operational characteristics of the units that would be regulated by the different combustion rules, there are situations where coal or oil fired units potentially could be subject to multiple MACT rules. An example of this situation would be cogeneration units that are covered under the proposed IB rule, potentially meeting the definition of a Utility Unit, and vice versa. This might occur where a decision is made to increase/ decrease the proportion of production output being supplied to the electric utility grid, thus causing the unit to exceed the IB/ electric utility cogeneration criteria ( i. e. greater than one third of its potential output capacity and greater than 25 MWe).

The EPA solicits comment on the extent to which this situation might occur. Given the differences between rules, how should EPA address reclassification of the sources between the two rules, particularly with regard to initial and ongoing compliance requirements and schedules? ( As noted above, EPA is proposing to consider as a Utility Unit any cogeneration unit that meets the definition noted earlier at any time during a year.)

Another situation could occur where one or more coal or oil fired Utility Unit( s) share an air pollution control device ( APCD) and/ or an exhaust stack with one or more similarly fueled IB units. To demonstrate compliance with two different rules, the emissions have to either be apportioned to the appropriate source or the more stringent emission limit must be met. Data needed to apportion emissions are not currently required by the proposed rule or the proposed IB rule.

The EPA solicits comment on the extent to which this situation might occur. Given potential differences between rules, how should EPA address apportionment of the emissions to the individual sources with regard to initial and ongoing compliance requirements? The EPA specifically requests comment on the appropriateness of a mass balance type methodology to determine pollutant apportionment between sources both pre APCD and post APCD.


[Federal Register: May 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 25826-25827]
[DOCID:fr02my06-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-311-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes
in FERC Gas Tariff

April 25, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 19, 2006, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets with a
proposed effective date of May 19, 2006:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 538.
Second Revised Sheet No. 539.
Original Sheet No. 540.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6569 Filed 5-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14404-14410]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05527]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0599; FRL-9906-92-Region-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California San
Francisco Bay Area and Chico Nonattainment Areas; Fine Particulate
Matter Emissions Inventories

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning emissions inventories for the 2006
24-hour fine particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
the San Francisco Bay Area and Chico PM2.5 nonattainment
areas. We are approving these emissions inventories under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on May 13, 2014 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 14, 2014. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0599, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes 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 www.regulations.gov or email.
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. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available

electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. 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: Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3848<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. PM2.5 NAAQS
    B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
    C. Submittal Requirements for PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas
II. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of SIP
Revisions
    A. Submittal for the San Francisco Bay Area Nonattainment Area
    B. Submittal for the Chico Nonattainment Area
III. Analysis of State's Submittals
    A. San Francisco Bay Area Emissions Inventory
    B. Chico Emissions Inventory
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. PM2.5 NAAQS

    Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA establishes national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS or ``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.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to
add new standards for fine particles, using PM2.5 (particles
less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter) as the indicator for
the pollutant. EPA established primary and secondary \1\ annual and 24-
hour standards for PM2.5 (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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 concentrations at
each population-oriented monitor within an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, but with
tighter constraints on the spatial averaging criteria.

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    Effective December 14, 2009, EPA established the initial air
quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
Among the various areas designated in 2009, EPA designated the San
Francisco Bay Area and the Chico area in California as nonattainment
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.2 3 The
boundaries for these areas are described in 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The San Francisco Bay Area PM2.5 nonattainment
area includes southern Sonoma, Napa, Marin, Contra Costa, San
Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara and the western part of
Solano counties.
    \3\ The Chico PM2.5 nonattainment area includes the
southwestern two-thirds of Butte County, California. Butte County
lies in the central portion of northern California's Sacramento
Valley Air Basin, which stretches from Sacramento County in the
south to Shasta County in the north.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Submittal Requirements for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a state with an area
designated as nonattainment to submit for EPA approval a comprehensive,
accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions for the
nonattainment area. EPA's requirements for an emissions inventory for
the PM2.5 NAAQS are set forth in 40 CFR
51.1008.4 5 This direct final approval is limited to the
emissions inventories for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for
the San Francisco Bay Area and Chico nonattainment areas as required
under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA as applicable to the 2006
PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 40 CFR 51.1008 (a)(2) and (b) do not apply for the Bay Area
or Chico because they relate to requirements for attainment
demonstrations and reasonable further progress (RFP), which were
suspended for both the Bay Area (78 FR 1760) and Chico (78 FR 55225)
PM2.5 nonattainment areas on January 9, 2013 and
September 10, 2013, respectively.
    \5\ Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia (DC Circuit) recently remanded this rule and directed EPA
to re-promulgate it pursuant to subpart 4 of part D, title I of the
CAA (see Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.2d 428
(D.C. Cir. 2013)), the court's ruling in this case does not affect
EPA's action on these emission inventories. Subpart 4 of part D,
title I of the Act contains no specific provision governing emission
inventories for PM10 or PM2.5 nonattainment
areas that supersedes the general emission inventory requirement for
all nonattainment areas in CAA section 172(c)(3). See ``State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498,
13539 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 9, 2013 (78 FR 1760), EPA finalized a determination that
the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area had attained the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On September 10, 2013 (78 FR 55225), EPA
finalized a determination that the Chico nonattainment area had also
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These determinations
of attainment were based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data showing that each area had monitored
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on the
most-recent three years of monitoring data. Based on these
determinations, the requirements for each area to submit an attainment
demonstration, together with reasonably available control measures, a
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for
failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines, are suspended for so long
as the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The emissions inventory submittal requirement in CAA section
172(c)(3) is not suspended by the determination of attainment, and the
State has submitted the Chico and San Francisco Bay Area inventories to
address the section 172(c)(3) requirement.

II. 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. Section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP
submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. 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
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).

A. Submittal for the San Francisco Bay Area Nonattainment Area

    In this action, we are approving, as a revision to the California
SIP, CARB's January 14, 2013 submittal of the 2010 PM2.5
Emissions Inventory for the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area emissions
inventory).\6\ CARB's submittal to EPA documents the public review
process followed by San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) and CARB in adopting the Bay Area emissions inventory
prior to submittal to EPA as a revision to the 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 documents the adoption of the Bay Area
emissions inventory by the BAAQMD Board of Directors on November 7,
2012. The submittal also documents CARB's December 6, 2012 Board
resolution approving the Bay Area emissions inventory.\7\ On January
14, 2013, CARB submitted the Bay Area emissions inventory to EPA for
approval as a revision to the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CARB adopted the 2010 PM2.5 Emission Inventory
for the Bay Area in 2012 and refers to the submittal as the ``2012
PM2.5 Emission Inventory to the State Implementation Plan
for the San Francisco Bay Area.'' However, the actual inventory in
the 2012 CARB submittal (Appendix D) is titled, ``Bay Area Winter
Emissions Inventory for Primary PM2.5 & PM Precursors:
Year 2010.'' For purposes of this action, any reference to the 2012
PM2.5 Emissons Inventory is equivalent to the Bay Area
2010 winter-time PM2.5 emission inventory.
    \7\ CARB Resolution 12-37, December 6, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's January 14, 2013 submittal of the Bay Area emissions
inventory became complete by operation of law on July 14, 2013.
    Based on the documentation included in CARB's submittal, we find
that the submittal of the Bay Area emissions inventory, as a SIP
revision, satisfies the procedural requirements of sections 110(l) of
the Act for revising SIPs. For further details, please see EPA's
December 20, 2013 Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Bay Area
emissions inventory.

B. Submittal for Chico Nonattainment Area

    In this action, we are also approving, as a revision to the
California SIP, CARB's November 15, 2012 submittal of a 2011
PM2.5 emissions inventory for the Chico PM2.5
nonattainment area (Chico emissions inventory).\8\ CARB's submittal
documents the public review process followed by Butte County Air
Quality Management District (BCAQMD) and CARB in adopting the Chico
emissions inventory prior to submittal to EPA. 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 documents the adoption of the emissions
inventory by the BCAQMD Board of Directors. On September 27, 2012, the
BCAQMD Board of Directors approved the emissions inventory and directed
BCAQMD staff to forward the Chico emissions inventory to CARB, the
Governor of California's designee for SIP matters.\9\ CARB's submittal
also documents its October 18, 2012 Board resolution regarding the
Chico emissions inventory.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CARB adopted the 2011 PM2.5 Emission Inventory
for the Chico nonattainment area in 2012 and refers to it as the
``2012 PM2.5 Emission Inventory Submittal to the State
Implementation Plan for the Chico, CA/Butte County (partial)
Planning Area.'' However, the actual inventory in the CARB submittal
(Appendix D) is titled ``Chico Nonattainment Area (Partial Butte
County) 2011 Daily Winter-Time Emissions Inventory (Base Year 2005-
Grown and Controlled in Tons Per Day).'' For purposes of this
action, any reference to the 2012 PM2.5 Emissions
Inventory is equivalent to the Chnico 2011 winter-time
PM2.5 emission inventory.
    \9\ BCAQMD Revised Resolution No. 2012-12, September 27, 2012.
    \10\ CARB Resolution 12-31, October 18, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's November 15, 2012 submittal of the Chico emissions inventory
became complete by operation of law on May 15, 2013.
    Based on the documentation included in CARB's submittal, we find
that the submittal of the Chico emissions inventory as a SIP revision
satisfies the procedural requirements of sections 110(l) of the Act for
revising SIPs. For further details, please see EPA's December 20, 2013
TSD for the Chico emissions inventory.

III. Analysis of State's Submittals

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions for
each nonattainment area. EPA's requirements for an emissions inventory
for the PM2.5 NAAQS are set forth in 40 CFR 51.1008. For the
PM2.5 NAAQS, the pollutants to be inventoried are
PM2.5, VOC, NOX, SO2, and
NH3.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone
and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/R-05-001, August
2005, updated November 2005. http:[sol][sol]www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
eidocs/eiguid/eiguidfinal_nov2005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. San Francisco Bay Area Emissions Inventory

    The Bay Area emissions inventory provides a 2010 inventory in tons
per day (tpd) winter-time emissions estimates for PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors (i.e., nitrogen oxides (NOX),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs),\12\ ammonia (NH3), and
sulfur dioxide (SO2)). Monitoring data for the San Francisco
Bay Area nonattainment area indicates that high PM2.5
concentrations occur primarily during the winter months; therefore, the
Bay Area emissions inventory is a winter-season inventory.\13\ The
source categories include stationary sources, area sources, on-road
mobile sources and off-road mobile sources. A summary of the Bay Area
emissions inventory is provided in Table 1 below, and the detailed Bay
Area emissions inventory is found in Attachment 1 of CARB's submittal.
CARB received no public comments on this submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ BAAQMD uses the term Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) rather than
VOC. EPA formerly defined the regulated organic compounds in outdoor
air as ROG. However, EPA later changed that terminology to ``VOC,''
which we use here.
    \13\ November 20, 2013 email correspondence from Amir Fanai
(BAAQMD) to Nancy Levin (EPA), ``FW--Annual v. winter inventory
(with attachment).'' See also ``Understanding Particulate Matter,''
2012, BAAQMD, page 75. Also see ARB Staff Report, ``Analysis of the
2012 PM2.5 Emissions Inventory Submittal to the State
Implementation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area,'' page 2.

       Table 1--San Francisco Bay Area Planning Area 2010 Winter Emissions Inventory in Tons Per Day (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Source category \14\             PM2.5            VOC             NOX             SO2             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial and Commercial                    5.5            13.7             3.0             7.1             6.2
 Processes......................
Petroleum Product/Solvent                    0.1            69.7             0.0             0.0             0.0
 Evaporation....................
Combustion Stationary Sources--             13.1             5.3             1.1             0.2             1.2
 Fireplaces.....................
Combustion Stationary Sources--              3.7             2.8             0.5             0.1             0.5
 Wood Stoves....................
Combustion Stationary Sources--              7.5             6.3            54.4            17.9             1.1
 Other..........................
On-Road Mobile..................             7.3           107.4           197.6             0.9             8.7
Off-Road Mobile.................             4.3            39.6            90.4             2.8             0.0

Miscellaneous Other--Consumer                0.0            44.1             0.0             0.0             0.5
 Products (excluding pesticides)
Miscellaneous Other--other......             7.9             5.1             0.2             0.0            19.1
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals \a\..................              49             294             347              29              37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Totals rounded consistent with submittal.

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

    \14\ The source categories and totals in Table 1 represent the
combined totals from various subcategories of sources listed in the
Bay Area Winter Emissions Inventory for Primary PM2.5 &
PM Precursors: Year 2010. See Table 1 in Attachment 1 of the TSD.
This summary also breaks out ``Combustion Stationary Sources'' into
fireplaces, woodstoves, and other; and ``Miscellaneous Other
Sources'' into Consumer Products (excluding pesticides) and other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bay Area emissions inventory includes emissions estimates from
stationary sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and off-road
mobile sources. The methodologies used to derive the 2010 inventory for
PM2.5 are as follows: \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Understanding Particulate Matter,'' 2012, BAAQMD, pages
82-87. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/
Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/PM%20Planning/ParticulatesMatter--
Nov%207.ashx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The stationary source emissions inventory is based on 2010
data of actual emissions reported by all permitted facilities.
     Area-wide source emissions were calculated based on
reported data for fuel usage, product sales, population, employment
data, and other parameters covering a wide range of activities.
     The BAAQMD used residential 2005-2006 wood burning surveys
and mass balance calculations to estimate emissions from fireplaces and
woodstoves.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In their ``Spare the Air Tonight Study, 2005-2006 Winter
Wood Smoke Season (2006)'' the BAAQMD used probability-based
sampling techniques to obtain a representative sample of adult
population in the district. A total of 2,625 randomly selected
residents participated in a telephone survey on one of 28
interviewing dates between November 22, 2005 and February 17, 2006.
The methodology and protocols used are described in the following
report: Spare the Air Tonight Study, 2005-2006 Winter Wood Smoke
Season, Conducted for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Commercial cooking did not include condensable emissions
for purposes of methodological consistency, since methods to measure
condensable emissions from other sources are not available.
     The on-road emissions inventory, which consists of mobile
sources such as trucks, automobiles, buses, and motorcycles, was
prepared by CARB using EMFAC2011,\17\ an EPA-approved CARB model for
on-road motor vehicle emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 78 FR 14533 (March 6, 2013) regarding EPA approval of
the latest version of the California EMFAC model (short for
EMissionFACtor) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The off-road mobile source category includes aircraft,
trains and boats, and off-road vehicles and equipment used for
construction, farming, commercial, industrial, and recreational
activities.\18\ Off-road emissions were estimated by CARB using
category-specific methods and models, and OFFROAD2007.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm.
    \19\ Email from Gabe Ruiz, CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA,
December 17, 2013. While BAAQMD's ``Understanding Particulate
Matter'' refers to a CARB ``OFFROAD2011'' model, EPA staff confirmed
that CARB ``did not produce an integrated version of the OFFROAD
model for 2011 (i.e., there is no OFFROAD2011). Instead, off-road
emissions were estimated using a suite of models that provide
inventory estimates specific to different categories of vehicles.
Many of these category-specific models were developed to support
recent regulations including in-use off-road equipment, ocean-going
vessels, and others. In those instances when a category-specific
model was not created, OFFROAD2007 was used.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Ship emissions were based on actual data where possible.
Commercial boat emissions were calculated based on data collected from
CARB's 2004 Statewide Commercial Harbor Craft Survey. Aircraft
emissions are based on actual 2010 activity data.
     Paved road emissions were estimated by CARB, based on
their 2011 guidance and EPA's AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter
13.2.1, Final Section.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ AP-42 Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 13.2.1, Final
Section, November 2006, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0201.pdf, and Understanding Particulate Matter, page 87,
footnote 18. See the Technical Support Document for today's action
for additional information on methods used by CARB to calculate
paved road emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, high PM2.5 concentrations in the San
Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area occur primarily during the winter
months and, therefore, the BAAQMD submitted a winter season inventory.
The high winter concentrations are mainly due to meteorological
factors, but also are affected by increased residential wood burning
during the winter. In addition, cool weather promotes the formation of
ammonium nitrate.\21\ Residential wood burning and diesel vehicles
comprise about two thirds of the directly emitted PM2.5
emissions. On-road motor vehicles make up the largest source of
NOX and VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``Understanding Particulate Matter,'' 2012, BAAQMD, page
75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for the
Bay Area emissions inventory. The BAAQMD used standard procedures to
develop its emissions inventory. The BAAQMD appropriately used seasonal
emissions inventories. After reviewing the CARB submittal of the Bay
Area emissions inventory and supporting documentation, EPA finds the
Bay Area emissions inventory meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA
guidance and, therefore, we are approving it.

B. Chico Emissions Inventory

    The SIP revision submitted by CARB on November 15, 2012 for the
Chico nonattainment area provides a 2011 winter-time emissions
inventory with emissions estimates in tpd for PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors (i.e., NOX, VOCs,\22\
NH3, and SO2). Monitoring data for the Chico
nonattainment area indicates that high PM2.5 concentrations
occur primarily during the winter months; therefore, the submitted
inventory is a winter-season inventory.\23\ The source categories
include stationary sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and
off-road mobile sources. A summary of the inventory is provided in
Table 2 below, and a detailed inventory is found in Appendix D of
CARB's submittal.

CARB received no public comments on this submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ BCAQMD uses the term Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) rather than
VOC. EPA formerly defined the regulated organic compounds in outdoor
air as ROG. However, EPA later changed that terminology to ``VOC.''
    \23\ 2012 PM2.5 Emission Inventory Submittal to the
State Implementation Plan for the Chico, CA/Butte County (partial)
Planning Area, Figure 4-1.
    \24\ Ibid., Table 5-1.
    \25\ Includes Fuel Combustion, Waste Disposal, Cleaning and
Surface Coatings, Petroleum Production and Marketing, Industrial
Processes, and Solvent Evaporation.

         Table 2--Chico 2011 Daily Winter-Season Emissions Inventory for PM2.5 and Precursors (tpd) \24\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Emissions inventory category         PM2.5            VOC             NOX             SO2             NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Stationary Sources \25\.....            0.81            1.69            2.13            0.07            0.07
Area Sources:
    Residential Wood Heating....            2.36            3.40            0.28            0.05            0.15
    All Other Residential                   0.04            0.03            0.59            0.02            0.00
     Heating....................
    Agricultural (Managed)                  1.16            0.93            0.68            0.11            0.12
     Burning....................
    Construction Fugitives......            0.10            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
    Agricultural Fugitives......            0.19            0.32            0.00            0.00            0.58
    Paved and Unpaved Road Dust             0.33            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
     (Construction Fugitives)...
    All Other Area Sources                  0.08            4.34            0.00            0.00            3.61
     (General Area Sources).....
\a\ Mobile Sources:
    On-Road.....................            0.27            3.23            8.71            0.03            0.23
    Off-Road....................            0.23            2.34            4.82            0.06           0.002
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals \a\..............            5.57           16.28           17.22            0.33            4.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Totals may not precisely match categories because of rounding but are consistent with submittal.

    For the Chico nonattainment area, the BCAQMD used a base year of
2005, which was the latest completed comprehensive inventory
available.\26\ This base year inventory was then ``grown and
controlled'' \27\ for 2011. For the PM2.5 NAAQS, the
pollutants to be inventoried are PM2.5, VOC, NOX,
SO2, and NH3.\28\ The inventory includes
emissions estimates from stationary sources, area sources, on-road
mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources. The submittal also
includes PM2.5 emissions in BCAQMD's 2011 Emissions
Reduction Credit (ERC) register and Community Bank reserve. These
potential future emissions are not included in the 2011 winter-time
PM2.5 emissions inventory for Chico, but BCAQMD recognizes
their potential to be emitted in the future if authorized to meet New
Source Review requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Email from Armen Kamian, BCAQMD to Nancy Levin, EPA, August
8, 2013.
    \27\ ``Grown'' refers to including population growth, new roads,
additional housing units, increased road traffic, etc.
``Controlled'' refers to including control measures.
    \28\ Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone
and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/R-05-001, August
2005, updated November 2005. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/eiguidfinal_nov2005.pdf.
    \29\ Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.s) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). U.S. EPA
Memorandum from S. Page, March 2, 2012.

            Table 3--Chico 2011 Winter-Time PM2.5 ERCs (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 ERC Registry (October-April)..........................         0.30
Community Bank (October-April).............................         0.06
                                                            ------------
    Total..................................................         0.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The stationary point source emissions inventory was developed from
information the BCAQMD has on file for permitted facilities. The source
categories include, but are not limited to, most fuel combustion, waste
disposal, cleaning and surface coating, petroleum marketing and
production, and industrial process facilities, as well as those subject
to the federal Title V program. For this inventory, stationary sources
also include auto body shops, dry cleaners, and gasoline stations.
General area sources include solvent evaporation and other sources for
which BCAQMD followed CARB's methodologies to calculate the emissions
inventory estimates.\30\ The BCAQMD developed the woodstove/fireplace
emissions estimates using California housing data, Butte County
Association of Governments' growth predictions, and CARB emissions
factors to determine the potential reductions from BCAQMD Rule 207,
Residential Wood Combustion.)\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/areas src/inde0.htm.
    \31\ Memorandum, Control Profile Rule 207 Residential Wood
Combustion, and attachment from Gail Williams, BCAQMD to Anna
Komorniczak and Monique Davis, CARB, October 12, 2010; District Rule
207 Wood Burning Devices (Adopted October 25, 2001; Recodified
August 22, 2002; Amended December 11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mobile sources include on-road and off-road emissions. On-road
mobile source emissions were estimated by CARB using the
EMFAC2011model. Off-road emissions were estimated by CARB using
category-specific methods and models, and OFFROAD2007.\32\ Residential
wood heating accounts for almost half of the winter directly emitted
PM2.5 emissions, and mobile sources are the largest
contributors to NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ December 16, 2013 email from Armen Kamian, BCAQMD to Nancy
Levin, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for the
submitted emissions inventory. The BCAQMD used standard procedures to
develop its emissions inventory. The BCAQMD appropriately used seasonal
emissions inventories. After reviewing the CARB submittal of the Chico
emissions inventory and supporting documentation, EPA finds the
emissions inventory meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance
and, therefore, we are approving it.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve the PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursor emissions inventories submitted by CARB
on January 14, 2013 for the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area,
and on November 15, 2012 for the Chico nonattainment area. EPA has
determined that this action is consistent with sections 110 and
172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial revision
and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules
section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing
approval of the same submitted emissions inventories. If we

receive adverse comments by April 14, 2014, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect, and we will address the comments
in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not
receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be
effective without further notice on May 13, 2014. This will incorporate
these emissions inventories into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this SIP revision, and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the revision, EPA may adopt as final
those provisions of the revision that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address 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 action 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 13, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 30, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(434) and (435) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (434) A plan revision submitted on November 15, 2012 by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Butte County Air Quality Management District.
    (1) ``2012 PM2.5 Emission Inventory Submittal to the
State Implementation Plan for the Chico, CA/Butte County (partial)
Planning Area,'' as submitted by the California Air Resources Board on
November 15, 2012. The document in CARB's submittal is titled, ``Chico
Nonattainment Area (Partial Butte County) 2011 Daily Winter-Time
Emissions Inventory (Base Year 2005--Grown and Controlled in Tons Per
Day.''
    (435) A plan revision submitted on January 14, 2013 by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
    (1) ``2012 PM2.5 Emission Inventory to the State
Implementation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area'' as submitted by
the California Air Resources Board on January 14, 2013. The document in

CARB's submittal is titled, ``Bay Area Winter Emissions Inventory for
Primary PM2.5 & PM Precursors: Year 2010.''
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-05527 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


CARBARYL (056801)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: October 19, 2009

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than
500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 &
<1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of
1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value
is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2007.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2007.

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) pesticide usage data from
the CropLife America Foundation are used only if data are not available
from the other sources.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2000 to 2005 when 95% or more of a crop is
grown California.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

Monday, October 19, 2009

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Carbaryl (056801)

Sorted Alphabetically

	Percent Crop Ttd.

				Crop	Lbs. A.I.	Avg.	Max.

1	Alfalfa	50,000	<1	<2.5

2	Almonds	10,000	<1	<2.5

3	Apples	300,000	40	60

4	Apricots	1,000	5	15

5	Asparagus	60,000	35	50

6	Avocados +	3,000	5	5

7	Beans, Green	10,000	5	10

8	Beets ( NPUD '02 )	<500	N/C	5

9	Blackberries	3,000	30	40

10	Blueberries	20,000	20	30

11	Broccoli	3,000	<2.5	10

12	Cabbage	3,000	5	15

13	Caneberries	<500	<2.5	5

14	Cantaloupes	10,000	15	30

15	Carrots	3,000	<2.5	10

16	Cauliflower	<500	<1	<2.5

17	Cherries	70,000	20	30

18	Corn	30,000	<1	<2.5

19	Cotton	7,000	<1	<2.5

20	Cranberries ( NPUD '02 )	30,000	N/C	20

21	Cucumbers	10,000	5	10

22	Dry Beans/Peas	1,000	<1	<2.5

23	Eggplant	<500	15	20

24	Grapefruit	30,000	10	20

25	Grapes	70,000	5	15

26	Hay, Other ( NPUD '02 )	600,000	N/C	<1

27	Lemons	3,000	<1	<2.5

28	Lettuce	5,000	<2.5	<2.5

29	Nectarines	5,000	5	5

30	Olives	6,000	5	10

31	Onions	<500	<1	<2.5

32	Oranges	100,000	5	10

33	Parsley ( NPUD '02 )	<500	N/C	5

34	Peaches	60,000	10	20

35	Peanuts	20,000	<2.5	5

36	Pears	5,000	5	10

37	Pecans	100,000	10	20

38	Peppers	7,000	5	10

39	Pistachios	20,000	5	10

40	Potatoes	10,000	<2.5	5

41	Prunes	7,000	<2.5	5

42	Pumpkins	20,000	15	25

43	Rice	10,000	<1	<2.5

44	Sod ( NPUD '02 ) +	2,000	N/C	<1

45	Sorghum	10,000	<1	<2.5

46	Soybeans	40,000	<1	<2.5

47	Spinach	<500	<1	<2.5

48	Squash	20,000	15	25

49	Strawberries	10,000	10	20

50	Sugar Beets	2,000	<1	<2.5

51	Sunflowers	5,000	<1	<2.5

52	Sweet Corn	20,000	<2.5	10

53	Sweet Potatoes ( NPUD '02 )	20,000	N/C	15

54	Tangelos	1,000	5	5

55	Tangerines	9,000	5	15

56	Tobacco	4,000	<1	<2.5

57	Tomatoes	20,000	5	20

58	Walnuts	3,000	<1	<2.5

59	Watermelons	20,000	10	15

60	Wheat	9,000	<1	<2.5

All numbers rounded.

<500	Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient

<2.5	Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated

<1	Less than 1 percent of crop treated

N/C	Not Calculated

+	Crops not known to be listed on active end use product registrations
or as Section 18 emergency

exemptions when this report was run

SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) of the CropLife America
Foundation

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.