Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45187 

PART 1024—RULES FOR MUTUAL 

FUNDS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 1024 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951–1959; 

31 U.S.C. 5311–5314 and 5316–5332; title III, 

sec. 314 Pub. L. 107–56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 

701, Pub. L. 114–74, 129 Stat. 599. 

■ 4. In § 1024.210: 

■ a. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as 

paragraph (b)(5); 

■ b. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(b)(5)(ii), remove the words ‘‘paragraph 

(b)(4)(ii)’’ and add in their place the 

words ‘‘paragraph (b)(5)(ii)’’; and 

■ c. Add a new paragraph (b)(4). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 1024.210 Anti-money laundering 

program requirements for mutual funds. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Provide ongoing training for 

appropriate persons; and 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 14, 2017. 

Jamal El-Hindi, 

Deputy Director, Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20777 Filed 9–27–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–C 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0215; FRL–9968–34– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) Trading Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. The submitted revision 

requests EPA remove from the Virginia 

SIP regulations from the Virginia 

Administrative Code that established 

EPA-administered trading programs 

under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR), one of which also included 

requirements to address nitrogen oxide 

(NOX) reductions required under the 

NOX SIP Call. The EPA-administered 

trading programs under CAIR were 

discontinued on December 31, 2014 

upon the implementation of the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

which was promulgated by EPA to 

replace CAIR. CSAPR established 

federal implementation plans (FIPs) for 

23 states, including Virginia. The SIP 

submittal seeks removal from the 

Virginia SIP of Virginia regulations that 

implemented the CAIR annual NOX, 

ozone season NOX, and sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) trading programs (as CSAPR has 

replaced CAIR). EPA is approving the 

SIP revision in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 27, 2017 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

written comment by October 30, 2017. 

If EPA receives such comments, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

and inform the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2017–0215 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

stahl.cynthia@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULESER28SE17.007</GPH>
45188 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1These non-EGUs are defined in the NOX SIP Call 

as stationary, fossil fuel-fired boilers, combustion 

turbines, or combined cycle systems with a 

maximum design heat input greater than 250 

million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr). 

2 In October 1998, EPA finalized the ‘‘Finding of 

Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for 

Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment 

Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional 

Transport of Ozone’’—commonly called the NOX

SIP Call. See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). 

3North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

4North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

5Order of Dec. 30, 2011, in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11–1302. 

6Order Document #1518738, EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. 

Issued Oct. 23, 2014). 

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. 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, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Calcinore, (215) 814–2043, or by email 

at calcinore.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 5, 2017, the Commonwealth of 

Virginia, through the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ), submitted a SIP revision 

(Revision D16) that requests removal 

from its SIP of Virginia Administrative 

Code regulations including 9 VAC 5 

Chapter 140: Part II—NOX Annual 

Trading Program; Part III—NOX Ozone 

Season Trading Program; and Part IV— 

SO2 Annual Trading Program (Sections 

5–140–1010 through 5–140–3880). 

I. Background 

EPA promulgated CAIR (70 FR 25162, 

May 12, 2005) to address transported 

emissions that significantly contributed 

to downwind states’ nonattainment and 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

CAIR required 28 states, including 

Virginia, to reduce emissions of NOX

and SO2, precursors to the formation of 

ambient ozone and PM2.5. Under CAIR, 

EPA established federal implementation 

plans (FIPs) comprised of separate cap 

and trade programs for annual NOX, 

ozone season NOX, and annual SO2. 

States could comply with the 

requirements of CAIR by remaining on 

the FIP, which applied only to electric 

generating units (EGUs), or by 

submitting a CAIR SIP revision that 

included as trading sources EGUs and 

certain non-EGUs 1 that formerly traded 

in the NOX Budget Trading Program 

under the NOX SIP Call.2 On December 

28, 2007 (72 FR 73602), EPA approved 

a SIP revision submitted by Virginia that 

allowed the Commonwealth to 

participate in the EPA-administered 

CAIR regional cap and trade programs 

for NOX annual, NOX ozone season, and 

SO2 annual emissions. Virginia’s NOX

ozone season trading program under 

CAIR included non-EGUs that were 

previously trading in the NOX budget 

trading program under the NOX SIP 

Call, which satisfied Virginia’s 

obligations under the NOX SIP Call. 

After EPA promulgated CAIR, 

litigation ensued. The United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially 

vacated CAIR in 2008,3 but ultimately 

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR.4 The ruling 

allowed CAIR to remain in effect 

temporarily until a replacement rule 

consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s 

opinion was developed. While EPA 

worked on developing a replacement 

rule, the CAIR program continued as 

planned with the NOX annual and 

ozone season programs beginning in 

2009 and the SO2 annual program 

beginning in 2010. 

On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), 

acting on the D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA 

promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR to 

address the interstate transport of 

emissions contributing to nonattainment 

and interfering with maintenance of the 

two air quality standards covered by 

CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The rule also contained provisions that 

would sunset CAIR-related obligations 

on a schedule coordinated with the 

implementation of CSAPR compliance 

requirements. CSAPR was to become 

effective January 1, 2012; however, the 

timing of CSAPR’s implementation was 

impacted by a number of court actions. 

Numerous parties filed petitions for 

review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, 

and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit stayed CSAPR prior to its 

implementation and ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR on an 

interim basis.5 On August 21, 2012, the 

D.C. Circuit issued its ruling, vacating 

and remanding CSAPR to EPA and 

ordering continued implementation of 

CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

The D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR 

was reversed by the United States 

Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and 

the case was remanded to the D.C. 

Circuit to resolve remaining issues in 

accordance with the Supreme Court’s 

ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). 

On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed 

CSAPR in most respects. 

Throughout the initial round of D.C. 

Circuit proceedings and the ensuing 

Supreme Court proceedings, the stay on 

CSAPR remained in place, and EPA 

continued to implement CAIR. 

Following the April 2014 Supreme 

Court decision, EPA filed a motion 

asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the stay in 

order to allow CSAPR to replace CAIR 

in an equitable and orderly manner 

while further D.C. Circuit proceedings 

were held to resolve remaining claims 

from petitioners. Additionally, EPA’s 

motion requested to toll, by three years, 

all CSAPR compliance deadlines that 

had not passed as of the approval date 

of the stay. On October 23, 2014, the 

D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s request,6 and 

on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in 

an interim final rule, EPA set the 

updated effective date of CSAPR as 

January 1, 2015 and tolled the 

implementation of CSAPR Phase I to 

2015 and CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017. In 

accordance with the interim final rule, 

the sunset date for CAIR was December 

31, 2014, and EPA began implementing 

CSAPR on January 1, 2015. 

Starting in January 2015, the CSAPR 

FIP trading programs for annual NOX, 

ozone season NOX, and annual SO2

were applicable in Virginia. Thus, since 

January 1, 2015, Virginia regulations 

implementing the CAIR annual trading 

programs, including the NOX ozone 

season trading program addressing 

Virginia’s obligations under the NOX

SIP Call, have been obsolete and moot 

and none of these programs contribute 

to emission reductions in Virginia. 

On October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74504), 

EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule 

to address interstate transport of ozone 

pollution with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, and issued FIPs that updated 

the ozone season NOX budgets for 22 

states, including Virginia. Starting in 

January 2017, the CSAPR Update 

budgets were implemented via 

modifications to the CSAPR NOX ozone 

season allowance trading program that 

was established under the original 

CSAPR. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45189 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

VADEQ submitted a SIP revision on 

January 5, 2017 requesting the removal 

of regulations from the Virginia SIP 

under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: Part II— 

NOX Annual Trading Program, Part III— 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program, 

and Part IV—SO2 Annual Trading 

Program (Sections 5–140–1010 through 

5–140–3880), which implemented the 

CAIR annual NOX, ozone season NOX, 

and annual SO2 trading programs. These 

regulations have been moot since 

January 1, 2015, when CSAPR replaced 

CAIR, and have been repealed in their 

entirety from the Virginia 

Administrative Code. The amendments 

removing these regulations were 

adopted by the State Air Pollution 

Control Board on September 9, 2016 and 

were effective as of November 16, 2016. 

As noted previously, on January 1, 

2015, the CAIR annual NOX, ozone 

season NOX, and annual SO2 trading 

programs were replaced by the trading 

programs under the CSAPR FIP. 

Therefore, regulations in the Virginia 

SIP that implemented the CAIR annual 

trading programs have been obsolete 

and moot since January 1, 2015. None 

of the provisions in 9 VAC 5 Chapter 

140 which Virginia seeks to remove 

from the SIP presently reduce NOX or 

SO2 emissions from EGUs or certain 

non-EGUs after December 31, 2014 as 

CAIR was replaced by CSAPR. 

These obsolete regulations include 

provisions under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: 

Part III—NOX Ozone Season Trading 

Program Article 1—CAIR NOX Ozone 

Season Trading Program General 

Provisions and Article 5—CAIR NOX

Ozone Season Allowance Allocations, 

which addressed Virginia’s obligations 

under the NOX SIP Call by including 

EGUs and certain large non-EGUs that 

had formerly traded under the NOX SIP 

Call trading program as CAIR trading 

sources. Unlike the CAIR trading 

program, CSAPR’s trading program for 

ozone season NOX as promulgated in 

2011 does not provide for non-EGUs to 

participate in trading. Therefore, since 

January 1, 2015, when CSAPR replaced 

CAIR and the CSAPR FIP became 

effective in Virginia, the Virginia SIP 

has not contained an effective regulation 

addressing Virginia’s obligation under 

the NOX SIP Call to reduce NOX

emissions from non-EGUs such as 

stationary, fossil fuel-fired boilers, 

combustion turbines, or combined cycle 

systems with a maximum design heat 

input greater than 250 MMBtu/hr. The 

absence of an effective regulation in the 

Virginia SIP to reduce NOX emissions 

from these non-EGUs that formerly 

participated in the CAIR trading 

program resulted from the sunset of 

CAIR and EPA’s implementation of 

CSAPR starting January 1, 2015. 

Because CSAPR did not provide for 

trading by non-EGUs, Virginia’s SIP no 

longer meets the Virginia NOX SIP Call 

obligation with respect to these nonEGUs that formerly traded in CAIR. 

However, Virginia’s request in its 

January 5, 2017 SIP seeking removal 

from its SIP of 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: 

Part III—NOX Ozone Season Trading 

Program and EPA’s action to approve 

the January 5, 2017 submittal did not 

create this gap in coverage under the 

Virginia SIP. According to Virginia, the 

Commonwealth is in the process of 

drafting a regulation to address the 

Commonwealth’s obligations under the 

NOX SIP Call (including its obligation to 

address these non-EGUs which formerly 

traded in CAIR). In remedying its 

provisions to address the NOX SIP Call, 

Virginia must satisfy the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.121(f) which lists 

requirements such as control measures 

to be included in SIP revisions to meet 

NOX budgets assigned under the NOX

SIP Call. EPA expects Virginia will 

submit such provisions to EPA to be 

included in Virginia’s SIP, and EPA will 

review and act on any such SIP 

submittal from Virginia addressing the 

Commonwealth’s NOX SIP Call 

obligations in a separate rulemaking. 

Since the regulations implementing 

the CAIR annual NOX, ozone season 

NOX, and annual SO2 trading programs 

have been moot and non-operational 

since CAIR was replaced by CSAPR on 

January 1, 2015, removing these 

regulations from the Virginia SIP will 

not interfere with reduction of NOX or 

SO2 emissions in Virginia and will not 

interfere with Virginia’s attainment of 

any NAAQS, reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable CAA 

requirement. In addition, as Virginia’s 

SIP has not effectively addressed nonEGUs that formerly traded in CAIR for 

NOX SIP Call obligations since CAIR 

sunset, removing 9 VAC 5 Chapter 140: 

Part III—NOX Ozone Season Trading 

Program from the Virginia SIP will also 

not interfere with attainment of 

NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or 

any CAA requirement as the CAIR’s 

sunset removed the non-EGUs from the 

ozone season NOX trading program. 

Thus, EPA finds the January 5, 2017 SIP 

revision approvable in accordance with 

section 110 of the CAA, including 

specifically with section 110(l) of the 

CAA. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the January 5, 2017 

SIP revision submission from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, which 

sought removal from the Virginia SIP of 

moot regulations under 9 VAC 5 

Chapter 140 that implemented the CAIR 

annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and 

annual SO2 trading programs at Part II— 

NOX Annual Trading Program; Part III— 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program; 

and Part IV—SO2 Annual Trading 

Program (Sections 5–140–1010 through 

5–140–3880). EPA is publishing this 

rule without prior proposal because 

EPA views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on November 27, 2017 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by October 30, 2017. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. EPA 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. Please note that 

if EPA receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

IV. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
45190 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

Law, Va. Code § 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their federal counterparts 

. . . .’’ The opinion concludes that 

‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, 

documents or other information needed 

for civil or criminal enforcement under 

one of these programs could not be 

privileged because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 

10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent 

consistent with requirements imposed 

by federal law,’’ any person making a 

voluntary disclosure of information to a 

state agency regarding a violation of an 

environmental statute, regulation, 

permit, or administrative order is 

granted immunity from administrative 

or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s 

January 12, 1998 opinion states that the 

quoted language renders this statute 

inapplicable to enforcement of any 

federally authorized programs, since 

‘‘no immunity could be afforded from 

administrative, civil, or criminal 

penalties because granting such 

immunity would not be consistent with 

federal law, which is one of the criteria 

for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on federal enforcement 

authorities, EPA may at any time invoke 

its authority under the CAA, including, 

for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 

or 213, to enforce the requirements or 

prohibitions of the state plan, 

independently of any state enforcement 

effort. In addition, citizen enforcement 

under section 304 of the CAA is 

likewise unaffected by this, or any, state 

audit privilege or immunity law. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. 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 CAA; 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land as defined 

in 18 U.S.C. 1151 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). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 27, 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking action. 

This action removing from the 

Virginia SIP regulations under Sections 

5–140–1010 through 5–140–3880 of 9 

VAC 5 Chapter 140 that implemented 

the CAIR annual NOX, ozone season 

NOX, and annual SO2 trading programs 

may not be challenged later in 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45191 

1See section 107(d)(4) of the Act. See also 56 FR 

56694, November 6, 1991. 2See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991. 

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, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 8, 2017. 

Cecil Rodrigues, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

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 VV—Virginia 

§ 52.2420 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the section entitled ‘‘Part 

II NOX Annual Trading Program’’, 

including ‘‘Article 1’’ through ‘‘Article 

9’’ including entries ‘‘5–140–1010’’ 

through ‘‘5–140–1880’’; 

■ b. Removing the section entitled ‘‘Part 

III NOX Ozone Season Trading 

Program’’, including ‘‘Article 1’’ through 

‘‘Article 9’’ including entries ‘‘5–140– 

2010’’ through ‘‘5–140–2880’’; and; 

■ c. Removing the section entitled ‘‘Part 

IV SO2 Annual Trading Program’’, 

including ‘‘Article 1’’ through ‘‘Article 

9’’ including entries ‘‘5–140–3010’’ 

through ‘‘5–140–3880’’. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20724 Filed 9–27–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0411; FRL–9968–38– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Enhanced 

Monitoring; California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

California on November 10, 1993. This 

SIP revision concerns the establishment 

of a Photochemical Assessment 

Monitoring System (PAMS) network in 

six ozone nonattainment areas within 

California. The EPA is taking this action 

under the Clean Air Act based on the 

conclusion that all applicable statutory 

and regulatory requirements related to 

PAMS SIP revisions have been met. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 30, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket No. 

EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0411. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed on the Web site, 

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: 

Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On August 2, 2017 (82 FR 35922), we 

proposed to approve a SIP revision 

submitted by the State of California on 

November 10, 1993. Herein, we refer to 

our proposed action on August 2, 2017, 

as the ‘‘proposed rule.’’ 

In our proposed rule, we provided a 

discussion of the regulatory context 

leading to the SIP revision submitted by 

California on November 10, 1993. In 

short, the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), 

as amended in 1990, required the EPA 

to designate as nonattainment, and to 

classify as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, 

Severe or Extreme, any ozone areas that 

were still designated nonattainment 

under the 1977 Act Amendments, and 

any other areas violating the 1-hour 

ozone standard, generally based on air 

quality monitoring data from the 1987 

through 1989 period.1 Within 

California, we classified six ozone 

nonattainment areas as Serious, Severe, 

or Extreme: Los Angeles-South Coast 

Air Basin (‘‘South Coast’’), Sacramento 

Metro, San Diego County, San Joaquin 

Valley, Southeast Desert Modified Air 

Quality Management Area (‘‘Southeast 

Desert’’) and Ventura County.2 Such 

areas were subject to many 

requirements, including those related to 

enhanced monitoring in CAA section 

182(c)(1). 

CAA section 182(c)(1) of the CAA 

required the EPA to promulgate rules for 

enhanced monitoring of ozone, oxides 

of nitrogen, and volatile organic 

compounds to obtain more 

comprehensive and representative data 

on ozone air pollution in areas 

designated nonattainment and classified 

as Serious, Severe or Extreme. The 

EPA’s final PAMS regulation was 

promulgated on February 12, 1993 (58 

FR 8452). Section 182(c)(1) also 

required states to submit SIP revisions 

providing for enhanced monitoring for 

such areas consistent with the PAMS 

regulation. 

On November 10, 1993, the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted 

to the EPA a SIP revision for PAMS 

networks in California (‘‘California 

PAMS SIP revision’’). The California 

PAMS SIP revision consists of PAMS 

commitments from five California air 

districts with jurisdiction within the six 

relevant ozone nonattainment areas: The 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (AQMD) (for South Coast and 

Southeast Desert areas); Sacramento 

Metro AQMD (for the Sacramento Metro 

area); San Diego County Air Pollution 

Control District (APCD) (for the San 

Diego County area); San Joaquin Valley 

Unified APCD (for the San Joaquin 

Valley area), and Ventura County APCD 

(for the Ventura County area), as well as 

CARB Executive Orders approving the 

commitments, and public process 

documentation. The California PAMS 

SIP revision is intended to meet the 

requirements of section 182(c)(1) of the 

Act and to comply with the PAMS 

regulation, codified at 40 CFR part 58, 

as promulgated on February 12, 1993. 

In our proposed rule, we identified 

the criteria we used to review the 

California PAMS SIP revision submittal 

and provided our evaluation and 

rationale for proposed approval. We 

determined that California’s PAMS SIP 

revision meets all applicable 

requirements: (1) By first committing to, 

and then by implementing, PAMS 

networks as required in 40 CFR part 58; 

and (2) by providing the public with an 

opportunity to inspect the proposed 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES