18766 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 42.70 Oral argument. 

* * * * * 

(b) Demonstrative exhibits must be 

served at least seven business days 

before the oral argument and filed no 

later than the time of the oral argument. 

Subpart B—Inter Partes Review 

■ 6. Section 42.100 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 42.100 Procedure; pendency. 

* * * * * 

(b) A claim in an unexpired patent 

that will not expire before a final 

written decision is issued shall be given 

its broadest reasonable construction in 

light of the specification of the patent in 

which it appears. A party may request 

a district court-type claim construction 

approach to be applied if a party 

certifies that the involved patent will 

expire within 18 months from the entry 

of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to 

Petition. The request, accompanied by a 

party’s certification, must be made in 

the form of a motion under § 42.20, 

within 30 days from the filing of the 

petition. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 42.107 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and removing and 

reserving paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 42.107 Preliminary response to petition. 

(a) The patent owner may file a 

preliminary response to the petition. 

The response is limited to setting forth 

the reasons why no inter partes review 

should be instituted under 35 U.S.C. 

314 and can include supporting 

evidence. The preliminary response is 

subject to the word count under § 42.24. 

* * * * * 

(c) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 42.108 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 42.108 Institution of inter partes review. 

* * * * * 

(c) Sufficient grounds. Inter partes 

review shall not be instituted for a 

ground of unpatentability unless the 

Board decides that the petition 

supporting the ground would 

demonstrate that there is a reasonable 

likelihood that at least one of the claims 

challenged in the petition is 

unpatentable. The Board’s decision will 

take into account a patent owner 

preliminary response where such a 

response is filed, including any 

testimonial evidence, but a genuine 

issue of material fact created by such 

testimonial evidence will be viewed in 

the light most favorable to the petitioner 

solely for purposes of deciding whether 

to institute an inter partes review. A 

petitioner may seek leave to file a reply 

to the preliminary response in 

accordance with §§ 42.23 and 42.24(c). 

Any such request must make a showing 

of good cause. 

Subpart C—Post-Grant Review 

■ 9. Section 42.200 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 42.200 Procedure; pendency. 

* * * * * 

(b) A claim in an unexpired patent 

that will not expire before a final 

written decision is issued shall be given 

its broadest reasonable construction in 

light of the specification of the patent in 

which it appears. A party may request 

a district court-type claim construction 

approach to be applied if a party 

certifies that the involved patent will 

expire within 18 months from the entry 

of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to 

Petition. The request, accompanied by a 

party’s certification, must be made in 

the form of a motion under § 42.20, 

within 30 days from the filing of the 

petition. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 42.207 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and removing and 

reserving paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 42.207 Preliminary response to petition. 

(a) The patent owner may file a 

preliminary response to the petition. 

The response is limited to setting forth 

the reasons why no post-grant review 

should be instituted under 35 U.S.C. 

324 and can include supporting 

evidence. The preliminary response is 

subject to the word count under § 42.24. 

* * * * * 

(c) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 42.208 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 42.208 Institution of post-grant review. 

* * * * * 

(c) Sufficient grounds. Post-grant 

review shall not be instituted for a 

ground of unpatentability unless the 

Board decides that the petition 

supporting the ground would, if 

unrebutted, demonstrate that it is more 

likely than not that at least one of the 

claims challenged in the petition is 

unpatentable. The Board’s decision will 

take into account a patent owner 

preliminary response where such a 

response is filed, including any 

testimonial evidence, but a genuine 

issue of material fact created by such 

testimonial evidence will be viewed in 

the light most favorable to the petitioner 

solely for purposes of deciding whether 

to institute a post-grant review. A 

petitioner may seek leave to file a reply 

to the preliminary response in 

accordance with §§ 42.23 and 42.24(c). 

Any such request must make a showing 

of good cause. 

Subpart D—Transitional Program for 

Covered Business Method Patents 

■ 12. Section 42.300 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 42.300 Procedure; pendency. 

* * * * * 

(b) A claim in an unexpired patent 

that will not expire before a final 

written decision is issued shall be given 

its broadest reasonable construction in 

light of the specification of the patent in 

which it appears. A party may a request 

a district court-type claim construction 

approach to be applied if a party 

certifies that the involved patent will 

expire within 18 months from the entry 

of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to 

Petition. The request, accompanied by a 

party’s certification, must be made in 

the form of a motion under § 42.20, 

within 30 days from the filing of the 

petition. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 28, 2016. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07381 Filed 3–31–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0547; FRL–9939–89– 

Region 9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; California; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone, 

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Lead 

(Pb), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is partially approving and 

partially disapproving several State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of California 

pursuant to the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 18767 

1 79 FR 63350, October 23, 2014. 

2The five TSDs are as follows: 1) ‘‘California 

Infrastructure SIP Overarching Technical Support 

Document,’’ September 2014 (‘‘Overarching TSD’’); 

2) ‘‘California Infrastructure SIP Permit Programs 

Technical Support Document,’’ September 2014 

(‘‘Permit Programs TSD’’); 3) ‘‘California 

Infrastructure SIP Interstate Transport Technical 

Support Document,’’ September 2014 (‘‘Interstate 

Transport TSD’’); 4) ‘‘California Infrastructure SIP 

Conflict of Interest Technical Support Document,’’ 

September 2014 (‘‘Conflict of Interest TSD’’); and 5) 

‘‘California Infrastructure SIP Emergency Episode 

Planning Technical Support Document,’’ September 

2014 (‘‘Emergency Episode Planning TSD’’). 

3 62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997. 

4 73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008. 

5 62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997. 

6 71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006. 

7 78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013. 

8 73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008. 

9 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010. The annual NO2

standard of 0.053 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of 

comparison with the new 1-hour standard. 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, 

fine particulate patter (PM2.5), lead (Pb), 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2). We refer to such SIP 

revisions as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs 

because they are intended to address 

basic structural SIP requirements for 

new or revised NAAQS including, but 

not limited to, legal authority, 

regulatory structure, resources, permit 

programs, and monitoring necessary to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the standards. In addition, we are 

reclassifying certain regions of the state 

for emergency episode planning 

purposes with respect to ozone, NO2, 

SO2, and particulate matter (PM). 

Finally, we are approving into the 

California SIP several state provisions 

addressing CAA conflict of interest 

requirements and an emergency episode 

planning rule for Great Basin Unified 

Air Pollution Control District for PM. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 2, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action, identified by 

Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2014–0547. The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://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 in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., confidential 

business information (CBI)). To inspect 

the hard copy materials, please schedule 

an appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. NAAQS Addressed by This Final Rule 

C. California’s Submittals 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

A. Approvals and Partial Approvals 

B. Partial Disapprovals 

C. Consequences of Disapprovals 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

EPA proposed action on several 

California infrastructure SIP submittals 

on October 23, 2014 (proposed rule).1

Today’s rule finalizes that proposal in 

its entirety with minor changes due to 

comments, rulemakings, and other 

information that has come to light over 

the past year. We briefly summarize the 

infrastructure SIP statutory 

requirements and the eight NAAQS and 

five California SIP submittals to which 

this final rule applies. Section II of this 

final rule presents our response to 

public comments and Section III 

describes our final action, including full 

approvals, partial approvals, partial 

disapprovals, and consequences of each 

partial disapproval. 

The rationale supporting EPA’s action 

is explained in our October 23, 2014 

proposed rule and the five associated 

technical support documents (TSDs) 2

and will not be restated here. The 

proposed rule and TSDs are available in 

the docket for today’s rulemaking and 

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

Docket ID number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2014–0547. 

A. Statutory Requirements 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

each state to submit to EPA, within 

three years after the promulgation of a 

primary or secondary NAAQS or any 

revision thereof, an infrastructure SIP 

revision that provides for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA sets the content 

requirements of such a plan, which 

generally relate to the information and 

authorities, compliance assurances, 

procedural requirements, and control 

measures that constitute the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ of a state’s air quality 

management program. Two elements 

identified in section 110(a)(2) are not 

governed by the three-year submittal 

deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are 

therefore not addressed in this action. 

These two elements are: (i) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs required under part D 

(nonattainment new source review 

(NSR)), and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), 

pertaining to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D. As a 

result, this action does not address 

infrastructure for the nonattainment 

NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or 

the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I). 

B. NAAQS Addressed by This Final 

Rule 

Between 1997 and 2012, EPA 

promulgated a series of new or revised 

NAAQS for ozone, PM2.5, Pb, NO2, and 

SO2, each of which triggered the 

requirement for states to submit 

infrastructure SIPs. The NAAQS 

addressed by this infrastructure SIP 

final rule include the following: 

• 1997 ozone NAAQS, which 

established 8-hour average primary and 

secondary ozone standards of 0.08 ppm, 

and revoked the 1979 1-hour ozone 

standard of 0.12 parts per million 

(ppm).3

• 2008 ozone NAAQS, which revised 

the 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 

ppm.4

• 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, which set 24- 

hour average primary and secondary 

PM2.5 standards of 65 mg/m3 and annual 

primary and secondary PM2.5 standards 

of 15 mg/m3.5

• 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standards to 35 

mg/m3, and retained the 1997 annual 

standards.6

• 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised 

the 1997 and 2006 annual PM2.5

standards to 12.0 mg/m3, and retained 

the 2006 24-hour standards.7

• 2008 Pb NAAQS, which revised the 

1978 Pb quarterly average standard of 

1.5 mg/m3 to a rolling 3-month average 

not to exceed 0.15 mg/m3, and revised 

the secondary standard to 0.15 mg/m3, 

making it identical to the revised 

primary standard.8

• 2010 NO2 NAAQS, which revised 

the primary 1971 NO2 annual standard 

of 53 parts per billion (ppb) by 

supplementing it with a new 1-hour 

average NO2 standard of 100 ppb, and 

retained the secondary annual standard 

of 53 ppb.9

• 2010 SO2 NAAQS, which 

established a new 1-hour average SO2

standard of 75 ppb, retained the 

secondary 3-hour average SO2 standard 

of 500 ppb, and established a 

mechanism for revoking the primary 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
18768 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

10 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The 3-hour SO2

standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of 

comparison with the new 1-hour standard. 

11California’s November 16, 2007 Submittal is 

often referred to as California’s 2007 State Strategy. 

EPA previously acted on Appendix C (‘‘Revised 

Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan’’) of 

California’s 2007 State Strategy, as modified by 

Attachment A of the same submittal, which 

contained California’s SIP revision to address the 

interstate transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 76 FR 34872, June 15, 2011 and 76 FR 

43175, July 20, 2011 (transport prongs 1 and 2); 76 

FR 48002, August 8, 2011 and 76 FR 48006, August 

8, 2011 (transport prong 3); and 76 FR 34608, June 

14, 2011 and 76 FR 43149, July 20, 2011 (transport 

prong 4). 

12California made an infrastructure SIP submittal 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on July 7, 2009 that was 

subsequently withdrawn on July 18, 2014. All 

infrastructure SIP requirements for that NAAQS are 

addressed in California’s 2014 Submittal with the 

exception of the interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, there is no 

California submittal before EPA with respect to the 

interstate transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

has issued a finding of failure to submit such SIP 

revisions. 79 FR 63536, October 24, 2014. 

13See document numbers EPA–R09–OAR–2014– 

0547–0144 thru 0147 at http://www.regulations.gov 

under docket ID number EPA–R09–OAR–2014– 

0547. 

14Letter from Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, to Gina 

McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. EPA, November 24, 

2014. 

15Email from Robert Ukeiley to Rory Mays, U.S. 

EPA Region IX, October 24, 2014. 

16The federal requirements for PSD increments 

for PM2.5 became effective October 20, 2010 and 

thus air district PSD programs that incorporated the 

federal regulations by reference after this date 

include the applicable PSD increment requirements 

for PM2.5. The adoption and SIP-approval dates of 

the SIP-approved PSD permit rules for five of these 

air districts are as follows: Eastern Kern (Rule 210.4, 

adopted January 12, 2012), Imperial County (Rule 

904, adopted December 20, 2011), Placer County 

(Rule 518, adopted February 10, 2011), and YoloSolano (Rule 3.24 adopted June 13, 2012), which 

were each SIP-approved on December 10, 2012 (77 

FR 7331); and Sacramento Metro (Rule 203, adopted 

January 27, 2011), which was SIP-approved on 

August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53271). San Joaquin Valley 

APCD’s Rule 2410 (adopted June 16, 2011) was 

approved into the California SIP on October 26, 

2012 (77 FR 65305), and similarly includes the 

applicable PSD increment requirements for PM2.5. 

However, San Joaquin Valley is currently 

designated nonattainment for both the 1997, 2006, 

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, the SIPapproved PSD program does not apply to PM2.5

emissions from new or modified major stationary 

sources. 

17Monterey Bay Unified APCD Rule 207 (adopted 

April 20, 2011), which was SIP-approved on March 

26, 2015 (80 FR 15899). 

18 80 FR 69880, November 12, 2015. 

1971 annual and 24-hour SO2

standards.10

C. California’s Submittals 

The California Air Resources Board 

(ARB) has submitted several 

infrastructure SIP revisions pursuant to 

EPA’s promulgation of the NAAQS 

addressed by this final rule, including 

the following: 

• November 16, 2007—‘‘Proposed 

State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan.’’ Appendices B 

(‘‘110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP’’) and G 

(‘‘Legal Authority and Other 

Requirements’’) contain California’s 

infrastructure SIP revision for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

(‘‘California’s 2007 Submittal’’).11 This 

submittal incorporates by reference 

California’s section 110(a)(2) SIP 

submitted in response to the 1970 CAA 

and approved by EPA in 1979 in 40 CFR 

52.220. 

• October 6, 2011—‘‘State 

Implementation Plan Revision for 

Federal Lead Standard Infrastructure 

Requirements,’’ which addresses the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. (‘‘California’s 2011 

Submittal’’). 

• December 12, 2012—‘‘State 

Implementation Plan Revision for 

Federal Nitrogen Dioxide Standard 

Infrastructure Requirements,’’ which 

addressed the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

(‘‘California’s 2012 Submittal’’). 

• March 6, 2014—‘‘California 

Infrastructure SIP,’’ which provided 

new submittals for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and 

supplemented and amended the state’s 

prior infrastructure SIP submittals. 

(‘‘California’s 2014 Submittal’’). 

• June 2, 2014—Great Basin Unified 

Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 

Rule 701 (‘‘Air Pollution Episode 

Plan’’), which addresses CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 1987 coarse 

particulate matter (PM10) NAAQS and 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. (‘‘Great Basin Rule 701’’). 

We find that these submittals meet the 

procedural requirements for public 

participation under CAA section 

110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. We are 

acting on all of these submittals since 

they collectively address the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

NAAQS addressed by this final rule. We 

refer to them collectively herein as 

‘‘California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals.’’ Importantly, however, 

California has not made a submittal for 

the interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 

2008 ozone, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.12

Thus, as noted in our proposed rule, we 

are not addressing the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 

these four NAAQS in this final rule. 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

The public comment period on EPA’s 

proposed rule opened on October 24, 

2014, the date of its publication in the 

Federal Register, and closed on 

November 24, 2014. During this period, 

EPA received four comment letters, each 

of which is available in the docket to 

today’s final rule.13 Three letters relate 

to permitting requirements and we 

address each of those here. The fourth 

letter is from Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality 14 and supports 

EPA’s approach to the review of 

infrastructure SIPs. 

Comment #1: 

Mr. Robert Ukeiley commented on 

EPA’s proposal with respect to the 

permitting-related infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD).15

Specifically, Mr. Ukeiley requested 

confirmation that the SIP-approved PSD 

permit programs for seven air districts 

(Eastern Kern, Imperial County, 

Monterey Bay Unified, Placer County, 

Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, 

and Yolo-Solano) include requirements 

for PM2.5 increments or, for any air 

district whose SIP-approved PSD 

program lacks such requirements, that 

EPA disapprove the PSD-related 

infrastructure SIP elements. He also 

asked that EPA disapprove the PSDrelated elements of the infrastructure 

SIP submittals for any air district whose 

SIP-approved PSD rules contain 

significant impact levels (SILs) 

provisions for PM2.5. 

Response to Comment #1: 

We have confirmed that the SIPapproved PSD permit rules of the seven 

air districts named in Mr. Ukeiley’s 

letter include PM2.5 increment 

requirements that meet the federal 

requirements. Six of these air districts 

(Eastern Kern, Imperial County, Placer 

County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin 

Valley, and Yolo-Solano) incorporate 

the applicable federal regulations by 

reference and the date of such 

incorporation was after the effective 

date of the PM2.5 increment 

requirements, thus ensuring their 

inclusion.16 The remaining air district 

(Monterey Bay Unified) has a PSD 

permit rule that also includes the 

applicable PM2.5 increment 

requirements.17 Furthermore, EPA has 

finalized approval of the PSD permit 

rules for five additional air districts 

(Butte County, Feather River, Great 

Basin Unified, San Luis Obispo County, 

and Santa Barbara County),18 each of 

which includes the applicable PM2.5

increment requirements. Thus, we are 

finalizing approval of California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 

PSD-related elements for these 12 air 

districts. 

With respect to SILs for PM2.5, on 

January 22, 2013, at EPA’s request, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia vacated and remanded 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 18769 

19Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 463–464 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). 

20 78 FR 73698, December 9, 2013. 

21Five of the applicable districts (Eastern Kern, 

Feather River, Imperial County, Placer County, and 

Sacramento Metro) have provided letters to EPA 

indicating that they will implement their PSD rules 

consistent with this approach and EPA’s Guidance 

for PM2.5 Permit Modeling. See Memorandum from 

Stephen D. Page, Director, OAQPS, ‘‘Guidance for 

PM2.5 Permit Modeling,’’ May 20, 2014. For four of 

these districts, these letters are available in the 

dockets of the rulemakings on the districts’ PSD 

rules: For Eastern Kern, Imperial County, and Placer 

County, see 77 FR 73316, December 10, 2012; and 

for Feather River, see 80 FR 69880, November 12, 

2015. For Sacramento Metro, a copy of the district’s 

letter dated October 1, 2015 is included in the 

docket to this final rule. For the San Joaquin Valley, 

the area is currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and, 

therefore, San Joaquin Valley APCD’s SIP-approved 

PSD permit rule does not apply to PM2.5 emissions 

from new or modified major stationary sources. 

22U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, ‘‘Circuit Court Decision on PM2.5

Significant Impact Levels and Significant 

Monitoring Concentration, Questions and 

Answers,’’ March 4, 2013, pp. 3–4. 

23Letter from Karen Nowak, District Counsel, 

Mojave Desert AQMD, to Rory Mays, U.S. EPA 

Region IX, November 20, 2014. 

24Permit Programs TSD, Appendix D (‘‘California 

Minor NSR Permit Programs’’). 25 43 FR 52237, November 9, 1978. 26 55 FR 49281, November 27, 1990 for San 

Bernardino County and 43 FR 59489, December 21, 

1978 for Riverside County. 27 61 FR 58133, November 13, 1996. 28Additionally, Mojave Desert AQMD’s letter led 

us to reexamine the SIP status of minor source 

permit rules for the other four air districts that we 

proposed to partially disapprove for section 

110(a)(2)(C). Our evaluation of the minor source 

programs for these four districts is discussed further 

in section III of this final rule. 

29Letter from Barbara Lee, Air Pollution Control 

Officer, Northern Sonoma County APCD to Deborah 

Continued 

portions of EPA’s significant impact 

levels (SILs) requirements for PM2.5.19

Later that year EPA removed the vacated 

portion of the SILs requirements from 

40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 

52.21(k)(2).20 However, several SIPapproved PSD rules in California still 

include the vacated PM2.5 SILs 

provisions. 

Specifically, six of the 12 air districts 

in California with SIP-approved PSD 

permit rules include PM2.5 SILs 

provisions, including Eastern Kern, 

Feather River, Imperial County, Placer 

County, Sacramento Metro, and San 

Joaquin Valley. Given the clarity of the 

Court’s decision and EPA’s removal of 

the vacated portion of the SILs 

requirements from 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2), 

it would now be inappropriate for any 

pending or proposed permits in these 

districts to rely on the PM2.5 SILs 

provision in their rules as an absolute 

‘‘safe harbor’’ when a substantial 

portion of the PM2.5 NAAQS or 

increment is known to be consumed.21

However, as we previously stated 

following the Court’s decision, EPA 

does not interpret the Court’s decision 

to preclude the use of SILs for PM2.5

entirely.22 Permitting authorities should 

consult with the EPA before using any 

of the SIL values in the EPA’s 

regulations for this purpose (including 

the PM2.5 SIL value in section 

51.165(b)(2), which was not vacated by 

the Court). 

EPA has advised the districts with 

PM2.5 SILs that the Court determined to 

be invalid to begin preparations to 

remove those provisions as soon as 

feasible, which may be in conjunction 

with the next otherwise planned SIP 

revision. EPA has informed these 

districts that new permits issued solely 

on the basis of these SILs provisions are 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act and 

may be difficult to defend in 

administrative and judicial challenges 

as they are without legal effect. 

However, as the previously approved 

PM2.5 SILs provisions in the California 

SIP are no longer enforceable, EPA does 

not believe the existence of the 

provisions in the State’s implementation 

plan precludes today’s approval of the 

infrastructure SIP submissions as they 

relate to the PSD-related elements for 

these six districts for the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The PSD permit rules for the 

remaining six air districts (Butte 

County, Great Basin Unified, Monterey 

Bay Unified, San Luis Obispo County, 

Santa Barbara County, and Yolo-Solano) 

do not include any PM2.5 SILs provision. 

Accordingly, we are finalizing approval 

of California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals for the PSD-related elements 

for all 12 air districts with SIP-approved 

PSD programs. 

Comment #2: 

Mojave Desert Air Quality 

Management District (AQMD) 

commented that EPA was incorrect in 

stating that the district’s minor NSR 

program had not been approved into the 

California SIP.23 The comment letter 

states that district Rules 1300, 201, and 

219 cover preconstruction review of any 

equipment that emits air contaminants 

(and which is not exempt from 

permitting requirements) and that these 

rules have been approved into the 

California SIP. Accordingly, the district 

requested to be removed from the list of 

air districts that lack SIP-approved 

minor NSR programs. 

Response to Comment #2: 

EPA agrees that Mojave Desert AQMD 

indeed has a minor NSR program in the 

California SIP that is sufficient to 

approve California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals consistent with the 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 

the SIP include a program for the 

regulation of minor sources, though 

with one clarification. 

In reviewing the minor NSR permit 

programs of California’s 35 air districts, 

EPA generally relied on permit 

programs that applied to the whole air 

district. However, in some cases we 

found that air districts with two or more 

counties had county-based minor NSR 

programs that had been approved into 

the California SIP and applied to the 

NAAQS addressed by this rulemaking. 

For example, for Feather River AQMD 

we found that minor NSR rules for each 

of the two counties in the air district, 

Yuba and Sutter counties, had been 

approved into the California SIP and 

covered the NAAQS addressed by our 

rulemaking.24 On that basis, we 

proposed to partially approve 

California’s infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to this minor 

NSR requirement. 

We inadvertently missed identifying 

the county-based minor NSR programs 

that have been approved into the 

California SIP for the portions of the two 

counties (San Bernardino and Riverside 

counties) that are within the jurisdiction 

of Mojave Desert AQMD. Specifically, 

EPA previously approved each county’s 

Rule 201,25 which require permits for all 

equipment that may emit air 

contaminants, and each county’s Rule 

102,26 which define the term ‘‘air 

contaminants,’’ into the California SIP. 

Rule 1300, which is a district-based, 

rather than county-based, rule, contains 

additional requirements for the district’s 

minor NSR program.27 These rules are 

sufficient to address the requirement of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that the SIP include 

a program for the regulation of minor 

sources. 

Thus, while Mojave Desert AQMD is 

correct that the district has sufficient 

minor NSR permit rules in the 

California SIP for purposes of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C), it is on the basis of 

the SIP-approved county-based Rules 

102 and 201 that we remove Mojave 

Desert AQMD from the list of air 

districts that lack SIP-approved minor 

NSR programs. Please refer to section III 

of this final rule where we finalize this 

minor change from our proposed partial 

disapproval for Mojave Desert AQMD.28

Comment #3: 

Northern Sonoma County Air 

Pollution Control District (APCD) states 

that its Board of Directors revised four 

regulations implementing the district’s 

PSD program, for submittal through 

ARB as revisions to the California SIP, 

and that those revisions address the 

deficiencies identified in EPA’s 

proposed rule.29 Therefore, the district 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
18770 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, 

November 24, 2014. 

30As noted in section I of this final rule, 

California has not made a submittal for the 

interstate transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 

2008 ozone, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Thus we are not 

taking any action with respect to the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to these 

four NAAQS in this final rule. 

31See 45 FR 67345, October 10, 1980 for Arizona; 

46 FR 3883, January 16, 1981 for California; and 45 

FR 7544, February 4, 1980 for Nevada. 

32EPA’s Delegations Manual, Chapter 7 (‘‘Clean 

Air Act’’), available at: http://intranet.epa.gov/ohr/ 

rmpolicy/ads/dm/index7.htm. 

33See the 1983 versions of 40 CFR 51.3 

(‘‘Classification of regions’’) and 40 CFR 51.16 

(‘‘Prevention of air pollution emergency episodes’’), 

which refer to CAA sections 110, 301(a), 313, and 

319 as the statutory basis for such regulations. (By 

contrast, 40 CFR part 51, subpart H does not have 

statutory citations.) Section 301(a) grants the 

Administrator authority to prescribe regulations 

necessary to carry out the CAA, which, as applied 

here, refers to the emergency episode requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(G). Section 301(a) also limits 

the Administrator’s ability to delegate authority 

regarding rules that are required to be promulgated 

under the procedures of section 307(d). Since 

classifications are not among the procedures of 

section 307(d)(1), there is no restriction on the 

Administrator’s authority to delegate decisionmaking on area classification, such as those for 

emergency episode planning. 

requested that EPA approve such PSD 

submittal and approve, rather than 

partially disapprove, Northern Sonoma 

County APCD with respect to the PSDrelated infrastructure SIP requirements. 

Response to Comment #3: 

EPA received Northern Sonoma 

County APCD’s PSD program SIP 

revision on December 11, 2014 and it 

became complete by operation of law on 

June 11, 2015. While we have begun our 

review of that SIP submittal, we have 

not yet issued any proposed or final 

rulemaking on the submittal. We 

anticipate proposing and finalizing 

action on that SIP submittal over the 

coming months, per the CAA section 

110(k)(2) deadline for EPA to take final 

action within 12 months of a 

completeness determination. To the 

extent that the district’s PSD SIP 

revision resolves the deficiency 

identified in our proposed rule on 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals (i.e., requirements for a 

baseline date for PSD increments for 

PM2.5), we would accordingly update 

the California SIP with respect to the 

PSD-related requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) for Northern Sonoma 

County APCD. 

III. Final Action 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and 

based on the evaluation and rationale 

presented in the proposed rule, the 

related TSDs, and this final rule, EPA is 

approving in part and disapproving in 

part California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 2008 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2012 

PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. In the following subsections, 

we list the elements for which we are 

finalizing approval or disapproval and 

provide a summary of the basis for those 

elements that are partially disapproved. 

We also describe the consequences of 

our disapprovals. 

A. Approvals and Partial Approvals 

Based upon our evaluation, as 

presented in our proposed rule and our 

five TSDs, and additional information 

discussed below, EPA approves 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to the 1997 

ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the following 

infrastructure SIP requirements. Partial 

approvals are indicated by the 

parenthetical ‘‘(in part).’’ 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B) (in part): 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and 

modified stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): 

Interstate pollution transport.30

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): 

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local and 

regional government agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary 

source monitoring and reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G) (in part): 

Emergency episodes. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials, 

public notification, PSD, and visibility 

protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submittal of modeling 

data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

i. Approval of State and Local 

Provisions Into the California SIP 

As part of these approvals, we also 

approve several state statutes and 

regulations and one air district rule into 

the California SIP. Specifically, for all of 

the NAAQS addressed in this proposal, 

we approve into the SIP five state 

provisions from the California 

Government Code statutes and 

California Code of Regulations, which 

were submitted in California’s 2014 

Submittal and address the conflict of 

interest requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. These 

provisions include California 

Government Code, Title 9, Sections 

82048, 87103, and 87302, and California 

Code of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 

18700 and 18701. For discussion of 

these conflict of interest provisions, 

please see our Conflict of Interest TSD. 

We also approve Great Basin Unified 

Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 

Rule 701 into the California SIP with 

respect to the 1987 PM10, 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

the emergency episode planning 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

H. For our evaluation of this emergency 

episode rule, please refer to our 

Emergency Episode Planning TSD. 

ii. Approval of Reclassification Requests 

for Emergency Episode Planning 

California’s 2012 and 2014 Submittals 

requested that EPA reclassify several air 

quality control regions (AQCRs) with 

respect to the emergency episode 

planning requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

H, as applicable to ozone, NO2, and SO2. 

In our proposed rule, we stated that the 

authority to take final action to 

reclassify AQCRs is reserved by the EPA 

Administrator. That conclusion was 

based upon prior examples from 1980 

and 1981 where the Administrator 

reclassified certain AQCRs in Arizona, 

California, and Nevada 31 and upon our 

initial review of EPA’s Delegations 

Manual.32 However, we have since 

reviewed the earlier versions of EPA’s 

regulations that gave rise to the 

emergency episode regulations in 40 

CFR part 51, subpart H,33 and rereviewed the Delegations Manual. In 

particular, Delegation 7–10 (‘‘Approval/ 

Disapproval of State Implementation 

Plans’’) was established in 1989 and 

grants Regional Administrators the 

authority to ‘‘propose or take final 

action on any State implementation 

plan under Section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act.’’ In the context of EPA acting on 

emergency episode SIP revisions, 

whether as part of an infrastructure SIP 

revision or an independent SIP revision, 

consistent with CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) (i.e., part of section 110 of 

the CAA), and our implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, 

whose requirements are dependent 

upon AQCR classification, we find that 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 18771 

34See Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ September 25, 2009, pp. 6–7 and 

Attachment B (‘‘Recommended Interim Significant 

Harm Level, Priority Levels, and Action Levels for 

PM2.5 Emergency Episode Plans (EEPs)’’). 

35 79 FR 63350 at 63359, October 23, 2014, and 

our Permit Programs TSD, pp. 8–10. 

36See section II of this final rule. 

37Note that we had proposed to partially 

disapprove Northern Sierra AQMD for Plumas and 

Sierra counties only, since we had already 

identified Nevada County as having a SIP-approved 

minor NSR program. See 79 FR 63350 at 63359, 

footnote 35, October 23, 2014 and our Permit 

Programs TSD, footnote 34, p. 9. 

38See Memorandum from Laura Yannayon, EPA 

Region IX to R. Mays, EPA Region IX, ‘‘Investigation 

of Approved SIP Contents for Lake, Tuolumne, 

Mariposa, Plumas and Sierra Counties, related to 

minor source permit programs,’’ October 30, 2015. 

This memorandum, as well as short narratives on 

each of the five counties, are included in the docket 

to this final rule. 

39 37 FR 10842, May 31, 1972 and 37 FR 19812, 

September 22, 1972. 

EPA’s Regional Administrators indeed 

have authority to reclassify AQCRs for 

purposes of emergency episode 

planning. 

Accordingly, on the basis of 

California’s ambient air quality data for 

2011–2013 and the evaluation presented 

in our proposed rule and Emergency 

Episode Planning TSD, we hereby grant 

five of California’s ten requests, and 

deny the five remaining requests, to 

reclassify AQCRs for emergency episode 

planning purposes for ozone, NO2, and 

SO2. We also are reclassifying two 

AQCRs for PM as part of our evaluation 

of the State’s emergency episode 

planning for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

For ozone, we reclassify two AQCRs, 

Lake Tahoe and North Central Coast, to 

Priority III. We deny the State’s 

reclassification requests for ozone for 

five AQCRs, including Mountain 

Counties, Sacramento Valley, San Diego, 

San Francisco Bay Area, and Southeast 

Desert. As a result, upon the effective 

date of this final rule, California will 

have seven Priority I AQCRs for ozone, 

including the five for which we deny 

California’s reclassification request and 

two others (Metropolitan Los Angeles 

and San Joaquin Valley AQCRs). 

California’s applicable air districts have 

adequate emergency episode 

contingency plans for ozone for six of 

these seven Priority I areas, including 

Metropolitan Los Angeles, Sacramento 

Valley, San Diego, San Francisco Bay 

Area, San Joaquin Valley, and Southeast 

Desert AQCRs. Therefore, we partially 

approve California’s 2007 and 2014 

Submittals with respect to the 1997 

ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 

emergency episode planning 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G). Please see section III.B.iii 

of this final rule for our partial 

disapproval of these submittals with 

respect to the Mountain Counties 

AQCR. 

For NO2, we reclassify the 

Metropolitan Los Angeles AQCR to 

Priority III. As a result, upon the 

effective date of this final rule, the 

whole state will be classified Priority III 

for NO2, and therefore no emergency 

episode contingency plan for NO2 will 

be required for any of the state’s 14 

AQCRs. Accordingly, we approve 

California’s 2012 and 2014 Submittals 

with respect to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

for the emergency episode planning 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

For SO2, we reclassify the 

Metropolitan Los Angeles and San 

Francisco Bay Area AQCRs to Priority 

III. As a result, upon the effective date 

of this final rule, the whole state will be 

classified Priority III for SO2, and 

therefore no emergency episode 

contingency plan for SO2 will be 

required for any of the state’s 14 AQCRs. 

Thus, we approve California’s 2014 

Submittal with respect to the 2010 SO2

NAAQS for the emergency episode 

planning requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

For PM, we identified two areas 

where concentrations exceeded EPA’s 

recommended 24-hour PM2.5 threshold 

of 140.4 mg/m3 for emergency episode 

planning: 34 Great Basin Valley AQCR 

and San Joaquin Valley AQCR. For these 

two areas, we also reviewed the 24-hour 

PM10 air quality data to determine the 

appropriate emergency episode 

classification under 40 CFR 51.150. 

Accordingly, for PM, we reclassify Great 

Basin Valley AQCR to Priority I and San 

Joaquin Valley AQCR to Priority II. As 

discussed in section III.A.i of this final 

rule, we are approving Great Basin 

Unified APCD Rule 701 into the 

California SIP and, as such, Great Basin 

Unified APCD has an adequate 

emergency episode contingency plan for 

PM. Therefore, we partially approve 

California’s 2007 and 2014 Submittals 

with respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

emergency episode planning 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G). Please see section III.B.iii 

of this final rule for our partial 

disapproval of these submittals with 

respect to the San Joaquin Valley AQCR. 

iii. Approval of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(C) for Minor NSR 

EPA previously proposed to partially 

disapprove five of California’s 35 air 

districts for CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to minor NSR on the basis 

that they each lacked permit rules for 

minor sources in the California SIP.35

Upon further review of the California 

SIP and comments received during the 

public comment period, EPA has found 

that each of these air districts does, in 

fact, have permit rules for minor sources 

in the California SIP that cover all 

NAAQS, as discussed below. 

As noted in Mojave Desert AQMD’s 

comment letter, Mojave Desert AQMD 

has county-based minor NSR rules in 

the California SIP for each of its two 

counties (San Bernardino and Riverside 

counties), which we inadvertently 

missed during our original evaluation of 

the California Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals.36 This also led us to 

reexamine the SIP status of minor 

source permit rules for the other four air 

districts that we had proposed to 

partially disapprove for section 

110(a)(2)(C), including Lake County, 

Mariposa County, Northern Sierra 

(Plumas and Sierra counties, only),37

and Tuolumne County. This 

reexamination involved reviewing the 

original copies of California’s SIP 

submittals dated February 22, 1972 and 

June 30, 1972; EPA’s approval of these 

submittals, as codified at 40 CFR 52.220 

(b) and (c)(6); a copy of the California 

SIP as it existed in August 1978; 

subsequent EPA rulemakings that 

revised the California SIP; and other 

historic records as they pertain to these 

four air districts.38

We determined that, for each of the 

five remaining counties (Lake, 

Mariposa, Plumas, Sierra, and 

Tuolumne counties) in these four 

districts, the county-based rules that 

constitute each county’s minor source 

permit program were approved into the 

California SIP 39 and have never been 

removed or replaced. These minor 

source permit programs require minor 

sources to obtain an Authority to 

Construct permit prior to construction 

and cover all NAAQS through a broad 

definition of the term ‘‘air 

contaminants’’ that includes all NAAQS 

and their precursors. Since the basis of 

our proposed partial disapproval is no 

longer applicable (i.e., lack of a SIPapproved permit program for minor 

sources) and as these districts now meet 

the same test used to propose approval 

for other districts (i.e., having such a 

program in the SIP that applies to all 

NAAQS addressed by this final rule), 

we are finalizing approval for these five 

additional districts, including Lake 

County, Mariposa County, Mojave 

Desert, Northern Sierra, and Tuolumne 

County, as meeting the requirements of 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
18772 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

40Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427. EPA has since 

amended the federal PSD program regulations to 

allow for the rescission of certain PSD permits 

issued by EPA and delegated reviewing authorities 

(e.g., California air districts) for purposes of 

regulating GHGs. See 80 FR 26183, May 7, 2015. 

Notwithstanding those amendments, PSD programs 

must still include provisions to regulate GHGs and 

such provisions continue to be relevant to our 

review of infrastructure SIPs. 

41 79 FR 63350 at 63358, October 23, 2014. 

42 80 FR 15899, March 26, 2015. We finalized a 

limited approval and limited disapproval of 

Monterey Bay Unified APCD’s PSD SIP revision. 

While not a full approval, that final rule approved 

provisions into the California SIP for the regulation 

of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, or 

PSD increments for PM2.5. 

43 79 FR 63350 at 63359, October 23, 2014. 

44 80 FR 69880, November 12, 2015. 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) with respect 

to minor NSR. 

In sum, all 35 air districts in 

California have minor NSR permit 

programs in the California SIP that 

cover all NAAQS. Notwithstanding this 

approval, to the extent that air districts 

have revised their permit rules for 

minor sources and such revisions are 

not yet reflected in the California SIP, 

we recommend that such districts work 

with ARB to submit SIP revisions to 

revise the California SIP. 

B. Partial Disapprovals 

EPA partially disapproves California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to the NAAQS identified for 

each of the following infrastructure SIP 

requirements (details of the partial 

disapprovals are presented after this 

list): 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B) (in part): 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system (for the 1997 ozone and 2008 

ozone NAAQS for the Bakersfield 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 

San Joaquin Valley APCD). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new and 

modified stationary sources (for all 

NAAQS addressed by this final rule due 

to PSD program deficiencies in certain 

air districts). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): 

Interstate pollution transport (for all 

NAAQS addressed by this final rule due 

to PSD program deficiencies in certain 

air districts). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): 

Interstate pollution abatement and 

international air pollution (for all 

NAAQS addressed by this final rule due 

to PSD program deficiencies in certain 

air districts). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G) (in part): 

Emergency episodes (for the 1997 ozone 

and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 

Mountain Counties AQCR, and for the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley 

AQCR). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials, 

public notification, PSD, and visibility 

protection (for all NAAQS addressed by 

this final rule due to PSD program 

deficiencies in certain air districts). 

i. Ambient Air Monitoring Partial 

Disapproval 

We partially disapprove California’s 

2007 and 2014 Submittals for CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 

1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for 

the Bakersfield MSA portion of the 

California SIP because the ozone 

monitor located at the Arvin-Bear 

Mountain Road site, which had been the 

maximum ozone concentration monitor 

in the Bakersfield MSA, was closed 

without an approved replacement site. 

The requirement to have such a 

maximum ozone concentration monitor 

is found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

D, 4.1(b) and the requirement that 

modifications to a monitoring network 

must be reviewed and approved by the 

relevant Regional Administrator is 

found in 40 CFR 58.14(b). 

ii. Permit Program-Related Partial 

Disapprovals 

We partially disapprove portions of 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to the PSDrelated requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for 

several air districts because the 

California SIP does not fully satisfy the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for PSD permit programs as to those air 

districts. 

With respect to interstate transport 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), we also considered 

the status of the nonattainment NSR 

programs of the applicable California air 

districts and hereby approve California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for this 

aspect of the interstate transport 

requirements. Lastly, regarding section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and compliance with the 

requirement of section 126(a) for 

proposed, major new or modified 

sources to notify all potentially affected, 

nearby states, as applicable, we partially 

disapprove California’s Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals for multiple air districts. 

We provide a summary of the basis and 

district-by-district accounting of our 

partial disapprovals in the following 

paragraphs, including consideration of 

comments from Northern Sonoma 

County APCD, and review of EPA 

rulemaking on PSD and nonattainment 

NSR SIP submittals that has occurred 

since our proposal on California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals. 

PSD Permit Programs 

We reviewed the permit programs of 

California’s 35 air districts for SIPapproved provisions to address PSD 

requirements that we consider 

‘‘structural’’ for purposes of sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), including 

the following requirements that were 

most recently added to the federal PSD 

regulations: Provisions identifying 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) as ozone 

precursors; provisions to regulate PM2.5, 

including condensable PM2.5, PM2.5

precursor emissions, and PSD 

increments for PM2.5; and provisions to 

regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). For 

the PSD requirements for GHGs, we 

conducted our evaluation consistent 

with the recent changes to the 

application of such requirements due to 

the U.S. Supreme Court decision of June 

23, 2014, as discussed in section II.D of 

our proposed rule.40

We proposed to approve seven air 

districts as meeting the structural PSD 

requirements. Our proposed approval of 

one of these seven air districts, 

Monterey Bay Unified APCD, was 

contingent on finalizing approval of the 

district’s PSD SIP revision.41 We have 

taken final action on that SIP revision, 

approving provisions into the California 

SIP that resolve the deficiencies 

identified in our proposed rule.42 Thus, 

we finalize approval of seven districts, 

including Eastern Kern, Imperial 

County, Monterey Bay Unified, Placer 

County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin 

Valley, and Yolo-Solano air districts, as 

meeting the PSD-related requirements of 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 

(J) for all NAAQS addressed by this final 

rule. 

In addition, our proposed rule on 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals identified eight air districts 

that had submitted PSD SIP revisions 

for which EPA had not yet proposed or 

finalized action.43 We proposed to 

partially disapprove these districts with 

respect to the PSD-related requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) 

since they were subject to the existing 

PSD FIP at 40 CFR 52.21, rather than 

SIP-approved PSD programs. We have 

since finalized approval of the PSD SIP 

revisions of five of those eight 

districts,44 including provisions 

addressing the same structural PSD 

requirements as we relied on to propose 

approval for the set of seven districts 

discussed above. Since the basis of our 

proposed partial disapproval is no 

longer applicable and as these districts 

now meet the same test used to propose 

approval for other districts, we are 

finalizing approval for these five 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 18773 

45We note that South Coast AQMD is subject to 

the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR 

pollutants except GHGs (see 40 CFR 52.270(b)(10)). 

46 80 FR 52236 at 52243, August 28, 2015. 

47No area of California has been designated 

nonattainment for the 2010 NO2 or 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 48 80 FR 24821, May 15, 2015. 

additional districts, including Butte 

County, Feather River, Great Basin 

Unified, San Luis Obispo County, and 

Santa Barbara County, as meeting the 

PSD-related requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) 

for all NAAQS addressed by this final 

rule. In sum, 12 of California’s 35 air 

districts meet the PSD-related 

requirements for these infrastructure SIP 

elements. 

Four other air districts, including 

Mendocino County, North Coast 

Unified, Northern Sonoma County, and 

South Coast air districts, partially meet 

and partially do not meet the structural 

PSD requirements. 

South Coast AQMD has a SIPapproved PSD program for GHGs only, 

but lacks a SIP-approved PSD program 

to address any other regulated NSR 

pollutant. Thus, we partially disapprove 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to South Coast 

AQMD for the PSD-related requirement 

of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 

(J).45

North Coast Unified AQMD has a SIPapproved PSD program that, on the 

whole, addresses all regulated NSR 

pollutants. However, it does not 

explicitly regulate NOX as an ozone 

precursor and does not include 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, or 

PSD increments for PM2.5. Therefore, we 

partially disapprove California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 

respect to North Coast Unified AQMD 

for these specific deficiencies for PSDrelated requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). 

Mendocino County AQMD and 

Northern Sonoma County APCD each 

have SIP-approved PSD programs that 

generally address the structural PSD 

requirements, but do not include 

requirements for a baseline date for PSD 

increments for PM2.5. As discussed in 

section II of this final rule, Northern 

Sonoma County APCD has submitted a 

PSD SIP revision that is pending 

rulemaking by EPA within the time 

afforded by CAA section 110(k)(2). To 

the extent that Northern Sonoma County 

APCD’s PSD SIP revision resolves the 

deficiency identified in our proposed 

rule on California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals (i.e., requirements for a 

baseline date for PSD increments for 

PM2.5), such requirements have not yet 

been approved into the California SIP 

and, thus, the deficiency remains. 

Accordingly, we partially disapprove 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to Mendocino 

County AQMD and Northern Sonoma 

County APCD for this specific 

deficiency in the PSD-related 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J). 

The remaining 19 air districts are 

subject to the existing PSD FIP in 40 

CFR 52.21, including Amador County, 

Antelope Valley, Bay Area, Calaveras 

County, Colusa County, El Dorado 

County, Glenn County, Lake County, 

Lassen County, Mariposa County, 

Modoc County, Mojave Desert, Northern 

Sierra, San Diego County, Shasta 

County, Siskiyou County, Tehama 

County, Tuolumne County, and Ventura 

County. 

At the time of our proposal on 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals, three of these districts (Bay 

Area, San Diego County, and Ventura 

County air districts) had submitted PSD 

SIP revisions for which EPA had not yet 

proposed or finalized action. EPA has 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the SIP revision from Bay 

Area AQMD, noting that most of the 

submittal’s rules satisfy applicable 

requirements under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the regulation of the 

modification and construction of 

stationary sources.46 However, as we 

have not yet finalized that proposal, the 

Bay Area AQMD remains subject to the 

PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21. San Diego 

County APCD withdrew its PSD SIP 

submittal on June 10, 2015, while 

Ventura County APCD’s submittal is 

pending EPA rulemaking. These two 

districts similarly remain subject to the 

PSD FIP at this time. 

Accordingly, we partially disapprove 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals as to each of these 19 air 

districts with respect to the PSD-related 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J). As discussed further in 

section III.C of this final rule, the partial 

disapprovals with respect to these 19 

districts would not result in new FIP 

obligations, because EPA has already 

promulgated a PSD FIP for each district. 

Nonattainment NSR Permit Programs 

With respect to interstate transport 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), in addition to 

reviewing the air districts’ PSD 

programs, we also reviewed the 

nonattainment NSR programs of 

California’s 22 air districts that are 

designated nonattainment for ozone, 

PM2.5, or Pb, as applicable.47 Because 

the PSD and nonattainment NSR 

permitting programs currently 

applicable in each area require a 

demonstration that new or modified 

sources will not cause or contribute to 

air pollution in excess of the NAAQS in 

neighboring states or that sources in 

nonattainment areas procure offsets, 

states may satisfy the PSD-related 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

by submitting SIPs confirming that 

major sources and major modifications 

in the state are subject to PSD programs 

that implement current requirements 

and nonattainment NSR programs that 

address the NAAQS pollutants for 

which areas of the state that have been 

designated nonattainment. We refer to 

this aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

herein as the ‘‘nonattainment NSR 

element.’’ 

We find that California meets the 

nonattainment NSR element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through a variety of 

mechanisms, as follows. Nine of the 22 

air districts with nonattainment areas 

meet the nonattainment NSR element 

via SIP-approved programs, including 

the following air districts: Antelope 

Valley, Eastern Kern, Mojave Desert, 

Placer County, San Diego County, and 

Ventura County (for the 1997 ozone and 

2008 ozone NAAQS); Sacramento Metro 

and Feather River (for the 1997 ozone, 

2008 ozone, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS); 

and San Joaquin Valley (for the 1997 

ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). Since the time of 

our proposal on California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals, we 

finalized approval of South Coast 

AQMD’s nonattainment NSR SIP 

revision with respect to the PM2.5

NAAQS.48 As a result, this district 

implements its SIP-approved 

nonattainment NSR program for the 

portions of the district that are 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

ozone, 2008ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Thus, South Coast AQMD also meets the 

nonattainment NSR element via a SIPapproved program. 

An additional eight air districts, 

which have each been designated 

nonattainment for more than one 

NAAQS, have affirmed that they 

implement the interim nonattainment 

NSR program in 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix S, including the following 

districts: Calaveras County, Mariposa 

County, and Northern Sierra (for the 

1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS); 

and Bay Area, Butte County, El Dorado 

County, Imperial County, and YoloVerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1

Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
18774 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

49EPA has proposed a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the SIP revision from Bay 

Area AQMD submitted to address the outstanding 

nonattainment NSR requirements. 80 FR 52236, 

August 28, 2015. However, as we have not yet 

finalized that proposal, we continue to rely on the 

Bay Area AQMD’s implementation of 40 CFR part 

51, Appendix S for purposes of the nonattainment 

NSR element. 

50 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015. 

51This scenario also applies to the Sutter Buttes 

area within Feather River AQMD that is designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

However, the southern portion of Feather River 

AQMD is designated nonattainment for both the 

1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, the 

requirement for this air district to submit a 

nonattainment NSR SIP revision remains, though it 

no longer applies to the Sutter Buttes area. 

52We note that Tehama County APCD has 

adopted and transmitted nonattainment NSR SIP 

provisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to ARB for 

submittal to EPA as a SIP revision. See Letter dated 

September 4, 2015 from Kristin Hall-Stein, Air 

Pollution Control Officer, Tehama County APCD to 

Carol Sutkus, ARB. 

53 79 FR 63350 at 63360, October 23, 2014. 

54 80 FR 69880, November 12, 2015. 

55See direct final rule approving Placer County 

APCD Ozone Emergency Episode Plan, signed 

October 26, 2015, which is included in the docket 

to this final rule. 

56We note that El Dorado County APCD issued 

a notice of public hearing in October 2015 of its 

proposed ozone emergency episode plan to be 

heard at the District’s December 1, 2015 board 

hearing. This notice is included in the docket to 

this final rule and is available at: http://

www.edcgov.us/AirQualityManagement. 

Solano (for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).49

Two other districts, Amador County 

APCD and Tuolumne County APCD, are 

designated nonattainment only for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA revoked that 

NAAQS as part of the final 

implementation rule for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS,50 which relieves these two air 

districts of the requirement to submit 

nonattainment NSR SIP revisions.51

Lastly, portions of San Luis Obispo 

County APCD and Tehama County 

APCD are designated nonattainment 

only for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Until 

SIP revisions are submitted by these two 

districts and approved by EPA, the 

districts are required to implement 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix S for any new 

or modified major source emitting an 

applicable nonattainment pollutant (i.e., 

NOX or volatile organic compounds) in 

the respective nonattainment areas.52

In sum, we approve California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 22 

air districts designated nonattainment 

for ozone, PM2.5, or Pb (as applicable) 

with respect to the nonattainment NSR 

element of the interstate transport 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Interstate Pollution Abatement and 

International Air Pollution 

As described in section IV.B.i of our 

proposed rule, with respect to the 

international pollution abatement 

requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), we noted that EPA has 

no reason to approve or disapprove any 

existing state rules with regard to CAA 

section 115 since the EPA Administrator 

has made no formal notification that 

emissions originating in California 

endanger public health or welfare in a 

foreign country. With respect to the 

interstate pollution abatement 

requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), we evaluated 

California’s 2014 Submittal only for 

purposes of compliance with section 

126(a).53 Section 126(a) of the Act 

requires that each SIP require that 

proposed, major new or modified 

sources, which may significantly 

contribute to violations of the NAAQS 

in any air quality control region in other 

states, to notify all potentially affected, 

nearby states. 

We proposed that 10 of California’s 35 

air districts have SIP-approved PSD 

permit programs that require notice to 

nearby states consistent with EPA’s 

relevant requirements, and proposed to 

partially disapprove the remaining 25 

air district with respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). We have since finalized 

approval of the PSD SIP revisions of five 

additional districts,54 including Butte 

County, Feather River, Great Basin 

Unified, San Luis Obispo County, and 

Santa Barbara County, which similarly 

require notice to nearby states 

consistent with EPA’s relevant 

requirements. Thus, the basis of our 

proposed partial disapproval is no 

longer applicable with respect to these 

five districts and these districts meet the 

same test used to propose approval for 

other districts. 

We therefore approve California’s 

2014 Submittal for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance 

with the requirements of section 115 for 

the whole state and with respect to 

section 126(a) for the following 15 air 

districts: Butte County, Eastern Kern, 

Feather River, Great Basin Unified, 

Imperial County, Mendocino County, 

Monterey Bay Unified, North Coast 

Unified, Northern Sonoma County, 

Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San 

Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo 

County, Santa Barbara County and YoloSolano. 

The remaining 20 air districts are 

deficient with respect to the PSD 

requirements in part C, title I of the Act 

and with respect to the requirement in 

CAA section 126(a) regarding 

notification to affected, nearby states of 

major new or modified sources 

proposing to locate in these remaining 

air districts. Therefore, we partially 

disapprove California’s Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance 

with the requirements of section 126(a) 

for the following 20 air districts: 

Amador County, Antelope Valley, Bay 

Area, Calaveras County, Colusa County, 

El Dorado County, Glenn County, Lake 

County, Lassen County, Mariposa 

County, Modoc County, Mojave Desert, 

Northern Sierra, San Diego County, 

Shasta County, Siskiyou County, South 

Coast, Tehama County, Tuolumne 

County, and Ventura County. 

iii. Emergency Episode Planning Partial 

Disapprovals 

Mountain Counties AQCR for Ozone 

As described in section III.A.ii of this 

final rule, we deny California’s request 

to reclassify the Mountain Counties 

AQCR to Priority III for ozone. Of the 

seven air districts that comprise the 

Mountain Counties AQCR, only El 

Dorado County APCD and Placer 

County APCD recorded 1-hour ozone 

levels above the Priority I ozone 

threshold of 0.10 ppm during 2011– 

2013. We proposed that to satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.151 for 

contingency plans for Mountain 

Counties AQCR, California needed to 

provide emergency episode contingency 

plans applicable to ozone for El Dorado 

County APCD and Placer County APCD. 

We maintain that position in this final 

rule. Since the time of our proposal, 

Placer County APCD adopted and 

submitted an ozone emergency episode 

contingency plan that we have approved 

into the California SIP.55 However, El 

Dorado County APCD still does not have 

a SIP-approved ozone emergency 

episode plan.56 Therefore, we partially 

disapprove California’s 2007 and 2014 

Submittals for the Mountain Counties 

AQCR (for El Dorado County APCD 

only) with respect to the 1997 ozone 

and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 

emergency episode planning 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

San Joaquin Valley AQCR for PM2.5

As discussed in section III.A.ii of this 

final rule, we reclassify San Joaquin 

Valley AQCR from Priority I to Priority 

II for PM emergency episode planning. 

However, San Joaquin Valley APCD’s 

SIP-approved emergency episode plan, 

which comprises multiple rules under 

the district’s Regulation 6 (‘‘Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes’’), still 

does not have provisions specific to 

PM2.5. As such, we partially disapprove 

California’s 2007 and 2014 Submittals 

for San Joaquin Valley AQCR with 

respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 18775 

57 73 FR 62902 at 62905, October 22, 2008. Note 

that we also found that California had failed to 

submit SIP revisions for some air districts 

addressing the PSD-related requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). However, such failure 

to submit did not trigger a FIP deadline since those 

air districts were already subject to the PSD FIP in 

40 CFR 52.21. For the 1997 ozone NAAQS, EPA 

found that California had failed to submit SIP 

revisions for some air districts addressing the PSDrelated requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). 

73 FR 16205 at 16208, March 27, 2008. However, 

similar to EPA’s findings on the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, such failure to submit did not trigger a FIP 

deadline since those air districts were already 

subject to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21. 

58 78 FR 2882 at 2889, January 15, 2013. Note that 

we did not make completeness findings or findings 

of failure to submit with respect to CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C) (to the extent it refers to permit 

programs required under part D of title I of the CAA 

(nonattainment NSR)), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

(pertaining to two of several interstate transport 

requirements), or section 110(a)(2)(I), (pertaining to 

the nonattainment planning). 

59 76 FR 48006, August 8, 2011. 

60 79 FR 51913, September 2, 2014. 

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

emergency episode planning 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

iv. General Note on Disapprovals 

EPA takes a disapproval of a state 

plan very seriously, as we believe that 

it is preferable, and preferred in the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act, that 

these requirements be implemented 

through state plans. A state plan need 

not contain exactly the same provisions 

that EPA might require, but EPA must 

be able to find that the state plan is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act. Further, EPA’s oversight role 

requires that it assure consistent 

implementation of Clean Air Act 

requirements by states across the 

country, even while acknowledging that 

individual decisions from source to 

source or state to state may not have 

identical outcomes. EPA believes these 

disapprovals are the only path that is 

consistent with the Act at this time. 

C. Consequences of Proposed 

Disapprovals 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D, title 

I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or 

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a 

sanctions clock. California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals were not 

submitted to meet either of these 

requirements. Therefore, the partial 

disapprovals in this final rule will not 

trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA 

section 179. 

Section 110(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that EPA must promulgate a FIP within 

two years after finding that a state has 

failed to make a required submittal or 

disapproving a SIP submittal in whole 

or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP 

revision correcting the deficiencies 

within that two-year period. However, 

many of these partial disapprovals 

finalized by this final rule do not result 

in new FIP obligations, either because 

EPA has already promulgated a FIP to 

address the identified deficiency or 

because a FIP deadline has been 

triggered by EPA’s disapproval of a prior 

SIP submittal based on the same 

identified deficiency or by a prior 

finding of failure to submit. 

When preparing our proposed rule, 

we inadvertently did not consider 

existing FIP deadlines that were 

triggered by prior findings of failure to 

submit for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2008 

ozone NAAQS in our description of FIP 

deadlines that would result from our 

proposed, partial disapprovals. In 

October 2008 EPA found that 

California’s applicable certification 

letter had failed to address the 

emergency episode planning 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and established 

a FIP deadline of November 21, 2010.57

In January 2013 EPA found that 

California had failed to submit an 

infrastructure SIP for the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(2)(A)–(C), (D)(i)(II), 

(D)(ii), (E)–(H), and (J)–(M) for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS and established a FIP 

deadline of February 14, 2015, while 

noting that the findings did not trigger 

any additional FIP obligations with 

respect to the PSD-related and 

notification-related requirements of 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), or 

(J) for portions of California (i.e., air 

districts) that were already subject to the 

PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21.58

For the most part, the approval 

actions taken in this final rule obviate 

the basis of the FIP obligations 

established by EPA’s findings of failure 

to submit discussed above. The 

remaining FIP obligations stemming 

from these findings are relevant with 

respect to outstanding deficiencies for 

ozone related to ambient monitoring 

and emergency episode planning, and 

an outstanding deficiency for PM2.5

related to emergency episode planning. 

Accordingly, we describe the 

consequences of our partial 

disapprovals first for those where a FIP 

is already in place, then for those that 

have FIP obligations that are overdue, 

and finally for those that establish new 

FIP obligations. 

The provisions for which our partial 

disapprovals do not result in a new FIP 

obligation include: 

• PSD-related requirements in 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

and (J) in the 19 air districts identified 

in section III.B.ii of this final rule, 

which are subject to the PSD FIP in 40 

CFR 52.21 for the NAAQS and GHGs 

(see 40 CFR 52.270). 

• PSD-related requirements in 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

and (J) in South Coast AQMD, which is 

subject to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21 

for all regulated NSR pollutants except 

GHGs (see 40 CFR 52.270(b)(10)). 

• PSD requirement in sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) to regulate 

NOX as an ozone precursor in North 

Coast Unified AQMD, which is subject 

to a narrow PSD FIP addressing this 

requirement (codified at 40 CFR 

52.270(b)(2)(iv)).59

• PSD requirement in sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) to regulate 

PSD increments in North Coast Unified 

AQMD, for which EPA issued a finding 

of failure to submit that triggered an 

October 6, 2016 deadline for EPA to 

promulgate a FIP addressing this 

requirement.60

The provisions for which our FIP 

obligation is overdue include: 

• Ambient air monitoring 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(B) with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the 

Bakersfield MSA, whose FIP deadline 

expired on February 14, 2015. 

• Emergency episode planning 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(G) with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the 

Mountain Counties AQCR (for El 

Dorado County APCD only), whose FIP 

deadline expired on February 14, 2015. 

• Emergency episode planning 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(G) with 

respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

San Joaquin Valley AQCR, whose FIP 

deadline expired on November 21, 2010. 

For the remaining partial 

disapprovals, EPA has not previously 

promulgated a FIP to address the 

identified deficiency or triggered a FIP 

deadline by disapproving a prior SIP 

submittal or issuing a finding of failure 

to submit based on the same deficiency. 

Thus, under CAA section 110(c)(1), 

these remaining partial disapprovals of 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals require EPA to promulgate a 

FIP within two years after the effective 

date of this final rule, unless the State 

submits and EPA approves a SIP 

revision that corrects the identified 

deficiencies prior to the expiration of 

this two-year period. The provisions for 

which our partial disapprovals trigger a 

new FIP obligation include: 

• Ambient air monitoring 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(B) with 

respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the 

Bakersfield MSA. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
18776 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

• PSD requirements in sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) to regulate 

PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, and 

condensable PM2.5 in North Coast 

Unified AQMD. 

• PSD requirement in sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for a 

baseline date for PSD increments for 

PM2.5 in Mendocino County APCD and 

Northern Sonoma County APCD. 

• Emergency episode planning 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(G) with 

respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the 

Mountain Counties AQCR (for El 

Dorado County APCD only). 

• Emergency episode planning 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(G) with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley 

AQCR. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of five state provisions 

from the California Government Code 

statutes and California Code of 

Regulations for the conflict of interest 

requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. These 

provisions include California 

Government Code, Title 9, Sections 

82048 (last amended in 2004), 87103 

(last amended in 2000), and 87302 (last 

amended in 1992), and California Code 

of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 18700 

(last amendment filed on December 20, 

2005) and 18701 (last amendment filed 

on December 29, 2005). Similarly, EPA 

is also finalizing the incorporation by 

reference of Great Basin Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (APCD) Rule 

701, adopted on March 3, 2014, with 

respect to the 1987 p.m.10, 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for 

the emergency episode planning 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

H. The incorporation by reference of the 

five state provisions and the one Great 

Basin Unified APCD provision are 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of SIP revisions under CAA section 110 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

information collection burdens but 

simply approves certain State 

requirements, and disapproves certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule does 

not impose any requirements or create 

impacts on small entities. This partial 

SIP approval and partial SIP 

disapproval under CAA section 110 will 

not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements but simply approves 

certain State requirements, and 

disapproves certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

Accordingly, it affords no opportunity 

for EPA to fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

Therefore, this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the partial approval 

and partial disapproval action does not 

include a Federal mandate that may 

result in estimated costs of $100 million 

or more to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action approves 

certain pre-existing requirements, and 

disapproves certain other pre-existing 

requirements, under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects 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.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves certain State 

requirements, and disapproves certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 18777 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, 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. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This partial 

approval and partial disapproval under 

CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

approves certain State requirements, 

and disapproves certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

EPA believes that this action is not 

subject to requirements of Section 12(d) 

of NTTAA because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule 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). This rule will be effective on 

May 2, 2016. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 31, 2016. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur 

dioxide. 

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

Dated: November 24, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(386)(ii)(A)(5), 

(c)(466), (467), (468), and (469) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(386) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(5) ‘‘110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP,’’ 

submitted as Appendix B to the 2007 

State Strategy, and ‘‘Legal Authority and 

Other Requirements,’’ submitted as 

Appendix G to the 2007 State Strategy 

(collectively, ‘‘2007 Infrastructure SIP’’). 

* * * * * 

(466) The following plan was 

submitted on October 6, 2011, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) [Reserved]. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). 

(1) CARB Resolution 11–28, dated 

September 22, 2011, adopting the 

‘‘Proposed State Implementation Plan 

Revision for Federal Lead Standard 

Infrastructure Requirements.’’ 

(2) ‘‘Proposed State Implementation 

Plan Revision for Federal Lead Standard 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
18778 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Infrastructure Requirements,’’ (‘‘2011 Pb 

Infrastructure SIP’’). 

(467) The following plan was 

submitted on December 12, 2012, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) [Reserved]. 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). 

(1) CARB Resolution 12–32, dated 

November 15, 2012, adopting the 

‘‘Proposed State Implementation Plan 

Revision for Federal Nitrogen Dioxide 

Standard Infrastructure Requirements.’’ 

(2) ‘‘Proposed State Implementation 

Plan Revision for Federal Nitrogen 

Dioxide Standard Infrastructure 

Requirements,’’ (‘‘2012 NO2

Infrastructure SIP’’). 

(468) The following plan was 

submitted on March 6, 2014, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by Reference. 

(A) California Air Resources Board 

(1) California Government Code, Title 

9 (Political Reform), Chapter 2 

(Definitions), Section 82048, ‘‘Public 

official,’’ added by California Initiative 

Measure approved on June 4, 1974, 

effective January 7, 1975, and last 

amended in 2004. 

(2) California Government Code, Title 

9 (Political Reform), Chapter 7 (Conflicts 

of Interest), Article 1 (General 

Prohibition), Section 87103, ‘‘Financial 

interest in decision by public official,’’ 

added by California Initiative Measure 

approved on June 4, 1974, effective 

January 7, 1975, and last amended in 

2000. 

(3) California Government Code, Title 

9 (Political Reform), Chapter 7 (Conflicts 

of Interest), Article 3 (Conflict of Interest 

Codes), Section 87302, ‘‘Required 

provisions; exemptions,’’ added by 

California Initiative Measure approved 

on June 4, 1974, effective January 7, 

1975, and last amended in 1992. 

(4) Title 2, California Code of 

Regulations, Division 6 (Fair Political 

Practices Commission), Chapter 7 

(Conflict of Interest), Article 1 (Conflicts 

of Interest; General Prohibition), Section 

18700, ‘‘Basic Rule and Guide to 

Conflict of Interest Regulations’’ (filed 

on December 17, 1976, effective upon 

filing, and last amendment filed on 

December 20, 2005, operative January 

19, 2006). 

(5) Title 2, California Code of 

Regulations, Division 6 (Fair Political 

Practices Commission), Chapter 7 

(Conflict of Interest), Article 1 (Conflicts 

of Interest; General Prohibition), Section 

18701, ‘‘Definitions: Source of Income, 

Commission Income and Incentive 

Income’’ (filed on January 22, 1976, 

effective February 21, 1976, and last 

amendment filed on December 29, 2005, 

operative January 28, 2006). 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). 

(1) CARB Resolution 14–1, dated 

January 23, 2014, adopting the 

‘‘California Infrastructure SIP.’’ 

(2) ‘‘California Infrastructure SIP,’’ 

(‘‘2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure 

SIP’’). 

(469) The following plan was 

submitted on June 2, 2014, by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by Reference. 

(A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 701, ‘‘Air Pollution Episode 

Plan for Particulate Matter,’’ adopted on 

March 3, 2014. 

■ 3. Section 52.221 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.221 Classification of regions. 

The California plan was evaluated on 

the basis of the following classifications: 

Air quality control region 

Pollutant 

Particulate matter Sulfur oxides Nitrogen dioxide Carbon monoxide 

Photochemical 

oxidants 

(hydrocarbons) 

Great Basin Valley Intrastate ................. I III III III III 

Lake County Intrastate .......................... II III III III III 

Lake Tahoe Intrastate ............................ II III III I III 

Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate ...... I III III I I 

Mountain Counties Intrastate ................. II III III I I 

North Central Coast Intrastate ............... II III III III III 

North Coast Intrastate ............................ II III III III III 

Northeast Plateau Intrastate .................. III III III III III 

Sacramento Valley Intrastate ................. II III III I I 

San Diego Intrastate .............................. II III III I I 

San Francisco Bay Area Intrastate ........ II III III I I 

San Joaquin Valley Intrastate ................ II III III I I 

South Central Coast Intrastate .............. III III III III III 

Southeast Desert Intrastate ................... I III III III I 

■ 4. Section 52.223 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (i) thru (o) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.223 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(i) 1997 ozone NAAQS: The 2007 

Infrastructure SIP, submitted on 

November 16, 2007, and the 2014 Multipollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted 

on March 6, 2014, are partially 

disapproved for specific requirements of 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Air 

Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air 

Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), 

or Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) 

listed in this paragraph. 

(1) San Joaquin Valley APCD 

(Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical 

Area (MSA), only) for section 

110(a)(2)(B). 

(2) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(3) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(4) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(5) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 18779 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J), except for South Coast 

AQMD where the Federal PSD program 

applies to greenhouse gases, only. 

(6) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 

126(a), only). 

(7) Mountain Counties AQCR (El 

Dorado County, only) for section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

(j) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 2007 

Infrastructure SIP, submitted on 

November 16, 2007, and the 2014 Multipollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted 

on March 6, 2014, are partially 

disapproved for specific requirements of 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Air Pollution 

Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality 

Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air 

Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed 

in this paragraph. 

(1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(3) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(4) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J), except for South Coast 

AQMD where the Federal PSD program 

applies to greenhouse gases, only. 

(5) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 

126(a), only). 

(6) San Joaquin Valley Mountain 

Counties AQCR for section 110(a)(2)(G). 

(k) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant 

Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 

6, 2014, is partially disapproved for 

specific requirements of Clean Air Act 

section 110(a)(2) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), 

Air Quality Management Districts 

(AQMDs), or Air Quality Control 

Regions (AQCRs) listed in this 

paragraph. 

(1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(3) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(4) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J), except for South Coast 

AQMD where the Federal PSD program 

applies to greenhouse gases, only. 

(5) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 

126(a), only). 

(6) San Joaquin Valley Mountain 

Counties AQCR for section 110(a)(2)(G). 

(l) 2008 ozone NAAQS: The 2014 

Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, 

submitted on March 6, 2014, is partially 

disapproved for specific requirements of 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Air 

Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air 

Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), 

or Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) 

listed in this paragraph. 

(1) San Joaquin Valley APCD 

(Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical 

Area (MSA), only) for section 

110(a)(2)(B). 

(2) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(3) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 PSD, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(4) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(5) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J), except for South Coast 

AQMD where the Federal PSD program 

applies to greenhouse gases, only. 

(6) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 

126(a), only). 

(7) Mountain Counties AQCR (El 

Dorado County, only) for section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

(m) 2008 Pb NAAQS: The 2011 Pb 

Infrastructure SIP, submitted on 

September 22, 2011, and the 2014 

Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, 

submitted on March 6, 2014, are 

partially disapproved for specific 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the 

Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), 

Air Quality Management Districts 

(AQMDs), or Air Quality Control 

Regions (AQCRs) listed in this 

paragraph. 

(1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(3) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
18780 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J), except for South Coast 

AQMD where the Federal PSD program 

applies to greenhouse gases, only. 

(5) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 

126(a), only). 

(n) 2010 NO2 NAAQS: The 2012 NO2

Infrastructure SIP, submitted on 

November 15, 2012, and the 2014 Multipollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted 

on March 6, 2014, are partially 

disapproved for specific requirements of 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS for the Air Pollution 

Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality 

Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air 

Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed 

in this paragraph. 

(1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(3) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(4) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J), except for South Coast 

AQMD where the Federal PSD program 

applies to greenhouse gases, only. 

(5) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 

126(a), only). 

(o) 2010 SO2 NAAQS: The 2014 

Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, 

submitted on March 6, 2014, is partially 

disapproved for specific requirements of 

Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS for the Air Pollution 

Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality 

Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air 

Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed 

in this paragraph. 

(1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(3) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J). 

(4) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 

measures in any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality, 

only), and (J), except for South Coast 

AQMD where the Federal PSD program 

applies to greenhouse gases, only. 

(5) All areas in California that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program as 

provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 

126(a), only). 

§ 52.225 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 52.225 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a). 

■ 6. Section 52.283 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c) thru (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.283 Interstate Transport. 

* * * * * 

(c) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant 

Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 

6, 2014, and the additional plan 

elements listed below meet the 

following specific requirements of Clean 

Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

(1) The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with any other state’s measures required 

under title I, part C of the Clean Air Act 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality, except that these requirements 

are not fully met in the Air Pollution 

Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality 

Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in 

this paragraph. 

(i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) 

(ii) North Coast APCD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) 

(iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) 

(iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the NAAQS, only). 

(v) All other areas in California that 

are subject to the Federal PSD program 

as provided in 40 CFR 52.270. 

(2) The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility are met by chapter 3 

(Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 

(California 2018 Progress Strategy), and 

chapter 8 (Consultation) of the 

‘‘California Regional Haze Plan,’’ 

adopted January 22, 2009. 

(d) 2008 ozone NAAQS: The 2014 

Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, 

submitted on March 6, 2014, and the 

additional plan elements listed below 

meet the following specific 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

(1) The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with any other state’s measures required 

under title I, part C of the Clean Air Act 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality, except that these requirements 

are not fully met in the Air Pollution 

Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality 

Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in 

this paragraph. 

(i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) 

(ii) North Coast APCD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) 

(iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) 

(iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the NAAQS, only). 

(v) All other areas in California that 

are subject to the Federal PSD program 

as provided in 40 CFR 52.270. 

(2) The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility are met by chapter 3 

(Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 

(California 2018 Progress Strategy), and 

chapter 8 (Consultation) of the 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 18781 

‘‘California Regional Haze Plan,’’ 

adopted January 22, 2009. 

(e) 2008 Pb NAAQS: The 2011 Pb 

Infrastructure SIP, submitted on 

September 22, 2011, and the 2014 

Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, 

submitted on March 6, 2014, and the 

additional plan elements listed below 

meet the following specific 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

(1) The requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the 

2008 Pb NAAQS in any other State and 

interference with maintenance of the 

2008 Pb NAAQS by any other State. 

(2) The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with any other state’s measures required 

under title I, part C of the Clean Air Act 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality, except that these requirements 

are not fully met in the Air Pollution 

Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality 

Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in 

this paragraph. 

(i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) 

(ii) North Coast APCD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) 

(iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) 

(iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the NAAQS, only). 

(v) All other areas in California that 

are subject to the Federal PSD program 

as provided in 40 CFR 52.270. 

(3) The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility are met by chapter 3 

(Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 

(California 2018 Progress Strategy), and 

chapter 8 (Consultation) of the 

‘‘California Regional Haze Plan,’’ 

adopted January 22, 2009. 

(f) 2010 NO2 NAAQS: The 2012 NO2

Infrastructure SIP, submitted on 

November 15, 2012, and the 2014 Multipollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted 

on March 6, 2014, and the additional 

plan elements listed below meet the 

following specific requirements of Clean 

Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

(1) The requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other State 

and interference with maintenance of 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS by any other 

State. 

(2) The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with any other state’s measures required 

under title I, part C of the Clean Air Act 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality, except that these requirements 

are not fully met in the Air Pollution 

Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality 

Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in 

this paragraph. 

(i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) 

(ii) North Coast APCD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) 

(iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) 

(iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the NAAQS, only). 

(v) All other areas in California that 

are subject to the Federal PSD program 

as provided in 40 CFR 52.270. 

(3) The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility are met by chapter 3 

(Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 

(California 2018 Progress Strategy), and 

chapter 8 (Consultation) of the 

‘‘California Regional Haze Plan,’’ 

adopted January 22, 2009. 

(g) 2010 SO2 NAAQS: The 2014 Multipollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted 

on March 6, 2014, and the additional 

plan elements listed below meet the 

following specific requirements of Clean 

Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

(1) The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with any other state’s measures required 

under title I, part C of the Clean Air Act 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality, except that these requirements 

are not fully met in the Air Pollution 

Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality 

Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in 

this paragraph. 

(i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD 

requirements for a baseline date for 

PM2.5 increments, only) 

(ii) North Coast APCD (PSD 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, 

PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone 

precursor, only) 

(iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(PSD requirements for a baseline date 

for PM2.5 increments, only) 

(iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD 

requirements for the NAAQS, only). 

(v) All other areas in California that 

are subject to the Federal PSD program 

as provided in 40 CFR 52.270. 

(2) The requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility are met by chapter 3 

(Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 

(California 2018 Progress Strategy), and 

chapter 8 (Consultation) of the 

‘‘California Regional Haze Plan,’’ 

adopted January 22, 2009. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07323 Filed 3–31–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 92 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–MB–2015–0158; 

FF09M21200–156–FXMB1231099BPP0] 

RIN 1018–BB10 

Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest in 

Alaska; Harvest Regulations for 

Migratory Birds in Alaska During the 

2016 Season 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service or we) is establishing 

migratory bird subsistence harvest 

regulations in Alaska for the 2016 

season. These regulations allow for the 

continuation of customary and 

traditional subsistence uses of migratory 

birds in Alaska and prescribe regional 

information on when and where the 

harvesting of birds may occur. These 

regulations were developed under a comanagement process involving the 

Service, the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, and Alaska Native 

representatives. The rulemaking is 

necessary because the regulations 

governing the subsistence harvest of 

migratory birds in Alaska are subject to 

annual review. This rulemaking 

establishes region-specific regulations 

that will go into effect on April 2, 2016, 

and expire on August 31, 2016. 

DATES: The amendments to subpart D of 

50 CFR part 92 are effective April 2, 

2016, through August 31, 2016. The 

amendments to subparts A and C of 50 

CFR part 92 are effective May 2, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Dewhurst, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 

201, Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 786– 

3499. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Why is this rulemaking necessary? 

This rulemaking is necessary because, 

by law, the migratory bird harvest 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES