82 FR 20295 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 82 (May 1, 2017)

Page Range		20295-20296
FR Document		2017-08666

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in response to EPA's May 22, 2015 finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call for certain provisions in the SIP related to affirmative defenses applicable to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revisions because the Agency has determined that they are in accordance with the requirements for SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20295-20296]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08666]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0096; FRL-9961-55-Region 9]


Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air 
Pollution Control District and Imperial County Air Pollution Control 
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District 
(EKAPCD) and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) 
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 
revisions were submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
in response to EPA's May 22, 2015 finding of substantial inadequacy and 
SIP call for certain provisions in the SIP related to affirmative 
defenses applicable to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is proposing approval of the SIP 
revisions because the Agency has determined that they are in accordance 
with the requirements for SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA 
or the Act).

DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2017-0096 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew 
Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at [email protected]. For 
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or 
edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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, 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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 
(415) 947-4125, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA proposing today?
II. What is the background for the EPA's proposed action?
III. Why is the EPA proposing this action?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing today?

    The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California SIP. 
The revisions will remove from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the 
California SIP provisions related to affirmative defenses that sources 
could assert in the event of enforcement actions for violations of SIP 
requirements during SSM events. Removal of the affirmative defense 
provisions from the SIP will make the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the 
SIP consistent with CAA requirements with respect to this issue. EKAPCD 
and ICAPCD are retaining the affirmative defenses solely for state law 
purposes, outside of the EPA approved SIP. Removal of the affirmative 
defenses from the SIP is also consistent with the EPA policy for 
exclusion of ``state law only'' provisions from SIPs, and will serve to 
minimize any potential confusion about the inapplicability of the 
affirmative defense provisions in federal court enforcement actions. 
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates on 
which each rule was rescinded by the EKAPCD or ICAPCD and submitted by 
CARB in response to EPA's final action entitled ``State Implementation 
Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of 
EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial 
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 
Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 
33839 (June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as the ``SSM SIP Action.''

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                 Rule #               Rule title             Rescinded       Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EKAPCD.............................             111  Equipment Breakdown........        11/10/16        12/06/16
ICAPCD.............................             111  Equipment Breakdown........        09/22/15        03/28/16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 20296]]

    On January 12, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittal for 
EKAPCD Rule 111 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 
Appendix V, and on September 28, 2016, the submittal for ICAPCD Rule 
111 was deemed complete by operation of law under 40 CFR part 51 
Appendix V. The completeness criteria must be met before formal EPA 
review of the submittals for approvability in accordance with 
applicable CAA requirements.

II. What is the background for the EPA's proposed action?

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA 
published the final SSM SIP Action finding that certain SIP provisions 
in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and 
called on those states to submit SIP revisions to address those 
inadequacies. 80 FR 33839. As required by the CAA, the EPA established 
a reasonable deadline (not to exceed 18 months) by which the affected 
states must submit such SIP revisions. In accordance with the SSM SIP 
Action, states were required to submit corrective revisions to their 
SIPs by November 22, 2016. The EPA's reasoning, legal authority, and 
responsibility under the CAA for issuing the SIP call to California can 
be found in the SSM SIP Action.
    In the SSM SIP Action, the EPA determined that EKAPCD Rule 111 and 
ICAPCD Rule 111 include elements of an affirmative defense for excess 
emissions during malfunctions. Specifically, EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD 
Rule 111 contain affirmative defense provisions that preclude 
enforcement for excess emissions that would otherwise constitute a 
violation of the applicable SIP emission limitations. The EPA concluded 
that EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 operate to alter or affect the 
jurisdiction of federal courts in the event of an enforcement action, 
contrary to the enforcement structure of the CAA in section 113 and 
section 304. See 80 FR 33972 (June 12, 2015).
    On March 28, 2016 and December 6, 2016, ICAPCD and EKAPCD, 
respectively, made submittals in response to the SSM SIP Action. As 
noted above, the EPA found these submittals complete on September 28, 
2016 and January 12, 2017, respectively. In the submittals, EKAPCD and 
ICAPCD requested that EPA revise the California SIP by removing EKAPCD 
Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 in their entirety from the California SIP. 
This approach is consistent with the EPA's interpretation of CAA 
requirements for SIP provisions.

III. Why is the EPA proposing this action?

    In the SSM SIP Action, the EPA made a finding of substantial 
inadequacy and issued a SIP call with respect to EKAPCD Rule 111 and 
ICAPCD Rule 111 pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5). In response, CARB 
submitted SIP revisions requesting the EPA to remove EKAPCD Rule 111 
and ICAPCD Rule 111 from the California SIP in their entirety. 
Affirmative defense provisions like these are inconsistent with CAA 
requirements and removal of these provisions would strengthen the SIP. 
This action, if finalized, would remove the affirmative defense 
provisions from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the EPA-approved SIP 
for California. The EPA is proposing to find that these revisions are 
consistent with CAA requirements and that they adequately address the 
specific SIP deficiencies that the EPA identified in the SSM SIP Action 
with respect to the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of the California SIP.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the California SIP revisions 
removing EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule 111 from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD 
portions of the California SIP. The EPA is proposing approval of the 
SIP revisions because the Agency has determined that they are in 
accordance with the requirements for SIP provisions under the CAA. The 
EPA is not reopening the SSM SIP Action in this action and is taking 
comment only on whether this SIP revision is consistent with CAA 
requirements and whether it addresses the ``substantial inadequacy'' of 
the specific California SIP provisions identified in the SSM SIP 
Action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve 
SIP submissions that comply 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state 
requests as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 29, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-08666 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules 20295

Branch (Mail Code OEP05–02), U.S. ACTION: Proposed rule. https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
Environmental Protection Agency, commenting-epa-dockets.
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109–3912; Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(617) 918–1046; mcconnell.robert@ revisions to the Eastern Kern Air
Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) (415) 947–4125, vineyard.christine@
epa.gov. epa.gov.
and Imperial County Air Pollution
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Control District (ICAPCD) portions of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Final Rules Section of this Federal the California State Implementation
Register, EPA is approving the State’s Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
Plan (SIP). These revisions were and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
SIP submittal as a direct final rule submitted by the California Air
without prior proposal because the Resources Board (CARB) in response to Table of Contents
Agency views this as a noncontroversial EPA’s May 22, 2015 finding of I. What action is the EPA proposing today?
submittal and anticipates no adverse substantial inadequacy and SIP call for II. What is the background for the EPA’s
comments. A detailed rationale for the certain provisions in the SIP related to proposed action?
approval is set forth in the direct final affirmative defenses applicable to excess III. Why is the EPA proposing this action?
rule. If no adverse comments are emissions during startup, shutdown, IV. Proposed Action
received in response to this action rule, and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
no further activity is contemplated. If proposing approval of the SIP revisions I. What action is the EPA proposing
EPA receives adverse comments, the because the Agency has determined that today?
direct final rule will be withdrawn and they are in accordance with the
all public comments received will be requirements for SIP provisions under The EPA is proposing to approve
addressed in a subsequent final rule the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). revisions to the California SIP. The
based on this proposed rule. EPA will DATES: Any comments must arrive by revisions will remove from the EKAPCD
not institute a second comment period. May 31, 2017. and ICAPCD portions of the California
Any parties interested in commenting ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, SIP provisions related to affirmative
on this action should do so at this time. identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– defenses that sources could assert in the
Please note that if EPA receives adverse OAR–2017–0096 at https:// event of enforcement actions for
comment on an amendment, paragraph, www.regulations.gov, or via email to violations of SIP requirements during
or section of this rule and if that Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office SSM events. Removal of the affirmative
provision may be severed from the Chief at Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For defense provisions from the SIP will
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt comments submitted at Regulations.gov, make the EKAPCD and ICAPCD
as final those provisions of the rule that follow the online instructions for portions of the SIP consistent with CAA
are not the subject of an adverse submitting comments. Once submitted, requirements with respect to this issue.
comment. comments cannot be removed or edited EKAPCD and ICAPCD are retaining the
For additional information, see the from Regulations.gov. For either manner affirmative defenses solely for state law
direct final rule which is located in the of submission, the EPA may publish any purposes, outside of the EPA approved
Rules Section of this Federal Register. comment received to its public docket. SIP. Removal of the affirmative defenses
Dated: December 27, 2016. Do not submit electronically any from the SIP is also consistent with the
Deborah A. Szaro, information you consider to be EPA policy for exclusion of ‘‘state law
Confidential Business Information (CBI) only’’ provisions from SIPs, and will
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New
England. or other information whose disclosure is serve to minimize any potential
restricted by statute. Multimedia confusion about the inapplicability of
[FR Doc. 2017–08644 Filed 4–28–17; 8:45 am]
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be the affirmative defense provisions in
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
accompanied by a written comment. federal court enforcement actions. Table
The written comment is considered the 1 lists the rules addressed by this
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION official comment and should include proposal with the dates on which each
AGENCY discussion of all points you wish to rule was rescinded by the EKAPCD or
make. The EPA will generally not ICAPCD and submitted by CARB in
40 CFR Part 52 consider comments or comment response to EPA’s final action entitled
contents located outside of the primary ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0096; FRL–9961–55– submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement
Region 9] other file sharing system). For and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy
Approval of California Air Plan additional submission methods, please Applicable to SIPs; Findings of
Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution contact the person identified in the FOR Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls
Control District and Imperial County FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. To Amend Provisions Applying to
Air Pollution Control District For the full EPA public comment policy, Excess Emissions During Periods of
information about CBI or multimedia Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,’’
AGENCY: Environmental Protection submissions, and general guidance on 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015), hereafter
Agency (EPA). making effective comments, please visit referred to as the ‘‘SSM SIP Action.’’
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency Rule # Rule title Rescinded Submitted

EKAPCD ................................. 111 Equipment Breakdown ........................................................... 11/10/16 12/06/16
ICAPCD .................................. 111 Equipment Breakdown ........................................................... 09/22/15 03/28/16

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Apr 28, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM 01MYP1

20296 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 82 / Monday, May 1, 2017 / Proposed Rules

On January 12, 2017, the EPA III. Why is the EPA proposing this Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
determined that the submittal for action? October 4, 1993);
EKAPCD Rule 111 met the completeness • does not impose an information
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, In the SSM SIP Action, the EPA made collection burden under the provisions
and on September 28, 2016, the a finding of substantial inadequacy and of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
submittal for ICAPCD Rule 111 was issued a SIP call with respect to U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
deemed complete by operation of law EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule • is certified as not having a
under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The 111 pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5). significant economic impact on a
completeness criteria must be met In response, CARB submitted SIP substantial number of small entities
before formal EPA review of the revisions requesting the EPA to remove under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
submittals for approvability in EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
accordance with applicable CAA 111 from the California SIP in their • does not contain any unfunded
requirements. entirety. Affirmative defense provisions mandate or significantly or uniquely
like these are inconsistent with CAA affect small governments, as described
II. What is the background for the requirements and removal of these in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
EPA’s proposed action? provisions would strengthen the SIP. of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA This action, if finalized, would remove • does not have Federalism
section 110(k)(5), the EPA published the the affirmative defense provisions from implications as specified in Executive
final SSM SIP Action finding that the EKAPCD and ICAPCD portions of Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
certain SIP provisions in 36 states were the EPA-approved SIP for California. 1999);
substantially inadequate to meet CAA The EPA is proposing to find that these • is not an economically significant
requirements and called on those states revisions are consistent with CAA regulatory action based on health or
to submit SIP revisions to address those requirements and that they adequately safety risks subject to Executive Order
inadequacies. 80 FR 33839. As required address the specific SIP deficiencies 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
by the CAA, the EPA established a that the EPA identified in the SSM SIP • is not a significant regulatory action
reasonable deadline (not to exceed 18 Action with respect to the EKAPCD and subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
months) by which the affected states ICAPCD portions of the California SIP. 28355, May 22, 2001);
must submit such SIP revisions. In • is not subject to requirements of
accordance with the SSM SIP Action, IV. Proposed Action Section 12(d) of the National
states were required to submit corrective The EPA is proposing to approve the Technology Transfer and Advancement
revisions to their SIPs by November 22, California SIP revisions removing Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
2016. The EPA’s reasoning, legal EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule application of those requirements would
authority, and responsibility under the 111 from the EKAPCD and ICAPCD be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
CAA for issuing the SIP call to portions of the California SIP. The EPA and
California can be found in the SSM SIP is proposing approval of the SIP • does not provide the EPA with the
Action. revisions because the Agency has discretionary authority to address
In the SSM SIP Action, the EPA determined that they are in accordance disproportionate human health or
determined that EKAPCD Rule 111 and with the requirements for SIP provisions environmental effects with practical,
ICAPCD Rule 111 include elements of under the CAA. The EPA is not appropriate, and legally permissible
an affirmative defense for excess reopening the SSM SIP Action in this methods under Executive Order 12898
emissions during malfunctions. action and is taking comment only on (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Specifically, EKAPCD Rule 111 and whether this SIP revision is consistent In addition, the SIP is not approved to
ICAPCD Rule 111 contain affirmative apply on any Indian reservation land or
with CAA requirements and whether it
defense provisions that preclude in any other area where the EPA or an
addresses the ‘‘substantial inadequacy’’
enforcement for excess emissions that Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
of the specific California SIP provisions
would otherwise constitute a violation tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
identified in the SSM SIP Action.
of the applicable SIP emission Indian country, the rule does not have
limitations. The EPA concluded that V. Statutory and Executive Order tribal implications and will not impose
EKAPCD Rule 111 and ICAPCD Rule Reviews substantial direct costs on tribal
111 operate to alter or affect the governments or preempt tribal law as
jurisdiction of federal courts in the Under the Clean Air Act, the
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
event of an enforcement action, contrary Administrator is required to approve
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
to the enforcement structure of the CAA SIP submissions that comply with the
in section 113 and section 304. See 80 provisions of the Act and applicable List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
FR 33972 (June 12, 2015). federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); Environmental protection, Air
On March 28, 2016 and December 6, 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
2016, ICAPCD and EKAPCD, submissions, the EPA’s role is to Incorporation by reference,
respectively, made submittals in approve state choices, provided that Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
response to the SSM SIP Action. As they meet the criteria of the Clean Air dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
noted above, the EPA found these Act. Accordingly, this proposed action Reporting and recordkeeping
submittals complete on September 28, merely proposes to approve state requirements, Volatile organic
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

2016 and January 12, 2017, respectively. requests as meeting federal compounds.
In the submittals, EKAPCD and ICAPCD requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
requested that EPA revise the California
SIP by removing EKAPCD Rule 111 and imposed by state law. For that reason, Dated: March 29, 2017.
ICAPCD Rule 111 in their entirety from this proposed action: Alexis Strauss,
the California SIP. This approach is • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
consistent with the EPA’s interpretation action’’ subject to review by the Office [FR Doc. 2017–08666 Filed 4–28–17; 8:45 am]
of CAA requirements for SIP provisions. of Management and Budget under BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Apr 28, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\01MYP1.SGM 01MYP1

Document Created: 2017-04-29 03:16:06
Document Modified: 2017-04-29 03:16:06

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule.
Dates		Any comments must arrive by May 31, 2017.
Contact		Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4125, [email protected]
FR Citation		82 FR 20295
CFR Associated		Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds