Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5, 18766-18781 [2016-07323]

Download as PDF 18766 § 42.70 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Oral argument. * * * * * (b) Demonstrative exhibits must be served at least seven business days before the oral argument and filed no later than the time of the oral argument. Subpart B—Inter Partes Review 6. Section 42.100 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ § 42.100 Procedure; pendency. * * * * * (b) A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. A party may request a district court-type claim construction approach to be applied if a party certifies that the involved patent will expire within 18 months from the entry of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition. The request, accompanied by a party’s certification, must be made in the form of a motion under § 42.20, within 30 days from the filing of the petition. * * * * * ■ 7. Section 42.107 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 42.107 Preliminary response to petition. (a) The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. The response is limited to setting forth the reasons why no inter partes review should be instituted under 35 U.S.C. 314 and can include supporting evidence. The preliminary response is subject to the word count under § 42.24. * * * * * (c) [Reserved] * * * * * ■ 8. Section 42.108 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 42.108 Institution of inter partes review. Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES * * * * * (c) Sufficient grounds. Inter partes review shall not be instituted for a ground of unpatentability unless the Board decides that the petition supporting the ground would demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. The Board’s decision will take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. A petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response in accordance with §§ 42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such request must make a showing of good cause. Subpart C—Post-Grant Review 9. Section 42.200 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ § 42.200 * * * * (b) A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. A party may request a district court-type claim construction approach to be applied if a party certifies that the involved patent will expire within 18 months from the entry of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition. The request, accompanied by a party’s certification, must be made in the form of a motion under § 42.20, within 30 days from the filing of the petition. * * * * * ■ 10. Section 42.207 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows: Preliminary response to petition. (a) The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. The response is limited to setting forth the reasons why no post-grant review should be instituted under 35 U.S.C. 324 and can include supporting evidence. The preliminary response is subject to the word count under § 42.24. * * * * * (c) [Reserved] * * * * * ■ 11. Section 42.208 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 42.208 Institution of post-grant review. * * * * * (c) Sufficient grounds. Post-grant review shall not be instituted for a ground of unpatentability unless the Board decides that the petition supporting the ground would, if unrebutted, demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. The Board’s decision will take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Subpart D—Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents 12. Section 42.300 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: ■ Procedure; pendency. * § 42.207 the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute a post-grant review. A petitioner may seek leave to file a reply to the preliminary response in accordance with §§ 42.23 and 42.24(c). Any such request must make a showing of good cause. § 42.300 Procedure; pendency. * * * * * (b) A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. A party may a request a district court-type claim construction approach to be applied if a party certifies that the involved patent will expire within 18 months from the entry of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition. The request, accompanied by a party’s certification, must be made in the form of a motion under § 42.20, within 30 days from the filing of the petition. * * * * * Dated: March 28, 2016. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. 2016–07381 Filed 3–31–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–16–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0547; FRL–9939–89– 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) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially approving and partially disapproving 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 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 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 reclassifying certain regions of the state for emergency episode planning purposes with respect to ozone, NO2, SO2, and particulate matter (PM). Finally, we are approving into the California SIP several state provisions addressing CAA conflict of interest requirements and an emergency episode planning rule for Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District for PM. This final rule is effective on May 2, 2016. DATES: EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR– 2014–0547. The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed directly below. ADDRESSES: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3227, mays.rory@ epa.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES FR 63350, October 23, 2014. five TSDs are as follows: 1) ‘‘California Infrastructure SIP Overarching Technical Support Document,’’ September 2014 (‘‘Overarching TSD’’); 2) ‘‘California Infrastructure SIP Permit Programs Technical Support Document,’’ September 2014 (‘‘Permit Programs TSD’’); 3) ‘‘California Infrastructure SIP Interstate Transport Technical Support Document,’’ September 2014 (‘‘Interstate Transport TSD’’); 4) ‘‘California Infrastructure SIP Conflict of Interest Technical Support Document,’’ September 2014 (‘‘Conflict of Interest TSD’’); and 5) ‘‘California Infrastructure SIP Emergency Episode Planning Technical Support Document,’’ September 2014 (‘‘Emergency Episode Planning TSD’’). 2 The I. Background A. Statutory Requirements B. NAAQS Addressed by This Final Rule C. California’s Submittals II. EPA’s Response to Comments III. Final Action A. Approvals and Partial Approvals B. Partial Disapprovals C. Consequences of Disapprovals IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 A. Statutory Requirements Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 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) of the CAA 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. Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: (i) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs required under part D (nonattainment new source review 1 79 Table of Contents VerDate Sep<11>2014 I. Background EPA proposed action on several California infrastructure SIP submittals on October 23, 2014 (proposed rule).1 Today’s rule finalizes that proposal in its entirety with minor changes due to comments, rulemakings, and other information that has come to light over the past year. We briefly summarize the infrastructure SIP statutory requirements and the eight NAAQS and five California SIP submittals to which this final rule applies. Section II of this final rule presents our response to public comments and Section III describes our final action, including full approvals, partial approvals, partial disapprovals, and consequences of each partial disapproval. The rationale supporting EPA’s action is explained in our October 23, 2014 proposed rule and the five associated technical support documents (TSDs) 2 and will not be restated here. The proposed rule and TSDs are available in the docket for today’s rulemaking and online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA–R09–OAR– 2014–0547. Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18767 (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 Final Rule Between 1997 and 2012, EPA promulgated 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 final rule 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).3 • 2008 ozone NAAQS, which revised the 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 ppm.4 • 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, which set 24hour average primary and secondary PM2.5 standards of 65 mg/m3 and annual primary and secondary PM2.5 standards of 15 mg/m3.5 • 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standards to 35 mg/m3, and retained the 1997 annual standards.6 • 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised the 1997 and 2006 annual PM2.5 standards to 12.0 mg/m3, and retained the 2006 24-hour standards.7 • 2008 Pb NAAQS, which revised the 1978 Pb quarterly average standard of 1.5 mg/m3 to a rolling 3-month average not to exceed 0.15 mg/m3, and revised the secondary standard to 0.15 mg/m3, making it identical to the revised primary standard.8 • 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.9 • 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 3 62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997. FR 16436, March 27, 2008. 5 62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997. 6 71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006. 7 78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013. 8 73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008. 9 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010. The annual NO 2 standard of 0.053 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the new 1-hour standard. 4 73 E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 18768 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards.10 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES C. 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 final 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’’).11 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. • 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 Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rule 701 (‘‘Air Pollution Episode Plan’’), which addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1987 coarse particulate matter (PM10) NAAQS 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 10 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The 3-hour SO 2 standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the new 1-hour standard. 11 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 34872, June 15, 2011 and 76 FR 43175, July 20, 2011 (transport prongs 1 and 2); 76 FR 48002, August 8, 2011 and 76 FR 48006, August 8, 2011 (transport prong 3); and 76 FR 34608, June 14, 2011 and 76 FR 43149, July 20, 2011 (transport prong 4). VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 participation under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102. We are acting on all of these submittals since they collectively address the infrastructure SIP requirements for the NAAQS addressed by this final 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.12 Thus, as noted in our proposed rule, we are not addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to these four NAAQS in this final rule. II. EPA’s Response to Comments The public comment period on EPA’s proposed rule opened on October 24, 2014, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on November 24, 2014. During this period, EPA received four comment letters, each of which is available in the docket to today’s final rule.13 Three letters relate to permitting requirements and we address each of those here. The fourth letter is from Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 14 and supports EPA’s approach to the review of infrastructure SIPs. Comment #1: Mr. Robert Ukeiley commented on EPA’s proposal with respect to the permitting-related infrastructure SIP requirements for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD).15 Specifically, Mr. Ukeiley requested confirmation that the SIP-approved PSD permit programs for seven air districts (Eastern Kern, Imperial County, Monterey Bay Unified, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-Solano) include requirements for PM2.5 increments or, for any air district whose SIP-approved PSD program lacks such requirements, that 12 California made an infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on July 7, 2009 that was subsequently withdrawn on July 18, 2014. All infrastructure SIP requirements for that 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 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has issued a finding of failure to submit such SIP revisions. 79 FR 63536, October 24, 2014. 13 See document numbers EPA–R09–OAR–2014– 0547–0144 thru 0147 at https://www.regulations.gov under docket ID number EPA–R09–OAR–2014– 0547. 14 Letter from Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, to Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. EPA, November 24, 2014. 15 Email from Robert Ukeiley to Rory Mays, U.S. EPA Region IX, October 24, 2014. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 EPA disapprove the PSD-related infrastructure SIP elements. He also asked that EPA disapprove the PSDrelated elements of the infrastructure SIP submittals for any air district whose SIP-approved PSD rules contain significant impact levels (SILs) provisions for PM2.5. Response to Comment #1: We have confirmed that the SIPapproved PSD permit rules of the seven air districts named in Mr. Ukeiley’s letter include PM2.5 increment requirements that meet the federal requirements. Six of these air districts (Eastern Kern, Imperial County, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-Solano) incorporate the applicable federal regulations by reference and the date of such incorporation was after the effective date of the PM2.5 increment requirements, thus ensuring their inclusion.16 The remaining air district (Monterey Bay Unified) has a PSD permit rule that also includes the applicable PM2.5 increment requirements.17 Furthermore, EPA has finalized approval of the PSD permit rules for five additional air districts (Butte County, Feather River, Great Basin Unified, San Luis Obispo County, and Santa Barbara County),18 each of which includes the applicable PM2.5 increment requirements. Thus, we are finalizing approval of California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the PSD-related elements for these 12 air districts. With respect to SILs for PM2.5, on January 22, 2013, at EPA’s request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated and remanded 16 The federal requirements for PSD increments for PM2.5 became effective October 20, 2010 and thus air district PSD programs that incorporated the federal regulations by reference after this date include the applicable PSD increment requirements for PM2.5. The adoption and SIP-approval dates of the SIP-approved PSD permit rules for five of these air districts are as follows: Eastern Kern (Rule 210.4, adopted January 12, 2012), Imperial County (Rule 904, adopted December 20, 2011), Placer County (Rule 518, adopted February 10, 2011), and YoloSolano (Rule 3.24 adopted June 13, 2012), which were each SIP-approved on December 10, 2012 (77 FR 7331); and Sacramento Metro (Rule 203, adopted January 27, 2011), which was SIP-approved on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53271). San Joaquin Valley APCD’s Rule 2410 (adopted June 16, 2011) was approved into the California SIP on October 26, 2012 (77 FR 65305), and similarly includes the applicable PSD increment requirements for PM2.5. However, San Joaquin Valley is currently designated nonattainment for both the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, the SIPapproved PSD program does not apply to PM2.5 emissions from new or modified major stationary sources. 17 Monterey Bay Unified APCD Rule 207 (adopted April 20, 2011), which was SIP-approved on March 26, 2015 (80 FR 15899). 18 80 FR 69880, November 12, 2015. E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES portions of EPA’s significant impact levels (SILs) requirements for PM2.5.19 Later that year EPA removed the vacated portion of the SILs requirements from 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2).20 However, several SIPapproved PSD rules in California still include the vacated PM2.5 SILs provisions. Specifically, six of the 12 air districts in California with SIP-approved PSD permit rules include PM2.5 SILs provisions, including Eastern Kern, Feather River, Imperial County, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, and San Joaquin Valley. Given the clarity of the Court’s decision and EPA’s removal of the vacated portion of the SILs requirements from 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2), it would now be inappropriate for any pending or proposed permits in these districts to rely on the PM2.5 SILs provision in their rules as an absolute ‘‘safe harbor’’ when a substantial portion of the PM2.5 NAAQS or increment is known to be consumed.21 However, as we previously stated following the Court’s decision, EPA does not interpret the Court’s decision to preclude the use of SILs for PM2.5 entirely.22 Permitting authorities should consult with the EPA before using any of the SIL values in the EPA’s regulations for this purpose (including the PM2.5 SIL value in section 51.165(b)(2), which was not vacated by the Court). EPA has advised the districts with PM2.5 SILs that the Court determined to be invalid to begin preparations to remove those provisions as soon as feasible, which may be in conjunction with the next otherwise planned SIP revision. EPA has informed these 19 Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 463–464 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 20 78 FR 73698, December 9, 2013. 21 Five of the applicable districts (Eastern Kern, Feather River, Imperial County, Placer County, and Sacramento Metro) have provided letters to EPA indicating that they will implement their PSD rules consistent with this approach and EPA’s Guidance for PM2.5 Permit Modeling. See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, OAQPS, ‘‘Guidance for PM2.5 Permit Modeling,’’ May 20, 2014. For four of these districts, these letters are available in the dockets of the rulemakings on the districts’ PSD rules: For Eastern Kern, Imperial County, and Placer County, see 77 FR 73316, December 10, 2012; and for Feather River, see 80 FR 69880, November 12, 2015. For Sacramento Metro, a copy of the district’s letter dated October 1, 2015 is included in the docket to this final rule. For the San Joaquin Valley, the area is currently designated nonattainment for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and, therefore, San Joaquin Valley APCD’s SIP-approved PSD permit rule does not apply to PM2.5 emissions from new or modified major stationary sources. 22 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ‘‘Circuit Court Decision on PM2.5 Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentration, Questions and Answers,’’ March 4, 2013, pp. 3–4. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 districts that new permits issued solely on the basis of these SILs provisions are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act and may be difficult to defend in administrative and judicial challenges as they are without legal effect. However, as the previously approved PM2.5 SILs provisions in the California SIP are no longer enforceable, EPA does not believe the existence of the provisions in the State’s implementation plan precludes today’s approval of the infrastructure SIP submissions as they relate to the PSD-related elements for these six districts for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The PSD permit rules for the remaining six air districts (Butte County, Great Basin Unified, Monterey Bay Unified, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, and Yolo-Solano) do not include any PM2.5 SILs provision. Accordingly, we are finalizing approval of California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the PSD-related elements for all 12 air districts with SIP-approved PSD programs. Comment #2: Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (AQMD) commented that EPA was incorrect in stating that the district’s minor NSR program had not been approved into the California SIP.23 The comment letter states that district Rules 1300, 201, and 219 cover preconstruction review of any equipment that emits air contaminants (and which is not exempt from permitting requirements) and that these rules have been approved into the California SIP. Accordingly, the district requested to be removed from the list of air districts that lack SIP-approved minor NSR programs. Response to Comment #2: EPA agrees that Mojave Desert AQMD indeed has a minor NSR program in the California SIP that is sufficient to approve California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals consistent with the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) that the SIP include a program for the regulation of minor sources, though with one clarification. In reviewing the minor NSR permit programs of California’s 35 air districts, EPA generally relied on permit programs that applied to the whole air district. However, in some cases we found that air districts with two or more counties had county-based minor NSR programs that had been approved into the California SIP and applied to the NAAQS addressed by this rulemaking. For example, for Feather River AQMD 23 Letter from Karen Nowak, District Counsel, Mojave Desert AQMD, to Rory Mays, U.S. EPA Region IX, November 20, 2014. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18769 we found that minor NSR rules for each of the two counties in the air district, Yuba and Sutter counties, had been approved into the California SIP and covered the NAAQS addressed by our rulemaking.24 On that basis, we proposed to partially approve California’s infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to this minor NSR requirement. We inadvertently missed identifying the county-based minor NSR programs that have been approved into the California SIP for the portions of the two counties (San Bernardino and Riverside counties) that are within the jurisdiction of Mojave Desert AQMD. Specifically, EPA previously approved each county’s Rule 201,25 which require permits for all equipment that may emit air contaminants, and each county’s Rule 102,26 which define the term ‘‘air contaminants,’’ into the California SIP. Rule 1300, which is a district-based, rather than county-based, rule, contains additional requirements for the district’s minor NSR program.27 These rules are sufficient to address the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) that the SIP include a program for the regulation of minor sources. Thus, while Mojave Desert AQMD is correct that the district has sufficient minor NSR permit rules in the California SIP for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), it is on the basis of the SIP-approved county-based Rules 102 and 201 that we remove Mojave Desert AQMD from the list of air districts that lack SIP-approved minor NSR programs. Please refer to section III of this final rule where we finalize this minor change from our proposed partial disapproval for Mojave Desert AQMD.28 Comment #3: Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) states that its Board of Directors revised four regulations implementing the district’s PSD program, for submittal through ARB as revisions to the California SIP, and that those revisions address the deficiencies identified in EPA’s proposed rule.29 Therefore, the district 24 Permit Programs TSD, Appendix D (‘‘California Minor NSR Permit Programs’’). 25 43 FR 52237, November 9, 1978. 26 55 FR 49281, November 27, 1990 for San Bernardino County and 43 FR 59489, December 21, 1978 for Riverside County. 27 61 FR 58133, November 13, 1996. 28 Additionally, Mojave Desert AQMD’s letter led us to reexamine the SIP status of minor source permit rules for the other four air districts that we proposed to partially disapprove for section 110(a)(2)(C). Our evaluation of the minor source programs for these four districts is discussed further in section III of this final rule. 29 Letter from Barbara Lee, Air Pollution Control Officer, Northern Sonoma County APCD to Deborah E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM Continued 01APR1 18770 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations requested that EPA approve such PSD submittal and approve, rather than partially disapprove, Northern Sonoma County APCD with respect to the PSDrelated infrastructure SIP requirements. Response to Comment #3: EPA received Northern Sonoma County APCD’s PSD program SIP revision on December 11, 2014 and it became complete by operation of law on June 11, 2015. While we have begun our review of that SIP submittal, we have not yet issued any proposed or final rulemaking on the submittal. We anticipate proposing and finalizing action on that SIP submittal over the coming months, per the CAA section 110(k)(2) deadline for EPA to take final action within 12 months of a completeness determination. To the extent that the district’s PSD SIP revision resolves the deficiency identified in our proposed rule on California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals (i.e., requirements for a baseline date for PSD increments for PM2.5), we would accordingly update the California SIP with respect to the PSD-related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) for Northern Sonoma County APCD. III. Final Action Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and based on the evaluation and rationale presented in the proposed rule, the related TSDs, and this final rule, EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In the following subsections, we list the elements for which we are finalizing approval or disapproval and provide a summary of the basis for those elements that are partially disapproved. We also describe the consequences of our disapprovals. Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES A. Approvals and Partial Approvals Based upon our evaluation, as presented in our proposed rule and our five TSDs, and additional information discussed below, EPA approves 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. Partial approvals are indicated by the parenthetical ‘‘(in part).’’ • Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures. Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, November 24, 2014. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 • 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.30 • 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. Approval of State and Local Provisions Into the California SIP As part of these approvals, we also 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 approve into the SIP five state provisions from the California Government Code statutes and California Code of Regulations, which were submitted in California’s 2014 Submittal and address the conflict of interest requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. These provisions include California Government Code, Title 9, Sections 82048, 87103, and 87302, and California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 18700 and 18701. For discussion of these conflict of interest provisions, please see our Conflict of Interest TSD. We also approve Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 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 30 As noted in section I of this final 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 taking any action with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to these four NAAQS in this final rule. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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. Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency Episode Planning California’s 2012 and 2014 Submittals requested that EPA reclassify several air quality control regions (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. In our proposed rule, we stated that the authority to take final action to reclassify AQCRs is reserved by the EPA Administrator. That conclusion was based upon prior examples from 1980 and 1981 where the Administrator reclassified certain AQCRs in Arizona, California, and Nevada 31 and upon our initial review of EPA’s Delegations Manual.32 However, we have since reviewed the earlier versions of EPA’s regulations that gave rise to the emergency episode regulations in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H,33 and rereviewed the Delegations Manual. In particular, Delegation 7–10 (‘‘Approval/ Disapproval of State Implementation Plans’’) was established in 1989 and grants Regional Administrators the authority to ‘‘propose or take final action on any State implementation plan under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.’’ In the context of EPA acting on emergency episode SIP revisions, whether as part of an infrastructure SIP revision or an independent SIP revision, consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) (i.e., part of section 110 of the CAA), and our implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, whose requirements are dependent upon AQCR classification, we find that 31 See 45 FR 67345, October 10, 1980 for Arizona; 46 FR 3883, January 16, 1981 for California; and 45 FR 7544, February 4, 1980 for Nevada. 32 EPA’s Delegations Manual, Chapter 7 (‘‘Clean Air Act’’), available at: https://intranet.epa.gov/ohr/ rmpolicy/ads/dm/index7.htm. 33 See the 1983 versions of 40 CFR 51.3 (‘‘Classification of regions’’) and 40 CFR 51.16 (‘‘Prevention of air pollution emergency episodes’’), which refer to CAA sections 110, 301(a), 313, and 319 as the statutory basis for such regulations. (By contrast, 40 CFR part 51, subpart H does not have statutory citations.) Section 301(a) grants the Administrator authority to prescribe regulations necessary to carry out the CAA, which, as applied here, refers to the emergency episode requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G). Section 301(a) also limits the Administrator’s ability to delegate authority regarding rules that are required to be promulgated under the procedures of section 307(d). Since classifications are not among the procedures of section 307(d)(1), there is no restriction on the Administrator’s authority to delegate decisionmaking on area classification, such as those for emergency episode planning. E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations EPA’s Regional Administrators indeed have authority to reclassify AQCRs for purposes of emergency episode planning. Accordingly, on the basis of California’s ambient air quality data for 2011–2013 and the evaluation presented in our proposed rule and Emergency Episode Planning TSD, we hereby grant five of California’s ten requests, and deny the five remaining requests, to reclassify AQCRs for emergency episode planning purposes for ozone, NO2, and SO2. We also are reclassifying two AQCRs for PM as part of our evaluation of the State’s emergency episode planning for the PM2.5 NAAQS. For ozone, we reclassify two AQCRs, Lake Tahoe and North Central Coast, to Priority III. We deny the State’s reclassification requests for ozone for five AQCRs, including Mountain Counties, Sacramento Valley, San Diego, San Francisco Bay Area, and Southeast Desert. As a result, upon the effective date of this final rule, California will have seven Priority I AQCRs for ozone, including the five for which we deny California’s reclassification request and two others (Metropolitan Los Angeles and San Joaquin Valley AQCRs). California’s applicable air districts have adequate emergency episode contingency plans for ozone for six of these seven Priority I areas, including Metropolitan Los Angeles, Sacramento Valley, San Diego, San Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, and Southeast Desert AQCRs. Therefore, we partially approve California’s 2007 and 2014 Submittals with respect to the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the emergency episode planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G). Please see section III.B.iii of this final rule for our partial disapproval of these submittals with respect to the Mountain Counties AQCR. For NO2, we reclassify the Metropolitan Los Angeles AQCR to Priority III. As a result, upon the effective date of this final rule, the whole state will be classified Priority III for NO2, and therefore no emergency episode contingency plan for NO2 will be required for any of the state’s 14 AQCRs. Accordingly, we 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, we reclassify the Metropolitan Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area AQCRs to Priority III. As a result, upon the effective date of this final rule, the whole state will be classified Priority III for SO2, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 therefore no emergency episode contingency plan for SO2 will be required for any of the state’s 14 AQCRs. Thus, we 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). For PM, we identified two areas where concentrations exceeded EPA’s recommended 24-hour PM2.5 threshold of 140.4 mg/m3 for emergency episode planning: 34 Great Basin Valley AQCR and San Joaquin Valley AQCR. 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. Accordingly, for PM, we reclassify Great Basin Valley AQCR to Priority I and San Joaquin Valley AQCR to Priority II. As discussed in section III.A.i of this final rule, we are approving Great Basin Unified APCD Rule 701 into the California SIP and, as such, Great Basin Unified APCD has an adequate emergency episode contingency plan for PM. Therefore, we partially approve California’s 2007 and 2014 Submittals 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). Please see section III.B.iii of this final rule for our partial disapproval of these submittals with respect to the San Joaquin Valley AQCR. iii. Approval of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) for Minor NSR EPA previously proposed to partially disapprove five of California’s 35 air districts for CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to minor NSR on the basis that they each lacked permit rules for minor sources in the California SIP.35 Upon further review of the California SIP and comments received during the public comment period, EPA has found that each of these air districts does, in fact, have permit rules for minor sources in the California SIP that cover all NAAQS, as discussed below. As noted in Mojave Desert AQMD’s comment letter, Mojave Desert AQMD has county-based minor NSR rules in the California SIP for each of its two counties (San Bernardino and Riverside counties), which we inadvertently 34 See 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, pp. 6–7 and Attachment B (‘‘Recommended Interim Significant Harm Level, Priority Levels, and Action Levels for PM2.5 Emergency Episode Plans (EEPs)’’). 35 79 FR 63350 at 63359, October 23, 2014, and our Permit Programs TSD, pp. 8–10. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18771 missed during our original evaluation of the California Infrastructure SIP Submittals.36 This also led us to reexamine the SIP status of minor source permit rules for the other four air districts that we had proposed to partially disapprove for section 110(a)(2)(C), including Lake County, Mariposa County, Northern Sierra (Plumas and Sierra counties, only),37 and Tuolumne County. This reexamination involved reviewing the original copies of California’s SIP submittals dated February 22, 1972 and June 30, 1972; EPA’s approval of these submittals, as codified at 40 CFR 52.220 (b) and (c)(6); a copy of the California SIP as it existed in August 1978; subsequent EPA rulemakings that revised the California SIP; and other historic records as they pertain to these four air districts.38 We determined that, for each of the five remaining counties (Lake, Mariposa, Plumas, Sierra, and Tuolumne counties) in these four districts, the county-based rules that constitute each county’s minor source permit program were approved into the California SIP 39 and have never been removed or replaced. These minor source permit programs require minor sources to obtain an Authority to Construct permit prior to construction and cover all NAAQS through a broad definition of the term ‘‘air contaminants’’ that includes all NAAQS and their precursors. Since the basis of our proposed partial disapproval is no longer applicable (i.e., lack of a SIPapproved permit program for minor sources) and as these districts now meet the same test used to propose approval for other districts (i.e., having such a program in the SIP that applies to all NAAQS addressed by this final rule), we are finalizing approval for these five additional districts, including Lake County, Mariposa County, Mojave Desert, Northern Sierra, and Tuolumne County, as meeting the requirements of 36 See section II of this final rule. that we had proposed to partially disapprove Northern Sierra AQMD for Plumas and Sierra counties only, since we had already identified Nevada County as having a SIP-approved minor NSR program. See 79 FR 63350 at 63359, footnote 35, October 23, 2014 and our Permit Programs TSD, footnote 34, p. 9. 38 See Memorandum from Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX to R. Mays, EPA Region IX, ‘‘Investigation of Approved SIP Contents for Lake, Tuolumne, Mariposa, Plumas and Sierra Counties, related to minor source permit programs,’’ October 30, 2015. This memorandum, as well as short narratives on each of the five counties, are included in the docket to this final rule. 39 37 FR 10842, May 31, 1972 and 37 FR 19812, September 22, 1972. 37 Note E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 18772 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to minor NSR. In sum, all 35 air districts in California have minor NSR permit programs in the California SIP that cover all NAAQS. Notwithstanding this approval, to the extent that air districts have revised their permit rules for minor sources and such revisions are not yet reflected in the California SIP, we recommend that such districts work with ARB to submit SIP revisions to revise the California SIP. Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES B. Partial Disapprovals EPA partially disapproves 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 final rule due to PSD program deficiencies in certain air districts). • Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution transport (for all NAAQS addressed by this final 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 final 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 final rule due to PSD program deficiencies in certain air districts). i. Ambient Air Monitoring Partial Disapproval We 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 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). ii. Permit Program-Related Partial Disapprovals We partially disapprove portions of California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the PSDrelated 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. 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 hereby 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 partially disapprove California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals for multiple air districts. We provide a summary of the basis and district-by-district accounting of our partial disapprovals in the following paragraphs, including consideration of comments from Northern Sonoma County APCD, and review of EPA rulemaking on PSD and nonattainment NSR SIP submittals that has occurred since our proposal on California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals. PSD Permit Programs We reviewed the permit programs of California’s 35 air districts for SIPapproved 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 greenhouse gases (GHGs). For the PSD requirements for GHGs, we PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 our proposed rule.40 We proposed to approve seven air districts as meeting the structural PSD requirements. Our proposed approval of one of these seven air districts, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, was contingent on finalizing approval of the district’s PSD SIP revision.41 We have taken final action on that SIP revision, approving provisions into the California SIP that resolve the deficiencies identified in our proposed rule.42 Thus, we finalize approval of seven districts, including Eastern Kern, Imperial County, Monterey Bay Unified, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-Solano air districts, as meeting the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for all NAAQS addressed by this final rule. In addition, our proposed rule on California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals identified eight air districts that had submitted PSD SIP revisions for which EPA had not yet proposed or finalized action.43 We proposed to partially disapprove these districts with respect to the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) since they were subject to the existing PSD FIP at 40 CFR 52.21, rather than SIP-approved PSD programs. We have since finalized approval of the PSD SIP revisions of five of those eight districts,44 including provisions addressing the same structural PSD requirements as we relied on to propose approval for the set of seven districts discussed above. Since the basis of our proposed partial disapproval is no longer applicable and as these districts now meet the same test used to propose approval for other districts, we are finalizing approval for these five 40 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427. EPA has since amended the federal PSD program regulations to allow for the rescission of certain PSD permits issued by EPA and delegated reviewing authorities (e.g., California air districts) for purposes of regulating GHGs. See 80 FR 26183, May 7, 2015. Notwithstanding those amendments, PSD programs must still include provisions to regulate GHGs and such provisions continue to be relevant to our review of infrastructure SIPs. 41 79 FR 63350 at 63358, October 23, 2014. 42 80 FR 15899, March 26, 2015. We finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of Monterey Bay Unified APCD’s PSD SIP revision. While not a full approval, that final rule approved provisions into the California SIP for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, or PSD increments for PM2.5. 43 79 FR 63350 at 63359, October 23, 2014. 44 80 FR 69880, November 12, 2015. E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations additional districts, including Butte County, Feather River, Great Basin Unified, San Luis Obispo County, and Santa Barbara County, as meeting the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for all NAAQS addressed by this final rule. In sum, 12 of California’s 35 air districts meet the PSD-related requirements for these infrastructure SIP elements. Four other 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 SIPapproved PSD program for GHGs only, but lacks a SIP-approved PSD program to address any other regulated NSR pollutant. Thus, we partially disapprove California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to South Coast AQMD for the PSD-related requirement of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).45 North Coast Unified AQMD has a SIPapproved 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 partially disapprove California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to North Coast Unified AQMD for these specific deficiencies for PSDrelated 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. As discussed in section II of this final rule, Northern Sonoma County APCD has submitted a PSD SIP revision that is pending rulemaking by EPA within the time afforded by CAA section 110(k)(2). To the extent that Northern Sonoma County APCD’s PSD SIP revision resolves the deficiency identified in our proposed rule on California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals (i.e., requirements for a baseline date for PSD increments for PM2.5), such requirements have not yet been approved into the California SIP and, thus, the deficiency remains. Accordingly, we partially disapprove California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD for this specific deficiency in the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). The remaining 19 air districts are subject to the existing PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21, including Amador County, Antelope Valley, Bay Area, Calaveras County, Colusa County, El Dorado County, Glenn County, Lake County, Lassen County, Mariposa County, Modoc County, Mojave Desert, Northern Sierra, San Diego County, Shasta County, Siskiyou County, Tehama County, Tuolumne County, and Ventura County. At the time of our proposal on California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals, three of these districts (Bay Area, San Diego County, and Ventura County air districts) had submitted PSD SIP revisions for which EPA had not yet proposed or finalized action. EPA has proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the SIP revision from Bay Area AQMD, noting that most of the submittal’s rules satisfy applicable requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the regulation of the modification and construction of stationary sources.46 However, as we have not yet finalized that proposal, the Bay Area AQMD remains subject to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21. San Diego County APCD withdrew its PSD SIP submittal on June 10, 2015, while Ventura County APCD’s submittal is pending EPA rulemaking. These two districts similarly remain subject to the PSD FIP at this time. Accordingly, we partially disapprove California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals as to each of these 19 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 III.C of this final rule, the partial disapprovals with respect to these 19 districts would not result in new FIP obligations, because EPA has already promulgated a PSD FIP for each district. 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 reviewed the nonattainment NSR programs of California’s 22 air districts that are designated nonattainment for ozone, PM2.5, or Pb, as applicable.47 Because 46 80 45 We note that South Coast AQMD is subject to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants except GHGs (see 40 CFR 52.270(b)(10)). VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 FR 52236 at 52243, August 28, 2015. area of California has been designated nonattainment for the 2010 NO2 or 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 47 No PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18773 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. We refer to this aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) herein as the ‘‘nonattainment NSR element.’’ We 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). Since the time of our proposal on California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals, we finalized approval of South Coast AQMD’s nonattainment NSR SIP revision with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS.48 As a result, this district implements its SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program for the portions of the district that are designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone, 2008ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 2008 Pb NAAQS. Thus, South Coast AQMD also meets the nonattainment NSR element via a SIPapproved program. An additional eight air districts, which have each been designated nonattainment for more than one NAAQS, have affirmed that they implement the interim nonattainment NSR program in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, including 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, and Yolo48 80 E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM FR 24821, May 15, 2015. 01APR1 18774 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Solano (for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).49 Two other districts, Amador County APCD and Tuolumne County APCD, are designated nonattainment only for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA revoked that NAAQS as part of the final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,50 which relieves these two air districts of the requirement to submit nonattainment NSR SIP revisions.51 Lastly, portions of San Luis Obispo County APCD and Tehama County APCD are designated nonattainment only for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Until 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 new or modified major source emitting an applicable nonattainment pollutant (i.e., NOX or volatile organic compounds) in the respective nonattainment areas.52 In sum, we 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). Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution As described in section IV.B.i of our proposed rule, with respect to the international pollution abatement requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), we noted that EPA has no reason to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to CAA section 115 since the EPA Administrator has made no formal notification that emissions originating in California endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country. With respect to the interstate pollution abatement requirement in CAA section 49 EPA has proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the SIP revision from Bay Area AQMD submitted to address the outstanding nonattainment NSR requirements. 80 FR 52236, August 28, 2015. However, as we have not yet finalized that proposal, we continue to rely on the Bay Area AQMD’s implementation of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S for purposes of the nonattainment NSR element. 50 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015. 51 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 is 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 no longer applies to the Sutter Buttes area. 52 We note that Tehama County APCD has adopted and transmitted nonattainment NSR SIP provisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to ARB for submittal to EPA as a SIP revision. See Letter dated September 4, 2015 from Kristin Hall-Stein, Air Pollution Control Officer, Tehama County APCD to Carol Sutkus, ARB. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), we evaluated California’s 2014 Submittal only for purposes of compliance with section 126(a).53 Section 126(a) of the Act 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. We proposed that 10 of California’s 35 air districts have SIP-approved PSD permit programs that require notice to nearby states consistent with EPA’s relevant requirements, and proposed to partially disapprove the remaining 25 air district with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). We have since finalized approval of the PSD SIP revisions of five additional districts,54 including Butte County, Feather River, Great Basin Unified, San Luis Obispo County, and Santa Barbara County, which similarly require notice to nearby states consistent with EPA’s relevant requirements. Thus, the basis of our proposed partial disapproval is no longer applicable with respect to these five districts and these districts meet the same test used to propose approval for other districts. We therefore approve California’s 2014 Submittal for section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the requirements of section 115 for the whole state and with respect to section 126(a) for the following 15 air districts: Butte County, Eastern Kern, Feather River, Great Basin Unified, Imperial County, Mendocino County, Monterey Bay Unified, North Coast Unified, Northern Sonoma County, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County and YoloSolano. The remaining 20 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. Therefore, we 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 20 air districts: Amador County, Antelope Valley, Bay Area, Calaveras County, Colusa County, El Dorado County, Glenn County, Lake County, Lassen County, Mariposa County, Modoc County, Mojave Desert, 53 79 54 80 PO 00000 FR 63350 at 63360, October 23, 2014. FR 69880, November 12, 2015. Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Northern Sierra, San Diego County, Shasta County, Siskiyou County, South Coast, Tehama County, Tuolumne County, and Ventura County. iii. Emergency Episode Planning Partial Disapprovals Mountain Counties AQCR for Ozone As described in section III.A.ii of this final rule, we deny California’s request to reclassify the Mountain Counties AQCR to Priority III for ozone. Of the seven air districts that comprise the Mountain Counties AQCR, only El Dorado County APCD and Placer County APCD recorded 1-hour ozone levels above the Priority I ozone threshold of 0.10 ppm during 2011– 2013. We proposed that to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.151 for contingency plans for Mountain Counties AQCR, California needed to provide emergency episode contingency plans applicable to ozone for El Dorado County APCD and Placer County APCD. We maintain that position in this final rule. Since the time of our proposal, Placer County APCD adopted and submitted an ozone emergency episode contingency plan that we have approved into the California SIP.55 However, El Dorado County APCD still does not have a SIP-approved ozone emergency episode plan.56 Therefore, we partially disapprove California’s 2007 and 2014 Submittals for the Mountain Counties AQCR (for El Dorado 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 III.A.ii of this final rule, we reclassify San Joaquin Valley AQCR from Priority I to Priority II for PM emergency episode planning. However, San Joaquin Valley APCD’s SIP-approved emergency episode plan, which comprises multiple rules under the district’s Regulation 6 (‘‘Air Pollution Emergency Episodes’’), still does not have provisions specific to PM2.5. As such, we partially disapprove California’s 2007 and 2014 Submittals for San Joaquin Valley AQCR with respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 55 See direct final rule approving Placer County APCD Ozone Emergency Episode Plan, signed October 26, 2015, which is included in the docket to this final rule. 56 We note that El Dorado County APCD issued a notice of public hearing in October 2015 of its proposed ozone emergency episode plan to be heard at the District’s December 1, 2015 board hearing. This notice is included in the docket to this final rule and is available at: https:// www.edcgov.us/AirQualityManagement. E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the emergency episode planning requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G). Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES iv. General Note on Disapprovals EPA takes a disapproval of a state plan very seriously, 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 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, the partial disapprovals in this final rule will not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179. Section 110(c)(1) of the Act 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. However, many of these partial disapprovals finalized by this final rule do 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 or by a prior finding of failure to submit. When preparing our proposed rule, we inadvertently did not consider existing FIP deadlines that were triggered by prior findings of failure to submit for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS in our description of FIP deadlines that would result from our proposed, partial disapprovals. In VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 October 2008 EPA found that California’s applicable certification letter had failed to address the emergency episode planning requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and established a FIP deadline of November 21, 2010.57 In January 2013 EPA found that California had failed to submit an infrastructure SIP for the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(A)–(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)–(H), and (J)–(M) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and established a FIP deadline of February 14, 2015, while noting that the findings did not trigger any additional FIP obligations with respect to the PSD-related and notification-related requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), or (J) for portions of California (i.e., air districts) that were already subject to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21.58 For the most part, the approval actions taken in this final rule obviate the basis of the FIP obligations established by EPA’s findings of failure to submit discussed above. The remaining FIP obligations stemming from these findings are relevant with respect to outstanding deficiencies for ozone related to ambient monitoring and emergency episode planning, and an outstanding deficiency for PM2.5 related to emergency episode planning. Accordingly, we describe the consequences of our partial disapprovals first for those where a FIP is already in place, then for those that have FIP obligations that are overdue, and finally for those that establish new FIP obligations. The provisions for which our partial disapprovals do 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 19 air districts identified 57 73 FR 62902 at 62905, October 22, 2008. Note that we also found that California had failed to submit SIP revisions for some air districts addressing the PSD-related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). However, such failure to submit did not trigger a FIP deadline since those air districts were already subject to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21. For the 1997 ozone NAAQS, EPA found that California had failed to submit SIP revisions for some air districts addressing the PSDrelated requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C). 73 FR 16205 at 16208, March 27, 2008. However, similar to EPA’s findings on the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, such failure to submit did not trigger a FIP deadline since those air districts were already subject to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21. 58 78 FR 2882 at 2889, January 15, 2013. Note that we did not make completeness findings or findings of failure to submit with respect to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) (to the extent it refers to permit programs required under part D of title I of the CAA (nonattainment NSR)), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (pertaining to two of several interstate transport requirements), or section 110(a)(2)(I), (pertaining to the nonattainment planning). PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18775 in section III.B.ii of this final 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 all regulated NSR pollutants except GHGs (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 (codified at 40 CFR 52.270(b)(2)(iv)).59 • 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.60 The provisions for which our FIP obligation is overdue include: • Ambient air monitoring requirement in section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Bakersfield MSA, whose FIP deadline expired on February 14, 2015. • Emergency episode planning requirement in section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Mountain Counties AQCR (for El Dorado County APCD only), whose FIP deadline expired on February 14, 2015. • Emergency episode planning requirement in section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley AQCR, whose FIP deadline expired on November 21, 2010. 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 to submit based on the same deficiency. Thus, under CAA section 110(c)(1), these remaining partial disapprovals of California’s Infrastructure SIP Submittals require EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years after the effective date of this 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 partial disapprovals trigger a new FIP obligation include: • Ambient air monitoring requirement in section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Bakersfield MSA. 59 76 60 79 E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM FR 48006, August 8, 2011. FR 51913, September 2, 2014. 01APR1 18776 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations • 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. • Emergency episode planning requirement in section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Mountain Counties AQCR (for El Dorado County APCD only). • Emergency episode planning requirement in section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley AQCR. Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES IV. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of five state provisions from the California Government Code statutes and California Code of Regulations for the conflict of interest requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. These provisions include California Government Code, Title 9, Sections 82048 (last amended in 2004), 87103 (last amended in 2000), and 87302 (last amended in 1992), and California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 18700 (last amendment filed on December 20, 2005) and 18701 (last amendment filed on December 29, 2005). Similarly, EPA is also finalizing the incorporation by reference of Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rule 701, adopted on March 3, 2014, with respect to the 1987 p.m.10, 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. The incorporation by reference of the five state provisions and the one Great Basin Unified APCD provision are described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. 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 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 approves certain State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 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 rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves certain State requirements, and disapproves 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 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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. 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 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 approves certain pre-existing requirements, and disapproves 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 action. 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 approves certain State requirements, and disapproves 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. F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 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 partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply approves certain State requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This 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. 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., VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 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. EPA believes that this 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. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population Executive Order (EO) 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 rulemaking. K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on May 2, 2016. L. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 31, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18777 not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Sulfur dioxide. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: November 24, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region IX. Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(386)(ii)(A)(5), (c)(466), (467), (468), and (469) to read as follows: ■ § 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (386) * * * (ii) * * * (A) * * * (5) ‘‘110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP,’’ submitted as Appendix B to the 2007 State Strategy, and ‘‘Legal Authority and Other Requirements,’’ submitted as Appendix G to the 2007 State Strategy (collectively, ‘‘2007 Infrastructure SIP’’). * * * * * (466) The following plan was submitted on October 6, 2011, by the Governor’s Designee. (i) [Reserved]. (ii) Additional materials. (A) California Air Resources Board (CARB). (1) CARB Resolution 11–28, dated September 22, 2011, adopting the ‘‘Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Lead Standard Infrastructure Requirements.’’ (2) ‘‘Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Lead Standard E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 18778 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Infrastructure Requirements,’’ (‘‘2011 Pb Infrastructure SIP’’). (467) The following plan was submitted on December 12, 2012, by the Governor’s Designee. (i) [Reserved]. (ii) Additional materials. (A) California Air Resources Board (CARB). (1) CARB Resolution 12–32, dated November 15, 2012, adopting the ‘‘Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Nitrogen Dioxide Standard Infrastructure Requirements.’’ (2) ‘‘Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Nitrogen Dioxide Standard Infrastructure Requirements,’’ (‘‘2012 NO2 Infrastructure SIP’’). (468) The following plan was submitted on March 6, 2014, by the Governor’s Designee. (i) Incorporation by Reference. (A) California Air Resources Board (1) California Government Code, Title 9 (Political Reform), Chapter 2 (Definitions), Section 82048, ‘‘Public official,’’ added by California Initiative Measure approved on June 4, 1974, effective January 7, 1975, and last amended in 2004. (2) California Government Code, Title 9 (Political Reform), Chapter 7 (Conflicts of Interest), Article 1 (General Prohibition), Section 87103, ‘‘Financial interest in decision by public official,’’ added by California Initiative Measure approved on June 4, 1974, effective January 7, 1975, and last amended in 2000. (3) California Government Code, Title 9 (Political Reform), Chapter 7 (Conflicts of Interest), Article 3 (Conflict of Interest Codes), Section 87302, ‘‘Required provisions; exemptions,’’ added by California Initiative Measure approved on June 4, 1974, effective January 7, 1975, and last amended in 1992. (4) Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Division 6 (Fair Political Practices Commission), Chapter 7 (Conflict of Interest), Article 1 (Conflicts of Interest; General Prohibition), Section 18700, ‘‘Basic Rule and Guide to Conflict of Interest Regulations’’ (filed on December 17, 1976, effective upon filing, and last amendment filed on December 20, 2005, operative January 19, 2006). (5) Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Division 6 (Fair Political Practices Commission), Chapter 7 (Conflict of Interest), Article 1 (Conflicts of Interest; General Prohibition), Section 18701, ‘‘Definitions: Source of Income, Commission Income and Incentive Income’’ (filed on January 22, 1976, effective February 21, 1976, and last amendment filed on December 29, 2005, operative January 28, 2006). (ii) Additional materials. (A) California Air Resources Board (CARB). (1) CARB Resolution 14–1, dated January 23, 2014, adopting the ‘‘California Infrastructure SIP.’’ (2) ‘‘California Infrastructure SIP,’’ (‘‘2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP’’). (469) The following plan was submitted on June 2, 2014, by the Governor’s Designee. (i) Incorporation by Reference. (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District. (1) Rule 701, ‘‘Air Pollution Episode Plan for Particulate Matter,’’ adopted on March 3, 2014. ■ 3. Section 52.221 is revised to read as follows: § 52.221 Classification of regions. The California plan was evaluated on the basis of the following classifications: Pollutant Air quality control region Particulate matter Great Basin Valley Intrastate ................. Lake County Intrastate .......................... Lake Tahoe Intrastate ............................ Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate ...... Mountain Counties Intrastate ................. North Central Coast Intrastate ............... North Coast Intrastate ............................ Northeast Plateau Intrastate .................. Sacramento Valley Intrastate ................. San Diego Intrastate .............................. San Francisco Bay Area Intrastate ........ San Joaquin Valley Intrastate ................ South Central Coast Intrastate .............. Southeast Desert Intrastate ................... I II II I II II II III II II II II III I 4. Section 52.223 is amended by adding paragraphs (i) thru (o) to read as follows: ■ § 52.223 Approval status. Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES * * * * * (i) 1997 ozone NAAQS: The 2007 Infrastructure SIP, submitted on November 16, 2007, and the 2014 Multipollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, are partially disapproved for specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 Sulfur oxides Nitrogen dioxide III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III or Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed in this paragraph. (1) San Joaquin Valley APCD (Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), only) for section 110(a)(2)(B). (2) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (3) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Carbon monoxide III III I I I III III III I I I I III III Photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons) III III III I I III III III I I I I III I PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (4) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse gases, only. (6) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 126(a), only). (7) Mountain Counties AQCR (El Dorado County, only) for section 110(a)(2)(G). (j) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 2007 Infrastructure SIP, submitted on November 16, 2007, and the 2014 Multipollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, are partially disapproved for specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed in this paragraph. (1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (4) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse gases, only. (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 126(a), only). (6) San Joaquin Valley Mountain Counties AQCR for section 110(a)(2)(G). (k) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, is partially disapproved for VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed in this paragraph. (1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (4) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse gases, only. (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 126(a), only). (6) San Joaquin Valley Mountain Counties AQCR for section 110(a)(2)(G). (l) 2008 ozone NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, is partially disapproved for specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed in this paragraph. (1) San Joaquin Valley APCD (Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), only) for section 110(a)(2)(B). (2) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18779 (3) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PM2.5 PSD, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (4) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse gases, only. (6) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 126(a), only). (7) Mountain Counties AQCR (El Dorado County, only) for section 110(a)(2)(G). (m) 2008 Pb NAAQS: The 2011 Pb Infrastructure SIP, submitted on September 22, 2011, and the 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, are partially disapproved for specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed in this paragraph. (1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 18780 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations (4) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse gases, only. (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 126(a), only). (n) 2010 NO2 NAAQS: The 2012 NO2 Infrastructure SIP, submitted on November 15, 2012, and the 2014 Multipollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, are partially disapproved for specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed in this paragraph. (1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (4) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse gases, only. (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 126(a), only). (o) 2010 SO2 NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, is partially disapproved for specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the Air Pollution VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed in this paragraph. (1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J). (4) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse gases, only. (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (with respect to section 126(a), only). § 52.225 [Amended] 5. Section 52.225 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a). ■ 6. Section 52.283 is amended by adding paragraphs (c) thru (g) to read as follows: ■ § 52.283 Interstate Transport. * * * * * (c) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, and the additional plan elements listed below meet the following specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. (1) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with any other state’s measures required under title I, part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, except that these requirements are not fully met in the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in this paragraph. (i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) (ii) North Coast APCD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) (iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) (iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD requirements for the NAAQS, only). (v) All other areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270. (2) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with other states’ measures to protect visibility are met by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) of the ‘‘California Regional Haze Plan,’’ adopted January 22, 2009. (d) 2008 ozone NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, and the additional plan elements listed below meet the following specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. (1) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with any other state’s measures required under title I, part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, except that these requirements are not fully met in the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in this paragraph. (i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) (ii) North Coast APCD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) (iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) (iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD requirements for the NAAQS, only). (v) All other areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270. (2) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with other states’ measures to protect visibility are met by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) of the E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1 Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations ‘‘California Regional Haze Plan,’’ adopted January 22, 2009. (e) 2008 Pb NAAQS: The 2011 Pb Infrastructure SIP, submitted on September 22, 2011, and the 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, and the additional plan elements listed below meet the following specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. (1) The requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding significant contribution to nonattainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in any other State and interference with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS by any other State. (2) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with any other state’s measures required under title I, part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, except that these requirements are not fully met in the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in this paragraph. (i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) (ii) North Coast APCD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) (iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) (iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD requirements for the NAAQS, only). (v) All other areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270. (3) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with other states’ measures to protect visibility are met by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) of the ‘‘California Regional Haze Plan,’’ adopted January 22, 2009. (f) 2010 NO2 NAAQS: The 2012 NO2 Infrastructure SIP, submitted on November 15, 2012, and the 2014 Multipollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, and the additional plan elements listed below meet the following specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. (1) The requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding significant contribution to nonattainment of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other State and interference with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS by any other State. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:14 Mar 31, 2016 Jkt 238001 (2) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with any other state’s measures required under title I, part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, except that these requirements are not fully met in the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in this paragraph. (i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) (ii) North Coast APCD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) (iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) (iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD requirements for the NAAQS, only). (v) All other areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270. (3) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with other states’ measures to protect visibility are met by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) of the ‘‘California Regional Haze Plan,’’ adopted January 22, 2009. (g) 2010 SO2 NAAQS: The 2014 Multipollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, and the additional plan elements listed below meet the following specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. (1) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with any other state’s measures required under title I, part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, except that these requirements are not fully met in the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) listed in this paragraph. (i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) (ii) North Coast APCD (PSD requirements for the regulation of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an ozone precursor, only) (iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for PM2.5 increments, only) (iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD requirements for the NAAQS, only). (v) All other areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270. PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 18781 (2) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with other states’ measures to protect visibility are met by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) of the ‘‘California Regional Haze Plan,’’ adopted January 22, 2009. [FR Doc. 2016–07323 Filed 3–31–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 92 [Docket No. FWS–R7–MB–2015–0158; FF09M21200–156–FXMB1231099BPP0] RIN 1018–BB10 Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest in Alaska; Harvest Regulations for Migratory Birds in Alaska During the 2016 Season Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) is establishing migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations in Alaska for the 2016 season. These regulations allow for the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska and prescribe regional information on when and where the harvesting of birds may occur. These regulations were developed under a comanagement process involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Native representatives. The rulemaking is necessary because the regulations governing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are subject to annual review. This rulemaking establishes region-specific regulations that will go into effect on April 2, 2016, and expire on August 31, 2016. DATES: The amendments to subpart D of 50 CFR part 92 are effective April 2, 2016, through August 31, 2016. The amendments to subparts A and C of 50 CFR part 92 are effective May 2, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Dewhurst, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 786– 3499. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Why is this rulemaking necessary? This rulemaking is necessary because, by law, the migratory bird harvest E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM 01APR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18766-18781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07323]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0547; FRL-9939-89-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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially 
approving and partially disapproving 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

[[Page 18767]]

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 reclassifying certain regions of 
the state for emergency episode planning purposes with respect to 
ozone, NO2, SO2, and particulate matter (PM). 
Finally, we are approving into the California SIP several state 
provisions addressing CAA conflict of interest requirements and an 
emergency episode planning rule for Great Basin Unified Air Pollution 
Control District for PM.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by 
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0547. The index to the docket for 
this action is available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov 
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, 
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly 
available in either location (e.g., confidential business information 
(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an 
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed 
directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3227, 
mays.rory@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Statutory Requirements
    B. NAAQS Addressed by This Final Rule
    C. California's Submittals
II. EPA's Response to Comments
III. Final Action
    A. Approvals and Partial Approvals
    B. Partial Disapprovals
    C. Consequences of Disapprovals
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    EPA proposed action on several California infrastructure SIP 
submittals on October 23, 2014 (proposed rule).\1\ Today's rule 
finalizes that proposal in its entirety with minor changes due to 
comments, rulemakings, and other information that has come to light 
over the past year. We briefly summarize the infrastructure SIP 
statutory requirements and the eight NAAQS and five California SIP 
submittals to which this final rule applies. Section II of this final 
rule presents our response to public comments and Section III describes 
our final action, including full approvals, partial approvals, partial 
disapprovals, and consequences of each partial disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 79 FR 63350, October 23, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rationale supporting EPA's action is explained in our October 
23, 2014 proposed rule and the five associated technical support 
documents (TSDs) \2\ and will not be restated here. The proposed rule 
and TSDs are available in the docket for today's rulemaking and online 
at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The five TSDs are as follows: 1) ``California Infrastructure 
SIP Overarching Technical Support Document,'' September 2014 
(``Overarching TSD''); 2) ``California Infrastructure SIP Permit 
Programs Technical Support Document,'' September 2014 (``Permit 
Programs TSD''); 3) ``California Infrastructure SIP Interstate 
Transport Technical Support Document,'' September 2014 (``Interstate 
Transport TSD''); 4) ``California Infrastructure SIP Conflict of 
Interest Technical Support Document,'' September 2014 (``Conflict of 
Interest TSD''); and 5) ``California Infrastructure SIP Emergency 
Episode Planning Technical Support Document,'' September 2014 
(``Emergency Episode Planning TSD'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Statutory Requirements

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 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) of the CAA 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. Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 
not governed by the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) 
and are therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: 
(i) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs 
required under part D (nonattainment new source review (NSR)), and (ii) 
section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning 
requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address 
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 Final Rule

    Between 1997 and 2012, EPA promulgated 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 final rule 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).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2008 ozone NAAQS, which revised the 8-hour ozone standards 
to 0.075 ppm.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \5\ 62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised the 1997 24-
hour PM2.5 standards to 35 [micro]g/m\3\, and retained the 
1997 annual standards.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, which revised the 1997 and 
2006 annual PM2.5 standards to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\, and 
retained the 2006 24-hour standards.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     2008 Pb NAAQS, which revised the 1978 Pb quarterly average 
standard of 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ to a rolling 3-month average not to 
exceed 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\, and revised the secondary standard to 0.15 
[mu]g/m\3\, making it identical to the revised primary standard.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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

[[Page 18768]]

1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010. The 3-hour SO2 
standard of 0.5 ppm is listed in ppb for ease of comparison with the 
new 1-hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. 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 final 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'').\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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 34872, June 15, 2011 and 76 FR 43175, July 20, 2011 
(transport prongs 1 and 2); 76 FR 48002, August 8, 2011 and 76 FR 
48006, August 8, 2011 (transport prong 3); and 76 FR 34608, June 14, 
2011 and 76 FR 43149, July 20, 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 Air Pollution Control 
District (APCD) Rule 701 (``Air Pollution Episode Plan''), which 
addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1987 coarse particulate 
matter (PM10) NAAQS 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 acting on all of these submittals since they collectively address 
the infrastructure SIP requirements for the NAAQS addressed by this 
final 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.\12\ 
Thus, as noted in our proposed rule, we are not addressing the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to these four 
NAAQS in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ California made an infrastructure SIP submittal for the 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on July 7, 2009 that was subsequently 
withdrawn on July 18, 2014. All infrastructure SIP requirements for 
that 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 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 
has issued a finding of failure to submit such SIP revisions. 79 FR 
63536, October 24, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened on October 
24, 2014, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and 
closed on November 24, 2014. During this period, EPA received four 
comment letters, each of which is available in the docket to today's 
final rule.\13\ Three letters relate to permitting requirements and we 
address each of those here. The fourth letter is from Wyoming 
Department of Environmental Quality \14\ and supports EPA's approach to 
the review of infrastructure SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See document numbers EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0547-0144 thru 0147 
at https://www.regulations.gov under docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0547.
    \14\ Letter from Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of 
Environmental Quality, to Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. EPA, 
November 24, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #1:
    Mr. Robert Ukeiley commented on EPA's proposal with respect to the 
permitting-related infrastructure SIP requirements for the prevention 
of significant deterioration (PSD).\15\ Specifically, Mr. Ukeiley 
requested confirmation that the SIP-approved PSD permit programs for 
seven air districts (Eastern Kern, Imperial County, Monterey Bay 
Unified, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-
Solano) include requirements for PM2.5 increments or, for 
any air district whose SIP-approved PSD program lacks such 
requirements, that EPA disapprove the PSD-related infrastructure SIP 
elements. He also asked that EPA disapprove the PSD-related elements of 
the infrastructure SIP submittals for any air district whose SIP-
approved PSD rules contain significant impact levels (SILs) provisions 
for PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Email from Robert Ukeiley to Rory Mays, U.S. EPA Region IX, 
October 24, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response to Comment #1:
    We have confirmed that the SIP-approved PSD permit rules of the 
seven air districts named in Mr. Ukeiley's letter include 
PM2.5 increment requirements that meet the federal 
requirements. Six of these air districts (Eastern Kern, Imperial 
County, Placer County, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-
Solano) incorporate the applicable federal regulations by reference and 
the date of such incorporation was after the effective date of the 
PM2.5 increment requirements, thus ensuring their 
inclusion.\16\ The remaining air district (Monterey Bay Unified) has a 
PSD permit rule that also includes the applicable PM2.5 
increment requirements.\17\ Furthermore, EPA has finalized approval of 
the PSD permit rules for five additional air districts (Butte County, 
Feather River, Great Basin Unified, San Luis Obispo County, and Santa 
Barbara County),\18\ each of which includes the applicable 
PM2.5 increment requirements. Thus, we are finalizing 
approval of California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the PSD-
related elements for these 12 air districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The federal requirements for PSD increments for 
PM2.5 became effective October 20, 2010 and thus air 
district PSD programs that incorporated the federal regulations by 
reference after this date include the applicable PSD increment 
requirements for PM2.5. The adoption and SIP-approval 
dates of the SIP-approved PSD permit rules for five of these air 
districts are as follows: Eastern Kern (Rule 210.4, adopted January 
12, 2012), Imperial County (Rule 904, adopted December 20, 2011), 
Placer County (Rule 518, adopted February 10, 2011), and Yolo-Solano 
(Rule 3.24 adopted June 13, 2012), which were each SIP-approved on 
December 10, 2012 (77 FR 7331); and Sacramento Metro (Rule 203, 
adopted January 27, 2011), which was SIP-approved on August 29, 2013 
(78 FR 53271). San Joaquin Valley APCD's Rule 2410 (adopted June 16, 
2011) was approved into the California SIP on October 26, 2012 (77 
FR 65305), and similarly includes the applicable PSD increment 
requirements for PM2.5. However, San Joaquin Valley is 
currently designated nonattainment for both the 1997, 2006, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, the SIP-approved PSD program does 
not apply to PM2.5 emissions from new or modified major 
stationary sources.
    \17\ Monterey Bay Unified APCD Rule 207 (adopted April 20, 
2011), which was SIP-approved on March 26, 2015 (80 FR 15899).
    \18\ 80 FR 69880, November 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to SILs for PM2.5, on January 22, 2013, at 
EPA's request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
vacated and remanded

[[Page 18769]]

portions of EPA's significant impact levels (SILs) requirements for 
PM2.5.\19\ Later that year EPA removed the vacated portion 
of the SILs requirements from 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 
52.21(k)(2).\20\ However, several SIP-approved PSD rules in California 
still include the vacated PM2.5 SILs provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 463-464 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
    \20\ 78 FR 73698, December 9, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, six of the 12 air districts in California with SIP-
approved PSD permit rules include PM2.5 SILs provisions, 
including Eastern Kern, Feather River, Imperial County, Placer County, 
Sacramento Metro, and San Joaquin Valley. Given the clarity of the 
Court's decision and EPA's removal of the vacated portion of the SILs 
requirements from 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2), it would now be inappropriate 
for any pending or proposed permits in these districts to rely on the 
PM2.5 SILs provision in their rules as an absolute ``safe 
harbor'' when a substantial portion of the PM2.5 NAAQS or 
increment is known to be consumed.\21\ However, as we previously stated 
following the Court's decision, EPA does not interpret the Court's 
decision to preclude the use of SILs for PM2.5 entirely.\22\ 
Permitting authorities should consult with the EPA before using any of 
the SIL values in the EPA's regulations for this purpose (including the 
PM2.5 SIL value in section 51.165(b)(2), which was not 
vacated by the Court).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Five of the applicable districts (Eastern Kern, Feather 
River, Imperial County, Placer County, and Sacramento Metro) have 
provided letters to EPA indicating that they will implement their 
PSD rules consistent with this approach and EPA's Guidance for 
PM2.5 Permit Modeling. See Memorandum from Stephen D. 
Page, Director, OAQPS, ``Guidance for PM2.5 Permit 
Modeling,'' May 20, 2014. For four of these districts, these letters 
are available in the dockets of the rulemakings on the districts' 
PSD rules: For Eastern Kern, Imperial County, and Placer County, see 
77 FR 73316, December 10, 2012; and for Feather River, see 80 FR 
69880, November 12, 2015. For Sacramento Metro, a copy of the 
district's letter dated October 1, 2015 is included in the docket to 
this final rule. For the San Joaquin Valley, the area is currently 
designated nonattainment for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS and, therefore, San Joaquin Valley APCD's 
SIP-approved PSD permit rule does not apply to PM2.5 
emissions from new or modified major stationary sources.
    \22\ U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
``Circuit Court Decision on PM2.5 Significant Impact 
Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentration, Questions and 
Answers,'' March 4, 2013, pp. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has advised the districts with PM2.5 SILs that the 
Court determined to be invalid to begin preparations to remove those 
provisions as soon as feasible, which may be in conjunction with the 
next otherwise planned SIP revision. EPA has informed these districts 
that new permits issued solely on the basis of these SILs provisions 
are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act and may be difficult to defend 
in administrative and judicial challenges as they are without legal 
effect. However, as the previously approved PM2.5 SILs 
provisions in the California SIP are no longer enforceable, EPA does 
not believe the existence of the provisions in the State's 
implementation plan precludes today's approval of the infrastructure 
SIP submissions as they relate to the PSD-related elements for these 
six districts for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The PSD permit rules for the remaining six air districts (Butte 
County, Great Basin Unified, Monterey Bay Unified, San Luis Obispo 
County, Santa Barbara County, and Yolo-Solano) do not include any 
PM2.5 SILs provision. Accordingly, we are finalizing 
approval of California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the PSD-
related elements for all 12 air districts with SIP-approved PSD 
programs.
    Comment #2:
    Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (AQMD) commented that 
EPA was incorrect in stating that the district's minor NSR program had 
not been approved into the California SIP.\23\ The comment letter 
states that district Rules 1300, 201, and 219 cover preconstruction 
review of any equipment that emits air contaminants (and which is not 
exempt from permitting requirements) and that these rules have been 
approved into the California SIP. Accordingly, the district requested 
to be removed from the list of air districts that lack SIP-approved 
minor NSR programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Letter from Karen Nowak, District Counsel, Mojave Desert 
AQMD, to Rory Mays, U.S. EPA Region IX, November 20, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response to Comment #2:
    EPA agrees that Mojave Desert AQMD indeed has a minor NSR program 
in the California SIP that is sufficient to approve California's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals consistent with the requirement of 
section 110(a)(2)(C) that the SIP include a program for the regulation 
of minor sources, though with one clarification.
    In reviewing the minor NSR permit programs of California's 35 air 
districts, EPA generally relied on permit programs that applied to the 
whole air district. However, in some cases we found that air districts 
with two or more counties had county-based minor NSR programs that had 
been approved into the California SIP and applied to the NAAQS 
addressed by this rulemaking. For example, for Feather River AQMD we 
found that minor NSR rules for each of the two counties in the air 
district, Yuba and Sutter counties, had been approved into the 
California SIP and covered the NAAQS addressed by our rulemaking.\24\ 
On that basis, we proposed to partially approve California's 
infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to this minor NSR 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Permit Programs TSD, Appendix D (``California Minor NSR 
Permit Programs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We inadvertently missed identifying the county-based minor NSR 
programs that have been approved into the California SIP for the 
portions of the two counties (San Bernardino and Riverside counties) 
that are within the jurisdiction of Mojave Desert AQMD. Specifically, 
EPA previously approved each county's Rule 201,\25\ which require 
permits for all equipment that may emit air contaminants, and each 
county's Rule 102,\26\ which define the term ``air contaminants,'' into 
the California SIP. Rule 1300, which is a district-based, rather than 
county-based, rule, contains additional requirements for the district's 
minor NSR program.\27\ These rules are sufficient to address the 
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) that the SIP include a program for 
the regulation of minor sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 43 FR 52237, November 9, 1978.
    \26\ 55 FR 49281, November 27, 1990 for San Bernardino County 
and 43 FR 59489, December 21, 1978 for Riverside County.
    \27\ 61 FR 58133, November 13, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, while Mojave Desert AQMD is correct that the district has 
sufficient minor NSR permit rules in the California SIP for purposes of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), it is on the basis of the SIP-approved 
county-based Rules 102 and 201 that we remove Mojave Desert AQMD from 
the list of air districts that lack SIP-approved minor NSR programs. 
Please refer to section III of this final rule where we finalize this 
minor change from our proposed partial disapproval for Mojave Desert 
AQMD.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Additionally, Mojave Desert AQMD's letter led us to 
reexamine the SIP status of minor source permit rules for the other 
four air districts that we proposed to partially disapprove for 
section 110(a)(2)(C). Our evaluation of the minor source programs 
for these four districts is discussed further in section III of this 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #3:
    Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) states 
that its Board of Directors revised four regulations implementing the 
district's PSD program, for submittal through ARB as revisions to the 
California SIP, and that those revisions address the deficiencies 
identified in EPA's proposed rule.\29\ Therefore, the district

[[Page 18770]]

requested that EPA approve such PSD submittal and approve, rather than 
partially disapprove, Northern Sonoma County APCD with respect to the 
PSD-related infrastructure SIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Letter from Barbara Lee, Air Pollution Control Officer, 
Northern Sonoma County APCD to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 
Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, November 24, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response to Comment #3:
    EPA received Northern Sonoma County APCD's PSD program SIP revision 
on December 11, 2014 and it became complete by operation of law on June 
11, 2015. While we have begun our review of that SIP submittal, we have 
not yet issued any proposed or final rulemaking on the submittal. We 
anticipate proposing and finalizing action on that SIP submittal over 
the coming months, per the CAA section 110(k)(2) deadline for EPA to 
take final action within 12 months of a completeness determination. To 
the extent that the district's PSD SIP revision resolves the deficiency 
identified in our proposed rule on California's Infrastructure SIP 
Submittals (i.e., requirements for a baseline date for PSD increments 
for PM2.5), we would accordingly update the California SIP 
with respect to the PSD-related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) 
for Northern Sonoma County APCD.

III. Final Action

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and based on the evaluation and 
rationale presented in the proposed rule, the related TSDs, and this 
final rule, EPA is approving in part and disapproving in part 
California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for the 1997 ozone, 2008 
ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2012 
PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 
NAAQS. In the following subsections, we list the elements for which we 
are finalizing approval or disapproval and provide a summary of the 
basis for those elements that are partially disapproved. We also 
describe the consequences of our disapprovals.

A. Approvals and Partial Approvals

    Based upon our evaluation, as presented in our proposed rule and 
our five TSDs, and additional information discussed below, EPA approves 
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. 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.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ As noted in section I of this final 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 taking any action with respect to the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to these four NAAQS in this 
final 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. Approval of State and Local Provisions Into the California SIP
    As part of these approvals, we also 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 
approve into the SIP five state provisions from the California 
Government Code statutes and California Code of Regulations, which were 
submitted in California's 2014 Submittal and address the conflict of 
interest requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. These 
provisions include California Government Code, Title 9, Sections 82048, 
87103, and 87302, and California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 
18700 and 18701. For discussion of these conflict of interest 
provisions, please see our Conflict of Interest TSD.
    We also approve Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 
(APCD) 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. Approval of Reclassification Requests for Emergency Episode 
Planning
    California's 2012 and 2014 Submittals requested that EPA reclassify 
several air quality control regions (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. In our proposed rule, we stated that the authority to 
take final action to reclassify AQCRs is reserved by the EPA 
Administrator. That conclusion was based upon prior examples from 1980 
and 1981 where the Administrator reclassified certain AQCRs in Arizona, 
California, and Nevada \31\ and upon our initial review of EPA's 
Delegations Manual.\32\ However, we have since reviewed the earlier 
versions of EPA's regulations that gave rise to the emergency episode 
regulations in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H,\33\ and re-reviewed the 
Delegations Manual. In particular, Delegation 7-10 (``Approval/
Disapproval of State Implementation Plans'') was established in 1989 
and grants Regional Administrators the authority to ``propose or take 
final action on any State implementation plan under Section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act.'' In the context of EPA acting on emergency episode SIP 
revisions, whether as part of an infrastructure SIP revision or an 
independent SIP revision, consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) 
(i.e., part of section 110 of the CAA), and our implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart H, whose requirements are 
dependent upon AQCR classification, we find that

[[Page 18771]]

EPA's Regional Administrators indeed have authority to reclassify AQCRs 
for purposes of emergency episode planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 45 FR 67345, October 10, 1980 for Arizona; 46 FR 3883, 
January 16, 1981 for California; and 45 FR 7544, February 4, 1980 
for Nevada.
    \32\ EPA's Delegations Manual, Chapter 7 (``Clean Air Act''), 
available at: https://intranet.epa.gov/ohr/rmpolicy/ads/dm/index7.htm.
    \33\ See the 1983 versions of 40 CFR 51.3 (``Classification of 
regions'') and 40 CFR 51.16 (``Prevention of air pollution emergency 
episodes''), which refer to CAA sections 110, 301(a), 313, and 319 
as the statutory basis for such regulations. (By contrast, 40 CFR 
part 51, subpart H does not have statutory citations.) Section 
301(a) grants the Administrator authority to prescribe regulations 
necessary to carry out the CAA, which, as applied here, refers to 
the emergency episode requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G). Section 
301(a) also limits the Administrator's ability to delegate authority 
regarding rules that are required to be promulgated under the 
procedures of section 307(d). Since classifications are not among 
the procedures of section 307(d)(1), there is no restriction on the 
Administrator's authority to delegate decision-making on area 
classification, such as those for emergency episode planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, on the basis of California's ambient air quality data 
for 2011-2013 and the evaluation presented in our proposed rule and 
Emergency Episode Planning TSD, we hereby grant five of California's 
ten requests, and deny the five remaining requests, to reclassify AQCRs 
for emergency episode planning purposes for ozone, NO2, and 
SO2. We also are reclassifying two AQCRs for PM as part of 
our evaluation of the State's emergency episode planning for the 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    For ozone, we reclassify two AQCRs, Lake Tahoe and North Central 
Coast, to Priority III. We deny the State's reclassification requests 
for ozone for five AQCRs, including Mountain Counties, Sacramento 
Valley, San Diego, San Francisco Bay Area, and Southeast Desert. As a 
result, upon the effective date of this final rule, California will 
have seven Priority I AQCRs for ozone, including the five for which we 
deny California's reclassification request and two others (Metropolitan 
Los Angeles and San Joaquin Valley AQCRs). California's applicable air 
districts have adequate emergency episode contingency plans for ozone 
for six of these seven Priority I areas, including Metropolitan Los 
Angeles, Sacramento Valley, San Diego, San Francisco Bay Area, San 
Joaquin Valley, and Southeast Desert AQCRs. Therefore, we partially 
approve California's 2007 and 2014 Submittals with respect to the 1997 
ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS for the emergency episode planning 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G). Please see section III.B.iii 
of this final rule for our partial disapproval of these submittals with 
respect to the Mountain Counties AQCR.
    For NO2, we reclassify the Metropolitan Los Angeles AQCR 
to Priority III. As a result, upon the effective date of this final 
rule, the whole state will be classified Priority III for 
NO2, and therefore no emergency episode contingency plan for 
NO2 will be required for any of the state's 14 AQCRs. 
Accordingly, we 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, we reclassify the Metropolitan Los Angeles and 
San Francisco Bay Area AQCRs to Priority III. As a result, upon the 
effective date of this final rule, the whole state will be classified 
Priority III for SO2, and therefore no emergency episode 
contingency plan for SO2 will be required for any of the 
state's 14 AQCRs. Thus, we 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).
    For PM, we identified two areas where concentrations exceeded EPA's 
recommended 24-hour PM2.5 threshold of 140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ 
for emergency episode planning: \34\ Great Basin Valley AQCR and San 
Joaquin Valley AQCR. 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. Accordingly, for PM, we 
reclassify Great Basin Valley AQCR to Priority I and San Joaquin Valley 
AQCR to Priority II. As discussed in section III.A.i of this final 
rule, we are approving Great Basin Unified APCD Rule 701 into the 
California SIP and, as such, Great Basin Unified APCD has an adequate 
emergency episode contingency plan for PM. Therefore, we partially 
approve California's 2007 and 2014 Submittals 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). Please see section III.B.iii of this final rule for our 
partial disapproval of these submittals with respect to the San Joaquin 
Valley AQCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 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, pp. 6-7 and Attachment B (``Recommended Interim 
Significant Harm Level, Priority Levels, and Action Levels for 
PM2.5 Emergency Episode Plans (EEPs)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Approval of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) for Minor NSR
    EPA previously proposed to partially disapprove five of 
California's 35 air districts for CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect 
to minor NSR on the basis that they each lacked permit rules for minor 
sources in the California SIP.\35\ Upon further review of the 
California SIP and comments received during the public comment period, 
EPA has found that each of these air districts does, in fact, have 
permit rules for minor sources in the California SIP that cover all 
NAAQS, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 79 FR 63350 at 63359, October 23, 2014, and our Permit 
Programs TSD, pp. 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Mojave Desert AQMD's comment letter, Mojave Desert AQMD 
has county-based minor NSR rules in the California SIP for each of its 
two counties (San Bernardino and Riverside counties), which we 
inadvertently missed during our original evaluation of the California 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals.\36\ This also led us to reexamine the 
SIP status of minor source permit rules for the other four air 
districts that we had proposed to partially disapprove for section 
110(a)(2)(C), including Lake County, Mariposa County, Northern Sierra 
(Plumas and Sierra counties, only),\37\ and Tuolumne County. This 
reexamination involved reviewing the original copies of California's 
SIP submittals dated February 22, 1972 and June 30, 1972; EPA's 
approval of these submittals, as codified at 40 CFR 52.220 (b) and 
(c)(6); a copy of the California SIP as it existed in August 1978; 
subsequent EPA rulemakings that revised the California SIP; and other 
historic records as they pertain to these four air districts.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See section II of this final rule.
    \37\ Note that we had proposed to partially disapprove Northern 
Sierra AQMD for Plumas and Sierra counties only, since we had 
already identified Nevada County as having a SIP-approved minor NSR 
program. See 79 FR 63350 at 63359, footnote 35, October 23, 2014 and 
our Permit Programs TSD, footnote 34, p. 9.
    \38\ See Memorandum from Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX to R. 
Mays, EPA Region IX, ``Investigation of Approved SIP Contents for 
Lake, Tuolumne, Mariposa, Plumas and Sierra Counties, related to 
minor source permit programs,'' October 30, 2015. This memorandum, 
as well as short narratives on each of the five counties, are 
included in the docket to this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We determined that, for each of the five remaining counties (Lake, 
Mariposa, Plumas, Sierra, and Tuolumne counties) in these four 
districts, the county-based rules that constitute each county's minor 
source permit program were approved into the California SIP \39\ and 
have never been removed or replaced. These minor source permit programs 
require minor sources to obtain an Authority to Construct permit prior 
to construction and cover all NAAQS through a broad definition of the 
term ``air contaminants'' that includes all NAAQS and their precursors. 
Since the basis of our proposed partial disapproval is no longer 
applicable (i.e., lack of a SIP-approved permit program for minor 
sources) and as these districts now meet the same test used to propose 
approval for other districts (i.e., having such a program in the SIP 
that applies to all NAAQS addressed by this final rule), we are 
finalizing approval for these five additional districts, including Lake 
County, Mariposa County, Mojave Desert, Northern Sierra, and Tuolumne 
County, as meeting the requirements of

[[Page 18772]]

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to minor NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 37 FR 10842, May 31, 1972 and 37 FR 19812, September 22, 
1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, all 35 air districts in California have minor NSR permit 
programs in the California SIP that cover all NAAQS. Notwithstanding 
this approval, to the extent that air districts have revised their 
permit rules for minor sources and such revisions are not yet reflected 
in the California SIP, we recommend that such districts work with ARB 
to submit SIP revisions to revise the California SIP.

B. Partial Disapprovals

    EPA partially disapproves 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 final rule due to PSD program 
deficiencies in certain air districts).
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution 
transport (for all NAAQS addressed by this final 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 final 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 final rule due to PSD 
program deficiencies in certain air districts).
i. Ambient Air Monitoring Partial Disapproval
    We 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).
ii. Permit Program-Related Partial Disapprovals
    We 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.
    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 hereby 
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 partially disapprove 
California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals for multiple air districts. 
We provide a summary of the basis and district-by-district accounting 
of our partial disapprovals in the following paragraphs, including 
consideration of comments from Northern Sonoma County APCD, and review 
of EPA rulemaking on PSD and nonattainment NSR SIP submittals that has 
occurred since our proposal on California's Infrastructure SIP 
Submittals.
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 greenhouse 
gases (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 our proposed rule.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427. EPA has since amended the federal PSD 
program regulations to allow for the rescission of certain PSD 
permits issued by EPA and delegated reviewing authorities (e.g., 
California air districts) for purposes of regulating GHGs. See 80 FR 
26183, May 7, 2015. Notwithstanding those amendments, PSD programs 
must still include provisions to regulate GHGs and such provisions 
continue to be relevant to our review of infrastructure SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve seven air districts as meeting the 
structural PSD requirements. Our proposed approval of one of these 
seven air districts, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, was contingent on 
finalizing approval of the district's PSD SIP revision.\41\ We have 
taken final action on that SIP revision, approving provisions into the 
California SIP that resolve the deficiencies identified in our proposed 
rule.\42\ Thus, we finalize approval of seven districts, including 
Eastern Kern, Imperial County, Monterey Bay Unified, Placer County, 
Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, and Yolo-Solano air districts, as 
meeting the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) for all NAAQS addressed by this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 79 FR 63350 at 63358, October 23, 2014.
    \42\ 80 FR 15899, March 26, 2015. We finalized a limited 
approval and limited disapproval of Monterey Bay Unified APCD's PSD 
SIP revision. While not a full approval, that final rule approved 
provisions into the California SIP for the regulation of 
PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, or PSD increments for PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, our proposed rule on California's Infrastructure SIP 
Submittals identified eight air districts that had submitted PSD SIP 
revisions for which EPA had not yet proposed or finalized action.\43\ 
We proposed to partially disapprove these districts with respect to the 
PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) 
since they were subject to the existing PSD FIP at 40 CFR 52.21, rather 
than SIP-approved PSD programs. We have since finalized approval of the 
PSD SIP revisions of five of those eight districts,\44\ including 
provisions addressing the same structural PSD requirements as we relied 
on to propose approval for the set of seven districts discussed above. 
Since the basis of our proposed partial disapproval is no longer 
applicable and as these districts now meet the same test used to 
propose approval for other districts, we are finalizing approval for 
these five

[[Page 18773]]

additional districts, including Butte County, Feather River, Great 
Basin Unified, San Luis Obispo County, and Santa Barbara County, as 
meeting the PSD-related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) for all NAAQS addressed by this final rule. In sum, 
12 of California's 35 air districts meet the PSD-related requirements 
for these infrastructure SIP elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 79 FR 63350 at 63359, October 23, 2014.
    \44\ 80 FR 69880, November 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four other 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 
lacks a SIP-approved PSD program to address any other regulated NSR 
pollutant. Thus, we partially disapprove California's Infrastructure 
SIP Submittals with respect to South Coast AQMD for the PSD-related 
requirement of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ We note that South Coast AQMD is subject to the PSD FIP in 
40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants except GHGs (see 40 
CFR 52.270(b)(10)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 partially disapprove 
California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to North Coast 
Unified AQMD 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. As discussed in section II of this 
final rule, Northern Sonoma County APCD has submitted a PSD SIP 
revision that is pending rulemaking by EPA within the time afforded by 
CAA section 110(k)(2). To the extent that Northern Sonoma County APCD's 
PSD SIP revision resolves the deficiency identified in our proposed 
rule on California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals (i.e., requirements 
for a baseline date for PSD increments for PM2.5), such 
requirements have not yet been approved into the California SIP and, 
thus, the deficiency remains. Accordingly, we partially disapprove 
California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to Mendocino 
County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD for this specific 
deficiency in the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J).
    The remaining 19 air districts are subject to the existing PSD FIP 
in 40 CFR 52.21, including Amador County, Antelope Valley, Bay Area, 
Calaveras County, Colusa County, El Dorado County, Glenn County, Lake 
County, Lassen County, Mariposa County, Modoc County, Mojave Desert, 
Northern Sierra, San Diego County, Shasta County, Siskiyou County, 
Tehama County, Tuolumne County, and Ventura County.
    At the time of our proposal on California's Infrastructure SIP 
Submittals, three of these districts (Bay Area, San Diego County, and 
Ventura County air districts) had submitted PSD SIP revisions for which 
EPA had not yet proposed or finalized action. EPA has proposed a 
limited approval and limited disapproval of the SIP revision from Bay 
Area AQMD, noting that most of the submittal's rules satisfy applicable 
requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the regulation of the 
modification and construction of stationary sources.\46\ However, as we 
have not yet finalized that proposal, the Bay Area AQMD remains subject 
to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21. San Diego County APCD withdrew its PSD 
SIP submittal on June 10, 2015, while Ventura County APCD's submittal 
is pending EPA rulemaking. These two districts similarly remain subject 
to the PSD FIP at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 80 FR 52236 at 52243, August 28, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we partially disapprove California's Infrastructure 
SIP Submittals as to each of these 19 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 III.C of this final rule, the partial 
disapprovals with respect to these 19 districts would not result in new 
FIP obligations, because EPA has already promulgated a PSD FIP for each 
district.
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 reviewed the nonattainment NSR programs of 
California's 22 air districts that are designated nonattainment for 
ozone, PM2.5, or Pb, as applicable.\47\ 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. We refer to this aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
herein as the ``nonattainment NSR element.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ No area of California has been designated nonattainment for 
the 2010 NO2 or 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We 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). Since the time of our proposal on California's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals, we finalized approval of South Coast 
AQMD's nonattainment NSR SIP revision with respect to the 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\48\ As a result, this district implements its 
SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program for the portions of the district 
that are designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone, 2008ozone, 1997 
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2012 PM2.5, and 
2008 Pb NAAQS. Thus, South Coast AQMD also meets the nonattainment NSR 
element via a SIP-approved program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 80 FR 24821, May 15, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional eight air districts, which have each been designated 
nonattainment for more than one NAAQS, have affirmed that they 
implement the interim nonattainment NSR program in 40 CFR part 51, 
Appendix S, including 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, 
and Yolo-

[[Page 18774]]

Solano (for the 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, and 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS).\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ EPA has proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval 
of the SIP revision from Bay Area AQMD submitted to address the 
outstanding nonattainment NSR requirements. 80 FR 52236, August 28, 
2015. However, as we have not yet finalized that proposal, we 
continue to rely on the Bay Area AQMD's implementation of 40 CFR 
part 51, Appendix S for purposes of the nonattainment NSR element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two other districts, Amador County APCD and Tuolumne County APCD, 
are designated nonattainment only for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA revoked 
that NAAQS as part of the final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS,\50\ which relieves these two air districts of the requirement to 
submit nonattainment NSR SIP revisions.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015.
    \51\ 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 is 
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 no longer applies 
to the Sutter Buttes area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, portions of San Luis Obispo County APCD and Tehama County 
APCD are designated nonattainment only for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Until 
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 new or modified major source emitting an applicable nonattainment 
pollutant (i.e., NOX or volatile organic compounds) in the 
respective nonattainment areas.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ We note that Tehama County APCD has adopted and transmitted 
nonattainment NSR SIP provisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to ARB for 
submittal to EPA as a SIP revision. See Letter dated September 4, 
2015 from Kristin Hall-Stein, Air Pollution Control Officer, Tehama 
County APCD to Carol Sutkus, ARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, we 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
    As described in section IV.B.i of our proposed rule, with respect 
to the international pollution abatement requirement in CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), we noted that EPA has no reason to approve or 
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to CAA section 115 
since the EPA Administrator has made no formal notification that 
emissions originating in California endanger public health or welfare 
in a foreign country. With respect to the interstate pollution 
abatement requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), we evaluated 
California's 2014 Submittal only for purposes of compliance with 
section 126(a).\53\ Section 126(a) of the Act 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 79 FR 63350 at 63360, October 23, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed that 10 of California's 35 air districts have SIP-
approved PSD permit programs that require notice to nearby states 
consistent with EPA's relevant requirements, and proposed to partially 
disapprove the remaining 25 air district with respect to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). We have since finalized approval of the PSD SIP 
revisions of five additional districts,\54\ including Butte County, 
Feather River, Great Basin Unified, San Luis Obispo County, and Santa 
Barbara County, which similarly require notice to nearby states 
consistent with EPA's relevant requirements. Thus, the basis of our 
proposed partial disapproval is no longer applicable with respect to 
these five districts and these districts meet the same test used to 
propose approval for other districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 80 FR 69880, November 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We therefore approve California's 2014 Submittal for section 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) regarding compliance with the requirements of section 
115 for the whole state and with respect to section 126(a) for the 
following 15 air districts: Butte County, Eastern Kern, Feather River, 
Great Basin Unified, Imperial County, Mendocino County, Monterey Bay 
Unified, North Coast Unified, Northern Sonoma County, Placer County, 
Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, San Luis Obispo County, Santa 
Barbara County and Yolo-Solano.
    The remaining 20 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. Therefore, we 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 20 air districts: Amador County, Antelope Valley, Bay Area, 
Calaveras County, Colusa County, El Dorado County, Glenn County, Lake 
County, Lassen County, Mariposa County, Modoc County, Mojave Desert, 
Northern Sierra, San Diego County, Shasta County, Siskiyou County, 
South Coast, Tehama County, Tuolumne County, and Ventura County.
iii. Emergency Episode Planning Partial Disapprovals
Mountain Counties AQCR for Ozone
    As described in section III.A.ii of this final rule, we deny 
California's request to reclassify the Mountain Counties AQCR to 
Priority III for ozone. Of the seven air districts that comprise the 
Mountain Counties AQCR, only El Dorado County APCD and Placer County 
APCD recorded 1-hour ozone levels above the Priority I ozone threshold 
of 0.10 ppm during 2011-2013. We proposed that to satisfy the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.151 for contingency plans for Mountain 
Counties AQCR, California needed to provide emergency episode 
contingency plans applicable to ozone for El Dorado County APCD and 
Placer County APCD. We maintain that position in this final rule. Since 
the time of our proposal, Placer County APCD adopted and submitted an 
ozone emergency episode contingency plan that we have approved into the 
California SIP.\55\ However, El Dorado County APCD still does not have 
a SIP-approved ozone emergency episode plan.\56\ Therefore, we 
partially disapprove California's 2007 and 2014 Submittals for the 
Mountain Counties AQCR (for El Dorado 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See direct final rule approving Placer County APCD Ozone 
Emergency Episode Plan, signed October 26, 2015, which is included 
in the docket to this final rule.
    \56\ We note that El Dorado County APCD issued a notice of 
public hearing in October 2015 of its proposed ozone emergency 
episode plan to be heard at the District's December 1, 2015 board 
hearing. This notice is included in the docket to this final rule 
and is available at: https://www.edcgov.us/AirQualityManagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Joaquin Valley AQCR for PM2.5
    As discussed in section III.A.ii of this final rule, we reclassify 
San Joaquin Valley AQCR from Priority I to Priority II for PM emergency 
episode planning. However, San Joaquin Valley APCD's SIP-approved 
emergency episode plan, which comprises multiple rules under the 
district's Regulation 6 (``Air Pollution Emergency Episodes''), still 
does not have provisions specific to PM2.5. As such, we 
partially disapprove California's 2007 and 2014 Submittals for San 
Joaquin Valley AQCR with respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 
PM2.5,

[[Page 18775]]

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the emergency episode planning 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G).
iv. General Note on Disapprovals
    EPA takes a disapproval of a state plan very seriously, 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 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, the 
partial disapprovals in this final rule will not trigger mandatory 
sanctions under CAA section 179.
    Section 110(c)(1) of the Act 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. However, many of these partial disapprovals 
finalized by this final rule do 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 or by a prior finding of failure to submit.
    When preparing our proposed rule, we inadvertently did not consider 
existing FIP deadlines that were triggered by prior findings of failure 
to submit for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS in our 
description of FIP deadlines that would result from our proposed, 
partial disapprovals. In October 2008 EPA found that California's 
applicable certification letter had failed to address the emergency 
episode planning requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS and established a FIP deadline of November 21, 
2010.\57\ In January 2013 EPA found that California had failed to 
submit an infrastructure SIP for the requirements of sections 
110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)-(H), and (J)-(M) for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS and established a FIP deadline of February 14, 2015, 
while noting that the findings did not trigger any additional FIP 
obligations with respect to the PSD-related and notification-related 
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), or (J) for 
portions of California (i.e., air districts) that were already subject 
to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 73 FR 62902 at 62905, October 22, 2008. Note that we also 
found that California had failed to submit SIP revisions for some 
air districts addressing the PSD-related requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(C) and (J). However, such failure to submit did not 
trigger a FIP deadline since those air districts were already 
subject to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21. For the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 
EPA found that California had failed to submit SIP revisions for 
some air districts addressing the PSD-related requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(C). 73 FR 16205 at 16208, March 27, 2008. However, 
similar to EPA's findings on the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, such 
failure to submit did not trigger a FIP deadline since those air 
districts were already subject to the PSD FIP in 40 CFR 52.21.
    \58\ 78 FR 2882 at 2889, January 15, 2013. Note that we did not 
make completeness findings or findings of failure to submit with 
respect to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C) (to the extent it refers to 
permit programs required under part D of title I of the CAA 
(nonattainment NSR)), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (pertaining to two 
of several interstate transport requirements), or section 
110(a)(2)(I), (pertaining to the nonattainment planning).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the most part, the approval actions taken in this final rule 
obviate the basis of the FIP obligations established by EPA's findings 
of failure to submit discussed above. The remaining FIP obligations 
stemming from these findings are relevant with respect to outstanding 
deficiencies for ozone related to ambient monitoring and emergency 
episode planning, and an outstanding deficiency for PM2.5 
related to emergency episode planning.
    Accordingly, we describe the consequences of our partial 
disapprovals first for those where a FIP is already in place, then for 
those that have FIP obligations that are overdue, and finally for those 
that establish new FIP obligations.
    The provisions for which our partial disapprovals do 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 19 air districts identified in 
section III.B.ii of this final 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 all regulated NSR pollutants except 
GHGs (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 (codified at 40 CFR 52.270(b)(2)(iv)).\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 76 FR 48006, August 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 79 FR 51913, September 2, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions for which our FIP obligation is overdue include:
     Ambient air monitoring requirement in section 110(a)(2)(B) 
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Bakersfield MSA, whose FIP 
deadline expired on February 14, 2015.
     Emergency episode planning requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Mountain 
Counties AQCR (for El Dorado County APCD only), whose FIP deadline 
expired on February 14, 2015.
     Emergency episode planning requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 
Joaquin Valley AQCR, whose FIP deadline expired on November 21, 2010.
    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 to submit based on the same deficiency. Thus, under CAA 
section 110(c)(1), these remaining partial disapprovals of California's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals require EPA to promulgate a FIP within 
two years after the effective date of this 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 partial disapprovals trigger a new FIP 
obligation include:
     Ambient air monitoring requirement in section 110(a)(2)(B) 
with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Bakersfield MSA.

[[Page 18776]]

     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.
     Emergency episode planning requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Mountain 
Counties AQCR (for El Dorado County APCD only).
     Emergency episode planning requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley AQCR.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of five state 
provisions from the California Government Code statutes and California 
Code of Regulations for the conflict of interest requirements of CAA 
sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. These provisions include California 
Government Code, Title 9, Sections 82048 (last amended in 2004), 87103 
(last amended in 2000), and 87302 (last amended in 1992), and 
California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Sections 18700 (last amendment 
filed on December 20, 2005) and 18701 (last amendment filed on December 
29, 2005). Similarly, EPA is also finalizing the incorporation by 
reference of Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 
Rule 701, adopted on March 3, 2014, with respect to the 1987 
p.m.10, 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. 
The incorporation by reference of the five state provisions and the one 
Great Basin Unified APCD provision are described in the amendments to 
40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to 
make, these documents generally available electronically through 
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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 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 approves certain State 
requirements, and disapproves certain other State requirements, for 
inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

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 rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose 
any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This partial SIP 
approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-
and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves certain 
State requirements, and disapproves 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.

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 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 approves certain pre-existing requirements, and disapproves 
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 action.

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 approves certain 
State requirements, and disapproves 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.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR

[[Page 18777]]

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' 
This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. In addition, the SIP 
is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other 
area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have 
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this rule.

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

    EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
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 partial approval and partial disapproval 
under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new 
regulations but simply approves certain State requirements, and 
disapproves certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the 
SIP.

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

    This 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.

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.
    EPA believes that this 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.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 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 rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective on May 2, 2016.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 31, 2016. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and 
Sulfur dioxide.

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

    Dated: November 24, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(386)(ii)(A)(5), 
(c)(466), (467), (468), and (469) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (386) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (5) ``110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP,'' submitted as Appendix B to 
the 2007 State Strategy, and ``Legal Authority and Other 
Requirements,'' submitted as Appendix G to the 2007 State Strategy 
(collectively, ``2007 Infrastructure SIP'').
* * * * *
    (466) The following plan was submitted on October 6, 2011, by the 
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved].
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
    (1) CARB Resolution 11-28, dated September 22, 2011, adopting the 
``Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Lead Standard 
Infrastructure Requirements.''
    (2) ``Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Lead 
Standard

[[Page 18778]]

Infrastructure Requirements,'' (``2011 Pb Infrastructure SIP'').
    (467) The following plan was submitted on December 12, 2012, by the 
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved].
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
    (1) CARB Resolution 12-32, dated November 15, 2012, adopting the 
``Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal Nitrogen 
Dioxide Standard Infrastructure Requirements.''
    (2) ``Proposed State Implementation Plan Revision for Federal 
Nitrogen Dioxide Standard Infrastructure Requirements,'' (``2012 
NO2 Infrastructure SIP'').
    (468) The following plan was submitted on March 6, 2014, by the 
Governor's Designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) California Air Resources Board
    (1) California Government Code, Title 9 (Political Reform), Chapter 
2 (Definitions), Section 82048, ``Public official,'' added by 
California Initiative Measure approved on June 4, 1974, effective 
January 7, 1975, and last amended in 2004.
    (2) California Government Code, Title 9 (Political Reform), Chapter 
7 (Conflicts of Interest), Article 1 (General Prohibition), Section 
87103, ``Financial interest in decision by public official,'' added by 
California Initiative Measure approved on June 4, 1974, effective 
January 7, 1975, and last amended in 2000.
    (3) California Government Code, Title 9 (Political Reform), Chapter 
7 (Conflicts of Interest), Article 3 (Conflict of Interest Codes), 
Section 87302, ``Required provisions; exemptions,'' added by California 
Initiative Measure approved on June 4, 1974, effective January 7, 1975, 
and last amended in 1992.
    (4) Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Division 6 (Fair 
Political Practices Commission), Chapter 7 (Conflict of Interest), 
Article 1 (Conflicts of Interest; General Prohibition), Section 18700, 
``Basic Rule and Guide to Conflict of Interest Regulations'' (filed on 
December 17, 1976, effective upon filing, and last amendment filed on 
December 20, 2005, operative January 19, 2006).
    (5) Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Division 6 (Fair 
Political Practices Commission), Chapter 7 (Conflict of Interest), 
Article 1 (Conflicts of Interest; General Prohibition), Section 18701, 
``Definitions: Source of Income, Commission Income and Incentive 
Income'' (filed on January 22, 1976, effective February 21, 1976, and 
last amendment filed on December 29, 2005, operative January 28, 2006).
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
    (1) CARB Resolution 14-1, dated January 23, 2014, adopting the 
``California Infrastructure SIP.''
    (2) ``California Infrastructure SIP,'' (``2014 Multi-pollutant 
Infrastructure SIP'').
    (469) The following plan was submitted on June 2, 2014, by the 
Governor's Designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 701, ``Air Pollution Episode Plan for Particulate 
Matter,'' adopted on March 3, 2014.

0
3. Section 52.221 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  52.221  Classification of regions.

    The California plan was evaluated on the basis of the following 
classifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Pollutant
                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Air quality control region                                                                                               Photochemical
                                                              Particulate       Sulfur oxides     Nitrogen dioxide   Carbon monoxide        oxidants
                                                                 matter                                                                  (hydrocarbons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Basin Valley Intrastate............................                  I                III                III                III                III
Lake County Intrastate...................................                 II                III                III                III                III
Lake Tahoe Intrastate....................................                 II                III                III                  I                III
Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate......................                  I                III                III                  I                  I
Mountain Counties Intrastate.............................                 II                III                III                  I                  I
North Central Coast Intrastate...........................                 II                III                III                III                III
North Coast Intrastate...................................                 II                III                III                III                III
Northeast Plateau Intrastate.............................                III                III                III                III                III
Sacramento Valley Intrastate.............................                 II                III                III                  I                  I
San Diego Intrastate.....................................                 II                III                III                  I                  I
San Francisco Bay Area Intrastate........................                 II                III                III                  I                  I
San Joaquin Valley Intrastate............................                 II                III                III                  I                  I
South Central Coast Intrastate...........................                III                III                III                III                III
Southeast Desert Intrastate..............................                  I                III                III                III                  I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
4. Section 52.223 is amended by adding paragraphs (i) thru (o) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.223  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (i) 1997 ozone NAAQS: The 2007 Infrastructure SIP, submitted on 
November 16, 2007, and the 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, 
submitted on March 6, 2014, are partially disapproved for specific 
requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS for the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air 
Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air Quality Control Regions 
(AQCRs) listed in this paragraph.
    (1) San Joaquin Valley APCD (Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical 
Area (MSA), only) for section 110(a)(2)(B).
    (2) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (3) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation 
of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an 
ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere 
with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality, only), and (J).
    (4) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections

[[Page 18779]]

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to 
prevent significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), 
except for South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to 
greenhouse gases, only.
    (6) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 
(with respect to section 126(a), only).
    (7) Mountain Counties AQCR (El Dorado County, only) for section 
110(a)(2)(G).
    (j) 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 2007 Infrastructure SIP, submitted on 
November 16, 2007, and the 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, 
submitted on March 6, 2014, are partially disapproved for specific 
requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), 
Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air Quality Control 
Regions (AQCRs) listed in this paragraph.
    (1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation 
of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an 
ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere 
with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality, only), and (J).
    (3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (4) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for 
South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse 
gases, only.
    (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 
(with respect to section 126(a), only).
    (6) San Joaquin Valley Mountain Counties AQCR for section 
110(a)(2)(G).
    (k) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant 
Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, is partially 
disapproved for specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 
110(a)(2) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS for the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality 
Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) 
listed in this paragraph.
    (1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation 
of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an 
ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere 
with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality, only), and (J).
    (3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (4) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for 
South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse 
gases, only.
    (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 
(with respect to section 126(a), only).
    (6) San Joaquin Valley Mountain Counties AQCR for section 
110(a)(2)(G).
    (l) 2008 ozone NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, 
submitted on March 6, 2014, is partially disapproved for specific 
requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS for the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air 
Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), or Air Quality Control Regions 
(AQCRs) listed in this paragraph.
    (1) San Joaquin Valley APCD (Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical 
Area (MSA), only) for section 110(a)(2)(B).
    (2) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (3) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation 
of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 PSD, and NOX as an ozone 
precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere with 
measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration of air 
quality, only), and (J).
    (4) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for 
South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse 
gases, only.
    (6) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 
(with respect to section 126(a), only).
    (7) Mountain Counties AQCR (El Dorado County, only) for section 
110(a)(2)(G).
    (m) 2008 Pb NAAQS: The 2011 Pb Infrastructure SIP, submitted on 
September 22, 2011, and the 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, 
submitted on March 6, 2014, are partially disapproved for specific 
requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS 
for the Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality Management 
Districts (AQMDs), or Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed in 
this paragraph.
    (1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation 
of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an 
ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere 
with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality, only), and (J).
    (3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).

[[Page 18780]]

    (4) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for 
South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse 
gases, only.
    (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 
(with respect to section 126(a), only).
    (n) 2010 NO2 NAAQS: The 2012 NO2 Infrastructure SIP, 
submitted on November 15, 2012, and the 2014 Multi-pollutant 
Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, are partially 
disapproved for specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 
110(a)(2) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for the Air Pollution 
Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), or 
Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed in this paragraph.
    (1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation 
of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an 
ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere 
with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality, only), and (J).
    (3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (4) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for 
South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse 
gases, only.
    (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 
(with respect to section 126(a), only).
    (o) 2010 SO2 NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant 
Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, is partially 
disapproved for specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 
110(a)(2) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the Air Pollution 
Control Districts (APCDs), Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), or 
Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) listed in this paragraph.
    (1) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (2) North Coast Unified AQMD (PSD requirements for the regulation 
of PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an 
ozone precursor, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (interfere 
with measures in any other state to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality, only), and (J).
    (3) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only) for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J).
    (4) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II) (interfere with measures in any other state to prevent 
significant deterioration of air quality, only), and (J), except for 
South Coast AQMD where the Federal PSD program applies to greenhouse 
gases, only.
    (5) All areas in California that are subject to the Federal PSD 
program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270 for sections 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 
(with respect to section 126(a), only).


Sec.  52.225  [Amended]

0
5. Section 52.225 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a).

0
6. Section 52.283 is amended by adding paragraphs (c) thru (g) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.283  Interstate Transport.

* * * * *
    (c) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant 
Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, and the additional plan 
elements listed below meet the following specific requirements of Clean 
Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    (1) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 
interference with any other state's measures required under title I, 
part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant deterioration of air 
quality, except that these requirements are not fully met in the Air 
Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality Management Districts 
(AQMDs) listed in this paragraph.
    (i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only)
    (ii) North Coast APCD (PSD requirements for the regulation of 
PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an 
ozone precursor, only)
    (iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only)
    (iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD requirements for the NAAQS, only).
    (v) All other areas in California that are subject to the Federal 
PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270.
    (2) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 
interference with other states' measures to protect visibility are met 
by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress 
Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) of the ``California Regional 
Haze Plan,'' adopted January 22, 2009.
    (d) 2008 ozone NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, 
submitted on March 6, 2014, and the additional plan elements listed 
below meet the following specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    (1) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 
interference with any other state's measures required under title I, 
part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant deterioration of air 
quality, except that these requirements are not fully met in the Air 
Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality Management Districts 
(AQMDs) listed in this paragraph.
    (i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only)
    (ii) North Coast APCD (PSD requirements for the regulation of 
PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an 
ozone precursor, only)
    (iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only)
    (iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD requirements for the NAAQS, only).
    (v) All other areas in California that are subject to the Federal 
PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270.
    (2) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 
interference with other states' measures to protect visibility are met 
by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress 
Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) of the

[[Page 18781]]

``California Regional Haze Plan,'' adopted January 22, 2009.
    (e) 2008 Pb NAAQS: The 2011 Pb Infrastructure SIP, submitted on 
September 22, 2011, and the 2014 Multi-pollutant Infrastructure SIP, 
submitted on March 6, 2014, and the additional plan elements listed 
below meet the following specific requirements of Clean Air Act section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    (1) The requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding 
significant contribution to nonattainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in any 
other State and interference with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS by 
any other State.
    (2) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 
interference with any other state's measures required under title I, 
part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant deterioration of air 
quality, except that these requirements are not fully met in the Air 
Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality Management Districts 
(AQMDs) listed in this paragraph.
    (i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only)
    (ii) North Coast APCD (PSD requirements for the regulation of 
PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an 
ozone precursor, only)
    (iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only)
    (iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD requirements for the NAAQS, only).
    (v) All other areas in California that are subject to the Federal 
PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270.
    (3) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 
interference with other states' measures to protect visibility are met 
by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress 
Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) of the ``California Regional 
Haze Plan,'' adopted January 22, 2009.
    (f) 2010 NO2 NAAQS: The 2012 NO2 
Infrastructure SIP, submitted on November 15, 2012, and the 2014 Multi-
pollutant Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, and the 
additional plan elements listed below meet the following specific 
requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS.
    (1) The requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding 
significant contribution to nonattainment of the 2010 NO2 
NAAQS in any other State and interference with maintenance of the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS by any other State.
    (2) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 
interference with any other state's measures required under title I, 
part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant deterioration of air 
quality, except that these requirements are not fully met in the Air 
Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality Management Districts 
(AQMDs) listed in this paragraph.
    (i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only)
    (ii) North Coast APCD (PSD requirements for the regulation of 
PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an 
ozone precursor, only)
    (iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only)
    (iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD requirements for the NAAQS, only).
    (v) All other areas in California that are subject to the Federal 
PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270.
    (3) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 
interference with other states' measures to protect visibility are met 
by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress 
Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) of the ``California Regional 
Haze Plan,'' adopted January 22, 2009.
    (g) 2010 SO2 NAAQS: The 2014 Multi-pollutant 
Infrastructure SIP, submitted on March 6, 2014, and the additional plan 
elements listed below meet the following specific requirements of Clean 
Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    (1) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 
interference with any other state's measures required under title I, 
part C of the Clean Air Act to prevent significant deterioration of air 
quality, except that these requirements are not fully met in the Air 
Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) or Air Quality Management Districts 
(AQMDs) listed in this paragraph.
    (i) Mendocino County AQMD (PSD requirements for a baseline date for 
PM2.5 increments, only)
    (ii) North Coast APCD (PSD requirements for the regulation of 
PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, condensable 
PM2.5, PM2.5 increments, and NOX as an 
ozone precursor, only)
    (iii) Northern Sonoma County APCD (PSD requirements for a baseline 
date for PM2.5 increments, only)
    (iv) South Coast AQMD (PSD requirements for the NAAQS, only).
    (v) All other areas in California that are subject to the Federal 
PSD program as provided in 40 CFR 52.270.
    (2) The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding 
interference with other states' measures to protect visibility are met 
by chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress 
Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation) of the ``California Regional 
Haze Plan,'' adopted January 22, 2009.

[FR Doc. 2016-07323 Filed 3-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.