Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41895 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that it is one of a category 

of actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This rule 

involves a safety zone that lasts for less 

than a month in duration and has 

designated times where the channel will 

be open for vessel traffic and traffic will 

be able to transit. It is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the 

Commandant Instruction. A Record of 

Environmental Consideration (REC) 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

in the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0843 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–0843 Safety Zone, Dredging; 

Shark River, NJ. 

(a) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard petty officer, 

warrant or commissioned officer on 

board a Coast Guard vessel and or on 

board another Federal, State, or local 

law enforcement vessel assisting the 

Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay with 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(b) Location. The following areas are 

safety zone: All waters from latitude 

40°10′54.20′′ N., longitude 74°1′51.05′′ 

W., bounded by the eastern side of the 

channel and the western side of the 

channel, north, to latitude 40°11′6.87′′ 

N., longitude 74°1′53.54′′ W., in the 

Shark River, in Neptune City, NJ. These 

coordinates are based on the World 

Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) 

horizontal datum reference. 

(c) Regulations. The general safety 

zone regulations found in § 165.23 

apply to the safety zone created by this 

temporary section. 

(1) All vessels and persons are 

prohibited from entering into or moving 

within the safety zone described in 

paragraph (a) of this section while it is 

subject to enforcement, unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, 

Delaware Bay, or by his designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter 

or pass through the safety zone must 

contact the Captain of the Port, 

Delaware Bay, or his designated 

representative to seek permission to 

transit the area. The Captain of the Port, 

Delaware Bay can be contacted at 

telephone number 215–271–4807 or on 

Marine Band Radio VHF Channel 16 

(156.8 MHz). 

(3) Vessels may transit this portion of 

the Shark River from September 5, 2017, 

through September 23, 2017, weekly, 

from 9 p.m. on Thursdays through 9 

a.m. on Mondays. During the periods 

when the channel is open mariners are 

urged to transit at their slowest safe 

speed, with no wake, no meeting or 

passing of other vessels, and proceed 

with caution after passing arrangements 

have been made. Mariners must 

communicate clearly, and in advance, 

with the dredge via VHF 6 or 13. 

(4) This section applies to all vessels 

except those engaged in the following 

operations: Enforcing laws, servicing 

aids to navigation and emergency 

response vessels. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted by Federal, State 

and local agencies in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone. 

(e) Enforcement periods. This section 

will be enforced weekly, from 9 a.m. on 

Mondays through 9 p.m. on Thursdays, 

from September 5, 2017, through 

September 23, 2017, unless cancelled 

earlier by the Captain of the Port. 

Dated: August 30, 2017. 

Scott E. Anderson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Delaware Bay. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18732 Filed 9–1–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0621; FRL–9965–89– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan; Imperial County 

Air Pollution Control District; 

Stationary Sources Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing action on a 

revision to the Imperial County Air 

Pollution Control District (ICAPCD or 

District) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). We are 

finalizing a conditional approval of one 

rule. This rule updates and revises the 

District’s New Source Review (NSR) 

permitting program for new and 

modified sources of air pollution. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

5, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket No. 

EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0621. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although it may be listed in the 

index, 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: 

Thien Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 947–4120, nguyen.thien@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

Definitions 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The word or initials CAA mean or 

refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES

41896 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1Previously, the EPA proposed a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of Rule 207. 81 

FR 91895. (December 19, 2016) 

2We included the November 28, 2016 TSD in the 

rulemaking docket in connection with our previous 

proposed limited approval and limited disapproval 

of Rule 207. See 81 FR 91895 (December 19, 2016). 

(ii) The initials CARB mean or refer to 

the California Air Resources Board. 

(iii) The initials CFR mean or refer to 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

(iv) The initials or words EPA, we, us 

or our mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(v) The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

(vi) The word or initials ICAPCD or 

District mean or refer to the Imperial 

County Air Pollution Control District, 

the agency with jurisdiction over 

stationary sources within Imperial 

County. 

(vii) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

New Source Review. 

(viii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(ix) The initials TSD mean or refer to 

Technical Support Document. 

I. Proposed Action 

On June 12, 2017, the EPA proposed 

a conditional approval of Rule 207 (New 

and Modified Stationary Source Review; 

as noted in Table 1) submitted by CARB 

for incorporation into the ICAPCD 

portion of the California SIP. 82 FR 

26883.1 Table 1 also lists the dates the 

rule was adopted by ICAPCD and 

submitted by CARB, which is the 

governor’s designee for California SIP 

submittals. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED NSR RULE

Rule No. Rule title Adopted/revised Submitted Proposed action 

207 .......................... New and Modified Stationary Source Review ................ 10/22/13 1/21/14 Conditional Approval. 

Rule 207 satisfies the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for a general 

NSR permit program as set forth in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(c) and 40 CFR 

51.160—51.164, and the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for a 

nonattainment NSR permit program for 

moderate ozone and serious PM10, 

nonattainment areas as set forth in the 

applicable provisions of part D of title 

I of the Act (sections 172 and 173), in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307. For 

a moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area, 

Rule 207 mostly satisfies these 

requirements; however, we have 

determined that it does not satisfy the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13), 

which requires ammonia to be regulated 

as a PM2.5 precursor. The state 

committed to revise the rule to correct 

this deficiency in Rule 207, and, based 

on those assertions, EPA proposed 

conditional approval of the rule. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period we received two comments, 

one posted anonymously and one from 

the Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD). Copies of each comment letter 

have been added to the docket for this 

action and are accessible at 

www.regulations.gov. We have 

summarized the comments received and 

provided a response to the comments 

below. 

Comment 1: ‘‘keep standards in place. 

we all want clean air to breathe.’’ 

Response 1: The EPA did not propose 

to remove any standards. Instead, as 

explained in our proposed rulemaking, 

our action concerns ICAPCD Rule 207. 

Rule 207 implements a federal 

preconstruction permit program for new 

and modified minor sources of regulated 

NSR pollutants, and new and modified 

major sources of regulated NSR 

pollutants for which the area is 

designated nonattainment. This action 

will not remove or alter the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, which 

are the federal standards promulgated 

by the EPA to protect air quality. As 

explained in our technical support 

document (TSD), dated November 28, 

2016, in the rulemaking docket,2 this 

action will update ICAPCD’s SIPapproved preconstruction permitting 

program, including lower emission 

thresholds at which projects will trigger 

requirements for Lowest Achievable 

Emission Reductions and offsets. TSD at 

20. These updates to ICAPCD’s 

preconstruction permitting program will 

promote air quality protection, 

consistent with current federal 

requirements. 

Comment 2: CBD stated that, ‘‘the 

EPA’s conditional approval of the 

proposed Rule 207 is not valid because 

the commitment letter submitted by the 

District does not provide for specific 

enforceable measures to regulate 

ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor as 

required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13).’’ CBD 

stated that the District’s commitment 

letter is neither specific nor enforceable 

but merely commits to revise the 

definitions of the terms ‘‘precursor’’ and 

‘‘significant.’’ CBD stated that the 

District’s commitment lacks information 

on what the revision will entail, how 

the revision will satisfy the mandatory 

requirement to include ammonia as a 

PM2.5 precursor, how the revision will 

create enforceable mechanisms to 

control ammonia, and how the revision 

will meet CAA section 110(l) 

requirements to not interfere with 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress of the NAAQS. CBD proposed 

certain specific measures and controls 

technologies, and stated that because 

the District’s commitment letter did not 

include these measures or any other 

measures, the commitment measures 

cannot be properly enforced. CBD stated 

that the unspecified commitment puts 

the public at risk because the public 

cannot fully inform themselves as to 

whether the District is meeting its legal 

duties to protect public health. CBD 

stated that because the EPA must deny 

the District’s Rule 207 proposal, the 

EPA is obligated to implement a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) that will 

mandate ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor 

and cure the Rule 207 deficiency within 

two years. 

Response 2: The EPA disagrees with 

the comment. As explained further 

below, the EPA believes the record 

supports conditional approval of Rule 

207 because the State has committed to 

correct the deficiency in Rule 207 

identified by EPA in the November 2016 

TSD within one year of this final action. 

As explained in our proposed action, 

Rule 207 implements a federal 

preconstruction permit program for new 

and modified minor sources of regulated 

NSR pollutants, and new and modified 

major sources of regulated NSR 

pollutants for which the area is 

designated nonattainment. Rule 207 

authorizes ICAPCD to issue permits that 

will contain emission limits, and 

associated monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements, consistent 

with the EPA’s requirements for such 

programs as set forth in CAA sections 

110(a)(2), 172 and 173, and applicable 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41897 

3 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13) provides: ‘‘The plan shall 

require that the control requirements of this section 

applicable to major stationary sources and major 

modifications of PM2.5 shall also apply to major 

stationary sources and major modifications of PM2.5

precursors in a PM2.5 nonattainment area, except 

that a reviewing authority may exempt new major 

stationary sources and major modifications of a 

particular precursor from the requirements of this 

section for PM2.5 if the NNSR precursor 

demonstration submitted to and approved by the 

Administrator shows that such sources do not 

contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed 

the standard in the area. Any demonstration 

submitted for the Administrator’s review must meet 

the conditions for a NNSR precursor demonstration 

as set forth in § 51.1006(a)(3).’’ 

4See also, 82 FR 91897. 

5See FN 3; see also, ‘‘Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements.’’ 81 FR 58010, 

58151 (August 24, 2016). 

6 Id. 

7The rulemaking docket for our proposed action 

includes the following documents relevant to the 

State’s commitment pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(4): (1) a letter dated May 17, 2017 from 

Karen Magliano, Chief of the Air Quality Planning 

and Science Division, California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9; (2) a letter dated May 

16, 2017 from Matt Dessert, Air Pollution Control 

Officer (APCO), ICAPCD to Carol Sutkus, Manager, 

CARB; and (3) a letter dated May 16, 2017 from 

Matt Dessert APCO ICAPCD to Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

CARB is the state agency responsible for adopting 

and revising the California SIP and for submitting 

SIP revisions to the EPA. We are clarifying that the 

State’s commitment ‘‘to adopt specific enforceable 

measures by a date certain’’ pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(4) is comprised of all three 

documents. 

8The District also indicated its intent to revise 

Rule 207’s definition of the term ‘‘significant.’’ Rule 

207’s definition of ‘‘significant’’ also fails to include 

ammonia, and therefore requires revision for 

reasons similar to those necessitating a revision to 

the definition of ‘‘precursor.’’ 9By the time CARB and the District submitted 

their commitment letters to the EPA, in mid-May 

2017, the EPA’s TSD for Rule 207, which explained 

Rule 207’s deficiency as linked to the rule’s 

definitions, was in the rulemaking docket for 

several months (since December 2016). See FN 2. 10We also note that ICAPCD’s letter states that 

EPA had ‘‘informed’’ it that Rule 207 ‘‘contains a 

deficiency regarding the treatment of ammonia as 

a PM2.5 precursor’’ and that it was committing to 

submit a revised rule with revised definitions of 

these terms ‘‘to address this deficiency.’’ 11We also note that if the District does not fulfill 

its commitment, the conditional approval will 

convert to a disapproval and start an 18-month 

clock for sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2). 

Such a failure would also trigger a two-year clock 

for a federal implementation plan (FIP) under CAA 

section 110(c)(1). 

regulatory provisions such as 40 CFR 

51.160–51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307. 

The EPA’s proposed conditional 

approval of Rule 207 explained our 

determination that Rule 207 largely 

satisfies the statutory and regulatory 

requirements for an NSR permit 

program. We noted, however, one area 

in which Rule 207 was deficient. 

Specifically, our proposed action noted 

that Rule 207 does not adequately 

regulate ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor 

as required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13).3

Our proposed action explained that 

additional information on this issue 

could be found in our TSD.4

Our TSD explains that Rule 207, 

section B, contains various definitions 

necessary to implement the 

preconstruction permitting program set 

forth in the rule. TSD at 4. The TSD 

states that Rule 207’s definition of the 

term ‘‘precursor’’ explicitly applies to 

two of four PM2.5 precursors, NOX and 

SOx, and indirectly applies to a third 

PM2.5 precursor, VOCs. Id. at 10. With 

respect to the fourth PM2.5 precursor, 

ammonia, the TSD states that the Rule 

207 definition of ‘‘precursor’’ does not 

satisfy regulatory requirements. Id. at 

10–11. The TSD notes that ICAPCD 

adopted Rule 207 in October 2013, prior 

to EPA’s revisions to our PM2.5

regulations, including revisions relevant 

to the regulation of PM2.5 precursors.5 In 

particular, the TSD notes that Rule 207 

requires regulation of ammonia as a 

PM2.5 precursor ‘‘if ammonia is 

determined to be a necessary part of the 

PM2.5 control strategy in the attainment 

demonstration approved by USEPA in 

the SIP.’’ Id. In other words, Rule 207 

in its current form does not regulate 

ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor absent a 

finding by EPA that regulation of 

ammonia is a necessary component of 

ICAPCD’s strategy to attain the PM2.5

NAAQS. This presumption against 

regulating ammonia as a precursor 

absent a determination that regulation is 

necessary for attainment was rejected by 

the Court of Appeals for District of 

Columbia Circuit in Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Following the 

NRDC decision, EPA revised its 

regulatory requirements, (specifically, 

by promulgating 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13)), 

to require regulation of ammonia as a 

PM2.5 precursor unless EPA determines 

that such regulation is not necessary.6

As explained above, our proposed 

conditional approval of Rule 207 

applies the correct standard pertaining 

to ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor and 

appropriately identifies Rule 207’s 

definition of precursor as deficient on 

the basis that it does not meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13). 

As stated in our TSD, the remedy for 

Rule 207’s deficient definition of 

‘‘precursor’’ is either a revision to the 

definition of ‘‘precursor’’ or a 

demonstration that regulation of 

ammonia is not necessary to attain the 

PM2.5 NAAQS, consistent with the 

EPA’s requirements for such 

demonstrations at 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(3). 

TSD at 10–11. Similarly, our proposed 

conditional approval of Rule 207 

identified our authority under CAA 

section 110(k)(4) to conditionally 

approve a plan revision based on a 

commitment by the State to adopt 

specific enforceable measures by a date 

certain but no later than one year after 

the effective date of final action. We also 

explained that the enforceable measures 

that the State must submit are revisions 

that regulate ammonia as a PM2.5

precursor and that the District had in 

fact submitted such a letter.7

As noted by the commenter, 

ICAPCD’s letter commits to submit a 

revised Rule 207 that will revise the 

definitions of the terms ‘‘precursor’’ and 

‘‘significant’’.8 The record for this action 

demonstrates that EPA identified a 

deficiency in Rule 207 based on the 

definition of ‘‘precursor’’ not properly 

regulating ammonia as far back as 

December 19, 2016, when EPA proposed 

a limited approval/limited disapproval 

of Rule 207 and included the TSD in the 

publicly available rulemaking docket.9

As explained above and in our TSD, the 

only reason that Rule 207 is deficient 

with respect to federal requirements for 

NSR permit programs (specifically, 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(13)) is that certain 

definitions in Rule 207 mean that the 

rule does not properly regulate 

ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor. 

Therefore, the most logical approach to 

remedy the identified deficiency is to 

revise the definitions for these terms as 

the TSD advises. The State and the 

District committed to implement the 

changes necessary to correct the 

deficiency. 

We do not agree with the commenter 

that ICAPCD’s commitment to remedy 

the deficiencies in Rule 207’s 

definitions of ‘‘precursor’’ or 

‘‘significant’’ are insufficiently specific 

or are unenforceable. The EPA’s TSD 

explains that Rule 207’s definition of 

‘‘precursor’’ fails to include ammonia; 

therefore, the State and the District 

reasonably committed to address the 

deficiency by revising certain 

definitions.10 In addition, the District 

must solicit input from the public 

regarding the revisions to the 

definitions, and, as part of the public 

participation process for the revisions to 

Rule 207, interested members of the 

public will have the opportunity to 

provide input regarding the District’s 

revised definitions and whether they 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(13). In addition, the public 

will be able to provide input as to 

whether the revisions provide an 

enforceable mechanism for regulating 

ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor.11

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter that the District’s 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES

41898 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

12See NRDC v. EPA, 22 F3d 1125, 1134–1135 

(D.C. Cir. 1994) (concluding that the conditional 

approval mechanism under CAA section 110(k)(4) 

‘‘is intended to provide EPA with an alternative to 

disapproving substantive, but not entirely 

satisfactory, SIPs submitted by the statutory 

deadlines.’’) 

13 82 FR 27125 (June 14, 2017). 

commitment lacks specificity because it 

does not explain how the revisions to 

Rule 207 will comply with CAA section 

110(l). Once the EPA receives ICAPCD’s 

revisions to Rule 207, the EPA will 

review the revised rule pursuant to CAA 

section 110(l) to ensure that the 

revisions do not interfere with any 

applicable requirements concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirements of the Act, and will take 

public comment on our determination 

regarding CAA section 110(l) along with 

other aspects of our action. It is 

therefore unnecessary for the District to 

provide this analysis in its commitment 

letter to EPA. 

CBD also provided several suggestions 

for measures to control and monitor 

ammonia emissions and concluded that 

the failure to commit to implement such 

measures in the area puts the public at 

risk and deprives the public of its ability 

to assess compliance with the statute. 

The EPA disagrees that the State and the 

District are required to commit to 

implement specific control measures in 

order to obtain this conditional approval 

or that the public will be deprived of the 

right to review the state revisions to 

Rule 207 or any permits issued 

thereunder. When the District proposes 

revisions to Rule 207 or is actively 

issuing permits pursuant to that rule, 

CBD and other parties may comment as 

part of the public participation 

processes for those future actions. Thus, 

the comments are not within the scope 

of our current action, and the comments 

do not demonstrate a flaw in the EPA’s 

identification of the Rule 207 deficiency 

and revisions necessary to address it. 

Finally, because the EPA believes that 

the commitment of the State and the 

District to remedy the deficiencies 

identified in Rule 207 to regulate 

ammonia as a precursor to PM2.5 is 

sufficient, we disagree that EPA is 

obligated to implement a FIP. Our 

proposed action to conditionally 

approve Rule 207 is based on a 

commitment from the State and the 

District to submit specific, enforceable 

measures in the form of revised 

definitions for the terms ‘‘precursor’’ 

and ‘‘significant’’ within twelve months 

from the effective date of our final 

action. Because the State and the 

District provided the necessary 

commitments, EPA reasonably proposed 

to conditionally approve Rule 207 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4).12

III. EPA Action 

As authorized by CAA section 

110(k)(4), EPA is finalizing conditional 

approval of Rule 207—New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review into 

the ICAPCD portion of the California 

SIP. 

Section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA 

to conditionally approve a plan revision 

based on a commitment by the State to 

adopt specific enforceable measures by 

a date certain, but not later than one 

year after the effective date of the plan 

approval. In this instance, the 

enforceable measures that the State 

must submit are revisions to regulate 

ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor. On May 

17, 2017, CARB submitted a letter dated 

May 16, 2017 from the District 

committing to submit a SIP revision that 

regulates ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor 

no later than one year from the effective 

date of this final action. Under a 

conditional approval, the state must 

adopt and submit the specific revisions 

it has committed to within one year. If 

the State does not comply with this 

commitment, the EPA’s conditional 

approval will convert to a disapproval 

and start an 18-month clock for 

sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) 

and a two-year clock for a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) under CAA 

section 110(c)(1). 

In today’s action we are also making 

a technical correction to our previous 

action approving Rule 206 into the 

ICAPCD portion of the California SIP.13

In that action, we provided incorrect 

regulatory text to effect that change. 

This final action includes the corrected 

regulatory text to approve the revised 

Rule 206 in the California SIP. We did 

not seek public comment on this 

technical correction because public 

participation requirements were 

satisfied as part of our action approving 

Rule 206 into the SIP. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

ICAPCD rules listed in Table 1 of this 

notice. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these rules generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX (Air -3), 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 

94105–3901. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because this action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities beyond those imposed by state 

law. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, will result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 170 / Tuesday, September 5, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 41899 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. The EPA believes that this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 6, 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

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: July 31, 2017. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(56)(i)(B), 

(c)(442)(i)(A)(5), and (c)(490) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(56) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Previously approved on November 

10, 1980 in paragraph (c)(56)(i)(A) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in paragraph 

(c)(490)(i)(A)(1) of this section: Rule 207 

and Rule 209. 

* * * * * 

(442) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(5) Rule 206, ‘‘Processing of 

Applications,’’ revised on October 22, 

2013. 

* * * * * 

(490) An amended regulation was 

submitted on January 21, 2014 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 207, ‘‘Federal New Source 

Review,’’ revised on October 22, 2013. 

§ 52.232 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.232 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1). 

§ 52.233 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section 52.233 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1). 

[FR Doc. 2017–18623 Filed 9–1–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 161020985–7181–02] 

RIN 0648–XF654 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of 

Pacific Cod in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; reallocation. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is reallocating the 

projected unused amount of Pacific cod 

from vessels using jig gear and catcher 

vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet 

(18.3 meters) length overall (LOA) using 

hook-and-line gear to catcher vessels 

less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA 

using hook-and-line or pot gear in the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

management area. This action is 

necessary to allow the 2017 total 

allowable catch of Pacific cod to be 

harvested. 

DATES: Effective August 30, 2017, 

through 2400 hours, Alaska local time 

(A.l.t.), December 31, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Obren Davis, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP) prepared by the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council under 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. Regulations governing fishing by 

U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP 

appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 

and 50 CFR part 679. 

The 2017 Pacific cod total allowable 

catch (TAC) specified for vessels using 

jig gear in the BSAI is 1,293 metric tons 

(mt) as established by the final 2017 and 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES