41386 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 168 / Thursday, August 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/ 

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

States must consult with and allow 

participation from local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

Any IDEM rulemaking procedure 

contained in IC 13–14–9 requires public 

participation in the SIP development 

process. In addition, IDEM ensures that 

the public hearing requirements of 40 

CFR 51.102 are satisfied during the SIP 

development process. EPA proposes 

that Indiana has met the infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) 

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve most 

elements of a submission from Indiana 

certifying that its current SIP is 

sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA’s proposed actions for the 

state’s satisfaction of infrastructure SIP 

requirements, by element of section 

110(a)(2) are contained in the table 

below. 

Element 2012 PM2.5

(A)—Emission limits and 

other control measures ..... A 

(B)—Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system ..... A 

(C)1—Program for enforcement of control measures A 

(C)2—PSD ............................ A 

(D)1—I Prong 1: Interstate 

transport—significant contribution ............................. NA 

(D)2—I Prong 2: Interstate 

transport—interfere with 

maintenance ...................... NA 

(D)3—II Prong 3: Interstate 

transport—prevention of 

significant deterioration ..... A 

(D)4—II Prong 4: Interstate 

transport—protect visibility NA 

(D)5—Interstate and international pollution abatement .................................. A 

(E)1—Adequate resources ... A 

(E)2—State board requirements ................................ A 

(F)—Stationary source monitoring system ..................... A 

(G)—Emergency power ........ A 

(H)—Future SIP revisions .... A 

(I)—Nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D ...... * 

(J)1—Consultation with government officials ................ A 

(J)2—Public notification ........ A 

(J)3—PSD ............................. A 

(J)4—Visibility protection ...... * 

(K)—Air quality modeling/ 

data ................................... A 

(L)—Permitting fees .............. A 

(M)—Consultation and participation by affected local 

entities ............................... A 

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

A .............. Approve. 

NA ........... No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

* .............. Not germane to infrastructure 

SIPs. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 21, 2017. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18503 Filed 8–30–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0154; FRL–9967–20– 

Region 9] 

Approval of Nevada Air Plan 

Revisions, Washoe Oxygenated Fuels 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Nevada State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of carbon 

monoxide (CO) from passenger vehicles. 

We are proposing to approve the 

suspension of a local rule that regulated 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 2, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2017–0154 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Buss.Jeffrey@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, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 


nlaroche on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 168 / Thursday, August 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 41387 

1Truckee Meadows was first designated 

nonattainment in 1978. See 43 FR 8962, 9013 

(March 3, 1978). Truckee Meadows was classified 

as moderate nonattainment under the 1990 CAA 

amendments. See 56 FR 56694, 56798 (November 

6, 1991). 

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 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4152, buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule 

suspension? 

B. Does the rule suspension meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

On March 28, 2014, the Nevada 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP) submitted Washoe County 

District Board of Health (WCDBOH) 

Regulations Governing Air Quality 

Management Section 040.095, ‘‘Oxygen 

Content of Motor Vehicle Fuel,’’ as 

amended by the WCDBOH on December 

24, 2013. On September 28, 2014, the 

submittal for Section 040.095 was 

deemed by operation of law to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

The WCDBOH has adopted other 

versions of Section 040.095, most 

recently the version adopted September 

22, 2005 and submitted to the EPA on 

November 4, 2005. We approved this 

version of the rule into the SIP on July 

3, 2008 (73 FR 38124). While we can act 

on only the most recently submitted 

version, we have reviewed materials 

provided with previous submittals. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

The submitted revision to Section 

040.095 suspends all requirements of 

the SIP-approved rule, which 

implements Washoe County’s 

oxygenated fuel program. This program 

requires gasoline sold in Washoe 

County to contain 2.7 percent oxygenate 

by weight between October 1 and 

January 31 as a means of reducing CO 

emissions. The Truckee Meadows area 

of Washoe County has historically been 

designated nonattainment for the CO 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS or ‘‘Standard’’),1 and the 

WCDBOH adopted Section 040.095 to 

comply with the requirements of CAA 

section 211(m), which requires states to 

adopt an oxygenated gasoline program 

for any area out of attainment for the CO 

NAAQS. The EPA redesignated Truckee 

Meadows as attainment for the CO 

NAAQS in 2008, and the area’s CO 

levels are now substantially below the 

Standard. 73 FR 38124 (July 3, 2008). 

The EPA’s technical support document 

(TSD) has more information about this 

rule. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule 

suspension? 

As a general matter, under CAA 

section 110(l), the EPA may approve 

relaxations or suspensions of control 

measures so long as doing so would not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any NAAQS or 

otherwise conflict with applicable CAA 

requirements. The EPA has evaluated 

the revision to Section 040.095 to 

determine whether suspension of the 

Washoe County’s oxygenated fuel 

program would interfere with NAAQS 

attainment or maintenance or conflict 

with other CAA requirements. 

B. Does the rule suspension meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

We believe this SIP submittal is 

consistent with CAA 110(l) 

requirements regarding restrictions on 

relaxation of SIP measures. The 

WCDBOH’s analysis of future CO 

emissions in Washoe County 

demonstrates continued compliance 

with the CO NAAQS as a result of other 

state measures, such as the motor 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

program, and federal measures such as 

the Renewable Fuels Standard. The TSD 

has more information on our evaluation. 

C. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, the EPA proposes to fully 

approve the submitted rule suspension 

because we believe it fulfills all relevant 

requirements. We will accept comments 

from the public on this proposal until 

October 2, 2017. If we take final action 

to approve the submitted rule 

suspension, our final action will 

incorporate this revision into the 

federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the WCDBOH rule described in this 

notice. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, this material available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX (Air–4), 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 

94105–3901. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law 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 


nlaroche on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
41388 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 168 / Thursday, August 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: August 14, 2017. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18499 Filed 8–30–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 170109046–7749–01] 

RIN 0648–XF156 

Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2017 

U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna 

Catch Limits 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed specifications; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a 2017 limit 

of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of longlinecaught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific 

territory (American Samoa, Guam, and 

the Northern Mariana Islands). NMFS 

would allow each territory to allocate 

up to 1,000 mt each year to U.S. 

longline fishing vessels in a specified 

fishing agreement that meets established 

criteria. As an accountability measure, 

NMFS would monitor, attribute, and 

restrict (if necessary) catches of 

longline-caught bigeye tuna, including 

catches made under a specified fishing 

agreement. The proposed catch limits 

and accountability measures would 

support the long-term sustainability of 

fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific 

Islands. 

DATES: NMFS must receive comments 

by September 15, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2017–0004, by either of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017- 

0004, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Send written comments to 

Michael D. Tosatto, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands 

Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 

176, Honolulu, HI 96818. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable 

Fisheries, 808–725–5176. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

proposes to specify a 2017 catch limit of 

2,000 mt of longline-caught bigeye tuna 

for each U.S. Pacific territory. NMFS 

would also authorize each U.S. Pacific 

territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt of its 

2,000-mt bigeye tuna limit to U.S. 

longline fishing vessels that are 

permitted to fish under the Fishery 

Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of 

the Western Pacific (FEP). Those vessels 

must be identified in a specified fishing 

agreement with the applicable territory. 

The Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council recommended 

these specifications. The proposed catch 

and allocation limits and accountability 

measures are identical to those that 

NMFS specified for each U.S. territory 

in 2016 (81 FR 63145, September 14, 

2016). 

NMFS will monitor catches of 

longline-caught bigeye tuna by the 

longline fisheries of each U.S Pacific 

territory, including catches made by 

U.S. longline vessels operating under 

specified fishing agreements. The 

criteria that a specified fishing 

agreement must meet, and the process 

for attributing longline-caught bigeye 

tuna, will follow the procedures in 50 

CFR 665.819 (Territorial catch and 

fishing effort limits). When NMFS 

projects that a territorial catch or 

allocation limit will be reached, NMFS 

would, as an accountability measure, 

prohibit the catch and retention of 

longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels 

in the applicable territory (if the 

territorial catch limit is projected to be 

reached), and/or vessels in a specified 

fishing agreement (if the allocation limit 

is projected to be reached). 

On March 20, 2017, in Territory of 

American Samoa v. NMFS, et al. (16– 

cv–95, D. Haw), a Federal judge vacated 

and set aside a NMFS rule that amended 

the American Samoa Large Vessel 

Prohibited Area (LVPA) for eligible 

longliners. The Court held that the 

action was inconsistent with the ‘‘other 

applicable law’’ provision of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act by not 

considering the protection and 

preservation of cultural fishing rights in 

American Samoa under the Instruments 

of Cession. The Instruments of Cession 

do not specifically mention cultural 


nlaroche on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS