Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 44001 

to electronic reporting and would 

require electronic reporting of 

documents submitted for compliance 

with Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. 

The revision also includes other 

changes which are non-substantive and 

primarily address updates to New 

Mexico Environment Department 

(NMED) document viewing locations. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before August 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454, 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as noncontroversial submittal 

and anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

relevant adverse comments are received 

in response to this action no further 

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 10, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18097 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44002 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 Significant Deterioration .............................. 8/1/2011 4/22/2013 

GBUAPCD ........................................... 221 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Requirements for New Major Facilities or Major Modifications in Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas.9/5/2012 2/6/2013 

BCAQMD ............................................. 1107 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permits ...... 6/28/2012 2/6/2013 

SBAPCD .............................................. 810 Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) ...... 6/20/2013 2/10/2014 

SLOAPCD ............................................ 220 Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration ................. 1/22/2014 5/13/2014 

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 preconstruction 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 SIPapproved 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, § 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 preconstruction 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 SIPapproved 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 44003 

1The 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. 

2San 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44004 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3See letter to EPA dated June 1, 2015 from 

Richard Corey, Executive Officer, California Air 

Resources Board. 

4See 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. 

5There are no such active permits in San Luis 

Obispo, thus San Luis Obispo is not requesting such 

approval. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0442; FRL–9931–14- 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Georgia; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the March 6, 2012, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, 

submitted by the State of Georgia, 

through the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources’ Environmental 

Protection Division (EPD), 

demonstrating that the State meets the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) 

for the 2008 lead national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. EPD certified that 

the Georgia SIP contains provisions that 

ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is 

implemented, enforced, and maintained 

in Georgia. With the exception of 

provisions pertaining to prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) 

permitting, EPA is proposing to 

determine that Georgia’s infrastructure 

SIP submission, provided to EPA on 

March 6, 2012, addresses the required 

infrastructure elements for the 2008 

Lead NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0442, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0442,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section (formerly the Regulatory 

Development Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch (formerly the 

Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0442. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS