[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63350-63363]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25278]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; California; Infrastructure Requirements for
Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Lead (Pb), Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove several State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of California pursuant to
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, fine particulate patter
(PM2.5), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and
sulfur dioxide (SO2). We refer to such SIP revisions as
``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are intended to address basic
structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS including, but not
limited to, legal authority, regulatory structure, resources, permit
programs, and monitoring necessary to assure attainment and maintenance
of the standards. In addition, we are proposing to reclassify certain
regions of the state for emergency episode planning purposes with
respect to ozone, NO2, SO2, and particulate
matter (PM). Finally, we are proposing to approve into the SIP several
state provisions addressing CAA conflict of interest requirements into
the California SIP and an emergency episode planning rule for Great
Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for PM. We are
taking comments on this proposal and, after considering any comments
submitted, plan to take final action.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

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

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

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

    EPA is acting upon several SIP submittals from California that
address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP
submittal of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to
section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submittals ``within 3 years (or
such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submittals are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submittals, and the requirement to make the submittals is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submittal must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from submittals that
are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as
``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment SIP'' submittals to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submittals required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submittals to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submittals, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submittals. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submittal of certain types of SIP submittals in designated
nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section
182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submittal of emissions
inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are
necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337, January 22, 2013
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submittals to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance explains EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submittals because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submittals
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C, title I of the Act and EPA's PSD
regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions
necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and
regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By
contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions
that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the
state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit
applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA
considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a

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

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

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

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

II. Background

A. Statutory Requirements

    As discussed in section I of this proposed rule, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires each state to submit to EPA, within three years
after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision
thereof, an infrastructure SIP revision that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) sets the content requirements of such a plan, which generally
relate to the information and authorities, compliance assurances,
procedural requirements, and control measures that constitute the
``infrastructure'' of a state's air quality management program. These
infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(2) are as
follows:
     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 and international
pollution abatement.
     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, 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 NSR), and (ii) section
110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of
part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure for
the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of
section 110(a)(2)(I).

B. NAAQS Addressed by This Proposal

    Between 1997 and 2012, EPA promulgate a series of new or revised
NAAQS for ozone, PM2.5, Pb, NO2, and
SO2, each of which triggered the requirement for states to
submit infrastructure SIPs. The NAAQS addressed by this infrastructure
SIP proposal include the following:
     1997 ozone NAAQS, which established 8-hour average primary
and secondary ozone standards of 0.08 ppm, and revoked the 1979 1-hour
ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

     1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, which set 24-hour average
primary and secondary PM2.5 standards of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ and
annual primary and secondary PM2.5 standards of 15 [mu]g/
m\3\.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised the 1997 24-
hour PM2.5 standards to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, and retained the 1997
annual standards.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised the 1997 and
2006 annual PM2.5 standards to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\, and retained
the 2006 24-hour standards.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

     2010 NO2 NAAQS, which revised the primary 1971
NO2 annual standard of 53 parts per billion (ppb) by
supplementing it with a new 1-hour average NO2 standard of
100 ppb, and retained the secondary annual standard of 53 ppb.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010. The annual NO2
standard of 0.053 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with
the new 1-hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2010 SO2 NAAQS, which established a new 1-hour
average SO2 standard of 75 ppb, retained the secondary 3-
hour average SO2 standard of 500 ppb, and established a
mechanism for revoking the primary 1971 annual and 24-hour
SO2 standards.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The annual SO2
standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the
new 1-hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Guidance Documents

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

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

     August 15, 2006 guidance on the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone
and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality
Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), ``Guidance for State Implementation Plan Submissions to
Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,'' August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     October 2, 2007 guidance on infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality
Policy Division, OAQPS, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' October
2, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

     September 13, 2013 guidance on infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, 2012 PM2.5, and future NAAQS. (``2013
Infrastructure SIP Guidance'') \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. California's Submittals

    The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has submitted several
infrastructure SIP revisions pursuant to EPA's promulgation of the
NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule, including the following:
     November 16, 2007--``Proposed State Strategy for
California's 2007 State Implementation Plan.'' Appendices B
(``110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP'') and G (``Legal Authority and Other
Requirements'') contain California's infrastructure SIP revision for
the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. (``California's 2007
Submittal'').\29\ This submittal incorporates by reference California's
section 110(a)(2) SIP submitted in response to the 1970 CAA and
approved by EPA in 1979 in 40 CFR 52.220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ California's November 16, 2007 Submittal is often referred
to as California's 2007 State Strategy. EPA previously acted on
Appendix C (``Revised Interstate Transport State Implementation
Plan'') of California's 2007 State Strategy, as modified by
Attachment A of the same submittal, which contained California's SIP
revision to address the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. 76 FR 14616, March 17, 2011 (transport prongs 1 and 2); 76 FR
48002, August 8, 2011 (transport prong 3); and 76 FR 34608, June 14,
2011 and 76 FR 48006, August 8, 2011 (transport prong 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     October 6, 2011--``State Implementation Plan Revision for
Federal Lead Standard Infrastructure Requirements,'' which addresses
the 2008 Pb NAAQS. (``California's 2011 Submittal'').
     December 12, 2012--``State Implementation Plan Revision
for Federal Nitrogen Dioxide Standard Infrastructure Requirements,''
which addressed the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. (``California's 2012
Submittal'').
     March 6, 2014--``California Infrastructure SIP,'' which
provided new submittals for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and supplemented and amended the state's
prior infrastructure SIP submittals. (``California's 2014 Submittal'').
     June 2, 2014--Great Basin Unified APCD Rule 701 (``Air
Pollution Episode Plan''), which addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for
the 1987 coarse particulate matter (PM10) and 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. (``Great Basin Rule 701'').
    We find that these submittals meet the procedural requirements for
public participation under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. We
are proposing to act on all of these submittals since they collectively
address the infrastructure SIP requirements for the NAAQS addressed by
this proposed rule. We refer to them collectively herein as
``California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals.'' Importantly, however,
California has not made a submittal for the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006
PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.\30\ Thus we are not addressing the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to these four NAAQS in this
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ California made an infrastructure SIP submittal for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on July 7, 2009 that was
subsequently withdrawn on July 18, 2014. All infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are
addressed in California's 2014 Submittal with the exception of the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Therefore, there is no California submittal before EPA with respect
to the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

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

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

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals

    Based upon our evaluation as presented in our five TSDs, EPA
proposes to approve California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with
respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 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) (in part): 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.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution
transport.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ As noted in section III of this proposed rule, California
has not made a submittal for the interstate transport requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5,
2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Thus we are not proposing any action with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to these
four NAAQS in this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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) (in part): 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.
i. Proposed Approval of State and Local Provisions Into the California
SIP
    As part of these proposed approvals, we are also proposing to
approve several state statutes and regulations and one air district
rule into the California SIP. Specifically, for all of the NAAQS
addressed in this proposal, we propose to approve into the SIP five
state provisions from the California Government Code (GC) statutes and
California Code of Regulations (CCR), which were submitted in
California's 2014 Submittal and which address the conflict of interest
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. These provisions
include 9 GC 82048, 9 GC 87103, 9 GC 87302, 2 CCR 18700, and 2 CCR
18701. For discussion of these conflict of interest provisions, please
see our Conflict of Interest TSD.
    We also propose to approve Great Basin Rule 701 into the California
SIP with respect to the 1987 PM10, 1997 PM2.5,
2006 PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the
emergency episode planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and
40 CFR part 51, subpart H. For our evaluation of this emergency episode
rule, please refer to our Emergency Episode Planning TSD.
ii. Proposed Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency
Episode Planning
    California's 2012 and 2014 Submittals requested that EPA reclassify
several AQCRs with respect to the emergency episode planning
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart H,
as applicable to ozone, 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. AQCRs that are classified Priority I,
IA, or II are required to have SIP-approved emergency episode
contingency plans, while those classified Priority III are not required
to have such plans, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152. We interpret
40 CFR 51.153 as establishing the means for states to review air
quality data and request a higher or lower classification for any given
region and as providing the regulatory basis for EPA to reclassify such
regions, as appropriate, under the authorities of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(G) and 301(a)(1).
    On the basis of California's ambient air quality data for 2011-
2013, we are proposing to grant five of California's ten requests and
deny the five remaining requests. Note, however, that our proposed
denial of such a reclassification request does not necessarily lead to
disapproval as most districts that are required to have emergency
episode contingency plans for a given set of air pollutants continue to
have SIP-approved emergency episode rules that apply to such
pollutants. The exception to this scenario is the Mountain Counties
AQCR for ozone, which we discuss in section IV.B.iii of this proposed
rule. For further discussion of the emergency episode planning
evaluation, please refer to our Emergency Episode Planning TSD.
    While we propose to grant or deny such requests within this
proposed rule, the authority to take final action to reclassify AQCRs
is reserved by the EPA Administrator. We will draft a reclassification
final rule for signature by the EPA Administrator that will be separate
from the broader final rule on California's Infrastructure SIP
Submittals for signature by the EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator.

