The EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following proposed rule on September 30, 2014, 

and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of 

this Internet version of the rule, it is not the official version of the rule for purposes of compliance. Please refer to the official 

version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office’s FDsys website 

(http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPAR09-OAR-2014-0547. 

1 

Billing Code: 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0547; FRL-_________] 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

2 

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 [Insert date 30 days after publication in 

the Federal Register]. 

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. E-mail: 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 e-mail. 

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 e-mail 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

3 

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 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

4 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

5 

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. 

 

1 For 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. 

2 See, 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)). 

3

 EPA 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

6 

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 

sub-elements 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 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 

 

4 See, 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). 

5 On 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

7 

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 

 

6 For 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

8 

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-to-date 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 

 

7

 EPA 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. 

9

 EPA’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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

9 

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 program to regulate minor 

new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has a SIP-approved minor NSR program and 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

10 

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 re-approval 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 

 

10 By 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

11 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

12 

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 

 

11 For 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. 

12 EPA 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). 

13 See, 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). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

13 

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. 

· 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 three-year submittal 

deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: (i) 

section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs required under part D (nonattainment 

NSR), and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

14 

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 

μg/m3and annual primary and secondary PM2.5 standards of 15 μg/m3.

16

· 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standards to 35 μg/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 μg/m3, 

and retained the 2006 24-hour standards.18

· 2008 Pb NAAQS, which revised the 1978 Pb quarterly average standard of 1.5 μg/m3to a rolling 

3-month average not to exceed 0.15 μg/m3as a rolling 3-month average, and revised the 

secondary standard to 0.15 μg/m3, making it identical to the revised primary standard.19

 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

15 

· 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

 

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. 

22 Memorandum 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. 

23 Memorandum 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. 

24 Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, “Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” 

October 2, 2007. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

16 

· 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 PSD-related 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 Yolo-Solano) 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 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 

 

25 Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, “Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,” September 25, 2009. 

26 Memorandum 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. 

27 Memorandum 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. 

28 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

17 

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 SIP-approved 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

18 

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”). 

 

29 California’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). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

19 

· 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 

 

30 California 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

20 

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 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

21 

· 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. 

 

31 As 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.31 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

22 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

23 

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 threeyear 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 SIPapproved emergency episode rules applicable to 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 

 

32 Note that Metropolitan Los Angeles and Southeast Desert AQCRs comprise multiple districts, each of which have SIPapproved emergency episode rules applicable to ozone. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

24 

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 SIP-approved 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

25 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

26 

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 

μg/m3for emergency episode planning.33 There were two occasions where the concentrations exceeded 

this threshold: 208 μg/m3 on December 1, 2011 at the Keeler-Cerro Gordo Road monitor in Great Basin 

Valley AQCR, and 167 μg/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 μg/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 μg/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 μg/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 μg/m3, with no exceedances of the Priority I threshold of 325 μg/m3 during 

 

332009 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)”). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

27 

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 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). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

28 

· 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 PSD-related 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

29 

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 SIP-approved 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

30 

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 SIP-approved PSD program that, on the whole, addresses all 

regulated NSR pollutants. However, it does not explicitly regulate NOx as an ozone precursor and does 

not include requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, or PSD 

increments for PM2.5. Therefore, we 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 

 

34 The 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

31 

disapprove California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to both of these districts for this specific 

deficiency in the PSD-related 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 SIP-approved 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 – 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

32 

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 

 

35 Note 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). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

33 

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 SIP-approved programs, including the 

following air districts: Antelope Valley, Eastern Kern, Mojave Desert, Placer County, San Diego 

County, and Ventura County (for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS); Sacramento Metro and 

Feather River (for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS); and San Joaquin Valley (for 

the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

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 

 

38 No area of California has been designated nonattainment for the 2010 NO2 or 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

34 

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 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 SIP-approved 

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. 

 

39 78 FR 34178, June 6, 2013. 

40 This 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

35 

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. 

 

41 78 FR 34178, June 6, 2013. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

36 

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, 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

37 

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 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 SIPapproved 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). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

38 

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 

 

42 64 FR 13351, March 18, 1999. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

39 

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)). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

40 

· 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 twoyear 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

41 

· 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 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 (EO) 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

42 

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-and-of 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

43 

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 pre-existing 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

44 

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 No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards 

in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test 

methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

September 30, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

45 

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. 

____________________________ _______________________________ 

Date Jared Blumenfeld 

 Regional Administrator 

 U.S. EPA, Region IX