Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 64771 

PART 220—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 220 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. 1095(f), 

1097b(b) and 1079b. 

■ 2. Amend § 220.8 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1), (5), 

(f)(2), (5) and (6), 

■ b. Adding new paragraph (f)(8); and 

■ c. Removing in paragraph (d) the 

wording ‘‘inpatient hospital care’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘care.’’ 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 220.8 Reasonable charges. 

* * * * * 

(b) Inpatient institutional and 

professional services on or after October 

1, 2017. Reasonable charges for 

inpatient institutional services provided 

on or after October 1, 2017, are based on 

either of two methods as determined by 

the ASD(HA). The first uses the 

CHAMPUS Diagnosis Related Group 

(DRG) payment system rates under 32 

CFR 199.14(a)(1). Certain adjustments 

are made to reflect differences between 

the CHAMPUS payment system and 

MHS billing solutions. Among these are 

to include in the inpatient hospital 

service charges adjustments related to 

direct medical education and capital 

costs (which in the CHAMPUS system 

are handled as annual pass through 

payments). Additional adjustments are 

made for long stay outlier cases. The 

second method uses Itemized Resource 

Utilization (IRU) rates based on the cost 

to provide inpatient institutional 

resources. Like the CHAMPUS system, 

inpatient professional services are not 

included in the inpatient institutional 

services charges calculated under either 

methodology, but are billed separately 

in accordance with paragraph (e) of this 

section. In lieu of either method 

described in this paragraph (b), the 

method in effect prior to April 1, 2003 

(described in paragraph (c) of this 

section), may continue to be used for a 

period of time after April 1, 2003, if the 

ASD(HA) determines that effective 

implementation requires a temporary 

deferral. 

(c) Inpatient institutional and 

inpatient professional services before 

April 1, 2003. (1) In general. Prior to 

April 1, 2003, the computation of 

reasonable charges for inpatient 

institutional and professional services is 

reasonable costs based on diagnosis 

related groups (DRGs). Costs shall be 

based on the inpatient full 

reimbursement rate per hospital 

discharge, weighted to reflect the 

intensity of the principal diagnosis 

involved. The average charge per case 

shall be published annually as an 

inpatient standardized amount. A 

relative weight for each DRG shall be 

the same as the DRG weights published 

annually for hospital reimbursement 

rates under CHAMPUS pursuant to 32 

CFR 199.14(a)(1). The method in effect 

prior to April 1, 2003 (as described in 

this paragraph (c)), may continue to be 

used for a period of time after April 1, 

2003, if the ASD(HA) determines that 

effective implementation requires a 

temporary deferral of the method 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(5) Identification of professional and 

institutional charges. For purposes of 

billing third party payers other than 

automobile liability and no-fault 

insurance carriers, inpatient billings are 

subdivided into two categories: 

(i) Institutional charges (which refer 

to routine service charges associated 

with the facility encounter or hospital 

stay and ancillary charges). 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) With respect to inpatient 

institutional charges in the Burn Center 

at Brooke Army Medical Center, the 

ASD(HA) may establish an adjustment 

to the rate otherwise applicable under 

the payment methodologies under this 

section to reflect unique attributes of the 

Burn Center. 

* * * * * 

(5) The charge for immunizations, 

allergin extracts, allergic condition tests, 

and the administration of certain 

medications when these services are 

provided by or through a facility of the 

Uniformed Services or a separate 

immunizations or shot clinic, are based 

either on CHAMPUS prevailing rates or 

on IRU rates based on the cost to 

provide these items, exclusive of any 

costs considered for purposes of any 

outpatient visit. A separate charge shall 

be made for each immunization, 

injection or medication administered. 

(6) The charges for pharmacy, durable 

medical equipment and supply 

resources are based either on 

CHAMPUS prevailing rates or on IRU 

rates based on the cost to provide these 

items, exclusive of any costs considered 

for purposes of any outpatient visit. A 

separate charge shall be made for each 

item provided. 

* * * * * 

(8) Ambulatory (outpatient) 

institutional services on or after October 

1, 2017. Reasonable charges for 

institutional facility charges for 

ambulatory services provided on or after 

October 1, 2017, are based on any of 

three methods as determined by the 

ASD(HA). The first uses the CHAMPUS 

Ambulatory Payment Classification 

(APC) and Ambulatory Surgery Center 

(ASC) payment system rates under 32 

CFR 199.14(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) and 32 CFR 

199.14(d) respectively. The second uses 

a bundled MHS Ambulatory Procedure 

Visit (APV) payment system rate charge 

reflected by the average cost of 

providing an APV exclusive of 

professional services. The third method 

uses IRU rates based on the cost to 

provide ambulatory institutional 

resources. Like the CHAMPUS system, 

ambulatory professional services are not 

included in the ambulatory institutional 

facility charges calculated under any of 

the three methodologies, but are billed 

separately in accordance with paragraph 

(e) of this section. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 11, 2018. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27186 Filed 12–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2018–1065] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, Dare 

County, NC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish a temporary safety zone on 

the navigable waters of Oregon Inlet in 

Dare County, North Carolina in support 

of demolition of the old Herbert C. 

Bonner Bridge. This temporary safety 

zone is intended to protect mariners, 

vessels, and demolition crews from the 

hazards associated with demolishing the 

old bridge, and will restrict vessel traffic 

on portions of Oregon Inlet near active 

demolition work and demolition 

equipment. This proposed rulemaking 

would prohibit vessels or persons from 

being in the safety zone. We invite your 

comments on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before January 17, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
64772 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

2018–1065 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, contact Petty Officer 

Matthew Tyson, Waterways 

Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard 

Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC; 

telephone: (910) 772–2221, email: 

Matthew.I.Tyson@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

COTP Captain of the Port 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On November 26, 2018, the North 

Carolina Department of Transportation 

provided the Coast Guard with details 

concerning the demolition of the old 

Herbert C. Bonner Bridge from February 

1, 2019 through February 29, 2020. 

Demolition will not follow a set 

schedule due to sea conditions, 

equipment needs, and vessel navigation 

considerations. In addition, demolition 

will take place in two locations at once 

due to equipment types and demolition 

methods. A moving safety zone is 

proposed in Oregon Inlet within 100 

yards of active demolition work and 

demolition equipment. Demolition work 

will take place at various points along 

the old Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, which 

follows a line beginning at approximate 

position 35°46′47′′ N, 75°32′41′′ W, then 

southeast to 35°46′37′′ N, 75°32′33′′ W, 

then southeast to 35°46′09′′ N, 75°31′59′′ 

W, then southeast to 35°46′03′′ N, 

75°31′51′′ W, then southeast to 

35°46′01′′ N, 75°31′40′′ W. (NAD 1983) 

in Dare County, North Carolina. The 

Captain of the Port (COTP) North 

Carolina has determined that potential 

safety hazards associated with the 

demolition would be a concern for 

anyone transiting through Oregon Inlet. 

The purpose of this rule is to protect 

persons, vessels, and the marine 

environment on the navigable waters in 

Oregon Inlet during the demolition of 

the old Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. The 

Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking 

under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP proposes to establish a 

moving safety zone to be enforced 

during active demolition work from 

February 1, 2019 through February 29, 

2020. Demolition will not follow a set 

schedule due to sea conditions, 

equipment needs, and vessel navigation 

considerations. In addition, demolition 

will take place in two locations at once 

due to equipment types and demolition 

methods. When the safety zone is active, 

the exact times will be announced via 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners at least 48 

hours prior to enforcement. The moving 

safety zone will include all navigable 

waters within 100 yards of active 

demolition work and demolition 

equipment in Oregon Inlet along the old 

Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, which follows 

a line beginning at approximate position 

35°46′47′′ N, 75°32′41′′ W, then 

southeast to 35°46′37′′ N, 75°32′33′′ W, 

then southeast to 35°46′09′′ N, 75°31′59′′ 

W, then southeast to 35°46′03′′ N, 

75°31′51′′ W, then southeast to 

35°46′01′′ N, 75°31′40′′ W. (NAD 1983). 

This zone is intended to protect 

persons, vessels, and the marine 

environment on the navigable waters in 

Oregon Inlet during the demolition of 

the old Herbert C. Bonner Bridge. No 

vessel or person will be permitted to 

enter the safety zone during the 

designated times. There will be 

alternative navigation options for vessel 

traffic when a moving safety zone covers 

all or part of the navigation channel. 

The regulatory text we are proposing 

appears at the end of this document. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Executive Order 13771 directs agencies 

to control regulatory costs through a 

budgeting process. This NPRM has not 

been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ under Executive 

Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size, location, and 

duration of the proposed safety zone. 

Vessel traffic will not be allowed to 

enter or transit portions of Oregon Inlet 

during active demolition work from 

February 1, 2019 through February 29, 

2020. The specific enforcement times 

for active demolition work will be 

broadcast at least 48 hours in advance 

and vessels will be able to transit 

Oregon Inlet at all other times. The 

Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to 

Mariners and transmit a Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners via VHF–FM marine 

channel 16 regarding the safety zone. 

There will be alternative navigation 

options for vessel traffic when a moving 

safety zone covers all or part of the 

navigation channel. Vessel traffic in this 

portion of Oregon Inlet will fluctuate 

between high, medium, and low 

depending on the time of the year. This 

rule does not allow vessels to request 

permission to enter the moving safety 

zone covering the active demolition 

areas within Oregon Inlet during the 

designated times. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the safety 

zone may be small entities, for the 

reasons stated in section IV.A above, 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on any 

vessel owner or operator. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 64773 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would not call for 

a new collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and have determined that it is 

consistent with the fundamental 

federalism principles and preemption 

requirements described in Executive 

Order 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

If you believe this proposed rule has 

implications for federalism or Indian 

tribes, please contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This proposed rule 

involves a 100-yard radius moving 

safety zone lasting from February 1, 

2019 through February 29, 2020 that 

would prohibit entry into a portion of 

Oregon Inlet for bridge demolition. 

Normally such actions are categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 

1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 

001–01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record 

of Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, visit https://

www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at https://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

website’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–1065 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–1065 Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, 

Dare County, NC. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: all navigable waters of 

Oregon Inlet, within 100 yards of active 

demolition work and demolition 

equipment, along the old Herbert C. 

Bonner Bridge, which follows a line 

beginning at approximate position 

35°46′47′′ N, 75°32′41′′ W, then 

southeast to 35°46′37′′ N, 75°32′33′′ W, 

then southeast to 35°46′09′′ N, 75°31′59′′ 

W, then southeast to 35°46′03′′ N, 

75°31′51′ W, then southeast to 35°46′01′ 

N, 75°31′40′′ W (NAD 1983) in Dare 

County, NC. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section— 

Designated representative means a 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander, 

including a Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer designated by 

the Captain of the Port North Carolina 

(COTP) for the enforcement of the safety 

zone. 

Captain of the Port means the 

Commander, Sector North Carolina. 

Demolition crews means persons and 

vessels involved in support of 

demolition. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations governing safety zones in 

§ 165.23 apply to the area described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
64774 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 18, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1For a given air pollutant, ‘‘primary’’ national 

ambient air quality standards are those determined 

by the EPA as requisite to protect the public health. 

‘‘Secondary’’ standards are those determined by the 

EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from 

any known or anticipated adverse effects associated 

with the presence of such air pollutant in the 

ambient air. CAA section 109(b). 

2 78 FR 3086, 3088 (January 15, 2013). 

3EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, 

No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/P–99/ 

002bF, October 2004. 

4 62 FR 38652. 

(2) With the exception of demolition 

crews, entry into or remaining in this 

safety zone is prohibited. 

(3) All vessels within this safety zone 

when this section becomes effective 

must depart the zone immediately. 

(4) The Captain of the Port, North 

Carolina can be reached through the 

Coast Guard Sector North Carolina 

Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, 

North Carolina at telephone number 

910–343–3882. 

(5) The Coast Guard and designated 

security vessels enforcing the safety 

zone can be contacted on VHF–FM 

marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 

MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the safety zone by 

Federal, State, and local agencies. 

(e) Enforcement Period. This 

regulation will be enforced from 

February 1, 2019 through February 29, 

2020 

(f) Public Notification. The Coast 

Guard will notify the public of the 

active enforcement times at least 48 

hours in advance by transmitting 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF– 

FM marine channel 16. 

Dated: December 7, 2018. 

Bion B. Stewart, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the 

Port North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27385 Filed 12–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0728; FRL–9988–01– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality State Implementation Plans; 

California; Plumas County; Moderate 

Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

most elements of the state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by California to address Clean 

Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) requirements for 

the 2012 annual fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) in 

the Plumas County Moderate PM2.5

nonattainment area (‘‘Portola 

nonattainment area’’). The SIP revisions 

are the ‘‘Portola Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) Attainment Plan’’ submitted on 

February 28, 2017, and the 2019 and 

2022 transportation conformity motor 

vehicle emission budgets (‘‘budgets’’) 

submitted on December 20, 2017. We 

refer to these submittals collectively as 

the ‘‘Portola PM2.5 Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan.’’ The 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

following elements of the Portola PM2.5

Plan: The 2013 base year emissions 

inventories, the reasonably available 

control measure/reasonably available 

control technology (RACM/RACT) 

demonstration, the attainment 

demonstration, the reasonable further 

progress (RFP) demonstration, the 

quantitative milestones, and the budgets 

for 2019 and 2021. The EPA is not 

proposing any action at this time on the 

contingency measures in the Portola 

PM2.5 Plan. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

January 17, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2017–0728 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

John Ungvarsky, at Ungvarsky.john@

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 consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3963, ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for Proposed Action 

II. Clean Air Act Requirements for Moderate 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Plans 

III. Completeness Review of the Portola PM2.5

Attainment Plan 

IV. Review of the Portola PM2.5 Plan 

V. Summary of Proposed Actions and 

Request for Public Comment 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for Proposed Action 

Under section 109 of the CAA, the 

EPA has established NAAQS for certain 

pervasive air pollutants (referred to as 

‘‘criteria pollutants’’) and conducts 

periodic reviews of the NAAQS to 

determine whether they should be 

revised or whether new NAAQS should 

be established. The EPA sets the 

NAAQS for criteria pollutants at levels 

required to protect public health and 

welfare.1 Particulate matter is one of the 

criteria pollutants for which the EPA 

has established health-based standards. 

The CAA requires states to submit 

regulations that control particulate 

matter emissions. 

Particulate matter includes particles 

with diameters that are generally 2.5 

microns or smaller (PM2.5) and particles 

with diameters that are generally 10 

microns or smaller (PM10). It contributes 

to effects that are harmful to human 

health and the environment, including 

premature mortality, aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease, 

decreased lung function, visibility 

impairment, and damage to vegetation 

and ecosystems. Individuals particularly 

sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include 

older adults, people with heart and lung 

disease, and children.2 PM2.5 can be 

emitted by sources directly into the 

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle 

(‘‘primary PM2.5’’ or ‘‘direct PM2.5’’) or 

can be formed in the atmosphere 

(‘‘secondary PM2.5’’) as a result of 

various chemical reactions among 

precursor pollutants from sources such 

as nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), volatile organic compounds 

(VOC), and ammonia.3

On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the 

NAAQS for particulate matter to add 

new standards for PM2.5.4 The EPA 

established primary and secondary 

annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5. 

The annual standard was set at 15.0 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1