63350 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

Wamsley, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4111, wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal concerns the volatile organic 

compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) 2002 emissions inventories 

submitted by California on December 

21, 2010 in the document ‘‘Final 2009 

1997 8-hour Ozone Modified Air 

Quality Management Plan’’ for Imperial 

County. California submitted these 

emissions inventories to meet CAA 

requirements under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. In the Rules and 

Regulations section of this Federal 

Register, we are approving these VOC 

and NOX emissions inventories 

provided by California in a direct final 

action without prior proposal because 

we believe these SIP revisions are not 

controversial. If we receive adverse 

comments, however, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule and address the comments in 

subsequent action based on this 

proposed rule. Please note that if we 

receive adverse comment on a portion of 

the state’s submittal and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the submittal, we may 

adopt as final those provisions of the 

submittal that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: September 24, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24752 Filed 10–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0547; FRL–9918–39– 

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

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 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 

proposing to reclassify certain regions of 

the state for emergency episode 

planning purposes with respect to 

ozone, NO2, SO2, and particulate matter 

(PM). Finally, we are proposing to 

approve into the SIP several state 

provisions addressing CAA conflict of 

interest requirements into the California 

SIP and an emergency episode planning 

rule for Great Basin Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (APCD) for 

PM. We are taking comments on this 

proposal and, after considering any 

comments submitted, plan to take final 

action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 24, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2014–0547, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: mays.rory@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Rory Mays (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

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

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

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

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

anonymous access system, and EPA will 

not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. EPA’s Approach to the Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

II. Background 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 63351 

1For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

2See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

3EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submittal 

of certain types of SIP submittals in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submittal of emissions inventories for the ozone 

NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

4See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 78 FR 

4337, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

5On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. NAAQS Addressed by This Proposal 

C. EPA Guidance Documents 

D. Changes to the Application of PSD 

Permitting Requirements to GHG 

Emissions 

III. California’s Submittals 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial 

Approvals 

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals 

C. Consequences of Proposed Disapprovals 

D. Request for Public Comments 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. EPA’s Approach to the Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals 

EPA is acting upon several SIP 

submittals from California that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make a SIP 

submittal of this type arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submittals ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submittals are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submittals, and 

the requirement to make the submittals 

is not conditioned upon EPA’s taking 

any action other than promulgating a 

new or revised NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submittal must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submittals made for the purpose of 

satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submittals. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submittal from submittals 

that are intended to satisfy other SIP 

requirements under the CAA, such as 

‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment 

SIP’’ submittals to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA, ‘‘regional 

haze SIP’’ submittals required by EPA 

rule to address the visibility protection 

requirements of CAA section 169A, and 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

permit program submittals to address 

the permit requirements of CAA, title I, 

part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submittals. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.1 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains ambiguities concerning what is 

required for inclusion in an 

infrastructure SIP submittal. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submittals 

for a given new or revised NAAQS. One 

example of ambiguity is that section 

110(a)(2) requires that ‘‘each’’ SIP 

submittal must meet the list of 

requirements therein, while EPA has 

long noted that this literal reading of the 

statute is internally inconsistent and 

would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.2 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submittals to 

address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submittal of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.3 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submittal. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submittal, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submittal in a 

single action. Although section 110(a)(1) 

directs states to submit ‘‘a plan’’ to meet 

these requirements, EPA interprets the 

CAA to allow states to make multiple 

SIP submittals separately addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements for the same 

NAAQS. If states elect to make such 

multiple SIP submittals to meet the 

infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA 

can elect to act on such submittals 

either individually or in a larger 

combined action.4 Similarly, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow it to take 

action on the individual parts of one 

larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submittal for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submittal. For example, EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submittal.5

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submittal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

63352 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

7EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submittals. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submittals. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

8 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

9EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submittals to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that 

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submittals for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submittal for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants, for example 

because the content and scope of a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submittal to 

meet this element might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS 

than for a minor revision to an existing 

NAAQS.6

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submittals required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submittals, EPA also has to identify and 

interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submittals. For 

example, section 172(c)(7) requires that 

attainment plan SIP submittals required 

by part D have to meet the ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ of section 110(a)(2). 

Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP 

submittals must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding 

enforceable emission limits and control 

measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

regarding air agency resources and 

authority. By contrast, it is clear that 

attainment plan SIP submittals required 

by part D would not need to meet the 

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

pertains to the air quality prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) program 

required in part C of title I of the CAA, 

because PSD does not apply to a 

pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submittal may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submittal. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submittals against the 

list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but 

only to the extent each element applies 

for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submittals for particular 

elements.7 EPA most recently issued 

guidance for infrastructure SIPs on 

September 13, 2013 (2013 Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance).8 EPA developed this 

document to provide states with up-todate guidance for infrastructure SIPs for 

any new or revised NAAQS. Within this 

guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submittals to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submittals.9 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submittals need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submittal for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submittals. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submittals to ensure that the state’s SIP 

appropriately addresses the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance explains EPA’s 

interpretation that there may be a 

variety of ways by which states can 

appropriately address these substantive 

statutory requirements, depending on 

the structure of an individual state’s 

permitting or enforcement program (e.g., 

whether permits and enforcement 

orders are approved by a multi-member 

board or by a head of an executive 

agency). However they are addressed by 

the state, the substantive requirements 

of section 128 are necessarily included 

in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submittals because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submittals with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C, title I of the Act and 

EPA’s PSD regulations. Structural PSD 

program requirements include 

provisions necessary for the PSD 

program to address all regulated sources 

and regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, 

structural PSD program requirements do 

not include provisions that are not 

required under EPA’s regulations at 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

51.166 but are merely available as an 

option for the state, such as the option 

to provide grandfathering of complete 

permit applications with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the 

latter optional provisions are types of 

provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 

the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on 

assuring that the state’s SIP meets basic 

structural requirements. For example, 

section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, 

the requirement that states have a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 63353 

10By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submittal that contained a legal deficiency, such as 

a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM 

events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

11For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 76 FR 21639, 

April 18, 2011. 

12EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submittals related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR 34641, 

June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009 

(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

13See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submittal 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 

42344, July 21, 2010 (proposed disapproval of 

director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540, 

January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such 

provisions). 

program to regulate minor new sources. 

Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state 

has a SIP-approved minor NSR program 

and whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submittal, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submittal is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186, 

December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 

FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP submittal 

without scrutinizing the totality of the 

existing SIP for such potentially 

deficient provisions and may approve 

the submittal even if it is aware of such 

existing provisions.10 It is important to 

note that EPA’s approval of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal should not 

be construed as explicit or implicit reapproval of any existing potentially 

deficient provisions that relate to the 

three specific issues just described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submittals is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submittal. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submittal is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submittal. EPA believes that a better 

approach is for states and EPA to focus 

attention on those elements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to 

warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives 

simpler recommendations with respect 

to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 

pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal 

for any future new or revised NAAQS 

for carbon monoxide need only state 

this fact in order to address the visibility 

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

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow EPA to take appropriately 

tailored action, depending upon the 

nature and severity of the alleged SIP 

deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes 

EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the 

Agency determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.11 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submittals.12

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.13

II. Background 

A. Statutory Requirements 

As discussed in section I of this 

proposed rule, CAA section 110(a)(1) 

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) 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. These 

infrastructure SIP elements required by 

section 110(a)(2) are as follows: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

63354 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

14 62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997. 

15 73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008. 

16 62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997. 

17 71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006. 

18 78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013. 

19 73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008. 

20 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. 

21 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The annual SO2

standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of 

comparison with the new 1-hour standard. 

22Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy 

General Counsel, Office of General Counsel (OGC), 

‘‘Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest 

Requirements of Section 128,’’ March 2, 1978. 

23Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan 

Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding 

Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards,’’ August 15, 2006. 

24Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ October 2, 2007. 

25Memorandum 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. 

26Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, 

OAQPS, ‘‘Guidance on State Implementation Plan 

Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards,’’ October 14, 2011. 

27Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, 

OAQPS, ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ September 13, 

2013. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new and modified 

stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate 

pollution transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

• 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): Emergency 

episodes. 

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

• Section 110(a)(2)(J): 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. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear 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 

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 Proposal 

Between 1997 and 2012, EPA 

promulgate 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 

proposal 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).14

• 2008 ozone NAAQS, which revised 

the 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 

ppm.15

• 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/m3.16

• 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standards to 35 

mg/m3, and retained the 1997 annual 

standards.17

• 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.18

• 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 as a rolling 

3-month average, and revised the 

secondary standard to 0.15 mg/m3, 

making it identical to the revised 

primary standard.19

• 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.20

• 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 

1971 annual and 24-hour SO2

standards.21

C. EPA Guidance Documents 

EPA has issued several guidance 

memos on infrastructure SIPs that have 

informed our evaluation, including the 

following: 

• March 2, 1978 guidance on the 

conflict of interest requirements of 

section 128, pursuant to the requirement 

of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).22

• August 15, 2006 guidance on the 

interstate transport requirements of 

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

the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS.23

• October 2, 2007 guidance on 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.24

• September 25, 2009 guidance on 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. (‘‘2009 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance’’) 25

• October 14, 2011 guidance on 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS.26

• September 13, 2013 guidance on 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2012 

PM2.5, and future NAAQS. (‘‘2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance’’) 27

D. Changes to the Application of PSD 

Permitting Requirements to GHG 

Emissions 

With respect to CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J), EPA 

interprets the Clean Air Act to require 

each state to make an infrastructure SIP 

submittal for a new or revised NAAQS 

that demonstrates that the air agency 

has a complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The PSDrelated requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied 

by demonstrating the air agency has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

correctly addressing all regulated NSR 

pollutants. California has shown that it 

currently has a PSD program in place for 

ten air districts (Eastern Kern, Imperial 

County, Mendocino County, Monterey 

Bay Unified, North Coast Unified, 

Northern Sonoma County, Placer 

County, Sacramento Metropolitan 

(Metro), San Joaquin Valley, and YoloSolano) that cover all regulated NSR 

pollutants, including GHGs, and one air 

district (South Coast AQMD) that covers 

GHGs. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 63355 

28Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427. 

29California’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 14616, March 17, 2011 (transport 

prongs 1 and 2); 76 FR 48002, August 8, 2011 

(transport prong 3); and 76 FR 34608, June 14, 2011 

and 76 FR 48006, August 8, 2011 (transport prong 

4). 

30California made an infrastructure SIP submittal 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on July 7, 2009 

that was subsequently withdrawn on July 18, 2014. 

All infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 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 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

emissions.28 The Supreme Court said 

that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air 

pollutant for purposes of determining 

whether a source is a major source 

required to obtain a PSD permit. The 

Court also said that EPA could continue 

to require that PSD permits, otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). In order to 

act consistently with its understanding 

of the Court’s decision pending further 

judicial action to effectuate the decision, 

EPA is not continuing to apply EPA 

regulations that would require that SIPs 

include permitting requirements that 

the Supreme Court found 

impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not 

applying the requirement that a state’s 

SIP-approved PSD program require that 

sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs 

are the only pollutant (i) that the source 

emits or has the potential to emit above 

the major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emissions 

increase and a significant net emissions 

increase from a modification (e.g., 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a 

need to revise federal PSD rules in light 

of the Supreme Court opinion. In 

addition, EPA anticipates that many 

states will revise their existing SIPapproved PSD programs in light of the 

Supreme Court’s decision. The timing 

and content of subsequent EPA actions 

with respect to EPA regulations and 

state PSD program approvals are 

expected to be informed by additional 

legal process before the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA 

is not expecting states to have revised 

their PSD programs for purposes of 

infrastructure SIP submittals and is only 

evaluating such submittals to assure that 

the state’s program correctly addresses 

GHGs consistent with the Supreme 

Court’s decision. 

At present, EPA has determined that 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals are sufficient to satisfy CAA 

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

for the 11 districts noted in this section 

that have SIP-approved PSD programs 

with respect to GHGs because the PSD 

permitting program previously 

approved by EPA into the SIP continues 

to require that PSD permits (otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs) contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. Although the 

SIP-approved PSD permitting programs 

for these 11 air districts in California 

may currently contain provisions that 

are no longer necessary in light of the 

Supreme Court decision, this does not 

render California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals inadequate to satisfy sections 

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

air districts. The SIP contains the 

necessary PSD requirements at this time 

for these 11 districts, and the 

application of those requirements is not 

impeded by the presence of other 

previously-approved provisions 

regarding the permitting of sources of 

GHGs that EPA does not consider 

necessary at this time in light of the 

Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, 

the Supreme Court decision does not 

affect EPA’s proposed partial approval 

of California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals as to the requirements of 

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

(2)(J). 

III. 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 proposed 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’’).29 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 

APCD Rule 701 (‘‘Air Pollution Episode 

Plan’’), which addresses CAA section 

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

particulate matter (PM10) 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 

proposing to act on all of these 

submittals since they collectively 

address the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the NAAQS addressed 

by this proposed 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.30 Thus we are not 

addressing the requirements of section 

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

four NAAQS in this proposed rule. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

We have evaluated California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the 

existing provisions of the California SIP 

for compliance with the infrastructure 

SIP requirements (or ‘‘elements’’) of 

CAA section 110(a)(2) and applicable 

regulations in 40 CFR part 51 

(‘‘Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of State 

Implementation Plans’’). In addition, 

our evaluation has been informed by 

EPA guidance memos cited in section 

II.C of this proposed rule. Given the 

large volume of information required to 

evaluate multiple SIP revisions for 

multiple NAAQS in a state with the 

largest number of local air districts in 

the country—35 APCDs and air quality 

management districts (AQMDs) in 

total—we have prepared five technical 

support documents that contain the 

details of our evaluation and are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

63356 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

31As noted in section III of this proposed 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 

proposing any action with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to these four NAAQS in this proposed rule. 

available in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. The TSDs include our 

Overarching TSD, which introduces our 

evaluation as a whole and addresses the 

majority of the requirements under 

section 110(a)(2), and four other TSDs 

that are specific to certain requirements 

and CAA programs, as follows: 

• Permit Programs TSD—addressing 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C)/permit 

programs (only), (D)(i)(II)/interstate 

transport and PSD (only), (J)/PSD (only), 

and (L)/permit fees. 

• Interstate Transport TSD— 

addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). 

• Conflict of Interest TSD— 

addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

• Emergency Episode Planning TSD— 

addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(G). 

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial 

Approvals 

Based upon our evaluation as 

presented in our five TSDs, EPA 

proposes to approve 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. Proposed 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.31

• 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. Proposed Approval of State and Local 

Provisions Into the California SIP 

As part of these proposed approvals, 

we are also proposing to 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 propose 

to approve into the SIP five state 

provisions from the California 

Government Code (GC) statutes and 

California Code of Regulations (CCR), 

which were submitted in California’s 

2014 Submittal and which address the 

conflict of interest requirements of CAA 

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

provisions include 9 GC 82048, 9 GC 

87103, 9 GC 87302, 2 CCR 18700, and 

2 CCR 18701. For discussion of these 

conflict of interest provisions, please see 

our Conflict of Interest TSD. 

We also propose to approve Great 

Basin 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. Proposed Approval of 

Reclassification Requests for Emergency 

Episode Planning 

California’s 2012 and 2014 Submittals 

requested that EPA reclassify several 

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. The air quality tests for 

classifying AQCRs are prescribed in 40 

CFR 51.150 and are pollutant-specific 

(e.g., ozone) rather than being specific to 

any given NAAQS (e.g., 1997 ozone 

NAAQS). Consistent with the provisions 

of 40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of 

AQCRs must rely on the most recent 

three years of air quality data. AQCRs 

that are classified Priority I, IA, or II are 

required to have SIP-approved 

emergency episode contingency plans, 

while those classified Priority III are not 

required to have such plans, pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152. We interpret 

40 CFR 51.153 as establishing the means 

for states to review air quality data and 

request a higher or lower classification 

for any given region and as providing 

the regulatory basis for EPA to reclassify 

such regions, as appropriate, under the 

authorities of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(G) 

and 301(a)(1). 

On the basis of California’s ambient 

air quality data for 2011–2013, we are 

proposing to grant five of California’s 

ten requests and deny the five 

remaining requests. Note, however, that 

our proposed denial of such a 

reclassification request does not 

necessarily lead to disapproval as most 

districts that are required to have 

emergency episode contingency plans 

for a given set of air pollutants continue 

to have SIP-approved emergency 

episode rules that apply to such 

pollutants. The exception to this 

scenario is the Mountain Counties 

AQCR for ozone, which we discuss in 

section IV.B.iii of this proposed rule. 

For further discussion of the emergency 

episode planning evaluation, please 

refer to our Emergency Episode 

Planning TSD. 

While we propose to grant or deny 

such requests within this proposed rule, 

the authority to take final action to 

reclassify AQCRs is reserved by the EPA 

Administrator. We will draft a 

reclassification final rule for signature 

by the EPA Administrator that will be 

separate from the broader final rule on 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals for signature by the EPA 

Region 9 Regional Administrator. 

Ozone 

For ozone, an AQCR with a 1-hour 

ozone level greater than 0.10 ppm over 

the most recent three-year period must 

be classified Priority I, while all other 

areas are classified Priority III. Per 

California’s requests, we propose to 

reclassify the Lake Tahoe and North 

Central Coast AQCRs to Priority III for 

ozone as neither recorded 1-hour ozone 

levels greater than 0.10 ppm in 2011– 

2013. We propose to deny California’s 

reclassification requests for the 

Mountain Counties, Sacramento Valley, 

San Diego, and Southeast Desert AQCRs 

for ozone as each area has exceeded the 

ozone classification threshold in 2011– 

2013. As a result, California would have 

seven Priority I AQCRs for ozone, 

including five for which we are 

proposing to deny California’s 

reclassification request and two others 

(Metropolitan Los Angeles and San 

Joaquin Valley AQCRs). Five of these 

AQCRs, including Metropolitan Los 

Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco Bay 

Area, San Joaquin Valley, and Southeast 

Desert, have adequate SIP-approved 

emergency episode rules applicable to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 63357 

32Note that Metropolitan Los Angeles and 

Southeast Desert AQCRs comprise multiple 

districts, each of which have SIP-approved 

emergency episode rules applicable to ozone. 

33 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, pp. 6–7 and 

Attachment B (‘‘Recommended Interim Significant 

Harm Level, Priority Levels, and Action Levels for 

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

ozone that cover the full geographic 

extent of the AQCRs.32

Two additional AQCRs in northern 

and central California comprise many 

air districts. Sacramento Valley AQCR 

includes all or portions of eight air 

districts, just one of which (Sacramento 

Metro AQMD) recorded a 1-hour ozone 

level above 0.10 ppm during 2011–2013. 

Sacramento Metro AQMD already has 

an adequate SIP-approved emergency 

episode rule applicable to ozone. 

Mountain Counties includes portions of 

seven air districts, just two of which (El 

Dorado County APCD and Placer 

County APCD) recorded a 1-hour ozone 

level above 0.10 ppm during 2011–2013. 

Unlike Sacramento Metro, these two air 

districts do not have SIP-approved 

emergency episode rules. Within these 

two AQCRs, the population and 

concentration of emission sources is 

greatest in the greater Sacramento 

metropolitan area and the air districts of 

El Dorado County, Placer County, and 

Sacramento Metro (i.e., Sacramento 

County) each share a county border with 

one another. 

Because recent ambient air quality 

data do not indicate that ozone levels 

are likely to approach the first 

recommended 1-hour ozone alert level 

of 0.20 ppm, much less the 2-hour 

significant harm level of 0.6 ppm, we 

propose to find that to satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.151 for 

contingency plans for these two AQCRs 

classified Priority I, California needs to 

provide emergency episode contingency 

plans for the three air districts that have 

recorded a 1-hour ozone level above 

0.10 ppm. As noted, Sacramento Metro 

AQMD already has an adequate SIPapproved emergency episode rule 

applicable to ozone. Thus, we propose 

to approve California’s 2007 and 2014 

Submittals with respect to the 1997 

ozone and 2008 ozone for the 

Sacramento Valley AQCR for the 

emergency episode planning 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G). Since El Dorado County 

APCD and Placer County APCD do not 

have such SIP-approved rules, we 

propose to partially disapprove 

California’s 2007 and 2014 Submittals 

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 

ozone NAAQS for the Mountain 

Counties AQCR, as discussed in section 

IV.B.iii of this proposed rule. 

NO2 and SO2

For NO2, an AQCR with an annual 

average NO2 level greater than 0.06 ppm 

over the most recent three-year period 

must be classified Priority I. Per 

California’s request, we propose to 

reclassify the Metropolitan Los Angeles 

AQCR to Priority III for NO2 since no 

part of this region (comprised of all or 

portions of Santa Barbara County, South 

Coast, and Ventura County air districts) 

recorded an annual average NO2 level 

greater than 0.06 ppm in 2011–2013. 

Finalization of this proposed 

reclassification would mean that the 

whole state would be classified Priority 

III for NO2, and therefore no emergency 

episode contingency plan for NO2

would be required for any of the state’s 

14 AQCRs. We therefore propose to 

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, the classification thresholds 

for SO2 are unique in that they are 

prescribed for three different averaging 

periods, including the following Priority 

II classification thresholds: 3-hour 

average greater than 0.5 ppm, 24-hour 

average between 0.10–0.17 ppm, and 

annual arithmetic mean between 0.02– 

0.04 ppm. Per California’s request, we 

propose to reclassify the Metropolitan 

Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay 

Area AQCRs to Priority III for SO2 as 

neither recorded SO2 levels exceeding 

the 3-hour average threshold or the 

lower end of the 24-hour and annual 

classification threshold ranges in 2011– 

2013. Finalization of this proposed 

reclassification would mean that the 

whole state would be classified Priority 

III for SO2, and therefore no emergency 

episode contingency plan for SO2 would 

be required for any of the state’s 14 

AQCRs. We therefore propose to 

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). 

iii. Proposed Reclassifications for PM 

Emergency Episode Planning 

California’s 2014 Submittal requested 

that EPA treat all areas of the state as 

though they were classified Priority III 

for purposes of PM2.5 with respect the 

emergency episode planning 

requirements of CAA section 

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

H, with the exception of Great Basin 

Valley AQCR, for which ARB requested 

treatment as a Priority II area. However, 

the air quality test for classifying AQCRs 

for PM that are prescribed in 40 CFR 

51.150 are not specific to either PM2.5 or 

PM10—they are simply for PM. Thus, we 

evaluated California’s 2014 Submittal as 

follows. 

As an initial screen, and given the 

provision of 40 CFR 51.153(a) to review 

the most recent three years of air quality 

data, we reviewed California’s 24-hour 

PM2.5 air quality data from 2011–2013 to 

identify areas where concentrations 

exceeded EPA’s recommended 24-hour 

PM2.5 threshold of 140.4 mg/m3 for 

emergency episode planning.33 There 

were two occasions where the 

concentrations exceeded this threshold: 

208 mg/m3 on December 1, 2011 at the 

Keeler-Cerro Gordo Road monitor in 

Great Basin Valley AQCR, and 167 

mg/m3 on May 5, 2013 at the 

Bakersfield-Planz monitor in 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. We propose to classify such 

areas based on PM10 values, rather than 

PM2.5 values alone, in order to ensure 

adequate protection from PM emergency 

episodes as a whole. Following 

classification, however, we also propose 

that such differences could be relevant 

in determining the adequacy of a PM 

emergency episode contingency plan. 

We discuss the rationale for these two 

proposal in our Emergency Episode 

Planning TSD. 

For PM, an AQCR with a 24-hour PM 

maximum level between 150–325 mg/m3

over the most recent three-year period 

must be classified Priority II and an 

AQCR with a 24-hour PM maximum 

level greater than 325 mg/m3 must be 

classified Priority I. The monitors in 

Great Basin Valley AQCR recorded over 

90 instances during 2011–2013 where 

24-hour PM10 levels exceeded the 

Priority I threshold of 325 mg/m3. As 

such, we propose to revise the PM 

emergency episode classification of 

Great Basin Valley AQCR from Priority 

III to Priority I in 40 CFR 52.221. The 

monitors in San Joaquin Valley AQCR 

recorded 15 instances during 2011–2013 

where 24-hour PM10 levels were within 

the Priority II range of 150–325 mg/m3, 

with no exceedances of the Priority I 

threshold of 325 mg/m3 during that time. 

We therefore propose to revise the PM 

emergency episode classification of San 

Joaquin Valley AQCR from Priority I to 

Priority II in 40 CFR 52.221. 

Based on these classifications, we 

have reviewed the adequacy of each 

area’s PM emergency episode plans. As 

noted in section IV.A.i of this proposed 

rule, we propose to approve Great Basin 

Rule 701 for the emergency episode 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

63358 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

34The pre-publication copy of our proposed rule 

on Monterey Bay Unified APCD’s PSD SIP revision, 

signed on September 30, 2014, is included in the 

docket of our proposed rule. 

planning requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the PM2.5

and PM10 NAAQS. However, for San 

Joaquin Valley AQCR, we proposed to 

partially disapprove California’s 2007 

and 2014 Submittals for section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 

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

NAAQS, which we discuss in section 

IV.B.iii of this proposed rule. For further 

discussion of the emergency episode 

planning evaluation as a whole, please 

refer to our Emergency Episode 

Planning TSD. 

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals 

EPA proposes to partially disapprove 

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 proposed rule 

due to PSD program and minor NSR 

deficiencies in certain air districts). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): 

Interstate pollution transport (for all 

NAAQS addressed by this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule due to PSD program 

deficiencies in certain air districts). 

i. Ambient Air Monitoring Partial 

Disapproval 

We propose to 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). For further 

discussion of this partial disapproval, 

please see our evaluation for CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(B) in our Overarching 

TSD. 

ii. Permit Program-Related Partial 

Disapprovals 

We propose to 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. In addition, we propose to 

partially disapprove portions of 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to the minor 

NSR-related requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) for several air districts 

because the California SIP does not 

include minor NSR programs for five 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 propose to 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 propose to partially 

disapprove California’s Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals for many air districts. 

We provide a summary of the basis of 

our proposed partial disapprovals in the 

following paragraphs. For further detail 

on the nature and extent of these 

proposed partial disapprovals, please 

refer to our Permit Programs TSD. 

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 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 this 

proposed rule. 

We propose to approve seven districts 

as meeting the structural PSD 

requirements, including Eastern Kern, 

Imperial County, Monterey Bay Unified, 

Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San 

Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-Solano air 

districts. With respect to Monterey Bay 

Unified APCD, our proposed approval 

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

(J) is contingent on finalizing our 

proposed rule on a PSD SIP revision for 

this district that meets such structural 

PSD requirements.34 However, we note 

that the district’s current SIP-approved 

PSD program does not include 

requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, or 

PSD increments for PM2.5. Thus, in the 

event that we are not able to finalize our 

proposed action on such PSD SIP 

revision prior to finalizing action on 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals, we propose in the 

alternative to partially disapprove 

Monterey Bay Unified APCD for these 

specific PSD-related requirements for 

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

An additional four 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 SIP-approved PSD 

program for GHGs only, but it does not 

have a SIP-approved PSD program to 

address any other regulated NSR 

pollutants. Thus we propose to partially 

disapprove California’s Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals as to this district for the 

PSD-related requirement of sections 

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

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 63359 

35Note that Northern Sierra AQMD comprises 

three counties, one of which (Nevada County) has 

a SIP-approved minor NSR program while the other 

two (Plumas and Sierra counties) do not. Thus, our 

conclusion on the absence of a SIP-approved minor 

NSR program pertains only to these two counties 

within Northern Sierra AQMD. 

36 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3); 40 CFR 51.166(k). 

37 42 U.S.C. § 7503(a)(1); 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3). 

38No area of California has been designated 

nonattainment for the 2010 NO2 or 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, or 

PSD increments for PM2.5. Therefore, we 

propose to partially disapprove 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals as to this district for these 

specific deficiencies for PSD-related 

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. Thus, we 

propose to partially disapprove 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals as to both of these districts 

for this specific deficiency in the PSDrelated requirements of section 

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

The remaining 24 air districts are 

subject to the existing PSD FIP in 40 

CFR 52.21, including Amador County, 

Antelope Valley, Bay Area, Butte 

County, Calaveras County, Colusa 

County, El Dorado County, Feather 

River, Glenn County, Great Basin 

Unified, Lake County, Lassen County, 

Mariposa County, Modoc County, 

Mojave Desert, Northern Sierra, San 

Diego County, San Luis Obispo County, 

Santa Barbara County, Shasta County, 

Siskiyou County, Tehama County, 

Tuolumne County, and Ventura County 

air districts. Eight of these, including 

Bay Area, Butte County, Feather River, 

Great Basin Unified, San Diego County, 

San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara 

County, and Ventura County air 

districts, have made PSD SIP submittals 

for which EPA has not yet proposed or 

finalized action. Accordingly, we 

propose to partially disapprove 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals as to each of these 24 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 IV.C of this proposed rule, the 

partial disapprovals as to these 24 

districts would not result in new FIP 

obligations, because EPA has already 

promulgated a PSD FIP for each district. 

Minor NSR Programs 

Consistent with the requirement of 

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

a program for the regulation of minor 

sources, we also evaluated California’s 

Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the 

California SIP with respect to minor 

NSR programs covering the NAAQS 

addressed by this proposed rule. Thirty 

of the 35 air districts have a SIPapproved minor NSR program that 

applies to all NAAQS, and therefore 

meet the minor NSR component of 

section 110(a)(2)(C). The remaining five 

air districts—Lake County, Mariposa 

County, Mojave Desert, Northern 

Sierra,35 and Tuolumne County air 

districts—have minor NSR programs 

that establish similar requirements, but 

they have not been submitted and 

approved into the California SIP. 

Therefore, we propose to partially 

disapprove California’s Infrastructure 

SIP Submittals with respect to the minor 

NSR requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) for these five air districts. 

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 considered the 

nonattainment NSR programs of the 

applicable California air districts as 

follows. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requires SIPs to prohibit emissions that 

will interfere with other state’s 

measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality. The PSD and 

nonattainment NSR permit programs 

require preconstruction permits to 

protect the air quality within each state 

and are designed to prohibit 

construction of new major sources and 

major modifications at existing major 

sources from contributing to 

nonattainment in surrounding areas, 

including nearby states. Specifically, a 

PSD permit may not be issued unless 

the new or modified source 

demonstrates that emissions from the 

construction or operation of the facility 

will not cause or contribute to air 

pollution in any area that exceeds any 

NAAQS or any maximum allowable 

increase (i.e., PSD increment).36A 

nonattainment NSR permit may not be 

issued unless the new or modified 

source shows it has obtained sufficient 

emissions reductions to offset increases 

in emissions of the pollutants for which 

an area is designated nonattainment, 

consistent with reasonable further 

progress toward attainment.37 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. 

Accordingly, we reviewed the 

nonattainment NSR programs of 

California’s 22 air districts that are 

designated nonattainment for ozone, 

PM2.5, or Pb, as applicable,38 to 

determine whether these programs 

generally address the applicable 

nonattainment pollutants. We refer to 

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

herein as the ‘‘nonattainment NSR 

element.’’ 

We propose to 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 SIPapproved 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). 

An additional eight air districts have 

affirmed that they implement the 

interim nonattainment NSR program in 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, which 

applies to new or modified major 

stationary sources pursuant to 40 CFR 

52.24(k), until California submits (on 

behalf of a given district) and EPA 

approves SIP revisions addressing the 

applicable nonattainment NSR program 

requirements. This scenario applies to 

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, Yolo-Solano (for the 1997 

ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS). We note that Bay Area, Butte 

County, Imperial County, and South 

Coast air districts have each submitted 

SIP revisions to address some or all of 

the outstanding nonattainment NSR 

requirements. We anticipate proposing 

or taking final action on some or all of 

these four SIP submittals over the 

coming months. To the extent that each 

submittal meets the applicable 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

63360 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

39 78 FR 34178, June 6, 2013. 

40This 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 has been 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 

will no longer apply to Sutter Buttes area. 

41 78 FR 34178, June 6, 2013. 

nonattainment NSR requirements, we 

propose that such actions would alter 

the basis of our proposed approval of 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals with respect to the 

nonattainment NSR element of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (i.e., having SIPapproved nonattainment NSR 

provisions rather than relying on 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix S) while 

maintaining the proposed approval 

itself. 

South Coast AQMD implements its 

SIP-approved nonattainment NSR 

program for the portions of the air 

district that are designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 ozone, 2008 

ozone, and 2008 Pb NAAQS, and 

implements the interim nonattainment 

NSR program in 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix S with respect to the 1997 

PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Two other districts, Amador County 

APCD and Tuolumne County APCD, are 

designated nonattainment only for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA has proposed 

to revoke that NAAQS as part of the 

proposed implementation rule for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS,39 which for these 

two air districts would have the effect 

of revoking the requirement to submit a 

nonattainment NSR SIP revision.40 We 

anticipate that EPA will finalize that 

proposed rule prior to finalization of 

this proposed rule on California’s 

Infrastructure SIPs, so these two 

districts will be relieved of the 

requirement to submit nonattainment 

NSR SIP revisions. 

Lastly, portions of San Luis Obispo 

County APCD and Tehama County 

APCD are designated nonattainment 

only for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Stemming from EPA’s proposed 

implementation rule for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS,41 required nonattainment NSR 

SIP revisions would not be due until 

July 20, 2015 and, thus, this 

requirement is not yet due for these two 

districts. Until such 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 major source 

emitting an applicable nonattainment 

pollutant (i.e., NOX or VOCs) that may 

propose to locate in the respective 

nonattainment areas. 

Accordingly, we propose to 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 

With respect to the requirement in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements of section 126 relating to 

interstate pollution abatement, we note 

that the requirements of section 126(b) 

and (c), which pertain to petitions by 

affected states to EPA regarding sources 

violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), do not apply to our 

action because there are no such 

pending petitions relating to California. 

We thus evaluated California’s 2014 

Submittal (the only submittal of 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals to explicitly address this 

sub-section) only for purposes of 

compliance with section 126(a), which 

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. For further discussion of 

these requirements, please refer to our 

Interstate Transport TSD. 

Ten of California’s 35 air districts 

have SIP-approved PSD permit 

programs that require notice to nearby 

states consistent with EPA’s relevant 

requirements, including the following 

districts: Eastern Kern, Imperial County, 

Mendocino County, Monterey Bay 

Unified, North Coast Unified, Northern 

Sonoma County, Placer County, 

Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, 

and Yolo-Solano. The remaining 25 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. 

With respect to the requirement in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements of section 115 relating to 

international air pollution, the EPA 

Administrator is authorized to require a 

state to revise its SIP when certain 

criteria are met and the Administrator 

has reason to believe that any air 

pollutant emitted in the United States 

causes or contributes to air pollution 

which may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare in a 

foreign country. The Administrator may 

do so by giving formal notification to 

the Governor of the State in which the 

emissions originate. Because no such 

formal notification has been made with 

respect to emissions originating in 

California, EPA has no reason to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

rules with regard to CAA section 115. 

Thus, while the existing California 

SIP is sufficient to satisfy most of the 

requirement in CAA section 

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

with the applicable requirements of 

section 115 for the whole state and 

section 126 for ten air districts, we 

propose to 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 25 air districts: Amador 

County, Antelope Valley, Bay Area, 

Butte County, Calaveras County, Colusa 

County, El Dorado County, Feather 

River, Glenn County, Great Basin 

Unified, Lake County, Lassen County, 

Mariposa County, Modoc County, 

Mojave Desert, Northern Sierra, San 

Diego County, San Luis Obispo County, 

Santa Barbara County, Shasta County, 

Siskiyou County, South Coast, Tehama 

County, Tuolumne County, and Ventura 

County. 

iii. Emergency Episode Planning Partial 

Disapprovals 

We are proposing to partially 

disapprove California’s 2007 and 2014 

Submittals for CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) 

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 

ozone NAAQS for the Mountain 

Counties AQCR and with respect to the 

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

NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley 

AQCR. We provide a summary of the 

basis of our proposed partial 

disapproval in the following paragraphs. 

For further discussion of these partial 

disapprovals, please refer to our 

Emergency Episode Planning TSD. 

Mountain Counties AQCR for Ozone 

As described in section IV.A.ii of this 

proposed rule, we propose to deny 

California’s request to reclassify the 

Mountain Counties AQCR to Priority III 

for ozone and have assessed the status 

of this region’s ambient air quality and 

emergency episode rules. Of the seven 

air districts that comprise the Mountain 

Counties AQCR, only El Dorado County 

APCD and Placer County APCD 

recorded a 1-hour ozone level above the 

Priority I ozone threshold of 0.10 ppm 

during 2011–2013. Because recent 

ambient air quality data for the AQCR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 63361 

42 64 FR 13351, March 18, 1999. 

as a whole do not indicate that ozone 

levels are likely to approach the Stage 

1 one-hour ozone alert level of 0.20 

ppm, much less the 2-hour significant 

harm level of 0.6 ppm, we propose to 

find that to satisfy the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.151 for contingency plans for 

Mountain Counties AQCR, California 

needs to provide emergency episode 

contingency plans applicable to ozone 

for El Dorado County APCD and Placer 

County APCD. Since these two air 

districts do not have SIP-approved 

emergency episode rules, we propose to 

partially disapprove California’s 2007 

and 2014 Submittals for the Mountain 

Counties AQCR (for El Dorado County 

APCD and Placer 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 IV.A.iii of this 

proposed rule, we propose to revise the 

PM emergency episode classification of 

San Joaquin Valley AQCR from Priority 

I to Priority II. Accordingly, we 

reviewed San Joaquin Valley APCD’s 

SIP-approved emergency episode plan, 

which comprises multiple rules under 

the district’s Regulation 6 (‘‘Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes’’).42 We 

did not find provisions specific to PM2.5

within Regulation 6. As such, we 

propose to conclude that the California 

SIP does not have an adequate PM 

emergency episode contingency plan 

with respect to PM2.5 for San Joaquin 

Valley AQCR and therefore propose to 

partially disapprove California’s 2007 

and 2014 Submittals for San Joaquin 

Valley AQCR 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). 

iv. General Note on Disapprovals 

EPA takes very seriously a proposal to 

disapprove a state plan, 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 

proposed 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, any action we 

take to finalize the described partial 

disapprovals will not trigger mandatory 

sanctions under CAA section 179. 

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) 

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. As discussed in section IV.B of 

this proposed rule and Overarching 

TSD, Permit Programs TSD, Interstate 

Transport TSD, and Emergency Episode 

Planning TSD, we are proposing several 

partial disapprovals. However, many of 

these partial disapprovals would 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. The provisions for 

which our proposed disapproval, if 

finalized, would 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 24 air districts identified 

in section IV.B.ii of this proposed 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 the NAAQS only (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 (76 FR 48006, August 8, 

2011, codified at 40 CFR 

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

• 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 (79 FR 51913, September 2, 

2014). 

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 

based on the same deficiency. Thus, 

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

remaining partial disapprovals of 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

Submittals would, if finalized, require 

EPA to promulgate a FIP within two 

years after the effective date of our 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 proposed 

partial disapprovals, if finalized, would 

trigger a new FIP obligation include: 

• Ambient air monitoring 

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

respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 

ozone NAAQS in the Bakersfield MSA. 

• 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. 

• Minor NSR requirements in section 

110(a)(2)(C) 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 in Lake County 

APCD, Mariposa County APCD, Mojave 

Desert AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD 

(for Plumas and Sierra counties only), 

and Tuolumne County APCD. 

• Emergency episode planning 

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

respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 

ozone NAAQS in the Mountain 

Counties AQCR (for El Dorado County 

APCD and Placer County APCD only). 

• Emergency episode planning 

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

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

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 

Joaquin Valley AQCR. 

D. Request for Public Comments 

We stand ready to work with ARB and 

the affected air districts to develop SIP 

revisions that would serve to adequately 

address the partial disapprovals of 

California’s Infrastructure SIP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

63362 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Submittals where no FIP is currently in 

place. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document or 

on other relevant matters. We will 

accept comments from the public on 

this proposal for the next 30 days. We 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

IV.A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the E.O. 

IV.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 

proposed 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 proposes to approve 

certain State requirements, and to 

disapprove certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

IV.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 proposed rule, we 

certify that this proposed action will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed partial SIP 

approval and partial SIP disapproval 

under CAA section 110 will not in-andof itself create any new requirements 

but simply proposes to approve certain 

State requirements, and to disapprove 

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. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

IV.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 proposed 

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 proposes to approve certain preexisting requirements, and to 

disapprove 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 

proposed action. 

IV.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 proposes to approve certain 

State requirements, and to disapprove 

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. 

IV.F. Executive Order 13175, 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP on which EPA is 

proposing action would not apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed action. 

IV.G. Executive Order 13045, Protection 

of Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 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 Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 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 proposed partial 

approval and partial disapproval under 

CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

proposes to approve certain State 

requirements, and to disapprove certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

IV.H. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed 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. 

IV.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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 63363 

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. 

The EPA believes that this proposed 

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. 

IV.J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order 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 

proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Approval and promulgation of 

implementation plans, Environmental 

protection, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Pb, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Sulfur dioxide. 

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

Dated: September 30, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

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

[FR Doc. 2014–25278 Filed 10–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 600 

[CMS–2391–PN] 

RIN 0938–ZB18 

Basic Health Program; Federal 

Funding Methodology for Program 

Year 2016 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed methodology. 

SUMMARY: This document provides the 

methodology and data sources necessary 

to determine federal payment amounts 

made in program year 2016 to states that 

elect to establish a Basic Health Program 

under the Affordable Care Act to offer 

health benefits coverage to low-income 

individuals otherwise eligible to 

purchase coverage through Affordable 

Insurance Exchanges. 

DATES: To be assured consideration, 

comments must be received at one of 

the addresses provided below, no later 

than 5 p.m. on November 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, refer to file 

code CMS–2391–PN. Because of staff 

and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (FAX) 

transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (please choose only one of the 

ways listed): 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments on this regulation 

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

the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions. 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments to the following 

address ONLY: 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Attention: CMS–2391– 

PN, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 

21244–8016. 

Please allow sufficient time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

3. By express or overnight mail. You 

may send written comments to the 

following address ONLY: 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Attention: CMS–2391– 

PN, Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 

4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, 

you may deliver (by hand or courier) 

your written ONLY to the following 

addresses: 

a. For delivery in Washington, DC— 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert 

H. Humphrey Building, 200 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. 

(Because access to the interior of the 

Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not 

readily available to persons without 

Federal government identification, 

commenters are encouraged to leave 

their comments in the CMS drop slots 

located in the main lobby of the 

building. A stamp-in clock is available 

for persons wishing to retain a proof of 

filing by stamping in and retaining an 

extra copy of the comments being filed.) 

b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 

If you intend to deliver your 

comments to the Baltimore address, call 

telephone number (410) 786–7195 in 

advance to schedule your arrival with 

one of our staff members. 

Comments erroneously mailed to the 

addresses indicated as appropriate for 

hand or courier delivery may be delayed 

and received after the comment period. 

Submission of comments on 

paperwork requirements. You may 

submit comments on this document’s 

paperwork requirements by following 

the instructions at the end of the 

‘‘Collection of Information 

Requirements’’ section in this 

document. 

For information on viewing public 

comments, see the beginning of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Truffer, (410) 786–1264; 

Stephanie Kaminsky, (410) 786–4653. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Inspection of Public Comments: All 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period are available for 

viewing by the public, including any 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. We post all comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period on the following Web 

site as soon as possible after they have 

been received: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the search 

instructions on that Web site to view 

public comments. 

Comments received timely will also 

be available for public inspection as 

they are received, generally beginning 

approximately 3 weeks after publication 

of a document, at the headquarters of 

the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS