Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204-0238
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for 2006 PM2.5 Standards; Correction of Deficiency
Posted Date: 2018-02-12T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5923-5927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02677]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204; FRL-9974-11-Region 9]

Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and 
Promulgations: California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 
PM2.5 Standards; Correction of Deficiency

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the 
Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACM/RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) elements 
of California's Moderate area

[[Page 5924]]

plan 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. The EPA is also finalizing 
a determination that the State has corrected the deficiency that formed 
the basis for the EPA's prior partial disapproval of the Moderate area 
plan submitted for these NAAQS with respect to the RACM/RACT and RFP 
elements. Today's action terminates the sanctions clocks triggered by 
the partial disapproval of the Moderate area plan.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed on 
the website, 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: Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4192, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On October 10, 2017 (82 FR 46951) we proposed to determine that 
certain amendments to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's 
(SCAQMD or ``District'') Regional Clean Air Incentives Program 
(RECLAIM) submitted by California corrected the deficiency in the RACM/
RACT and RFP elements of the Moderate area plan for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Los Angeles--South Coast nonattainment 
area (``2012 PM2.5 Plan'' or ``plan'') that was the basis 
for the EPA's prior partial disapproval of this plan. On this basis, we 
proposed to approve the RACM/RACT and RFP elements of the 2012 
PM2.5 Plan, as revised. The 2012 PM2.5 Plan 
contained the State's and District's demonstration that attainment of 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area by the December 
31, 2015 Moderate area attainment date was impracticable.
    Simultaneously, we published an interim final determination to 
defer sanctions based on our proposed finding that the SCAQMD's 
amendments to RECLAIM corrected the deficiency in the RACM/RACT and RFP 
elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan that formed the basis for 
our prior partial disapproval of this plan (82 FR 46917).

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period, 
which ended on November 9, 2017. During this period, we received one 
comment letter from Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club and 
several anonymous comments. We summarize these comments and provide our 
responses below.
    Comment #1: Earthjustice claims that a cap-and-trade program such 
as RECLAIM cannot provide the basis for compliance with the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or ``Act'') section 182 RACT requirement or the RACM 
requirement, based on the plain language of the CAA that, according to 
Earthjustice, requires all major sources to implement RACT. 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 claims that the legislative history for the CAA Amendments 
of 1990 makes clear that the RACT requirement applies to all major 
sources of NOX in an ozone nonattainment area. Earthjustice 
also cites, without explanation, the RACM requirement for Moderate 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas in CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) and 
the Best Available Control Measures (BACM) requirement for Serious 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas in 40 CFR 51.1010.
    Earthjustice asserts that the EPA's longstanding definition of RACT 
supports 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 claims 
that reliance on an emissions trading program 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 an EPA proposed rule dated November 3, 2016 to 
support its claim that emissions averaging in the South Coast does not 
actually provide RACT-level reductions.
    Response #1: Earthjustice submitted substantively identical 
comments on a separate proposed rule published June 15, 2017, in which 
the EPA proposed to determine that the revised RECLAIM regulations 
satisfy CAA RACT requirements for purposes of the ozone NAAQS in the 
South Coast ozone nonattainment area (82 FR 27451).\1\ We responded to 
these comments in our September 20, 2017 final rule approving 
California's RACT state implementation plan (SIP) submission for the 
South Coast area (82 FR 43850) and incorporate that response here (see 
82 FR at 43853-54). Because Earthjustice has not explained how its 
comments pertain to the specific RACM requirement in CAA section 
189(a)(1)(C) or the BACM requirement in 40 CFR 51.1010 for purposes of 
the PM2.5 NAAQS, we provide no further response on this 
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Earthjustice's prior comments on this issue are identical to 
its comments here, except that its latest comments include two 
unexplained references to ``RACM'' and unexplained citations to the 
control requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment areas in CAA 
section 189(a)(1)(C) and 40 CFR 51.1010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #2: Earthjustice contends that approval of California's 
RACT determination 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 control at each major 
NOX source in the South Coast. Earthjustice claims that the 
record here shows that the additional 12 ton per day (tpd) reduction 
adopted by the SCAQMD as part of the 2015 RECLAIM amendments does not 
result in RACT/RACM level controls for NOX RECLAIM 
facilities.
    Response #2: Earthjustice submitted substantively identical 
comments on a separate proposed rule published June 15, 2017, in which 
the EPA proposed to determine that the revised RECLAIM regulations 
satisfy CAA RACT requirements for purposes of the ozone NAAQS in the 
South Coast ozone nonattainment area (82 FR 27451). We responded to 
these comments in our September 20, 2017 final rule approving 
California's RACT SIP submission for the ozone NAAQS for the South 
Coast area (82 FR 43850) and incorporate that response here (see 82 FR 
at 43854-55).
    Comment #3: Earthjustice asserts that the EPA's approval of the 
RACM/RACT and RFP elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan would 
interfere with attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by 2019. 
Earthjustice claims that the EPA failed to address how an additional 12 
tpd reduction in

[[Page 5925]]

the NOX RECLAIM emissions cap on a ``back-loaded'' schedule 
complies with the District's determination that the reductions are 
necessary for PM2.5 attainment by 2019 or as expeditiously 
as practicable. It also claims that the record shows that failure to 
apply the front-loaded emission reduction schedule developed by SCAQMD 
staff will interfere with expeditious attainment of the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Earthjustice also references a program 
environmental assessment (PEA) completed pursuant to California state 
law, which listed as a project objective the need to bring the 
NOX RECLAIM program up to date with best available retrofit 
control technology (BARCT) requirements for existing sources under 
California law, and asserts that the final PEA identified a need to 
implement additional control measures to attain both the 
PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS in the South Coast air basin.
    Response #3: These comments are not germane to this action. 
Earthjustice suggests that SCAQMD should require reductions from 
RECLAIM sources on a faster schedule for purposes of attaining the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date for a Serious 
nonattainment area, i.e., in this case an area that must attain the 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no 
later than the end of 2019. In this action, however, we are not 
assessing whether the revised RECLAIM program meets Serious area 
nonattainment plan requirements such as the BACM/BACT control 
requirement or, as relevant here, assessing whether the schedule for 
those reductions is consistent with the requirement to attain the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later 
than 2019. This action addresses only a deficiency that the EPA 
previously identified in the Moderate area plan for the South Coast 
area.
    The 2012 PM2.5 Plan contained a demonstration under CAA 
section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii) that attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 
standards in the South Coast area by the Moderate area attainment date 
of December 31, 2015, was impracticable.\2\ We partially approved and 
partially disapproved the 2012 PM2.5 Plan based on a 
deficiency in its RACM/RACT and RFP elements, both of which relied on 
the RECLAIM program as amended in 2010.\3\ Following the State's 
submission of RECLAIM rule amendments adopted in 2015 and a 
demonstration that the amended program satisfies NOX RACT 
requirements for covered sources,\4\ we proposed to determine that the 
State had corrected the deficiency in the RACM/RACT and RFP elements of 
the 2012 PM2.5 Plan and to approve these elements of the 
Plan, as revised (82 FR 46951, October 10, 2017). These SIP revisions 
corrected a deficiency in an impracticability demonstration, which did 
not purport to show attainment by 2019. Comments pertaining to the 
level of control necessary for the South Coast area to attain the 
PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and no later 
than the applicable statutory attainment date should be raised in the 
context of EPA's evaluation of a demonstration of attainment under CAA 
section 189(a)(1)(B)(i) or section 189(b)(1)(A)(i), not in the context 
of a demonstration that attainment by the outermost Moderate area 
attainment date is impracticable under CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 81 FR 22025, 22026 (April 14, 2016).
    \3\ Id. at 22027.
    \4\ On September 14, 2017, we approved the amended RECLAIM rules 
into the SIP (82 FR 43176) and on September 20, 2017, we approved 
the SCAQMD's ozone RACT SIP demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
based, in part, on a determination that major NOX sources 
covered by the amended RECLAIM program are now subject to RACT-level 
controls (82 FR 43850, 43856).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our reclassification of the South Coast area from Moderate to 
Serious for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in October 2015 triggered a 
requirement for California to submit a Serious area plan that provides 
for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast as 
expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2019, in 
accordance with the requirements of part D of title I of the Act.\5\ 
The California Air Resources Board submitted a Serious area plan for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast on April 27, 
2017.\6\ We will evaluate the adequacy of the State's and District's 
control strategy for purposes of timely attainment when we act on this 
plan submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 81 FR 22025, 22026 (April 14, 2016) (citing October 20, 2015 
reclassification action at 80 FR 63640, 63660).
    \6\ See letter dated April 27, 2017 from Richard W. Corey, 
Executive Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region IX (transmitting Serious area plan for 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to the EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #4: Earthjustice objects to the District's general approach 
to distinguishing between BARCT and RACT-level control and argues that 
the District has used an artificially narrow articulation of RACT to 
evaluate only controls required under adopted regulations, instead of 
considering technologies that have been applied in practice.
    Response #4: Earthjustice submitted identical comments on a 
separate proposed rule published June 15, 2017, in which the EPA 
proposed to determine that the revised RECLAIM regulations satisfy CAA 
RACT requirements for purposes of the ozone NAAQS in the South Coast 
ozone nonattainment area (82 FR 27451). We responded to these comments 
in our September 20, 2017 final rule approving California's ozone RACT 
SIP for the South Coast area (82 FR 43850) and incorporate that 
response here (see 82 FR at 43855-56).
    Comment #5: Earthjustice asserts that the revised RECLAIM program 
does not properly address RECLAIM trading credits from facilities that 
shut down prior to 2016 and argues that the availability of such 
credits has allowed major sources, particularly refineries, to avoid 
installation of selective catalytic reduction and other readily 
available NOX pollution controls. Earthjustice identifies 
California Portland Cement as a retired facility whose credits have 
significantly contributed to this problem.
    Response #5: Earthjustice submitted substantively identical 
comments on a separate proposed rule published June 6, 2017, in which 
the EPA proposed to approve the amended RECLAIM rules into the SIP (82 
FR 25996), and a proposed rule published June 15, 2017, in which the 
EPA proposed to determine that the amended RECLAIM rules satisfy CAA 
RACT requirements for purposes of the ozone NAAQS in the South Coast 
ozone nonattainment area (82 FR 27451). We responded to these comments 
in both our September 14, 2017 final rule approving the amended RECLAIM 
rules (82 FR 43176) and our September 20, 2017 final rule approving 
California's ozone RACT SIP for the South Coast area (82 FR 43850) and 
incorporate those responses here (see 82 FR at 43178 and 82 FR at 
43855).
    Comment #6: Citing CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), Earthjustice asserts 
that the EPA can approve a SIP revision only if it determines that the 
provision is not inconsistent with state law and argues 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. Earthjustice claims 
that the EPA therefore cannot make the determination required in 
section 110 of the Act that the approval not interfere with compliance 
with state law.
    Response #6: Earthjustice submitted substantively identical 
comments on a separate proposed rule published June 6, 2017, in which 
the EPA proposed to approve the amended RECLAIM rules into the SIP (82 
FR 25996), and a

[[Page 5926]]

proposed rule published June 15, 2017, in which the EPA proposed to 
determine that the amended RECLAIM rules satisfy CAA RACT requirements 
for purposes of the ozone NAAQS in the South Coast ozone nonattainment 
area (82 FR 27451). We responded to these comments in both our 
September 14, 2017 final rule approving the amended RECLAIM rules (82 
FR 43176) and our September 20, 2017 final rule approving California's 
ozone RACT SIP for the South Coast area (82 FR 43850) and incorporate 
those responses here (see 82 FR at 43178-79 and 82 FR at 43856).
    Comment #7: Earthjustice claims that the EPA cannot approve the 
District's RACM determination because the District failed to comply 
with state notice requirements in adopting the 2015 NOX 
RECLAIM program amendments. Earthjustice cites a recent decision of the 
California Superior Court for Los Angeles County (``state court'') 
remanding the December 2015 NOX RECLAIM program amendments 
on the basis that the District failed to comply with California Health 
and Safety Code procedural requirements in adopting the amendments. 
Earthjustice asserts that ``[b]ecause a California court has found the 
[SCAQMD] violated state law in adopting the RECLAIM amendments, it 
would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to approve this determination 
because it violates the Clean Air Act provisions in 42 U.S.C. [section] 
7410.''
    Response #7: We disagree with the commenter's claim that the 
referenced state court decision precludes EPA approval of the RACM/RACT 
and RFP elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. By order dated 
November 6, 2017, the California Superior Court for the County of Los 
Angeles remanded the SCAQMD Board's December 4, 2015 amendments to the 
RECLAIM program based on the court's finding that the District violated 
state procedural requirements in adopting the amendments.\7\ The court 
did not, however, vacate the amendments to the program or find any 
substantive flaw in the amended program.\8\ On November 16, 2017, 
counsel for the SCAQMD confirmed that the RECLAIM program, as amended 
December 4, 2015, remains in effect and that the District plans to 
implement the amended program while considering its options for how to 
respond to the remand.\9\ By email dated January 10, 2018, counsel for 
the SCAQMD informed the EPA that the SCAQMD Governing Board had 
authorized the District to file an appeal of the state court decision 
and that this action would not affect the ongoing implementation of the 
December 2015 RECLAIM amendments.\10\ If this appeal is denied (or is 
otherwise unsuccessful) and the District either adopts further 
revisions to the RECLAIM program or determines that the amended program 
is deficient in some respect, we will reconsider today's action or take 
appropriate remedial action to ensure that the RACM/RACT and RFP 
elements of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan satisfy CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Order Granting the Petition for a Writ of Mandate in Part, 
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, 
Communities for a Better Environment et al. v. South Coast Air 
Quality Management District, Case No. BS 161399 (November 6, 2017) 
(finding that SCAQMD violated section 40726 of the California Health 
& Safety Code by adopting the 2015 RECLAIM amendments without 
providing additional public hearing or opportunity for comment).
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Memorandum dated November 16, 2017, from Jeanhee Hong, EPA 
Region IX, Office of Regional Counsel and Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, 
Air Division Planning Office, to Rulemaking docket EPA-R09-OAR-2015-
0204, RE: ``State court order concerning 2015 RECLAIM amendments.''
    \10\ Email dated January 10, 2018, from William Wong, Principal 
Deputy District Counsel, SCAQMD, to Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, RE: 
``Jeanhee Hong and Wienke Tax email information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that we approved the amended RECLAIM rules into the SIP in 
a previous rulemaking action (82 FR 43176, September 14, 2017) in which 
we determined, inter alia, that the SIP submission containing the 
amended rules satisfied the applicable CAA requirements for SIP 
revisions, including the procedural requirements in CAA section 110(a) 
and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.\11\ To the extent the commenter 
intended to argue that a procedural flaw in the District's adoption of 
the amended RECLAIM rules precludes the EPA's approval of those rules 
into the SIP under CAA section 110, such arguments should have been 
raised in comments on this prior rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 82 FR 25996, 25997 (June 6, 2017) (proposed rule) and 
82 FR 43176 (September 14, 2017) (final rule). The EPA's regulations 
in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V require, inter alia, that each SIP 
submission include evidence that the State followed all of the 
procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in 
adopting the plan. 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, section 2.1(e). The 
statutory deadline for filing a petition for judicial review of this 
action was November 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 43176, 43179).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other comments: We received several anonymous comments stating, 
inter alia, that emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other 
pollutants from California wildfires contribute to climate change and 
regional and global air pollution including smog, particulate matter, 
and toxics; that California should pay a carbon tax on GHG emissions 
from wildfires; that oil and gas regulations should be rescinded; and 
that the CAA must be enforced to preserve air quality and quality of 
life.
    Response: These comments fail to identify any specific issue that 
is germane to our action on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is finalizing approval of the following elements of the 
2012 PM2.5 Plan under CAA section 110(k)(3):
     The RACM/RACT element as meeting the requirements of CAA 
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C); and
     the RFP element as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(2).
    As a result of this approval, the offset sanction in CAA section 
179(b)(2), which would have applied in the South Coast PM2.5 
nonattainment area 18 months after the effective date of our partial 
disapproval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan dated April 14, 2016, and 
the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1), which would have 
applied in the area six months after the offset sanction is imposed, 
are permanently terminated. Additionally, this approval action removes 
the obligation on the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan 
because California has corrected the deficiencies and the EPA has 
approved the related plan revisions.

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, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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

[[Page 5927]]

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 EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable 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).
    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 April 13, 2018. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action 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, Ammonia, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 24, 2018.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, 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

Sec.  52.220   Identification of plan--in part.

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(439)(ii)(B)(6) to 
read as follows:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (439) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (6) The PM2.5-related portions of Appendix VI 
(``Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Demonstration'') of the 
Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (December 2012).
* * * * *

Sec.  52.237   [Amended]

0
3. Section 52.237 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a)(7).

[FR Doc. 2018-02677 Filed 2-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P