[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43850-43858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19693]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#097d66676e277a7d6867656c70496c7968276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="64100b0a034a1710050a08011d240114054a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 43851]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SCAQMD adopted its 2016 AQMP RACT SIP on June 4, 2014.
    \2\ CARB'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.
    \3\ See 81 FR 76547 (November 3, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-substantive 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
(NO<INF>X</INF>).\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CTGs 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 NO<INF>X</INF> together produce ground-level ozone, 
smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the 
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, we divided the evaluation into three parts: 
major non-CTG VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> stationary sources that are 
subject to District's command-and-control VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> rules approved in 
the SIP require implementation of RACT for all major non-CTG VOC and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and sulfur oxides 
(SO<INF>X</INF>) emissions through a market-based trading program that

[[Page 43852]]

establishes annual declining NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ BARCT 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.
    \10\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under longstanding EPA interpretation of the CAA, a market-based 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, but the Agency has since 
taken final action, and the RECLAIM rules, as amended in 2015, are now 
approved into the California SIP.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 re-calculated 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ We also agree with the District that RECLAIM rule 
amendments in October 2016 help to ensure the success of the program 
in achieving BARCT-equivalent (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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, with respect to the two major NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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

[[Page 43853]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Earthjustice 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> sources is tantamount to creating a 
NO<INF>X</INF> exemption that is inconsistent with the explicit 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 cap-and-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>. Consistent with section 172(c)(1), the emissions 
reductions need not come from the major NO<INF>X</INF> 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 cap-and-trade program to meet the RACT 
requirements of those sections for major NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 43854]]

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, source-specific 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 NO<INF>X</INF> sources 
is tantamount to creating a NO<INF>X</INF> exemption and that such an 
exemption is inconsistent with the explicit NO<INF>X</INF> exemptions 
found at CAA section 182(f). The RECLAIM program in the South Coast 
provides no exemption per se for major NO<INF>X</INF> 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 then-current SIP RECLAIM program did not actually 
provide for the emissions reductions necessary to achieve RACT-level 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> equivalent to those that would be achieved 
through implementation of RACT level of control at each major 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 command-and-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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ California Health and Safety Code section 40406. Available 
at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=40406.&lawCode=HSC.
    \18\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> sources in the South Coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Draft Final Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to 
Regulation XX Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM)--
NO<INF>X</INF> RECLAIM, dated December 4, 2015, (page 78) available 
at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0259-0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, we disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that the EPA 
should not approve the South Coast RACT demonstration because the pace 
of the NO<INF>X</INF> shave would interfere with

[[Page 43855]]

attainment of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. This final rule 
addresses a requirement applicable to ozone nonattainment areas, not 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> areas. With respect to the latter pollutant, the EPA 
will consider the pace of NO<INF>X</INF> reductions in the 2015 RECLAIM 
rule amendments in the context of our evaluation of the reasonable 
further progress (RFP) and attainment demonstrations in the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission factors) 
and that the District's analysis was based on retrofit technologies 
that the District had concluded were cost-effective 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 command-and-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> limits. (The 
District has further amended Rule 1146 in 2013 but the 2013 
amendments did not affect the NO<INF>X</INF> limits.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-
refinery 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 cost-effectiveness 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

[[Page 43856]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The incremental cost estimates are found in table 1 (page 
6) of agenda item number 30 (Proposed Amendments to NO<INF>X</INF> 
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.
    \23\ For 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 found at 80 FR 12264, at 12278-12283 (March 6, 
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See appendix A to the SCAQMD staff report, which is 
attachment H to agenda item number 30 (Proposed Amendments to 
NO<INF>X</INF> RECLAIM Program (Regulation XX)) for the December 4, 
2015 SCAQMD board meeting.
    \25\ Email from Kevin Orellana, Air Quality Specialist, 
Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, SCAQMD, August 22, 
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, with respect to glass melting furnaces, the RECLAIM 
NO<INF>X</INF> factor for the container glass melting category prior to 
the 2015 RECLAIM amendments was 1.2 pound of NO<INF>X</INF> per ton of 
glass pulled.\26\ The EPA agrees that this limit meets RACT since it is 
consistent with the 1.5 pound of NO<INF>X</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See SCAQMD Rule 2002, Table 1.
    \27\ See our TSD supporting approval of Rule 4354 amended 
September 16, 2010, 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011) which includes a 
review of NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (``NO<INF>X</INF> Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources'').\29\ 
The 2015 BARCT RECLAIM factor for metal heat treating furnaces >150 
MMBtu/hr is 9 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See SCAQMD Rule 2002, Table 3.
    \29\ Rule 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ We note also that the 2016 South Coast Air Quality 
Management Plan provides for further NO<INF>X</INF> reductions from 
RECLAIM sources. More specifically, in adopting the plan, the 
District committed to modify the RECLAIM program to achieve an 
additional 5 tpd NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ As noted previously, the EPA has approved the 2015 and 2016 
amended RECLAIM rules in a separate rulemaking.
    \33\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(449)(ii)(C) and 
(c)(492) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.

[[Page 43858]]

    (1) Attachment B (``Supplemental RACM/RACT Analysis for the 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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)'').

0
3. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(13) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>