82 FR 46951 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 194 (October 10, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 194 (October 10, 2017)
| Page Range | 46951-46953 | |
| FR Document | 2017-21610 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 46951-46953] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-21610] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204; FRL-9969-02--Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 Standards; Correction of Deficiency AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve California's Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology and Reasonable Further Progress demonstrations for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the Los Angeles-South Coast nonattainment area and to determine that the State has corrected the deficiency that formed the basis for the prior partial disapproval of the Moderate Area Plan submitted for these NAAQS. The proposed determination is based on the EPA's final approval of revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program and 2016 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration. If today's action is finalized as proposed, the sanctions clocks triggered by the partial disapproval will be terminated. DATES: Any comments must arrive by November 9, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09- OAR-2015-0204 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, at [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not [[Page 46952]] consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR- 2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4192, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. Background II. Proposed Action III. Request for Public Comment IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 , particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less or ``fine particles,'' to provide increased protection of public health by lowering its level from 65 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ (40 CFR 50.13). Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children (78 FR 3086 at 3088, January 15, 2013). Fine particles can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical reactions among precursor pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia. Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (``South Coast'') as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [micro]g/m3 (74 FR 58688). This designation became effective on December 14, 2009 (40 CFR 81.305). The South Coast nonattainment area is also designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's proposed action addresses only requirements for the 2006 24- hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area. On February 13, 2013 and March 4, 2015, California submitted SIP revisions to address planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area. We refer to these submissions collectively as the ``2012 PM2.5 Plan'' or ``Plan.'' On April 14, 2016, we finalized a partial approval and partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan (81 FR 22025). Our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan was based on deficiencies in the Plan with respect to the Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACM/RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements. Specifically, we found that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan failed to satisfy the RACM/ RACT requirement in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) because it did not provide a demonstration that the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD or ``District'') nitrogen oxides (NOX) RECLAIM program ensures that the level of NOX emissions reductions resulting from the RECLAIM program is equivalent, in the aggregate, to those NOX emissions reductions expected from the direct application of RACT on all covered sources within the South Coast nonattainment area. We also found that the Plan failed to meet the requirement for RFP in CAA section 172(c)(2) because the deficiency with respect to RACM/RACT also meant that the State was not implementing all RACM/RACT as expeditiously as practicable. We noted in our final action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan that the State could remedy these deficiencies by submitting revisions to the NOX RECLAIM program together with documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the revised program ensures, in the aggregate, NOX emission reductions equivalent to RACT- level controls for all covered facilities (81 FR at 22028, 22029). Our April 14, 2016 partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan became effective on May 16, 2016, and started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after May 16, 2016, and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to CAA section 179 and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. Accordingly, offset sanctions will apply on November 16, 2017, and highway sanctions will apply on May 16, 2018, unless the EPA determines that the State has corrected the deficiency forming the basis of the disapproval. On March 17, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted a SIP revision consisting of a series of amendments to the SCAQMD's NOX RECLAIM program. The submittal was intended to strengthen the program and correct the deficiencies identified in both the EPA's partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan (81 FR 22025, April 14, 2016) and in the EPA's separate proposal to partially disapprove the SCAQMD's ``2016 AQMP Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration'' (``2016 AQMP RACT SIP'') (81 FR 76547, November 3, 2016). Additionally, on May 22, 2017, CARB submitted the District's public draft version of the ``Supplemental RACM/RACT Analysis for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standards'' (``2017 RACT Supplement'') to address these same deficiencies. On June 6, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted NOX RECLAIM program amendments as satisfying general CAA requirements for SIP revisions (82 FR 25996). The EPA finalized this action on September 14, 2017 (82 FR 43176). On June 15, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and the 2017 RACT Supplement as satisfying the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182(b) and (f) and 40 CFR 51.1112 for the South Coast and Coachella Valley nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (82 FR 27451). The EPA finalized this action on September 20, 2017 (82 FR 43850).\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ CARB submitted the final ``Supplemental RACM/RACT Analysis for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standards'' (``2017 RACT Supplement'') on July 27, 2017. See letter dated July 27, 2017, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Proposed Action We are proposing to determine that the RECLAIM program amendments submitted by CARB on March 17, 2017, and the 2017 RACT Supplement submitted by CARB on May 22, 2017, together correct the deficiency in the RACM/RACT element of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan that had provided the basis for the EPA's prior partial disapproval of the Plan. As explained in our June 6, 2017 proposed action on the RECLAIM program amendments, the revised program lowers the NOX emission cap in the RECLAIM program and establishes requirements for removing RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs) from [[Page 46953]] the trading market to prevent NOX RTCs associated with facilities that have shut down from entering the RECLAIM market and potentially delaying the installation of pollution controls at other facilities (82 FR 25996, 25998, June 6, 2017). These revisions to the RECLAIM program strengthen the SIP by requiring major NOX emission sources covered by the program to collectively achieve additional emission reductions,\2\ and were fully approved into the California SIP on September 14, 2017 (see 82 FR 43176). Additionally, as explained in our June 15, 2017 proposed action on the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and 2017 RACT Supplement, the 2017 RACT Supplement contains the District's demonstration of how the SIP-approved RECLAIM program has achieved and continues to achieve, in the aggregate, RACT level of control for major NOX sources in the South Coast (82 FR at 27454-27455, June 15, 2017).\3\ As part of our September 20, 2017 final approval of the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and 2017 RACT Supplement, we concluded that major NOX sources covered by the RECLAIM program are now subject to RACT level control requirements (82 FR 43850, 43856). Implementation of RACT-level control requirements at major NOX sources covered by the RECLAIM program satisfies the RACM/RACT requirement in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) for these sources. We propose to determine that these SIP submissions correct the RACM/RACT deficiency that we identified in our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and to approve the RACM/ RACT demonstration in the Plan, as revised. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The revisions to the RECLAIM program are projected to reduce NOX emissions by 12 tons per day by 2023. See SCAQMD, Summary Minutes of the Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, December 4, 2015, at 15; see also U.S. EPA, Region IX Air Division, ``Technical Support Document for EPA's Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District Regional Clean Air Incentives Market Program Rules,'' May 2017, at 9, 10. \3\ For more information on our evaluation of the RECLAIM program in accordance with CAA RACT requirements, see the Technical Support Document accompanying our June 15, 2017 proposed rule (82 FR 27451) and our responses to comments on that proposal (82 FR 43856, September 20, 2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, we are proposing to determine that these SIP submissions correct the RFP deficiency that we identified in our partial disapproval of the Plan. Our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for failure to satisfy the RFP requirement in CAA section 172(c)(2) was predicated on our disapproval of the Plan with respect to the RACM/RACT requirement (81 FR at 22028, April 14, 2016). The Plan, as revised, demonstrates that the State is now implementing RACM/RACT for NOX from covered sources in the South Coast nonattainment area. Therefore, based on our proposal to determine that the State has corrected the RACM/RACT deficiency, we also propose to determine that the State has corrected the RFP deficiency that we identified in our partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and to approve the RFP demonstration in the Plan, as revised. If finalized as proposed, these determinations will permanently stop the sanctions clocks triggered by our April 14, 2016 partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. III. Request for Public Comment We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this preamble. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: September 26, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2017-21610 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46951
determinations.1 The Petition identifies analyze the ODIS–RPW data because the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
the proposed analytical method changes system retains the data for 30 days. Id. AGENCY
filed in this docket as Proposal Nine. at 3–4. The Postal Service also explains
that the proposal would increase the 40 CFR Part 52
II. Proposal Nine
number of DPS sampled mailpieces by [EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0204; FRL–9969–
Background. The Postal Service approximately 400 percent and the 02—Region 9]
proposes to change the current City number of CCCS tests by approximately
Carrier Cost System (CCCS) 300 percent. Id. at 4. Approval and Promulgation of
methodology for estimating Delivery The Postal Service discusses the Implementation Plans; California;
Point Sequence (DPS) volume likely effects of the proposed South Coast Moderate Area Plan for
proportions. Petition, Proposal Nine at methodology change on product volume the 2006 PM2.5 Standards; Correction
1. Presently, the Postal Service collects distribution and unit costs. Id. at 4–5. of Deficiency
similar mail characteristic data, such as Based on these estimates, the Postal
class and product data, for two different AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Service indicates minor differences in Agency (EPA).
systems: CCCS and Origin-Destination product volume distribution between
Information System—Revenue, Pieces, ACTION: Proposed rule.
the current and proposed CCCS
and Weight (ODIS–RPW). Id. at 1–2. methodologies. Id. at 4. These estimates SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
CCCS data are used primarily to also indicate that using ODIS–RPW Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
distribute costs to products delivered by digital data for DPS mail destined for California’s Reasonably Available
city letter routes. ODIS–RPW data are city letter routes would result in very Control Measures/Reasonably Available
used to estimate volume and revenue. small estimated changes in unit costs or Control Technology and Reasonable
Currently, the Postal Service collects would leave unit costs unaffected. Id. at Further Progress demonstrations for the
CCCS mail characteristics data 4–5. 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
manually. See id. at 3. In contrast, the (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Postal Service collects ODIS–RPW mail III. Notice and Comment
Standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) in
characteristics data from digitally The Commission establishes Docket the Los Angeles–South Coast
captured images of letter and card No. RM2017–13 for consideration of nonattainment area and to determine
shaped mail.2 The Postal Service states matters raised by the Petition. More that the State has corrected the
that the ODIS–RPW digital sampling information on the Petition may be deficiency that formed the basis for the
method includes approximately 93 accessed via the Commission’s Web site prior partial disapproval of the
percent of CCCS sampled city letter at http://www.prc.gov. Interested Moderate Area Plan submitted for these
routes. Petition, Proposal Nine at 2. persons may submit comments on the NAAQS. The proposed determination is
Proposal. The Postal Service proposes based on the EPA’s final approval of
Petition and Proposal Nine no later than
a methodology change to CCCS data revisions to the South Coast Air Quality
November 21, 2017. Pursuant to 39
collection procedures for Delivery Point Management District’s Regional Clean
U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya
Sequenced (DPS) mail. Id. at 1. The Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM)
is designated as an officer of the
Postal Service seeks to use the ODIS– program and 2016 Reasonably Available
Commission (Public Representative) to
RPW digital data to enhance CCCS data Control Technology (RACT)
represent the interests of the general
for DPS mail destined for delivery by Demonstration. If today’s action is
public in this proceeding.
city letter routes. Id. at 2. The Postal finalized as proposed, the sanctions
Service explains that the proposal IV. Ordering Paragraphs clocks triggered by the partial
would eliminate the need to manually disapproval will be terminated.
It is ordered:
sample 93 percent of DPS mail for CCCS
1. The Commission establishes Docket DATES: Any comments must arrive by
data collection purposes. Id.; see id. at
No. RM2017–13 for consideration of the November 9, 2017.
3. The Postal Service states that it would
continue to manually sample mailpieces matters raised by the Petition of the ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
destined for city letter routes not United States Postal Service for the identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
included in ODIS–RPW’s digital data Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider OAR–2015–0204 at http://
collection, approximately seven percent Proposed Changes in Analytical www.regulations.gov, or via email to
of city letter routes. Id. at 3. Principles (Proposal Nine), filed Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, at
Rationale and impact. The Postal September 29, 2017. tax.wienke@epa.gov. For comments
Service states that the proposal would 2. Comments by interested persons in submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
enhance the CCCS estimation of this proceeding are due no later than online instructions for submitting
delivered DPS volumes. Id. The Postal November 21, 2017. comments. Once submitted, comments
Service explains that the ‘‘automated, 3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the cannot be removed or edited from
systematic method of collecting images Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Regulations.gov. For either manner of
of DPS letters and cards’’ would reduce Bzhilyanskaya to serve as an officer of submission, the EPA may publish any
the risk of undetected sampling errors. the Commission (Public Representative) comment received to its public docket.
Id. Additionally, the Postal Service to represent the interests of the general Do not submit electronically any
notes that data collectors and their public in this docket. information you consider to be
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
supervisors are able to review and 4. The Secretary shall arrange for Confidential Business Information (CBI)
publication of this order in the Federal or other information whose disclosure is
1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for Register. restricted by statute. Multimedia
the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Nine), By the Commission. accompanied by a written comment.
September 29, 2017 (Petition). Stacy L. Ruble, The written comment is considered the
2 Id. at 2; see Docket No. RM2015–11, Order No.
Secretary. official comment and should include
2739, Order on Analytical Principles Used in
Periodic Reporting (Proposal Three), September 30, [FR Doc. 2017–21691 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am] discussion of all points you wish to
2015. BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P make. The EPA will generally not
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:57 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM 10OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47145/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46953
the trading market to prevent NOX RTCs the Plan. Our partial disapproval of the substantial number of small entities
associated with facilities that have shut 2012 PM2.5 Plan for failure to satisfy the under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
down from entering the RECLAIM RFP requirement in CAA section U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
market and potentially delaying the 172(c)(2) was predicated on our • Does not contain any unfunded
installation of pollution controls at disapproval of the Plan with respect to mandate or significantly or uniquely
other facilities (82 FR 25996, 25998, the RACM/RACT requirement (81 FR at affect small governments, as described
June 6, 2017). These revisions to the 22028, April 14, 2016). The Plan, as in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
RECLAIM program strengthen the SIP revised, demonstrates that the State is of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
by requiring major NOX emission now implementing RACM/RACT for • Does not have Federalism
sources covered by the program to NOX from covered sources in the South implications as specified in Executive
collectively achieve additional emission Coast nonattainment area. Therefore, Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
reductions,2 and were fully approved based on our proposal to determine that 1999);
into the California SIP on September 14, the State has corrected the RACM/RACT • Is not an economically significant
2017 (see 82 FR 43176). Additionally, as deficiency, we also propose to regulatory action based on health or
explained in our June 15, 2017 proposed determine that the State has corrected safety risks subject to Executive Order
action on the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP the RFP deficiency that we identified in 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
and 2017 RACT Supplement, the 2017 our partial disapproval of the 2012 • Is not a significant regulatory action
RACT Supplement contains the PM2.5 Plan and to approve the RFP subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
District’s demonstration of how the SIP- demonstration in the Plan, as revised. 28355, May 22, 2001);
approved RECLAIM program has If finalized as proposed, these
achieved and continues to achieve, in • Is not subject to requirements of
determinations will permanently stop section 12(d) of the National
the aggregate, RACT level of control for the sanctions clocks triggered by our
major NOX sources in the South Coast Technology Transfer and Advancement
April 14, 2016 partial disapproval of the Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
(82 FR at 27454–27455, June 15, 2017).3 2012 PM2.5 Plan.
As part of our September 20, 2017 final application of those requirements would
approval of the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP III. Request for Public Comment be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and 2017 RACT Supplement, we We will accept comments from the and
concluded that major NOX sources public on this proposal for the next 30 • Does not provide the EPA with the
covered by the RECLAIM program are days. The deadline and instructions for discretionary authority to address
now subject to RACT level control submission of comments are provided disproportionate human health or
requirements (82 FR 43850, 43856). in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at environmental effects with practical,
Implementation of RACT-level control the beginning of this preamble. appropriate, and legally permissible
requirements at major NOX sources methods under Executive Order 12898
covered by the RECLAIM program IV. Statutory and Executive Order (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
satisfies the RACM/RACT requirement Reviews In addition, the SIP is not approved
in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and Under the Clean Air Act, the to apply on any Indian reservation land
189(a)(1)(C) for these sources. We Administrator is required to approve a or in any other area where the EPA or
propose to determine that these SIP SIP submission that complies with the an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
submissions correct the RACM/RACT provisions of the Act and applicable tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
deficiency that we identified in our federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); Indian country, the rule does not have
partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP tribal implications and will not impose
Plan and to approve the RACM/RACT submissions, the EPA’s role is to substantial direct costs on tribal
demonstration in the Plan, as revised. approve state choices, provided that governments or preempt tribal law as
In addition, we are proposing to they meet the criteria of the Clean Air specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
determine that these SIP submissions Act. Accordingly, this proposed action FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
correct the RFP deficiency that we merely proposes to approve state law as List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
identified in our partial disapproval of meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements Environmental protection, Air
2 The revisions to the RECLAIM program are beyond those imposed by state law. For pollution control, Ammonia,
projected to reduce NOX emissions by 12 tons per that reason, this proposed action: Incorporation by reference,
day by 2023. See SCAQMD, Summary Minutes of
the Board of the South Coast Air Quality
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
Management District, December 4, 2015, at 15; see action’’ subject to review by the Office dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
also U.S. EPA, Region IX Air Division, ‘‘Technical of Management and Budget under Reporting and recordkeeping
Support Document for EPA’s Rulemaking for the Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
California State Implementation Plan, South Coast organic compounds.
Air Quality Management District Regional Clean Air
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
Incentives Market Program Rules,’’ May 2017, at 9, January 21, 2011); Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
10. • Does not impose an information
Dated: September 26, 2017.
3 For more information on our evaluation of the
collection burden under the provisions
RECLAIM program in accordance with CAA RACT of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Alexis Strauss,
requirements, see the Technical Support Document Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
accompanying our June 15, 2017 proposed rule (82 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
FR 27451) and our responses to comments on that • Is certified as not having a [FR Doc. 2017–21610 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am]
proposal (82 FR 43856, September 20, 2017). significant economic impact on a BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:57 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM 10OCP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47145/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-10-07 10:32:02
Document Modified: 2017-10-07 10:32:02
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Any comments must arrive by November 9, 2017. | |
| Contact | Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR- 2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4192, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 46951 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Ammonia; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR