[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63350-63363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25278]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0547; FRL-9918-39-Region 9]


Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State 
Implementation Plans; California; Infrastructure Requirements for 
Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>), Lead (Pb), Nitrogen 
Dioxide (NO<INF>2</INF>), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
partially approve and partially disapprove several State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of California pursuant to 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of national ambient air 
quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, fine particulate patter 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO<INF>2</INF>), and 
sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>). We refer to such SIP revisions as 
``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are intended to address basic 
structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS including, but not 
limited to, legal authority, regulatory structure, resources, permit 
programs, and monitoring necessary to assure attainment and maintenance 
of the standards. In addition, we are proposing to reclassify certain 
regions of the state for emergency episode planning purposes with 
respect to ozone, NO<INF>2</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and particulate 
matter (PM). Finally, we are proposing to approve into the SIP several 
state provisions addressing CAA conflict of interest requirements into 
the California SIP and an emergency episode planning rule for Great 
Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for PM. We are 
taking comments on this proposal and, after considering any comments 
submitted, plan to take final action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 24, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R09-OAR-2014-0547, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#680509111b461a071a11280d1809460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a676b737924786578734a6f7a6b246d657c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    3. Mail or deliver: Rory Mays (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's 
normal hours of operation.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be 
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://www.regulations.gov is an 
anonymous access system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read 
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all 
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some 
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly 
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours 
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3227, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#583539212b762a372a21183d2839763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec818d959fc29e839e95ac899c8dc28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
II. Background

[[Page 63351]]

    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. NAAQS Addressed by This Proposal
    C. EPA Guidance Documents
    D. Changes to the Application of PSD Permitting Requirements to 
GHG Emissions
III. California's Submittals
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals
    B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals
    C. Consequences of Proposed Disapprovals
    D. Request for Public Comments
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals

    EPA is acting upon several SIP submittals from California that 
address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO<INF>2</INF>, 
and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP 
submittal of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 
section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submittals ``within 3 years (or 
such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the 
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any 
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submittals are to provide for the 
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The 
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP 
submittals, and the requirement to make the submittals is not 
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new 
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submittal must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for the 
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Although the term 
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to 
distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from submittals that 
are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as 
``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment SIP'' submittals to address the 
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, 
``regional haze SIP'' submittals required by EPA rule to address the 
visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and 
nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submittals to 
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submittals, and section 110(a)(2) provides more 
details concerning the required contents of these submittals. The list 
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required 
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program 
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes 
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, 
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, 
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP 
submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states 
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals for a given new or 
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) 
requires that ``each'' SIP submittal must meet the list of requirements 
therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the 
statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the 
nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which 
specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\ Section 
110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D 
addresses when attainment plan SIP submittals to address nonattainment 
area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to 
establish a schedule for submittal of such plans for certain pollutants 
when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as 
nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in 
some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.\3\ 
This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must 
determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a 
particular infrastructure SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions 
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call; 
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is 
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific 
dates for submittal of certain types of SIP submittals in designated 
nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 
182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submittal of emissions 
inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 
necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or 
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single 
SIP submittal, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submittal in a 
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a 
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow 
states to make multiple SIP submittals separately addressing 
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make 
such multiple SIP submittals to meet the infrastructure SIP 
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submittals either 
individually or in a larger combined action.\4\ Similarly, EPA 
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts 
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submittal for a given 
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submittal. For example, 
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements 
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submittal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR 
4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA's final action approving the structural 
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately 
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NSR rule), 
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for 
the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337, January 22, 2013 
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for 
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On 
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA 
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submittal

[[Page 63352]]

requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every 
element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or 
relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' 
attendant infrastructure SIP submittals for each NAAQS therefore could 
be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state 
might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submittal for purposes of 
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, 
for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure 
SIP submittal to meet this element might be very different for an 
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submittals required under 
the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submittals, EPA also has 
to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) 
that logically apply to these other types of SIP submittals. For 
example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submittals 
required by part D have to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of 
section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submittals 
must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding 
enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By 
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submittals required by 
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 
pertains to the air quality prevention of significant deterioration 
(PSD) program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD 
does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated 
nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this 
example illustrates, each type of SIP submittal may implicate some 
elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language 
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP 
submittal. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have 
intended that each and every SIP submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in 
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, 
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same 
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews 
infrastructure SIP submittals against the list of elements in section 
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that 
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make 
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some 
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and 
applied to individual SIP submittals for particular elements.\7\ EPA 
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 
2013 (2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document 
to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for 
any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty 
of states to make infrastructure SIP submittals to meet basic 
structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new 
or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific 
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of 
infrastructure SIP submittals.\9\ The guidance also discusses the 
substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections 
of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) 
and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submittals need to address 
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews 
each infrastructure SIP submittal for compliance with the applicable 
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to 
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 
submittals. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the 
submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, regardless of whether or 
not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 
submittals. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' 
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals to 
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit 
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light 
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to 
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding 
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a 
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of 
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. Under this 
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, 
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement 
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA 
reviews infrastructure SIP submittals to ensure that the state's SIP 
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance explains EPA's 
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can 
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, 
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or 
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are 
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). 
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements 
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of 
infrastructure SIP submittals because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submittals 
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program 
requirements contained in part C, title I of the Act and EPA's PSD 
regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions 
necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and 
regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By 
contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions 
that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the 
state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit 
applications with respect to the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. 
Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA 
considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a 
state's infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring that the 
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a

[[Page 63353]]

program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the 
state has a SIP-approved minor NSR program and whether the program 
addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of 
acting on an infrastructure SIP submittal, however, EPA does not think 
it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a 
state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing 
SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's 
regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an 
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal is necessarily the 
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in 
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions 
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's 
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing 
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's 
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to 
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public 
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing 
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current 
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186, 
December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (``NSR 
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP 
submittal without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for 
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submittal 
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to 
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal 
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any 
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three 
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a 
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submittal that contained a 
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions 
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision 
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in 
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submittals is to 
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submittal. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a 
particular infrastructure SIP submittal is appropriate, because it 
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all 
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of 
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements 
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory 
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded 
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP 
submittal. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to 
focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most 
likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a 
new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives simpler 
recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 
pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect 
visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal for any future 
new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in 
order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues 
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately 
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged 
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP 
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\11\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submittals.\12\ Significantly, EPA's 
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal 
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing 
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on 
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to 
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it 
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing 
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting 
on an infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA believes that section 
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011.
    \12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past 
actions on SIP submittals related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has 
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR 
34641, June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004 
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009 
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submittal from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344, July 21, 2010 
(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 
4540, January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Statutory Requirements

    As discussed in section I of this proposed rule, CAA section 
110(a)(1) requires each state to submit to EPA, within three years 
after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision 
thereof, an infrastructure SIP revision that provides for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. Section 
110(a)(2) sets the content requirements of such a plan, which generally 
relate to the information and authorities, compliance assurances, 
procedural requirements, and control measures that constitute the 
``infrastructure'' of a state's air quality management program. These 
infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(2) are as 
follows:
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control 
measures.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data 
system.

[[Page 63354]]

    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control 
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international 
pollution abatement.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, 
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government 
agencies.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and 
reporting.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government 
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal 
of modeling data.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by 
affected local entities.
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by 
the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are 
therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: (i) 
Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs 
required under part D (nonattainment NSR), and (ii) section 
110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of 
part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure for 
the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of 
section 110(a)(2)(I).

B. NAAQS Addressed by This Proposal

    Between 1997 and 2012, EPA promulgate a series of new or revised 
NAAQS for ozone, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, Pb, NO<INF>2</INF>, and 
SO<INF>2</INF>, each of which triggered the requirement for states to 
submit infrastructure SIPs. The NAAQS addressed by this infrastructure 
SIP proposal include the following:
    <bullet> 1997 ozone NAAQS, which established 8-hour average primary 
and secondary ozone standards of 0.08 ppm, and revoked the 1979 1-hour 
ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 2008 ozone NAAQS, which revised the 8-hour ozone standards 
to 0.075 ppm.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, which set 24-hour average 
primary and secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ and 
annual primary and secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards of 15 [mu]g/
m\3\.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, which revised the 1997 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, and retained the 1997 
annual standards.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, which revised the 1997 and 
2006 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\, and retained 
the 2006 24-hour standards.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 2008 Pb NAAQS, which revised the 1978 Pb quarterly average 
standard of 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ to a rolling 3-month average not to exceed 
0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ as a rolling 3-month average, and revised the secondary 
standard to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\, making it identical to the revised primary 
standard.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, which revised the primary 1971 
NO<INF>2</INF> annual standard of 53 parts per billion (ppb) by 
supplementing it with a new 1-hour average NO<INF>2</INF> standard of 
100 ppb, and retained the secondary annual standard of 53 ppb.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010. The annual NO<INF>2</INF> 
standard of 0.053 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with 
the new 1-hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, which established a new 1-hour 
average SO<INF>2</INF> standard of 75 ppb, retained the secondary 3-
hour average SO<INF>2</INF> standard of 500 ppb, and established a 
mechanism for revoking the primary 1971 annual and 24-hour 
SO<INF>2</INF> standards.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The annual SO<INF>2</INF> 
standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the 
new 1-hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Guidance Documents

    EPA has issued several guidance memos on infrastructure SIPs that 
have informed our evaluation, including the following:
    <bullet> March 2, 1978 guidance on the conflict of interest 
requirements of section 128, pursuant to the requirement of section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy General Counsel, 
Office of General Counsel (OGC), ``Guidance to States for Meeting 
Conflict of Interest Requirements of Section 128,'' March 2, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> August 15, 2006 guidance on the interstate transport 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone 
and 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality 
Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS), ``Guidance for State Implementation Plan Submissions to 
Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards,'' August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> October 2, 2007 guidance on infrastructure SIP 
requirements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality 
Policy Division, OAQPS, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' October 
2, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> September 25, 2009 guidance on infrastructure SIP 
requirements for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. (``2009 
Infrastructure SIP Guidance'') \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality 
Policy Division, OAQPS, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate 
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' September 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> October 14, 2011 guidance on infrastructure SIP 
requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, OAQPS, 
``Guidance on State Implementation Plan Elements Required Under 
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' October 14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> September 13, 2013 guidance on infrastructure SIP 
requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO<INF>2</INF>, 2010 
SO<INF>2</INF>, 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and future NAAQS. (``2013 
Infrastructure SIP Guidance'') \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, OAQPS, 
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Elements 
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' September 
13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Changes to the Application of PSD Permitting Requirements to GHG 
Emissions

    With respect to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J), EPA 
interprets the Clean Air Act to require each state to make an 
infrastructure SIP submittal for a new or revised NAAQS that 
demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program 
meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The 
PSD-related requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be 
satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting 
program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. California 
has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place for ten air 
districts (Eastern Kern, Imperial County, Mendocino County, Monterey 
Bay Unified, North Coast Unified, Northern Sonoma County, Placer 
County, Sacramento Metropolitan (Metro), San Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-
Solano) that cover all regulated NSR pollutants, including GHGs, and 
one air district (South Coast AQMD) that covers GHGs.
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision 
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG

[[Page 63355]]

emissions.\28\ The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat GHGs as an 
air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major 
source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that EPA 
could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on 
emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG 
emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology 
(BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding of the 
Court's decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the 
decision, EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would 
require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme 
Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the 
requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that 
sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that 
the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source 
thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase 
and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g., 40 
CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD 
rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA 
anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved 
PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and 
content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to EPA regulations and 
state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by additional 
legal process before the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting 
states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of 
infrastructure SIP submittals and is only evaluating such submittals to 
assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent 
with the Supreme Court's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At present, EPA has determined that California's Infrastructure SIP 
Submittals are sufficient to satisfy CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 11 districts noted in this section that 
have SIP-approved PSD programs with respect to GHGs because the PSD 
permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to 
require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of 
pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based 
on the application of BACT. Although the SIP-approved PSD permitting 
programs for these 11 air districts in California may currently contain 
provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court 
decision, this does not render California's Infrastructure SIP 
Submittals inadequate to satisfy sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 
(J) for these air districts. The SIP contains the necessary PSD 
requirements at this time for these 11 districts, and the application 
of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other 
previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of 
GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the 
Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does 
not affect EPA's proposed partial approval of California's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to the requirements of CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (2)(J).

III. California's Submittals

    The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has submitted several 
infrastructure SIP revisions pursuant to EPA's promulgation of the 
NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule, including the following:
    <bullet> November 16, 2007--``Proposed State Strategy for 
California's 2007 State Implementation Plan.'' Appendices B 
(``110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP'') and G (``Legal Authority and Other 
Requirements'') contain California's infrastructure SIP revision for 
the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. (``California's 2007 
Submittal'').\29\ This submittal incorporates by reference California's 
section 110(a)(2) SIP submitted in response to the 1970 CAA and 
approved by EPA in 1979 in 40 CFR 52.220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ California's November 16, 2007 Submittal is often referred 
to as California's 2007 State Strategy. EPA previously acted on 
Appendix C (``Revised Interstate Transport State Implementation 
Plan'') of California's 2007 State Strategy, as modified by 
Attachment A of the same submittal, which contained California's SIP 
revision to address the interstate transport requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS. 76 FR 14616, March 17, 2011 (transport prongs 1 and 2); 76 FR 
48002, August 8, 2011 (transport prong 3); and 76 FR 34608, June 14, 
2011 and 76 FR 48006, August 8, 2011 (transport prong 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> October 6, 2011--``State Implementation Plan Revision for 
Federal Lead Standard Infrastructure Requirements,'' which addresses 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS. (``California's 2011 Submittal'').
    <bullet> December 12, 2012--``State Implementation Plan Revision 
for Federal Nitrogen Dioxide Standard Infrastructure Requirements,'' 
which addressed the 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. (``California's 2012 
Submittal'').
    <bullet> March 6, 2014--``California Infrastructure SIP,'' which 
provided new submittals for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO<INF>2</INF>, and 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and supplemented and amended the state's 
prior infrastructure SIP submittals. (``California's 2014 Submittal'').
    <bullet> June 2, 2014--Great Basin Unified APCD Rule 701 (``Air 
Pollution Episode Plan''), which addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for 
the 1987 coarse particulate matter (PM<INF>10</INF>) and 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS. (``Great Basin Rule 701'').
    We find that these submittals meet the procedural requirements for 
public participation under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. We 
are proposing to act on all of these submittals since they collectively 
address the infrastructure SIP requirements for the NAAQS addressed by 
this proposed rule. We refer to them collectively herein as 
``California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals.'' Importantly, however, 
California has not made a submittal for the interstate transport 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2008 ozone, and 2010 
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.\30\ Thus we are not addressing the requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to these four NAAQS in this 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ California made an infrastructure SIP submittal for the 
2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS on July 7, 2009 that was 
subsequently withdrawn on July 18, 2014. All infrastructure SIP 
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS are 
addressed in California's 2014 Submittal with the exception of the 
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 
Therefore, there is no California submittal before EPA with respect 
to the interstate transport requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

    We have evaluated California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals and 
the existing provisions of the California SIP for compliance with the 
infrastructure SIP requirements (or ``elements'') of CAA section 
110(a)(2) and applicable regulations in 40 CFR part 51 (``Requirements 
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation 
Plans''). In addition, our evaluation has been informed by EPA guidance 
memos cited in section II.C of this proposed rule. Given the large 
volume of information required to evaluate multiple SIP revisions for 
multiple NAAQS in a state with the largest number of local air 
districts in the country--35 APCDs and air quality management districts 
(AQMDs) in total--we have prepared five technical support documents 
that contain the details of our evaluation and are

[[Page 63356]]

available in the public docket for this rulemaking. The TSDs include 
our Overarching TSD, which introduces our evaluation as a whole and 
addresses the majority of the requirements under section 110(a)(2), and 
four other TSDs that are specific to certain requirements and CAA 
programs, as follows:
    <bullet> Permit Programs TSD--addressing CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C)/
permit programs (only), (D)(i)(II)/interstate transport and PSD (only), 
(J)/PSD (only), and (L)/permit fees.
    <bullet> Interstate Transport TSD--addressing CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D).
    <bullet> Conflict of Interest TSD--addressing CAA section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    <bullet> Emergency Episode Planning TSD--addressing CAA section 
110(a)(2)(G).

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals

    Based upon our evaluation as presented in our five TSDs, EPA 
proposes to approve California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 
respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO<INF>2</INF>, 
and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS for the following infrastructure SIP 
requirements. Proposed partial approvals are indicated by the 
parenthetical ``(in part).''
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control 
measures.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(B) (in part): Ambient air quality 
monitoring/data system.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of 
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution 
transport.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ As noted in section III of this proposed rule, California 
has not made a submittal for the interstate transport requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2008 ozone, and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. 
Thus we are not proposing any action with respect to the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to these 
four NAAQS in this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution 
abatement and international air pollution.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, 
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government 
agencies.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and 
reporting.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(G) (in part): Emergency episodes.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with 
government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility 
protection.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal 
of modeling data.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by 
affected local entities.
i. Proposed Approval of State and Local Provisions Into the California 
SIP
    As part of these proposed approvals, we are also proposing to 
approve several state statutes and regulations and one air district 
rule into the California SIP. Specifically, for all of the NAAQS 
addressed in this proposal, we propose to approve into the SIP five 
state provisions from the California Government Code (GC) statutes and 
California Code of Regulations (CCR), which were submitted in 
California's 2014 Submittal and which address the conflict of interest 
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. These provisions 
include 9 GC 82048, 9 GC 87103, 9 GC 87302, 2 CCR 18700, and 2 CCR 
18701. For discussion of these conflict of interest provisions, please 
see our Conflict of Interest TSD.
    We also propose to approve Great Basin Rule 701 into the California 
SIP with respect to the 1987 PM<INF>10</INF>, 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the 
emergency episode planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 
40 CFR part 51, subpart H. For our evaluation of this emergency episode 
rule, please refer to our Emergency Episode Planning TSD.
ii. Proposed Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency 
Episode Planning
    California's 2012 and 2014 Submittals requested that EPA reclassify 
several AQCRs with respect to the emergency episode planning 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, 
as applicable to ozone, NO<INF>2</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>. The air 
quality tests for classifying AQCRs are prescribed in 40 CFR 51.150 and 
are pollutant-specific (e.g., ozone) rather than being specific to any 
given NAAQS (e.g., 1997 ozone NAAQS). Consistent with the provisions of 
40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of AQCRs must rely on the most recent 
three years of air quality data. AQCRs that are classified Priority I, 
IA, or II are required to have SIP-approved emergency episode 
contingency plans, while those classified Priority III are not required 
to have such plans, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152. We interpret 
40 CFR 51.153 as establishing the means for states to review air 
quality data and request a higher or lower classification for any given 
region and as providing the regulatory basis for EPA to reclassify such 
regions, as appropriate, under the authorities of CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(G) and 301(a)(1).
    On the basis of California's ambient air quality data for 2011-
2013, we are proposing to grant five of California's ten requests and 
deny the five remaining requests. Note, however, that our proposed 
denial of such a reclassification request does not necessarily lead to 
disapproval as most districts that are required to have emergency 
episode contingency plans for a given set of air pollutants continue to 
have SIP-approved emergency episode rules that apply to such 
pollutants. The exception to this scenario is the Mountain Counties 
AQCR for ozone, which we discuss in section IV.B.iii of this proposed 
rule. For further discussion of the emergency episode planning 
evaluation, please refer to our Emergency Episode Planning TSD.
    While we propose to grant or deny such requests within this 
proposed rule, the authority to take final action to reclassify AQCRs 
is reserved by the EPA Administrator. We will draft a reclassification 
final rule for signature by the EPA Administrator that will be separate 
from the broader final rule on California's Infrastructure SIP 
Submittals for signature by the EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator.

Ozone

    For ozone, an AQCR with a 1-hour ozone level greater than 0.10 ppm 
over the most recent three-year period must be classified Priority I, 
while all other areas are classified Priority III. Per California's 
requests, we propose to reclassify the Lake Tahoe and North Central 
Coast AQCRs to Priority III for ozone as neither recorded 1-hour ozone 
levels greater than 0.10 ppm in 2011-2013. We propose to deny 
California's reclassification requests for the Mountain Counties, 
Sacramento Valley, San Diego, and Southeast Desert AQCRs for ozone as 
each area has exceeded the ozone classification threshold in 2011-2013. 
As a result, California would have seven Priority I AQCRs for ozone, 
including five for which we are proposing to deny California's 
reclassification request and two others (Metropolitan Los Angeles and 
San Joaquin Valley AQCRs). Five of these AQCRs, including Metropolitan 
Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, and 
Southeast Desert, have adequate SIP-approved emergency episode rules 
applicable to

[[Page 63357]]

ozone that cover the full geographic extent of the AQCRs.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Note that Metropolitan Los Angeles and Southeast Desert 
AQCRs comprise multiple districts, each of which have SIP-approved 
emergency episode rules applicable to ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two additional AQCRs in northern and central California comprise 
many air districts. Sacramento Valley AQCR includes all or portions of 
eight air districts, just one of which (Sacramento Metro AQMD) recorded 
a 1-hour ozone level above 0.10 ppm during 2011-2013. Sacramento Metro 
AQMD already has an adequate SIP-approved emergency episode rule 
applicable to ozone. Mountain Counties includes portions of seven air 
districts, just two of which (El Dorado County APCD and Placer County 
APCD) recorded a 1-hour ozone level above 0.10 ppm during 2011-2013. 
Unlike Sacramento Metro, these two air districts do not have SIP-
approved emergency episode rules. Within these two AQCRs, the 
population and concentration of emission sources is greatest in the 
greater Sacramento metropolitan area and the air districts of El Dorado 
County, Placer County, and Sacramento Metro (i.e., Sacramento County) 
each share a county border with one another.
    Because recent ambient air quality data do not indicate that ozone 
levels are likely to approach the first recommended 1-hour ozone alert 
level of 0.20 ppm, much less the 2-hour significant harm level of 0.6 
ppm, we propose to find that to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.151 for contingency plans for these two AQCRs classified Priority I, 
California needs to provide emergency episode contingency plans for the 
three air districts that have recorded a 1-hour ozone level above 0.10 
ppm. As noted, Sacramento Metro AQMD already has an adequate SIP-
approved emergency episode rule applicable to ozone. Thus, we propose 
to approve California's 2007 and 2014 Submittals with respect to the 
1997 ozone and 2008 ozone for the Sacramento Valley AQCR for the 
emergency episode planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G). 
Since El Dorado County APCD and Placer County APCD do not have such 
SIP-approved rules, we propose to partially disapprove California's 
2007 and 2014 Submittals with respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone 
NAAQS for the Mountain Counties AQCR, as discussed in section IV.B.iii 
of this proposed rule.
NO<INF>2</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
    For NO<INF>2</INF>, an AQCR with an annual average NO<INF>2</INF> 
level greater than 0.06 ppm over the most recent three-year period must 
be classified Priority I. Per California's request, we propose to 
reclassify the Metropolitan Los Angeles AQCR to Priority III for 
NO<INF>2</INF> since no part of this region (comprised of all or 
portions of Santa Barbara County, South Coast, and Ventura County air 
districts) recorded an annual average NO<INF>2</INF> level greater than 
0.06 ppm in 2011-2013. Finalization of this proposed reclassification 
would mean that the whole state would be classified Priority III for 
NO<INF>2</INF>, and therefore no emergency episode contingency plan for 
NO<INF>2</INF> would be required for any of the state's 14 AQCRs. We 
therefore propose to approve California's 2012 and 2014 Submittals with 
respect to the 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS for the emergency episode 
planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).
    For SO<INF>2</INF>, the classification thresholds for 
SO<INF>2</INF> are unique in that they are prescribed for three 
different averaging periods, including the following Priority II 
classification thresholds: 3-hour average greater than 0.5 ppm, 24-hour 
average between 0.10-0.17 ppm, and annual arithmetic mean between 0.02-
0.04 ppm. Per California's request, we propose to reclassify the 
Metropolitan Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area AQCRs to Priority 
III for SO<INF>2</INF> as neither recorded SO<INF>2</INF> levels 
exceeding the 3-hour average threshold or the lower end of the 24-hour 
and annual classification threshold ranges in 2011-2013. Finalization 
of this proposed reclassification would mean that the whole state would 
be classified Priority III for SO<INF>2</INF>, and therefore no 
emergency episode contingency plan for SO<INF>2</INF> would be required 
for any of the state's 14 AQCRs. We therefore propose to approve 
California's 2014 Submittal with respect to the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> 
NAAQS for the emergency episode planning requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(G).
iii. Proposed Reclassifications for PM Emergency Episode Planning
    California's 2014 Submittal requested that EPA treat all areas of 
the state as though they were classified Priority III for purposes of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> with respect the emergency episode planning 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, 
with the exception of Great Basin Valley AQCR, for which ARB requested 
treatment as a Priority II area. However, the air quality test for 
classifying AQCRs for PM that are prescribed in 40 CFR 51.150 are not 
specific to either PM<INF>2.5</INF> or PM<INF>10</INF>--they are simply 
for PM. Thus, we evaluated California's 2014 Submittal as follows.
    As an initial screen, and given the provision of 40 CFR 51.153(a) 
to review the most recent three years of air quality data, we reviewed 
California's 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality data from 2011-2013 
to identify areas where concentrations exceeded EPA's recommended 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> threshold of 140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ for emergency 
episode planning.\33\ There were two occasions where the concentrations 
exceeded this threshold: 208 [micro]g/m\3\ on December 1, 2011 at the 
Keeler-Cerro Gordo Road monitor in Great Basin Valley AQCR, and 167 
[mu]g/m\3\ on May 5, 2013 at the Bakersfield-Planz monitor in San 
Joaquin Valley AQCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, pp. 6-7 and Attachment B 
(``Recommended Interim Significant Harm Level, Priority Levels, and 
Action Levels for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Emergency Episode Plans 
(EEPs)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these two areas, we also reviewed the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> 
air quality data to determine the appropriate emergency episode 
classification under 40 CFR 51.150. We propose to classify such areas 
based on PM<INF>10</INF> values, rather than PM<INF>2.5</INF> values 
alone, in order to ensure adequate protection from PM emergency 
episodes as a whole. Following classification, however, we also propose 
that such differences could be relevant in determining the adequacy of 
a PM emergency episode contingency plan. We discuss the rationale for 
these two proposal in our Emergency Episode Planning TSD.
    For PM, an AQCR with a 24-hour PM maximum level between 150-325 
[micro]g/m\3\ over the most recent three-year period must be classified 
Priority II and an AQCR with a 24-hour PM maximum level greater than 
325 [micro]g/m\3\ must be classified Priority I. The monitors in Great 
Basin Valley AQCR recorded over 90 instances during 2011-2013 where 24-
hour PM<INF>10</INF> levels exceeded the Priority I threshold of 325 
[micro]g/m\3\. As such, we propose to revise the PM emergency episode 
classification of Great Basin Valley AQCR from Priority III to Priority 
I in 40 CFR 52.221. The monitors in San Joaquin Valley AQCR recorded 15 
instances during 2011-2013 where 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> levels were 
within the Priority II range of 150-325 [micro]g/m\3\, with no 
exceedances of the Priority I threshold of 325 [micro]g/m\3\ during 
that time. We therefore propose to revise the PM emergency episode 
classification of San Joaquin Valley AQCR from Priority I to Priority 
II in 40 CFR 52.221.
    Based on these classifications, we have reviewed the adequacy of 
each area's PM emergency episode plans. As noted in section IV.A.i of 
this proposed rule, we propose to approve Great Basin Rule 701 for the 
emergency episode

[[Page 63358]]

planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. However, for San Joaquin 
Valley AQCR, we proposed to partially disapprove California's 2007 and 
2014 Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS, which we discuss in section IV.B.iii of this proposed rule. For 
further discussion of the emergency episode planning evaluation as a 
whole, please refer to our Emergency Episode Planning TSD.

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals

    EPA proposes to partially disapprove California's Infrastructure 
SIP Submittals with respect to the NAAQS identified for each of the 
following infrastructure SIP requirements (details of the partial 
disapprovals are presented after this list):
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(B) (in part): Ambient air quality 
monitoring/data system (for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 
Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in San Joaquin Valley 
APCD).
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of 
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources 
(for all NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule due to PSD program and 
minor NSR deficiencies in certain air districts).
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution 
transport (for all NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule due to PSD 
program deficiencies in certain air districts).
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution 
abatement and international air pollution (for all NAAQS addressed by 
this proposed rule due to PSD program deficiencies in certain air 
districts).
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(G) (in part): Emergency episodes (for 
the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Mountain Counties AQCR, and 
for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley AQCR).
    <bullet> Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with 
government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility 
protection (for all NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule due to PSD 
program deficiencies in certain air districts).
i. Ambient Air Monitoring Partial Disapproval
    We propose to partially disapprove California's 2007 and 2014 
Submittals for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 ozone 
and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Bakersfield MSA portion of the California 
SIP because the ozone monitor located at the Arvin-Bear Mountain Road 
site, which had been the maximum ozone concentration monitor in the 
Bakersfield MSA, was closed without an approved replacement site. The 
requirement to have such a maximum ozone concentration monitor is found 
in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix D, 4.1(b) and the requirement that 
modifications to a monitoring network must be reviewed and approved by 
the relevant Regional Administrator is found in 40 CFR 58.14(b). For 
further discussion of this partial disapproval, please see our 
evaluation for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) in our Overarching TSD.
ii. Permit Program-Related Partial Disapprovals
    We propose to partially disapprove portions of California's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the PSD-related 
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for 
several air districts because the California SIP does not fully satisfy 
the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs as to 
those air districts. In addition, we propose to partially disapprove 
portions of California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to 
the minor NSR-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for several 
air districts because the California SIP does not include minor NSR 
programs for five air districts. With respect to interstate transport 
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), we also considered the 
status of the nonattainment NSR programs of the applicable California 
air districts and propose to approve California's Infrastructure SIP 
Submittals for this aspect of the interstate transport requirements. 
Lastly, regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and compliance with the 
requirement of section 126(a) for proposed, major new or modified 
sources to notify all potentially affected, nearby states, as 
applicable, we propose to partially disapprove California's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals for many air districts. We provide a 
summary of the basis of our proposed partial disapprovals in the 
following paragraphs. For further detail on the nature and extent of 
these proposed partial disapprovals, please refer to our Permit 
Programs TSD.
PSD Permit Programs
    We reviewed the permit programs of California's 35 air districts 
for SIP-approved provisions to address PSD requirements that we 
consider ``structural'' for purposes of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J), including the following requirements that were 
most recently added to the federal PSD regulations: Provisions 
identifying nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) as ozone precursors; 
provisions to regulate PM<INF>2.5</INF>, including condensable 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions, and PSD 
increments for PM<INF>2.5</INF>; and provisions to regulate GHGs. For 
the PSD requirements for GHGs, we conducted our evaluation consistent 
with the recent changes to the application of such requirements due to 
the U.S. Supreme Court decision of June 23, 2014, as discussed in 
section II.D of this proposed rule.
    We propose to approve seven districts as meeting the structural PSD 
requirements, including Eastern Kern, Imperial County, Monterey Bay 
Unified, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-
Solano air districts. With respect to Monterey Bay Unified APCD, our 
proposed approval for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) is 
contingent on finalizing our proposed rule on a PSD SIP revision for 
this district that meets such structural PSD requirements.\34\ However, 
we note that the district's current SIP-approved PSD program does not 
include requirements for the regulation of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, condensable PM<INF>2.5</INF>, or PSD 
increments for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Thus, in the event that we are not 
able to finalize our proposed action on such PSD SIP revision prior to 
finalizing action on California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals, we 
propose in the alternative to partially disapprove Monterey Bay Unified 
APCD for these specific PSD-related requirements for sections 
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The pre-publication copy of our proposed rule on Monterey 
Bay Unified APCD's PSD SIP revision, signed on September 30, 2014, 
is included in the docket of our proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional four air districts, including Mendocino County, North 
Coast Unified, Northern Sonoma County, and South Coast air districts, 
partially meet and partially do not meet the structural PSD 
requirements. South Coast AQMD has a SIP-approved PSD program for GHGs 
only, but it does not have a SIP-approved PSD program to address any 
other regulated NSR pollutants. Thus we propose to partially disapprove 
California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to this district for the 
PSD-related requirement of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
    North Coast Unified AQMD has a SIP-approved PSD program that, on 
the whole, addresses all regulated NSR pollutants. However, it does not 
explicitly regulate NO<INF>X</INF> as an ozone precursor and does not 
include requirements for the regulation of PM<INF>2.5</INF>,

[[Page 63359]]

PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, condensable PM<INF>2.5</INF>, or PSD 
increments for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Therefore, we propose to partially 
disapprove California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to this 
district for these specific deficiencies for PSD-related requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). Mendocino County AQMD and 
Northern Sonoma County APCD each have SIP-approved PSD programs that 
generally address the structural PSD requirements, but do not include 
requirements for a baseline date for PSD increments for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Thus, we propose to partially disapprove California's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to both of these districts for this 
specific deficiency in the PSD-related requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
    The remaining 24 air districts are subject to the existing PSD FIP 
in 40 CFR 52.21, including Amador County, Antelope Valley, Bay Area, 
Butte County, Calaveras County, Colusa County, El Dorado County, 
Feather River, Glenn County, Great Basin Unified, Lake County, Lassen 
County, Mariposa County, Modoc County, Mojave Desert, Northern Sierra, 
San Diego County, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, Shasta 
County, Siskiyou County, Tehama County, Tuolumne County, and Ventura 
County air districts. Eight of these, including Bay Area, Butte County, 
Feather River, Great Basin Unified, San Diego County, San Luis Obispo 
County, Santa Barbara County, and Ventura County air districts, have 
made PSD SIP submittals for which EPA has not yet proposed or finalized 
action. Accordingly, we propose to partially disapprove California's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to each of these 24 air districts with 
respect to the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J). As discussed further in section IV.C of this 
proposed rule, the partial disapprovals as to these 24 districts would 
not result in new FIP obligations, because EPA has already promulgated 
a PSD FIP for each district.
Minor NSR Programs
    Consistent with the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) that the 
SIP include a program for the regulation of minor sources, we also 
evaluated California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the California 
SIP with respect to minor NSR programs covering the NAAQS addressed by 
this proposed rule. Thirty of the 35 air districts have a SIP-approved 
minor NSR program that applies to all NAAQS, and therefore meet the 
minor NSR component of section 110(a)(2)(C). The remaining five air 
districts--Lake County, Mariposa County, Mojave Desert, Northern 
Sierra,\35\ and Tuolumne County air districts--have minor NSR programs 
that establish similar requirements, but they have not been submitted 
and approved into the California SIP. Therefore, we propose to 
partially disapprove California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 
respect to the minor NSR requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for 
these five air districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Note that Northern Sierra AQMD comprises three counties, 
one of which (Nevada County) has a SIP-approved minor NSR program 
while the other two (Plumas and Sierra counties) do not. Thus, our 
conclusion on the absence of a SIP-approved minor NSR program 
pertains only to these two counties within Northern Sierra AQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonattainment NSR Permit Programs
    With respect to interstate transport requirement of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), in addition to reviewing the air districts' PSD 
programs, we also considered the nonattainment NSR programs of the 
applicable California air districts as follows. CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to prohibit emissions that will 
interfere with other state's measures to prevent significant 
deterioration of air quality. The PSD and nonattainment NSR permit 
programs require preconstruction permits to protect the air quality 
within each state and are designed to prohibit construction of new 
major sources and major modifications at existing major sources from 
contributing to nonattainment in surrounding areas, including nearby 
states. Specifically, a PSD permit may not be issued unless the new or 
modified source demonstrates that emissions from the construction or 
operation of the facility will not cause or contribute to air pollution 
in any area that exceeds any NAAQS or any maximum allowable increase 
(i.e., PSD increment).\36\A nonattainment NSR permit may not be issued 
unless the new or modified source shows it has obtained sufficient 
emissions reductions to offset increases in emissions of the pollutants 
for which an area is designated nonattainment, consistent with 
reasonable further progress toward attainment.\37\ Because the PSD and 
nonattainment NSR permitting programs currently applicable in each area 
require a demonstration that new or modified sources will not cause or 
contribute to air pollution in excess of the NAAQS in neighboring 
states or that sources in nonattainment areas procure offsets, states 
may satisfy the PSD-related requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
by submitting SIPs confirming that major sources and major 
modifications in the state are subject to PSD programs that implement 
current requirements and nonattainment NSR programs that address the 
NAAQS pollutants for which areas of the state that have been designated 
nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7475(a)(3); 40 CFR 51.166(k).
    \37\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7503(a)(1); 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we reviewed the nonattainment NSR programs of 
California's 22 air districts that are designated nonattainment for 
ozone, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, or Pb, as applicable,\38\ to determine whether 
these programs generally address the applicable nonattainment 
pollutants. We refer to this aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
herein as the ``nonattainment NSR element.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ No area of California has been designated nonattainment for 
the 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> or 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to find that California meets the nonattainment NSR 
element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through a variety of mechanisms, 
as follows. Nine of the 22 air districts with nonattainment areas meet 
the nonattainment NSR element via SIP-approved programs, including the 
following air districts: Antelope Valley, Eastern Kern, Mojave Desert, 
Placer County, San Diego County, and Ventura County (for the 1997 ozone 
and 2008 ozone NAAQS); Sacramento Metro and Feather River (for the 1997 
ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS); and San Joaquin 
Valley (for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS).
    An additional eight air districts have affirmed that they implement 
the interim nonattainment NSR program in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, 
which applies to new or modified major stationary sources pursuant to 
40 CFR 52.24(k), until California submits (on behalf of a given 
district) and EPA approves SIP revisions addressing the applicable 
nonattainment NSR program requirements. This scenario applies to the 
following districts: Calaveras County, Mariposa County, and Northern 
Sierra (for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS); and Bay Area, Butte 
County, El Dorado County, Imperial County, Yolo-Solano (for the 1997 
ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS). We note that Bay 
Area, Butte County, Imperial County, and South Coast air districts have 
each submitted SIP revisions to address some or all of the outstanding 
nonattainment NSR requirements. We anticipate proposing or taking final 
action on some or all of these four SIP submittals over the coming 
months. To the extent that each submittal meets the applicable

[[Page 63360]]

nonattainment NSR requirements, we propose that such actions would 
alter the basis of our proposed approval of California's Infrastructure 
SIP Submittals with respect to the nonattainment NSR element of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (i.e., having SIP-approved nonattainment NSR 
provisions rather than relying on 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S) while 
maintaining the proposed approval itself.
    South Coast AQMD implements its SIP-approved nonattainment NSR 
program for the portions of the air district that are designated 
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2008 Pb NAAQS, and 
implements the interim nonattainment NSR program in 40 CFR part 51, 
Appendix S with respect to the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    Two other districts, Amador County APCD and Tuolumne County APCD, 
are designated nonattainment only for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA has 
proposed to revoke that NAAQS as part of the proposed implementation 
rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,\39\ which for these two air districts 
would have the effect of revoking the requirement to submit a 
nonattainment NSR SIP revision.\40\ We anticipate that EPA will 
finalize that proposed rule prior to finalization of this proposed rule 
on California's Infrastructure SIPs, so these two districts will be 
relieved of the requirement to submit nonattainment NSR SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 78 FR 34178, June 6, 2013.
    \40\ This scenario also applies to the Sutter Buttes area within 
Feather River AQMD that is designated nonattainment for the 1997 
ozone NAAQS. However, the southern portion of Feather River AQMD has 
been designated nonattainment for both the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone 
NAAQS. Thus, the requirement for this air district to submit a 
nonattainment NSR SIP revision remains, though it will no longer 
apply to Sutter Buttes area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, portions of San Luis Obispo County APCD and Tehama County 
APCD are designated nonattainment only for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 
Stemming from EPA's proposed implementation rule for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS,\41\ required nonattainment NSR SIP revisions would not be due 
until July 20, 2015 and, thus, this requirement is not yet due for 
these two districts. Until such SIP revisions are submitted by these 
two districts and approved by EPA, the districts are required to 
implement 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S for any major source emitting an 
applicable nonattainment pollutant (i.e., NO<INF>X</INF> or VOCs) that 
may propose to locate in the respective nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 78 FR 34178, June 6, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we propose to approve California's Infrastructure SIP 
Submittals for the 22 air districts designated nonattainment for ozone, 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, or Pb, as applicable, with respect to the 
nonattainment NSR element of the interstate transport requirement of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution
    With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 
regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of section 126 
relating to interstate pollution abatement, we note that the 
requirements of section 126(b) and (c), which pertain to petitions by 
affected states to EPA regarding sources violating the ``interstate 
transport'' provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), do not apply to 
our action because there are no such pending petitions relating to 
California. We thus evaluated California's 2014 Submittal (the only 
submittal of California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals to explicitly 
address this sub-section) only for purposes of compliance with section 
126(a), which requires that each SIP require that proposed, major new 
or modified sources, which may significantly contribute to violations 
of the NAAQS in any air quality control region in other states, to 
notify all potentially affected, nearby states. For further discussion 
of these requirements, please refer to our Interstate Transport TSD.
    Ten of California's 35 air districts have SIP-approved PSD permit 
programs that require notice to nearby states consistent with EPA's 
relevant requirements, including the following districts: Eastern Kern, 
Imperial County, Mendocino County, Monterey Bay Unified, North Coast 
Unified, Northern Sonoma County, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San 
Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-Solano. The remaining 25 air districts are 
deficient with respect to the PSD requirements in part C, title I of 
the Act and with respect to the requirement in CAA section 126(a) 
regarding notification to affected, nearby states of major new or 
modified sources proposing to locate in these remaining air districts.
    With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 
regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115 
relating to international air pollution, the EPA Administrator is 
authorized to require a state to revise its SIP when certain criteria 
are met and the Administrator has reason to believe that any air 
pollutant emitted in the United States causes or contributes to air 
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 
or welfare in a foreign country. The Administrator may do so by giving 
formal notification to the Governor of the State in which the emissions 
originate. Because no such formal notification has been made with 
respect to emissions originating in California, EPA has no reason to 
approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to CAA 
section 115.
    Thus, while the existing California SIP is sufficient to satisfy 
most of the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding 
compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115 for the 
whole state and section 126 for ten air districts, we propose to 
partially disapprove California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the requirements of 
section 126(a) for the following 25 air districts: Amador County, 
Antelope Valley, Bay Area, Butte County, Calaveras County, Colusa 
County, El Dorado County, Feather River, Glenn County, Great Basin 
Unified, Lake County, Lassen County, Mariposa County, Modoc County, 
Mojave Desert, Northern Sierra, San Diego County, San Luis Obispo 
County, Santa Barbara County, Shasta County, Siskiyou County, South 
Coast, Tehama County, Tuolumne County, and Ventura County.
iii. Emergency Episode Planning Partial Disapprovals
    We are proposing to partially disapprove California's 2007 and 2014 
Submittals for CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 ozone 
and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Mountain Counties AQCR and with respect to 
the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley AQCR. We provide a 
summary of the basis of our proposed partial disapproval in the 
following paragraphs. For further discussion of these partial 
disapprovals, please refer to our Emergency Episode Planning TSD.
Mountain Counties AQCR for Ozone
    As described in section IV.A.ii of this proposed rule, we propose 
to deny California's request to reclassify the Mountain Counties AQCR 
to Priority III for ozone and have assessed the status of this region's 
ambient air quality and emergency episode rules. Of the seven air 
districts that comprise the Mountain Counties AQCR, only El Dorado 
County APCD and Placer County APCD recorded a 1-hour ozone level above 
the Priority I ozone threshold of 0.10 ppm during 2011-2013. Because 
recent ambient air quality data for the AQCR

[[Page 63361]]

as a whole do not indicate that ozone levels are likely to approach the 
Stage 1 one-hour ozone alert level of 0.20 ppm, much less the 2-hour 
significant harm level of 0.6 ppm, we propose to find that to satisfy 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.151 for contingency plans for Mountain 
Counties AQCR, California needs to provide emergency episode 
contingency plans applicable to ozone for El Dorado County APCD and 
Placer County APCD. Since these two air districts do not have SIP-
approved emergency episode rules, we propose to partially disapprove 
California's 2007 and 2014 Submittals for the Mountain Counties AQCR 
(for El Dorado County APCD and Placer County APCD only) with respect to 
the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the emergency episode planning 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).
San Joaquin Valley AQCR for PM<INF>2.5</INF>
    As discussed in section IV.A.iii of this proposed rule, we propose 
to revise the PM emergency episode classification of San Joaquin Valley 
AQCR from Priority I to Priority II. Accordingly, we reviewed San 
Joaquin Valley APCD's SIP-approved emergency episode plan, which 
comprises multiple rules under the district's Regulation 6 (``Air 
Pollution Emergency Episodes'').\42\ We did not find provisions 
specific to PM<INF>2.5</INF> within Regulation 6. As such, we propose 
to conclude that the California SIP does not have an adequate PM 
emergency episode contingency plan with respect to PM<INF>2.5</INF> for 
San Joaquin Valley AQCR and therefore propose to partially disapprove 
California's 2007 and 2014 Submittals for San Joaquin Valley AQCR with 
respect to the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 2012 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS for the emergency episode planning requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 64 FR 13351, March 18, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. General Note on Disapprovals
    EPA takes very seriously a proposal to disapprove a state plan, as 
we believe that it is preferable, and preferred in the provisions of 
the Clean Air Act, that these requirements be implemented through state 
plans. A state plan need not contain exactly the same provisions that 
EPA might require, but EPA must be able to find that the state plan is 
consistent with the requirements of the Act. Further, EPA's oversight 
role requires that it assure consistent implementation of Clean Air Act 
requirements by states across the country, even while acknowledging 
that individual decisions from source to source or state to state may 
not have identical outcomes. EPA believes these proposed disapprovals 
are the only path that is consistent with the Act at this time.

C. Consequences of Proposed Disapprovals

    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal 
that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA (CAA 
sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of 
substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) 
starts a sanctions clock. California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals 
were not submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, any 
action we take to finalize the described partial disapprovals will not 
trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179.
    In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must 
promulgate a FIP within two years after finding that a state has failed 
to make a required submittal or disapproving a SIP submittal in whole 
or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the 
deficiencies within that two-year period. As discussed in section IV.B 
of this proposed rule and Overarching TSD, Permit Programs TSD, 
Interstate Transport TSD, and Emergency Episode Planning TSD, we are 
proposing several partial disapprovals. However, many of these partial 
disapprovals would not result in new FIP obligations, either because 
EPA has already promulgated a FIP to address the identified deficiency 
or because a FIP deadline has been triggered by EPA's disapproval of a 
prior SIP submittal based on the same identified deficiency. The 
provisions for which our proposed disapproval, if finalized, would not 
result in a new FIP obligation include:
    <bullet> PSD-related requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) in the 24 air districts identified in 
section IV.B.ii of this proposed rule, which are subject to the PSD FIP 
in 40 CFR 52.21 for the NAAQS and GHGs (see 40 CFR 52.270).
    <bullet> PSD-related requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) in South Coast AQMD, which is subject to 
the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21 for the NAAQS only (see 40 CFR 
52.270(b)(10)).
    <bullet> PSD requirement in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 
(J) to regulate NO<INF>X</INF> as an ozone precursor in North Coast 
Unified AQMD, which is subject to a narrow PSD FIP addressing this 
requirement (76 FR 48006, August 8, 2011, codified at 40 CFR 
52.270(b)(2)(iv)).
    <bullet> PSD requirement in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 
(J) to regulate PSD increments in North Coast Unified AQMD, for which 
EPA issued a finding of failure to submit that triggered an October 6, 
2016 deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP addressing this requirement 
(79 FR 51913, September 2, 2014).
    For the remaining partial disapprovals, EPA has not previously 
promulgated a FIP to address the identified deficiency or triggered a 
FIP deadline by disapproving a prior SIP submittal or issuing a finding 
of failure based on the same deficiency. Thus, under CAA section 
110(c)(1), these remaining partial disapprovals of California's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals would, if finalized, require EPA to 
promulgate a FIP within two years after the effective date of our final 
rule, unless the State submits and EPA approves a SIP revision that 
corrects the identified deficiencies prior to the expiration of this 
two-year period. The provisions for which our proposed partial 
disapprovals, if finalized, would trigger a new FIP obligation include:
    <bullet> Ambient air monitoring requirement in section 110(a)(2)(B) 
with respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Bakersfield 
MSA.
    <bullet> PSD requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 
(J) to regulate PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, and 
condensable PM<INF>2.5</INF> in North Coast Unified AQMD.
    <bullet> PSD requirement in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 
(J) for a baseline date for PSD increments for PM<INF>2.5</INF> in 
Mendocino County APCD and Northern Sonoma County APCD.
    <bullet> Minor NSR requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C) with 
respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO<INF>2</INF>, 
and 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in Lake County APCD, Mariposa County 
APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD (for Plumas and Sierra 
counties only), and Tuolumne County APCD.
    <bullet> Emergency episode planning requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS in the 
Mountain Counties AQCR (for El Dorado County APCD and Placer County 
APCD only).
    <bullet> Emergency episode planning requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the San Joaquin 
Valley AQCR.

D. Request for Public Comments

    We stand ready to work with ARB and the affected air districts to 
develop SIP revisions that would serve to adequately address the 
partial disapprovals of California's Infrastructure SIP

[[Page 63362]]

Submittals where no FIP is currently in place.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the 
public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these 
comments before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

IV.A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 
and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O.

IV.B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, 
because this proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP 
revisions under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any 
new information collection burdens but simply proposes to approve 
certain State requirements, and to disapprove certain other State 
requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).

IV.C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule, we 
certify that this proposed action will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not 
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This 
proposed partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA 
section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but 
simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to 
disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the 
SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for 
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. Therefore, this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

IV.D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed partial approval and 
partial disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may 
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, 
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private 
sector. This action proposes to approve certain pre-existing 
requirements, and to disapprove certain other pre-existing 
requirements, under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this proposed 
action.

IV.E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes to 
approve certain State requirements, and to disapprove certain other 
State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the 
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to this action.

IV.F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP 
on which EPA is proposing action would not apply in Indian country 
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.

IV.G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or 
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997). This proposed partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA 
section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but 
simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to 
disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the 
SIP.

IV.H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

IV.I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

[[Page 63363]]

standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to 
requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those 
requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

IV.J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Environmental 
protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Pb, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur 
dioxide.

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

    Dated: September 30, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-25278 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>