Ozone

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

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

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

    Two additional AQCRs in northern and central California comprise
many air districts. Sacramento Valley AQCR includes all or portions of
eight air districts, just one of which (Sacramento Metro AQMD) recorded
a 1-hour ozone level above 0.10 ppm during 2011-2013. Sacramento Metro
AQMD already has an adequate SIP-approved emergency episode rule
applicable to ozone. Mountain Counties includes portions of seven air
districts, just two of which (El Dorado County APCD and Placer County
APCD) recorded a 1-hour ozone level above 0.10 ppm during 2011-2013.
Unlike Sacramento Metro, these two air districts do not have SIP-
approved emergency episode rules. Within these two AQCRs, the
population and concentration of emission sources is greatest in the
greater Sacramento metropolitan area and the air districts of El Dorado
County, Placer County, and Sacramento Metro (i.e., Sacramento County)
each share a county border with one another.
    Because recent ambient air quality data do not indicate that ozone
levels are likely to approach the first recommended 1-hour ozone alert
level of 0.20 ppm, much less the 2-hour significant harm level of 0.6
ppm, we propose to find that to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
51.151 for contingency plans for these two AQCRs classified Priority I,
California needs to provide emergency episode contingency plans for the
three air districts that have recorded a 1-hour ozone level above 0.10
ppm. As noted, Sacramento Metro AQMD already has an adequate SIP-
approved emergency episode rule applicable to ozone. Thus, we propose
to approve California's 2007 and 2014 Submittals with respect to the
1997 ozone and 2008 ozone for the Sacramento Valley AQCR for the
emergency episode planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).
Since El Dorado County APCD and Placer County APCD do not have such
SIP-approved rules, we propose to partially disapprove California's
2007 and 2014 Submittals with respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone
NAAQS for the Mountain Counties AQCR, as discussed in section IV.B.iii
of this proposed rule.
NO2 and SO2
    For NO2, an AQCR with an annual average NO2
level greater than 0.06 ppm over the most recent three-year period must
be classified Priority I. Per California's request, we propose to
reclassify the Metropolitan Los Angeles AQCR to Priority III for
NO2 since no part of this region (comprised of all or
portions of Santa Barbara County, South Coast, and Ventura County air
districts) recorded an annual average NO2 level greater than
0.06 ppm in 2011-2013. Finalization of this proposed reclassification
would mean that the whole state would be classified Priority III for
NO2, and therefore no emergency episode contingency plan for
NO2 would be required for any of the state's 14 AQCRs. We
therefore propose to approve California's 2012 and 2014 Submittals with
respect to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for the emergency episode
planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).
    For SO2, the classification thresholds for
SO2 are unique in that they are prescribed for three
different averaging periods, including the following Priority II
classification thresholds: 3-hour average greater than 0.5 ppm, 24-hour
average between 0.10-0.17 ppm, and annual arithmetic mean between 0.02-
0.04 ppm. Per California's request, we propose to reclassify the
Metropolitan Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area AQCRs to Priority
III for SO2 as neither recorded SO2 levels
exceeding the 3-hour average threshold or the lower end of the 24-hour
and annual classification threshold ranges in 2011-2013. Finalization
of this proposed reclassification would mean that the whole state would
be classified Priority III for SO2, and therefore no
emergency episode contingency plan for SO2 would be required
for any of the state's 14 AQCRs. We therefore propose to approve
California's 2014 Submittal with respect to the 2010 SO2
NAAQS for the emergency episode planning requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(G).
iii. Proposed Reclassifications for PM Emergency Episode Planning
    California's 2014 Submittal requested that EPA treat all areas of
the state as though they were classified Priority III for purposes of
PM2.5 with respect the emergency episode planning
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart H,
with the exception of Great Basin Valley AQCR, for which ARB requested
treatment as a Priority II area. However, the air quality test for
classifying AQCRs for PM that are prescribed in 40 CFR 51.150 are not
specific to either PM2.5 or PM10--they are simply
for PM. Thus, we evaluated California's 2014 Submittal as follows.
    As an initial screen, and given the provision of 40 CFR 51.153(a)
to review the most recent three years of air quality data, we reviewed
California's 24-hour PM2.5 air quality data from 2011-2013
to identify areas where concentrations exceeded EPA's recommended 24-
hour PM2.5 threshold of 140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ for emergency
episode planning.\33\ There were two occasions where the concentrations
exceeded this threshold: 208 [micro]g/m\3\ on December 1, 2011 at the
Keeler-Cerro Gordo Road monitor in Great Basin Valley AQCR, and 167
[mu]g/m\3\ on May 5, 2013 at the Bakersfield-Planz monitor in San
Joaquin Valley AQCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, pp. 6-7 and Attachment B
(``Recommended Interim Significant Harm Level, Priority Levels, and
Action Levels for PM2.5 Emergency Episode Plans
(EEPs)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these two areas, we also reviewed the 24-hour PM10
air quality data to determine the appropriate emergency episode
classification under 40 CFR 51.150. We propose to classify such areas
based on PM10 values, rather than PM2.5 values
alone, in order to ensure adequate protection from PM emergency
episodes as a whole. Following classification, however, we also propose
that such differences could be relevant in determining the adequacy of
a PM emergency episode contingency plan. We discuss the rationale for
these two proposal in our Emergency Episode Planning TSD.
    For PM, an AQCR with a 24-hour PM maximum level between 150-325
[micro]g/m\3\ over the most recent three-year period must be classified
Priority II and an AQCR with a 24-hour PM maximum level greater than
325 [micro]g/m\3\ must be classified Priority I. The monitors in Great
Basin Valley AQCR recorded over 90 instances during 2011-2013 where 24-
hour PM10 levels exceeded the Priority I threshold of 325
[micro]g/m\3\. As such, we propose to revise the PM emergency episode
classification of Great Basin Valley AQCR from Priority III to Priority
I in 40 CFR 52.221. The monitors in San Joaquin Valley AQCR recorded 15
instances during 2011-2013 where 24-hour PM10 levels were
within the Priority II range of 150-325 [micro]g/m\3\, with no
exceedances of the Priority I threshold of 325 [micro]g/m\3\ during
that time. We therefore propose to revise the PM emergency episode
classification of San Joaquin Valley AQCR from Priority I to Priority
II in 40 CFR 52.221.
    Based on these classifications, we have reviewed the adequacy of
each area's PM emergency episode plans. As noted in section IV.A.i of
this proposed rule, we propose to approve Great Basin Rule 701 for the
emergency episode

planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the
PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS. However, for San Joaquin
Valley AQCR, we proposed to partially disapprove California's 2007 and
2014 Submittals for section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, which we discuss in section IV.B.iii of this proposed rule. For
further discussion of the emergency episode planning evaluation as a
whole, please refer to our Emergency Episode Planning TSD.

B. Proposed Partial Disapprovals

    EPA proposes to partially disapprove California's Infrastructure
SIP Submittals with respect to the NAAQS identified for each of the
following infrastructure SIP requirements (details of the partial
disapprovals are presented after this list):
     Section 110(a)(2)(B) (in part): Ambient air quality
monitoring/data system (for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the
Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in San Joaquin Valley
APCD).
     Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of
control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources
(for all NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule due to PSD program and
minor NSR deficiencies in certain air districts).
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution
transport (for all NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule due to PSD
program deficiencies in certain air districts).
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution
abatement and international air pollution (for all NAAQS addressed by
this proposed rule due to PSD program deficiencies in certain air
districts).
     Section 110(a)(2)(G) (in part): Emergency episodes (for
the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Mountain Counties AQCR, and
for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley AQCR).
     Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with
government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility
protection (for all NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule due to PSD
program deficiencies in certain air districts).
i. Ambient Air Monitoring Partial Disapproval
    We propose to partially disapprove California's 2007 and 2014
Submittals for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 ozone
and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Bakersfield MSA portion of the California
SIP because the ozone monitor located at the Arvin-Bear Mountain Road
site, which had been the maximum ozone concentration monitor in the
Bakersfield MSA, was closed without an approved replacement site. The
requirement to have such a maximum ozone concentration monitor is found
in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix D, 4.1(b) and the requirement that
modifications to a monitoring network must be reviewed and approved by
the relevant Regional Administrator is found in 40 CFR 58.14(b). For
further discussion of this partial disapproval, please see our
evaluation for CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) in our Overarching TSD.
ii. Permit Program-Related Partial Disapprovals
    We propose to partially disapprove portions of California's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the PSD-related
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) for
several air districts because the California SIP does not fully satisfy
the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs as to
those air districts. In addition, we propose to partially disapprove
portions of California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to
the minor NSR-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for several
air districts because the California SIP does not include minor NSR
programs for five air districts. With respect to interstate transport
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), we also considered the
status of the nonattainment NSR programs of the applicable California
air districts and propose to approve California's Infrastructure SIP
Submittals for this aspect of the interstate transport requirements.
Lastly, regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and compliance with the
requirement of section 126(a) for proposed, major new or modified
sources to notify all potentially affected, nearby states, as
applicable, we propose to partially disapprove California's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals for many air districts. We provide a
summary of the basis of our proposed partial disapprovals in the
following paragraphs. For further detail on the nature and extent of
these proposed partial disapprovals, please refer to our Permit
Programs TSD.
PSD Permit Programs
    We reviewed the permit programs of California's 35 air districts
for SIP-approved provisions to address PSD requirements that we
consider ``structural'' for purposes of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J), including the following requirements that were
most recently added to the federal PSD regulations: Provisions
identifying nitrogen oxides (NOX) as ozone precursors;
provisions to regulate PM2.5, including condensable
PM2.5, PM2.5 precursor emissions, and PSD
increments for PM2.5; and provisions to regulate GHGs. For
the PSD requirements for GHGs, we conducted our evaluation consistent
with the recent changes to the application of such requirements due to
the U.S. Supreme Court decision of June 23, 2014, as discussed in
section II.D of this proposed rule.
    We propose to approve seven districts as meeting the structural PSD
requirements, including Eastern Kern, Imperial County, Monterey Bay
Unified, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-
Solano air districts. With respect to Monterey Bay Unified APCD, our
proposed approval for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) is
contingent on finalizing our proposed rule on a PSD SIP revision for
this district that meets such structural PSD requirements.\34\ However,
we note that the district's current SIP-approved PSD program does not
include requirements for the regulation of PM2.5,
PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, or PSD
increments for PM2.5. Thus, in the event that we are not
able to finalize our proposed action on such PSD SIP revision prior to
finalizing action on California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals, we
propose in the alternative to partially disapprove Monterey Bay Unified
APCD for these specific PSD-related requirements for sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    An additional four air districts, including Mendocino County, North
Coast Unified, Northern Sonoma County, and South Coast air districts,
partially meet and partially do not meet the structural PSD
requirements. South Coast AQMD has a SIP-approved PSD program for GHGs
only, but it does not have a SIP-approved PSD program to address any
other regulated NSR pollutants. Thus we propose to partially disapprove
California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to this district for the
PSD-related requirement of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
    North Coast Unified AQMD has a SIP-approved PSD program that, on
the whole, addresses all regulated NSR pollutants. However, it does not
explicitly regulate NOX as an ozone precursor and does not
include requirements for the regulation of PM2.5,

PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, or PSD
increments for PM2.5. Therefore, we propose to partially
disapprove California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to this
district for these specific deficiencies for PSD-related requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). Mendocino County AQMD and
Northern Sonoma County APCD each have SIP-approved PSD programs that
generally address the structural PSD requirements, but do not include
requirements for a baseline date for PSD increments for
PM2.5. Thus, we propose to partially disapprove California's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to both of these districts for this
specific deficiency in the PSD-related requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
    The remaining 24 air districts are subject to the existing PSD FIP
in 40 CFR 52.21, including Amador County, Antelope Valley, Bay Area,
Butte County, Calaveras County, Colusa County, El Dorado County,
Feather River, Glenn County, Great Basin Unified, Lake County, Lassen
County, Mariposa County, Modoc County, Mojave Desert, Northern Sierra,
San Diego County, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, Shasta
County, Siskiyou County, Tehama County, Tuolumne County, and Ventura
County air districts. Eight of these, including Bay Area, Butte County,
Feather River, Great Basin Unified, San Diego County, San Luis Obispo
County, Santa Barbara County, and Ventura County air districts, have
made PSD SIP submittals for which EPA has not yet proposed or finalized
action. Accordingly, we propose to partially disapprove California's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to each of these 24 air districts with
respect to the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J). As discussed further in section IV.C of this
proposed rule, the partial disapprovals as to these 24 districts would
not result in new FIP obligations, because EPA has already promulgated
a PSD FIP for each district.
Minor NSR Programs
    Consistent with the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) that the
SIP include a program for the regulation of minor sources, we also
evaluated California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals and the California
SIP with respect to minor NSR programs covering the NAAQS addressed by
this proposed rule. Thirty of the 35 air districts have a SIP-approved
minor NSR program that applies to all NAAQS, and therefore meet the
minor NSR component of section 110(a)(2)(C). The remaining five air
districts--Lake County, Mariposa County, Mojave Desert, Northern
Sierra,\35\ and Tuolumne County air districts--have minor NSR programs
that establish similar requirements, but they have not been submitted
and approved into the California SIP. Therefore, we propose to
partially disapprove California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with
respect to the minor NSR requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for
these five air districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Accordingly, we reviewed the nonattainment NSR programs of
California's 22 air districts that are designated nonattainment for
ozone, PM2.5, or Pb, as applicable,\38\ to determine whether
these programs generally address the applicable nonattainment
pollutants. We refer to this aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
herein as the ``nonattainment NSR element.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ No area of California has been designated nonattainment for
the 2010 NO2 or 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to find that California meets the nonattainment NSR
element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through a variety of mechanisms,
as follows. Nine of the 22 air districts with nonattainment areas meet
the nonattainment NSR element via SIP-approved programs, including the
following air districts: Antelope Valley, Eastern Kern, Mojave Desert,
Placer County, San Diego County, and Ventura County (for the 1997 ozone
and 2008 ozone NAAQS); Sacramento Metro and Feather River (for the 1997
ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS); and San Joaquin
Valley (for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    An additional eight air districts have affirmed that they implement
the interim nonattainment NSR program in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S,
which applies to new or modified major stationary sources pursuant to
40 CFR 52.24(k), until California submits (on behalf of a given
district) and EPA approves SIP revisions addressing the applicable
nonattainment NSR program requirements. This scenario applies to the
following districts: Calaveras County, Mariposa County, and Northern
Sierra (for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS); and Bay Area, Butte
County, El Dorado County, Imperial County, Yolo-Solano (for the 1997
ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). We note that Bay
Area, Butte County, Imperial County, and South Coast air districts have
each submitted SIP revisions to address some or all of the outstanding
nonattainment NSR requirements. We anticipate proposing or taking final
action on some or all of these four SIP submittals over the coming
months. To the extent that each submittal meets the applicable

nonattainment NSR requirements, we propose that such actions would
alter the basis of our proposed approval of California's Infrastructure
SIP Submittals with respect to the nonattainment NSR element of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (i.e., having SIP-approved nonattainment NSR
provisions rather than relying on 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S) while
maintaining the proposed approval itself.
    South Coast AQMD implements its SIP-approved nonattainment NSR
program for the portions of the air district that are designated
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2008 Pb NAAQS, and
implements the interim nonattainment NSR program in 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix S with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Two other districts, Amador County APCD and Tuolumne County APCD,
are designated nonattainment only for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA has
proposed to revoke that NAAQS as part of the proposed implementation
rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,\39\ which for these two air districts
would have the effect of revoking the requirement to submit a
nonattainment NSR SIP revision.\40\ We anticipate that EPA will
finalize that proposed rule prior to finalization of this proposed rule
on California's Infrastructure SIPs, so these two districts will be
relieved of the requirement to submit nonattainment NSR SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Lastly, portions of San Luis Obispo County APCD and Tehama County
APCD are designated nonattainment only for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Stemming from EPA's proposed implementation rule for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS,\41\ required nonattainment NSR SIP revisions would not be due
until July 20, 2015 and, thus, this requirement is not yet due for
these two districts. Until such SIP revisions are submitted by these
two districts and approved by EPA, the districts are required to
implement 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S for any major source emitting an
applicable nonattainment pollutant (i.e., NOX or VOCs) that
may propose to locate in the respective nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Accordingly, we propose to approve California's Infrastructure SIP
Submittals for the 22 air districts designated nonattainment for ozone,
PM2.5, or Pb, as applicable, with respect to the
nonattainment NSR element of the interstate transport requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution
    With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of section 126
relating to interstate pollution abatement, we note that the
requirements of section 126(b) and (c), which pertain to petitions by
affected states to EPA regarding sources violating the ``interstate
transport'' provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), do not apply to
our action because there are no such pending petitions relating to
California. We thus evaluated California's 2014 Submittal (the only
submittal of California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals to explicitly
address this sub-section) only for purposes of compliance with section
126(a), which requires that each SIP require that proposed, major new
or modified sources, which may significantly contribute to violations
of the NAAQS in any air quality control region in other states, to
notify all potentially affected, nearby states. For further discussion
of these requirements, please refer to our Interstate Transport TSD.
    Ten of California's 35 air districts have SIP-approved PSD permit
programs that require notice to nearby states consistent with EPA's
relevant requirements, including the following districts: Eastern Kern,
Imperial County, Mendocino County, Monterey Bay Unified, North Coast
Unified, Northern Sonoma County, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San
Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-Solano. The remaining 25 air districts are
deficient with respect to the PSD requirements in part C, title I of
the Act and with respect to the requirement in CAA section 126(a)
regarding notification to affected, nearby states of major new or
modified sources proposing to locate in these remaining air districts.
    With respect to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
regarding compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115
relating to international air pollution, the EPA Administrator is
authorized to require a state to revise its SIP when certain criteria
are met and the Administrator has reason to believe that any air
pollutant emitted in the United States causes or contributes to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare in a foreign country. The Administrator may do so by giving
formal notification to the Governor of the State in which the emissions
originate. Because no such formal notification has been made with
respect to emissions originating in California, EPA has no reason to
approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to CAA
section 115.
    Thus, while the existing California SIP is sufficient to satisfy
most of the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding
compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115 for the
whole state and section 126 for ten air districts, we propose to
partially disapprove California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for
section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the requirements of
section 126(a) for the following 25 air districts: Amador County,
Antelope Valley, Bay Area, Butte County, Calaveras County, Colusa
County, El Dorado County, Feather River, Glenn County, Great Basin
Unified, Lake County, Lassen County, Mariposa County, Modoc County,
Mojave Desert, Northern Sierra, San Diego County, San Luis Obispo
County, Santa Barbara County, Shasta County, Siskiyou County, South
Coast, Tehama County, Tuolumne County, and Ventura County.
iii. Emergency Episode Planning Partial Disapprovals
    We are proposing to partially disapprove California's 2007 and 2014
Submittals for CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 ozone
and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Mountain Counties AQCR and with respect to
the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley AQCR. We provide a
summary of the basis of our proposed partial disapproval in the
following paragraphs. For further discussion of these partial
disapprovals, please refer to our Emergency Episode Planning TSD.
Mountain Counties AQCR for Ozone
    As described in section IV.A.ii of this proposed rule, we propose
to deny California's request to reclassify the Mountain Counties AQCR
to Priority III for ozone and have assessed the status of this region's
ambient air quality and emergency episode rules. Of the seven air
districts that comprise the Mountain Counties AQCR, only El Dorado
County APCD and Placer County APCD recorded a 1-hour ozone level above
the Priority I ozone threshold of 0.10 ppm during 2011-2013. Because
recent ambient air quality data for the AQCR

as a whole do not indicate that ozone levels are likely to approach the
Stage 1 one-hour ozone alert level of 0.20 ppm, much less the 2-hour
significant harm level of 0.6 ppm, we propose to find that to satisfy
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.151 for contingency plans for Mountain
Counties AQCR, California needs to provide emergency episode
contingency plans applicable to ozone for El Dorado County APCD and
Placer County APCD. Since these two air districts do not have SIP-
approved emergency episode rules, we propose to partially disapprove
California's 2007 and 2014 Submittals for the Mountain Counties AQCR
(for El Dorado County APCD and Placer County APCD only) with respect to
the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the emergency episode planning
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).
San Joaquin Valley AQCR for PM2.5
    As discussed in section IV.A.iii of this proposed rule, we propose
to revise the PM emergency episode classification of San Joaquin Valley
AQCR from Priority I to Priority II. Accordingly, we reviewed San
Joaquin Valley APCD's SIP-approved emergency episode plan, which
comprises multiple rules under the district's Regulation 6 (``Air
Pollution Emergency Episodes'').\42\ We did not find provisions
specific to PM2.5 within Regulation 6. As such, we propose
to conclude that the California SIP does not have an adequate PM
emergency episode contingency plan with respect to PM2.5 for
San Joaquin Valley AQCR and therefore propose to partially disapprove
California's 2007 and 2014 Submittals for San Joaquin Valley AQCR with
respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS for the emergency episode planning requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

C. Consequences of Proposed Disapprovals

    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA (CAA
sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call)
starts a sanctions clock. California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals
were not submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, any
action we take to finalize the described partial disapprovals will not
trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179.
    In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must
promulgate a FIP within two years after finding that a state has failed
to make a required submittal or disapproving a SIP submittal in whole
or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the
deficiencies within that two-year period. As discussed in section IV.B
of this proposed rule and Overarching TSD, Permit Programs TSD,
Interstate Transport TSD, and Emergency Episode Planning TSD, we are
proposing several partial disapprovals. However, many of these partial
disapprovals would not result in new FIP obligations, either because
EPA has already promulgated a FIP to address the identified deficiency
or because a FIP deadline has been triggered by EPA's disapproval of a
prior SIP submittal based on the same identified deficiency. The
provisions for which our proposed disapproval, if finalized, would not
result in a new FIP obligation include:
     PSD-related requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) in the 24 air districts identified in
section IV.B.ii of this proposed rule, which are subject to the PSD FIP
in 40 CFR 52.21 for the NAAQS and GHGs (see 40 CFR 52.270).
     PSD-related requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J) in South Coast AQMD, which is subject to
the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21 for the NAAQS only (see 40 CFR
52.270(b)(10)).
     PSD requirement in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J) to regulate NOX as an ozone precursor in North Coast
Unified AQMD, which is subject to a narrow PSD FIP addressing this
requirement (76 FR 48006, August 8, 2011, codified at 40 CFR
52.270(b)(2)(iv)).
     PSD requirement in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J) to regulate PSD increments in North Coast Unified AQMD, for which
EPA issued a finding of failure to submit that triggered an October 6,
2016 deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP addressing this requirement
(79 FR 51913, September 2, 2014).
    For the remaining partial disapprovals, EPA has not previously
promulgated a FIP to address the identified deficiency or triggered a
FIP deadline by disapproving a prior SIP submittal or issuing a finding
of failure based on the same deficiency. Thus, under CAA section
110(c)(1), these remaining partial disapprovals of California's
Infrastructure SIP Submittals would, if finalized, require EPA to
promulgate a FIP within two years after the effective date of our final
rule, unless the State submits and EPA approves a SIP revision that
corrects the identified deficiencies prior to the expiration of this
two-year period. The provisions for which our proposed partial
disapprovals, if finalized, would trigger a new FIP obligation include:
     Ambient air monitoring requirement in section 110(a)(2)(B)
with respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Bakersfield
MSA.
     PSD requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J) to regulate PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, and
condensable PM2.5 in North Coast Unified AQMD.
     PSD requirement in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and
(J) for a baseline date for PSD increments for PM2.5 in
Mendocino County APCD and Northern Sonoma County APCD.
     Minor NSR requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C) with
respect to the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2,
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS in Lake County APCD, Mariposa County
APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD (for Plumas and Sierra
counties only), and Tuolumne County APCD.
     Emergency episode planning requirement in section
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS in the
Mountain Counties AQCR (for El Dorado County APCD and Placer County
APCD only).
     Emergency episode planning requirement in section
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley AQCR.

D. Request for Public Comments

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

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

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

IV.B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

IV.C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

IV.D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

IV.E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV.I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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