Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 43176-43180 [2017-19454]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43176
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16
Administrative practices and
procedures, Courts, Freedom of
Information, Privacy Act.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the
Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and
delegated to me by Attorney General
Order 2940–2008, 28 CFR part 16 is
amended as follows:
PART 16—PRODUCTION OR
DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR
INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for part 16
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553;
28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
Subpart E—Exemption of Records
Systems Under the Privacy Act
2. Add § 16.137 to subpart E to read
as follows:
■
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
§ 16.137 Exemption of the Department of
Justice Insider Threat Program Records—
limited access.
(a) The Department of Justice Insider
Threat Program Records (JUSTICE/DOJ–
018) system of records is exempted from
subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4);
(d)(1), (2), (3) and (4); (e)(1), (2) and (3);
(e)(4)(G), (H) and (I); (e)(5) and (8); (f)
and (g) of the Privacy Act. These
exemptions apply only to the extent that
information in this system is subject to
exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)
or (k). Where DOJ determines
compliance would not appear to
interfere with or adversely affect the
purpose of this system to detect, deter,
and/or mitigate insider threats, the
applicable exemption may be waived by
the DOJ in its sole discretion.
(b) Exemptions from the particular
subsections are justified for the
following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3), the
requirement that an accounting be made
available to the named subject of a
record, because this system is exempt
from the access provisions of subsection
(d). Also, because making available to a
record subject the accounting of
disclosures of records concerning him/
her would specifically reveal any
insider threat-related interest in the
individual by the DOJ or agencies that
are recipients of the disclosures.
Revealing this information could
compromise ongoing, authorized law
enforcement and intelligence efforts,
particularly efforts to identify and/or
mitigate insider threats. Revealing this
information could also permit the
record subject to obtain valuable insight
concerning the information obtained
during any investigation and to take
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Sep 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
measures to impede the investigation,
e.g., destroy evidence or flee the area to
avoid the investigation.
(2) From subsection (c)(4) notification
requirements because this system is
exempt from the access and amendment
provisions of subsection (d) as well as
the accounting of disclosures provision
of subsection (c)(3). The DOJ takes
seriously its obligation to maintain
accurate records despite its assertion of
this exemption, and to the extent it, in
its sole discretion, agrees to permit
amendment or correction of DOJ
records, it will share that information in
appropriate cases.
(3) From subsection (d)(1), (2), (3) and
(4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), (e)(8), (f) and (g)
because these provisions concern
individual access to and amendment of
law enforcement, intelligence and
counterintelligence, and
counterterrorism records, and
compliance with these provisions could
alert the subject of an authorized law
enforcement or intelligence activity
about that particular activity and the
interest of the DOJ and/or other law
enforcement or intelligence agencies.
Providing access could compromise or
lead to the compromise of information
classified to protect national security;
disclose information that would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of
another’s personal privacy; reveal a
sensitive investigative or intelligence
technique; disclose or lead to disclosure
of information that would allow a
subject to avoid detection or
apprehension; or constitute a potential
danger to the health or safety of law
enforcement personnel, confidential
sources, or witnesses.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it
is not always possible to know in
advance what information is relevant
and necessary for law enforcement and
intelligence purposes. The relevance
and utility of certain information that
may have a nexus to insider threats may
not always be fully evident until and
unless it is vetted and matched with
other information necessarily and
lawfully maintained by the DOJ.
(5) From subsection (e)(2) and (3)
because application of these provisions
could present a serious impediment to
efforts to detect, deter and/or mitigate
insider threats. Application of these
provisions would put the subject of an
investigation on notice of the
investigation and allow the subject an
opportunity to engage in conduct
intended to impede the investigative
activity or avoid apprehension.
(6) From subsection (e)(4)(I), to the
extent that this subsection is interpreted
to require more detail regarding the
record sources in this system than has
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
been published in the Federal Register.
Should the subsection be so interpreted,
exemption from this provision is
necessary to protect the sources of law
enforcement and intelligence
information and to protect the privacy
and safety of witnesses and informants
and others who provide information to
the DOJ. Further, greater specificity of
sources of properly classified records
could compromise national security.
(7) From subsection (e)(5) because in
the collection of information for
authorized law enforcement and
intelligence purposes, including efforts
to detect, deter, and/or mitigate insider
threats, due to the nature of
investigations and intelligence
collection, the DOJ often collects
information that may not be
immediately shown to be accurate,
relevant, timely, and complete, although
the DOJ takes reasonable steps to collect
only the information necessary to
support its mission and investigations.
Additionally, the information may aid
DOJ in establishing patterns of activity
and provide criminal or intelligence
leads. It could impede investigative
progress if it were necessary to assure
relevance, accuracy, timeliness and
completeness of all information
obtained throughout the course and
within the scope of an investigation.
Further, some of the records in this
system may come from other domestic
or foreign government entities, or
private entities, and it would not be
administratively feasible for the DOJ to
vouch for the compliance of these
agencies with this provision.
Dated: September 7, 2017.
Peter A. Winn,
Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties
Officer, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2017–19483 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–NW–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0259; FRL–9966–89–
Region 9]
Approval of California Air Plan
Revisions, South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve revisions to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM
14SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
or ‘‘District’’) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern emissions of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) and oxides of sulfur
(SOX) from facilities that emit four or
more tons per year of NOX or SOX,
which are regulated by SCAQMD’s
Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
(RECLAIM) program. We are approving
revisions to local rules in the SIP that
regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on October
16, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0259. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4126, Law.Nicole@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25996), the
EPA proposed to approve the following
rules into the California SIP.
Adopted/
amended/
revised
Local agency
Rule No.
Rule title
SCAQMD ..........
SCAQMD ..........
SCAQMD ..........
2001 ......................................
2002 ......................................
2005 ......................................
SCAQMD ..........
2011: Attachment C ..............
SCAQMD ..........
2011: Chapter 3 ....................
SCAQMD ..........
2012: Attachment C ..............
SCAQMD ..........
2012: Chapter 4 ....................
SCAQMD ..........
2011: Attachment E ..............
SCAQMD ..........
2012: Attachment F ..............
Applicability ...........................................................................
Allocations for NOX and SOX ...............................................
New Source Review for Regional Clean Air Incentives
Market.
Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: Quality Assurance and
Quality Control Procedures.
Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: Process Units—Periodic
Reporting and Rule 219 Equipment.
Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: Quality Assurance and
Quality Control Procedures.
Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: Process Units—Periodic
Reporting and Rule 219 Equipment.
Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: Definitions.
Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: Definitions.
We proposed to approve these rules
for SIP strengthening purposes based on
a determination that they satisfied the
applicable CAA requirements. Our
proposed action contains more
information on the rules and our
evaluation.
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
a 30-day public comment period. During
this period, we received one comment
letter dated July 6, 2017, from Adriano
Martinez of Earthjustice, on behalf of
the Sierra Club.
Several of Earthjustice’s comments
pertain to CAA requirements concerning
reasonably available control technology
(RACT). As we explained in our June 6,
2017 proposed rule, we are not
reviewing the submitted rule revisions
with respect to RACT requirements in
this action.1 Therefore, comments
1 82
FR 25996, 25998 (June 6, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Sep 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
pertaining to whether the RECLAIM
program, as revised in this action, meets
substantive RACT requirements are not
germane to this action. We note that the
commenter submitted substantially
identical comments on a separate
proposed rule published June 15, 2017,
in which the EPA proposed to
determine that the revised RECLAIM
regulations satisfy CAA requirements
for ozone RACT SIPs in the South Coast
ozone nonattainment area.2 We intend
to address Earthjustice’s comments
pertaining to RACT requirements as part
of our final action on the separate South
Coast ozone RACT SIP submission.
Below we respond only to those
comments that are germane to our June
6, 2017 proposal to approve these
revisions to the RECLAIM rules into the
California SIP.
Comment 1: Earthjustice asserts that
the revised RECLAIM program does not
properly address RECLAIM trading
2 82
PO 00000
FR 27451 (June 15, 2017).
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43177
Submitted
12/04/15
10/07/16
12/04/15
03/17/17
03/17/17
03/17/17
12/04/15
03/17/17
12/04/15
03/17/17
12/04/15
03/17/17
12/04/15
03/17/17
02/05/16
03/17/17
02/05/16
03/17/17
credits (RTCs) from facilities that have
shut down. While acknowledging that
the District has made some program
amendments to prevent shutdown
facility RTCs from flooding the
RECLAIM market, Earthjustice claims
that these amendments do not remedy
the problem of NOX credits from
facilities or equipment that shut down
prior to 2016. As an example,
Earthjustice highlights the California
Portland Cement facility, which was one
of the largest NOX emitters in the NOX
RECLAIM program until it closed down
its cement kilns, releasing 2.5 tons per
day of RTCs into the RECLAIM market.
According to Earthjustice, these RTCs
were largely purchased by oil refineries,
which used the RTCs to avoid installing
selective catalytic reduction and other
readily available NOX pollution
controls. Earthjustice contends that the
District’s failure to remove these RTCs
from the RECLAIM market is arbitrary
and capricious and that, because of this
deficiency, the NOX RECLAIM program
E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM
14SER1
43178
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
fails to satisfy both California’s Best
Available Retrofit Control Technology
(BARCT) requirement and the CAA’s
RACT requirement.
Response 1: We disagree with the
commenter’s claim that the alleged
deficiencies preclude approval of the
revised RECLAIM rules into the SIP. As
explained in our proposed rule, we have
evaluated the revised rules for
compliance with the applicable CAA
requirements for enforceability, new
source review, SIP revisions, and
economic incentive programs.3 The
commenter fails to identify any specific
issue that precludes a finding that the
revised RECLAIM regulations satisfy
these requirements.
The commenter also fails to identify
any statutory basis, other than the CAA
RACT requirement, for its argument that
the EPA cannot approve the revised
RECLAIM rules. To the extent the
commenter intended to argue that the
alleged deficiencies in the revised
RECLAIM program constitute RACT
deficiencies under the CAA, those
comments are outside the scope of this
action for the reasons stated earlier in
this preamble, and the EPA will respond
to them as part of our final action on the
SCAQMD’s separate ozone RACT SIP
submission. Comments regarding
BARCT and command-and-control
equivalence requirements under state
law also are not germane to this action,
as the CAA does not require the EPA to
determine that the revised RECLAIM
rules comply with state law BARCT
requirements before approving these SIP
revisions.
As we explained in our proposed rule
and related technical support document
(TSD), the revised RECLAIM program is
projected to achieve significant
environmental benefits compared to the
version that the EPA previously
approved into the SIP.4 For example,
under the program as previously
approved into the SIP, available RTCs
from facilities that permanently shut
down could be sold and reintroduced
back into the RECLAIM program for use
by other facilities, thereby delaying or
eliminating the need for those other
facilities to install pollution control
equipment.5 Under the revised program,
3 82
FR 25996, 25998 (June 6, 2017).
and 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 (hereafter ‘‘RECLAIM TSD’’), at
9, 10.
5 SCAQMD, Final Staff Report, Proposed
Amendments to Regulation XX—Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market, Proposed Amended Rule 2002—
Allocations for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) and
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
4 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Sep 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
the owner or operator of a NOX
RECLAIM facility that shuts down or
surrenders all operating permits for the
facility must notify the District within
30 days and reduce its future NOX RTC
allocations after adjusting the RTCs in
accordance with specific adjustment
calculations.6 The revised RECLAIM
program also lowers the NOX RTC
allocations for larger facilities 7 and
removes NOX RTCs from facilities that
exit the program.8 These revisions to the
RECLAIM program are projected to
reduce NOX emissions by 12 tons per
day by 2023.9 These program revisions
require NOX RECLAIM facilities to
reduce NOX emissions by installing
additional pollution control equipment
and thus do not interfere with the
ongoing process for ensuring that
requirements for reasonable further
progress (RFP) and attainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
are met, or interfere with any other CAA
requirement. The revisions therefore
satisfy the requirements for SIP
revisions in CAA section 110(l). Again,
we are not evaluating whether the
revised RECLAIM rules meet RACT
requirements for NOX in this action.
Earthjustice’s stated concern about
‘‘the problem of NOX credits from
facilities or equipment that shut down
prior to 2016’’ appears to be in reference
to section (i)(1) of Rule 2002, as
amended, which states that the
requirements specified in that section
are effective October 7, 2016, the date of
their adoption by the SCAQMD. As the
District explained in its staff report, the
new shutdown provisions in section (i)
of amended Rule 2002 will not be
applied retroactively to facility
shutdowns that occurred prior to the
adoption date of the amended rule.10
We do not see a basis for disapproving
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX), October 7, 2016 (hereafter
‘‘2016 RECLAIM Staff Report’’) at 3.
6 SCAQMD Rule 2002 (as amended October 7,
2016), section (i). Rule 2002, as amended, provides
limited exceptions from the requirement for
shutdown facilities to surrender RTCs, e.g., for
facilities under the same ownership. SCAQMD Rule
2002 (as amended October 7, 2016), section (i)(13).
7 SCAQMD, Draft Final Staff Report, Proposed
Amendments to Regulation XX Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market (RECLAIM) NOX RECLAIM,
December 4, 2015, at 5.
8 SCAQMD Rule 2001 (as amended December 4,
2015), section (g)(2). Rule 2001, as amended, allows
owners or operators of electric generating facilities
to exit the RECLAIM program provided the facility
meets Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or
Best Available Retrofit Control Technology
(BARCT) requirements and retires its NOX RTCs
from the RECLAIM market. Id.
9 RECLAIM TSD at 9; see also SCAQMD,
Summary Minutes of the Board of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District, December 4,
2015, at 15.
10 2016 RECLAIM Staff Report at 9.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Rule 2002 because its provisions are not
applied retroactively.
Comment 2: Citing section
110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA, Earthjustice
asserts that the EPA can approve a SIP
revision only if it determines that the
provision is not inconsistent with state
law. Earthjustice contends that the
revised RECLAIM rules violate
California law because they are not
equivalent to BARCT and are not
equivalent to command-and-control
regulations, as required by California’s
Health and Safety Code. Earthjustice
contends that the EPA therefore cannot
make the determination required in
section 110 of the Act that the approval
not interfere with compliance with state
law.
Response 2: We disagree with the
commenter’s claim that we must
determine under CAA section 110 that
a SIP revision is not inconsistent with
state law BARCT requirements, or that
the approval would not interfere with
compliance with state law BARCT
requirements, before we approve the
revision. To approve a SIP revision, the
EPA must determine that the SIP
revision is supported by necessary
assurances that the state or relevant
local or regional agency has adequate
legal authority under state and local law
to carry out its provisions and that the
agency is not prohibited by any
provision of federal or state law from
carrying out such SIP or portion
thereof.11 In addition, the EPA must not
approve any SIP revision that would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.12
Alleged inconsistency with state law
is relevant to the EPA in the context of
our SIP review if it undermines the legal
authority by the state or relevant local
or regional agency to carry out the SIP,
but alleged interference with
compliance with state law requirements
generally is not a bar to EPA approval.
The EPA evaluates compliance with
federal law (specifically, the CAA), not
state law. California Air Resources
Board (CARB) has provided the EPA
with the necessary assurances that the
District has the legal authority to carry
out the revised RECLAIM rules.13
Therefore, we find that the revised
11 CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E).
section 110(l).
13 See CARB Executive Order S–17–002 (dated
March 6, 2017) adopting the amended RECLAIM
rules as a revision to the California SIP. The
Executive Order states that the District is authorized
by California Health and Safety Code (H&SC)
section 40001 to adopt and enforce the rules
identified in Enclosure A (i.e., the amended
RECLAIM rules).
12 CAA
E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM
14SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
RECLAIM rules satisfy the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E). We
explained in Response 1, above, our
reasons for concluding that the revised
RECLAIM rules satisfy the requirements
for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l).
For the reasons provided in our
proposed rule and explained further
above, we conclude that the revised
RECLAIM regulations satisfy the
applicable CAA requirements for SIP
revisions.
III. Final Action
No comments were submitted that
change our assessment of the revised
RECLAIM rules as described in our
proposed action. Therefore, under
section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is
fully approving these revised rules into
the California SIP.
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of the
SCAQMD rules described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents
available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
V. 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 action merely
approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Sep 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
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, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable 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).
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 action
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).
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 November 13,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43179
2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action 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,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur Oxides.
Dated: August 15, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, 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)(337)(i)(C)(2)
through (7), (c)(342)(i)(C)(5),
(c)(388)(i)(A)(6), (c)(404)(i)(A)(5), and
(c)(491) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan-in part.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(337) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(2) Previously approved on August 29,
2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(4), Rule
2011: Attachment C, ‘‘Requirements for
Monitoring, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions:
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Procedures,’’ amended on December 4,
2015.
(3) Previously approved on August 29,
2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(5), Rule
2011: Chapter 3, ‘‘Requirements for
Monitoring, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions:
Process Units—Periodic Reporting and
Rule 219 Equipment,’’ amended on
December 4, 2015.
E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM
14SER1
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
43180
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
(4) Previously approved on August 29,
2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(6), Rule
2012: Attachment C, ‘‘Requirements for
Monitoring, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions:
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Procedures,’’ amended on December 4,
2015.
(5) Previously approved on August 29,
2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(7), Rule
2012: Chapter 4, ‘‘Requirements for
Monitoring, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions:
Process Units—Periodic Reporting and
Rule 219 Equipment,’’ amended on
December 4, 2015.
(6) Previously approved on August 29,
2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(8), Rule
2011: Attachment E, ‘‘Requirements for
Monitoring, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions:
Definitions,’’ amended on February 5,
2016.
(7) Previously approved on August 29,
2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(9), Rule
2012: Attachment F, ‘‘Requirements for
Monitoring, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions:
Definitions,’’ amended on February 5,
2016.
*
*
*
*
*
(342) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(5) Previously approved on August 29,
2006 in paragraph (c)(342)(i)(C)(2) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(1), Rule
2001, ‘‘Applicability,’’ amended on
December 4, 2015.
*
*
*
*
*
(388) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(6) Previously approved on August 12,
2011 in paragraph (c)(388)(i)(A)(4) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(2), Rule
2002, ‘‘Allocations for NOX & SOX,’’
amended on October 7, 2016.
*
*
*
*
*
(404) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(5) Previously approved on December
20, 2011 in paragraph (c)(404)(i)(A)(1) of
this section and now deleted with
replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(3), Rule
2005, ‘‘New Source Review for Regional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:11 Sep 13, 2017
Jkt 241001
Clean Air Incentives Market,’’ amended
on December 4, 2015.
*
*
*
*
*
(491) Amended regulations for the
following APCDs were submitted on
March 17, 2017 by the Governor’s
designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
(1) Rule 2001, ‘‘Applicability,’’
amended on December 4, 2015.
(2) Rule 2002, ‘‘Allocations for Oxides
of Nitrogen (NOX) and Oxides of Sulfur
(SOX),’’ amended on October 7, 2016.
(3) Rule 2005, ‘‘New Source Review
for RECLAIM,’’ amended on December
4, 2015.
(4) Protocol for Rule 2011:
Attachment C, ‘‘Quality Assurance and
Quality Control Procedures,’’ amended
on December 4, 2015.
(5) Protocol for Rule 2011: Chapter 3,
‘‘Process Units—Periodic Reporting,’’
amended on December 4, 2015.
(6) Protocol for Rule 2012:
Attachment C, ‘‘Quality Assurance and
Quality Control Procedures,’’ amended
on December 4, 2015.
(7) Protocol for Rule 2012: Chapter 4,
‘‘Process Units Periodic Reporting and
Rule 219 Equipment,’’ amended on
December 4, 2015.
(8) Protocol for Rule 2011:
Attachment E, ‘‘Definitions,’’ amended
on February 5, 2016.
(9) Protocol for Rule 2012:
Attachment F, ‘‘Definitions,’’ amended
on February 5, 2016.
[FR Doc. 2017–19454 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0339; FRL–9967–66–
Region 8]
Montana Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan for
Missoula
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Montana. On
September 19, 2016, the Governor of
Montana submitted to the EPA a Clean
Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) second
10-year maintenance plan for the
Missoula, Montana area for the carbon
monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Quality Standard (NAAQS). This
limited maintenance plan (LMP)
addresses maintenance of the CO
NAAQS for a second 10-year period
beyond the original redesignation. This
action is being taken under sections 110
and 175A of the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective on
November 13, 2017 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse
comment by October 16, 2017. If
adverse comment is received, the EPA
will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2017–0339 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.,) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. (303) 312–7104,
clark.adam@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to
the EPA through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information on a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to the EPA, mark the outside
E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM
14SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43176-43180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19454]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0259; FRL-9966-89-Region 9]
Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air
Quality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD
[[Page 43177]]
or ``District'') portion of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concern emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and oxides of sulfur (SOX) from facilities
that emit four or more tons per year of NOX or
SOX, which are regulated by SCAQMD's Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program. We are approving revisions to
local rules in the SIP that regulate these emission sources under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on October 16, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0259. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126, Law.Nicole@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25996), the EPA proposed to approve the
following rules into the California SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted/
Local agency Rule No. Rule title amended/ Submitted
revised
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD....................... 2001.................... Applicability.......... 12/04/15 03/17/17
SCAQMD....................... 2002.................... Allocations for NOX and 10/07/16 03/17/17
SOX.
SCAQMD....................... 2005.................... New Source Review for 12/04/15 03/17/17
Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market.
SCAQMD....................... 2011: Attachment C...... Requirements for 12/04/15 03/17/17
Monitoring, Reporting,
and Recordkeeping for
SOX Emissions: Quality
Assurance and Quality
Control Procedures.
SCAQMD....................... 2011: Chapter 3......... Requirements for 12/04/15 03/17/17
Monitoring, Reporting,
and Recordkeeping for
SOX Emissions: Process
Units--Periodic
Reporting and Rule 219
Equipment.
SCAQMD....................... 2012: Attachment C...... Requirements for 12/04/15 03/17/17
Monitoring, Reporting,
and Recordkeeping for
NOX Emissions: Quality
Assurance and Quality
Control Procedures.
SCAQMD....................... 2012: Chapter 4......... Requirements for 12/04/15 03/17/17
Monitoring, Reporting,
and Recordkeeping for
NOX Emissions: Process
Units--Periodic
Reporting and Rule 219
Equipment.
SCAQMD....................... 2011: Attachment E...... Requirements for 02/05/16 03/17/17
Monitoring, Reporting,
and Recordkeeping for
SOX Emissions:
Definitions.
SCAQMD....................... 2012: Attachment F...... Requirements for 02/05/16 03/17/17
Monitoring, Reporting,
and Recordkeeping for
NOX Emissions:
Definitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to approve these rules for SIP strengthening purposes
based on a determination that they satisfied the applicable CAA
requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the
rules and our evaluation.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received one comment letter dated July 6, 2017,
from Adriano Martinez of Earthjustice, on behalf of the Sierra Club.
Several of Earthjustice's comments pertain to CAA requirements
concerning reasonably available control technology (RACT). As we
explained in our June 6, 2017 proposed rule, we are not reviewing the
submitted rule revisions with respect to RACT requirements in this
action.\1\ Therefore, comments pertaining to whether the RECLAIM
program, as revised in this action, meets substantive RACT requirements
are not germane to this action. We note that the commenter submitted
substantially identical comments on a separate proposed rule published
June 15, 2017, in which the EPA proposed to determine that the revised
RECLAIM regulations satisfy CAA requirements for ozone RACT SIPs in the
South Coast ozone nonattainment area.\2\ We intend to address
Earthjustice's comments pertaining to RACT requirements as part of our
final action on the separate South Coast ozone RACT SIP submission.
Below we respond only to those comments that are germane to our June 6,
2017 proposal to approve these revisions to the RECLAIM rules into the
California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 82 FR 25996, 25998 (June 6, 2017).
\2\ 82 FR 27451 (June 15, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1: Earthjustice asserts that the revised RECLAIM program
does not properly address RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs) from
facilities that have shut down. While acknowledging that the District
has made some program amendments to prevent shutdown facility RTCs from
flooding the RECLAIM market, Earthjustice claims that these amendments
do not remedy the problem of NOX credits from facilities or
equipment that shut down prior to 2016. As an example, Earthjustice
highlights the California Portland Cement facility, which was one of
the largest NOX emitters in the NOX RECLAIM
program until it closed down its cement kilns, releasing 2.5 tons per
day of RTCs into the RECLAIM market. According to Earthjustice, these
RTCs were largely purchased by oil refineries, which used the RTCs to
avoid installing selective catalytic reduction and other readily
available NOX pollution controls. Earthjustice contends that
the District's failure to remove these RTCs from the RECLAIM market is
arbitrary and capricious and that, because of this deficiency, the
NOX RECLAIM program
[[Page 43178]]
fails to satisfy both California's Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology (BARCT) requirement and the CAA's RACT requirement.
Response 1: We disagree with the commenter's claim that the alleged
deficiencies preclude approval of the revised RECLAIM rules into the
SIP. As explained in our proposed rule, we have evaluated the revised
rules for compliance with the applicable CAA requirements for
enforceability, new source review, SIP revisions, and economic
incentive programs.\3\ The commenter fails to identify any specific
issue that precludes a finding that the revised RECLAIM regulations
satisfy these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 82 FR 25996, 25998 (June 6, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also fails to identify any statutory basis, other
than the CAA RACT requirement, for its argument that the EPA cannot
approve the revised RECLAIM rules. To the extent the commenter intended
to argue that the alleged deficiencies in the revised RECLAIM program
constitute RACT deficiencies under the CAA, those comments are outside
the scope of this action for the reasons stated earlier in this
preamble, and the EPA will respond to them as part of our final action
on the SCAQMD's separate ozone RACT SIP submission. Comments regarding
BARCT and command-and-control equivalence requirements under state law
also are not germane to this action, as the CAA does not require the
EPA to determine that the revised RECLAIM rules comply with state law
BARCT requirements before approving these SIP revisions.
As we explained in our proposed rule and related technical support
document (TSD), the revised RECLAIM program is projected to achieve
significant environmental benefits compared to the version that the EPA
previously approved into the SIP.\4\ For example, under the program as
previously approved into the SIP, available RTCs from facilities that
permanently shut down could be sold and reintroduced back into the
RECLAIM program for use by other facilities, thereby delaying or
eliminating the need for those other facilities to install pollution
control equipment.\5\ Under the revised program, the owner or operator
of a NOX RECLAIM facility that shuts down or surrenders all
operating permits for the facility must notify the District within 30
days and reduce its future NOX RTC allocations after
adjusting the RTCs in accordance with specific adjustment
calculations.\6\ The revised RECLAIM program also lowers the
NOX RTC allocations for larger facilities \7\ and removes
NOX RTCs from facilities that exit the program.\8\ These
revisions to the RECLAIM program are projected to reduce NOX
emissions by 12 tons per day by 2023.\9\ These program revisions
require NOX RECLAIM facilities to reduce NOX
emissions by installing additional pollution control equipment and thus
do not interfere with the ongoing process for ensuring that
requirements for reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are met, or interfere with
any other CAA requirement. The revisions therefore satisfy the
requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l). Again, we are not
evaluating whether the revised RECLAIM rules meet RACT requirements for
NOX in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. and 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
(hereafter ``RECLAIM TSD''), at 9, 10.
\5\ SCAQMD, Final Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to
Regulation XX--Regional Clean Air Incentives Market, Proposed
Amended Rule 2002--Allocations for Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) and Oxides of Sulfur (SOX), October 7,
2016 (hereafter ``2016 RECLAIM Staff Report'') at 3.
\6\ SCAQMD Rule 2002 (as amended October 7, 2016), section (i).
Rule 2002, as amended, provides limited exceptions from the
requirement for shutdown facilities to surrender RTCs, e.g., for
facilities under the same ownership. SCAQMD Rule 2002 (as amended
October 7, 2016), section (i)(13).
\7\ SCAQMD, Draft Final Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to
Regulation XX Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM)
NOX RECLAIM, December 4, 2015, at 5.
\8\ SCAQMD Rule 2001 (as amended December 4, 2015), section
(g)(2). Rule 2001, as amended, allows owners or operators of
electric generating facilities to exit the RECLAIM program provided
the facility meets Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or Best
Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) requirements and
retires its NOX RTCs from the RECLAIM market. Id.
\9\ RECLAIM TSD at 9; see also SCAQMD, Summary Minutes of the
Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, December
4, 2015, at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earthjustice's stated concern about ``the problem of NOX
credits from facilities or equipment that shut down prior to 2016''
appears to be in reference to section (i)(1) of Rule 2002, as amended,
which states that the requirements specified in that section are
effective October 7, 2016, the date of their adoption by the SCAQMD. As
the District explained in its staff report, the new shutdown provisions
in section (i) of amended Rule 2002 will not be applied retroactively
to facility shutdowns that occurred prior to the adoption date of the
amended rule.\10\ We do not see a basis for disapproving Rule 2002
because its provisions are not applied retroactively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 2016 RECLAIM Staff Report at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: Citing section 110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA, Earthjustice
asserts that the EPA can approve a SIP revision only if it determines
that the provision is not inconsistent with state law. Earthjustice
contends that the revised RECLAIM rules violate California law because
they are not equivalent to BARCT and are not equivalent to command-and-
control regulations, as required by California's Health and Safety
Code. Earthjustice contends that the EPA therefore cannot make the
determination required in section 110 of the Act that the approval not
interfere with compliance with state law.
Response 2: We disagree with the commenter's claim that we must
determine under CAA section 110 that a SIP revision is not inconsistent
with state law BARCT requirements, or that the approval would not
interfere with compliance with state law BARCT requirements, before we
approve the revision. To approve a SIP revision, the EPA must determine
that the SIP revision is supported by necessary assurances that the
state or relevant local or regional agency has adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out its provisions and that the
agency is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from
carrying out such SIP or portion thereof.\11\ In addition, the EPA must
not approve any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(E).
\12\ CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alleged inconsistency with state law is relevant to the EPA in the
context of our SIP review if it undermines the legal authority by the
state or relevant local or regional agency to carry out the SIP, but
alleged interference with compliance with state law requirements
generally is not a bar to EPA approval. The EPA evaluates compliance
with federal law (specifically, the CAA), not state law. California Air
Resources Board (CARB) has provided the EPA with the necessary
assurances that the District has the legal authority to carry out the
revised RECLAIM rules.\13\ Therefore, we find that the revised
[[Page 43179]]
RECLAIM rules satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E). We
explained in Response 1, above, our reasons for concluding that the
revised RECLAIM rules satisfy the requirements for SIP revisions in CAA
section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See CARB Executive Order S-17-002 (dated March 6, 2017)
adopting the amended RECLAIM rules as a revision to the California
SIP. The Executive Order states that the District is authorized by
California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) section 40001 to adopt and
enforce the rules identified in Enclosure A (i.e., the amended
RECLAIM rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons provided in our proposed rule and explained further
above, we conclude that the revised RECLAIM regulations satisfy the
applicable CAA requirements for SIP revisions.
III. Final Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the
revised RECLAIM rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore,
under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving these
revised rules into the California SIP.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
SCAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
V. 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 action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable 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).
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 action 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).
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 November 13, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
Oxides.
Dated: August 15, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, 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)(337)(i)(C)(2)
through (7), (c)(342)(i)(C)(5), (c)(388)(i)(A)(6), (c)(404)(i)(A)(5),
and (c)(491) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan-in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(337) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(2) Previously approved on August 29, 2006, in paragraph
(c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(491)(i)(A)(4), Rule 2011: Attachment C, ``Requirements for
Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions:
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures,'' amended on December
4, 2015.
(3) Previously approved on August 29, 2006, in paragraph
(c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(491)(i)(A)(5), Rule 2011: Chapter 3, ``Requirements for Monitoring,
Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: Process
Units--Periodic Reporting and Rule 219 Equipment,'' amended on December
4, 2015.
[[Page 43180]]
(4) Previously approved on August 29, 2006, in paragraph
(c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(491)(i)(A)(6), Rule 2012: Attachment C, ``Requirements for
Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions:
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures,'' amended on December
4, 2015.
(5) Previously approved on August 29, 2006, in paragraph
(c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(491)(i)(A)(7), Rule 2012: Chapter 4, ``Requirements for Monitoring,
Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: Process
Units--Periodic Reporting and Rule 219 Equipment,'' amended on December
4, 2015.
(6) Previously approved on August 29, 2006, in paragraph
(c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(491)(i)(A)(8), Rule 2011: Attachment E, ``Requirements for
Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions:
Definitions,'' amended on February 5, 2016.
(7) Previously approved on August 29, 2006, in paragraph
(c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(491)(i)(A)(9), Rule 2012: Attachment F, ``Requirements for
Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions:
Definitions,'' amended on February 5, 2016.
* * * * *
(342) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(5) Previously approved on August 29, 2006 in paragraph
(c)(342)(i)(C)(2) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(491)(i)(A)(1), Rule 2001, ``Applicability,'' amended on December 4,
2015.
* * * * *
(388) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(6) Previously approved on August 12, 2011 in paragraph
(c)(388)(i)(A)(4) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(491)(i)(A)(2), Rule 2002, ``Allocations for NOX &
SOX,'' amended on October 7, 2016.
* * * * *
(404) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(5) Previously approved on December 20, 2011 in paragraph
(c)(404)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(491)(i)(A)(3), Rule 2005, ``New Source Review for Regional Clean
Air Incentives Market,'' amended on December 4, 2015.
* * * * *
(491) Amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on
March 17, 2017 by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(1) Rule 2001, ``Applicability,'' amended on December 4, 2015.
(2) Rule 2002, ``Allocations for Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) and Oxides of Sulfur (SOX),'' amended on
October 7, 2016.
(3) Rule 2005, ``New Source Review for RECLAIM,'' amended on
December 4, 2015.
(4) Protocol for Rule 2011: Attachment C, ``Quality Assurance and
Quality Control Procedures,'' amended on December 4, 2015.
(5) Protocol for Rule 2011: Chapter 3, ``Process Units--Periodic
Reporting,'' amended on December 4, 2015.
(6) Protocol for Rule 2012: Attachment C, ``Quality Assurance and
Quality Control Procedures,'' amended on December 4, 2015.
(7) Protocol for Rule 2012: Chapter 4, ``Process Units Periodic
Reporting and Rule 219 Equipment,'' amended on December 4, 2015.
(8) Protocol for Rule 2011: Attachment E, ``Definitions,'' amended
on February 5, 2016.
(9) Protocol for Rule 2012: Attachment F, ``Definitions,'' amended
on February 5, 2016.
[FR Doc. 2017-19454 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
