43176 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Courts, Freedom of 

Information, Privacy Act. 

Pursuant to the authority vested in the 

Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and 

delegated to me by Attorney General 

Order 2940–2008, 28 CFR part 16 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 16—PRODUCTION OR 

DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR 

INFORMATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 16 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 

28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717. 

Subpart E—Exemption of Records 

Systems Under the Privacy Act 

■ 2. Add § 16.137 to subpart E to read 

as follows: 

§ 16.137 Exemption of the Department of 

Justice Insider Threat Program Records— 

limited access. 

(a) The Department of Justice Insider 

Threat Program Records (JUSTICE/DOJ– 

018) system of records is exempted from 

subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); 

(d)(1), (2), (3) and (4); (e)(1), (2) and (3); 

(e)(4)(G), (H) and (I); (e)(5) and (8); (f) 

and (g) of the Privacy Act. These 

exemptions apply only to the extent that 

information in this system is subject to 

exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) 

or (k). Where DOJ determines 

compliance would not appear to 

interfere with or adversely affect the 

purpose of this system to detect, deter, 

and/or mitigate insider threats, the 

applicable exemption may be waived by 

the DOJ in its sole discretion. 

(b) Exemptions from the particular 

subsections are justified for the 

following reasons: 

(1) From subsection (c)(3), the 

requirement that an accounting be made 

available to the named subject of a 

record, because this system is exempt 

from the access provisions of subsection 

(d). Also, because making available to a 

record subject the accounting of 

disclosures of records concerning him/ 

her would specifically reveal any 

insider threat-related interest in the 

individual by the DOJ or agencies that 

are recipients of the disclosures. 

Revealing this information could 

compromise ongoing, authorized law 

enforcement and intelligence efforts, 

particularly efforts to identify and/or 

mitigate insider threats. Revealing this 

information could also permit the 

record subject to obtain valuable insight 

concerning the information obtained 

during any investigation and to take 

measures to impede the investigation, 

e.g., destroy evidence or flee the area to 

avoid the investigation. 

(2) From subsection (c)(4) notification 

requirements because this system is 

exempt from the access and amendment 

provisions of subsection (d) as well as 

the accounting of disclosures provision 

of subsection (c)(3). The DOJ takes 

seriously its obligation to maintain 

accurate records despite its assertion of 

this exemption, and to the extent it, in 

its sole discretion, agrees to permit 

amendment or correction of DOJ 

records, it will share that information in 

appropriate cases. 

(3) From subsection (d)(1), (2), (3) and 

(4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), (e)(8), (f) and (g) 

because these provisions concern 

individual access to and amendment of 

law enforcement, intelligence and 

counterintelligence, and 

counterterrorism records, and 

compliance with these provisions could 

alert the subject of an authorized law 

enforcement or intelligence activity 

about that particular activity and the 

interest of the DOJ and/or other law 

enforcement or intelligence agencies. 

Providing access could compromise or 

lead to the compromise of information 

classified to protect national security; 

disclose information that would 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

another’s personal privacy; reveal a 

sensitive investigative or intelligence 

technique; disclose or lead to disclosure 

of information that would allow a 

subject to avoid detection or 

apprehension; or constitute a potential 

danger to the health or safety of law 

enforcement personnel, confidential 

sources, or witnesses. 

(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it 

is not always possible to know in 

advance what information is relevant 

and necessary for law enforcement and 

intelligence purposes. The relevance 

and utility of certain information that 

may have a nexus to insider threats may 

not always be fully evident until and 

unless it is vetted and matched with 

other information necessarily and 

lawfully maintained by the DOJ. 

(5) From subsection (e)(2) and (3) 

because application of these provisions 

could present a serious impediment to 

efforts to detect, deter and/or mitigate 

insider threats. Application of these 

provisions would put the subject of an 

investigation on notice of the 

investigation and allow the subject an 

opportunity to engage in conduct 

intended to impede the investigative 

activity or avoid apprehension. 

(6) From subsection (e)(4)(I), to the 

extent that this subsection is interpreted 

to require more detail regarding the 

record sources in this system than has 

been published in the Federal Register. 

Should the subsection be so interpreted, 

exemption from this provision is 

necessary to protect the sources of law 

enforcement and intelligence 

information and to protect the privacy 

and safety of witnesses and informants 

and others who provide information to 

the DOJ. Further, greater specificity of 

sources of properly classified records 

could compromise national security. 

(7) From subsection (e)(5) because in 

the collection of information for 

authorized law enforcement and 

intelligence purposes, including efforts 

to detect, deter, and/or mitigate insider 

threats, due to the nature of 

investigations and intelligence 

collection, the DOJ often collects 

information that may not be 

immediately shown to be accurate, 

relevant, timely, and complete, although 

the DOJ takes reasonable steps to collect 

only the information necessary to 

support its mission and investigations. 

Additionally, the information may aid 

DOJ in establishing patterns of activity 

and provide criminal or intelligence 

leads. It could impede investigative 

progress if it were necessary to assure 

relevance, accuracy, timeliness and 

completeness of all information 

obtained throughout the course and 

within the scope of an investigation. 

Further, some of the records in this 

system may come from other domestic 

or foreign government entities, or 

private entities, and it would not be 

administratively feasible for the DOJ to 

vouch for the compliance of these 

agencies with this provision. 

Dated: September 7, 2017. 

Peter A. Winn, 

Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Officer, United States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19483 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–NW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0259; FRL–9966–89– 

Region 9] 

Approval of California Air Plan 

Revisions, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43177 

1 82 FR 25996, 25998 (June 6, 2017). 2 82 FR 27451 (June 15, 2017). 

or ‘‘District’’) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) and oxides of sulfur 

(SOX) from facilities that emit four or 

more tons per year of NOX or SOX, 

which are regulated by SCAQMD’s 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market 

(RECLAIM) program. We are approving 

revisions to local rules in the SIP that 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

16, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0259. 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 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: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, Law.Nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25996), the 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

rules into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title 

Adopted/ 

amended/ 

revised 

Submitted 

SCAQMD .......... 2001 ...................................... Applicability ........................................................................... 12/04/15 03/17/17 

SCAQMD .......... 2002 ...................................... Allocations for NOX and SOX ............................................... 10/07/16 03/17/17 

SCAQMD .......... 2005 ...................................... New Source Review for Regional Clean Air Incentives 

Market.

12/04/15 03/17/17 

SCAQMD .......... 2011: Attachment C .............. Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: Quality Assurance and 

Quality Control Procedures.

12/04/15 03/17/17 

SCAQMD .......... 2011: Chapter 3 .................... Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: Process Units—Periodic 

Reporting and Rule 219 Equipment.

12/04/15 03/17/17 

SCAQMD .......... 2012: Attachment C .............. Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: Quality Assurance and 

Quality Control Procedures.

12/04/15 03/17/17 

SCAQMD .......... 2012: Chapter 4 .................... Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: Process Units—Periodic 

Reporting and Rule 219 Equipment.

12/04/15 03/17/17 

SCAQMD .......... 2011: Attachment E .............. Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: Definitions.02/05/16 03/17/17 

SCAQMD .......... 2012: Attachment F .............. Requirements for Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: Definitions.02/05/16 03/17/17 

We proposed to approve these rules 

for SIP strengthening purposes based on 

a determination that they satisfied the 

applicable CAA requirements. Our 

proposed action contains more 

information on the rules and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received one comment 

letter dated July 6, 2017, from Adriano 

Martinez of Earthjustice, on behalf of 

the Sierra Club. 

Several of Earthjustice’s comments 

pertain to CAA requirements concerning 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT). As we explained in our June 6, 

2017 proposed rule, we are not 

reviewing the submitted rule revisions 

with respect to RACT requirements in 

this action.1 Therefore, comments 

pertaining to whether the RECLAIM 

program, as revised in this action, meets 

substantive RACT requirements are not 

germane to this action. We note that the 

commenter submitted substantially 

identical comments on a separate 

proposed rule published June 15, 2017, 

in which the EPA proposed to 

determine that the revised RECLAIM 

regulations satisfy CAA requirements 

for ozone RACT SIPs in the South Coast 

ozone nonattainment area.2 We intend 

to address Earthjustice’s comments 

pertaining to RACT requirements as part 

of our final action on the separate South 

Coast ozone RACT SIP submission. 

Below we respond only to those 

comments that are germane to our June 

6, 2017 proposal to approve these 

revisions to the RECLAIM rules into the 

California SIP. 

Comment 1: Earthjustice asserts that 

the revised RECLAIM program does not 

properly address RECLAIM trading 

credits (RTCs) from facilities that have 

shut down. While acknowledging that 

the District has made some program 

amendments to prevent shutdown 

facility RTCs from flooding the 

RECLAIM market, Earthjustice claims 

that these amendments do not remedy 

the problem of NOX credits from 

facilities or equipment that shut down 

prior to 2016. As an example, 

Earthjustice highlights the California 

Portland Cement facility, which was one 

of the largest NOX emitters in the NOX

RECLAIM program until it closed down 

its cement kilns, releasing 2.5 tons per 

day of RTCs into the RECLAIM market. 

According to Earthjustice, these RTCs 

were largely purchased by oil refineries, 

which used the RTCs to avoid installing 

selective catalytic reduction and other 

readily available NOX pollution 

controls. Earthjustice contends that the 

District’s failure to remove these RTCs 

from the RECLAIM market is arbitrary 

and capricious and that, because of this 

deficiency, the NOX RECLAIM program 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
43178 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

3 82 FR 25996, 25998 (June 6, 2017). 

4 Id. and U.S. EPA, Region IX Air Division, 

‘‘Technical Support Document for EPA’s 

Rulemaking for the California State Implementation 

Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market Program 

Rules,’’ May 2017 (hereafter ‘‘RECLAIM TSD’’), at 

9, 10. 

5SCAQMD, Final Staff Report, Proposed 

Amendments to Regulation XX—Regional Clean Air 

Incentives Market, Proposed Amended Rule 2002— 

Allocations for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) and 

Oxides of Sulfur (SOX), October 7, 2016 (hereafter 

‘‘2016 RECLAIM Staff Report’’) at 3. 

6SCAQMD Rule 2002 (as amended October 7, 

2016), section (i). Rule 2002, as amended, provides 

limited exceptions from the requirement for 

shutdown facilities to surrender RTCs, e.g., for 

facilities under the same ownership. SCAQMD Rule 

2002 (as amended October 7, 2016), section (i)(13). 

7SCAQMD, Draft Final Staff Report, Proposed 

Amendments to Regulation XX Regional Clean Air 

Incentives Market (RECLAIM) NOX RECLAIM, 

December 4, 2015, at 5. 

8SCAQMD Rule 2001 (as amended December 4, 

2015), section (g)(2). Rule 2001, as amended, allows 

owners or operators of electric generating facilities 

to exit the RECLAIM program provided the facility 

meets Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or 

Best Available Retrofit Control Technology 

(BARCT) requirements and retires its NOX RTCs 

from the RECLAIM market. Id. 

9RECLAIM TSD at 9; see also SCAQMD, 

Summary Minutes of the Board of the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District, December 4, 

2015, at 15. 

10 2016 RECLAIM Staff Report at 9. 

11CAA section 110(a)(2)(E). 

12CAA section 110(l). 

13See CARB Executive Order S–17–002 (dated 

March 6, 2017) adopting the amended RECLAIM 

rules as a revision to the California SIP. The 

Executive Order states that the District is authorized 

by California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) 

section 40001 to adopt and enforce the rules 

identified in Enclosure A (i.e., the amended 

RECLAIM rules). 

fails to satisfy both California’s Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology 

(BARCT) requirement and the CAA’s 

RACT requirement. 

Response 1: We disagree with the 

commenter’s claim that the alleged 

deficiencies preclude approval of the 

revised RECLAIM rules into the SIP. As 

explained in our proposed rule, we have 

evaluated the revised rules for 

compliance with the applicable CAA 

requirements for enforceability, new 

source review, SIP revisions, and 

economic incentive programs.3 The 

commenter fails to identify any specific 

issue that precludes a finding that the 

revised RECLAIM regulations satisfy 

these requirements. 

The commenter also fails to identify 

any statutory basis, other than the CAA 

RACT requirement, for its argument that 

the EPA cannot approve the revised 

RECLAIM rules. To the extent the 

commenter intended to argue that the 

alleged deficiencies in the revised 

RECLAIM program constitute RACT 

deficiencies under the CAA, those 

comments are outside the scope of this 

action for the reasons stated earlier in 

this preamble, and the EPA will respond 

to them as part of our final action on the 

SCAQMD’s separate ozone RACT SIP 

submission. Comments regarding 

BARCT and command-and-control 

equivalence requirements under state 

law also are not germane to this action, 

as the CAA does not require the EPA to 

determine that the revised RECLAIM 

rules comply with state law BARCT 

requirements before approving these SIP 

revisions. 

As we explained in our proposed rule 

and related technical support document 

(TSD), the revised RECLAIM program is 

projected to achieve significant 

environmental benefits compared to the 

version that the EPA previously 

approved into the SIP.4 For example, 

under the program as previously 

approved into the SIP, available RTCs 

from facilities that permanently shut 

down could be sold and reintroduced 

back into the RECLAIM program for use 

by other facilities, thereby delaying or 

eliminating the need for those other 

facilities to install pollution control 

equipment.5 Under the revised program, 

the owner or operator of a NOX

RECLAIM facility that shuts down or 

surrenders all operating permits for the 

facility must notify the District within 

30 days and reduce its future NOX RTC 

allocations after adjusting the RTCs in 

accordance with specific adjustment 

calculations.6 The revised RECLAIM 

program also lowers the NOX RTC 

allocations for larger facilities 7 and 

removes NOX RTCs from facilities that 

exit the program.8 These revisions to the 

RECLAIM program are projected to 

reduce NOX emissions by 12 tons per 

day by 2023.9 These program revisions 

require NOX RECLAIM facilities to 

reduce NOX emissions by installing 

additional pollution control equipment 

and thus do not interfere with the 

ongoing process for ensuring that 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress (RFP) and attainment of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

are met, or interfere with any other CAA 

requirement. The revisions therefore 

satisfy the requirements for SIP 

revisions in CAA section 110(l). Again, 

we are not evaluating whether the 

revised RECLAIM rules meet RACT 

requirements for NOX in this action. 

Earthjustice’s stated concern about 

‘‘the problem of NOX credits from 

facilities or equipment that shut down 

prior to 2016’’ appears to be in reference 

to section (i)(1) of Rule 2002, as 

amended, which states that the 

requirements specified in that section 

are effective October 7, 2016, the date of 

their adoption by the SCAQMD. As the 

District explained in its staff report, the 

new shutdown provisions in section (i) 

of amended Rule 2002 will not be 

applied retroactively to facility 

shutdowns that occurred prior to the 

adoption date of the amended rule.10

We do not see a basis for disapproving 

Rule 2002 because its provisions are not 

applied retroactively. 

Comment 2: Citing section 

110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA, Earthjustice 

asserts that the EPA can approve a SIP 

revision only if it determines that the 

provision is not inconsistent with state 

law. Earthjustice contends that the 

revised RECLAIM rules violate 

California law because they are not 

equivalent to BARCT and are not 

equivalent to command-and-control 

regulations, as required by California’s 

Health and Safety Code. Earthjustice 

contends that the EPA therefore cannot 

make the determination required in 

section 110 of the Act that the approval 

not interfere with compliance with state 

law. 

Response 2: We disagree with the 

commenter’s claim that we must 

determine under CAA section 110 that 

a SIP revision is not inconsistent with 

state law BARCT requirements, or that 

the approval would not interfere with 

compliance with state law BARCT 

requirements, before we approve the 

revision. To approve a SIP revision, the 

EPA must determine that the SIP 

revision is supported by necessary 

assurances that the state or relevant 

local or regional agency has adequate 

legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out its provisions and that the 

agency is not prohibited by any 

provision of federal or state law from 

carrying out such SIP or portion 

thereof.11 In addition, the EPA must not 

approve any SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

RFP, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA.12

Alleged inconsistency with state law 

is relevant to the EPA in the context of 

our SIP review if it undermines the legal 

authority by the state or relevant local 

or regional agency to carry out the SIP, 

but alleged interference with 

compliance with state law requirements 

generally is not a bar to EPA approval. 

The EPA evaluates compliance with 

federal law (specifically, the CAA), not 

state law. California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) has provided the EPA 

with the necessary assurances that the 

District has the legal authority to carry 

out the revised RECLAIM rules.13

Therefore, we find that the revised 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43179 

RECLAIM rules satisfy the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E). We 

explained in Response 1, above, our 

reasons for concluding that the revised 

RECLAIM rules satisfy the requirements 

for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l). 

For the reasons provided in our 

proposed rule and explained further 

above, we conclude that the revised 

RECLAIM regulations satisfy the 

applicable CAA requirements for SIP 

revisions. 

III. Final Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the revised 

RECLAIM rules as described in our 

proposed action. Therefore, under 

section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is 

fully approving these revised rules into 

the California 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 

SCAQMD rules described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and at the EPA Region IX Office (please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

V. 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.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 13, 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur Oxides. 

Dated: August 15, 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)(337)(i)(C)(2) 

through (7), (c)(342)(i)(C)(5), 

(c)(388)(i)(A)(6), (c)(404)(i)(A)(5), and 

(c)(491) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan-in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(337) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(2) Previously approved on August 29, 

2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(4), Rule 

2011: Attachment C, ‘‘Requirements for 

Monitoring, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Procedures,’’ amended on December 4, 

2015. 

(3) Previously approved on August 29, 

2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(5), Rule 

2011: Chapter 3, ‘‘Requirements for 

Monitoring, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: 

Process Units—Periodic Reporting and 

Rule 219 Equipment,’’ amended on 

December 4, 2015. 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
43180 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 177 / Thursday, September 14, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) Previously approved on August 29, 

2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(6), Rule 

2012: Attachment C, ‘‘Requirements for 

Monitoring, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Procedures,’’ amended on December 4, 

2015. 

(5) Previously approved on August 29, 

2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(7), Rule 

2012: Chapter 4, ‘‘Requirements for 

Monitoring, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: 

Process Units—Periodic Reporting and 

Rule 219 Equipment,’’ amended on 

December 4, 2015. 

(6) Previously approved on August 29, 

2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(8), Rule 

2011: Attachment E, ‘‘Requirements for 

Monitoring, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping for SOX Emissions: 

Definitions,’’ amended on February 5, 

2016. 

(7) Previously approved on August 29, 

2006, in paragraph (c)(337)(i)(C)(1) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(9), Rule 

2012: Attachment F, ‘‘Requirements for 

Monitoring, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping for NOX Emissions: 

Definitions,’’ amended on February 5, 

2016. 

* * * * * 

(342) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(5) Previously approved on August 29, 

2006 in paragraph (c)(342)(i)(C)(2) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(1), Rule 

2001, ‘‘Applicability,’’ amended on 

December 4, 2015. 

* * * * * 

(388) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(6) Previously approved on August 12, 

2011 in paragraph (c)(388)(i)(A)(4) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(2), Rule 

2002, ‘‘Allocations for NOX & SOX,’’ 

amended on October 7, 2016. 

* * * * * 

(404) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(5) Previously approved on December 

20, 2011 in paragraph (c)(404)(i)(A)(1) of 

this section and now deleted with 

replacement in (c)(491)(i)(A)(3), Rule 

2005, ‘‘New Source Review for Regional 

Clean Air Incentives Market,’’ amended 

on December 4, 2015. 

* * * * * 

(491) Amended regulations for the 

following APCDs were submitted on 

March 17, 2017 by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 2001, ‘‘Applicability,’’ 

amended on December 4, 2015. 

(2) Rule 2002, ‘‘Allocations for Oxides 

of Nitrogen (NOX) and Oxides of Sulfur 

(SOX),’’ amended on October 7, 2016. 

(3) Rule 2005, ‘‘New Source Review 

for RECLAIM,’’ amended on December 

4, 2015. 

(4) Protocol for Rule 2011: 

Attachment C, ‘‘Quality Assurance and 

Quality Control Procedures,’’ amended 

on December 4, 2015. 

(5) Protocol for Rule 2011: Chapter 3, 

‘‘Process Units—Periodic Reporting,’’ 

amended on December 4, 2015. 

(6) Protocol for Rule 2012: 

Attachment C, ‘‘Quality Assurance and 

Quality Control Procedures,’’ amended 

on December 4, 2015. 

(7) Protocol for Rule 2012: Chapter 4, 

‘‘Process Units Periodic Reporting and 

Rule 219 Equipment,’’ amended on 

December 4, 2015. 

(8) Protocol for Rule 2011: 

Attachment E, ‘‘Definitions,’’ amended 

on February 5, 2016. 

(9) Protocol for Rule 2012: 

Attachment F, ‘‘Definitions,’’ amended 

on February 5, 2016. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19454 Filed 9–13–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0339; FRL–9967–66– 

Region 8] 

Montana Second 10-Year Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

Missoula 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Montana. On 

September 19, 2016, the Governor of 

Montana submitted to the EPA a Clean 

Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) second 

10-year maintenance plan for the 

Missoula, Montana area for the carbon 

monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). This 

limited maintenance plan (LMP) 

addresses maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS for a second 10-year period 

beyond the original redesignation. This 

action is being taken under sections 110 

and 175A of the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 13, 2017 without further 

notice, unless the EPA receives adverse 

comment by October 16, 2017. If 

adverse comment is received, the EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2017–0339 at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.,) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. (303) 312–7104, 

clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

the EPA through https://

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES