Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5, 46951-46953 [2017-21610]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
determinations.1 The Petition identifies
the proposed analytical method changes
filed in this docket as Proposal Nine.
II. Proposal Nine
Background. The Postal Service
proposes to change the current City
Carrier Cost System (CCCS)
methodology for estimating Delivery
Point Sequence (DPS) volume
proportions. Petition, Proposal Nine at
1. Presently, the Postal Service collects
similar mail characteristic data, such as
class and product data, for two different
systems: CCCS and Origin-Destination
Information System—Revenue, Pieces,
and Weight (ODIS–RPW). Id. at 1–2.
CCCS data are used primarily to
distribute costs to products delivered by
city letter routes. ODIS–RPW data are
used to estimate volume and revenue.
Currently, the Postal Service collects
CCCS mail characteristics data
manually. See id. at 3. In contrast, the
Postal Service collects ODIS–RPW mail
characteristics data from digitally
captured images of letter and card
shaped mail.2 The Postal Service states
that the ODIS–RPW digital sampling
method includes approximately 93
percent of CCCS sampled city letter
routes. Petition, Proposal Nine at 2.
Proposal. The Postal Service proposes
a methodology change to CCCS data
collection procedures for Delivery Point
Sequenced (DPS) mail. Id. at 1. The
Postal Service seeks to use the ODIS–
RPW digital data to enhance CCCS data
for DPS mail destined for delivery by
city letter routes. Id. at 2. The Postal
Service explains that the proposal
would eliminate the need to manually
sample 93 percent of DPS mail for CCCS
data collection purposes. Id.; see id. at
3. The Postal Service states that it would
continue to manually sample mailpieces
destined for city letter routes not
included in ODIS–RPW’s digital data
collection, approximately seven percent
of city letter routes. Id. at 3.
Rationale and impact. The Postal
Service states that the proposal would
enhance the CCCS estimation of
delivered DPS volumes. Id. The Postal
Service explains that the ‘‘automated,
systematic method of collecting images
of DPS letters and cards’’ would reduce
the risk of undetected sampling errors.
Id. Additionally, the Postal Service
notes that data collectors and their
supervisors are able to review and
1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for
the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed
Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Nine),
September 29, 2017 (Petition).
2 Id. at 2; see Docket No. RM2015–11, Order No.
2739, Order on Analytical Principles Used in
Periodic Reporting (Proposal Three), September 30,
2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:57 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
analyze the ODIS–RPW data because the
system retains the data for 30 days. Id.
at 3–4. The Postal Service also explains
that the proposal would increase the
number of DPS sampled mailpieces by
approximately 400 percent and the
number of CCCS tests by approximately
300 percent. Id. at 4.
The Postal Service discusses the
likely effects of the proposed
methodology change on product volume
distribution and unit costs. Id. at 4–5.
Based on these estimates, the Postal
Service indicates minor differences in
product volume distribution between
the current and proposed CCCS
methodologies. Id. at 4. These estimates
also indicate that using ODIS–RPW
digital data for DPS mail destined for
city letter routes would result in very
small estimated changes in unit costs or
would leave unit costs unaffected. Id. at
4–5.
III. Notice and Comment
The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2017–13 for consideration of
matters raised by the Petition. More
information on the Petition may be
accessed via the Commission’s Web site
at https://www.prc.gov. Interested
persons may submit comments on the
Petition and Proposal Nine no later than
November 21, 2017. Pursuant to 39
U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya
is designated as an officer of the
Commission (Public Representative) to
represent the interests of the general
public in this proceeding.
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2017–13 for consideration of the
matters raised by the Petition of the
United States Postal Service for the
Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider
Proposed Changes in Analytical
Principles (Proposal Nine), filed
September 29, 2017.
2. Comments by interested persons in
this proceeding are due no later than
November 21, 2017.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the
Commission appoints Lyudmila Y.
Bzhilyanskaya to serve as an officer of
the Commission (Public Representative)
to represent the interests of the general
public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Stacy L. Ruble,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–21691 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46951
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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 https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, at
tax.wienke@epa.gov. 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
46952
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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
https://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,
tax.wienke@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
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 (mg/m3) to
35 mg/m3 (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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:57 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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 SIPapproved 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.
In addition, we are proposing to
determine that these SIP submissions
correct the RFP deficiency that we
identified in our partial disapproval of
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:57 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
46953
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
E:\FR\FM\10OCP1.SGM
10OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46951-46953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Wienke
Tax, Air Planning Office, at tax.wienke@epa.gov. 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 https://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,
tax.wienke@epa.gov.
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