43850 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1The SCAQMD adopted its 2016 AQMP RACT 

SIP on June 4, 2014. 

2CARB’s May 22, 2017 submittal contained 

public draft versions of the 2017 RACT Supplement 

and negative declarations along with a request that 

the EPA provide parallel processing of the 

documents concurrently with the state’s public 

process. See footnote 1 in our June 15, 2017 

proposed rule. In our June 15, 2017 proposed rule, 

we erroneously described the 2017 RACT 

Supplement as including the two negative 

declarations. The 2017 RACT Supplement includes 

additional emissions analyses and two appendices 

that contain certain permit conditions for two 

specific stationary sources in Coachella Valley but 

does not include the negative declarations. The 

negative declarations were included in CARB’s May 

22, 2017 submittal but as a separate document. 

Dated: September 8, 2017. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 

as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart CC—Nebraska 

■ 2. Amend § 52.1420(e) by adding 

entries ‘‘(32)’’, ‘‘(33)’’ and ‘‘(34)’’ in 

numerical order to read as follows: 

§ 52.1420 Identification of Plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NEBRASKA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(32) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS.

Statewide ........... 2/7/13 9/20/17, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0477; FRL–9967–95-Region 7]. This action addresses the following CAA 

elements 110(a)(2) (A) through (C), (D) (i) (I)— 

Prongs 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II)—prong 3, (D)(ii), (E) 

through (H), and (J) through (M). 

(33) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS.

Statewide ........... 8/22/13 9/20/17, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0477; FRL–9967–95-Region 7]. This action addresses the following CAA 

elements 110(a)(2) (A) through (C), (D) (i) (II)— 

Prong 3, (D) (ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through 

(M). 

(34) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ........... 2/22/16 9/20/17, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0477; FRL–9967–95-Region 7]. This action addresses the following CAA 

elements 110(a)(2) (A) through (C), (D) (i) (II)— 

Prong 3, (D) (ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through 

(M). 

[FR Doc. 2017–19931 Filed 9–19–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0215; FRL–9967–45– 

Region 9] 

Approval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD 

or District) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern the District’s 

demonstration regarding Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) in the South Coast Air Basin 

and Coachella Valley ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

October 20, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket No. 

EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0215. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed on the Web site, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On June 15, 2017 (82 FR 27451), 

under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), the EPA proposed 

to approve the ‘‘2016 AQMP Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

Demonstration’’ (‘‘2016 AQMP RACT 

SIP’’), submitted to the EPA by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

on July 18, 2014 1 for approval as a 

revision to the California SIP, as 

supplemented by the public draft 

versions of the ‘‘Supplemental RACM/ 

RACT Analysis for the NOX RECLAIM 

Program’’ (‘‘2017 RACT Supplement’’) 

and two negative declarations submitted 

by CARB on May 22, 2017.2 We had 

previously proposed a partial approval 

and partial disapproval of the 2016 Air 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43851 

3See 81 FR 76547 (November 3, 2016). 

4As explained in our June 15, 2017 proposed 

rulemaking, the EPA is following established 

procedures for parallel processing that allows us to 

approve a state provision so long as it was adopted 

as proposed with no significant changes. 

5As noted above, we have withdrawn our 

November 3, 2016 proposed rule. See the summary 

section of our June 15, 2017 proposed rule at 82 FR 

27451. 

6As previously indicated in our June 15, 2017 

proposed rulemaking, SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP 

RACT SIP was deemed complete by operation of 

law on January 18, 2015. 

7CTGs provide the EPA’s recommendations on 

how to control emissions of VOC from a specific 

type of product or process in an ozone 

nonattainment area. Each CTG includes emissions 

limitations based on RACT to address ozone 

nonattainment area requirements. 

8 VOC and NOX together produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which 

harm human health and the environment. 

Quality Management Plan (AQMP) 

RACT SIP,3 but withdrew that proposal 

because we found that the 2017 RACT 

Supplement and recent amendments to 

certain District rules adequately 

addressed the deficiency that had been 

the basis for the earlier proposed partial 

disapproval. References herein to the 

‘‘proposed rule’’ or ‘‘proposed action’’ 

refer to our proposed action published 

on June 15, 2017, unless otherwise 

stated. 

Our proposed rule was based on our 

evaluation of the public draft versions of 

the 2017 RACT Supplement and 

negative declarations, and we indicated 

that we would not take final action until 

CARB submitted the final adopted 

versions to the EPA as a SIP revision. 

On July 7, 2017, the SCAQMD held a 

public hearing and approved the 2017 

RACT Supplement and two negative 

declarations and submitted the approval 

package to CARB for adoption and 

submittal to the EPA. On July 26, 2017, 

the CARB Executive Officer adopted the 

2017 RACT Supplement and negative 

declarations as a revision to the 

California SIP and, on July 27, 2017, 

submitted them to the EPA for approval, 

thereby satisfying the condition 4 for 

final EPA action. 

The District prepared the 2017 RACT 

Supplement to address a deficiency that 

the EPA had identified in the 2016 

AQMP RACT SIP and that was the basis 

for the EPA’s proposed partial 

disapproval published on November 3, 

2016 (81 FR 76547).5 The final versions 

of the 2017 RACT Supplement (which 

includes additional analyses and certain 

permit conditions for two specific 

stationary sources in Coachella Valley) 

and negative declarations include nonsubstantive changes from the public 

draft versions that were the basis for our 

June 15, 2017 proposed rule. Lastly, 

CARB’s July 27, 2017 SIP revision 

submittal includes documentation of the 

public process followed by the 

SCAQMD to approve the 2017 RACT 

Supplement and related negative 

declarations and documentation of the 

adoption by CARB of the 2017 RACT 

Supplement and negative declarations 

as revisions to the California SIP. 

On August 7, 2017, we found the 2017 

RACT Supplement including certain 

conditions from permits for two specific 

stationary sources located in Coachella 

Valley, and two negative declarations 

met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix V.6 Today, we take 

final action on the 2016 AQMP RACT 

SIP submitted on July 18, 2014 as 

supplemented by the 2017 RACT 

Supplement and negative declarations 

submitted on July 27, 2017. 

In our proposed rule, we explained 

that CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f) 

require that SIPs for ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate or above implement RACT for 

any source covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines 7 (CTG) 

document and for any major source of 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) or 

nitrogen oxides (NOX).8 The EPA’s 

implementing regulations for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS explain how these RACT 

requirements will be applied in areas 

classified as Moderate or above for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

51.1112. 

We further explained that the areas 

under discussion here are subject to the 

RACT requirement as the South Coast 

Air Basin (‘‘South Coast’’) is classified 

as an Extreme nonattainment area and 

the Coachella Valley portion of 

Riverside County (‘‘Coachella Valley’’) 

is classified as a Severe-15 

nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305); 77 FR 

30088 at 30101 and 30103 (May 21, 

2012). SCAQMD implements the RACT 

requirements for South Coast and 

Coachella Valley because it is 

authorized under state law to regulate 

stationary sources in those areas. 

Therefore, the SCAQMD must, at a 

minimum, adopt requirements to 

achieve emissions reductions equivalent 

to RACT-level controls for all sources 

covered by a CTG document and for all 

major non-CTG sources of VOC or NOX

within the two nonattainment areas. 

Any stationary source that emits or has 

the potential to emit at least 10 tons per 

year of VOC or NOX is a major 

stationary source in an extreme ozone 

nonattainment area (CAA section 182(e) 

and (f)), and any stationary source that 

emits or has the potential to emit at least 

25 tons per year of VOC or NOX is a 

major stationary source in a severe 

ozone nonattainment area (CAA section 

182(d) and (f)). 

In our proposed rule, we evaluated 

the 2016 AQMP RACT Demonstration, 

2017 RACT Supplement and negative 

declarations in light of the above 

requirements and concluded that, 

collectively, they meet the RACT 

requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) 

and (f) and 40 CFR 51.1112 for the 

South Coast and Coachella Valley 

nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone 

standard. In this document, we provide 

a summary of our evaluation. For a more 

detailed discussion, please see the 

proposed rule at 82 FR 27451, pages 

27453 through 27455. 

First, based on our review of the 

documentation provided by the 

SCAQMD in the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP 

and the negative declarations, we agreed 

that existing District rules approved in 

the SIP meet or are more stringent than 

the corresponding CTG limits and 

applicability thresholds for each 

category of VOC sources covered by a 

CTG document or are covered by 

negative declarations for which we were 

proposing approval. In this action, we 

affirm the finding we made in the 

proposed rule with respect to the CTG 

portion of the RACT requirement and 

approve the two negative declarations as 

a revision to the California SIP. 

Next, with respect to major stationary 

sources of VOC or NOX emissions, we 

divided the evaluation into three parts: 

major non-CTG VOC and NOX

stationary sources that are subject to 

District’s command-and-control VOC 

and NOX rules, major sources located in 

the South Coast that are subject to the 

District’s cap-and-trade program 

referred to as the Regional Clean Air 

Incentives Market (‘‘RECLAIM’’) 

program, and major sources located in 

Coachella Valley that are subject to 

RECLAIM. 

With respect to the first part of the 

evaluation of RACT for major sources, 

we reviewed the information provided 

by the District regarding new major Title 

V sources receiving permits since the 

District’s previous RACT SIP approval 

and agreed with the District that the 

District’s command-and-control VOC 

and NOX rules approved in the SIP 

require implementation of RACT for all 

major non-CTG VOC and NOX sources 

in the South Coast and Coachella Valley 

to which those rules apply. We affirm 

that finding in this final action. 

In connection with the second part of 

the evaluation, we described RECLAIM 

as a program adopted by the District to 

reduce emissions from the largest 

stationary sources of NOX and sulfur 

oxides (SOX) emissions through a 

market-based trading program that 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43852 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

9BARCT is defined as ‘‘an emission limitation 

that is based on the maximum degree of reduction 

achievable taking into account environmental, 

energy, and economic impacts by each class or 

category of source.’’ CH&SC section 40406. For the 

purposes of comparison, the EPA defines RACT as 

the lowest emission limitation that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic feasibility. 

44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979). As such, we 

generally find that BARCT level of control meets or 

exceeds RACT level of control. For additional 

background, see the technical support document 

(TSD) associated with our June 15, 2017 proposed 

rule explaining how SCAQMD’s RECLAIM 

program, as amended in 2015, fulfills the RACT 

requirement based on the District’s re-evaluation of 

the 2015 BARCT reassessment in terms of RACT, 

rather than BARCT. 

10See District Rule 2001 (‘‘Applicability’’), as 

amended May 6, 2005. Exemptions from RECLAIM, 

such as the exemption for certain facilities located 

in Coachella Valley, are listed in Rule 2001(i). 

11See 59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) and the EPA’s, 

‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive 

Programs,’’ EPA–452/R–01–001 (January 2001), at 

Section 16.7 and 80 FR 12264, 12279 (March 6, 

2015). 

12 71 FR 51120 (August 29, 2006) and 76 FR 

50128 (August 12, 2011). 13See pre-publication version of the final rule, 

approving the 2015 amended RECLAIM rules, that 

was signed on August 15, 2017 by the Acting 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

14We also agree with the District that RECLAIM 

rule amendments in October 2016 help to ensure 

the success of the program in achieving BARCTequivalent (and RACT-equivalent) reductions by 

preventing the majority of facility shutdown RTCs 

from entering the market and delaying the 

installation of pollution controls at other NOX

RECLAIM facilities. The EPA recently approved 

RECLAIM amendments, including the October 2016 

amendments, as a revision to the California SIP. See 

pre-publication version of the final rule approving 

the RECLAIM rule amendments signed on August 

15, 2017. 

establishes annual declining NOX and 

SOX allocations (also called ‘‘facility 

caps’’) and allows covered facilities to 

comply with their facility caps by 

installing pollution control equipment, 

changing operations, or purchasing 

RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs) from 

the RECLAIM market. We noted that 

section 40440 of the California Health 

and Safety Code (CH&SC) requires the 

District to monitor advances in best 

available retrofit control technology 

(BARCT) and periodically to reassess 

the overall facility caps to ensure that 

the facility caps are equivalent, in the 

aggregate, to BARCT emission levels 

imposed on affected sources; 9 that 

facilities subject to RECLAIM are 

exempted from a number of District 

command-and-control (also referred to 

as ‘‘prohibitory’’) rules that otherwise 

apply to sources of NOX and SOX

emissions in the South Coast; 10 and 

that, with certain exceptions, facilities 

located outside of the South Coast but 

within SCAQMD jurisdiction (e.g., 

facilities in Coachella Valley) are not 

included in the RECLAIM program. 

Under longstanding EPA 

interpretation of the CAA, a marketbased cap and trade program may satisfy 

RACT requirements by ensuring that the 

level of emission reductions resulting 

from implementation of the program 

will be equal, in the aggregate, to those 

reductions expected from the direct 

application of RACT on all affected 

sources within the nonattainment 

area,11 and, consistent with our 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA, 

we approved the RECLAIM program in 

1998 and then, as amended, in 2006 and 

2011, based in part on the conclusion 

that RECLAIM continued to satisfy 

RACT requirements.12 More recently, in 

the Agency’s 2008 Ozone SIP 

Requirements Rule, 80 FR 12264, at 

12278–12283 (March 6, 2015), the EPA 

re-affirmed its longstanding 

interpretation that a market-based cap 

and trade program may satisfy RACT 

requirements by ensuring equal 

aggregate reductions; and in this action, 

we are approving SIP revisions that rely 

in part on such a program to meet the 

RACT requirement because we find the 

program consistent with our 2008 

Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. 

As noted above, state law requires the 

District to monitor advances in BARCT 

and to periodically reassess the overall 

facility caps to ensure that RECLAIM 

facilities achieve the same or greater 

emission reductions that would have 

occurred under a command-and-control 

approach. In 2005, the District 

examined the RECLAIM program, found 

that additional reduction opportunities 

existed due to the advancement of 

control technology, and amended the 

RECLAIM rules (i.e., District Regulation 

XX) to reduce the facility annual 

allocations (in the aggregate) for NOX

from 34.2 tons per day (tpd) to 26.5 tpd. 

In 2015, the District conducted another 

reevaluation and amended the 

RECLAIM rules to further reduce the 

NOX allocations (in the aggregate) from 

26.5 tpd to 14.5 tpd to be achieved 

through downward incremental 

adjustments from 2017 through 2022. At 

the time of our proposed rule, the EPA 

had only proposed to approve the 

RECLAIM rules that reflect the 2015 

amendments reducing the aggregate 

facility allocations to 14.5 tpd of NOX, 

but the Agency has since taken final 

action, and the RECLAIM rules, as 

amended in 2015, are now approved 

into the California SIP.13

In the 2017 RACT Supplement, the 

District provided a demonstration of 

how the RECLAIM program, as 

amended in 2015, meets the RACT 

requirement in the aggregate. To do so, 

the District re-examined the BARCT 

reevaluation that it conducted in 2015 

and determined that, for certain source 

categories, the BARCT allocation level 

was essentially equivalent to RACT, but 

that, for certain other source categories, 

the BARCT allocation level was beyond 

RACT because there were no other rules 

in the District itself or any other 

California air district for these specific 

categories that were more stringent than 

the limits established under the 

RECLAIM program in effect prior to the 

2015 amendments. The District then recalculated hypothetical facility annual 

allocations (in the aggregate) reflecting 

RACT implementation (rather than 

BARCT) of 14.8 tpd. Because the facility 

annual allocations (in the aggregate) for 

NOX adopted by the District in 2015 

(implementing BARCT) of 14.5 tpd is 

less than (i.e., more stringent than) the 

hypothetical allocations (implementing 

RACT) of 14.8 tpd, the District 

concluded that the program as amended 

in 2015 meets the RACT requirement. 

In our proposed rule, based on our 

review of the District’s approach, 

assumptions, and methods to the 

updated RECLAIM program, we agreed 

that, as amended in 2015, the RECLAIM 

program provides for emissions 

reductions greater, in the aggregate, to 

those reductions expected from the 

direct application of RACT on all major 

NOX sources in the South Coast and 

thereby meets the RACT requirement for 

such sources for the purposes of the 

2008 ozone standard.14 We affirm that 

finding in this final action and approve 

the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP, as 

supplemented in the 2017 RACT 

Supplement. 

Lastly, with respect to the two major 

NOX sources in Coachella Valley that 

are not otherwise subject to District 

RACT-level command-and-control 

regulations, we proposed approval of 

certain permit conditions that were 

included in appendices A and B to the 

2017 RACT Supplement. As described 

in the proposed rule, the permit 

conditions submitted by the District for 

these facilities (both of which are 

electric generating facilities) pertain to 

specified NOX emission limits ranging 

from 2.5 to 5 parts per million (ppm) for 

the gas turbines, control technology 

(selective catalytic reduction (SCR)), 

and monitoring, among other elements. 

The District’s analysis indicated that 

SCR is generally identified as an 

emission control technology to achieve 

‘‘best available control technology’’ 

emission limits in the range of 2 to 5 

ppm for gas turbines, and thus the 

controls meet or exceed the 

requirements for RACT. We reviewed 

the permit conditions (and SCAQMD’s 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43853 

15Earthjustice submitted a letter dated July 17, 

2017, on behalf of the Sierra Club. These comments 

are in the docket at www.regulations.gov, docket ID 

EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0215. 

16The EPA’s position that states may comply 

with the RACT requirement in the aggregate 

through a cap-and-trade program is part of the 

ongoing legal challenge to our 2008 ozone 

implementation rule filed in the D.C. Circuit Court 

of Appeals. In the consolidated case, South Coast 

Air Quality Management District v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 

No. 15–1115, the environmental petitioners object 

to reliance on cap-and-trade programs to meet the 

section 182 RACT requirement. The Agency’s 

arguments in support of its interpretation of the 

RACT requirement with respect to cap-and-trade 

programs are found in the respondent’s brief dated 

September 13, 2016. Oral argument in the D.C. 

Circuit for the national case is scheduled for 

September 14, 2017. 

analysis) and found that they provide 

for RACT level of control (or better) at 

the two subject facilities in Coachella 

Valley. In this action, we affirm that 

finding and are approving into the SIP 

the submitted permit conditions for the 

two specific major NOX sources in 

Coachella Valley. 

For more background information and 

a more extensive discussion of the 2016 

AQMP RACT Demonstration, the 2017 

RACT Supplement, and negative 

declarations and our evaluation of them 

for compliance with CAA RACT 

requirements, please see our proposed 

rule and related technical support 

document (TSD). 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period which 

ended on July 17, 2017. During this 

period, we received comments from 

Earthjustice, which submitted 

comments on behalf of the Sierra 

Club.15 In the following paragraphs, we 

summarize the comments and provide 

our responses. 

Comment #1: Earthjustice contends 

that a cap-and-trade program, such as 

RECLAIM, can never provide the basis 

for compliance with the RACT 

requirement in CAA sections 182(b)(2) 

and 182(f) based on the plain language 

of the CAA that, according to 

Earthjustice, requires all major sources 

to implement RACT, i.e., RACT must be 

met by each individual major source 

and cannot be met by achieving 

equivalent levels of emission reductions 

across the nonattainment area. In 

support of this contention, Earthjustice 

highlights the word ‘‘all’’ in CAA 

section 182(b)(2) in connection with 

implementation of RACT at major 

sources and cites legislative history for 

the CAA Amendments of 1990 that 

purports to emphasize the applicability 

of the RACT requirement to all major 

sources of NOX in an ozone 

nonattainment area. 

Earthjustice also views the EPA’s 

longstanding definition of RACT as 

supporting an interpretation of the 

RACT requirement as applicable to each 

and every major NOX source, not a 

collective emission limitation for an 

entire class of sources located across a 

nonattainment area or an entire state or 

region. Earthjustice also claims that 

reliance on emissions trading to meet 

the RACT requirement for major NOX

sources is tantamount to creating a NOX

exemption that is inconsistent with the 

explicit NOX exemptions found at CAA 

section 182(f). Lastly, Earthjustice cites 

the EPA’s November 3, 2016 proposed 

rule as further support that emissions 

averaging in the South Coast does not 

actually provide RACT-level reductions. 

Response #1: We disagree that a capand-trade program can never be 

approved as meeting the RACT 

requirement of CAA sections 182(b)(2) 

and 182(f). First, we note that our action 

today is consistent with our past 

approval actions on the RECLAIM rules 

and amendments as meeting the RACT 

requirement and, more recently, with 

our SIP requirements rule for the 2008 

ozone standard (‘‘2008 Ozone SIP 

Requirements Rule’’) that indicates that 

a cap-and-trade approach remains a 

viable option to comply with the RACT 

requirement. More specifically, in our 

final 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements 

Rule, we indicated that states have the 

option of conducting a technical 

analysis for a nonattainment area 

considering the emissions controls 

required by a regional cap-and-trade 

program, and demonstrating that 

compliance by certain sources 

participating in the cap-and-trade 

program results in actual emission 

reductions in the particular 

nonattainment area that are equal to or 

greater than the emission reductions 

that would result if RACT were applied 

to an individual source or source 

category within the nonattainment area. 

See 80 FR 12264, at 12279 (March 6, 

2015). For additional discussion of this 

option, please see our proposed 2008 

Ozone SIP Requirements Rule at 78 FR 

34178, at 34192–34193 (June 6, 2013).16

Second, CAA section 182(b)(2), in 

relevant part, provides that the state 

shall submit a revision to the SIP to 

include provisions to require the 

implementation of RACT under section 

172(c)(1) of this title with respect to, 

among other categories, all other major 

stationary sources of VOC that are 

located in the area, and Section 182(f) 

extends the requirements for major 

stationary sources of VOC to major 

stationary sources of NOX, unless 

exempted under the terms of section 

182(f). As such, CAA section 172(c)(1) is 

explicitly brought into section 182(b)(2) 

and affects how it is interpreted. 

Specifically, section 172(c)(1), in 

relevant part, requires SIP revisions for 

nonattainment areas to ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology).’’ 

The plain language of section 

172(c)(1)—‘‘such reductions . . . as may 

be obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology’’—does not require 

reductions from each individual source 

but rather only requires areas to achieve 

the same level of emissions reductions 

from stationary sources that installing 

reasonably available control technology 

would yield. In other words, as long as 

the level of emissions reductions 

obtained in the area from stationary 

sources equals or exceeds the level of 

emissions reductions that would be 

achieved through implementation of 

RACT at existing sources, then the 

RACT requirement of section 172(c)(1) 

are met. See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 

1245, 1256–58 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

Section 182(b)(2) simply prescribes a 

more specific bar for the required level 

of emissions reductions that must be 

obtained. With respect to major 

stationary sources of NOX, the bar for 

the required level of emissions 

reductions that must be obtained is 

calculated based on the emissions 

reductions that can be achieved through 

implementation of RACT at major 

stationary sources of NOX. Consistent 

with section 172(c)(1), the emissions 

reductions need not come from the 

major NOX sources themselves so long 

as an equal or greater level of emissions 

reductions are obtained within the area. 

As such, the plain language of sections 

172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) allows a capand-trade program to meet the RACT 

requirements of those sections for major 

NOX sources so long as the overall 

emissions reductions that are obtained 

equal or exceed that level of emissions 

reductions that would have been 

obtained through implementation of 

RACT at the major NOX sources 

themselves. The plain language of the 

CAA supporting the EPA’s 

interpretation negates the need to 

consult the legislative history cited by 

Earthjustice in its comment. 

The area-wide—rather than 

individual, source-specific—nature of 

the RACT requirement is reinforced by 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43854 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

17California Health and Safety Code section 

40406. Available at: https://leginfo.legislature.

ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?

sectionNum=40406.&lawCode=HSC. 

18See for example, 68 FR 52512 (September 4, 

2003, comment #14: ‘‘What is the difference 

between BARCT and RACT? . . . BARCT is defined 

under California state law and not under the CAA. 

This is a state-only requirement. As it happens, 

BARCT is more stringent than RACT’’, available at 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-09-04/pdf/ 

03-22444.pdf; and 77 FR 31200 (May 25, 2012), 

response to comment 26: ‘‘A review of both terms 

[Federal best available control technology (BACT) 

and California BARCT] shows that the definition of 

BARCT contains the same key elements of the 

Federal BACT definition . . . An air emission 

limitation that applies to existing sources and is 

based on the maximum degree of reduction 

achievable, taking into account environmental, 

energy, and economic impacts by each class or 

category of sources’’, available at https://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-25/pdf/2012- 

12500.pdf. A BACT level of control is a more 

stringent than a RACT level of control. 

19See Draft Final Staff Report, Proposed 

Amendments to Regulation XX Regional Clean Air 

Incentives Market (RECLAIM)—NOX RECLAIM, 

dated December 4, 2015, (page 78) available at: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPAR09-OAR-2017-0259-0021. 

CAA section 182(b)(2), which requires 

states to revise their SIPs to adopt RACT 

‘‘with respect to’’ specified categories of 

VOC sources. The plain language of that 

provision does not mandate emission 

reductions from each individual source. 

In contrast, the next subsection of that 

same provision imposes individual, 

source-specific requirements by 

mandating that State Implementation 

Plans ‘‘require all owners or operators of 

gasoline dispensing systems to install 

and operate . . . a system for gasoline 

vapor recovery. . . .’’ See CAA section 

182(b)(3). 

Third, Earthjustice cites the EPA’s 

longstanding definition of RACT as 

support for its position, however, the 

definition cited in the comment does 

not require an individual, sourcespecific application of control 

technology. Instead, it is used solely as 

the beginning point for the extrapolation 

of the total reductions that each 

nonattainment area must achieve to 

satisfy the section 172(c)(1) RACT 

requirement. 

Fourth, we also disagree with the 

claim that reliance on emissions trading 

to meet the RACT requirement for major 

NOX sources is tantamount to creating a 

NOX exemption and that such an 

exemption is inconsistent with the 

explicit NOX exemptions found at CAA 

section 182(f). The RECLAIM program 

in the South Coast provides no 

exemption per se for major NOX

sources. Each such source must install 

controls or purchase credits sufficient to 

meet their annual allocation. 

Lastly, we acknowledge Earthjustice’s 

comment that our November 3, 2016 

rulemaking proposed to partially 

disapprove the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP 

because of deficiencies in the RECLAIM 

rules. However, our proposed partial 

disapproval was not based on the fact 

that RECLAIM is an emissions averaging 

program but rather on the evidence at 

hand that suggested that the thencurrent SIP RECLAIM program did not 

actually provide for the emissions 

reductions necessary to achieve RACTlevel reductions. Since then, the District 

has amended, and the EPA has 

approved, the RECLAIM rules to 

achieve greater aggregate emissions 

reductions from the sources in the 

program, and based on the District’s 

evaluation of the amended program as 

set forth in the 2017 RACT Supplement, 

we have concluded that the RECLAIM 

rules, as amended, meet the RACT 

requirement in sections 182(b)(2) and 

182(f) with respect to major stationary 

sources of NOX in the South Coast. 

Comment #2: Earthjustice contends 

that approval of the South Coast RACT 

demonstration would be arbitrary and 

capricious because the RECLAIM rules, 

as amended in 2015, do not achieve 

aggregate emissions reductions of NOX

equivalent to those that would be 

achieved through implementation of 

RACT level of control at each major 

NOX source in the South Coast. 

Earthjustice summarized that, as a part 

of the District’s rule development 

process culminating in the 2015 

RECLAIM amendments, SCAQMD 

analyzed whether its program achieved 

Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology (BARCT) controls. The 

commenter points out that the District’s 

analysis identified refineries as having 

the largest total NOX emissions and as 

holding the largest percentage of RTCs, 

but that the RECLAIM program had 

excess RTCs that resulted in refinery 

facilities not needing to achieve actual 

emission reductions. 

Earthjustice points out that 

SCAQMD’s BARCT assessment 

concluded that a 14 tpd ‘‘shave’’ from 

the program was needed to be 

equivalent to a traditional commandand-control regulatory approach. 

Earthjustice further asserts that if 

readily available BARCT equipment 

were applied to sources of pollution in 

the program, emissions would have 

been at 9.5 tpd instead of 20.7 tpd. 

Earthjustice comments that, although 

the SCAQMD staff recommended a 14 

tpd shave, the Governing Board adopted 

a 12 tpd shave instead. Earthjustice 

further states that the record shows that 

the 12 tpd shave does not sufficiently 

result in RACT level controls for the 

NOX RECLAIM universe and that the 

EPA has a record before it showing that 

at least a 14 tpd shave is necessary to 

achieve what the District confirmed was 

necessary to assure implementation of 

RACT-equivalent level of controls that 

the BARCT assessment demonstrated 

was necessary. Moreover, Earthjustice 

states that the record shows that the 

pace of the shave interferes with 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standard. 

Response #2: We disagree with 

Earthjustice’s implication that the terms 

RACT and BARCT are interchangeable 

and its assertion that the record shows 

a 14 tpd shave is needed to meet RACT. 

BARCT is a term used by the State of 

California and is defined as ‘‘an 

emission limitation that is based on the 

maximum degree of reduction 

achievable, taking into account 

environmental, energy, and economic 

impacts by each class or category of 

source.’’ 17 [Emphasis added.] By 

comparison, the EPA defines RACT as 

the lowest emission limitation that a 

particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of control technology 

that is reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility. 

44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979). The 

EPA has historically not treated these 

terms interchangeably and has generally 

found that BARCT level of control meets 

or exceeds RACT level of control.18

We note that SCAQMD determined in 

its December 4, 2015 Draft Final Staff 

Report that only four out of an estimated 

51 boilers/heaters were retrofitted with 

selective catalytic reduction to reduce 

NOX emissions to comply with 

BARCT.19 The staff report does not 

discuss RACT in the context of the 

RECLAIM program. Therefore, we 

disagree with the commenter that the 

December 4, 2015 Draft Final Staff 

Report or elsewhere in the record that 

SCAQMD had determined that the 2015 

amendments to the RECLAIM program 

fail to implement RACT. The TSD 

associated with our June 15, 2017 

proposed rule explains how the 

RECLAIM program, as amended in 

2015, fulfills the RACT requirement 

based on the District’s re-evaluation of 

the 2015 BARCT reassessment in terms 

of RACT, rather than BARCT. We find 

the District evaluation of the amended 

RECLAIM program to be acceptable as 

the basis to conclude that the amended 

program provides equivalent emissions 

reductions in the aggregate to those that 

would be achieved through 

implementation of RACT at all major 

NOX sources in the South Coast. 

Lastly, we disagree with Earthjustice’s 

assertion that the EPA should not 

approve the South Coast RACT 

demonstration because the pace of the 

NOX shave would interfere with 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43855 

20See 2017 RACT Supplement, page 19: 

‘‘Facilities, such as refineries, that typically 

purchased RTCs in the past to offset emissions will 

now be required to install pollution controls due to 

a greater shift of the shave to the refinery sector (i.e., 

56% shave for the refinery sector). The 2016 

RECLAIM amendments, which addressed RECLAIM 

facility shutdowns, would prevent an excess 

amount of RTCs resulting from shutdowns from 

being introduced into the market.’’ 

21See, for example, Rule 1146 (Emissions of 

Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutional, 

and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters), which was amended most recently 

on September 5, 2008 to reduce NOX limits. (The 

District has further amended Rule 1146 in 2013 but 

the 2013 amendments did not affect the NOX

limits.) 

22The incremental cost estimates are found in 

table 1 (page 6) of agenda item number 30 

(Proposed Amendments to NOX RECLAIM Program 

(Regulation XX)) for the SCAQMD’s board meeting 

on December 4, 2015. This table was also included 

on page 5 of Earthjustice’s July 17, 2017 comment 

letter. 

23For EPA statements on cost effectiveness in the 

RACT context, please see the EPA’s final 

implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS at 70 FR 71612, at 71654–71655 (November 

29, 2005). The RACT discussion in the final 

implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is 

Continued 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standard. 

This final rule addresses a requirement 

applicable to ozone nonattainment 

areas, not PM2.5 areas. With respect to 

the latter pollutant, the EPA will 

consider the pace of NOX reductions in 

the 2015 RECLAIM rule amendments in 

the context of our evaluation of the 

reasonable further progress (RFP) and 

attainment demonstrations in the PM2.5

portion of the recently submitted 2016 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

Plan. 

Comment #3: Earthjustice contends 

that the District has failed to remedy the 

problem of credits from shutdowns that 

have occurred prior to 2016 and notes 

that such credits have had the effect of 

depressing credit prices and thereby 

allowing major sources, particularly 

refineries, to avoid installation of 

BARCT/RACT controls like SCRs. 

Earthjustice identifies California 

Portland Cement as one of the most 

significant shutdown facilities whose 

credits (2.5 tons per day) have led to 

this problem and contends that 

refineries and other facilities continue 

to use credits from that shutdown 

facility to avoid installation of BARCT/ 

RACT controls. To remedy this problem, 

Earthjustice asserts that the pre-2016 

credits, including those from California 

Portland Cement, must be removed to 

achieve BARCT/RACT level of control. 

Response #3: The RECLAIM rule 

amendments adopted by the District in 

2016 were enacted specifically to avoid 

the effect of shutdown credits 

depressing credit prices and allowing 

sources to avoid installation of pollution 

controls, but we recognize that the 2016 

amendments act prospectively and do 

not address credits from shutdowns that 

occurred prior to the amendments. 

Nonetheless, the 12-tpd shave in the 

NOX annual allotments enacted by the 

District in 2015 discounts RTCs to a 

much greater extent than necessary to 

simply address the significant market 

effect of credits from pre-2016 

shutdowns. As such, the problem has 

been adequately addressed and the 

associated disincentive to install 

controls has been removed.20

Comment #4: Earthjustice contends 

that, while in some cases BARCT may 

exceed RACT, BARCT does not exceed 

RACT with respect to the District’s 2015 

BARCT assessment controls because the 

BARCT level controls established in the 

2015 BARCT analysis are cost-effective 

and have been achieved in practice. 

Earthjustice objects to the District’s 

general approach to distinguishing 

between BARCT and RACT-level 

controls in the 2017 RACT Supplement 

as artificially narrow on the grounds 

that the analysis only focuses on 

regulations that are adopted by either 

SCAQMD or other California Air 

Districts. Earthjustice objects to this 

approach because the District itself has 

generally abandoned adopting 

command-and-control regulations for 

NOX RECLAIM facilities and the limited 

geographic focus of the evaluation on 

California-only air districts for more 

stringent controls is not supported by 

the Clean Air Act. The focus on rules, 

Earthjustice contends, distracts from the 

actual technology, which the District 

has determined are cost effective and 

have been used in practice. More 

specifically, Earthjustice states that the 

District ‘‘has not articulated how the 

seven of ten BARCT level controls fail 

to meet the RACT determination.’’ 

Lastly, Earthjustice asserts that the 

RECLAIM program has a number of 

features that together keep credit prices 

low, which inhibits the installation of 

controls. 

Response #4: We agree that, in its 

2015 BARCT reassessment, the District 

identified 10 equipment categories as 

capable of further emissions reductions 

(beyond the 2005 NOX emission factors) 

and that the District’s analysis was 

based on retrofit technologies that the 

District had concluded were costeffective and achieved in practice. 

However, the District’s determinations 

in this regard were for BARCT, not 

RACT, i.e., the emission limitations and 

associated retrofit technologies were 

found by the District to be cost-effective 

and achieved in practice to reduce 

emissions to the maximum degree of 

reduction achievable, not to the degree 

of reduction achievable through 

reasonably available controls. 

There is no universal method for 

evaluating a cap-and-trade program for 

RACT equivalence, and we find the 

District’s approach, i.e., distinguishing 

between BARCT and RACT on the basis 

of whether the BARCT controls have 

been adopted by the District itself or any 

other California Air District, to be 

reasonable. The commenter objects to 

the District’s basic approach as too 

narrow because the District should have 

considered the rules adopted by air 

agencies in other states. However, we 

believe that the SCAQMD’s approach is 

reasonable because the SCAQMD has, 

for the purposes of meeting other CAA 

requirements such as demonstrating 

attainment, continued to tighten 

emission limits in its own commandand-control rules to reduce emissions 

from many of the same types of sources 

that are included in the RECLAIM 

program,21 and the emission limits in its 

own command-and-control rules thus 

provide a basis for comparison with 

RECLAIM emissions factors. Also, the 

larger California Air Districts, such as 

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District, are similar to 

the SCAQMD in that they have been 

designated nonattainment for the ozone 

NAAQS for several decades and have 

conducted several rounds of RACT 

review for their rules, which, therefore, 

provide another appropriate basis of 

comparison with RECLAIM emissions 

factors. 

Nonetheless, while we believe the 

SCAQMD’s approach in the 2017 RACT 

Supplement is reasonable, we have 

provided additional review of the seven 

RECLAIM categories for which the 

District concluded that the 2005 

RECLAIM factors represent RACT level 

of control. The seven categories include 

four from the refinery sector: Fluid 

catalytic cracking units (FCCUs), boilers 

and heaters, coke calciners, and sulfur 

recovery unit/tail gas (SRU/TG) 

incinerators, and three from the nonrefinery sector: Glass melting furnaces, 

sodium silicate furnaces, and metal 

heating treating. 

At the outset, we note that, while the 

EPA has not established a simple costeffectiveness threshold to determine 

RACT in all applications, the 

incremental cost effectiveness estimates 

for three of the seven categories 

(refinery boilers and heaters, coke 

calciners, and SRU/TG incinerators) to 

achieve 2015 BARCT (relative to the 

2005 BARCT) exceed $22,000 per ton 22

and are well above any such estimates 

that the Agency has generally 

considered appropriate for determining 

RACT.23 As such, we agree with the 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43856 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

found at 80 FR 12264, at 12278–12283 (March 6, 

2015). 

24See appendix A to the SCAQMD staff report, 

which is attachment H to agenda item number 30 

(Proposed Amendments to NOX RECLAIM Program 

(Regulation XX)) for the December 4, 2015 

SCAQMD board meeting. 

25Email from Kevin Orellana, Air Quality 

Specialist, Planning, Rule Development, and Area 

Sources, SCAQMD, August 22, 2017. 

26See SCAQMD Rule 2002, Table 1. 

27See our TSD supporting approval of Rule 4354 

amended September 16, 2010, 76 FR 53640 (August 

29, 2011) which includes a review of NOX limits 

for glass melting furnaces in other states and in the 

RACT/BACT/Lowest Available Emission Rate 

clearinghouse available at https://

www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?

documentId=EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0412-0004&

contentType=pdf. 

28See SCAQMD Rule 2002, Table 3. 

29Rule 1147 was first adopted by SCAQMD on 

December 5, 2008 and amended on September 9, 

2011. These amendments were approved into the 

SIP in 75 FR 46845 (August 4, 2010), and 81 FR 

95472 (December 28, 2016) respectively. 

SCAQMD’s July 7, 2017 amendments to Rule 1147 

have not been submitted to EPA for SIP approval. 

30We note also that the 2016 South Coast Air 

Quality Management Plan provides for further NOX

reductions from RECLAIM sources. More 

specifically, in adopting the plan, the District 

committed to modify the RECLAIM program to 

achieve an additional 5 tpd NOX emission 

reduction as soon as feasible, but no later than 

2025, and to transition the RECLAIM program to a 

command-and-control regulatory structure. See 

footnote 14 of our proposed rule. 

31See CAA section 110(a)(2)(E). 

32As noted previously, the EPA has approved the 

2015 and 2016 amended RECLAIM rules in a 

separate rulemaking. 

33The Executive Order states the District is 

authorized by California Health and Safety Code 

(H&SC) section 40001 to adopt and enforce the rules 

identified in Enclosure A (i.e., the amended 

RECLAIM rules). 

District that the 2005 RECLAIM factors 

for these three categories represent at 

least RACT level of control. We provide 

our review of the four other categories 

in the following paragraphs. 

First, with respect to FCCUs, the 

District’s 2015 BARCT staff report 

compiled and evaluated emissions 

limits adopted throughout the U.S. and 

internationally.24 The most stringent 

limits for FCCUs identified therein are 

in the 8–10 ppm range, which is 

equivalent to the 85% reduction that 

was included in the 2005 RECLAIM 

amendments for this category.25 As 

such, we find that the 2005 RECLAIM 

factors for refinery FCCUs reflect RACT 

level of control. For comparison 

purposes, the 2015 BARCT RECLAIM 

factor for FCCUs is 2 ppm. 

Second, with respect to glass melting 

furnaces, the RECLAIM NOX factor for 

the container glass melting category 

prior to the 2015 RECLAIM 

amendments was 1.2 pound of NOX per 

ton of glass pulled.26 The EPA agrees 

that this limit meets RACT since it is 

consistent with the 1.5 pound of NOX

per ton of glass limit 27 we approved for 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District’s Rule 4354 

(‘‘Glass Melting Furnaces’’) as 

implementing RACT for an Extreme 

ozone nonattainment area. For 

comparison purposes, the 2015 BARCT 

RECLAIM factor for glass melting 

furnaces is 80% reduction (or 0.24 lb/ 

ton glass produced). 

Third, with respect to metal heat 

treating furnaces, the 2005 RECLAIM 

BARCT emission factor for this category 

is 45 ppm.28 We find that this limit is 

consistent with the 60 ppm limit for 

metal melting furnaces in the District’s 

corresponding command-and-control 

rule, Rule 1147 (‘‘NOX Reductions from 

Miscellaneous Sources’’).29 The 2015 

BARCT RECLAIM factor for metal heat 

treating furnaces >150 MMBtu/hr is 9 

ppm. 

Fourth, with respect to sodium 

silicate furnaces, we note that the 

incremental emissions reductions (0.09 

tons per day) are too small to affect the 

conclusion of the analysis because the 

SCAQMD’s ending allocation under the 

2015 RECLAIM amendments of 14.5 

tons per day is 0.3 tons per day less (i.e., 

more stringent) than the hypothetical 

ending allocation reflecting RACT level 

of control (i.e., 14.8 tons per day). Thus, 

even if we were to assume that the 2015 

RECLAIM factor for this category (80% 

reduction) represents RACT, the 

SCAQMD’s 2015 ending allocation (14.5 

tons per day) would still be less than the 

hypothetical ending allocation reflecting 

RACT level of control (14.8 minus 0.09 

or 14.71 tons per day). 

Therefore, we do not believe that the 

comment has demonstrated that 

controls that SCAQMD labels BARCT, 

can be assumed to also be RACT. 

Rather, we think it is appropriate to 

generally rely on the more involved 

RACT analysis performed by different 

agencies at the time of rule adoption or 

preparation of a RACT SIP. As such, we 

believe it is reasonable to assume that a 

control is beyond RACT if it has not yet 

been adopted by air districts in 

California. 

Lastly, with respect to the issue of 

excess credits in the RECLAIM market 

and related delays in the installation of 

controls, please see our response to 

comment #3.30

Comment #5: Citing CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E), Earthjustice asserts that the 

EPA can only approve a SIP revision if 

it determines that the provision is not 

inconsistent with state law. Earthjustice 

contends that the current proposal 

violates California law because it is not 

equivalent to BARCT and does not 

achieve command-and-control 

equivalence as mandated by California’s 

Health and Safety Code. As such, 

Earthjustice contends that the EPA 

cannot make the determination required 

in section 110 of the Act that the 

approval not interfere with compliance 

with state law. 

Response #5: We disagree that we 

must determine under CAA section 110 

that a SIP or SIP revision is not 

inconsistent with state law, or that the 

approval would not interfere with 

compliance with state law, prior to 

approval. Rather, in reviewing SIPs and 

SIP revisions, the EPA must determine 

that the SIP or SIP revision is supported 

by necessary assurances that the state or 

relevant local or regional agency has 

adequate legal authority under state and 

local law to carry out the SIP or SIP 

revision (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of federal or state law from 

carrying out such SIP or portion 

thereof).31

First, alleged inconsistency with state 

law is relevant to the EPA in the context 

of our SIP review only if it undermines 

the legal authority under state or local 

law to carry out the SIP. In this instance, 

compliance with the RACT requirement 

in the South Coast depends in part on 

the legal authority of the SCAQMD to 

carry out the RECLAIM rules, as 

amended in 2015 and 2016,32 and as to 

the amended RECLAIM rules, the EPA 

has been provided the necessary 

assurances by CARB that the District has 

the legal authority to carry out the rules. 

See CARB Executive Order S–17–002 

(dated March 16, 2017) adopting the 

amended 2015 and 2016 RECLAIM rules 

as a revision to the California SIP.33 For 

that reason, we find that the 2016 

AQMP RACT SIP, as supplemented by 

the 2017 RACT Supplement and 

negative declarations, is supported by 

adequate legal authority and, thus, 

meets the corresponding requirements 

in CAA section 110(a)(2)(E). 

III. Final Action 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, 

and for the reasons set forth in the 

proposed rule and summarized above, 

the EPA is taking final action to approve 

certain revisions to the California SIP 

submitted by CARB to address the 

RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone 

standard for the South Coast and 

Coachella Valley nonattainment areas. 

More specifically, we are approving the 

RACT demonstration in the 2016 AQMP 

RACT SIP, as supplemented in the 2017 

RACT Supplement, certain permit 

conditions for two power plants in 

Coachella Valley included with the 

2017 RACT Supplement, and two 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43857 

negative declarations (for the CTG for 

shipbuilding and repair operations and 

for the paper coating portion of the CTG 

for paper, film and film coatings) 

because collectively they fulfill RACT 

SIP requirements under CAA sections 

182(b) and (f) and 40 CFR 51.1112 for 

the South Coast and Coachella Valley 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with the requirements of 1 

CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of certain 

permit conditions for two stationary 

sources in Coachella Valley described in 

the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set 

forth below. The EPA, has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and at the EPA Region IX Office (please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves SIP revisions as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 20, 

2017. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 29, 2017. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(449)(ii)(C) and 

(c)(492) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(449) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, ‘‘2016 AQMP 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Demonstration,’’ 

dated May 22, 2014. 

* * * * * 

(492) The following plan revisions 

were submitted on July 27, 2017 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District. 

(1) Appendix A to the Supplemental 

RACM/RACT Analysis for the NOX

RECLAIM Program, Facility Permit to 

Operate, 63500 19th Ave., North Palm 

Springs, CA 92258, title page, table of 

contents, section A (page 1), and section 

D (pages 1–21), adopted on July 7, 2017. 

(2) Appendix B to the Supplemental 

RACM/RACT Analysis for the NOX

RECLAIM Program, Facility Permit to 

Operate, 15775 Melissa Land Rd, North 

Palm Springs, CA 92258, title page, 

table of contents, section A (page 1), and 

section D (pages 1–49), adopted on July 

7, 2017. 

(ii) Additional materials. (A) South 

Coast Air Quality Management District. 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
43858 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Docket ID: USCG–2013–0942, available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=USCG– 

2013–0942. 

(1) Attachment B (‘‘Supplemental 

RACM/RACT Analysis for the NOX

RECLAIM Program (May 2017)’’), 

excluding Appendices A and B. 

(2) Attachment C (‘‘Negative 

Declaration for Control Techniques 

Guidelines of Surface Coating 

Operations at Shipbuilding and Repair 

Facilities, and Paper, Film and Foil 

Coatings (May 2017)’’). 

■ 3. Section 52.222 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(13) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.222 Negative declarations. 

(a) * * * 

(13) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(i) Negative declarations for the 2008 

ozone standard: Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship 

Repair Operations (Surface Coating) 

including (published on August 27, 

1996) and EPA 453/R–94–032 

Alternative Control Techniques 

Document: Surface Coating Operations 

at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Facilities; paper coating portion of EPA 

453/R–07–003 Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil 

Coatings. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–19693 Filed 9–19–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 67 

[USCG–2016–0531] 

Vessel Documentation Regulations— 

Technical Amendments 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is making 

technical amendments to its vessel 

documentation regulations. A Certificate 

of Documentation, which is required for 

the operation of a vessel in certain 

trades, serves as evidence of vessel 

nationality, and permits a vessel to be 

subject to preferred mortgages. The 

amendments make non-substantive 

edits to align Coast Guard regulations 

with current vessel documentation 

statutes, correct typographical errors, 

and align procedural requirements with 

current Coast Guard practice. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 20, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document, call or 

email Ms. Andrea Heck, National Vessel 

Documentation Center, U.S. Coast 

Guard; telephone 304–271–2461, email 

Andrea.M.Heck@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Basis, Purpose, and Good Cause Exception 

to Notice and Comment Requirements 

III. Petition for Rulemaking 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COD Certificate of Documentation 

NVDC National Vessel Documentation 

Center 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

Pub. L. Public Law 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Basis, Purpose, and Good Cause 

Exception to Notice and Comment 

Requirements 

The legal basis of this rulemaking is 

provided by Title 46 of United States 

Code (U.S.C.), section 2103. Section 

2103 gives the Secretary of the 

department in which the Coast Guard is 

operating regulatory authority to carry 

out the provisions of Title 46, subtitle II 

(Vessels and Seamen) of the U.S.C., in 

which vessel documentation statutes are 

located. The Secretary’s authority is 

delegated to the Coast Guard by 

Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II (92.a). 

The purpose of this rule is to make nonsubstantive edits to: (1) Align the Coast 

Guard’s vessel documentation 

regulations with current statutes on that 

subject; (2) correct typographical errors; 

and (3) align procedural requirements 

with current Coast Guard practice. 

We did not publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this rule. 

Under Title 5 of United States Code 

(U.S.C.) section 553(b)(A), the Coast 

Guard finds that this rule is exempt 

from notice and public comment 

rulemaking requirements, because these 

changes involve rules of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice. In 

addition, the Coast Guard finds that 

notice and comment procedures are 

unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as 

this rule consists only of technical and 

editorial corrections, organizational, and 

conforming amendments, and that these 

changes will have no substantive effect 

on the public. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 

the Coast Guard finds that, for the same 

reasons, good cause exists for making 

this final rule effective upon publication 

in the Federal Register. 

III. Petition for Rulemaking 

On October 18, 2013, the Maritime 

Law Association, a private group 

consisting primarily of maritime 

lawyers, petitioned the Coast Guard to 

open a rulemaking to make numerous 

changes to our vessel documentation 

regulations.1 The Coast Guard granted 

the petition on November 6, 2013, and 

shortly thereafter, began working with 

members of the Maritime Law 

Association to identify specifically what 

changes should be made. Many of the 

changes the group requested involve 

significant substantive changes that may 

be the subject of future regulatory 

action. However, part of the review 

process also revealed several instances 

where the Coast Guard could currently 

make non-substantive technical 

corrections. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

‘‘Vessel documentation’’ refers to the 

system under which a vessel receives a 

Government certificate of 

documentation (COD). This certificate is 

required for the operation of a vessel of 

at least 5 net tons in certain trades 

including: (1) Fisheries on the navigable 

waters of the United States or its 

Exclusive Economic Zone; (2) foreign 

trade or trade with U.S. overseas 

territories; and (3) coastwise trade (trade 

between U.S. ports without leaving U.S. 

territorial waters) as described in 46 

U.S.C. 12102 and 46 U.S.C. chapter 121, 

subchapter II. The COD is also a 

required element, in 46 U.S.C. 31322, to 

establish a vessel’s entitlement to 

preferred mortgage status. Under 46 

U.S.C. 31326, preferred mortgages have 

priority over other liens on vessels, and 

they offer an enhancement to the 

security available to lenders. 

This final rule makes 35 nonsubstantive changes to 19 sections in 46 

CFR part 67. The changes correct 

omissions, misspellings, or inaccurate 

references caused by unintentional 

typographical errors and make small 

edits for additional clarity. The changes 

also update referenced material, such as 


sradovich on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES