Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0096-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone
Posted Date: 2020-10-16T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 201 (Friday, October 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65755-65774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22061]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0096; FRL-10014-93-Region 9]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State 
Implementation Plans; California; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
partially approve and partially disapprove the state implementation 
plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California pursuant to 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2015 national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for ozone. As 
part of this action, we are proposing to reclassify certain regions of 
the State for emergency episode planning purposes with respect to 
ozone. We are also proposing to approve into the SIP an updated state 
provision addressing CAA conflict of interest requirements, and 
emergency episode planning rules for Amador County Air Pollution 
Control District (APCD), Calaveras County APCD, Mariposa County APCD, 
Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (AQMD), and Tuolumne 
County APCD. Finally, we are proposing to approve an exemption from 
emergency episode planning requirements for ozone for Lake County AQMD. 
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 16, 
2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0096 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, or if you need assistance in a language 
other than English, or if you are a person with a disability who needs 
a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panah Stauffer, EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3247 or by 
email at [email protected]

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

Table of Contents

I. The EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
II. Background
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. NAAQS Addressed by this Proposal
    C. EPA Guidance Documents
III. California's Submittals
IV. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals
    B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals
    C. The EPA's Evaluation of California's Submittal
    D. Proposed Approval of State and Local Provisions into the 
California SIP
    E. Proposed Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency 
Episode Planning
    F. The EPA's Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    The EPA is acting upon two SIP submittals from California that 
address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Whenever the EPA promulgates a new 
or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP 
submissions to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of the NAAQS. This type of SIP submission is commonly 
referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet 
the various requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due 
to ambiguity in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), the EPA 
believes that it is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the 
specific context of acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. The EPA 
has previously provided comprehensive guidance on the application of 
these provisions through a guidance document for infrastructure SIP 
submissions \1\ and through regional actions on infrastructure 
submissions. Unless otherwise noted below, we are following that 
existing approach in acting on this submission. In addition, in the 
context of acting on such infrastructure submissions, the EPA evaluates 
the submitting state's SIP for facial compliance with statutory and 
regulatory requirements, not for the

[[Page 65756]]

state's implementation of its SIP.\2\ The EPA has other authority to 
address any issues concerning a state's implementation of the rules, 
regulations, consent orders, etc., that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its 
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure 
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/
    Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept
_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous EPA actions, including the EPA's 
prior action on California's infrastructure SIP to address the 1997 
and 2008 ozone NAAQS (79 FR 63350 (October 23, 2014)).
    \2\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in 
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 (Aug. 
30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the 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) contains the infrastructure SIP requirements, which generally 
relate to the information, authorities, compliance assurances, 
procedural requirements, and control measures that constitute the 
``infrastructure'' of a state's air quality management program. These 
infrastructure SIP requirements (or ``elements'') required by section 
110(a)(2) are as follows:
     Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control 
measures.
     Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data 
system.
     Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control 
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate pollution abatement 
and international air pollution.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, 
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government 
agencies.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and 
reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government 
officials, public notification, prevention of significant deterioration 
(PSD), and visibility protection.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal 
of modeling data.
     Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by 
affected local entities.
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by 
the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are 
therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: (i) 
Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs 
required under part D (nonattainment new source review (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 
requirements 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

    Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, 
referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, 
including on-and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and 
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden 
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public 
health effects occur following exposure to elevated levels of ozone, 
particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air 
containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which 
can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung 
diseases.
    On October 26, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for 
ozone.\3\ The EPA had previously promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979, 
1997 and 2008. The 2015 ozone NAAQS revised the level of the standards 
to 0.070 parts per million (ppm) averaged across eight hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 80 FR 65292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Guidance Documents

    EPA has issued several guidance memos on infrastructure SIPs that 
have informed our evaluation, including the following:
     March 2, 1978 guidance on the conflict of interest 
requirements of section 128, pursuant to the requirement of section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Memorandum dated March 2, 1978, from David O. Bickart, 
Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel (OGC), ``Guidance 
to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest Requirements of Section 
128.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     August 15, 2006 guidance on the interstate transport 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone 
and 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS (``2006 
Transport Guidance'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Memorandum dated August 15, 2006, from William T. Harnett, 
Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), ``Guidance for State Implementation 
Plan Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     September 25, 2009 guidance on infrastructure SIP 
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (``2009 Infrastructure 
SIP Guidance'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Memorandum dated September 25, 2009, 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 13, 2013 guidance on infrastructure SIP 
requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2), 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), 2012 
PM2.5, and future NAAQS (``2013 Infrastructure SIP 
Guidance'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Memorandum dated September 13, 2013, 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).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. California's Submittal

    In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB or 
``State'') is the state agency responsible for the adoption and 
submission to the EPA of California SIPs and SIP revisions. CARB 
submitted its infrastructure SIP revision (``2018 Infrastructure SIP'' 
or ``California's 2018 Submittal'') for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on October 
1, 2018.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter dated October 1, 2018, from Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, 
EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 25, 2020, CARB supplemented its 2018 Infrastructure SIP by 
submitting ozone emergency episode contingency plans for San Luis 
Obispo County APCD, Amador County APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Mariposa 
County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, and Tuolumne County APCD.\9\ It also 
submitted an exemption request from emergency episode planning 
requirements for Lake County AQMD based on that District's attainment 
status. This submittal (``California's 2020 Submittal'') addresses CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Letter dated June 16, 2020, from Richard W. Corey, Executive 
Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 
IX, with Ozone Emergency Episode Plans for Amador County, San Luis 
Obispo County, Northern Sierra, Tuolumne County, Mariposa County, 
and Calaveras County and Exemption Request for Lake County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We find that these submittals (referred to collectively herein as 
``California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals'') meet the procedural 
requirements for public participation under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 
40 CFR 51.102. We also find that they meet the applicable completeness 
criteria in Appendix V to

[[Page 65757]]

40 CFR part 51. We are proposing to act on California's Infrastructure 
SIP Submittals.

IV. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals

    Based upon the evaluation presented in this notice, the EPA 
proposes to approve California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with 
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the following infrastructure SIP 
requirements. Proposed partial approvals are indicated by the 
parenthetical ``(in part).''
     Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control 
measures.
     Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data 
system.
     Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of 
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part): Interstate pollution 
transport.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution 
abatement and international air pollution.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, 
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government 
agencies.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and 
reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with 
government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility 
protection.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal 
of modeling data.
     Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by 
affected local entities.

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals

    EPA proposes to partially disapprove California's Infrastructure 
SIP Submittals with respect to the NAAQS identified for each of the 
following infrastructure SIP requirements (details of the partial 
disapprovals are presented after this list):
     Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of 
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources 
(due to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program 
deficiencies in certain air districts).
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part): Interstate 
pollution transport (due to PSD program deficiencies in certain air 
districts).
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution 
abatement and international air pollution.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with 
government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility 
protection (due to PSD program deficiencies in certain air districts).
    These partial disapprovals are for districts in California that do 
not have fully SIP-approved PSD programs. The disapprovals will not 
create any new consequences for these districts or the EPA as the 
districts already implement the EPA's federal PSD program at 40 CFR 
52.21, pursuant to delegation agreements, for all regulated NSR 
pollutants. They will also not create any new highway sanctions, which 
are not triggered by disapprovals of infrastructure SIPs.
    At this time, the EPA is not acting on the interstate transport 
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which prohibits emission sources 
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with 
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The EPA will propose action 
on the interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in a 
separate notice.

C. The EPA's Evaluation of California's Submittal

    We have evaluated California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP and the 
existing provisions of the California SIP for compliance with the 
infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) and applicable 
regulations in 40 CFR part 51 (``Requirements for Preparation, 
Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation Plans'').
1. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to ``include enforceable 
emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques 
(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and 
auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for 
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable 
requirements of this Act.''
    In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA states that a 
submittal meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) if it 
identifies ``existing EPA-approved SIP provisions or new SIP provisions 
that the air agency has adopted and submitted for EPA approval that 
limit emissions of pollutants relevant to the subject NAAQS, including 
precursors of the relevant NAAQS pollutant where applicable.''
    VOC and NOX are precursors to ozone formation across all 
source categories. Their emissions are grouped into two general 
categories: Stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary sources 
are further divided into ``point'' and ``area'' sources. Point sources 
typically refer to permitted facilities that have one or more 
identified and fixed pieces of equipment and emissions points. 
Stationary area sources are many smaller point sources, and include 
sources that have internal combustion engines, and gasoline dispensing 
facilities (gas stations). Area sources consist of widespread and 
numerous smaller emission sources, such as small permitted facilities 
and households. The mobile sources category can be divided into two 
major subcategories: ``on-road'' and ``off-road'' mobile sources. On-
road mobile sources include light-duty automobiles, light-, medium-, 
and heavy-duty trucks, and motorcycles. Off-road mobile sources include 
aircraft, locomotives, construction equipment, mobile equipment, and 
recreational vehicles.
b. Summary of the State's Submission
    In its 2018 submittal, California describes different regulatory 
authorities in California involving state, local, and federal 
governments. The submittal explains that the state agency, California 
Air Resources Board (CARB), has authority to adopt and implement 
controls for on-road and off-road mobile sources, as well as for the 
fuels that power them. CARB also has authority to regulate consumer 
products. Local air pollution control districts have authority to adopt 
and implement controls for stationary sources and small local 
businesses. If a district fails to meet its responsibilities, CARB is 
authorized to act in its stead. Some of CARB's authorities also 
complement federal control measures, such as standards for fuels and 
vehicles that the EPA establishes. Although CARB acknowledges that 
several areas in California have not yet met the ozone standards, it 
notes that current and future regulations implemented under state and 
local authority will enable continued progress towards attaining those 
standards.
    CARB describes how it has regulated a wide range of mobile sources, 
including heavy-duty trucks and passenger vehicles that are already in 
use. CARB has also regulated fuels. In the submittal, CARB states that 
these regulations have reduced emissions from vehicles and off-road 
sources such as lawn and garden equipment,

[[Page 65758]]

recreational vehicles and boats, and construction equipment.
    Starting with mobile sources, California states that its stringent 
motor vehicle and fuel standards, in-use rules, and inspection programs 
such as Smog Check and heavy-duty truck inspections have resulted in 
cars and trucks that are 99 percent and 98 percent cleaner, 
respectively, than their uncontrolled counterparts. In addition, CARB 
describes its emission standards for off-road sources and states that 
it has collaborated with the EPA to regulate sources subject to a 
combination of state and federal authority, as exemplified by 
locomotive engine standards and low-sulfur diesel fuel standards for 
near-shore ships.
    With respect to stationary sources and small local businesses, CARB 
states that emission limits are achieved through a combination of 
prohibitory rules establishing emission limits by facility type, 
permits specifying equipment use and operating parameters, and an NSR 
program that allows industrial growth while mitigating environmental 
impacts. Examples of facilities regulated under such district programs 
include refineries, manufacturing facilities, cement plants, 
refinishing operations, electrical generation and biomass facilities, 
boilers, and generators.\10\ The state then provides examples of SIP-
approved emission control measures for VOCs (listed as hydrocarbons, or 
HC) and NOX.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP, 6.
    \11\ Id. at 7, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, CARB notes that all EPA-approved SIP provisions that limit 
emissions of ozone precursors, along with all other pollutants, are 
listed online at the website https://www.epa.gov/sips-ca. These rules, 
along with others mentioned in California's submittal, are discussed 
further in our evaluation section below.
c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP broadly describes, and 
provides examples of, the emission limitations employed by the State 
and air districts to achieve emission reductions that will help areas 
within the State attain and maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The 
submittal also includes the table below with specific examples of 
measures that control emissions of ozone precursors. Some emissions 
control one precursor, while others control multiple precursors and may 
also control other pollutants that are not affected by the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS. The control measures in this table reflect the authorities of 
state and local air agencies in a variety of geographic areas in 
California. These measures control the ozone precursors of HCs, VOCs, 
and NOX. The state-level regulations reflect state authority 
to regulate emissions from vehicles and fuels and to regulate consumer 
products. The local air district regulations reflect local authority to 
regulate stationary sources, such as boilers and cement kilns, as well 
as stationary area sources like confined animal feeding operations. 
Additional examples of rules that control ozone precursor emissions 
were discussed in the EPA's Overarching Technical Support Document \12\ 
for our 2016 final action on California's Infrastructure SIP Submission 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ California Infrastructure SIP Overarching Technical Support 
Document, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (September 2014).

                     Table 1--Examples of California SIP-Approved Emission Control Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Pollutant or precursor
           Rule description             emission  controlled a  Rule/regulation  number      Federal Register
                                                                           b                     citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust Emissions Standards and Test   HC, NOX, PM, CO........  State Regulation 13 CCR  75 FR 26653.
 Procedures--1985 & Subsequent Model                             1956.8.
 Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles.
Exhaust Emissions Standards and Test   HC, NOX, PM, CO........  State Regulation 13 CCR  75 FR 26653.
 Procedures--2004 & Subsequent Model                             1961.
 Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks,
 and Medium-Duty Vehicles.
California Reformulated Gasoline       HC, SOX................  State Regulation 13 CCR  60 FR 43379, 75 FR
 Regulations.                                                    2250-2297.               26653.
Regulations for Large Spark-Ignition   HC, NOX................  State Regulation 13 CCR  80 FR 76468.
 Engines and Off-Road Large Spark                                2433, 13 CCR 2775-
 Ignition Engine Fleet Requirements.                             2775.2.
Consumer Products....................  VOC....................  State Regulation, 17     77 FR 7535.
                                                                 CCR Subchapter 8.5,
                                                                 Article 2.
RECLAIM (Regional Clean Air            NOX....................  South Coast AQMD Rule    80 FR 43176.
 Incentives Market) Program.                                     2002.
NOX Emissions from Natural Gas Fired,  NOX....................  South Coast AQMD Rule    81 FR 17390.
 Fan-Type Central Furnace.                                       1111.
Crude Oil Production Sumps...........  HC.....................  San Joaquin Valley APCD  77 FR 64227.
                                                                 Rule 4402.
Confined Animal Facility Operations..  VOC....................  San Joaquin Valley APCD  77 FR 2228.
                                                                 Rule 4570.
Portland Cement Kilns................  NOX....................  Mojave Desert AQMD Rule  68 FR 9015.
                                                                 1161.
Glass Melting Furnaces...............  VOC, NOX...............  Mojave Desert AQMD Rule  77 FR 39181.
                                                                 1165.
Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle      HC.....................  Sacramento Metro AQMD    78 FR 898.
 Fuel Tanks.                                                     Rule 449.
Stationary Internal Combustion         NOX....................  Sacramento Metro AQMD    61 FR 18962.
 Engines Located at Major Stationary                             Rule 412.
 Sources of NOX.
NOX and CO from Boilers, Steam         NOX....................  Bay Area AQMD Rule 10..  73 FR 17896.
 Generators and Process Heaters in
 Petroleum Refineries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ HC = hydrocarbons; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM = particulate matter; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = oxides of
  sulfur; VOC = volatile organic compounds, SO2 = sulfur dioxide.
\b\ CCR = California Code of Regulations, AQMD = Air Quality Management District, APCD = Air Pollution Control
  District.

    In sum, the state and local emission limit provisions in the 
California SIP, including those cited in California's 2018 Submittal, 
for mobile, area, and stationary sources address a wide variety of 
sources and are extensive. The NOX and VOC emission limits 
serve to limit ambient ozone concentrations, which will help all areas 
in the State attain and maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We therefore 
propose to find that the SIP-approved emission limits discussed in 
California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals and in this notice provide 
an adequate basis to conclude that California meets the requirements of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

[[Page 65759]]

2. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires SIPs to ``provide for 
establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, 
and procedures necessary to--(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on 
ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to 
the Administrator.''
    In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA states that a 
submittal meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) if it 
cites its authority to perform air quality monitoring, collect air 
quality data, and submit that data to the EPA, and provides a narrative 
description of how those provisions meet the requirements. The guidance 
notes that some authorizing provisions may provide general authority 
that includes monitoring activities. In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP 
Guidance, the EPA also notes that, for new or revised NAAQS, submittals 
should describe how the state will meet changes in monitoring 
requirements.
b. Summary of the State's Submission
    In its 2018 Infrastructure SIP, California cites its overall 
authority to implement air quality control programs in Health and 
Safety Code (HSC) 39602. CARB also cites HSC 39607(a) and 39607(c) as 
the provisions that authorize it to collect air quality data and to 
monitor air pollutants in cooperation with local agencies, including 
local air districts.\13\ Although these provisions are not SIP-
approved, they direct the state to ``[e]stablish a program to secure 
data on air quality in each air basin'' and to ``[m]onitor air 
pollutants in cooperation with districts and with other agencies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its submittal, California goes on to describe the state's 
monitoring network and requirements. CARB notes that over 700 monitors 
operate at over 250 sites in the State and that current information 
about individual monitors, and the data the monitors collect, are 
available on CARB's website. The data are also reported to the EPA's 
Air Quality System.
    CARB describes how it and local districts conduct annual 
evaluations of the adequacy of the monitoring networks in annual 
network monitoring reports submitted to the EPA. Ten districts submit 
their own reports, and CARB submits a report that covers the remaining 
25 districts. The reports provide information about monitoring 
locations and data collected at those sites. Types of monitoring 
conducted at these sites include ``State and Local Air Monitoring 
sites, National Core multi-pollutant monitoring stations, Chemical 
Speciation Network sites, Special Purpose Monitoring sites, and 
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring sites operated by CARB and the 
districts, as well as other data providers such as the National Park 
Service in more than 30 Core Based Statistical Areas.'' \14\ The EPA 
approves the reports and provides information on areas where the 
network can be improved. CARB explains that data that are collected for 
federal purposes are measured using EPA-approved methods and that they 
are subject to the quality assurance and siting requirements of 40 CFR 
part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2018 Infrastructure SIP submission notes that the 2015 ozone 
standard did not establish new monitoring requirements, and states that 
the current network is adequate to continue monitoring for attainment 
status with the new standard.
c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    In its 2018 submittal, CARB cites HSC section 39602 for overarching 
SIP authority, and HSC sections 39607(a) and (c) for specific authority 
to establish air quality monitoring with the air districts. CARB also 
describes California's network of monitors, how data are collected and 
made publicly available online, and how data are submitted to the EPA 
annually. We propose to find that California's provisions for 
monitoring and data collection provide adequate authority to monitor 
ambient air quality for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) with 
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    With respect to California's compliance with the federal regulatory 
requirements relevant for section 110(a)(2)(B), we reviewed 
California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP in conjunction with California's 
2019 Annual Network Plans (ANPs) and the EPA response letters to those 
plans. As California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP notes, CARB and ten 
districts submit ANPs to the EPA every year. The most recent ANPs 
California was required to submit to the EPA were for the year 2019. 
The EPA has approved all of the 2019 ANPs, and they are included in the 
docket for this action, along with the EPA's response letters. 
Consequently, California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP, along with its 2017 
ANPs, provide an adequate basis for the EPA to propose approval with 
respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(B).
3. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control 
Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that each SIP ``include a program to 
provide for the enforcement of the measures described in [section 
110(a)(2)(A)], and regulation of the modification and construction of 
any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary 
to assure that [NAAQS] are achieved, including a permit program as 
required in parts C and D [of title I of the Act].''
    In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP guidance, the EPA states, ``[t]his 
element consists of three sub-elements; enforcement, state-wide 
regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of 
major sources; and preconstruction permitting of major sources and 
major modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable 
for the subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the 
major source PSD program).'' The EPA's guidance also explains that the 
element C requirement for infrastructure SIPs to comply with CAA title 
I part C requirements encompasses all regulated NSR pollutants, not 
just the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
i. Enforcement
    With respect to the requirement to include a program to provide for 
the enforcement of control measures, the EPA is evaluating the state's 
general enforcement authorities to determine whether they have been 
approved into California's SIP and whether they adequately provide for 
SIP enforcement statewide. In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the 
EPA states, ``To satisfy this subelement, an infrastructure SIP 
submission should identify the statutes, regulations, or other 
provisions in the existing SIP (or new provisions that are submitted as 
part of the infrastructure SIP to be incorporated into the SIP) that 
provide for enforcement of those emission limits and control measures 
that the air agency has identified in its submission for purposes of 
satisfying Element A.''
ii. PSD Permitting
    The EPA is also evaluating whether California has a complete PSD 
permitting program in place covering the requirements for all NAAQS 
pollutants. The PSD program applies to

[[Page 65760]]

any new major source or a source making a major modification in an 
attainment area. The program requirements include installation of the 
best available control technology (BACT), an air quality analysis, an 
additional impacts analysis, and public involvement. For the purposes 
of infrastructure SIPs, the EPA evaluates whether state PSD programs 
address the following ``structural elements'': (1) Provisions 
identifying NOX as an ozone precursor consistent with the 
requirements of the EPA's Phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS; \15\ (2) provisions to regulate PM2.5, 
including condensable PM, and its precursor emissions (SO2 
in all areas, and NOX and/or VOC as appropriate), consistent 
with the requirements of the EPA's NSR/PSD implementation rule for the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; \16\ and (3) provisions to regulate 
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) consistent with the EPA's regulations to 
implement the PSD program for GHGs, including ``Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,'' 
\17\ and ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 
State Implementation Plans,'' \18\ as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 70 FR 71611 (November 29, 2005) (codified at 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(23)(i), (b)(49)(i)).
    \16\ 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (codified at 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(23)(i), (b)(49)(i), (b)(49)(vi)).
    \17\ 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).
    \18\ 75 FR 82535 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Minor NSR
    With respect to the requirement to include a program that provides 
for regulation of the modification and construction of stationary 
sources, the EPA is evaluating whether California has existing EPA-
approved SIP provisions for Minor NSR for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The 
Minor NSR program applies to a new minor source and/or a minor 
modification at both major and minor sources, in both attainment and 
nonattainment areas. Major sources are facilities that have the 
potential to emit pollutants in amounts equal to or greater than the 
corresponding major source threshold levels. These threshold levels 
vary by pollutant and/or source category. Major sources must comply 
with specific emission limits, which are generally more stringent in 
nonattainment areas. Minor sources are facilities that have the 
potential to emit pollutants in amounts less than the corresponding 
major source thresholds.
    Under the Minor NSR program, new sources or modifications at 
existing sources must comply with any emissions control measures 
required by the state. The program must not interfere with attainment 
or maintenance of the NAAQS or the control strategies of a SIP or 
tribal implementation plan (TIP).
b. Summary of the State's Submission
i. Enforcement
    California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP describes three provisions of 
the state HSC that provide CARB and air districts with enforcement 
authority. HSC section 40001(a) states, ``Subject to the powers and 
duties of the state board, the districts shall adopt and enforce rules 
and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient 
air quality standards in all areas affected by emission sources under 
their jurisdiction, and shall enforce all applicable provisions of 
state and federal law.'' HSC section 40000 gives CARB the authority to 
regulate mobile sources and local air districts the authority to 
regulate all other sources. California's HSC thus provides for the 
control of all types of sources and for the enforcement of those 
controls. In addition, HSC section 39002 gives local and regional 
authorities primary responsibility for control of air pollution from 
all sources other than vehicular sources.
ii. PSD Permitting
    In its 2018 Infrastructure SIP, CARB explains that districts have 
the authority to adopt and enforce PSD permitting programs under HSC 
section 40000. The state explains that PSD applies statewide for new 
major sources or major modifications to existing major sources of 
NO2, SO2 and CO because all areas in California 
are designated as attainment or unclassifiable for each NAAQS for those 
pollutants. PSD also applies in areas that are attainment or 
unclassifiable for the other NAAQS. A spreadsheet \19\ listing the 
attainment status of California air districts for all NAAQS is included 
in the docket for this rulemaking. PSD permits can be issued by local 
districts, the EPA, or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA Region IX, Spreadsheet of Nonattainment Areas in 
California Air Districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submittal includes a table from the EPA's website listing 
districts that have SIP-approved PSD permit programs. The table 
indicates that 14 districts have PSD programs that are approved into 
the SIP: Bay Area,\20\ Butte County,\21\ Eastern Kern,\22\ Feather 
River,\23\ Great Basin,\24\ Imperial County,\25\ Monterey Bay,\26\ 
Placer County,\27\ Sacramento Metro,\28\ San Joaquin Valley,\29\ San 
Luis Obispo,\30\ Santa Barbara,\31\ Yolo-Solano,\32\ and Ventura.\33\ 
At the time of CARB's submission of the 2018 Infrastructure SIP, 
Sacramento Metro was incorrectly listed on the EPA's website as having 
a fully SIP-approved PSD program. Sacramento Metro, along with four 
other air districts (Mendocino, North Coast, Northern Sonoma, and South 
Coast) operate PSD programs under a partial Federal Implementation Plan 
(FIP) and are not completely SIP-approved. The website has since been 
corrected.\34\ The remaining 17 districts in California operate either 
partially or fully under a FIP, and do not have full SIP-approved PSD 
programs. Therefore, 22 air districts in California do not fully meet 
the PSD requirements of element C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 83 FR 23372 (May 21, 2018).
    \21\ 80 FR 69880 (November 12, 2015).
    \22\ 77 FR 73316 (December 10, 2012).
    \23\ 80 FR 69880.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ 77 FR 73316.
    \26\ 80 FR 15899 (March 26, 2015).
    \27\ 77 FR 73316.
    \28\ 76 FR 43183 (July 20, 2011).
    \29\ 77 FR 65305 (October 26, 2012).
    \30\ 80 FR 69880.
    \31\ 80 FR 69880.
    \32\ 77 FR 73316.
    \33\ 82 FR 13243 (March 10, 2017).
    \34\ https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/air-permit-delegation-and-psd-sip-approval-status-epa-region-9#ca (last visited on 
September 14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Minor NSR
    For Minor NSR programs, California reiterates that local districts 
are responsible for regulating stationary sources in California under 
HSC 39002 and 40000. CARB explains that this responsibility extends to 
implementing a Minor NSR program, and that all 35 California air 
districts administer their own Minor NSR programs. CARB also explains 
that many of the NSR rules are SIP-approved and explains that 
information about the approval status of those rules is available from 
the EPA.
c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
i. Enforcement
    California described HSC sections 39002, 40000, and 40001 in its 
2018 Infrastructure SIP submittal. These three provisions provide 
authority to CARB and local air districts to enforce the emission 
limits on mobile and stationary sources which were described in element 
A.
    In addition to the three authority provisions cited in California's 
2018 Infrastructure SIP, CARB has identified other statutory 
enforcement authorities in previous submittals. These include

[[Page 65761]]

HSC 40752, which requires the air pollution control officers for each 
air district to observe and enforce rules, regulations, and permit 
conditions, and HSC 40753, which gives air pollution control officers 
authority to enforce certain air pollution-related provisions of 
California's Vehicular Code. They also included the provisions of HSC 
section 42400 et seq., which establish criminal and civil penalties for 
violations of state and district rules, regulations, and permits. 
Further, the EPA's proposal to approve California's previous 
infrastructure SIP identified additional statutory provisions that 
relate to inspection and enforcement authority at the state and 
district level. It also identified numerous SIP-approved state and 
local rules that provide CARB and the air districts with authority to 
enforce SIP-approved emissions limits on various types of sources. 
These measures are described in the EPA's Overarching Technical Support 
Document for the EPA's action on California's previous Infrastructure 
SIP submission.\35\ Some of the enforcement authorities apply broadly, 
while others are specific to the SIP-approved rules they address. For 
example, Lassen County APCD's agricultural burning rule cites the 
penalty provisions of HSC 42400 and establishes procedures for 
documenting violations of that rule. San Joaquin Valley APCD's rules 
1040 and 1050 are general enforcement and penalty provisions that 
incorporate the enforcement authorities and penalty provisions of the 
state HSC into district rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ California Infrastructure SIP Overarching Technical Support 
Document, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (September 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the provisions cited in California's 2018 Infrastructure 
SIP and the SIP-approved provisions discussed in the EPA's previous 
action on California's multi-pollutant infrastructure SIP, we propose 
to approve California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP submittal with respect 
to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program to 
provide for the enforcement of control measures.
ii. PSD Permitting
    For the 13 local air districts with EPA-approved PSD programs, we 
are proposing to partially approve California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP 
for the PSD portion of 110(a)(2)(C). This represents an increase from 
the EPA's 2016 final action on California's previous infrastructure 
SIP, when only seven air districts met the PSD requirements.\36\ These 
districts' PSD programs met all of the structural elements, in addition 
to other requirements for PSD rule approval, and were fully approved 
into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 81 FR 18766 at 18772 (April 1, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the remaining 22 local air districts, five are subject to a 
partial FIP, which means their programs cover some, but not all, of the 
structural elements. These are the Mendocino County, North Coast 
Unified, Northern Sonoma County, Sacramento Metro, and South Coast air 
district PSD programs. South Coast AQMD has a SIP-approved PSD program 
for GHGs only, but it does not have a SIP-approved PSD program to 
address the other two structural elements. Mendocino County AQMD, 
Northern Sonoma County APCD, and Sacramento Metro AQMD each have PSD 
programs that generally address the structural PSD elements, but 
certain sources are subject to a FIP rather than the local PSD 
program.\37\ In addition, the PSD program of North Coast Unified AQMD 
is subject to a FIP to address deficiencies related to identifying 
NOX as an ozone precursor and specifying requirements for 
the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, 
condensable PM2.5, or PSD increments for PM2.5. 
None of the 17 remaining air districts in California have SIP-approved 
PSD programs. Consequently, they do not meet any of the structural 
elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ These sources are cogeneration and resource recovery 
projects, projects with stack heights greater than 65 meters or that 
use ``dispersion techniques'' as defined in 51.100 (which are major 
sources or major modifications under 52.21), and sources for which 
the EPA has issued permits under 52.21 for which applications were 
received by July 31, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 22 local air districts that do not meet each of the 
structural PSD elements for all criteria pollutants, we are proposing 
to partially disapprove California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP for the 
PSD-related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). However, because 
each of these districts is already subject to a PSD FIP for each of the 
specific deficiencies, a final action of this proposed partial 
disapproval will not trigger any new obligation for the EPA to 
promulgate a FIP.
iii. Minor NSR
    In the EPA's final rule approving California's previous 
infrastructure SIP, we determined that all California air districts had 
SIP-approved minor source permit programs that require minor sources to 
obtain a permit prior to construction. These Minor NSR programs cover 
all NAAQS through a broad definition of the term ``air contaminants.'' 
The EPA's approvals are codified at 40 CFR 52.220 and have not been 
removed or replaced. Some local program rules have been updated; a 
table of those rules and their citations is included in the docket for 
this rulemaking.\38\ Because all districts in California continue to 
have approved minor source permit programs, the EPA proposes to approve 
the 2018 Infrastructure SIP for the Minor NSR requirements of element 
C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ EPA Region IX, Spreadsheet of California Minor NSR 
Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate and International Air Pollution
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    The requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) can be broken down 
into six sub-elements. The EPA refers to the first four of these sub-
elements as ``prongs.'' Prongs 1 and 2, which include the requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit emission sources from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with 
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The EPA is not evaluating 
California's 2018 Submittal against those requirements at this time and 
will propose action on the interstate transport requirements for the 
2015 ozone NAAQS in a separate notice.
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state 
from interfering with measures required of any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality (Prong 3) or from interfering 
with measures required of any other state to protect visibility in 
Class I areas (Prong 4). The EPA's 2006 Transport Guidance states that 
the requirements of interstate transport Prong 3 may be met by the 
state's confirmation in a SIP submission that major sources and major 
modifications in the state are subject to PSD and nonattainment NSR 
programs that implement the relevant standards.\39\ The EPA's 
subsequent guidance memos rely or expand upon the legal and technical 
rationale presented in the 2006 Transport Guidance.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 2006 Transport Guidance, 6.
    \40\ 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, 4-5, and 2013 
Infrastructure SIP Guidance, 30-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, to meet the requirements of Prong 3 in section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding measures to prevent significant 
deterioration of air quality, states may submit infrastructure SIPs 
confirming that major sources and major modifications in the state are 
subject to comprehensive EPA-approved PSD programs and nonattainment 
NSR programs that address the NAAQS

[[Page 65762]]

pollutants for areas of the state that have been designated 
nonattainment. States waiting for EPA action on their nonattainment NSR 
programs may implement 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S to meet this 
infrastructure SIP requirement.
    Prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prohibits emissions activity 
within one state from interfering with measures required in another 
state to protect visibility. In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, 
the EPA indicates that states can meet the requirements of Prong 4 by 
having an approved SIP that fully meets the EPA's regulations for 
regional haze.
    The fifth and sixth sub-elements under 110(a)(2)(D) concern the 
interstate pollution abatement requirements of CAA section 126 and the 
international transport requirements of CAA section 115. In the EPA's 
2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA states that this sub-element 
is satisfied when an infrastructure SIP ensures compliance with the 
applicable requirements of CAA sections 126(a), 126(b) and 126(c), and 
115.
b. Summary of the State's Submission
    For Prong 3, California states in its 2018 submittal that the 
requirement to prevent states from interfering with the ability of 
other states to prevent significant deterioration of air quality can be 
satisfied by SIP-approved PSD programs and SIP-approved nonattainment 
NSR programs. CARB states that, as described in the submission for 
element C, 14 districts have SIP-approved PSD programs. However, as 
noted earlier in this notice, only 13 districts have SIP-approved PSD 
programs. CARB also notes that many districts in California have SIP-
approved nonattainment NSR programs. For Prong 4, CARB states that the 
EPA fully approved California's Regional Haze SIP in June 2011.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 76 FR 34608 (June 14, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) concerning interstate 
pollution abatement and international transport, CARB states in its 
submittal that no CAA 126 petitions have been filed by other states 
against California regarding emissions from any source or group of 
stationary sources that cause or would cause or contribute to 
violations of the NAAQS in the petitioning state. With respect to the 
international pollution abatement provisions of CAA section 115, CARB 
states that the EPA Administrator has not made any findings that 
California causes or contributes to air pollution in a foreign country 
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 
welfare.
c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA explains its 
interpretation of Prong 3 ``to mean that the infrastructure SIP 
submission should have provisions to prevent emissions of any regulated 
pollutant from interfering with any other air agency's comprehensive 
PSD permitting program, in addition to the new or revised NAAQS that is 
the subject of the infrastructure submission.'' It also notes that, 
since nonattainment NSR requirements are due after infrastructure SIPs 
for new and revised NAAQS, ``a fully approved nonattainment NSR program 
with respect to any previous NAAQS may generally be considered by the 
EPA as adequate for purposes of meeting the requirement of prong 3 with 
respect to sources and pollutants subject to such program.'' Because 
all districts in California are in attainment for at least one NAAQS, a 
SIP-approved PSD program is necessary to meet the requirements of Prong 
3. In areas that are nonattainment for any NAAQS, a prior SIP-approved 
nonattainment NSR program is also required. A spreadsheet listing the 
attainment status of all California air districts for all NAAQS is 
included in the docket for this rulemaking.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ EPA Region IX, Spreadsheet of Nonattainment Areas in 
California Air Districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether California meets the Prong 3 requirements, we 
analyzed the attainment status of each district for all NAAQS to 
determine whether they are required to have SIP-approved PSD programs, 
SIP-approved nonattainment NSR programs, or both.
    Nine districts have both SIP-approved PSD programs and SIP-approved 
nonattainment NSR programs: Bay Area, Butte, Eastern Kern, Feather 
River, Imperial, Placer, San Joaquin, Ventura, and Yolo-Solano. San 
Luis Obispo has a SIP-approved PSD program and submitted a 2008 ozone 
nonattainment NSR rule that has not yet been approved by the EPA, so 
the district relies on 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S for permitting of 
sources that emit ozone precursors.\43\ We propose to fully approve 
these 10 districts for the requirements of element D, Prong 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Letter dated September 25, 2019, from Dora K. Drexler, 
Manager, Engineering & Compliance Division, San Luis Obispo County 
Air Pollution Control District, to Gerardo Rios, Chief, Air Permits 
Office, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three additional districts, Great Basin, Monterey Bay, and Santa 
Barbara, have SIP-approved PSD programs. Monterey Bay and Santa Barbara 
are in attainment with all NAAQS, so their PSD programs alone are 
sufficient to meet the requirements of Prong 3. Great Basin is a 
nonattainment area for PM10 that has a previously approved 
nonattainment NSR program, which satisfies the requirements of Prong 3. 
We propose to fully approve these three districts for the requirements 
of element D, Prong 3.
    Twelve districts have SIP-approved nonattainment NSR programs or 
are using Appendix S, but do not have a SIP-approved PSD program 
covering all pollutants. These districts are Amador,\44\ Antelope 
Valley, Calaveras, El Dorado, Mariposa,\45\ Mojave Desert, Northern 
Sierra,\46\ Sacramento Metro, San Diego, South Coast, Tehama,\47\ and 
Tuolumne.\48\ We propose to partially disapprove these 12 districts for 
the PSD requirements of element D, Prong 3. Because these districts 
already implement the EPA's PSD FIP, there are no further consequences 
and no further FIP obligations on the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Letter dated September 17, 2019, from Jim McHargue, Air 
Pollution Control Officer, Amador Air District, to Gerardo Rios, 
Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX.
    \45\ Letter dated August 23, 2019, from Eric Sergienko, 
Director, Mariposa County Air Pollution Control District, to Gerardo 
Rios, Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX.
    \46\ Letter dated August 27, 2019, from Gretchen Bennitt, 
Executive Director, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, 
to Gerardo Rios, Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX.
    \47\ Letter dated September 27, 2019, from Joseph Tona, County 
of Tehama Air Pollution Control District, to Gerardo Rios, Chief, 
Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX.
    \48\ Letter dated November 4, 2019, from Kelle Schroeder, Air 
Pollution Control Officer, County of Tuolumne, to Gerardo Rios, 
Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ten districts are in attainment for all NAAQS and have no SIP-
approved PSD programs in place. These districts are Colusa, Glenn, 
Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, North Coast, Northern Sonoma, Shasta, 
and Siskiyou. Because these districts are not nonattainment for any 
NAAQS, nonattainment NSR requirements do not apply. However, because 
these districts all implement the EPA's PSD FIP, they do not meet the 
PSD requirements of element D, Prong 3. We propose to partially 
disapprove these districts for element D, Prong 3. Because these 
districts implement the EPA's PSD FIP, no further FIP obligation 
applies.
    The requirements of Prong 4 relate to the Regional Haze Rule. The 
EPA previously approved California's most recent SIP submittal for 
Regional Haze.\49\ As noted in the EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP 
Guidance, an

[[Page 65763]]

approved Regional Haze submittal meets the requirements for Prong 4. We 
therefore propose to approve the 2018 Infrastructure SIP for the Prong 
4 requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 76 FR 34608 (June 14, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 therefore concur with California in this regard and have 
evaluated its 2018 Submittal only for purposes of compliance with CAA 
section 126(a).
    Section 126(a) of the CAA 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. 
Many of California's 35 permitting jurisdictions (i.e., air districts) 
have SIP-approved PSD permit programs that require notice to nearby 
states consistent with the EPA's relevant requirements. Specifically, 
the following air districts meet the requirements of CAA section 
126(a): Bay Area, Butte, Eastern Kern, Feather River, Imperial, Placer, 
San Joaquin, Ventura, Yolo-Solano, San Luis Obispo, Great Basin, 
Monterey Bay, and Santa Barbara. We are proposing partial approval of 
the 2018 Infrastructure SIP for these districts for the requirements of 
CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    The remaining air districts do not have fully SIP-approved PSD 
programs covering all pollutants. Thus, California remains 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. We are 
proposing partial disapproval of the 2018 Infrastructure SIP for the 
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for Amador, Antelope Valley, 
Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa, Mendocino, 
Modoc, Mojave Desert, North Coast, Northern Sierra, Northern Sonoma, 
Sacramento Metro, San Diego, Shasta, Siskiyou South Coast, Tehama, and 
Tuolumne air districts. These deficiencies are, however, adequately 
addressed with respect to all regulated NSR pollutants in such air 
districts by the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 and no further 
action is required. For these reasons, we propose to find that the 
California SIP partially meets, and partially does not meet the 
requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with 
the applicable interstate pollution abatement requirements of CAA 
section 126.
    Section 115 of the CAA authorizes the EPA Administrator 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, as noted in 
California's 2018 Submittal, the EPA has no reason to approve or 
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to CAA section 115. 
Therefore, we propose to find that the existing California SIP is 
sufficient to satisfy the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 
regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115.
5. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Resources, Authority, and Oversight
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA requires SIPs to provide (i) 
necessary assurances that the state (or, except where the Administrator 
deems inappropriate, the general purpose local government or 
governments, or a regional agency designated by the state or general 
purpose local governments for such purpose) will have adequate 
personnel, funding, and authority under state (and, as appropriate, 
local) law to carry out such implementation plan (and is not prohibited 
by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out such 
implementation plan or portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the 
state comply with the requirements regarding state boards under section 
128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on 
a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the 
implementation of any plan provision, the state has responsibility for 
ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision.
    In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA states that, in 
order to meet the requirements of subelement (i) of 110(a)(2)(E) of the 
CAA, infrastructure SIP submittals should identify the organizations 
involved in developing, implementing, and enforcing EPA-approved SIP 
provisions for the relevant NAAQS, and describe their responsibilities. 
It also states that submittals should explain how resources, personnel, 
and legal authority are adequate to meet any changes in resources 
requirements that may be needed to meet the new or revised NAAQS.
    In order to address the requirements of subelement (ii) regarding 
state boards under section 128, the provisions that implement section 
128 need to be approved into the SIP. These provisions apply to any 
board or body that has responsibility for approving permits or 
enforcement orders or has authority to hear appeals of permits or 
enforcement orders. Specifically, such boards or bodies must have at 
least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do 
not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject 
to CAA permits or enforcement orders. In addition, any potential 
conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of 
an executive agency with similar powers must be adequately disclosed. 
The EPA has previously approved California provisions that address 
these conflict of interest requirements \50\ and is evaluating updates 
to those provisions in this submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 81 FR 18766 (April 1, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to meet subelement (iii), states that have authorized 
local or regional agencies to implement SIPs must provide necessary 
assurances that the state air agency retains responsibility for 
adequate SIP implementation of the relevant NAAQS, in this case the 
2015 ozone NAAQS.
b. Summary of the State's Submission
    Regarding legal authority, CARB's 2018 Infrastructure SIP cites HSC 
sections 39600 and 39602, which designate CARB as the authority 
responsible for all air pollution control purposes set forth in federal 
law. CARB also notes that HSC 39002 provides CARB authority to 
implement control activities in areas where local or regional 
authorities fail to meet their responsibilities under state law. In 
previous submittals, CARB also described various HSC provisions that 
give the state authority to regulate mobile sources, as well as 
provisions that give districts the authority to regulate stationary 
sources and

[[Page 65764]]

provisions that give other agencies, such as the California Department 
of Pesticide Regulation, the authority to regulate other sources, such 
as pesticides.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ California Infrastructure SIP Overarching Technical Support 
Document, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (September 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding funding and personnel, California states that ``the 2017-
2018 CARB and district budgets totaled over $2.2 billion, with more 
than 3,600 full-time equivalent staff positions.'' It explains that the 
state legislature approves CARB's budget and staff resources every year 
and that district governing boards approve local air district budgets. 
CARB has the opportunity to present annual budget requests to meet the 
requirements of the CAA through the legislative budget process. While 
CARB cannot predict future levels of funding, it notes that CARB's 
programs are mandated, that the agency has been funded through state 
appropriations for three decades, and that the Budget Act of 2018 
included $1.370 billion for CARB at the time of submission.
    CARB notes that a majority of its budget and district budgets go 
toward meeting CAA requirements. It also explains that fees from 
regulated entities make up a portion of CARB's budget and can only be 
used for air pollution control. Revenues from fees and taxes related to 
motor vehicles are also deposited into an account at the state level 
and are required to be used for mitigation of air and sound emissions 
from motor vehicles. At the district level, funding also comes from 
fees from regulated entities, motor vehicle registration fees, grants, 
and other sources.
    Regarding conflict of interest provisions, California's 2018 
Submittal explains that Government Code (GC) 82048(a) and California 
Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 2, section 18700 define ``public 
officials'' and ``members'' of state or local government to include any 
``individual who performs duties as part of a committee, board, 
commission, group, or other body'' that possesses ``decisionmaking 
authority'', including by making ``a final government decision.'' CARB 
further explains that this broad definition encompasses the members of 
hearing boards and local district boards, as well as air pollution 
control officers, who approve permits or enforcement orders in 
California.
    CARB also states that, under CCR, Title 2, section 18700, public 
officials may not make, participate in or influence decisions in which 
they have a foreseeable material financial interest. This financial 
interest in a decision is defined in GC section 87103 as a material 
effect on the public official, or his or her immediate family, that is 
distinguishable from the financial effect on the public. According to 
the state, ``section 87103 also provides that a public official has a 
financial interest in a decision if it involves: a business or property 
in which they have $2,000 or more invested; any source of income 
amounting to $500 or more within a year; any business where they are a 
director, officer, trustee, employee, or manager; or any donor who has 
given them $250 or more within a year.'' \52\ CARB goes on to note that 
GC section 87302 creates requirements for board members to file 
disclosures of economic interests in order to disclose potential 
conflicts of interest. This includes the regular filing of Form 700 
statements, which are made public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ California's 2018 Submittal, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its 2018 Infrastructure SIP, CARB updated some of the conflict 
of interest statutes that were previously submitted to the EPA. 
Specifically, CCR, Title 2, section 18700 was changed to incorporate 
certain conflict of interest requirements contained in the version of 
section 18701 that was approved into the SIP in our 2016 action on 
California's multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP.\53\ Corresponding 
parts of section 18701 were also removed. \54\ CARB's 2018 submittal 
included the revised text of both sections 18700 and 18701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 81 FR 18766 (April 1, 2016).
    \54\ See technical clarification dated March 21, 2019, from 
Matthew Densberger, CARB, to Panah Stauffer, EPA Region IX. Subject: 
California iSIP Conflict of Interest Provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP provides assurance that the 
agencies charged with implementing federal clean air requirements have 
the necessary authority and resources to do so. The EPA has previously 
determined that these authorities comply with 40 CFR 51.240,\55\ and we 
find that they continue to do so. While California's Infrastructure SIP 
Submittals do not provide specific personnel and funding figures for 
each of the state and district air agencies, the 2017-2018 total 
figures of $2.2 billion with over 3,600 full-time equivalent staff 
positions represent a very large investment towards fulfilling state 
and federal clean air requirements and goals. The state also describes 
funding that comes from the legislature, fees, state and federal grants 
in its submittal. We conclude that the information on funding levels 
and sources, as well as personnel levels, are a fair representation of 
the state's resources and provide the necessary assurance of adequate 
funding and personnel to implement the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we 
propose to find that California's 2018 Submittal meets the resource- 
and authority-related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ California Infrastructure SIP Overarching Technical Support 
Document, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (September 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California's SIP submission includes GC statutes and California CCR 
provisions that impose the requirements mandated by CAA section 128. 
The EPA previously approved several versions of these provisions into 
the SIP when it took final action on California's multi-pollutant 
infrastructure SIP submittal in 2016.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The provisions that were previously approved into the SIP 
in 2016, which remain in the SIP and form part of the basis of our 
proposed approval of California's 2015 Ozone SIP submission for the 
conflict of interest requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
and 128, include California Government Code sections 82048, 87103, 
and 87302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to referencing three provisions that the EPA relied 
upon in its final approval of California's conflict of interest 
requirements in 2016, the State has also included an updated version of 
CCR, Title 2, section 18700, which maintains the key provisions of that 
section and also incorporates language in CCR, Title 2, section 18701 
that the EPA previously approved into the SIP. We are proposing to 
approve the updated versions of CCR, Title 2, sections 18700 and 18701 
into the SIP. These updated provisions continue to meet the conflict of 
interest requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128.
    In our final approval of California's conflict of interest 
requirements in 2016, the EPA concurred with California's 
interpretation that ``those who approve permits or enforcement orders 
within California . . . are `public officials' '' and, by extension, 
that permits and enforcement orders fall within the meaning of 
``governmental decision.'' \57\ The revised provisions of CCR, Title 2, 
section 18700(a) continue to define public officials' disqualifying 
financial interests based on reasonably foreseeable material financial 
effects. The revised section 18700 also continues to refer to section 
18703 to define specific levels of financial interest and income that 
would constitute a disqualifying financial

[[Page 65765]]

interest for a public official. In addition, these limitations on a 
public official's actions continue to be on-going, and a public 
official must abide by them throughout his or her time as a public 
official. Thus, the requirements of the revised section 18700 apply in 
such a way that a board that acts on permits and/or enforcement orders 
may never have a majority of persons that have a conflict of interest. 
We find that the revised provisions of section 18700 meet the 
requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ California Infrastructure SIP Conflict of Interest 
Technical Support Document, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (September 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements for disclosure in GC section 87302 have not 
changed and continue to meet the requirements of CAA section 128(a)(2). 
GC 87302 creates requirements for the conflict of interest codes for 
local agencies, which must include initial and annual disclosures of 
financial interests. Air districts may have their own agency conflict 
of interest codes or may be governed by the conflict of interest 
provisions in their county administrative codes, depending on the 
geographic jurisdiction of the district. For example, San Joaquin 
Valley APCD has its own conflict of interest code that incorporates by 
reference the state conflict of interest regulations.\58\ This and 
other air district codes identify which officials are required to file 
under the conflict of interest provisions. Those officials include 
district governing board members, hearing board members, and certain 
employees. In addition, governing boards may be mostly or entirely 
composed of elected officials, such as county supervisors and city 
councilmembers. Such officials are specifically required to disclose 
financial interests in the process of campaigning and being elected to 
those offices by GC 87200. The statewide statutes and regulations 
governing conflicts of interest ensure that air district boards and 
employees disclose their financial interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ https://www.valleyair.org/Board_meetings/GB/agenda_minutes/Agenda/2019/August/final/18.pdf and https://www.valleyair.org/Board_meetings/GB/agenda_minutes/Agenda/2019/June/final/25.pdf (last 
visited on September 14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we propose to find that GC sections 82048, 87103, and 
87302, in combination with the updated version of CCR, Title 2, section 
18700, are adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section 128. We 
also propose to approve the updated versions of CCR, Title 2, section 
18700 and CCR, Title 2, section 18701 into the SIP to replace the 
previous versions of CCR, Title 2, sections 18700 and 18701.
    Regarding oversight of local agencies, pursuant to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(E)(iii), HSC section 41500(c) requires CARB to review air 
district enforcement programs and determine whether ``reasonable action 
is being taken to enforce their programs, rules, and regulations.'' In 
turn, if CARB finds that a district is not taking reasonable action, 
HSC section 41505 grants CARB the authority, after public hearing, to 
exercise the district's powers to achieve and maintain the state and 
federal ambient air quality standards. These provide the necessary 
assurances that, where the State has relied on the air districts, CARB 
retains responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of the SIP. 
We propose to find that HSC sections 41500(c) and 41505 provide the 
State with adequate oversight authority as required under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(E)(iii) and 40 CFR 51.232(b)(2).
6. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires: (i) The installation, 
maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of 
other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to 
monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the 
nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such 
sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with 
any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA, 
which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public 
inspection.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.212, SIPs must provide for periodic testing 
and inspection of stationary sources as well as enforceable test 
methods for emission limits. In addition, plans must not preclude the 
use of credible evidence of compliance to establish whether emission 
standards have been violated. To meet these requirements, in the 2013 
Infrastructure SIP Guidance the EPA indicates that SIP submissions 
should describe the air agency programs for source testing, reference 
the statutory authority for the air agency program, and certify the 
absence of any provision preventing the use of any credible evidence.
    In addition, 40 CFR 51.211, 40 CFR 51.321-51.323, the EPA's Air 
Emissions Reporting Rule, and 40 CFR 51.45(b) establish requirements 
for states to receive emissions reports from stationary sources and to 
submit periodic emission inventory reports to the EPA. In the 2013 
Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA notes that all states have 
existing periodic source reporting and emission inventory practices, so 
submittals may be able to certify existing air agency reporting 
authority and requirements.
    Finally, 40 CFR 51.116 creates requirements for correlating source 
emissions reports with emission limitations or standards based on 
applicable test method(s) or averaging period(s). In the 2013 
Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA explains that submittals should 
reference or include air agency requirements that provide for 
correlation between estimated emissions and allowable emissions, as 
well as the public availability of emission reports by sources.
b. Summary of the State's Submission
    In its 2018 submittal, CARB states that local districts are 
responsible for developing stationary source emission monitoring and 
reporting requirements. It cites HSC section 4001(a), which requires 
districts to adopt and enforce regulations to maintain federal ambient 
air quality standards, and HSC section 41511, which gives the state 
board and the district authority to require stationary source owners to 
determine the amount of emissions from their sources. For testing and 
inspection of stationary sources, California notes that districts have 
the authority to conduct inspections and take samples under HSC section 
41510. Although CARB does not certify the absence of any provision 
preventing the use of credible evidence in its 2018 submittal, it notes 
that credible evidence includes the data from stationary source 
emission monitoring rules.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP, 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB says in its 2018 submittal that districts typically fulfill 
the stationary source monitoring requirements by adopting regulations 
that establish emission limits and reporting requirements, including 
the requirements under the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) 
Rule. Under these rules, stationary source owners and operators must 
determine the amount of pollutants emitted by their facilities. CARB 
explains that these rules may be incorporated into the SIP after they 
are adopted by the districts. California's submittal includes a table 
of examples of SIP-approved local district rules that fulfill federal 
monitoring and reporting requirements.\60\ These rules all require 
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) at stationary sources 
and include requirements for stationary sources to report their 
emissions or to maintain

[[Page 65766]]

emissions data and make them available to the local air district on 
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP, 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB goes on to explain that, while some districts have rules that 
cover both monitoring and reporting, others have separate requirements 
for stationary source reporting. A second table in the submittal \61\ 
provides examples of SIP-approved stationary source reporting rules. 
These rules range from requiring sources to provide written emissions 
statements to the local air district to making daily air monitoring 
data public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the rules listed in the tables in the submittals, 
California's submittal includes links to two online databases. The 
first is California's District Rules Database,\62\ which has stationary 
source rules for all districts; the rules in this online database may 
be SIP-approved. The second is the EPA's website listing state rules 
that have been approved into the SIP.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdb.htm (last visited on 
September 14, 2020).
    \63\ https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/approved-air-quality-implementation-plans-region-9?readform&count=100&state=California (last visited on September 14, 
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For correlation of stationary source emission reports with 
applicable emission limits, California refers again to its overarching 
authorities in HSC section 41511. The state explains that all 35 local 
air districts in California address the correlation requirements 
through their programs for stationary source testing, inspection, and 
compliance. For example, some air districts have rules that require 
CEMS equipment. Those rules require sources to assess compliance with 
applicable emission limits and may include calculation procedures to 
correlate emissions with the applicable emission standards. CARB states 
that some air districts have SIP-approved rules that closely mirror the 
language of 40 CFR 51.116(c), such as Mendocino County AQMD Rule 
240(e)(3) (``Permit to Operate--Compliance Verification'') and Great 
Basin Unified APCD Rule 215(D) (``Public Availability of Emissions 
Data''). Finally, it states that all California air districts have 
federally-approved Title V operating permit programs wherein each 
permit specifies the air pollution requirements that apply to the 
permitted source, including those for emission limits, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting.
    CARB explains that it is responsible for compiling stationary 
source emissions data from the districts and reporting it to the EPA. 
The submittal includes a link to CARB's internet Facility Search Tool, 
which allows the public to search for facilities' emissions of criteria 
and toxic pollutants. CARB notes that California's emissions inventory 
includes information from over 14,000 stationary sources and requires 
sources to report at rates lower than the federal AERR's reporting 
thresholds. The emissions inventory is relevant to all federal criteria 
pollutant standards, including the 2015 ozone standard.
c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    California presents information in its 2018 Infrastructure SIP on 
the state's and districts' overarching authorities to adopt rules and 
regulations to determine emissions from stationary sources, specify 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, assess compliance with 
emission limits and permit conditions, and make such data available to 
the public. The submittal also references databases of specific 
stationary sources within California, and representative examples of 
SIP-approved regulations that require stationary source monitoring, 
reporting, and correlation of emission limits with applicable emission 
limits and permit conditions. We find that the example SIP-approved 
rules cited in California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP submittal are 
representative of the State as a whole. Therefore, we propose to find 
that the overarching authorities and SIP-approved regulations provide 
an adequate basis to conclude that California meets the requirements of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), as discussed below.
    The underlying California statutes that provide authority for CARB 
and the air districts to adopt rules and regulations to determine 
emissions from stationary sources, specify recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, assess compliance with emission limits and permit 
conditions, and make such data available to the public include HSC 
sections 40001(a), 41510, and 41511. CARB maintains an extensive online 
database of stationary sources and a means for the public to filter 
emissions data by air basin, county, or source category via a facility 
search engine on its website.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php?_ga=2.153745848.1835329346.1588725854-1437116183.1580401972 (last visited on September 14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reviewing SIP-approved regulations for stationary source 
monitoring and reporting, we primarily reviewed the examples provided 
in California's 2018 Submittal and present our evaluation for each of 
the three sub-elements of section 110(a)(2)(F) as follows. For section 
110(a)(2)(F)(i), California's 2018 Submittal cites several rules that 
require stationary source monitoring, especially for CEMS on applicable 
equipment. For instance:
     Placer County APCD Rule 233, section 500 requires CEMS for 
NOX emissions from biomass boilers;
     Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 328(C) requires continuous 
emissions monitoring for NOX, SO2, and opacity 
from fossil fuel-fired steam generators, for NOX from nitric 
acid plants, and for SO2 from sulfuric acid plants, for 
SO2 from certain fluid bed cokers, for SO2 from 
CO boilers of regenerators of fluid bed catalytic cracking units, and 
for SO2 and opacity from fluid bed catalytic cracking units;
     South Coast AQMD Rule 1146 requires boilers, steam 
generators, and process heaters equal to or greater than 5 million 
British thermal units per hour to install CEMS for ammonia emissions; 
and
     San Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 4354, section (5.9) requires 
CEMS for emissions of NOX, VOCs, and SOX from 
glass melting furnaces under certain conditions.
    We propose to find that these and other examples in the California 
SIP are consistent with the stationary source monitoring requirement of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(i).
    With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(ii), California's 2018 
Submittal provides examples of SIP-approved regulations for several 
districts that require reporting of stationary source emissions data. 
For example:
     Bay Area Regulation 2, Rule 1-429 requires permitted 
sources that may emit VOC or NOX and subject to the Rule to 
provide the District a written statement showing actual emissions from 
the source,
     Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 212 requires sources 
permitted to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of NOX or 
reactive organic compounds (ROG, or VOC) to annually report actual 
emissions of NOX or VOC in writing to the air district,
     San Diego County APCD Rule 19.3, section (c)(3) similarly 
requires annual reporting by sources emitting 25 tpy or more of 
NOX or VOC in writing to the air district, and
     South Coast AQMD Rule 1420.1, sections (m) and (n) set 
requirements for large lead-acid battery facilities to monitor lead 
(Pb) emissions, report them to the district, and retain records of 
emissions.
    We propose to find that these examples and others in the California

[[Page 65767]]

SIP provide for periodic reports on the nature and amount of emissions 
from applicable stationary sources, consistent with CAA section 
110(a)(2)(F)(ii).
    With respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii), California points to 
SIP-approved rules that require emission data from stationary source 
owners or operators to be correlated with applicable emission 
limitations and control measures and for that information to be 
available to the public during normal business hours at the district 
offices. For example, Mendocino County AQMD Rule 1-240(e)(3) and Great 
Basin Unified APCD Rule 215(D) track the language of 40 CFR 51.116(c) 
by requiring that emissions data will be correlated with applicable 
emission limits and other control measures and be made publicly 
available. California's online database includes a facility search 
engine, which makes emissions information publicly available for 
correlation. Therefore, based on the extent of the source categories 
and sizes that are required to report emissions, California's publicly 
available emissions databases, and the examples of SIP-approved rules 
requiring correlation of reported emissions with emission limitations, 
we propose to find that the California SIP meets the correlation and 
public availability requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F)(iii).
7. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers and Contingency Plans
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires infrastructure SIPs to 
``provide for authority comparable to that in [CAA section 303],'' 
which reads as follows:

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the 
Administrator, upon receipt of evidence that a pollution source or 
combination of sources (including moving sources) is presenting an 
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, 
or the environment, may bring suit on behalf of the United States in 
the appropriate United States district court to immediately restrain 
any person causing or contributing to the alleged pollution to stop 
the emission of air pollutants causing or contributing to such 
pollution or to take such other action as may be necessary. If it is 
not practicable to assure prompt protection of public health or 
welfare or the environment by commencement of such a civil action, 
the Administrator may issue such orders as may be necessary to 
protect public health or welfare or the environment. Prior to taking 
any action under this section, the Administrator shall consult with 
appropriate State and local authorities and attempt to confirm the 
accuracy of the information on which the action proposed to be taken 
is based. Any order issued by the Administrator under this section 
shall be effective upon issuance and shall remain in effect for a 
period of not more than 60 days, unless the Administrator brings an 
action pursuant to the first sentence of this section before the 
expiration of that period. Whenever the Administrator brings such an 
action within the 60-day period, such order shall remain in effect 
for an additional 14 days or for such longer period as may be 
authorized by the court in which such action is brought.

    In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA states that the 
best practice for states is to submit, for inclusion in the SIP, the 
statutory or regulatory provisions that provide authority comparable to 
CAA section 303 or to cite and include a copy of such provisions, 
without including them in the SIP, with a narrative of how they meet 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G). The guidance also clarifies 
that contingency plans should be submitted for approval into the SIP 
(if not already in the SIP) for regions classified Priority I, IA, or 
II (Priority II applies only to the sulfur dioxide and particulate 
matter NAAQS).
    The air quality thresholds for classifying air quality control 
regions (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). 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. If the ozone levels in an AQCR are primarily due 
to a single point source, it is classified as Priority IA. All other 
ozone areas are classified Priority III. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.151 and 
51.152, AQCRs that are classified Priority I or IA for ozone are 
required to have SIP-approved emergency episode contingency plans, 
while those classified Priority III are not required to have such 
plans. The purpose of emergency episode contingency plans is to ensure 
that the regions ``provide for taking action necessary to prevent 
ambient pollutant concentrations'' from reaching the significant harm 
levels defined in 40 CFR 51.151. For ozone, the significant harm level 
is 0.6 ppm for a 2-hour average.
    Under 40 CFR 51.152 emergency episode contingency plans are 
required to specify two or more stages of episode criteria based on 
pollutant levels at any monitoring site. Plans must provide for public 
announcement whenever any episode stage has been determined to exist 
and must specify adequate emission control actions to be taken at each 
episode stage. Examples of adequate actions are provided in Appendix L 
to 40 CFR part 51.
    In addition, 40 CFR 51.152 requires prompt acquisition of forecasts 
of atmospheric stagnation conditions and of updates of such forecasts 
as frequently as they are issued by the National Weather Service, 
inspection of sources to ascertain compliance with applicable emission 
control action requirements, and communications procedures for 
transmitting status reports and orders as to emission control actions 
to be taken during an episode stage. The provisions of 40 CFR 51.152(d) 
also allow the Administrator to exempt portions of Priority I regions 
that have been designated as attainment or unclassifiable for NAAQS 
such as the 2015 ozone standard.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ This authority is delegated to the Regional Administrator 
based on Delegation 7-10 (``Approval/Disapproval of State 
Implementation Plans''), which grants Regional Administrators the 
authority to ``propose or take final action on any State 
implementation plan under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Summary of the State's Submission
    In the California 2018 Infrastructure SIP, the State requested that 
the EPA reclassify the Lake County, North Central Coast, and South 
Central Coast AQCRs from Priority III to Priority I based on hourly 
ozone data from 2015-2017.\66\ Consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 
51.153, reclassification of AQCRs must rely on the most recent three 
years of air quality data. CARB states in its 2018 submittal that the 
remaining Priority III AQCRs remain Priority III for ozone. This means 
their ozone levels have not crossed the Priority I threshold for ozone 
based on the most recent three years of air quality data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ EPA, Region IX, Spreadsheet of Air Quality Control Regions 
with Maximum 1-hour Ozone Values Over 100 ppb for 2015-2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its 2018 submittal, CARB identifies the air districts that fall 
within each AQCR in order to determine which districts need to develop 
emergency episode contingency plans. The Lake County AQCR includes the 
Lake County AQMD. The North Central Coast AQCR includes the Monterey 
Bay Air Resources District, which already has a SIP-approved emergency 
episode contingency plan. The South Central Coast includes the San Luis 
Obispo County APCD. CARB identifies Lake County AQMD and San Luis 
Obispo County APCD as needing to develop and submit emergency episode 
contingency plans for ozone based on the requested AQCR 
reclassifications.
    In addition to the air districts identified above, five air 
districts in the Mountain Counties AQCR are identified in the 2018 plan 
as needing to develop and submit emergency episode

[[Page 65768]]

contingency plans for ozone for the first time. These are Amador County 
APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Mariposa County APCD, Northern Sierra 
AQMD, and Tuolumne County APCD.
    On June 25, 2020, CARB supplemented its 2018 Infrastructure SIP by 
submitting ozone emergency episode contingency plans for San Luis 
Obispo County APCD, Amador County APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Mariposa 
County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, and Tuolumne County APCD. It also 
submitted an exemption request from emergency episode planning 
requirements for Lake County AQMD based on that District's attainment 
status.
    Pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.152, each of the 
emergency episode plans included in the submittal outlines three stages 
of an ozone emergency (i.e., Alert, Warning and Emergency) based on 
monitored levels for the one-hour ozone concentration. For example, 
Amador, Western Nevada, Tuolumne, and Calaveras include an Alert stage 
of 0.20 ppm, a Warning stage of 0.40 ppm, and an Emergency stage of 
0.50 ppm. At each episode stage, the plans provide actions to be 
implemented by the local air district, local offices of emergency 
services, local offices of education superintendents, local emitting 
facilities, and members of the public. These measures include 
prohibiting open burning, requesting that schools close, requesting 
that members of the public take mass transit instead of driving, and 
requesting that stationary sources emitting ozone precursors shut down. 
At the episode stages that include measures for stationary sources, the 
submitted plans also include provisions for inspection of those sources 
to make sure they are complying with the relevant plan requirements.
    The emergency episode plans also provide for public announcement of 
these ozone emergency stages and communications procedures for 
transmitting status reports and orders during each episode stage. Each 
plan includes a list of government agencies, news media, facilities, 
and individuals who will be notified when any of the ozone emergency 
episode stages are reached. These lists include local county offices of 
emergency services, the county superintendents of education, outreach 
staff at the local air pollution control districts, and television and 
radio stations. The plans submitted to the EPA also account for 
acquiring forecasts from the National Weather Service, regional ``Spare 
the Air'' programs, and data generated internally by air districts for 
submission to public air quality information resources such as the 
AirNow website.
    The Lake County AQCR is made up of only one air district, the Lake 
County AQMD. In its 2018 submittal, CARB requests that this AQCR be 
reclassified to Priority I, and California's 2020 submittal includes an 
exemption request for Lake County from the emergency episode 
contingency planning requirements for ozone. The request is based on 
Lake County's attainment status and EPA discretion to exempt attainment 
areas from the emergency episode contingency planning requirements 
under 40 CFR 51.152(d)(1).
c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    In California's 2018 submittal, the State requests that three AQCRs 
be reclassified as Priority I for the purposes of requiring emergency 
episode contingency plans for ozone. In addition, it notes that 5 air 
districts in the Mountain Counties AQCR also met the threshold for 
Priority I ozone areas in the 2015-2017 time period. The air quality 
monitoring data for 2015-2017 indicates that the areas identified in 
the 2018 submission, along with the areas that have been previously 
classified as Priority I, are those that exceeded 0.10 ppm for 1-hour 
ozone measurements. In addition, the emissions inventory information 
provided in California's 2020 Submittal shows that the ozone levels in 
these areas are due to a mix of sources, including mobile sources, 
rather than to a single stationary source. On the basis of California's 
ambient air quality data for 2015-2017, we are proposing to grant 
California's requests to reclassify Lake County, North Central Coast, 
and South Central Coast to Priority I regions.
    The ozone emergency episode contingency plans for San Luis Obispo 
County APCD, Amador County APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Mariposa County 
APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, and Tuolumne County APCD meet the 
requirements of 51.152(a). Specifically, each plan specifies ``two or 
more stages of episode criteria'' and ``adequate emission control 
actions to be taken at each episode stage''. Each plan also provides 
for ``public announcement whenever any episode stage has been 
determined to exist.''
    For example, Calaveras County APCD's ozone emergency episode 
contingency plan establishes three episode stages. At every stage, an 
emergency episode notification is prepared and sent to eight categories 
of recipients. These include the Calaveras County Health Officer, the 
Calaveras County Office of Emergency Services, the Calaveras County of 
Education Superintendent, neighboring air pollution control districts, 
as well as major newspapers, television and radio stations and online 
services. Actions at the first stage, which corresponds to hourly ozone 
concentrations at or above 0.20 ppm, include prohibiting all open 
burning and requesting industrial permitted facilities to initiate 
control actions, including reducing or curtailing production. At stage 
3, which corresponds to hourly ozone concentrations at or above 0.50 
ppm, the plan specifies closing all non-emergency commercial and 
industrial facilities, all government facilities which are not 
immediately necessary for public health and safety, national security 
or national defense, and closing all recreational facilities. These 
closures would be implemented through the County Office of Emergency 
Services.
    The ozone emergency episode contingency plans for San Luis Obispo 
County APCD, Amador County APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Mariposa County 
APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, and Tuolumne County APCD also meet the 
requirements of 51.152(b). Specifically, they provide for ``prompt 
acquisition of forecasts of atmospheric stagnation conditions and of 
updates of such forecasts as frequently as they are issued by the 
National Weather Service,'' as required by 40 CFR 51.152(b)(1). For 
example, the ozone emergency episode plan for Amador APCD explains that 
Amador APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Tuolumne APCD and Mariposa County 
APCD support the regional Spare the Air program in the Mountain 
Counties AQCR. This is ``an air pollution forecasting program which 
provides notifications to the public on the daily ozone concentration 
forecasts, along with advisories with an episodic ozone reduction 
element, during the summer ozone season.'' \67\ According to 
California's 2020 submittal, the Spare the Air program notifications 
include current ozone concentration measurements from all monitoring 
stations within the Mountain Counties Air Basin, and forecasts, based 
on the meteorological conditions from the National Weather Service 
advisories and local agencies.\68\ The ozone emergency episode plan 
submitted for Calaveras County similarly discusses how the District 
participates in the same program, noting that the ``District works 
cooperatively with CARB and neighboring counties on the daily burn

[[Page 65769]]

day information.'' Tuolumne County APCD's plan states that the District 
will ``in coordination with the National Weather Service (NWS) Hanford 
and Sacramento forecast offices provide prompt notification of air 
quality forecasts to the public when atmospheric stagnation conditions 
would result in substantially high ozone concentrations.'' \69\ San 
Luis Obispo APCD's plan describes how the district publishes 6-day air 
quality forecasts through its own website as well as the AirNow 
website, the EnviroFlash email program, the AirAware alerts text 
program, and through the National Weather Service's communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ California's 2020 submittal, 11.
    \68\ Id.
    \69\ California's 2020 Submittal, 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the district plans also provide for ``communications 
procedures for transmitting status reports and orders as to emission 
control actions to be taken during an episode stage, including 
procedures for contact with public officials, major emission sources, 
public health, safety, and emergency agencies and news media'', as 
required by 40 CFR 51.152(b)(3). For example, the Northern Sierra AQMD 
notification list for each ozone emergency episode stage includes CARB, 
upwind and downwind districts, major newspapers, television and radio 
stations, regional Spare the Air programs, District permitted 
facilities, and District staff who do public outreach. The Tuolumne 
County APCD notification list for each ozone emergency episode stage 
includes CARB, the Tuolumne County Office of Emergency Services, the 
Tuolumne County Office of Education, adjacent air districts, as well as 
newspapers, television and radio stations, and online media.
    Each of the district plans also provide for ``inspection of sources 
to ascertain compliance with applicable emission control action 
requirements,'' as required by 40 CFR 51.152(b)(2). For example, the 
Amador County APCD plan includes a provision to ``[c]onduct on-site 
inspection of targeted facilities to ascertain accomplishment of 
applicable emission control actions'' that applies beginning at the 
Alert (0.20ppm) stage.\70\ The Northern Sierra AQMD plan states that it 
will ``rely on both continuous emission monitoring technology and 
inspection to . . . ascertain compliance with applicable emission 
control action requirements during any ozone emergency episode stage . 
. .'' \71\ Mariposa County APCD and Calaveras County APCD use similar 
language to Amador County in their plans. The Tuolumne County APCD plan 
indicates the District will ``strive to inspect those sources that 
represent the greatest contribution of ozone precursor emissions and 
will ascertain whether [they] are adhering to the applicable emission 
control action requirements specified in the Emergency Episode 
Actions.'' \72\ The San Luis Obispo County APCD plan identifies the 
following action at each emergency episode stage: ``If conditions do 
not threaten inspectors' safety, confirm control actions have been 
implemented.'' \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ California's 2020 Submittal, 16.
    \71\ Id. at 52.
    \72\ Id. at 67.
    \73\ Id. at 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emergency episode contingency plans for ozone in California's 
2020 submittal for Amador County APCD, San Luis Obispo County APCD, 
Northern Sierra AQMD, Tuolumne County APCD, Mariposa County APCD, and 
Calaveras County APCD meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.152(a) to 
specify two or more stages of episode criteria, provide for public 
announcement whenever any episode stage has been determined to exist, 
and to specify adequate emission control actions to be taken at each 
episode stage. These emergency episode contingency plans also meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.152(b) to provide for prompt acquisition of 
forecasts of atmospheric stagnation conditions, to provide for 
inspection of sources to ascertain compliance with applicable emission 
control action requirements, and provide for communications procedures 
for transmitting status reports and orders as to emission control 
actions to be taken during an episode stage. We propose to approve 
these emergency episode contingency plans into the California SIP.
    The other portion of California's 2020 submittal is the exemption 
request for ozone emergency episode planning requirements for Lake 
County AQMD. The request is based on Lake County being in attainment 
for all ozone standards as well as all other NAAQS.\74\ In this 
request, Lake County demonstrates the largely rural nature of the area 
and documents that the largest sources of ozone precursors in the 
county emit less than 50 tpy of each. Further, it notes that the 
highest 1-hour ozone concentration observed in the last 40 years has 
been 0.103 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ EPA, Region IX, Spreadsheet of Nonattainment Areas in 
California Air Districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of Lake County's attainment status for ozone, it meets the 
criteria of 51.152(d)(1) that permit the Administrator to exempt those 
portions of Priority I regions which have been designated as attainment 
under section 107 of the CAA. The mix of ozone precursor sources in the 
County, as well as the historical 1-hour ozone levels below 0.10 ppm 
make it unlikely that additional measures are needed to keep ozone 
pollution below the significant harm level of 0.6 ppm. We propose to 
approve the request to exempt the Lake County AQMD from emergency 
episode contingency planning requirements of 40 CFR 51.152.
8. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(H)--SIP Revisions
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires SIPs to ``provide for revision of 
such plan--(i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of 
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality 
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of 
attaining such standard, and (ii) except as provided in paragraph 
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of 
information available to the Administrator that the plan is 
substantially inadequate to attain the national ambient air quality 
standard which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional 
requirements established'' under this Act.
    In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA explains that 
states may comply with the requirements of element H by providing a 
reference or citation to the provisions that provide the air agency 
with authority to meet these requirements, along with a narrative 
explanation of how the provisions serve that function.
b. Summary of the State's Submission
    California states in its 2018 submittal that California has revised 
and will continue to revise its SIP as mandated by the EPA. It states 
that CARB is submitting a revised SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and that 
CARB will continue to work with local districts to develop approvable 
SIPs as federal standards change, as new attainment methods become 
available, or as the EPA determines an existing SIP is inadequate. 
California's 2018 Submittal also cites HSC section 39602 as designating 
CARB as the agency responsible for implementing the federal CAA, which 
includes responsibility for preparing and submitting revisions to the 
California SIP to address new or revised standards or improved methods 
of meeting the standards. CARB also states that HSC

[[Page 65770]]

section 39602 gives it responsibility for revising the California SIP 
if the EPA finds the SIP inadequate. It states that CARB consults with 
the air districts and other affected entities in developing SIP 
revisions and receives public comments on SIP revisions before 
submitting them to the EPA.
c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP describes the general 
capacity, commitment, and process of the State to submit SIP revisions 
as required. It cites the overarching statutory authority of CARB to 
implement the CAA, including submission of SIP revisions to address new 
and revised NAAQS and improved methods of meeting the NAAQS. We have 
reviewed the authority provisions of HSC section 39602 and considered 
the authority provisions analyzed under 110(a)(2)(E)(i) above. We 
propose to find that they provide for SIP revisions in response to 
NAAQS revisions or whenever the EPA Administrator finds the California 
SIP to be substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or does not 
comply with requirements established under the Act, and therefore meet 
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H).
9. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) requires SIPs to ``in the case of a plan 
or plan revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area, meet 
the applicable requirements of part D (relating to nonattainment 
areas).''
    While this section requires states to meet nonattainment area 
requirements, pursuant to CAA title I, part D, when submitting plans or 
plan revisions for nonattainment areas, the EPA has concluded that the 
submission of, and subsequent EPA action on, nonattainment SIP 
revisions by states is not governed by the three-year submission 
deadline identified in CAA section 110(a)(1). Instead, SIP revisions 
for nonattainment areas are due and evaluated under the requirements 
for nonattainment areas described in part D. Thus, we do not include a 
summary of California's response to this requirement nor an evaluation 
of such response.
10. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation, Public Notification, 
Visibility Protection, and PSD
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires SIPs to ``meet the 
applicable requirements of section 121 (relating to consultation), 
section 127 (relating to public notification), and part C (relating to 
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility 
protection).''
    Regarding the consultation portion of element J, in the 2013 
Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA explains that states may meet the 
requirements by showing that there is an established process for 
consultation with general-purpose local governments, designated 
organizations of elected officials of local governments, and any 
federal land manager having authority over federal land to which the 
plan applies. Submittals should also identify organizations that 
participate in plan development, implementation or enforcement under 40 
CFR 51.240, and should include any related agreements among agencies to 
do this work.
    CAA section 127 requires SIPs to contain measures to effectively 
notify the public during any calendar year on a regular basis of 
instances or areas in which any NAAQS is exceeded or was exceeded 
during any portion of the preceding calendar year; to advise the public 
of the health hazards associated with such pollution; and to enhance 
public awareness of the measures which can be taken to prevent such 
standards from being exceeded and the ways in which the public can 
participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. 
Such measures may include the posting of warning signs on interstate 
highway access points to metropolitan areas or television, radio, or 
press notices or information. In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, 
the EPA indicates that state submittals can meet this portion of the 
requirement by showing the air agency regularly notifies the public of 
NAAQS exceedances and the associated health hazards, and that it makes 
the public aware of air quality measures and ways to participate in 
them.
    In EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA states that the 
PSD-related requirements of element J are the same as those of element 
C. For that reason, we refer to the 2018 state submittal and our 
evaluation of element C above for the PSD requirements of element J.
    Regarding the visibility protection requirements of element J, the 
EPA's 2013 Guidance notes that the CAA visibility protection 
requirements do not change when the EPA issues a new or revised NAAQS. 
The guidance states that air agencies do not need to address visibility 
protection requirements in infrastructure SIP submissions.
b. Summary of the State's Submission
    Regarding the consultation portion of element J, California's 2018 
Submittal largely includes the same information as prior infrastructure 
SIP submittals. It cites HSC section 39602, which designates CARB as 
the agency responsible for implementing the federal CAA and 
coordinating with local air districts.\75\ CARB notes that the 
districts are governed by boards primarily composed of elected 
officials and that the districts also play a role in developing SIP 
provisions. It states that the air districts collaborate through 
workgroups under the California Air Pollution Control Officers 
Association (CAPCOA) to discuss air quality matters and that CAPCOA 
meets regularly with state and federal air quality officials to develop 
rules and ensure their consistent application. The submittal provides 
examples of the local, state, and federal stakeholders CARB works with 
in developing SIP revisions such as California's 2007 State Strategy 
for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These stakeholders 
include the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and the regional 
transportation planning agencies (RTPAs) located throughout the State. 
The submittal also lists stakeholders, including federal land managers, 
with whom CARB consulted during the development of California's 2009 
Regional Haze Plan, and describes how CARB coordinates with federal 
land managers and other agencies on an ongoing basis for Regional Haze 
planning. In addition, the submittal cites the public notification 
requirements for state regulations under the California Administrative 
Procedures Act as well as the public hearing requirements for district 
rules and regulations under HSC section 40725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP, 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In California's 2018 Submittal, CARB also states that, once a SIP 
revision is submitted to the EPA, consultation is on-going. For 
example, CARB, the EPA, the California Environmental Protection Agency 
(CalEPA), and the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air districts have 
signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) committing to develop and test 
new air quality control technologies and creating the Clean Air 
Technology Initiative with the purpose of accelerating ``progress in 
meeting current and future federal standards'' in South Coast and San 
Joaquin Valley.\76\ The submittal identifies another example of such 
consultation in CARB's memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Union 
Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroads to reduce diesel 
emissions from rail yards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP, 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding public notification of exceedances of air quality 
standards, in

[[Page 65771]]

California's 2018 Submittal, CARB reiterates past submittals, referring 
to the requirements in HSC section 39607(a) for CARB to acquire and 
publicly report air quality data for each air basin in the State. CARB 
explains that it maintains both current and historical data online. 
CARB also notes that HSC 40718 requires CARB to publish maps online 
that show areas violating federal air quality standards.\77\ In 
addition, the air districts provide daily information about local air 
quality levels online. Finally, the submittal cites several websites 
that contain information on the health effects of air pollution, 
current air quality, and what the public can do to reduce air 
pollution.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Website on ``Area Designations Maps/State and National'' 
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm) (last visited on September 
14, 2020).
    \78\ CARB's websites on ``Health Effects of Air Pollution'' 
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/health.htm), AQMIS (http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqmis2.php), and ``Air Pollution and What You 
Can Do'' (http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/cando.htm) (last visited on 
September 14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding PSD requirements, California's 2018 Submittal refers to 
the PSD-approved programs described in element C. For visibility 
protection requirements, CARB notes the explanation in the EPA's 2013 
Infrastructure SIP guidance that NAAQS revisions do not create new 
visibility protection requirements and points out that California has 
an approved Regional Haze SIP.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 76 FR 34608 (June 14, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    Regarding the consultation requirements of element J, we have 
reviewed California's 2018 Submittal, and propose to find that it 
provides a satisfactory process of consultation, consistent with CAA 
section 121 and 40 CFR 51.240. In its submittal, CARB cites its 
overarching responsibility in HSC section 39602 to implement the CAA, 
including the requirement to coordinate the activities of all districts 
necessary to comply with the CAA. The districts are governed by boards 
comprised primarily of local elected officials. They also play a role 
in developing, implementing, and enforcing SIP provisions. CARB states 
that the air districts collaborate through workgroups under CAPCOA to 
discuss air quality matters and that CAPCOA meets regularly with state 
and federal air quality officials to develop rules and ensure their 
consistent application. California's submittal also provides examples 
of local government organizations, including MPOs, organizations of 
elected officials, and federal land managers who are consulted during 
SIP development, and provides an example of an MOA among CARB, the EPA, 
CalEPA, San Joaquin Valley APCD, and South Coast AQMD. We propose to 
find that California's Infrastructure SIP meets the consultation 
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J).
    In 1980, the EPA approved intergovernmental consultation procedures 
into California's SIP.\80\ That SIP submittal fulfilled the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.240, designating the local air districts as 
the lead agencies for the adoption, review, and periodic update of 
basin-wide air pollution control plans for submission to CARB. It also 
specified that the air districts will propose, adopt, implement, and 
enforce control measures concerning stationary sources within their 
jurisdictions. The ``Chapter 25--Intergovernmental Relations'' \81\ 
portion of that submittal included a MOU between CARB and Caltrans, the 
state transportation agency. The MOU outlined how the two agencies will 
work together on transportation controls in nonattainment air plans, on 
transportation plans and programs, and to ensure consistency of 
transportation plans, programs, and projects with the SIP. These 
provisions previously approved into the California SIP reinforce the 
consultation procedures described in California's recent SIP 
submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 45 FR 53136 (August 11, 1980).
    \81\ Chapter 25, Intergovernmental Relations, Revision to State 
of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance 
of Ambient Air Quality Standards. Adopted by the CARB, October 26, 
1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the requirements of CAA section 127 and 40 CFR 
51.285, California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP provides for adequate 
public notification. HSC section 39607(a) requires CARB to acquire and 
publicly report data on each air basin and HSC section 40718(a) 
requires CARB to publish maps of areas violating the NAAQS. In its 2018 
submittal, CARB explains how it and the districts publish information 
online about air quality (including the current Air Quality Index), the 
health effects of air pollution, and what the public can do about air 
pollution. The submittal also describes the public hearing requirements 
applicable to CARB and the air districts. Thus, we propose to find that 
California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals meet the public notification 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J).
    As discussed above, when the EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, 
the visibility protection requirements under CAA title I, part C do not 
change and, therefore, there are no newly applicable visibility 
protection obligations pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). We propose 
to find that California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals meets the 
visibility protection requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J).
    Regarding the PSD requirements of element J, we rely upon our 
earlier evaluation of the PSD portion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). For 
the 13 local air districts that have EPA-approved PSD programs, we are 
proposing to partially approve California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP. 
For the 22 local air districts that do not have EPA-approved PSD 
programs, we are proposing to partially disapprove California's 2018 
Infrastructure SIP. Because the EPA has already delegated the PSD FIP 
at 40 CFR 52.21 to each of the districts without fully approved PSD 
programs, finalization of this proposed, partial disapproval will not 
trigger any new obligation for the EPA to promulgate a FIP.
11. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling and Submission of 
Modeling Data
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires SIPs to provide for: ``(i) The 
performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may 
prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air 
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the 
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard, 
and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air 
quality modeling to the Administrator.'' To satisfy section 
110(a)(2)(K), in the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA 
indicates that states can provide a reference or citation to the 
provisions that give it authority to do the modeling and data 
submission required by this element, as well as a narrative explanation 
of how the state meets the requirements of this element.
b. Summary of the State's Submission
    California's 2018 Submittal refers to HSC 39602, which designates 
CARB as the air pollution agency for all purposes set forth in federal 
law and thereby gives it the authority to conduct air quality 
monitoring as required under the CAA. CARB explains in the submittal 
how California meets the modeling requirements of element K. It notes 
that CARB has established an air quality modeling group, which models 
primary and secondary pollutants, and states that CARB's modeling 
complies

[[Page 65772]]

with EPA guidance. It explains that CARB ensures modeling performed by 
districts complies with federal requirements and that CARB and the 
districts also document and make public their SIP-related modeling 
protocols as part of the SIP review process. CARB also notes that 
modeling results are made available to the EPA and other stakeholders 
upon request.
c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP identifies HSC 39602, which 
grants CARB its overarching SIP authority, as its statutory basis for 
authority to conduct modeling, and describes how it and the districts 
perform air quality modeling following guidelines prescribed by the 
EPA. In the EPA's proposal to approve California's infrastructure SIP 
for earlier NAAQS, we also identified examples of attainment modeling, 
such as in the 2007 State Strategy for 1997 ozone and 1997 
PM2.5, and in the attainment SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for 
Los Angeles County.\82\ We found they provided evidence of California's 
authority to conduct modeling and submit its data and analysis to the 
EPA in conjunction with a SIP revision. We propose to find that the 
broad authority of HSC section 39602 in conjunction with the various 
modeling efforts undertaken by CARB and the districts provide for 
ambient air quality modeling and data submission consistent with CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(K).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 79 FR 63350 (October 23, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permit Fees
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires that each SIP require the owner or 
operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting 
authority, as a condition of any permit required under the Act, a fee 
sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting 
upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or 
operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of 
implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit 
(not including any court costs or other costs associated with any 
enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with 
respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee 
program under title V of the Act.
    In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA states that fee 
programs are not required to be part of the EPA-approved SIP. We 
explain that infrastructure SIP submittals should provide citations to 
the regulations that provide for the collection of permitting fees to 
cover all CAA permitting, implementation, and enforcement for new and 
modified major sources as well as existing major sources.
b. Summary of the State's Submission
    In its 2018 submittal, California states that California's 35 air 
districts bear responsibility for stationary source permitting and have 
regulations requiring the payment of fees from facilities subject to 
CAA title V requirements. The submittal cites HSC section 42311 as 
authorizing local air districts ``to adopt a schedule of fees for the 
evaluation, issuance, and renewal of permits to cover the cost of air 
district programs related to permitting stationary sources.'' It states 
that major source permit applicants are assessed a fee for processing 
their application for an authority to construct or a permit to operate. 
The submittal also provides a link to CARB's website that provides a 
general overview of title V permitting in California.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ http://www.arb.ca.gov/fcaa/tv/tvinfo/overview.htm (last 
visited on September 14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its 2018 submittal, CARB further notes that the EPA has approved 
the title V programs of all 35 air districts, as reflected in 40 CFR 
part 70, Appendix A (``Approval Status of State and Local Operating 
Permits Programs'') and provides a table that identifies the title V 
rule for each air district. The submittal explains that the rules cited 
in the table ``represent the district's primary implementation rule, 
and in some cases, there may be other district rules that are also 
relevant to the Title V process.'' \84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ California's 2018 Submittal, 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    We have reviewed California's response to this requirement and have 
also considered air district provisions approved into the California 
SIP. We agree with California that HSC section 42311 provides authority 
to require fees for the evaluation, issuance, and renewal of stationary 
sources, including new and existing major sources, except for South 
Coast AQMD, whose similar permit fee authority is instead found in HSC 
section 40510(b). We also agree that all 35 air districts have fully 
approved title V operating permit programs. Such program approvals 
supersede the operating fee requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L).
    In addition to the title V fee programs, districts in California 
have SIP-approved rules requiring the payment of fees for construction 
and operating permits. In the EPA's 2016 final action on California's 
Infrastructure SIP submittals for earlier NAAQS, we provided examples 
of these rules for Bay Area AQMD, Sacramento Metro AQMD, and Yolo-
Solano AQMD.\85\ Additional examples of local district fee rules that 
have recently been updated include Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 301,\86\ San 
Joaquin Valley APCD Rule 3010,\87\ Monterey Bay ARD Regulation III.\88\ 
and South Coast AQMD Rule 301.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0547-0008 (last visited on September 14, 2020).
    \86\ http://mdaqmd.ca.gov/home/showdocument?id=6783 (last 
visited on September 14, 2020).
    \87\ https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/2018/R3010-a2.pdf (last visited on September 14, 2020).
    \88\ https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/drdb/mbu/curhtml/r300.pdf (last 
visited on September 14, 2020).
    \89\ http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-iii/rule-301-June-2019.pdf (last visited on September 14, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, based on the federally approved title V programs for all 
35 air districts, the air district rules cited in California's 2018 
submittal that establish permit fee requirements for major sources, and 
the local district rules that implement fees to cover permitting, 
implementation, and enforcement for new and modified major sources, we 
propose to find that California meets the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(L).
13. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation and Participation by 
Affected Local Entities
a. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to ``provide for consultation 
and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the 
plan.'' In the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, the EPA explains that, 
to meet the requirements of element M, states may identify their 
policies or procedures that allow and promote such consultation in 
their SIP submittals.
b. Summary of the State's Submission
    In its 2018 submittal, California states that CARB ``routinely 
consults and provides liaison'' with all districts, particularly on SIP 
revisions. The submittal explains that district boards are composed of 
local elected officials, so consultation with air districts provides 
for consultation with and participation by local government

[[Page 65773]]

entities. CARB states that HSC section 41650 et seq. requires CARB ``to 
conduct public hearings and to solicit testimony from air districts, 
air quality planning agencies, and the public when adopting SIP-related 
documents'' for nonattainment area plans. It also adds that the air 
districts have a similar process for participation and comment on 
proposed regulatory actions.
    CARB reiterates that HSC section 39602 designates CARB as the 
agency in charge of implementing federal air pollution law and that it 
requires CARB to coordinate the activities of all air districts 
necessary to comply with the CAA. It also reiterates that the 
California Administrative Procedures Act, GC section 11340, et seq., 
requires notification and comment opportunities to parties affected by 
proposed state regulations, and that HSC section 40725 requires air 
districts to provide for public review when adopting, amending, or 
repealing district rules.
c. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
    In its 2018 submittal, CARB highlights its regular consultation 
with the air districts, whose governing boards are made up of local 
elected officials. The submittal cites HSC section 41650, which 
requires CARB to conduct public hearings on nonattainment plans. The 
submittal cites HSC section 39602, which requires CARB to coordinate 
the SIP activities of the air districts, the California Administrative 
Procedures Act, which has public notification requirements for state 
regulations, and HSC section 40725, which has public notification 
requirements for district-level rules. In addition, as noted in our 
evaluation for the consultation requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(J), CARB also consults with MPOs and RTPAs, which can be 
considered local political subdivisions of the state in that they 
address metropolitan and regional transportation planning issues and 
include elected officials representing their respective local areas.
    California's SIP submittal demonstrates that the air districts and 
the government entities represented by their boards are the local 
political subdivisions affected by the plan. The submittal enumerates 
how the districts are involved and consulted during the planning 
process. We therefore propose to conclude that California adequately 
provides for consultation and participation by local political 
subdivisions affected by the California SIP, and that California's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(M).

D. Proposed Approval of State and Local Provisions Into the California 
SIP

    As part of this action, we are also proposing to approve two 
revised state regulations and five air district rules into the 
California SIP. Specifically, we propose to approve into the SIP the 
updated provisions CCR, Title 2, sections 18700 and 18701. These 
revised regulations were part of California's 2018 Submittal and 
continue to address the conflict of interest requirements of CAA 
sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. We also propose to approve into the 
SIP five Ozone Emergency Episode Plans for Amador County APCD, 
Calaveras County APCD, Mariposa County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, and 
Tuolumne County APCD to address the emergency episode planning 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart H.

E. Proposed Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency Episode 
Planning

    In its 2018 submittal, CARB requested that the EPA reclassify three 
AQCRs with respect to the emergency episode planning requirements of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, as applicable 
to ozone, NO2, and SO2. The air quality tests for 
classifying AQCRs are prescribed in 40 CFR 51.150 and are pollutant-
specific (e.g., ozone) rather than being specific to any given NAAQS 
(e.g., 1997 ozone NAAQS). Consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 
51.153, reclassification of AQCRs must rely on the most recent three 
years of air quality data. 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. AQCRs that are classified Priority I 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 the EPA to reclassify such regions, as appropriate, under CAA 
sections 110(a)(2)(G) and 301(a)(1).
    On the basis of California's ambient air quality data for 2015-
2017, we are proposing to grant California's request to reclassify Lake 
County, North Central Coast, and South Central Coast to Priority I 
areas.

F. The EPA's Action

    Under CAA 110(a), we are proposing to partially approve and 
partially disapprove California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP. 
Specifically, we are proposing to approve the submittal for the 
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(B), 110(a)(2)(E), 
110(a)(2)(F), 110(a)(2)(H), 110(a)(2)(K), 110(a)(2)(L), and 
110(a)(2)(M). We are also proposing to partially approve and partially 
disapprove the submittal for CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J) due to PSD program deficiencies in 
certain air districts. These partial disapprovals will not create any 
new consequences as the air districts with PSD deficiencies are already 
subject to PSD FIPs.
    To meet CAA 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements, we are proposing to 
approve into the SIP the updated versions of CCR, Title 2, sections 
18700 and 18701, to replace the previous versions of 2 CCR 18700 and 
18701.
    To meet the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(G), we are proposing to 
approve California's 2020 Submittal. This includes the ozone emergency 
episode contingency plans for Amador County APCD, San Luis Obispo 
County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Tuolumne County APCD, Mariposa 
County APCD, and Calaveras County APCD, as well as the exemption 
request for Lake County AQMD.
    At this time, EPA is not acting on 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which 
prohibits emission sources from contributing significantly to 
nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another 
state. The EPA will propose action on the interstate transport 
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in a separate notice.
    We are soliciting comments on these proposed actions. We will 
accept comments from the public for 30 days following publication of 
this proposal in the Federal Register and will consider any relevant 
comments before taking final action.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference two revised state provisions from the California Code of 
Regulations for the conflict of interest requirements of CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. These revised provisions are California Code 
of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 18700 and 18701. Similarly, the EPA 
is also proposing to incorporate by reference

[[Page 65774]]

five Ozone Emergency Episode Plans for Amador County APCD, Calaveras 
County APCD, Mariposa County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD, and Tuolumne 
County APCD for the emergency episode planning requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart H. The EPA has made, 
and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law 
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile Organic 
Compounds.

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

    Dated: September 30, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-22061 Filed 10-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P