Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 31263 

1See 62 FR 38856. The level of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is 0.08 parts per million (ppm). 40 

CFR part 50.10. The 8-hour ozone standard is met 

when the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest 

daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations is 0.08 

ppm or less (i.e., less than 0.085 ppm based on the 

rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix 

I). This 3-year average is referred to as the ‘‘design 

value.’’ 

(f) of this section. A parent or a person 

standing in place of a parent must sign 

the application for a child who is not 

yet 18 years old, except as shown in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(f) An acceptable signature may 

include: 

(1) A handwritten signature that 

complies with the rules set out in 

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this 

section; or 

(2) In the case of an application being 

taken and processed in the Railroad 

Retirement Board’s automated claims 

system, an electronic signature, which 

shall consist of a personal identification 

number (PIN) assigned by the Railroad 

Retirement Board as described in the 

application instructions; or 

(3) An alternative signature or 

signature proxy acceptable to the 

Railroad Retirement Board. An example 

of an alternative signature is attestation, 

which refers to the action taken by a 

Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) 

employee of confirming and annotating 

RRB records of the applicant’s intent to 

file or complete an application or 

related form, the applicant’s affirmation 

under penalty of perjury that the 

information provided is correct, and the 

applicant’s agreement to sign the 

application or related form. 

* * * * * 

Dated: May 20, 2011. 

By Authority of the Board. 

Steven A. Bartholow, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13056 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0211; FRL–9312–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

California; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution; Interference With Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration 

Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

State Implementation Plan (‘‘SIP’’) 

revision submitted by the State of 

California on November 17, 2007, for 

the purpose of addressing the ‘‘transport 

SIP’’ provisions of Clean Air Act 

(‘‘CAA’’) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or 

standards) and the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (‘‘PM2.5’’) NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that 

each SIP contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit emissions that adversely affect 

air quality in other States through 

interstate transport. EPA is proposing a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of California’s SIP revision 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that each SIP contain 

adequate measures prohibiting 

emissions of air pollutants in amounts 

which will interfere with other States’ 

measures required under title I, part C 

of the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to approve California’s 

SIP revision with respect to those 

Districts in California that implement 

SIP-approved permit programs meeting 

the approval criteria under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), as discussed in this 

proposal. EPA is simultaneously 

proposing to disapprove California’s SIP 

revision with respect to those Districts 

in California that do not implement SIPapproved permit programs meeting 

these approval criteria. For any District 

for which we finalize a disapproval, 

EPA intends to simultaneously 

promulgate a limited Federal 

Implementation Plan (‘‘FIP’’), as 

discussed in this proposal, unless the 

relevant area is already subject to a FIP. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2011–0211, 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. Fax: 415–947–3579. 

4. 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 the 

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: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3227, 

mays.rory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

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

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What is the State process to submit these 

materials to EPA? 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the State’s 

submission? 

A. Evaluation of Measures To Prevent 

Significant Deterioration for 1997 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

B. Evaluation of Measures To Prevent 

Significant Deterioration for 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS 

C. Evaluation of Measures To Prevent 

Significant Deterioration for Greenhouse 

Gases 

D. Conclusion Regarding Measures To 

Prevent Significant Deterioration 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new standards for 8-hour ozone 1 and 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
31264 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2See 62 FR 38652. The level of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS are 15.0 μg/m3 (annual arithmetic mean 

concentration) and 65 μg/m3 (24-hour average 

concentration). 40 CFR part 50.7. The annual 

standard is met when the 3-year average of the 

annual mean concentrations is 15.0 μg/m3 or less 

(i.e., less than 15.05 μg/m3 based on the rounding 

convention in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N Section 

4.3). The 24-hour standard is met when the 3-year 

average annual 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations is 65 μg/m3 or less (i.e., less than 

65.5 μg/m3 based on the rounding convention in 40 

CFR part 40 Appendix N Section 4.3). Id. These 

3-year averages are referred to as the annual PM2.5

and 24-hour PM2.5 ‘‘design values,’’ respectively. 

3Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

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. 

4 Id. at 6. 

5For explanation of the GHG PSD permitting 

requirements, see ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010); 

‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call; 

Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010); 

‘‘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). 

6See transmittal letter dated November 16, 2007, 

from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, 

to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, with enclosures, and CARB Resolution 

No. 07–28 (September 27, 2007). 

7 See ‘‘Technical and Clarifying Modifications to 

April 26, 2007 Revised Draft Air Resources Board’s 

Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan and May 7, 2007 Revised Draft 

Appendices A through G,’’ included as Attachment 

A to CARB’s Board Resolution 07–28 (September 

27, 2007). 

fine particulate matter 2 (‘‘PM2.5’’). This 

proposed action is in response to the 

promulgation of these standards (the 

‘‘1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS’’ and 

‘‘1997 PM2.5 NAAQS’’). This proposed 

action does not address the 

requirements of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

or the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; those 

standards will be addressed in future 

actions. 

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

states to submit SIPs to address a new 

or revised NAAQS within three years 

after promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

elements that such new SIPs must 

address, as applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) which pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

The transport SIP provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions) require each State 

to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions 

that adversely affect another State in the 

ways contemplated in the statute. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four 

distinct elements related to the 

evaluation of impacts of interstate 

transport of air pollutants. In this 

rulemaking EPA is addressing the third 

element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which 

requires that each SIP contain adequate 

measures to prohibit emissions of air 

pollutants from sources within the State 

in amounts that will interfere with any 

other State’s measures required under 

title I, part C of the CAA to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality. 

We refer to this requirement as ‘‘element 

(3)’’ of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued 

guidance (herein ‘‘2006 Guidance’’) to 

assist States and EPA Regional offices in 

developing and evaluating, respectively, 

transport SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS.3 As to element (3) of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the 2006 

Guidance states that this requirement 

may be met by the State’s confirmation 

in a SIP submission that major sources 

and major modifications in the State are 

subject to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (‘‘PSD’’) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(‘‘NNSR’’) programs that implement 

current requirements.4

The PSD and NNSR 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). 42 U.S.C. 

7475(a)(3); 40 CFR 51.166(k). An NNSR 

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. 42 U.S.C. 7503(a)(1); 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(3). 

Because the PSD and NNSR 

permitting programs require a 

demonstration that new or modified 

sources will not cause or contribute to 

air pollution in excess of the NAAQS in 

neighboring States or that sources in 

nonattainment areas procure offsets, 

States may satisfy the requirement of 

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

measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality by 

submitting SIPs confirming that major 

sources and major modifications in the 

State are subject to PSD and NNSR 

programs that implement current 

requirements. 

As such, we have evaluated 

California’s PSD and NNSR 

preconstruction permitting programs to 

determine whether these programs 

implement the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, because 

stationary sources of greenhouse gas 

(‘‘GHG’’) emissions at or above certain 

thresholds are now subject to PSD 

permitting requirements, we have 

evaluated California’s PSD programs for 

compliance with the requirements for 

GHG PSD authorities.5 Our evaluation is 

summarized below (see section III of 

this proposed rule) and described in 

more detail in the technical support 

document (‘‘TSD’’) for this proposed 

rule, which is available in the docket for 

this action. 

II. What is the State process to submit 

these materials to EPA? 

CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) 

require that revisions to a SIP be 

adopted by the State after reasonable 

notice and public hearing. EPA has 

promulgated specific procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions in 40 

CFR part 51, subpart F. These 

requirements include publication of 

notices, by prominent advertisement in 

the relevant geographic area, of a public 

hearing on the proposed revisions, a 

public comment period of at least 30 

days, and an opportunity for a public 

hearing. 

On November 16, 2007, the California 

Air Resources Board (‘‘CARB’’) 

submitted the State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS (‘‘2007 State Strategy’’).6

Appendix C of the 2007 State Strategy, 

as modified by Attachment A,7 contains 

California’s SIP revision to address the 

transport SIP requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS (‘‘2007 

Transport SIP’’). CARB’s November 16, 

2007 submittal includes public process 

documentation for the 2007 State 

Strategy, including the 2007 Transport 

SIP. In addition, the SIP revision 

includes documentation of a duly 

noticed public hearing held on 

September 27, 2007 on the proposed 

2007 State Strategy. 

We find that the process followed by 

CARB in adopting the 2007 Transport 

SIP complies with the procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions under 

CAA section 110 and EPA’s 

implementing regulations. 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 31265 

8See 2007 Transport SIP, Attachment A of 2007 

State Strategy at 21–22 (modifying Appendix C of 

2007 State Strategy). 9Although EPA’s air quality designations for 

California in 40 CFR 81.305 are defined by planning 

areas, we discuss the relevant PSD and NNSR 

program requirements as they apply to the local 

permitting agencies that implement these 

requirements in each planning area. We use the 

term ‘‘District’’ throughout this document to refer 

both to the local agency responsible for issuing 

PSD/NNSR permits and to the geographic area over 

which that agency has jurisdiction. 

10California’s SIP obligations under the CAA do 

not apply in Indian country. 

11 In this action, we are evaluating the NNSR 

programs for these Districts in accordance with the 

requirements for ‘‘serious’’ ozone nonattainment 

areas. We note, however, that EPA reclassified the 

Sacramento Metro area as a ‘‘severe-15’’ 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, effective June 4, 2010. 75 FR 24409 (May 

5, 2010). 

12These proposals address the NNSR 

requirements for ‘‘severe’’ ozone nonattainment 

areas, which each of these Districts has submitted 

in advance of the June 4, 2011 submittal deadline 

established as part of EPA’s action to reclassify the 

Sacramento Metro area from serious to severe-15 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. See 

75 FR 24409. 

13See WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA (Case No. 

4:09–CV–02453–CW), Consent Decree dated 

November 10, 2009, as amended by Notice of 

Stipulated Extensions to Consent Decree Deadlines, 

dated April 28, 2011. 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

State’s submission? 

California’s 2007 Transport SIP states 

that all areas of California are subject to 

some form of preconstruction permitting 

program for ozone and PM2.5 and that 

‘‘[t]hese rules are as stringent, or more 

stringent, than the federal 

preconstruction programs (PSD and 

NNSR).’’ 8 The submittal also states that 

California is on track to submit SIP 

revisions to meet the PSD and NNSR 

requirements of the Phase 2 

Implementation Rule for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 71612, 

November 29, 2005) (‘‘Phase 2 Rule’’) 

and is implementing preconstruction 

programs for PM2.5 in accordance with 

EPA’s October 23, 1997 guidance 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Interim 

Implementation of New Source Review 

Requirements for PM2.5’’ (‘‘PM10

Surrogate Policy’’). Finally, the 

submittal includes a list of local air 

districts that implement the PSD and 

NNSR programs throughout the State. In 

sum, the 2007 Transport SIP asserts that 

California’s existing PSD and NNSR 

programs contain adequate measures to 

prohibit emissions of air pollutants 

which will interfere with any other 

State’s required measures under title I, 

part C of the CAA, to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality, for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The 2007 Transport SIP provides little 

information to support the State’s 

assertions regarding the adequacy of its 

existing PSD and NNSR permit 

programs. Furthermore, the 2007 

Transport SIP relied solely on EPA’s 

2006 Guidance and, therefore, did not 

fully address certain implementation 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS that are now relevant 

to our evaluation, as discussed further 

below and in our TSD. We have, 

therefore, conducted an independent 

evaluation of California’s PSD and 

NNSR programs in relation to specific 

implementation provisions for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS that are 

necessary for approval of the 2007 

Transport SIP. We conducted this 

evaluation for each of the 35 permitting 

authorities (‘‘Districts’’) 9 in California, 

which cover the entire geographic 

extent of the State excluding Indian 

country.10 The details of our evaluation 

are provided in the TSD for this 

proposed rule. 

A. Evaluation of Measures To Prevent 

Significant Deterioration for 1997 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Fifteen air quality planning areas in 

California are designated nonattainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 

40 CFR 81.305. Twenty Districts 

implement preconstruction permit 

programs in these 15 nonattainment 

areas. See TSD at 9–12. Thirteen air 

quality planning areas in California are 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 40 

CFR 81.305. Twenty-three Districts 

implement preconstruction permit 

programs in these 13 unclassifiable/ 

attainment areas. See TSD at 12, 13. 

1. 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas 

The Phase 2 Rule requires specific 

revisions to States’ NNSR SIPs to 

implement the requirements of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990, as applicable 

based on each area’s classification for 

the 8-hour ozone standard. See 70 FR 

71612 at 71675, 71698–71699. 

Specifically, the Phase 2 Rule requires 

that NNSR SIPs apply all NNSR 

requirements for major sources of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to 

major sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

as well, except where a NOX waiver 

applies under section 182(f) of the Act. 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(8). In addition, NNSR 

SIPs must include provisions 

establishing the applicable major 

stationary source thresholds, significant 

emissions rates, and offset ratios for 

VOCs and NOX based on each area’s 

classification for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv), 

(a)(1)(v), (a)(1)(x), (a)(8), (a)(9). These 

SIP revisions were due June 15, 2007. 70 

FR at 71683. 

Among the 20 Districts that are 

entirely or partially designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, 12 Districts have 

nonattainment areas classified under 

subpart 2 of part D, title I of the CAA. 

The remaining eight Districts and a 

portion of a ninth District cover areas 

now referred to as ‘‘former subpart 1’’ 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305; 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 

2006) (vacating certain elements of 

EPA’s Phase 1 ozone implementation 

rule), reh’g denied 489 F.3d 1245. 

For the 12 Districts covering subpart 

2 nonattainment areas, EPA has 

reviewed the SIP-approved NNSR rules 

and determined that all but three of 

these SIP programs meet the approval 

criteria discussed above. See TSD at 9– 

11. The three Districts in which the SIPapproved NNSR programs do not 

currently satisfy these program 

requirements are the Feather River Air 

Quality Management District (‘‘AQMD’’), 

Placer County Air Pollution Control 

District (‘‘APCD’’), and Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD. These three 

agencies implement permit programs in 

the Sacramento Metro ozone 

nonattainment area, which was initially 

designated and classified as serious 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 

2004).11

In separate actions, EPA has proposed 

to approve NNSR SIP revisions 

submitted by the Placer County APCD 

(‘‘Placer’’), Feather River AQMD 

(‘‘Feather River’’), and Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD (‘‘Sacramento’’) to 

meet the approval criteria discussed 

above.12 See 76 FR 28944 (May 19, 2011) 

and 76 FR 28942 (May 19, 2011). We 

propose to determine that final approval 

of the required NNSR SIP revisions will 

address element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for these Districts. 

Alternatively, for any of these Districts 

for which we cannot finalize approval of 

the required NNSR provisions by our 

July 10, 2011 Consent Decree deadline 13

for final action on element (3) of the 

2007 Transport SIP, we propose to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP and 

to promulgate a limited NNSR FIP (for 

the relevant District) based on 

Sacramento’s Rule 202 and the 

provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

S identifying the major source 

threshold, significant emissions rate, 

and offset ratio applicable to the area’s 

8-hour ozone classification. EPA would 

retain authority to implement these 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
31266 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

requirements for NOX and VOC 

emission sources in the relevant 

Districts (unless and until EPA delegates 

such authority to the District), while the 

District would retain authority to 

continue implementing any existing 

SIP-approved NNSR requirements. Our 

TSD describes the limited FIPs that we 

propose to promulgate for any District 

for which we cannot finalize approval of 

the required NNSR SIP revisions by July 

10, 2011. See TSD at 10, 11. 

For the nine Districts covering 

‘‘former subpart 1’’ nonattainment areas, 

we have reviewed the existing SIPs and 

determined that two of the SIPapproved NNSR programs in these areas 

(for Eastern Kern APCD and San Diego 

County APCD) implement the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. We propose to 

determine that the existing NNSR 

programs for these two former subpart 1 

areas are, therefore, adequate to address 

element (3) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 

this standard. See TSD at 11. 

The remaining seven Districts, which 

cover five former subpart 1 areas 

(Central Mountain Counties, Chico, 

Southern Mountain Counties, Sutter 

Buttes, and Western Nevada County), 

are currently subject to the NNSR 

permitting requirements in The 

Interpretative Rule (40 CFR part 51 

Appendix S), except that the waiver 

provisions in section VI of 40 CFR part 

51 Appendix S no longer apply. See 

Phase 2 Rule, 75 FR 71612 (November 

29, 2005) and NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 

1245 (DC Cir. 2009) (vacating EPA’s 

elimination of the 18-month limitation 

in 40 CFR part 52.24(k) with respect to 

the waiver provisions in section VI of 40 

CFR part 51 Appendix S). See TSD at 

11, 12. The California SIP remains 

deficient for purposes of 8-hour ozone 

NNSR requirements in these five former 

subpart 1 areas that do not yet have 

approved NNSR programs under part D, 

title I of the Act. Thus, we propose to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP with 

respect to element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the seven Districts covering 

these five former subpart 1 areas. 

As discussed above, however, all of 

these areas are currently subject to 

NNSR permitting requirements under 

The Interpretative Rule in 40 CFR part 

51, Appendix S, except for the waiver 

provisions in section VI. These 

permitting provisions will continue to 

apply in these areas until the State 

submits and EPA approves NNSR SIP 

revisions addressing the subpart 2 

NNSR requirements that will apply 

following EPA’s classification of each 

area under subpart 2. See 74 FR 2936 

(January 16, 2009) (proposing to require 

States to submit all required SIP 

elements for the areas’ subpart 2 

classifications one year after the 

effective date of a final rule classifying 

the areas). We propose to determine that 

implementation of The Interpretative 

Rule during this interim period 

adequately addresses the requirements 

of element (3) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

in these areas and that this discharges 

EPA’s obligation to promulgate a FIP for 

these limited purposes. This proposal 

applies only to our FIP obligation in this 

particular circumstance and should not 

be construed as an interpretation of our 

obligations in other nonattainment areas 

where The Interpretative Rule currently 

applies under 40 CFR 52.24(k). See TSD 

at 12. 

2. 8-Hour Ozone Unclassifiable/ 

Attainment Areas 

For areas designated unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the Phase 2 Rule requires 

revisions to PSD SIPs to require explicit 

identification of NOX as an ozone 

precursor. 70 FR 71612 at 71679, 

71699–71700; 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii), 

(b)(2)(ii), (b)(23)(i), (b)(49)(i). These SIP 

revisions were due June 15, 2007. 70 FR 

at 71683. In areas subject to the Federal 

PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, EPA’s 

revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 (including 

regulation of NOX as an ozone 

precursor) became effective January 30, 

2006. 70 FR 71612 at 71683. 

Fifteen Districts and portions of eight 

additional Districts in California are 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. All but 

four of these Districts are currently 

subject to the Federal PSD program in 

40 CFR 52.21. 40 CFR 52.270. The 

California SIP remains deficient for 

purposes of 8-hour ozone PSD 

requirements in those areas subject to 

the Federal PSD program. Because EPA 

has already promulgated a PSD FIP for 

these areas, however, no further action 

is required to address element (3) of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas. 

We reviewed the PSD rules for the 

four Districts with SIP-approved 

programs for ozone (Mendocino County 

AQMD (‘‘Mendocino’’), Monterey Bay 

Unified APCD (‘‘Monterey’’), North 

Coast Unified AQMD (‘‘North Coast’’), 

and Northern Sonoma County APCD 

(‘‘Northern Sonoma’’)). Of these, only 

Monterey’s existing SIP PSD program 

identifies NOX as an ozone precursor. 

We propose to approve the 2007 

Transport SIP with respect to element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

Monterey. See TSD at 12, 13. 

The SIP-approved PSD programs for 

the other three Districts (Mendocino, 

North Coast, and Northern Sonoma) do 

not currently identify NOX as an ozone 

precursor. However, by direct final rule 

on May 6, 2011, EPA approved PSD SIP 

revisions submitted by Mendocino and 

Northern Sonoma to explicitly identify 

NOX as an ozone precursor. See 76 FR 

26192 and 76 FR 26224 (May 6, 2011). 

We propose to determine that these PSD 

SIP revisions satisfy the requirements of 

element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in these Districts. If, however, 

either of these approvals is withdrawn 

and does not become effective by our 

July 10, 2011 Consent Decree deadline 

for final action on element (3) of the 

2007 Transport SIP, we propose to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP for 

the relevant area and to promulgate a 

limited PSD FIP based on the provisions 

of 40 CFR 52.21 identifying NOX as an 

ozone precursor. EPA would retain 

authority to implement the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 for NOX

emission sources in the relevant area 

(unless and until EPA delegates such 

authority to the District), while the 

District would retain authority to 

continue implementing any existing 

SIP-approved PSD requirements. See 

TSD at 13. 

Finally, although North Coast has also 

submitted PSD SIP revisions to address 

this requirement, among others, we are 

proposing to disapprove the 2007 

Transport SIP with respect to element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to 

promulgate a limited PSD FIP for North 

Coast because we do not expect to 

finalize approval of that PSD submittal 

by our July 10, 2011 Consent Decree 

deadline for final action on element (3) 

of the 2007 Transport SIP. Thus, for 

North Coast, we are proposing to 

promulgate a limited PSD FIP based on 

the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 

regulating NOX as an ozone precursor. 

EPA would retain authority to 

implement the applicable requirements 

of 40 CFR 52.21 for NOX emission 

sources in North Coast (unless and until 

EPA delegates such authority to the 

District), while the District would retain 

authority to continue implementing any 

existing SIP-approved PSD 

requirements. See TSD at 13. This 

limited FIP would apply only until EPA 

approves a PSD SIP revision for North 

Coast addressing this requirement. 

B. Evaluation of Measures To Prevent 

Significant Deterioration for 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS 

Two air quality planning areas in 

California (the San Joaquin Valley and 

the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin) 

are designated nonattainment for the 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 31267 

14Note that for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, the waiver provisions in section VI of 40 

CFR part 51 Appendix S expired in October 2006, 

i.e., 18 months after the April 2005 effective date 

of each area’s designation as nonattainment for this 

standard. See Phase 2 Rule, 75 FR 71612 (November 

29, 2005) and NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245 (DC 

Cir. 2009) (vacating EPA’s elimination of the 18- 

month limitation in 40 CFR 52.24(k) with respect 

to the waiver provisions in section VI of 40 CFR 

part 51 Appendix S). 

15See Policy Memorandum Dated October 27, 

2009, ‘‘San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD: Interim 

New Source Review Requirements for PM2.5’’; email dated September 4, 2010, from Mohsen 

Nazemi, South Coast AQMD to Gerardo Rios, U.S. 

EPA Region 9, ‘‘Appendix S Implementation of NSR 

for PM2.5.’’ 

16See letter dated April 21, 2011, from 

Christopher D. Brown, APCO, Mendocino County 

AQMD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, re: 

‘‘Clarification of the 2007 Transport SIP as it relates 

to the PSD Program in Mendocino County’’; letter 

dated May 5, 2011, from Barbara A. Lee, Northern 

Sonoma APCD, to Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, re: 

‘‘Clarification of the CA Transport SIP submittal’’; 

letter dated May 9, 2011, from Richard Martin, 

APCO, North Coast Unified AQMD, to Gerardo 

Rios, EPA Region 9. 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. 

Two Districts (San Joaquin Valley APCD 

and South Coast AQMD) implement 

preconstruction permit programs in 

these two nonattainment areas. See TSD 

at 13, 14. Twenty-five air quality 

planning areas that cover the rest of the 

State are designated unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See 40 CFR 81.305. Thirty-four Districts 

implement preconstruction permit 

programs in these 25 unclassifiable/ 

attainment areas. See TSD at 14, 15. 

1. PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas 

For areas designated nonattainment 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the NSR 

Implementation Rule for PM2.5, 73 FR 

28321 (May 16, 2008) (‘‘PM2.5 NSR 

Rule’’), establishes new requirements 

under 40 CFR part 51.165 for States to 

include in their SIP-approved NNSR 

programs to address the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

These NNSR SIP revisions were due 

May 16, 2011. See 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 

2008). Under 40 CFR part 52.24(k), 

during the period of time allowed for 

States to amend their existing NNSR 

programs to address the new PM2.5

requirements, States are allowed to rely 

on the procedures under 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix S (‘‘The Interpretative Rule’’) 

to issue permits to new or modified 

major stationary sources proposing to 

locate in a PM2.5 nonattainment area.14

Both the San Joaquin Valley APCD and 

South Coast AQMD have confirmed to 

EPA that they are implementing and 

will continue to implement the 

requirements of The Interpretative Rule 

to any prospective project that triggers 

PM2.5 NSR requirements during this 

interim period.15 Thus, with respect to 

element (3) of CAA section 

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

NAAQS, we propose to approve the 

2007 Transport SIP for the San Joaquin 

Valley and the Los Angeles-South Coast 

Air Basin based on a determination that 

current implementation of The 

Interpretative Rule in these areas 

adequately addresses the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. See TSD at 13, 14. 

2. PM2.5 Unclassifiable/Attainment 

Areas 

For areas designated unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the PM2.5 NSR Rule establishes new PSD 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.166 for 

SIP-approved PSD programs to 

implement the new PM2.5 requirements. 

These SIP revisions were due May 16, 

2011. 73 FR 28321 at 28341 (May 16, 

2008). In areas subject to the Federal 

PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, the PM2.5

requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 became 

effective July 15, 2008. 73 FR at 28340, 

28343. 

Thirty-four Districts implement 

preconstruction permit programs in the 

25 air quality planning areas designated 

as unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In all but five of these 

Districts, the Federal PSD program in 40 

CFR 52.21 applies. 40 CFR 52.270. 

Under the PM2.5 NSR Rule, the PM2.5

requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 became 

applicable in these 29 Districts as of July 

15, 2008, including regulation of SO2

and NOX as precursors. See 73 FR at 

28340, 28343 (May 16, 2008). Because 

the California SIP remains deficient 

with respect to PSD requirements in 

these areas generally, we propose to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP with 

respect to element (3) of CAA section 

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

NAAQS for these areas. Because EPA 

has already promulgated a PSD FIP for 

these areas, however, no further action 

is required to address element (3) of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in these areas. 

The remaining five Districts 

(Mendocino, Monterey, North Coast, 

Northern Sonoma, and Sacramento) 

have SIP-approved PSD programs. We 

have reviewed the PSD rules for each of 

these Districts and determined that all 

five of these SIP PSD programs require 

owners and operators of sources and 

permitting authorities to conduct 

permit-related PM2.5 analyses. We 

propose to approve the 2007 Transport 

SIP with respect to element (3) of CAA 

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

NAAQS for these areas based on a 

determination that these five SIPapproved PSD programs implement the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See TSD at 14, 15. 

C. Evaluation of Measures To Prevent 

Significant Deterioration for Greenhouse 

Gases 

Three Districts (Mendocino, North 

Coast, and Northern Sonoma) were 

subject to EPA’s recently promulgated 

rule, Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas 

Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans (‘‘PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule’’) (75 FR 82536, Dec. 

30, 2010). In the PSD SIP Narrowing 

Rule, EPA withdrew its previous 

approval of California’s PSD programs 

for these three Districts to the extent 

that the programs applied PSD permit 

requirements to GHG emissions 

increases from GHG-emitting sources 

below the thresholds set in EPA’s June 

3, 2010 Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule (‘‘Tailoring Rule’’) 

(75 FR 31514). California’s 2007 

Transport SIP relies, in part, on the PSD 

programs for Mendocino, North Coast, 

and Northern Sonoma as of November 

2007—which was before December 30, 

2010, the effective date of the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule—to satisfy element (3) 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). On April 

21, May 5, and May 9 of 2011, 

respectively, Mendocino, Northern 

Sonoma, and North Coast each 

submitted letters clarifying that the 2007 

Transport SIP should be read with 

respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

to reflect each of their PSD programs as 

they are currently Federally approved as 

a result of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 

75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30, 2010).16 EPA 

proposes, therefore, to fully approve the 

2007 Transport SIP for Mendocino, 

North Coast, and Northern Sonoma with 

respect to element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

In addition, Monterey has confirmed 

that its SIP provides GHG PSD 

permitting authority at thresholds 

consistent with the Tailoring Rule. See 

Monterey Bay Unified APCD, Rule 207 

(as approved February 4, 2000, 65 FR 

5433); see also letter dated July 28, 

2010, from Richard Stedman, Monterey 

Bay Unified APCD to Jared Blumenfeld, 

EPA Region 9, re: ‘‘Implementation of 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.’’ We 

propose, therefore, to fully approve the 

2007 Transport SIP for Monterey with 

respect to element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Finally, Sacramento was subject to 

EPA’s recently promulgated rule, 

Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and 

SIP Call (‘‘PSD GHG SIP Call’’) (75 FR 

77698, Dec. 13, 2010). In the PSD GHG 

SIP Call, EPA determined that 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
31268 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

17Antelope Valley AQMD, Bay Area AQMD, El 

Dorado APCD, Imperial County APCD, Mojave 

Desert AQMD, San Joaquin Valley APCD, South 

Coast District, Ventura County APCD, and YoloSolano AQMD. 

18Placer County APCD, Feather River AQMD, and 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD. 

19Eastern Kern APCD and San Diego County 

APCD. 

20Amador County APCD, Butte County AQMD, 

Calaveras County APCD, Feather River AQMD, 

Northern Sierra AQMD, Mariposa County APCD, 

and Tuolumne County APCD. 

21Mendocino County AQMD and Northern 

Sonoma County APCD. 

22San Joaquin Valley APCD and South Coast 

AQMD (excluding Coachella Valley part). 

23Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay 

Unified AQMD, North Coast Unified AQMD, 

Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD. 

24Mendocino County AQMD, Monterey Bay 

Unified AQMD, and North Coast Unified AQMD. 

Sacramento’s PSD program was 

substantially inadequate because it did 

not apply to GHG-emitting sources, and 

established a deadline of January 31, 

2011, for Sacramento to submit its 

corrective SIP revision. Sacramento 

submitted the corrective SIP revision on 

January 28, 2011, and in a separate 

action EPA has proposed to approve 

that SIP revision. See 76 FR 28942 (May 

19, 2011). We propose, therefore, to 

fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP for 

Sacramento with respect to element (3) 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) if 

Sacramento’s corrective SIP revision to 

address GHG permitting requirements 

receives final EPA approval. 

All other areas in California are 

subject to current Federal PSD 

requirements for GHG emissions in 40 

CFR 52.21. Because the California SIP 

remains deficient for purposes of GHG 

PSD requirements in these areas, we 

propose to disapprove the 2007 

Transport SIP with respect to element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 

these areas. Because these areas are 

already subject to the Federal PSD 

program, however, we propose to 

determine that no further action is 

required to address element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in these areas. See 

TSD at 15, 16. 

D. Conclusion Regarding Measures To 

Prevent Significant Deterioration 

Based on our review of the NNSR and 

PSD programs that currently apply in 

each of California’s 35 Districts, we 

propose a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the 2007 Transport SIP 

with respect to the requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to prohibit 

emissions of air pollutants which will 

interfere with other States’ required 

measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Specifically, we propose the following 

actions with respect to element (3) of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. For nine 

Districts 17 that are designated 

nonattainment and classified under 

subpart 2 of part D, title I of the CAA 

and that have SIP-approved NNSR 

programs meeting the approval criteria 

discussed above, we propose to approve 

the 2007 Transport SIP. For three 

Districts 18 with nonattainment areas 

classified under subpart 2 for which 

NNSR SIP revisions are necessary to 

meet the approval criteria discussed 

above, we propose to approve the 2007 

Transport SIP if we finalize approval of 

the required NNSR SIP revisions by our 

July 10, 2011 deadline for final action 

on element (3) of the 2007 Transport 

SIP. Alternatively, for any of these 

Districts for which we cannot approve 

the required NNSR SIP revision by our 

July 10, 2011 deadline, we propose to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP with 

respect to element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and to promulgate a limited 

NNSR FIP addressing the relevant 

requirements. 

For two Districts 19 with ‘‘former 

subpart 1’’ nonattainment areas that 

implement SIP-approved NNSR 

programs meeting the approval criteria 

discussed above, we propose to approve 

the 2007 Transport SIP. For seven 

Districts 20 with ‘‘former subpart 1’’ 

nonattainment areas that do not yet 

have SIP-approved NNSR programs, we 

propose to disapprove the 2007 

Transport SIP but to determine that 

implementation of The Interpretative 

Rule during this interim period pending 

EPA’s final subpart 2 classifications of 

these areas adequately addresses the 

requirements of element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and, therefore, 

discharges EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate a FIP for these limited 

purposes. 

For Monterey, which is designated 

unclassifiable/attainment and has a SIPapproved PSD program meeting the 

approval criteria discussed above, we 

propose to approve the 2007 Transport 

SIP. For two Districts 21 with 

unclassifiable/attainment areas for 

which we have recently approved PSD 

SIP revisions meeting these 

requirements by direct final rule, we 

propose to approve the 2007 Transport 

SIP. If, however, either of these direct 

final rules is withdrawn and does not 

become effective by our July 10, 2011 

Consent Decree deadline for final action 

on element (3) of the 2007 Transport 

SIP, we propose to disapprove the 2007 

Transport SIP for the relevant District 

and to promulgate a limited PSD FIP for 

that District based on the provisions of 

40 CFR 52.21 identifying NOX as an 

ozone precursor. EPA would retain 

authority to implement the 

requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 in the 

relevant District, for NOX emission 

sources only, unless and until it 

delegates such authority to the District. 

For North Coast, we propose to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP and 

to promulgate a limited PSD FIP for 

NOX emission sources only, as 

discussed above. For the rest of the 

State, which is designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and subject to the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, 

we propose to disapprove the 2007 

Transport SIP but to determine that no 

further action is required to address 

element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has already 

promulgated a PSD FIP for these areas. 

We propose the following actions 

with respect to element (3) of CAA 

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

NAAQS. For two Districts 22 that are 

designated nonattainment, we propose 

to approve the 2007 Transport SIP based 

on a determination that implementation 

of The Interpretative Rule during the 

SIP-development period adequately 

addresses the requirements of element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). For 

five Districts 23 that are designated 

unclassifiable/attainment and that have 

SIP-approved PSD programs meeting the 

approval criteria discussed above, we 

propose to approve the 2007 Transport 

SIP. For the rest of the State, which is 

designated unclassifiable/attainment 

and subject to the Federal PSD program 

in 40 CFR 52.21, we propose to 

disapprove the 2007 Transport SIP but 

to determine that no further action is 

required to address element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has 

already promulgated a PSD FIP for these 

areas. 

Finally, with respect to PSD authority 

to regulate GHGs, we propose to take the 

following actions. For three Districts 24

that were subject to the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule (75 FR 82536, Dec. 30, 

2010), we propose to fully approve the 

2007 Transport SIP with respect to 

element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) based on the Districts’ 

letters clarifying that the 2007 Transport 

SIP should be read with respect to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) to reflect each 

of their PSD programs as they are 

currently Federally approved as a result 

of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. For 

Monterey, which has confirmed that its 

SIP provides GHG PSD permitting 

authority at thresholds consistent with 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 31269 

the Tailoring Rule, we propose to fully 

approve the 2007 Transport SIP with 

respect to element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). For Sacramento, which 

was subject to the PSD GHG SIP Call (75 

FR 77698, Dec. 13, 2010), we propose to 

fully approve the 2007 Transport SIP 

with respect to element (3) of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) if Sacramento’s 

corrective SIP revision to address GHG 

permitting requirements receives final 

EPA approval. For all other areas in 

California, which are subject to the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, 

we propose to disapprove the 2007 

Transport SIP but to determine that no 

further action is required to address 

element (3) of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA has already 

promulgated a PSD FIP for these areas. 

For a more detailed discussion of each 

of these proposed actions, see our TSD. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As authorized in CAA sections 

110(k)(3) and 301(a), EPA is proposing 

a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the 2007 Transport SIP 

with respect to the requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to prohibit 

emissions of air pollutants in amounts 

which will interfere with any other 

State’s measures required under title I, 

part C of the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality. CARB 

submitted the 2007 Transport SIP on 

November 17, 2007, to address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, 

for those Districts in California that 

implement SIP-approved PSD or NNSR 

permit programs meeting the approval 

criteria discussed above, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2007 

Transport SIP with respect to element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). For 

those Districts in California with SIPapproved PSD or NNSR permit 

programs that do not meet the approval 

criteria discussed above, or that are 

subject to the Federal PSD program in 

40 CFR 52.21, EPA is simultaneously 

proposing to disapprove the 2007 

Transport SIP with respect to element 

(3) of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and to 

promulgate limited FIPs as appropriate. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D, title 

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

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

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

sanctions clock. The 2007 Transport SIP 

was not submitted to meet either of 

these requirements. Therefore, if we 

take final action to disapprove this 

submittal, no sanctions will be 

triggered. Disapproval of a required SIP 

revision also triggers the requirement 

under CAA section 110(c) that EPA 

promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years 

from the date of the disapproval unless 

the State corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. For any District 

in California for which we finalize a 

disapproval of the 2007 Transport SIP, 

EPA intends to simultaneously 

promulgate a limited PSD or NNSR FIP, 

as discussed in this proposal, unless the 

relevant area is already subject to the 

Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21. 

This proposed action does not apply 

to the remaining three elements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) regarding 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment in any other State, 

interference with maintenance in any 

other State, and interference with 

measures required to protect visibility 

in any other State. In separate actions, 

EPA has fully approved the 2007 

Transport SIP for purposes of these 

three additional elements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). See Final Rule 

signed May 9, 2011, ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; State of 

California; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan and Interstate 

Transport Plan; Interference with 

Visibility Requirement’’; Final Rule 

signed May 10, 2011, ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

State of California; Interstate Transport 

of Pollution; Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment and Interference with 

Maintenance Requirements.’’ 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this proposal and will accept comments 

until the date noted in the DATES section 

above. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

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. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or 

another statute 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 this proposal on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that is a small industrial entity as 

defined in the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards 

(See 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; or (3) a 

small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Although this rule may eventually lead 

to Federal permitting requirements for a 

handful of sources, EPA believes that in 

such an event, there will not be a 

significant economic impact on the 

potentially affected sources and that any 

such impacts would not affect a 

substantial number of sources, 

regardless of size. In this proposal, EPA 

is not proposing any requirements 

beyond those with which existing 

sources are already required to comply. 

In the case of Mendocino and 

Northern Sonoma, EPA has already 

separately approved, by direct final rule, 

the SIP revisions necessary to make 

NOx a precursor for ozone under the 

SIP-approved PSD program. For these 

areas, EPA is only proposing a narrow 

FIP to take effect in the event that EPA 

receives adverse comment that require 

additional notice and comment 

rulemaking to take final action on those 

SIP submissions. In this action, EPA is 

proposing a FIP that would effectively 

only impose a Federal requirement that 

sources in these districts must already 

meet pursuant to existing state or local 

requirements. For this reason, EPA does 

not anticipate that such sources would 

be subject to any additional burden as 

a result of such a FIP and we expect that 

if there is any such burden, it would be 

minimal. Accordingly, EPA does not 

believe that such a FIP would have a 

significant economic impact on any 

sources in these areas, regardless of size. 

In the case of North Coast, EPA has 

not yet proposed to approve the SIP 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
31270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

revision necessary to make NOx a 

precursor for ozone in the context of 

PSD permitting. For this area, EPA is 

likewise only proposing a narrow FIP to 

fill the gap with respect to requiring 

PSD permits to address NOx as a 

precursor for ozone. To EPA’s 

knowledge, in the past ten years there 

have been no major sources or major 

modifications in this area subject to PSD 

permitting requirements for NOx 

emissions. EPA does not anticipate that 

there will be additional sources that 

would require such a permit in the 

future, and EPA is not required to 

analyze theoretical future impacts. It 

would be speculative to estimate 

potential impacts on sources based 

solely on theoretical future sources. 

Based on this fact, EPA does not believe 

that such a FIP would have an impact 

on a substantial number of sources, 

regardless of size. 

EPA is also proposing a FIP for the 

Feather River, Placer, and Sacramento 

areas, to take effect in the event that 

EPA is not able to finalize its proposed 

approval of SIP submissions for these 

areas with respect to the nonattainment 

NSR permitting requirements for ozone. 

The affected sources in these three areas 

are already required to meet essentially 

the same applicable requirements under 

state or local regulations contained 

within the SIP submissions that EPA 

has proposed to approve, even if EPA 

were not to finalize the approval of such 

regulations into the SIPs for these areas. 

Because the sources are already required 

to comply with the same substantive 

requirements by existing regulatory 

regimes, the proposed FIPs would not 

impose an additional burden. Thus, in 

these circumstances, EPA believes that 

were it to impose such a FIP on any of 

these areas in the final action on this 

proposal, it would not impose a 

significant economic impact on any 

source, regardless of size. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or Tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the approval 

action proposed 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 Federal action 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have Tribal implications, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. It 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on Tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

Tribal officials. 

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 rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Proposed Rules 31271 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: May 20, 2011. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

2. Section 52.233 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 52.233 Review of new sources and 

modifications. 

* * * * * 

(h) Regulation for review of major 

stationary sources and major 

modifications for nitrogen oxides. (1) 

Upon the effective date of this 

regulation, the requirements of this 

paragraph are applicable to any source 

under the jurisdiction of the APCDs 

listed below that is a major stationary 

source or major modification for 

nitrogen oxides in a ‘‘serious’’ ozone 

nonattainment area under 40 CFR part 

51, Appendix S, and that is not 

otherwise subject to new source review 

under the applicable SIP for the area. 

(i) Feather River AQMD. 

(ii) Placer County APCD. 

(iii) Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD. 

(2) Except for a major stationary 

source that is subject to new source 

review under the applicable SIP for the 

area, no owner or operator shall 

commence construction of a new 

stationary source that emits or has the 

potential to emit 50 tons per year or 

more of nitrogen oxides, without first 

obtaining approval from the 

Administrator. 

(3) Except for a major modification 

that is subject to new source review 

under the applicable SIP for the area, no 

owner or operator shall commence 

construction of a modification to an 

existing stationary source that results in 

a net emissions increase of 25 tons per 

year or more of nitrogen oxides, without 

first obtaining approval from the 

Administrator. 

(4) For any major stationary source or 

major modification subject to this 

paragraph in accordance with the 

emission thresholds identified in 

paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this section, 

the Administrator shall approve the 

construction of such source or 

modification if the owner or operator 

demonstrates that construction of such 

source or modification satisfies the 

requirements of Sacramento 

Metropolitan AQMD Rule 202, as 

approved on June 19, 1985 (50 FR 

25417). 

* * * * * 

3. Section 52.270 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (b)(2)(iv), (b)(3)(iv), 

and (b)(4)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 52.270 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) Those projects which are major 

stationary sources or major 

modifications for nitrogen oxides as 

precursors to ozone under § 52.21. 

(3) * * * 

(iv) Those projects which are major 

stationary sources or major 

modifications for nitrogen oxides as 

precursors to ozone under § 52.21. 

(4) * * * 

(iv) Those projects which are major 

stationary sources or major 

modifications for nitrogen oxides as 

precursors to ozone under § 52.21. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13397 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 141 

[FRL–9313–3] 

Public Meeting: Preliminary Regulatory 

Determinations for the Third 

Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 3) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Announcement of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The 1996 Safe Drinking Water 

Act Amendments require the EPA to 

determine every five years, whether to 

regulate at least five contaminants from 

the current Contaminant Candidate List 

(CCL) with a national primary drinking 

water regulation. The process of making 

decisions about whether to regulate any 

of the unregulated contaminants on the 

CCL is called Regulatory 

Determinations. On October 8, 2009, 

EPA published the third Contaminant 

Candidate List (CCL 3) containing 116 

unregulated contaminants. The Agency 

is currently in the preliminary process 

of deciding whether to regulate at least 

five CCL 3 contaminants (i.e., 

Regulatory Determinations 3). The 

purpose of this notice is to announce 

that EPA will be hosting a public 

stakeholder meeting on June 16, 2011, 

from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., to discuss and 

obtain input on EPA’s process for 

Regulatory Determination 3 along with 

the contaminants and the technical 

information that the Agency is 

considering. EPA expects to publish the 

preliminary regulatory determinations 

for at least five CCL 3 contaminants in 

mid-2012 and final regulatory 

determinations by August 2013. 

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

in the Washington, DC metropolitan 

area on Thursday, June 16, 2011, from 

1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight 

Savings Time. Participants will be 

notified of the specific meeting room 

upon confirmation of registration. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical inquiries regarding EPA’s 

Regulatory Determinations for 

contaminants on CCL 3 contact: Mr. 

Zeno Bain at (202) 564–5970 or by email: bain.zeno@epa.gov. For additional 

information about the drinking water 

Contaminant Candidate List and the 

Regulatory Determinations process, 

please visit: http://water.epa.gov/ 

scitech/drinkingwater/dws/ccl/ 

index.cfm. Additional information on 

these and other EPA activities under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act is also 

available at the Safe Drinking Water 

Hotline at (800) 426–4791. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Registration: Individuals planning to 

attend the Stakeholder Meeting must 

register for the meeting by contacting 

Melissa Simic at (202) 564–7722 or by 

sending an e-mail to 

simic.melissa@epa.gov no later than 

Wednesday, June 8, 2011. There is no 

charge for attending the meeting but 

seats are limited, so register as soon as 

possible. Please note that attendees will 

be required to pass through security 

checks at the front desk and obtain a 

visitor’s badge. Pre-registration for this 

meeting will help us facilitate your 

check-in. 

Special Accommodations: The 

meeting will be held in a building 

which is accessible to persons using 

wheel chairs or scooters. For 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS