[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48944-48947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22870]


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

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 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f727e666c316d706d665f7a6f7e31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5c8c4dcd68bd7cad7dce5c0d5c48bc2cad3">[email protected]</span></a>. 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aec3cfd7dd80dcc1dcd7eecbdecf80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b060a121845190419122b0e1b0a450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 48945]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 18, 1997, the EPA established new NAAQS for particles less 
than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>), 
including an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations and a 24-hour (daily) standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based on 
a 3-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
concentrations.\2\ PM<INF>2.5</INF> can be emitted directly into the 
atmosphere as a solid or liquid particle (primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> or 
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>) or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result 
of various chemical reactions from precursor emissions of nitrogen 
oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), sulfur oxides (SO<INF>X</INF>), volatile 
organic compounds, and ammonia (secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF>).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7. Effective 
December 18, 2006, the EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. 71 FR 61144 (October 
17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, the EPA 
strengthened the primary annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by lowering 
the level to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40 
CFR 50.18. In this preamble, all references to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour standard 
(65 [mu]g/m\3\) and annual standard (15.0 [mu]g/m\3\) as codified in 
40 CFR 50.7.
    \3\ See 72 FR 20586 at 20589 (April 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective April 5, 2005, the EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley 
in California as nonattainment for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\4\ 
The San Joaquin Valley PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005), codified at 40 CFR 81.305.
    \5\ For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of 
the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2007 and 2011, CARB made six SIP submittals to address 
nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.\6\ We refer to these submittals 
collectively as the ``2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.'' On November 9, 
2011, the EPA approved all elements of the 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 76 FR 69896 at n.2 (November 9, 2011) (final action on 2008 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> to 1 tpd of direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contingency measure element of the 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See section 9.2 (``Contingency Measures'') in the 2008 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan; EPA Region 9, Technical Support Document 
(TSD) and Responses to Comments, Final Rule on the San Joaquin 
Valley 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> State Implementation Plan, September 
30, 2011, pages 126-136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disapproved the contingency measure element of the 2008 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, one 
year's worth of RFP was calculated to be 31.6 tons per day (tpd) of 
NO<INF>X</INF>, 2.5 tpd of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 0.2 tpd of 
SO<INF>X</INF>. While the plan provided sufficient information with 
respect to SO<INF>X</INF>, the plan did not provide sufficient

[[Page 48946]]

information with respect to NO<INF>X</INF> and direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ One 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.
    \15\ See Table 10 on page 41359 of the EPA's proposed action on 
the 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan at 76 FR 41338 (July 13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan, arguing, among other 
things, that the 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
reductions for NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>. 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and the necessary quantity of reductions for 
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 78 FR 53313 at 53115-53116 (August 28, 2013) (proposed 
action on the 2013 Contingency Measure SIP).
    \17\ SJVUAPCD, ``Quantification of Contingency Reductions for 
the 2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan,'' June 30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date, thereby meeting the requirement for contingency 
measures for failure to attain.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Medical Advocates for Healthy Air v. EPA, Case No. 14-72219 
(9th Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Committee 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Medical Advocates for Healthy Air v. EPA, Case No. 14-72219 
(9th Cir.), Order, Docket Entry 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 81 FR 29498 (May 12, 2016).
    \25\ Id., at 29500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 48947]]

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 on-road 
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 spark-ignition 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and 1.5 tpd of direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \28\ Emissions 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 SIP-approved waiver measures have 
achieved post-attainment year emission reductions equivalent to 
approximately one year's worth of RFP as calculated for the 2008 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan,\29\ and are thereby providing for sufficient 
progress towards attainment of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Emissions reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> exceed those 
necessary for NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> (2.5 tpd needed - 1.5 tpd achieved) by applying the 
trading ratio of 9 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> to 1 tpd of direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> that the EPA approved for the MVEBs in the 2008 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Plan.
    \30\ In response to the EPA's determination of failure to attain 
the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, 81 FR 84481 (November 23, 2016), 
the District and CARB are preparing a new attainment demonstration 
with new contingency measures for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
for the San Joaquin Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>