42454 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED OHIO REGULATIONS—Continued 

Ohio citation Title/subject 

Ohio 

effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date Notes 

3745–21–18 ....... Commercial motor vehicle and mobile 

equipment refinishing operations.

10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

3745–21–19 ....... Control of volatile organic compound emissions from aerospace manufacturing and 

rework facilities.

10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

3745–21–20 ....... Control of volatile organic emissions from 

shipbuilding and ship repair operations 

(marine coatings).

10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

3745–21–21 ....... Storage of volatile organic liquids in fixed 

roof tanks and external floating roof tanks.

10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

3745–21–22 ....... Control of volatile organic compound emissions from offset lithographic printing and 

letterpress printing facilities.

10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

3745–21–23 ....... Control of volatile organic compound emissions from industrial solvent cleaning operations.10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

3745–21–24 ....... Flat wood paneling coatings ......................... 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

3745–21–25 ....... Control of VOC emissions from reinforced 

plastic composites production operations.

10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

3745–21–26 ....... Surface coating of miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts.

10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

3745–21–27 ....... Boat manufacturing ...................................... 10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

3745–21–28 ....... Miscellaneous industrial adhesives and 

sealants.

10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

3745–21–29 ....... Control of volatile organic compound emissions from automobile and light-duty truck 

assembly coating operations, heavier vehicle assembly coating operations, and 

cleaning operations associated with these 

coating operations.

10/15/2015 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 3745–110—Nitrogen Oxides—Reasonably Available Control Technology 

3745–110–03 ..... RACT requirements and/or limitations for 

emissions of NOX from stationary sources.

07/18/2013 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

Only the NOX emission limitation on unit P046 contained in 3745–110–03(N). 

3745–110–05 ..... Compliance methods .................................... 07/18/2013 9/8/2017, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

Only (A). For purposes of 

demonstrating compliance 

with the NOX emission limitation on unit P046 contained in 3745–110–03(N). 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–18864 Filed 9–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0550; FRL–9966–98– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso 

Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is approving the required second carbon 

monoxide (CO) maintenance plan as a 

revision to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The El Paso, 

Texas CO maintenance area (El Paso 

Area) has been demonstrating consistent 

air quality monitoring at or below 85% 

of the CO National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS or standard). Because 

of this, the State of Texas, through its 

designee, submitted the required second 

maintenance plan for the El Paso Area 

as a Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 10, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0550. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

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 either 

electronically through http://


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42455 

1https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/ 

popest/total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html. 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Riley, 214–665–8542, riley.jeffrey@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

The factual background for this action 

is discussed in detail in our March 21, 

2017 direct final rule and proposal (82 

FR 14442, 82 FR 14499). Originally, we 

issued a direct final rule to approve the 

required second CO maintenance plan 

for the El Paso, Texas CO maintenance 

area as a revision to the Texas SIP. 

However, the direct final rule and 

proposal stated that if any relevant 

adverse comments were received by the 

end of the public comment period on 

April 20, 2017, the direct final rule 

would be withdrawn and we would 

respond to the comments in a 

subsequent final action. Relevant 

adverse comments were received during 

the comment period, and the direct final 

rule was withdrawn on May 22, 2017 

(82 FR 23148). The background 

information found in the direct final is 

still relevant and our March 21, 2017 

proposal provides the basis for this final 

action. 

We received comments on our 

proposal from one commenter. Our 

response to the comments are below. 

II. Response to Comments 

Comment 1: The Commenter states 

that ‘‘(a)dditional CO monitors are 

necessary to effectively monitor 

compliance’’ of the CO NAAQS in the 

El Paso maintenance area, and asserts 

that the current El Paso CO monitoring 

network operated by TCEQ is 

inadequate in terms of the number, 

siting, type, and scale of 

representativeness of the monitors that 

comprise the network. 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

assertion that the current El Paso CO 

monitoring network is inadequate to 

effectively monitor compliance with the 

CO NAAQS. Each state-submitted 

annual monitoring network plan is 

evaluated by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 

part 58.10 requirements to determine if 

the criteria for implementation and 

maintenance of the area’s air quality 

surveillance system have been met. 

Annual monitoring plans for the El Paso 

area have been reviewed and ultimately 

approved by EPA for the full extent of 

the timeframe noted by the Commenter. 

In recognition of significantly declining 

CO concentrations in the El Paso Area 

since 2000, Texas has gradually reduced 

and consolidated the El Paso CO 

monitoring network to three sites in 

2015 with approval from the EPA. The 

reductions in the number of active 

network monitors specifically during 

the 2012–2014 timeframe were 

conducted in consultation with EPA, 

and were done in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58.10 requirements. We have 

included EPA’s responses to the State’s 

annual monitoring network plans for the 

years 2012–2017 in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

We further note that 40 CFR 

58.10(a)(1) requires that beginning July 

1, 2007, the State shall adopt and 

submit to the Regional Administrator an 

annual monitoring network plan, and 

that this annual monitoring network 

plan must be made available for public 

inspection for at least 30 days prior to 

submission to EPA. This public 

inspection period of annual monitoring 

network plans has been provided by the 

State for all submittals since July 1, 

2007, and no adverse comments have 

been received pertaining to the El Paso 

Area CO monitoring network in this 

time. 

In the September 21, 2016 limited 

maintenance plan SIP submission, the 

State provided data showing monitored 

CO values from 2006–2015, reflecting a 

2015 8-hour CO design value of 2.8 

ppm. Thus, the design value 

represented for the 8-hour standard was 

less than 31% of the CO NAAQS. Only 

1 CO monitor is currently required for 

El Paso, the Chamizal monitor (AQS 

#48–141–0044) required for NCore 

(National Core monitoring network) 

monitoring. This is a neighborhoodscale, high CO concentration site for the 

city and it recorded a 2.3 ppm 8-hour 

CO design value for 2016, similar to the 

2.4 ppm 8-hour CO design value for 

2016 recorded at the nearby Ascarate 

Park monitor to the southeast of 

Chamizal. The 2.3 ppm and 2.4 ppm 8- 

hour CO design values are significantly 

below the 8-hour CO NAAQS of 9.4 

ppm, representing ambient 

concentrations 24% and 26%, 

respectively, of the 8-hour CO NAAQS. 

Both of these monitors are located in the 

CO maintenance area, and we note that 

these design values also represent a 

continued downward trend of CO 

ambient concentrations beyond the 2015 

design value provided in the State’s 

September 21, 2016 submittal. 

The Commenter also states that the El 

Paso CO LMP should include a 

commitment to collocate at least one 

near-road nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

monitor with a CO monitor as a 

contingency should a triggering event 

take place during the maintenance 

period. The basis of this argument is 

twofold: EPA network design criteria 

under 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D 

require at least one CO monitor to 

operate collocated with one required 

near-road NO2 monitor in Core Based 

Statistical Areas with a population of 

1,000,000 or more persons. Further, the 

Commenter refers to Texas Department 

of State Health Services (TDSHS) 

estimates that the El Paso population 

will be approaching 1,000,000 as early 

as 2020. The Commenter provided no 

specific citation for this TDSHS data. 

The 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D 

standard for population data is 

considered to be U.S. Census Bureau 

data. Based on U.S. Census data, El Paso 

will most likely not reach 1,000,000 in 

population by 2028. The current 

population growth estimate rate per year 

for El Paso is 5,811/year based upon 

U.S. Census estimates from 2010–2016.1

The 2010 estimate was 807,108 and the 

2016 estimate was 841,971. Using this 

growth estimate rate, the U.S. Census 

data indicates that the population of El 

Paso would reach around 912,000 in 

2028, and would reach 1,000,000 by 

roughly 2043. So, pursuant to EPA 40 

CFR part 58 requirements, a near road 

NO2/CO monitoring site will most likely 

not be required in El Paso until well 

after 2028 due to this slower growth 

estimation rate. At this time and based 

on the data provided, EPA does not 

believe such a contingency would 

provide meaningful air quality benefit to 

the El Paso area. 

Comment 2: The Commenter argues 

that statements made by the current 

EPA Administration on March 15, 2017 

are an indication that the Tier 3 Motor 

Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards 

may be repealed or weakened, and 

therefore the state’s reliance upon these 

standards as Federal control measures is 

a tenuous assumption. 

Response 2: We disagree with the 

Commenter. The EPA Administration’s 

March 15, 2017 statements do not 

pertain to the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle 

Emission and Fuel Standards. See 79 FR 

23414 (April 28, 2014). Rather, these 

statements concern reopening a midterm evaluation of the National Program 

for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 

fuel economy standards for light-duty 

vehicles, developed jointly by EPA and 

the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA). The Phase 2 

standards of this program, applying to 

model years 2017–2025, were 

promulgated in the Final Rule for 2017 

and Later Model Year Light-Duty 

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
42456 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

2A copy of the October 6, 1995 Guidance 

Memorandum is included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

3EPA’s September 4, 1992, John Calcagni policy 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’ 

provides further support of this interpretation. 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards. 77 FR 62624 (October 15, 

2012). This rulemaking is separate, 

distinct, and independent of the action 

we are addressing here. The October 15, 

2012 rulemaking is therefore beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking action and we 

refer the Commenter to the October 15, 

2012 action for further detail. 

To EPA’s knowledge, no such 

statements have been made concerning 

implementation of the Tier 3 Motor 

Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, 

and therefore the state’s reliance upon 

these standards as valid Federal control 

measures is appropriate for this SIP 

action. At this time, we see no legal 

requirement for the state to revise the 

LMP with an explicit commitment to 

reevaluate its reliance thereof in the 

speculative chance that a Federal 

measure could be weakened or removed 

some time in the future. We note that in 

any case of Federal measures being 

repealed or weakened, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k)(5), the EPA has Clean Air 

Act authority to require a state to revise 

an approved SIP if it finds that it has 

become substantially inadequate to 

maintain the NAAQS. Moreover, CAA 

section 175A provides the EPA 

discretion to require the state to submit 

a revised SIP should the area fail to 

maintain the NAAQS. 

Comment 3: The Commenter claims 

that the El Paso CO LMP lacks an 

adequate contingency plan because the 

State has not identified an appropriate 

trigger, and ‘‘has not identified 

measures that will be promptly adopted 

nor . . . identified a schedule or 

procedure to implement additional 

control measures.’’ 

Response 3: The State’s September 21, 

2016 LMP submission identifies 

violation of the CO NAAQS as a 

contingency trigger. EPA’s 

interpretation of section 175A of the 

CAA, as it pertains to LMP’s for CO, is 

contained in the October 6, 1995, 

national guidance memorandum titled 

‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment 

Areas’’ from Joseph Paisie, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards.2 While 

the Commenter correctly notes that 

under EPA’s guidance, ‘‘states are 

encouraged to choose a pre-violation 

action level as a trigger’’, the guidance 

explicitly states that a violation of the 

NAAQS is an acceptable trigger.3

Further, the State has identified 

potential contingency measures, as well 

as a schedule and procedure for timely 

implementation in the event of a CO 

NAAQS violation. 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s 

contention that the maintenance plan’s 

implementation schedules for 

contingency measures fail to satisfy the 

‘‘prompt response’’ requirement in CAA 

section 175A(d). This section of the 

CAA requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency provisions as 

the Administrator deems necessary to 

assure that the state ‘‘will promptly 

correct any violation’’ of the NAAQS 

that occurs after redesignation of an 

area. Thus, Congress gave EPA 

discretion to evaluate and determine the 

contingency measures that EPA ‘‘deems 

necessary’’ to assure that the state will 

‘‘promptly correct’’ any subsequent 

violation. 

Section 175A does not establish any 

deadlines for implementation of 

contingency measures after 

redesignation to attainment. It also 

provides far more latitude than does 

Section 172(c)(9), which applies to a 

different set of contingency measures 

applicable to nonattainment areas. 

Section 172(c)(9) contingency measures 

must ‘‘take effect . . . without further 

action by the State or [EPA].’’ By 

contrast, section 175A(d) allows EPA to 

take into account the need of a state to 

assess, adopt, and implement 

contingency measures if and when a 

violation occurs after an area’s 

redesignation to attainment. As noted by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit in Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 

527, 540 (6th Cir. 2004), that was cited 

by the Commenter, the EPA ‘‘has been 

granted broad discretion by Congress in 

determining what is ‘necessary to 

assure’ prompt correction’’ under 

section 175A, and ‘‘no pre-determined 

schedule for adoption of the measures is 

necessary in each specific case.’’ In 

making this determination, EPA 

accounts for the time that is required for 

states to analyze data and address the 

causes and appropriate means of 

remedying a violation. EPA also 

considers the time required to adopt and 

implement appropriate measures in 

assessing what ‘‘promptly’’ means in 

this context. 

In the case of the El Paso Area, EPA 

believes that the contingency measures 

set forth in the submittal, combined 

with the State’s commitment to 

implement contingency measures as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than 18 months of a trigger, provide 

assurance that the State will ‘‘promptly’’ 

correct a future NAAQS CO violation. 

Given the uncertainty regarding the 

nature of the contingency measures 

required to address a violation, a State 

may need up to 24 months to enact new 

statutes; develop new or modified 

regulations and complete notice and 

comment rulemaking; or take actions 

authorized by current state law that 

require the purchase and installation of 

equipment (e.g., diesel retrofits) or the 

development and implementation of 

new programs. In addition, EPA has 

previously approved implementation of 

contingency measures within 24 months 

of a violation to comply with the 

requirements of Section 175A in several 

instances. See, e.g., 81 FR 76891 

(November 4, 2016), 80 FR 61775 

(October 14, 2015), 79 FR 67120 

(November 12, 2014), 78 FR 44494 (July 

24, 2013), 77 FR 34819 (June 12, 2012), 

76 FR 59512 (Sept. 27, 2011), 75 FR 

2091 (January 14, 2010). EPA also notes 

that the Commenter did not provide any 

rationale for concluding that a suggested 

120-day implementation period of 

control strategies is necessary to satisfy 

section 175A. 

III. Final Action 

We are approving the CO LMP for the 

El Paso Area submitted by the TCEQ on 

September 21, 2016 as a revision to the 

Texas SIP because the State adequately 

demonstrates that the El Paso Area will 

maintain the CO NAAQS and meet all 

the criteria of a LMP through the second 

10-year maintenance period. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this 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); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42457 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, 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 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. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 7, 

2017. 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 29, 2017. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 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 SS—Texas 

■ 2. In § 52.2270 (e), the second table 

entitled ‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory 

Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures in the Texas SIP’’ is amended 

by adding a new entry at the end of the 

table for ‘‘Second 10-year Carbon 

Monoxide maintenance plan (limited 

maintenance plan) for the El Paso CO 

area’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State 

submittal/ 

effective date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Second 10-year Carbon Monoxide maintenance plan (limited 

maintenance plan) for the El Paso CO area.

El Paso, TX .... 9/21/2016 9/8/2017, [Insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–18950 Filed 9–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0131: FRL–9967–21– 

Region 10] 

Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North 

Star Borough; 2006 PM2.5 Moderate 

Area Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Alaska (Alaska 

or the State) to address Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) requirements for the 2006 

24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) in the Fairbanks North Star 

Borough Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment 

area (FNSB NAA). Alaska submitted an 

attainment plan for the FNSB NAA on 

December 31, 2014, to meet applicable 

requirements for an area classified as 

‘‘Moderate’’ nonattainment, and made 

additional submissions and provided 

clarifying information to supplement 

the attainment plan in January 2015, 

March 2015, July 2015, November 2015, 

March 2016, November 2016, and 

January 2017 (hereafter, the initial 

submission and all supplemental and 

clarifying information will be 

collectively referred to as ‘‘the FNSB 

Moderate Plan’’). 

DATES: This action is effective on 

October 10, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0131. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES