48944 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993)) and 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011); 

• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866 

• 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 (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, 

Sulfur oxides, Reporting recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 29, 2017. 

Catherine R. McCabe, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22365 Filed 10–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0580; FRL–9969–81– 

Region 9] 

Contingency Measures for the 1997 

PM2.5 Standards; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Correction of 

Deficiency 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine 

that the deficiency that formed the basis 

for a disapproval of the contingency 

measures submitted for the San Joaquin 

Valley nonattainment area for the 1997 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards has been 

corrected. The proposed determination 

is based on the Agency’s approval of 

revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan that include 

regulations establishing standards and 

other requirements relating to the 

control of emissions from new on-road 

and new and in-use off-road vehicles 

and engines and a finding that the 

purposes of the contingency measure 

requirement, as applicable to the San 

Joaquin Valley based on its initial 

designation as a nonattainment area for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standards, have been 

fulfilled. If finalized as proposed, the 

sanctions clocks triggered by the 

disapproval will be permanently 

stopped. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

November 22, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2017–0580 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Rory Mays at mays.rory@epa.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 

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: Rory 

Mays, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3227, 

mays.rory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Proposed Determination and Termination 

of Sanctions 

III. Request for Public Comment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Under sections 108 and 109 of the 

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

establishes national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Over the years, the 

EPA has established NAAQS for 

particulate matter, ozone, carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, and 

sulfur dioxide. Under CAA section 110, 

each state must adopt and submit state 

implementation plans (SIPs) to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS within such state. Under CAA 

section 107, the EPA designates areas of 

the country as ‘‘nonattainment’’ if the 

area does not meet a particular NAAQS 

or if the area contributes to ambient air 

quality in a nearby area that does not 

meet the NAAQS. In response to a 

nonattainment designation, states must 

revise their SIPs to provide for, among 

other things, reasonable further progress 

(RFP), attainment by the most 

expeditious date practicable but no later 

than the applicable attainment date, and 

contingency measures in the event the 

area fails to meet RFP or attainment by 

the applicable attainment date. See, 

generally, part D of title I of the CAA. 

Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA is 

charged with review of each SIP and SIP 

revision submitted by each state for 

compliance with applicable CAA 

requirements and for approval or 

disapproval (in whole or in part) 

through notice-and-comment 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48945 

1The offset sanction applies to New Source 

Review (NSR) permits for new major stationary 

sources or major modifications proposed in a 

nonattainment area, and it increases the ratio of 

emissions reductions (i.e., offsets) to increased 

emissions from the new or modified source, which 

must be obtained to receive an NSR permit, to 2 to 

1. The highway sanction prohibits, with certain 

exceptions, the U.S. Department of Transportation 

from approving or funding transportation projects 

in a nonattainment area. 

2 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7. 

Effective December 18, 2006, the EPA strengthened 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 

35 mg/m3. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 

CFR 50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, the EPA 

strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS by 

lowering the level to 12.0 mg/m3. 78 FR 3086 

(January 15, 2013) and 40 CFR 50.18. In this 

preamble, all references to the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour 

standard (65 mg/m3) and annual standard (15.0 

mg/m3) as codified in 40 CFR 50.7. 

3See 72 FR 20586 at 20589 (April 25, 2007). 

4 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005), codified at 40 CFR 

81.305. 

5For a precise description of the geographic 

boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 

area, see 40 CFR 81.305. 

6 76 FR 69896 at n.2 (November 9, 2011) (final 

action on 2008 PM2.5 Plan). 

7 Id., at 69924. 

8 In connection with the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) developed for the plan, the EPA 

approved a trading ratio of 9 tons per day (tpd) of 

NOX to 1 tpd of direct PM2.5. See 76 FR 41338, at 

41361 (July 13, 2011) (proposed rule); and 76 FR 

69896, at 69924 (November 9, 2011) (final rule). 

Later in this document, we rely on the trading ratio 

to determine that post-2014 attainment year 

emissions reductions from mobile sources are 

equivalent to approximately one year’s worth of 

RFP with respect to direct PM2.5 emissions. 

9 57 FR 13498, at 13511 (April 16, 1992). 

10 72 FR 20586, at 20642–20643 (April 25, 2007). 

11 Id., at 20643. 

12 Id., and 59 FR 41998, at 42014–42015 (August 

16, 1994). 

13See section 9.2 (‘‘Contingency Measures’’) in 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan; EPA Region 9, Technical 

Support Document (TSD) and Responses to 

Comments, Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 

2008 PM2.5 State Implementation Plan, September 

30, 2011, pages 126–136. 

14One year’s worth of RFP is the yardstick the 

EPA has cited historically as the approximate 

quantity of emissions reductions that contingency 

measures must provide to satisfy CAA section 

172(c)(9). See the EPA’s September 30, 2011 TSD, 

pages 133–134. 

rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register. 

Under CAA section 179(a), 

disapproval of a required SIP or SIP 

revision (in whole or in part) triggers a 

sanctions clock that runs from the 

effective date of the final action. Under 

40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanctions in 

CAA section 179(b)(2) apply in the 

nonattainment area 18 months after the 

effective date of the disapproval action, 

and the highway sanctions in CAA 

section 179(b)(1) apply in the area six 

months thereafter, unless the state 

submits, and the EPA approves, prior to 

the implementation of the sanctions, a 

SIP submission that corrects the 

deficiencies identified in the 

disapproval action.1

On July 18, 1997, the EPA established 

new NAAQS for particles less than or 

equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter 

(PM2.5), including an annual standard of 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3) based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations and a 24- 

hour (daily) standard of 65 mg/m3 based 

on a 3-year average of 98th percentile 

24-hour PM2.5 concentrations.2 PM2.5

can be emitted directly into the 

atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle 

(primary PM2.5 or direct PM2.5) or can be 

formed in the atmosphere as a result of 

various chemical reactions from 

precursor emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), volatile 

organic compounds, and ammonia 

(secondary PM2.5).3

Effective April 5, 2005, the EPA 

designated the San Joaquin Valley in 

California as nonattainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.4 The San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 nonattainment area is located in 

the southern half of California’s central 

valley and includes all of San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, 

Tulare, and Kings counties, and the 

valley portion of Kern County.5 The 

local air district with primary 

responsibility for developing SIPs to 

attain the NAAQS in this area is the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD or District). 

Once the District adopts the regional 

plan, the District submits the plan to the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

for adoption as part of the California 

SIP. CARB is the state agency 

responsible for adopting and revising 

the California SIP and for submitting the 

SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA. 

Between 2007 and 2011, CARB made 

six SIP submittals to address 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the San Joaquin Valley.6 We refer to 

these submittals collectively as the 

‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan.’’ On November 9, 

2011, the EPA approved all elements of 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan except for the 

contingency measures, which the EPA 

disapproved for failure to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9).7

In approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan (i.e., 

excluding the contingency measures), 

we approved an attainment date of April 

5, 2015, but the plan provided a 

demonstration of attainment in 2014 

(i.e., the calendar year prior to the 

attainment date), and thus we refer to 

2014 as the attainment year.8

Section 172(c)(9) requires states with 

nonattainment areas to revise the SIP to 

provide for the implementation of 

specific measures to be undertaken if 

the area fails to meet RFP or fails to 

attain the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. As the EPA has 

explained in guidance to the states 

regarding the contingency measure 

requirements in section 172(c)(9), 

contingency measures should, at a 

minimum, ensure that an appropriate 

level of emission reduction progress 

continues to be made if attainment or 

RFP is not achieved and additional 

planning by the state is needed.9 The 

purpose of such measures is to provide 

a cushion of emissions reductions while 

the plan is being revised to meet the 

missed milestone.10 The contingency 

measures are to be implemented in the 

event that the area does not meet RFP 

or attain the NAAQS by the attainment 

date, and should represent a portion of 

the actual emission reductions 

necessary to bring about attainment in 

the area.11 Accordingly, the EPA has 

recommended that the emission 

reductions anticipated by the 

contingency measures should be equal 

to approximately one year’s worth of 

emission reductions needed to achieve 

RFP for the area.12

The contingency measure element of 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan included several 

different types of measures including a 

new commitment to an action by the 

District, surplus reductions in the RFP 

demonstration, post-2014 emissions 

reductions, contingency provisions in 

an adopted rule, reductions from 

incentive funds, and reductions from 

specifically-identified implemented 

rules that were not otherwise relied on 

in the attainment and RFP 

demonstrations.13

We disapproved the contingency 

measure element of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

because the submittal failed to meet the 

requirements of section 172(c)(9) 

because, while some of the individual 

measures appeared to have merit for 

contingency measure purposes, the plan 

failed to provide sufficient information 

for the EPA to determine whether the 

emissions reductions from those 

individual measures that were 

creditable for contingency measure 

purposes provided for roughly one 

year’s worth of RFP in excess of the 

2012 RFP milestone target or in the year 

following the 2014 attainment year.14

More specifically, based on the 

emissions estimates in the 2008 PM2.5

Plan, one year’s worth of RFP was 

calculated to be 31.6 tons per day (tpd) 

of NOX, 2.5 tpd of direct PM2.5, and 0.2 

tpd of SOX. While the plan provided 

sufficient information with respect to 

SOX, the plan did not provide sufficient 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
48946 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

15See Table 10 on page 41359 of the EPA’s 

proposed action on the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at 76 FR 

41338 (July 13, 2011). 

16 78 FR 53313 at 53115–53116 (August 28, 2013) 

(proposed action on the 2013 Contingency Measure 

SIP). 

17SJVUAPCD, ‘‘Quantification of Contingency 

Reductions for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,’’ June 30, 2013. 

18 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014) (final action on the 

2013 Contingency Measure SIP). 

19 79 FR 29327 at 29350. 

20 78 FR 53113 at 53123 and 79 FR 29327 at 

29350. 

21 Medical Advocates for Healthy Air v. EPA, Case 

No. 14–72219 (9th Cir.). 

22Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 

1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (‘‘Committee for a Better 

Arvin’’) (partially granting and partially denying 

petition for review). 

23 Medical Advocates for Healthy Air v. EPA, Case 

No. 14–72219 (9th Cir.), Order, Docket Entry 30. 

24 81 FR 29498 (May 12, 2016). 

25 Id., at 29500. 

information with respect to NOX and 

direct PM2.5.15

Several environmental and 

community organizations filed a 

petition for review challenging the 

EPA’s November 9, 2011 approval of the 

attainment demonstration and 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

arguing, among other things, that the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan had calculated the 

necessary emissions reductions and 

forecasts in part based on state-adopted 

mobile source measures that were not 

themselves incorporated into the 

federally enforceable plan, in violation 

of the CAA. The court case is known as 

Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 

Case No. 11–73924 (9th Cir.). At that 

time, the EPA’s longstanding and 

consistent practice had been to allow 

California SIPs to rely on emission 

reduction credit for state mobile source 

rules waived or authorized by the EPA 

under section 209 of the Act (‘‘waiver 

measures’’) to meet certain SIP 

requirements, including RFP, 

attainment and contingency measures, 

without requiring approval of those 

control measures into the SIP under 

section 110 of the Act. 

On July 3, 2013, CARB made a new 

submittal to meet the contingency 

measure requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley 

(‘‘2013 Contingency Measure SIP’’) and 

to correct the deficiencies identified in 

the EPA’s November 2011 action 

disapproving the contingency measure 

element of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.16 The 

2013 Contingency Measure SIP 

contained the District’s demonstration 

that actual emission levels in the San 

Joaquin Valley in 2012 were below the 

milestone year targets identified in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan that had been approved 

by the EPA for the 2012 RFP year, and 

identified contingency measures that 

provided 2015 (i.e., post-2014 

attainment year) emission reductions 

not relied on for RFP or attainment that 

were equivalent to one year’s worth of 

RFP. The specific measures that were 

relied upon included CARB’s mobile 

source measures, the District’s 

residential wood burning control 

measure (District Rule 4901), the 

District’s implementation of incentive 

programs, and substitution of surplus 

direct PM2.5 reductions for NOX

reductions.17 CARB’s mobile source 

measures (and associated vehicle fleet 

turnover) were credited with providing 

65 percent of the contingency-related 

emissions reductions in 2015 for NOX. 

The District’s residential wood burning 

control measure, implementation of 

incentive measures, and substitution 

ratio were credited as providing the rest 

of the emissions reductions needed for 

NOX and the necessary quantity of 

reductions for direct PM2.5. 

On May 22, 2014, the EPA fully 

approved the 2013 Contingency 

Measure SIP based on the Agency’s 

conclusion that the SIP submittal 

corrected the outstanding deficiencies 

in the CAA section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measures for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.18 In its May 22, 2014 

final action on the 2013 Contingency 

Measure SIP, the EPA determined that 

the requirement for contingency 

measures for failure to meet RFP 

requirements was moot because the 

District had already met the RFP 

requirements relevant to the 2008 PM2.5

Plan by the time of EPA’s May 22, 2014 

action.19 With respect to the 

requirement for contingency measures 

for failure to attain, the EPA determined 

that CARB’s continuing implementation 

of the mobile source control measures in 

2015, together with other fully-adopted 

measures implemented by the District in 

the same timeframe, would provide for 

an appropriate level of continued 

emission reduction progress should the 

San Joaquin Valley fail to attain the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date, thereby meeting the 

requirement for contingency measures 

for failure to attain.20

At the time of the EPA’s 2014 action, 

there was not yet a decision in the 

Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA 

challenge to our 2011 approval. 

Environmental and community 

organizations filed a petition for review 

of the EPA’s May 22, 2014 action on the 

2013 Contingency Measure SIP. They 

again argued that the EPA violated the 

CAA by approving that submittal even 

though it did not include the waiver 

measures on which it relied to achieve 

the necessary emissions reductions to 

meet contingency measure 

requirements.21

On May 20, 2015, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its 

decision in Committee for a Better Arvin 

v. EPA. The court held that the EPA 

violated the CAA by approving the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan even though the SIP did not 

include the waiver measures on which 

the plan relied to achieve its emission 

reduction goals.22 The court rejected the 

EPA’s arguments supporting the 

Agency’s longstanding practice, finding 

that section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act 

plainly mandates that all control 

measures on which states rely to attain 

the NAAQS must be ‘‘included’’ in the 

SIP and subject to enforcement by the 

EPA and citizens. The court remanded 

the EPA’s November 9, 2011 action for 

further proceedings consistent with the 

decision. 

On June 10, 2015, the EPA filed an 

unopposed motion for voluntary 

remand of the May 22, 2014 final rule 

without vacatur based, inter alia, on the 

Agency’s substantial and legitimate 

need to reexamine this rulemaking in 

light of the Ninth Circuit’s May 20, 2015 

decision in Committee for a Better 

Arvin. On June 15, 2015, the Ninth 

Circuit granted the EPA’s motion and 

remanded the final rule to the EPA.23

On remand, consistent with the 

court’s ruling in Committee for a Better 

Arvin, we withdrew our May 22, 2014 

approval of the 2013 Contingency 

Measure SIP because it was predicated 

on an interpretation of the CAA that the 

Court rejected as being inconsistent 

with the CAA.24 In that same action, we 

disapproved the 2013 Contingency 

Measure SIP for failure to satisfy the 

requirements of section 179(c)(9) of the 

Act because of the reliance on California 

waiver measures that the EPA had not 

approved into the California SIP.25 The 

disapproval action became effective on 

June 13, 2016 and started a sanctions 

clock for imposition of offset sanctions 

18 months after June 13, 2016 and 

highway sanctions 6 months later, 

pursuant to CAA section 179 and our 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. As a result, 

offset sanctions would apply on 

December 13, 2017 and highway 

sanctions would apply on June 13, 2018, 

unless the EPA were to determine that 

the deficiency forming the basis of the 

disapproval has been corrected. 

On August 14, 2015, CARB submitted 

a SIP revision consisting of certain state 

regulations establishing standards and 

other requirements relating to the 

control of emissions from new on-road 

and new and in-use off-road vehicles 

and engines. The regulations submitted 

on August 14, 2015 had previously been 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 203 / Monday, October 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 48947 

26 81 FR 39424, at 39424–39428 (June 16, 2016). 

27 81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016). Later in 2016, 

CARB submitted a second set of mobile source 

regulations waived or authorized by the EPA under 

CAA section 209, including regulations establish 

new or revised standards and other requirements 

relating to the control of emissions from such 

sources as on-road heavy-duty trucks, off-road large 

spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines, 

and small off-road engines. The EPA recently took 

final action to approve CARB’s second set of mobile 

source regulations as a revision to the California 

SIP. 82 FR 1446 (March 21, 2017). 

28Emissions projections for the San Joaquin 

Valley were made using CARB’s criteria emissions 

model, ‘‘CEPAM: 2016 SIP—Standard Emission 

Tool,’’ for years 2014 and 2017 using a base year 

of 2012, reflecting growth and control factors, and 

representing tpd on an annual average basis. 

29Emissions reductions of NOX exceed those 

necessary for NOX for contingency measures 

purposes (44.5 tpd achieved ¥ 31.6 tpd needed) 

and provide excess emissions reductions sufficient 

to cover the shortfall of 1.0 tpd of direct PM2.5 (2.5 

tpd needed ¥ 1.5 tpd achieved) by applying the 

trading ratio of 9 tpd of NOX to 1 tpd of direct PM2.5

that the EPA approved for the MVEBs in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. 

30 In response to the EPA’s determination of 

failure to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 81 FR 

84481 (November 23, 2016), the District and CARB 

are preparing a new attainment demonstration with 

new contingency measures for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley. 

issued waivers or had been authorized 

by the EPA under CAA section 209, and 

constitute the ‘‘waiver measures’’ relied 

upon in California air quality plans to 

reduce emissions and meet various 

nonattainment area requirements, such 

as RFP, attainment, and contingency 

measures. The regulations cover a wide 

range of mobile sources, including onroad passenger cars, trucks, and 

motorcycles; in-use transport 

refrigeration units, off-road diesel-fueled 

fleets, and portable diesel-fueled 

engines; commercial harbor craft, 

auxiliary diesel engines on ocean-going 

vessels, and spark-ignition marine 

engines and boats; off-road large sparkignition and compression-ignition 

engines; and mobile cargo handling 

equipment, small off-road engines, and 

off-highway recreational vehicles and 

engines.26 On June 16, 2016, the EPA 

took final action to approve the mobile 

source regulations and incorporate them 

as part of the federally-enforceable 

California SIP.27 Since the 2014 

attainment year, the waiver measures 

and related vehicle fleet turnover have 

reduced emissions from mobile sources 

in the San Joaquin Valley by 44.5 tpd of 

NOX and 1.5 tpd of direct PM2.5.28

II. Proposed Determination and 

Termination of Sanctions 

The EPA’s approval into the SIP of the 

comprehensive set of California waiver 

measures on June 16, 2016 as described 

above addresses the specific deficiency 

that formed the basis of our May 12, 

2016 disapproval of the 2013 

Contingency Measure SIP. In addition, 

the emissions reductions from the SIPapproved waiver measures have 

achieved post-attainment year emission 

reductions equivalent to approximately 

one year’s worth of RFP as calculated 

for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan,29 and are 

thereby providing for sufficient progress 

towards attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standards while a new attainment plan 

is being prepared.30 Therefore, we find 

that the purpose of the contingency 

measure requirement, as applicable to 

the San Joaquin Valley based on the 

area’s designation in 2005 for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, have been fulfilled. 

Accordingly, we are proposing to 

determine that the deficiency that 

formed the basis for the disapproval of 

the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP has 

been corrected. If finalized as proposed, 

the determination would permanently 

stop the sanctions clocks triggered by 

the disapproval. See CAA section 179(a) 

and 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5). 

III. Request for Public Comment 

For the next 30 days, we will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal to determine that the 

deficiency that formed the basis of our 

disapproval of the 2013 Contingency 

Measure SIP has been corrected by the 

approval of the waiver measures as a 

revision to the California SIP and the 

finding that the waiver measures have 

achieved post-2014 attainment year 

emissions reductions sufficient to fulfill 

the purposes of the contingency 

measure requirement in CAA section 

172(c)(9). The deadline and instructions 

for submission of comments are 

provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES

sections at the beginning of this 

preamble. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This proposed action makes a 

determination that a deficiency that is 

the basis for sanctions has been 

corrected and imposes no additional 

requirements. 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); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• 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 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, this proposed action does 

not have Tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, 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, 

Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides, 

Particulate matter. 

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

Dated: October 10, 2017. 

Douglas Luehe, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22870 Filed 10–20–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS