Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46951 

1Petition of the United States Postal Service for 

the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed 

Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Nine), 

September 29, 2017 (Petition). 

2 Id. at 2; see Docket No. RM2015–11, Order No. 

2739, Order on Analytical Principles Used in 

Periodic Reporting (Proposal Three), September 30, 

2015. 

determinations.1 The Petition identifies 

the proposed analytical method changes 

filed in this docket as Proposal Nine. 

II. Proposal Nine 

Background. The Postal Service 

proposes to change the current City 

Carrier Cost System (CCCS) 

methodology for estimating Delivery 

Point Sequence (DPS) volume 

proportions. Petition, Proposal Nine at 

1. Presently, the Postal Service collects 

similar mail characteristic data, such as 

class and product data, for two different 

systems: CCCS and Origin-Destination 

Information System—Revenue, Pieces, 

and Weight (ODIS–RPW). Id. at 1–2. 

CCCS data are used primarily to 

distribute costs to products delivered by 

city letter routes. ODIS–RPW data are 

used to estimate volume and revenue. 

Currently, the Postal Service collects 

CCCS mail characteristics data 

manually. See id. at 3. In contrast, the 

Postal Service collects ODIS–RPW mail 

characteristics data from digitally 

captured images of letter and card 

shaped mail.2 The Postal Service states 

that the ODIS–RPW digital sampling 

method includes approximately 93 

percent of CCCS sampled city letter 

routes. Petition, Proposal Nine at 2. 

Proposal. The Postal Service proposes 

a methodology change to CCCS data 

collection procedures for Delivery Point 

Sequenced (DPS) mail. Id. at 1. The 

Postal Service seeks to use the ODIS– 

RPW digital data to enhance CCCS data 

for DPS mail destined for delivery by 

city letter routes. Id. at 2. The Postal 

Service explains that the proposal 

would eliminate the need to manually 

sample 93 percent of DPS mail for CCCS 

data collection purposes. Id.; see id. at 

3. The Postal Service states that it would 

continue to manually sample mailpieces 

destined for city letter routes not 

included in ODIS–RPW’s digital data 

collection, approximately seven percent 

of city letter routes. Id. at 3. 

Rationale and impact. The Postal 

Service states that the proposal would 

enhance the CCCS estimation of 

delivered DPS volumes. Id. The Postal 

Service explains that the ‘‘automated, 

systematic method of collecting images 

of DPS letters and cards’’ would reduce 

the risk of undetected sampling errors. 

Id. Additionally, the Postal Service 

notes that data collectors and their 

supervisors are able to review and 

analyze the ODIS–RPW data because the 

system retains the data for 30 days. Id. 

at 3–4. The Postal Service also explains 

that the proposal would increase the 

number of DPS sampled mailpieces by 

approximately 400 percent and the 

number of CCCS tests by approximately 

300 percent. Id. at 4. 

The Postal Service discusses the 

likely effects of the proposed 

methodology change on product volume 

distribution and unit costs. Id. at 4–5. 

Based on these estimates, the Postal 

Service indicates minor differences in 

product volume distribution between 

the current and proposed CCCS 

methodologies. Id. at 4. These estimates 

also indicate that using ODIS–RPW 

digital data for DPS mail destined for 

city letter routes would result in very 

small estimated changes in unit costs or 

would leave unit costs unaffected. Id. at 

4–5. 

III. Notice and Comment 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2017–13 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Petition. More 

information on the Petition may be 

accessed via the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.prc.gov. Interested 

persons may submit comments on the 

Petition and Proposal Nine no later than 

November 21, 2017. Pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya 

is designated as an officer of the 

Commission (Public Representative) to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2017–13 for consideration of the 

matters raised by the Petition of the 

United States Postal Service for the 

Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 

Proposed Changes in Analytical 

Principles (Proposal Nine), filed 

September 29, 2017. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

November 21, 2017. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. 

Bzhilyanskaya to serve as an officer of 

the Commission (Public Representative) 

to represent the interests of the general 

public in this docket. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Stacy L. Ruble, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21691 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0204; FRL–9969– 

02—Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; 

South Coast Moderate Area Plan for 

the 2006 PM2.5 Standards; Correction 

of Deficiency 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

California’s Reasonably Available 

Control Measures/Reasonably Available 

Control Technology and Reasonable 

Further Progress demonstrations for the 

2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) in 

the Los Angeles–South Coast 

nonattainment area and to determine 

that the State has corrected the 

deficiency that formed the basis for the 

prior partial disapproval of the 

Moderate Area Plan submitted for these 

NAAQS. The proposed determination is 

based on the EPA’s final approval of 

revisions to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District’s Regional Clean 

Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) 

program and 2016 Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) 

Demonstration. If today’s action is 

finalized as proposed, the sanctions 

clocks triggered by the partial 

disapproval will be terminated. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

November 9, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0204 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, at 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be removed or edited from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
46952 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1CARB submitted the final ‘‘Supplemental 

RACM/RACT Analysis for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

and 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standards’’ (‘‘2017 RACT 

Supplement’’) on July 27, 2017. See letter dated July 

27, 2017, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, 

CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4192, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Proposed Action 

III. Request for Public Comment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 17, 2006, the EPA revised 

the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5, 

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 

microns or less or ‘‘fine particles,’’ to 

provide increased protection of public 

health by lowering its level from 65 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 

35 mg/m3 (40 CFR 50.13). 

Epidemiological studies have shown 

statistically significant correlations 

between elevated PM2.5 levels and 

premature mortality. Other important 

health effects associated with PM2.5

exposure include aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease 

(as indicated by increased hospital 

admissions, emergency room visits, 

absences from school or work, and 

restricted activity days), changes in lung 

function and increased respiratory 

symptoms. Individuals particularly 

sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include 

older adults, people with heart and lung 

disease, and children (78 FR 3086 at 

3088, January 15, 2013). Fine particles 

can be emitted directly into the 

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle 

or can be formed in the atmosphere as 

a result of various chemical reactions 

among precursor pollutants such as 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile 

organic compounds, and ammonia. 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, section 107(d) of the 

CAA requires the EPA to designate areas 

throughout the nation as attaining or not 

attaining the NAAQS. On November 13, 

2009, the EPA designated the Los 

Angeles–South Coast Air Basin (‘‘South 

Coast’’) as nonattainment for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 (74 

FR 58688). This designation became 

effective on December 14, 2009 (40 CFR 

81.305). The South Coast nonattainment 

area is also designated nonattainment 

for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Today’s proposed action 

addresses only requirements for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

South Coast nonattainment area. 

On February 13, 2013 and March 4, 

2015, California submitted SIP revisions 

to address planning requirements for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast 

nonattainment area. We refer to these 

submissions collectively as the ‘‘2012 

PM2.5 Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan.’’ On April 14, 

2016, we finalized a partial approval 

and partial disapproval of the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan (81 FR 22025). Our partial 

disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan was 

based on deficiencies in the Plan with 

respect to the Reasonably Available 

Control Measures/Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACM/RACT) and 

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

requirements. Specifically, we found 

that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan failed to satisfy 

the RACM/RACT requirement in CAA 

sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) 

because it did not provide a 

demonstration that the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District’s 

(SCAQMD or ‘‘District’’) nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) RECLAIM program ensures that 

the level of NOX emissions reductions 

resulting from the RECLAIM program is 

equivalent, in the aggregate, to those 

NOX emissions reductions expected 

from the direct application of RACT on 

all covered sources within the South 

Coast nonattainment area. We also 

found that the Plan failed to meet the 

requirement for RFP in CAA section 

172(c)(2) because the deficiency with 

respect to RACM/RACT also meant that 

the State was not implementing all 

RACM/RACT as expeditiously as 

practicable. We noted in our final action 

on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan that the State 

could remedy these deficiencies by 

submitting revisions to the NOX 

RECLAIM program together with 

documentation sufficient to demonstrate 

that the revised program ensures, in the 

aggregate, NOX emission reductions 

equivalent to RACT-level controls for all 

covered facilities (81 FR at 22028, 

22029). 

Our April 14, 2016 partial disapproval 

of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan became effective 

on May 16, 2016, and started a sanctions 

clock for imposition of offset sanctions 

18 months after May 16, 2016, and 

highway sanctions 6 months later, 

pursuant to CAA section 179 and our 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. 

Accordingly, offset sanctions will apply 

on November 16, 2017, and highway 

sanctions will apply on May 16, 2018, 

unless the EPA determines that the State 

has corrected the deficiency forming the 

basis of the disapproval. 

On March 17, 2017, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) submitted a 

SIP revision consisting of a series of 

amendments to the SCAQMD’s NOX 

RECLAIM program. The submittal was 

intended to strengthen the program and 

correct the deficiencies identified in 

both the EPA’s partial disapproval of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan (81 FR 22025, April 14, 

2016) and in the EPA’s separate 

proposal to partially disapprove the 

SCAQMD’s ‘‘2016 AQMP Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

Demonstration’’ (‘‘2016 AQMP RACT 

SIP’’) (81 FR 76547, November 3, 2016). 

Additionally, on May 22, 2017, CARB 

submitted the District’s public draft 

version of the ‘‘Supplemental RACM/ 

RACT Analysis for the 2006 24-Hour 

PM2.5 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone 

Standards’’ (‘‘2017 RACT Supplement’’) 

to address these same deficiencies. On 

June 6, 2017, the EPA proposed to 

approve the submitted NOX RECLAIM 

program amendments as satisfying 

general CAA requirements for SIP 

revisions (82 FR 25996). The EPA 

finalized this action on September 14, 

2017 (82 FR 43176). On June 15, 2017, 

the EPA proposed to approve the 2016 

AQMP RACT SIP and the 2017 RACT 

Supplement as satisfying the RACT 

requirements of CAA sections 182(b) 

and (f) and 40 CFR 51.1112 for the 

South Coast and Coachella Valley 

nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS (82 FR 27451). The EPA 

finalized this action on September 20, 

2017 (82 FR 43850).1

II. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to determine that 

the RECLAIM program amendments 

submitted by CARB on March 17, 2017, 

and the 2017 RACT Supplement 

submitted by CARB on May 22, 2017, 

together correct the deficiency in the 

RACM/RACT element of the 2012 PM2.5

Plan that had provided the basis for the 

EPA’s prior partial disapproval of the 

Plan. As explained in our June 6, 2017 

proposed action on the RECLAIM 

program amendments, the revised 

program lowers the NOX emission cap 

in the RECLAIM program and 

establishes requirements for removing 

RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs) from 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46953 

2The revisions to the RECLAIM program are 

projected to reduce NOX emissions by 12 tons per 

day by 2023. See SCAQMD, Summary Minutes of 

the Board of the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, December 4, 2015, at 15; see 

also U.S. EPA, Region IX Air Division, ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for EPA’s Rulemaking for the 

California State Implementation Plan, South Coast 

Air Quality Management District Regional Clean Air 

Incentives Market Program Rules,’’ May 2017, at 9, 

10. 

3For more information on our evaluation of the 

RECLAIM program in accordance with CAA RACT 

requirements, see the Technical Support Document 

accompanying our June 15, 2017 proposed rule (82 

FR 27451) and our responses to comments on that 

proposal (82 FR 43856, September 20, 2017). 

the trading market to prevent NOX RTCs 

associated with facilities that have shut 

down from entering the RECLAIM 

market and potentially delaying the 

installation of pollution controls at 

other facilities (82 FR 25996, 25998, 

June 6, 2017). These revisions to the 

RECLAIM program strengthen the SIP 

by requiring major NOX emission 

sources covered by the program to 

collectively achieve additional emission 

reductions,2 and were fully approved 

into the California SIP on September 14, 

2017 (see 82 FR 43176). Additionally, as 

explained in our June 15, 2017 proposed 

action on the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP 

and 2017 RACT Supplement, the 2017 

RACT Supplement contains the 

District’s demonstration of how the SIPapproved RECLAIM program has 

achieved and continues to achieve, in 

the aggregate, RACT level of control for 

major NOX sources in the South Coast 

(82 FR at 27454–27455, June 15, 2017).3

As part of our September 20, 2017 final 

approval of the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP 

and 2017 RACT Supplement, we 

concluded that major NOX sources 

covered by the RECLAIM program are 

now subject to RACT level control 

requirements (82 FR 43850, 43856). 

Implementation of RACT-level control 

requirements at major NOX sources 

covered by the RECLAIM program 

satisfies the RACM/RACT requirement 

in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 

189(a)(1)(C) for these sources. We 

propose to determine that these SIP 

submissions correct the RACM/RACT 

deficiency that we identified in our 

partial disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5

Plan and to approve the RACM/RACT 

demonstration in the Plan, as revised. 

In addition, we are proposing to 

determine that these SIP submissions 

correct the RFP deficiency that we 

identified in our partial disapproval of 

the Plan. Our partial disapproval of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan for failure to satisfy the 

RFP requirement in CAA section 

172(c)(2) was predicated on our 

disapproval of the Plan with respect to 

the RACM/RACT requirement (81 FR at 

22028, April 14, 2016). The Plan, as 

revised, demonstrates that the State is 

now implementing RACM/RACT for 

NOX from covered sources in the South 

Coast nonattainment area. Therefore, 

based on our proposal to determine that 

the State has corrected the RACM/RACT 

deficiency, we also propose to 

determine that the State has corrected 

the RFP deficiency that we identified in 

our partial disapproval of the 2012 

PM2.5 Plan and to approve the RFP 

demonstration in the Plan, as revised. 

If finalized as proposed, these 

determinations will permanently stop 

the sanctions clocks triggered by our 

April 14, 2016 partial disapproval of the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan. 

III. Request for Public Comment 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. The deadline and instructions for 

submission of comments are provided 

in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at 

the beginning of this preamble. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ammonia, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 26, 2017. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21610 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS