[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41895-41899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18623]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cba5acbeb2aea5e5bfa3a2aea58baebbaae5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="127c75676b777c3c667a7b777c527762733c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.

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.

[[Page 41896]]

    (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Previously, the EPA proposed a limited approval and limited 
disapproval of Rule 207. 81 FR 91895. (December 19, 2016)

                                           Table 1--Submitted NSR Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Rule No.             Rule title        Adopted/revised       Submitted            Proposed action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
207......................  New and Modified             10/22/13          1/21/14   Conditional Approval.
                            Stationary
                            Source Review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>10</INF>, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
SIP-approved 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 41897]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> shall 
also apply to major stationary sources and major modifications of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors in a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> if the 
NNSR precursor demonstration submitted to and approved by the 
Administrator shows that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 Sec.  51.1006(a)(3).''
    \4\ See also, 82 FR 91897.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>x</INF>, and 
indirectly applies to a third PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor, VOCs. Id. at 
10. With respect to the fourth PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> regulations, including revisions relevant to the 
regulation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors.\5\ In particular, the TSD 
notes that Rule 207 requires regulation of ammonia as a 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor ``if ammonia is determined to be a necessary 
part of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursor absent a finding by EPA that regulation of ammonia is a 
necessary component of ICAPCD's strategy to attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor unless 
EPA determines that such regulation is not necessary.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, our proposed conditional approval of Rule 207 
applies the correct standard pertaining to ammonia as a 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor and that the District had in fact submitted 
such a letter.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 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.''
    \9\ By 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
precursor.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor'' and that it 
was committing to submit a revised rule with revised definitions of 
these terms ``to address this deficiency.''
    \11\ We 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also disagrees with the commenter that the District's

[[Page 41898]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 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.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 82 FR 27125 (June 14, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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/laws-regulations/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.

[[Page 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

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)(56)(i)(B), 
(c)(442)(i)(A)(5), and (c)(490) to read as follows:


Sec.  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.


Sec.  52.232  [Amended]

0
3. Section 52.232 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a)(1).


Sec.  52.233   [Amended]

0
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


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