Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 997 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301– 

307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201– 

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 

3633, and 5001. 

■ 2. Revise the following sections of 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM), as follows: 

Mailing Standards of the United 

States Postal Service, Domestic Mail 

Manual (DMM) 

* * * * * 

602 Addressing 

* * * * * 

5.0 Move Update Standards 

* * * * * 

[Revise the heading and text of 5.2 to 

read as follows:] 

5.2 Authorized Methods 

Mailer Move Update Process 

Certification and USPS-approved 

alternative methods are authorized for 

meeting the Move Update standard. The 

National Customer Support Center 

administers and approves both Mailer 

Move Update Process Certification and 

alternative methods. 

5.2.1 Mailer Move Update Process 

Certification 

Mailer Move Update Process 

Certification methods are as follows: 

a. Address Change Service (ACS). 

b. National Change of Address 

Linkage System (NCOALink). This 

includes both pre-mail NCOALink 

processing systems and the physical 

mailpiece processing equipment system: 

National Change of Address Linkage 

System Mail Processing Equipment 

(NCOALink MPE). See the NCOALink 

page (NCOALink MPE Solutions) on 

www.postalpro.usps.com for more 

information on the MPE application. 

c. Applicable ancillary service 

endorsements under 507.1.5.1 or 

507.1.5.3, except ‘‘Forwarding Service 

Requested.’’ 

5.2.2 Alternate Methods 

Alternate Move Update methods are 

as follows: 

a. Green & Secure: Mailpieces using 

the Green & Secure alternative method 

will be excluded from the Address 

Quality Census Measurement and 

Assessment Process under 5.3. Details 

are available in Publication 685, 

Publication for Streamlined Mail 

Acceptance for Letters and Flats, 

available at www.postalpro.usps.com. 

b. For First-Class Mail only: Mailer 

Move Update Process Certification and 

USPS-approved alternative methods for 

mailers with legitimate restrictions on 

incorporating USPS-supplied change-ofaddress information into their mailing 

lists. Refer to the Guide to Move Update 

available at www.postalpro.usps.com or 

contact the National Customer Support 

Center (see 608.8.1 for address) for 

additional information. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes, if this proposal is 

adopted. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00006 Filed 1–8–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0416; FRL–9972–

76—Region 7] 

Approval of Iowa’s Air Quality 

Implementation Plan; Muscatine Sulfur 

Dioxide Nonattainment Area; 

Availability of Supplemental 

Information and Reopening of the 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

supplemental information and 

reopening of the comment period. 

SUMMARY: On August 24, 2017, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking to approve the Iowa State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for 

attaining the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

primary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) for the Muscatine 

nonattainment area (herein called a 

‘‘nonattainment plan’’) in the Federal 

Register. EPA received several 

comments, including one suggesting 

that insufficient information was 

provided in the docket to allow the 

reviewer the ability to fully evaluate the 

nonattainment plan and EPA’s proposed 

action to approve it and another 

comment that insufficient emissions 

inventory information for the 2018 

attainment year was provided for the 

action. As a result, we are: Providing 

additional information in the docket 

and clarifying that all information, 

including files that are too large to be 

provided in the docket, are available 

upon request; providing an updated 

2018 projected emissions inventory; and 

reopening the public comment period to 

afford stakeholders an opportunity to 

comment on these specific additions of 

information only. EPA has updated 

Document A, ‘‘Index of Docket 

Documents’’ in the docket to this 

rulemaking. EPA will address all 

comments received on the original 

proposal and on this supplemental 

action in our final action. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published on August 24, 

2017 (82 FR 40086) (FRL–9966–60– 

Region 7) is reopened. Comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–RO7–OAR–2017–0416 

must be received on or before February 

8, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

pertaining to this supplemental action, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2017–0416 to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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. 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: 

Tracey Casburn, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

(913) 551–7016, or by email at 

casburn.tracey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
998 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

On August 24, 2017, at 82 FR 40086, 

EPA proposed to approve a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the state of Iowa for 

attaining the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the 

Muscatine nonattainment area. EPA 

received several comments on the 

original proposal, including one 

suggesting that insufficient information 

was provided in the docket to allow the 

reviewer the ability to fully evaluate the 

nonattainment plan and the basis of 

EPA’s proposed action to approve it. As 

a result, in this supplemental action, 

EPA is providing additional information 

in the docket for the proposed action 

and clarifying that, especially in the 

case of files too large to post in the 

docket, this information is available 

upon request. These large files include 

modeling files utilized to support the 

nonattainment plan. EPA also received 

a comment that the SIP submittal, and 

EPA’s proposed approval of the 

nonattainment plan, did not include 

adequate emissions inventory 

information for the 2018 attainment 

year. As a result, EPA is providing 

updated 2018 projected emissions 

inventory information for the proposed 

action. EPA is soliciting comment only 

regarding the information added by this 

document and its relationship to EPA’s 

proposed SIP approval. That is, at this 

time, EPA is soliciting comment only on 

the newly docketed information, 

including modeling files which can be 

obtained upon request, and how they 

relate to EPA’s proposed action. We will 

address all comments received on the 

original proposal and new comments 

submitted in response to this action in 

our final rulemaking action. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

As discussed in EPA’s original August 

24, 2017, proposal (82 FR 40086), on 

April 23, 2014, the EPA issued 

recommended guidance for meeting the 

statutory requirements in SO2 SIPs, in a 

document entitled, ‘‘Guidance for 

1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP 

Submissions,’’ (April 2014 guidance) 

available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/

production/files/2016-06/documents/

20140423guidance_nonattainment_

sip.pdf. In this guidance the EPA 

described the statutory requirements for 

a complete nonattainment area SIP, 

which includes an accurate emissions 

inventory of current emissions for all 

sources of SO2 within the 

nonattainment area. 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

that the state’s nonattainment plan 

include a comprehensive, accurate, 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources of the relevant 

pollutant or pollutants in such area, 

including such periodic revisions as the 

Administrator may determine necessary 

to assure that the requirements of part 

D of title I of the CAA are met. Section 

172(c)(4) of the CAA requires that the 

state’s nonattainment plan expressly 

identify and quantify the emissions, if 

any, of any such pollutant or pollutants 

which will be allowed, in accordance 

with section 173(a)(1)(B) of the CAA, 

from the construction and operation of 

major new or modified stationary 

sources in each such area. The plan 

shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of 

the Administrator that the emissions 

quantified for this purpose will be 

consistent with the achievement of 

reasonable further progress and will not 

interfere with attainment of the 

applicable NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. 

The emissions inventory and source 

emission rate data for an area serve as 

the foundation for air quality modeling 

and other analyses that enable states to: 

(1) Estimate the degree to which 

different sources within a 

nonattainment area contribute to 

violations within the affected area; and 

(2) assess the expected improvement in 

air quality within the nonattainment 

area due to the adoption and 

implementation of control measures. As 

noted above, the state must develop and 

submit to EPA a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources of SO2

emissions in each nonattainment area, 

as well as any sources located outside 

the nonattainment area which may 

affect attainment in the area. See the 

April 2014 guidance. 

The base year inventory establishes a 

baseline that is used to evaluate 

emissions reductions achieved by the 

control strategy and to assess reasonable 

further progress requirements. The 

state’s nonattainment SIP noted that, at 

the time, the most recent and available 

triennial inventory year was 2011, and 

the stated found that it served as a 

suitable base year. Table 1 provides the 

baseline 2011 SO2 emissions inventory 

data for sources within and outside of 

the nonattainment the area (data have 

been rounded to the nearest whole 

number). It is important to note that 

emissions from the onroad mobile, 

nonroad mobile, area source and fire 

source categories are for the entire 

Muscatine County and not just the 

nonattainment area which is a portion 

of the county. Emissions from these 

source categories are approximately 0.11 

percent of the total SO2 emissions for 

the nonattainment area. 

TABLE 1—2011 BASE LINE EMISSION INVENTORY FOR THE MUSCATINE, IA NONATTAINMENT AREA

Base line emissions inventory for the Muscatine NAA 

Facility 

2011 SO2

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Inside of the NAA ....................................................................... Grain Processing Corporation .................................................... 10,810 

Muscatine Power and Water ...................................................... 2,374 

Monsanto .................................................................................... 537 

HNI Corp.—North Campus ......................................................... <1 

HNI Corp.—Central Campus ...................................................... <1 

H.J. Heinz L.P ............................................................................ <1 

Union Tank Car Co .................................................................... <1 

Outside of the NAA .................................................................... Louisa Generating Station .......................................................... 7,304 

All of Muscatine County ............................................................. Onroad Mobile ............................................................................ 3 

Nonroad Mobile .......................................................................... 2 

Area Sources .............................................................................. 10 

Fires ............................................................................................ 9 

Total ..................................................................................... ..................................................................................................... 21,049 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 999 

1http://www.iowadatacenter.org/ 

datatables/CountyAll/co2010population

projections20002040.pdf. 

2The total projected 2018 emissions includes 

LGS at its projected PTS in 2018, 15,188. It is 

expected that the actual emissions from this source 

in 2018 would be much lower. 

The state’s nonattainment SIP 

provided a 2018 projected emissions 

inventory only for the stationary sources 

that would be controlled under the SIP 

(Grain Processing Corporation, 

Muscatine Power and Water and 

Monsanto); the state’s 2018 projected 

emissions are provided in table 2. As 

noted in EPA’s proposal, the inventory 

was developed assuming each SO2

source operates 8,760 hours per year at 

its permitted maximum allowable 

emission rate. 

TABLE 2—PROJECTED 2018 ALLOWABLE ANNUAL SO2 EMISSIONS FROM

CONTROL STRATEGY SOURCES

FROM THE NONATTAINMENT PLAN

Projected 2018 emissions for the controlled 

sources 

Facility 

2018 SO2

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Grain Processing Corporation .................................... 167 

Muscatine Power and Water 5,051 

Monsanto .............................. 1,196 

In this supplemental document, EPA 

is providing an update to the state’s 

2018 projected emissions inventory for 

public inspection. The updated 2018 

projected emissions inventory includes: 

Emissions from Louisa Generating 

Station (LGS) located in nearby Louisa 

County (presented as a potential to emit 

(PTE) level as provided by the state); 

emissions from the less than 1 ton per 

year (tpy) point sources that were 

included in the baseline emission 

inventory; and emissions from the area 

source, fire, nonroad mobile, and 

onroad mobile source categories. Tables 

3 through 6 provide information on how 

EPA completed the 2018 projections 

from the area source, fire, nonroad 

mobile, and onroad mobile source 

categories as well as the less than 1 tpy 

point sources. A summary of the 2018 

projected emissions inventory is 

provided in table 7. 

As with the state’s 2011 baseline 

emissions inventory, the fire, nonroad 

mobile, onroad mobile and area source 

emissions are county-wide and not 

specific to the partial Muscatine County 

nonattainment area. EPA increased the 

emissions based on population growth 

factors. In order to complete these 

projections, EPA first gathered 

population projections for Muscatine 

county, as seen in table 3.1

TABLE 3—POPULATION GROWTH DATA

FOR MUSCATINE COUNTY

Population projections 

2010 ...................................... 42,760 

2015 ...................................... 43,453 

TABLE 3—POPULATION GROWTH DATA

FOR MUSCATINE COUNTY—Continued 

2020 ...................................... 44,225 

Next, EPA developed growth factors 

by computing population ratios by 

comparing the projected 2020 

population to the 2010 population and 

then comparing the 2020 population to 

the 2015 population, as provided in 

table 4. 

TABLE 4—2018 GROWTH FACTORS

2018 Growth factors 

1.03 ....................................... 2020/2010 

1.02 ....................................... 2020/2015 

Then, EPA downloaded the 2011 and 

2014 emissions from the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) and 

multiplied the NEI values by the growth 

factors to calculate a 2018 maximum 

projection value, as provided in table 5. 

That is, EPA multiplied the 2011 NEI 

base year emissions by the 2018 growth 

factor of 1.03 and the 2014 NEI base 

year emissions by the 2018 growth 

factor of 1.02, then selected the highest 

estimate for each source category as the 

2018 maximum projected emissions 

(data have been rounded to the nearest 

whole number). 

TABLE 5—2018 SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS MUSCATINE COUNTY IOWA

[Tons] 

2018 Sulfur dioxide emissions projections Muscatine County Iowa 

(tons) 

2011 a 2014 b 2018 

(2011) 

2018 

(2014) 

2018 

Maximum 

Fire ....................................................................................... 9 13 9 13 13 

Area Sources ....................................................................... 10 5 10 5 10 

Nonroad Mobile c .................................................................. 2 1 2 1 2 

Onroad Mobile ..................................................................... 3 4 3 4 4 

a 2011NEIV2. 

b 2014NEIV1. 

c Marine/Aircraft/Rail emissions were included in the nonroad category, rather than area source category for 2011. 

In order to project the 2018 emissions 

for the less than 1 tpy sources provided 

in the 2011 baseline emission inventory 

(HNI Corporation—North and Central 

Campuses, H.J. Heinz, L.P., and Union 

Tank Car Co.—Muscatine), EPA selected 

the highest emissions from the 2008 to 

2015 time period as the sources’ 

projected 2018 emissions, table 6. The 

total of the county’s nonroad mobile, 

onroad moble, fire and area source 

category projected 2018 emissions 

would be about .13 percent of the partial 

county nonattainment area’s total 

emissions).2


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1000 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

3 Data reported to the CAMD shows that LGS has 

not operated in a manner to allow for SO2 emissions 

approaching its PTE (15,188) since 2008. 

TABLE 6—PROJECTED 2018 SO2 EMISSIONS FOR THE SMALL UNCONTROLLED SOURCES (TPY) IN THE MUSCATINE

COUNTY IOWA NONATTAINMENT AREA

Projected 2018 emissions from the less than 1 ton per year (tpy) sources in the Muscatine NAA 

Facility name 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 

Projected 

HNI Corporation—North Campus ............... 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.11 

HNI Corporation—Central Campus ............ 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 

H.J. Heinz, L.P ............................................ 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 

Union Tank Car Co.—Muscatine ................ 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 

Additionally, there is a large source 

outside of the nonattainment area, LGS, 

that was included in the state’s 2011 

baseline emission inventory. On 

October 12, 2017, the state submitted, 

via email, the 2018 potential to emit 

(PTE) from LGS equaling approximately 

15,188 tpy. The email has been added 

to the docket for public inspection. 

Table 7 provides a summary of the 

projected 2018 emissions for the 

nonattainment area, and that summary 

includes LGS at its PTE. However, after 

reviewing LGS’s operating history from 

2012 to 2016 we expect that the facility 

will emit considerably less SO2

emissions than its PTE in 2018. Table 8 

provides the annual SO2 emissions from 

LGS from 2012 to 2016 as reported to 

EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division.3

TABLE 7—UPDATED 2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY

2018 Projected emissions inventory for the Muscatine NAA 

Facility 

2018 SO2

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Inside of the NAA ..................................... Grain Processing Corporation ...................................................................................... 167 

Muscatine Power and Water ........................................................................................ 5,051 

Monsanto ...................................................................................................................... 1,196 

HNI Corp.—North Campus .......................................................................................... 0.11 

HNI Corp.—Central Campus ....................................................................................... 0.05 

H.J. Heinz L.P .............................................................................................................. 0.06 

Union Tank Car Co ...................................................................................................... 0.02 

Outside of the NAA ................................... Louisa Generating Station ........................................................................................... 15,188 

All of Muscatine County ............................ Onroad Mobile .............................................................................................................. 4 

Nonroad Mobile ............................................................................................................ 2 

Area Sources ............................................................................................................... 10 

Fires ............................................................................................................................. 13 

Total ................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... 21,631 

TABLE 8—LOUISA GENERATING STATION SO2 ANNUAL EMISSIONS DATA, 2012–2016 (CAMD) 

Louisa Generating Station SO2 emissions, 2012–2016 

Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Annual SO2 Emissions ........................................................ 8743 8285 8763 6096 5129 

The EPA is providing the updated 

2018 projected emissions inventory 

information for public inspection and in 

support of the Agency’s previous 

proposal to determine that the state has 

met the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(3) and 172(c)(4). 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action 

is not subject to review under Executive 

Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 

2017) regulatory action because SIP 

approvals are exempted under 

Executive Order 12866. This action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

rulemaking will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rulemaking would 

approve pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it 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). 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1001 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

This action merely proposes to approve 

a state rule implementing a Federal 

standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. This rulemaking also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it proposes to approve a state 

rule implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA when it reviews a state submission, 

to use VCS in place of a state 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This action does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: December 21, 2017. 

James B. Gulliford, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00026 Filed 1–8–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0680; FRL–9972– 

83—Region 9] 

Approval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from 

organic liquid storage and transfer 

operations. We are proposing to approve 

a local rule to regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

February 8, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2017–0680 at http://www.

regulations.gov, or via email to Rebecca 

Newhouse, at newhouse.rebecca@

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: 

Rebecca Newhouse, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 972–3004, newhouse.rebecca@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the rule revision? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended/ 

revised Submitted 

YSAQMD .................................. 2.21 Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer ................................... 09/14/16 01/24/17 

On April 17, 2017, the EPA 

determined that the submittal for 

YSAQMD Rule 2.21 met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 2.21 into the SIP on October 31, 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS