```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44001-44005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18081]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0257; FRL-9931-04-Region 9]

Approval of Air Plans; California; Multiple Districts; Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing approval of five permitting rules 
submitted for inclusion in the California State Implementation Plan 
(SIP). The State of California (State) is required under the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act) to adopt and implement a SIP-approved Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. This SIP revision 
proposes to incorporate PSD rules for five local California air 
districts into the SIP to establish a PSD permit program for pre-
construction review of certain new and modified major stationary 
sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas. The local air districts 
with PSD rules that are the subject of this proposal are the Feather 
River Air Quality Management District (Feather River or FRAQMD), Great 
Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (Great Basin or GBUAPCD), 
Butte County Air Quality Management District (Butte or BCAQMD), Santa 
Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (Santa Barbara or 
SBAPCD), and San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (San 
Luis Obispo or SLOAPCD)--collectively, the Districts. We are soliciting 
public comment on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action 
after consideration of comments received.

DATES: Any comments must be submitted no later than August 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0257, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
online instructions.
    2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Lisa Beckham (Air-3), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. 
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and the 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 the EPA, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the public comment. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this proposed action is 
available electronically at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0257, and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 
San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed 
in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the 
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be 
publicly available in either location (e.g., 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 below. Due to building security procedures, appointments must 
be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Beckham, Permits Office (AIR-3), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3811, 
beckham.lisa@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Significant impact levels and significant monitoring 
concentrations for PM2.5.
    D. Greenhouse Gases
    E. Transfer of existing permits issued by the EPA
    F. Public comment and proposed action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 44002]]

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 identifies the rules on which we are proposing action along 
with the dates on which each rule was adopted by the local air district 
and submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 
On June 1, 2015, CARB requested the withdrawal from its earlier SIP 
submittals of these local air district rules the portion of each rule 
that incorporates a specific federal PSD rule provision--40 CFR 
52.21(b)(49)(v). As such, our proposed approval of these local air 
district rules does not include the rules' incorporation by reference 
of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                   Rule No.             Rule title            Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRAQMD..............................  10.10               Prevention of                 8/1/2011       4/22/2013
                                                           Significant
                                                           Deterioration.
GBUAPCD.............................  221                 Prevention of                 9/5/2012        2/6/2013
                                                           Significant
                                                           Deterioration (PSD)
                                                           Permit Requirements
                                                           for New Major
                                                           Facilities or Major
                                                           Modifications in
                                                           Attainment or
                                                           Unclassifiable Areas.
BCAQMD..............................  1107                Prevention of                6/28/2012        2/6/2013
                                                           Significant
                                                           Deterioration (PSD)
                                                           Permits.
SBAPCD..............................  810                 Federal Prevention of        6/20/2013       2/10/2014
                                                           Significant
                                                           Deterioration (PSD).
SLOAPCD.............................  220                 Federal Prevention of        1/22/2014       5/13/2014
                                                           Significant
                                                           Deterioration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submitted rules were found to meet the completeness criteria in 
40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal review by 
the EPA.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of the rules in Table 1 in the 
California SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to adopt and submit 
regulations for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the 
primary and secondary NAAQS. Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the Act require such state 
plans to meet the applicable requirements of section 165 relating to a 
pre-construction permit program for the prevention of significant 
deterioration of air quality and visibility protection. The rules 
reviewed for this action are intended to implement a pre-construction 
PSD permit program as required by section 165 of the CAA for certain 
new and modified major stationary sources located in attainment and 
unclassifiable areas. Because the State does not currently have a SIP-
approved PSD program within the Districts, the EPA is currently the PSD 
permitting authority within these Districts. Approval of the Districts' 
PSD rules into the SIP will transfer PSD permitting authority from the 
EPA to the Districts. The EPA would then assume the role of overseeing 
the Districts' PSD permitting programs, as intended by the CAA.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules?

    The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the submitted 
rules include CAA sections 110(a), 110(l), and 165 and part 51, Sec.  
51.166 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 51.166). 
Section 110(a) requires, among other things, that SIP rules be 
enforceable, while section 110(l) precludes the EPA's approval of SIP 
revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirements 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. Section 165 of 
the CAA requires states to adopt a pre-construction permitting program 
for certain new and modified major stationary sources located in 
attainment areas and unclassifiable areas. 40 CFR 51.166 establishes 
the specific requirements for SIP-approved PSD permit programs that 
must be met to satisfy the requirements of section 165 of the CAA.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    With some exclusions and revisions, the Districts' PSD rules 
incorporate by reference the EPA's PSD permit program requirements at 
40 CFR 52.21, as of particular dates. We generally consider the EPA's 
PSD permit program requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 to be consistent with 
the criteria for SIP-approved PSD permit programs in 40 CFR 51.166. 
However, we conducted a review of each District PSD rule to ensure that 
all requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 were met by each such rule. Our 
detailed evaluation is available as an attachment to the technical 
support document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action. We also 
reviewed the revisions that the Districts made to the provisions of 40 
CFR 52.21 that were incorporated by reference into each rule, such as 
revising certain terms and definitions to reflect that the Districts, 
rather than the EPA, will be the PSD permitting authority. In addition, 
we reviewed revisions made to 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 after each 
District adopted its PSD rule. Please see the TSD for additional 
information. Based on our review of these rules, the underlying 
statutes and regulations, and clarifying information that the Districts 
provided in letters dated November 13, 2014, November 25, 2014, 
December 16, 2014, December 18, 2014, April 8, 2015, and April 15, 
2015, we are proposing to find the SIP revision for the Districts' PSD 
rules acceptable under CAA sections 110(a), 110(l) and 165 and 40 CFR 
51.166.
    The EPA's TSD for this rulemaking action has more information about 
these rules, including our evaluation and recommendation to approve 
them into the SIP.

C. Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentrations 
for PM2.5

    On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia (D.C. Circuit or Court) in Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 
granted a request from the EPA to vacate and remand to the EPA the 
portions of two PSD rules (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) 
addressing the significant impact levels (SILs) for PM2.5 so 
that the EPA could voluntarily correct an error in these provisions. 
The D.C. Circuit also vacated the parts of these two PSD rules (40 CFR 
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c)) establishing a 
PM2.5 significant monitoring concentration (SMC), finding 
that the EPA was precluded from using the PM2.5 SMC to 
exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement to compile and 
submit preconstruction monitoring data as part of a complete PSD 
application. On December 9, 2013, revisions to 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 
were published in the Federal Register to remove the affected 
provisions from the PSD regulations, effective as of that date. 78 FR 
73698.

[[Page 44003]]

    As Feather River Rule 10.10 incorporates 40 CFR 52.21 by reference 
as in effect prior to the D.C. Circuit's decision, the rule 
incorporates by reference an earlier version of 40 CFR 52.21 that 
contains the PM2.5 SILs \1\ and SMC provisions that were 
later vacated by the D.C. Circuit and removed from 40 CFR 52.21 by the 
EPA. Accordingly, the EPA requested clarification from Feather River 
concerning its interpretation of Rule 10.10 to the extent that it 
incorporates by reference these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The PSD rules submitted by Great Basin, Butte, and San Luis 
Obispo specifically excluded the PM2.5 SILs from their 
incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.21. Santa Barbara's PSD rule 
incorporated by reference 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect after the 
PM2.5 SILs were vacated by the Court and no longer in 
effect, and thus does not include the PM2.5 SILs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Great Basin Rule 221 and Butte Rule 1107 also incorporate 40 CFR 
52.21 by reference as in effect prior to January 22, 2013. While these 
two District PSD rules specifically exclude the PM2.5 SILs 
provisions that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit, they do contain the 
PM2.5 SMC provisions that were vacated by the Court and 
removed from 40 CFR 52.21 by the EPA.\2\ Accordingly, the EPA requested 
clarification from Great Basin and Butte concerning their 
interpretation of Rules 221 and 1107, respectively, to the extent they 
incorporate by reference these PM2.5 SMC provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ San Luis Obispo's PSD rule specifically revised its rule 
language concerning the PM2.5 SMC to be consistent with 
the Court's decision. Santa Barbara's PSD rule incorporated by 
reference 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect after the PM2.5 SMC 
was vacated by the Court and no longer in effect, and thus does not 
include the PM2.5 SMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the PM2.5 SILs, Feather River Rule 10.10 
incorporates by reference an earlier version of 40 CFR 52.21 that 
contained the PM2.5 SILs provisions that were later vacated 
by the D.C. Circuit and removed from 40 CFR 52.21 by the EPA. 40 CFR 
52.21(k)(1) requires that a source applying for a new PSD permit 
demonstrate that any allowable emission increases from the proposed 
source or modification, in conjunction with all other applicable 
emissions increases or reductions, will not cause or contribute to a 
violation of any NAAQS or any applicable increment. In the preamble to 
the 2010 final rule adding the 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2) provision, the EPA 
advised that, ``notwithstanding the existence of a SIL, permitting 
authorities should determine when it may be appropriate to conclude 
that even a de minimis impact will `cause or contribute' to an air 
quality problem and to seek remedial action from the proposed new 
source or modification.'' Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 
Concentration (SMC), 75 FR 64,864, 64,892 (Oct. 20, 2010). In another 
passage of the preamble, the EPA also observed that ``the use of a SIL 
may not be appropriate when a substantial portion of any NAAQS or 
increment is known to be consumed.'' Id. at 64,894. The D.C. Circuit's 
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA held that, contrary to these statements 
in the preamble, the text of the (k)(2) provision ``does not give 
permitting authorities sufficient discretion to require a cumulative 
air quality analysis'' under such circumstances. 705 F.3d at 464.
    Consistent with the Court's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA and the 
statements by the EPA in the preamble to the 2010 final rule that are 
discussed above, Feather River affirmed in a letter dated December 18, 
2014 that it does not interpret Sec.  52.21(k)(2), as incorporated by 
reference in Rule 10.10, to preclude FRAQMD from exercising discretion 
to determine when it may be appropriate to conclude that an impact 
below the PM2.5 SIL values in Sec.  52.21(k)(2) will cause 
or contribute to an air quality problem and to seek remedial action 
from the proposed new source or modification. Such discretion is 
necessary to ensure adherence to the requirement of the Clean Air Act 
that a PSD project not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS 
or any applicable increment. Based on this interpretation, the District 
affirmed in the December 18, 2014 letter that it will not read Sec.  
52.21(k)(2), as incorporated by reference in District Rule 10.10, as an 
absolute ``safe harbor,'' but will exercise discretion to determine 
whether a particular application of the PM2.5 SIL values is 
appropriate when a substantial portion of the PM2.5 NAAQS or 
increment is known to be consumed. The District confirmed that it 
retains the discretion to require additional information from a permit 
applicant as needed to assure that the source will not cause or 
contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or applicable increment pursuant 
to Sec.  52.21(k)(1).
    As noted above, Feather River Rule 10.10, Great Basin Rule 221, and 
Butte Rule 1107 also incorporated by reference an earlier version of 
the federal regulation at Sec.  52.21(i)(5)(i) that contains the 
PM2.5 SMC, which provides that each District may exempt a 
proposed major stationary source or major modification from the 
requirements of paragraph (m) of this section, with respect to 
monitoring for a particular pollutant, if the emissions increase or net 
emissions increase is below the applicable SMC. Feather River, Butte, 
and Great Basin confirmed in their letters dated December 18, 2014, 
April 8, 2015, and April 15, 2015 that this provision, specifically at 
Sec.  52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), as incorporated into each rule, provides the 
Districts with the discretion to determine whether it is appropriate to 
apply the SMC for PM2.5 to exempt a permit applicant from 
the requirement to compile and submit preconstruction ambient 
monitoring data for PM2.5 as part of a complete PSD 
application. Consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision in Sierra Club 
v. EPA vacating the PM2.5 SMC, the Districts affirmed in 
their letters dated December 18, 2014, April 8, 2015, and April 15, 
2015 that they will not exercise their discretionary authority to use 
the PM2.5 SMC in order to exempt PSD permit applicants from 
the requirement in Clean Air Act section 165(e)(2) that ambient 
monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in applications 
subject to the PSD program for PM2.5. Accordingly, the 
Districts' APCOs will require all applicants requesting a PSD permit 
from the District to submit ambient PM2.5 monitoring data in 
accordance with Clean Air Act requirements when proposed increases of 
direct PM2.5 emissions or any emissions of a 
PM2.5 precursor equal or exceed a significant amount.
    In summary, Feather River has clarified and confirmed that it 
intends to implement its PSD program with respect to the 
PM2.5 SILs consistent with the Sierra Club Court's decision. 
In addition, Feather River, Great Basin, and Butte have clarified and 
confirmed that they intend to implement their PSD programs with respect 
to the PM2.5 SMC consistent with the Sierra Club Court's 
decision. Upon review of the Districts' PSD rules and the 
clarifications provided by the Districts, we find that the PSD SIP 
submittals including the PM2.5 SILs and SMC language are 
approvable and consistent with the Act and the requirements for a PSD 
program.

D. Greenhouse Gases

    The PSD permitting requirements applied to greenhouse gases (GHGs) 
for the first time on January 2, 2011. 75 FR 17004 (Apr. 2, 2010). On 
June 3, 2010, the EPA issued a final rule, known as the Tailoring Rule, 
which phased in permitting requirements for GHG emissions from 
stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs. 
75 FR 31514. Under its understanding of the CAA at the time, the EPA 
believed the Tailoring Rule was

[[Page 44004]]

necessary to avoid a sudden and unmanageable increase in the number of 
sources that would be required to obtain PSD and Title V permits under 
the CAA because the sources emitted GHG emissions over applicable major 
source and major modification thresholds. In Step 1 of the Tailoring 
Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, the EPA limited application of 
PSD requirements to sources of GHG emissions only if the sources were 
subject to PSD ``anyway'' due to their emissions of pollutants other 
than GHGs. These sources are referred to as ``anyway sources.'' In Step 
2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, the EPA applied 
the PSD requirements under the CAA to sources that were then-classified 
as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based solely on their 
potential GHG emissions and to modifications of otherwise major sources 
that required a PSD permit because they increased only GHG emissions 
above applicable levels in the EPA regulations.
    On June 23, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Utility 
Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S. 
Ct. 2427, 189 L. Ed. 2d 372 (2014), holding that the EPA may not treat 
GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source 
is a major source (or a modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD 
permit. The Supreme Court's decision also said that the 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 BACT. The Supreme Court decision 
effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under 
Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ``anyway sources'' and invalidated PSD 
permitting requirements for GHG emissions for Step 2 sources. In 
accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the D.C. 
Circuit issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that 
implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, including 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(49)(v), but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of the 
Tailoring Rule. Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, No. 
09-1322, (D.C. Cir. April 10, 2015) (Amended Judgment).
    In light of the Supreme Court's UARG decision, and consistent with 
the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment, each of the five Districts with 
PSD rules under consideration in this action requested that CARB notify 
the EPA that CARB and the respective Districts would like to withdraw 
from the respective Districts' PSD rule SIP submittals the portion of 
each District PSD rule that incorporates by reference 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(49)(v). CARB sent a letter to the EPA dated June 1, 2015 
making this withdrawal request for the five District PSD submittals. 
These withdrawals were designed to ensure that the EPA can act on the 
District's SIP submittals consistent with the Supreme Court's UARG 
decision concerning Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule and the D.C. 
Circuit's amended judgment.\3\ With this withdrawal request from CARB, 
the EPA's action on these PSD SIP submittals will not include the 
provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) as incorporated by reference into 
the five PSD rules. This approach will ensure that the EPA's action is 
consistent with the Supreme Court's UARG decision and the D.C. Circuit 
Court's April 10, 2015 amended judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See letter to EPA dated June 1, 2015 from Richard Corey, 
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA intends to revise the PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 
51.166 as a result of the UARG decision and the D.C. Circuit's amended 
judgment. However, in the meantime, the EPA and the states will need to 
ensure that ``anyway'' sources obtain PSD permits meeting the 
requirements of the CAA. The CAA continues to require that PSD permits 
issued to ``anyway sources'' satisfy the BACT requirement for GHGs. 
Based on the language that remains applicable under 52.21(b)(49)(iv), 
the EPA will continue to limit the application of BACT to GHG emissions 
to those circumstances where a source emits GHGs in the amount of 
75,000 tons per year on a CO2e basis. The EPA's intention is 
for this to serve as an interim approach until the EPA can complete 
revisions to its PSD rules consistent with the Supreme Court decision. 
Each of the five Districts has confirmed that it intends to apply 40 
CFR 52.21 as incorporated by reference into its PSD rule in a manner 
consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the Supreme Court's UARG 
decision and the EPA guidance and policy with respect to application of 
section 52.21 while revisions to the PSD regulations are pending.\4\ 
Although the Districts provided this information to the EPA prior to 
the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment vacating the relevant rule 
provisions, this confirmation is consistent with that amended judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See letters dated November 13, 2014 from Butte, November 13, 
2014 from Great Basin, November 25, 2014 from Santa Barbara, 
December 16, 2014 from San Luis Obispo, and December 18, 2014 from 
Feather River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Transfer of existing permits issued by the EPA

    With the exception of San Luis Obispo, the Districts requested 
approval to exercise their authority to administer the PSD program with 
respect to those sources located in the Districts that have existing 
PSD permits issued by the EPA or by the Districts as part of a 
delegation agreement under 40 CFR 52.21(u).\5\ This would include 
authority to conduct general administration of these existing permits, 
authority to process and issue any and all subsequent PSD permit 
actions relating to such permits (e.g., modifications, amendments, or 
revisions of any nature), and authority to enforce such permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ There are no such active permits in San Luis Obispo, thus 
San Luis Obispo is not requesting such approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act, the SIP 
submittals and additional information provided by the Districts make 
clear that each District has the authority under State statute and rule 
to administer the PSD permit program, including but not limited to the 
authority to administer, process and issue any and all permit 
decisions, and enforce PSD permit requirements within each District. 
This applies to PSD permits that the Districts will issue and to 
existing PSD permits issued by the EPA that are to be transferred to 
the Districts upon the effective date of the EPA's approval of the PSD 
SIP submittals.

F. Public comment and proposed action

    Because the EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant 
CAA requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as a revision 
to the California SIP pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 
Specifically, we are proposing to approve the rules listed in Table 1, 
except for Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule found at 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(49)(v) as incorporated by reference into each rule, which was 
subsequently withdrawn from CARB's request for SIP approval. Our 
determination is based, in part, on the clarifications provided by the 
Districts related to the implementation of the PSD program, including 
the clarifications related to PM2.5 SILs and SMC, in letters 
dated November 13, 2014, November 25, 2014, December 16, 2014, December 
18, 2014, April 8, 2015, and April 15, 2015. We intend to include these 
clarification letters as additional material in the SIP.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until 
August 24, 2015.

[[Page 44005]]

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the rules listed in Table 1 of this preamble, except for the 
portion of each rule that incorporates Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule 
at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v). The EPA has made, and will continue to make, 
these documents generally available electronically through 
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate office of 
the EPA (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more 
information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, 
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements 
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 7, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-18081 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```