3820 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Infrastructure, 

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone. 

Dated: December 14, 2020. 

James Gulliford, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends the 40 CFR 

part 52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart R—KANSAS 

■ 2. In § 52.870, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry 

‘‘(45)’’ in numerical order to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

(45) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 O3 NAAQS.Statewide ............... 9/27/18 1/15/21, [insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

[EPA–R07–OAR–2020–0422; FRL– 

10013–71-Region 7]. 

This action addresses the following 

CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prongs 

3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), 

(K), (L), and (M). EPA intends to act 

on 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2, in a 

separate action. 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28120 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0176; FRL–10017– 

96–Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) from on-road heavy-duty 

vehicles. We are approving a local 

measure to reduce emissions from these 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

February 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0176. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca Newhouse, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3004 or by 

email at newhouse.rebecca@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On April 25, 2019 (84 FR 17365), the 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

measure, submitted by the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB), into the 

California SIP. 

Local agency Resolution # Measure title Adopted Submitted 

CARB ........................ 18–3 South Coast On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Incentive Measure .......... 03/22/18 05/04/18 

We proposed to approve the South 

Coast On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle 

Incentive Measure based on a 

determination that it satisfies the 

applicable CAA requirements for 

approval of voluntary measures for SIP 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3821 

1EPA Region IX, ‘‘Technical Support Document 

for EPA’s Rulemaking for the California State 

Implementation Plan, California Air Resources 

Board Resolution 18–3, South Coast On-Road 

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Incentive Measure,’’ April 

2019. 

2Letter dated November 23, 2020, from Richard 

W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to John W. 

Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX 

(transmitting, inter alia, CARB Executive Order S– 

20–030, ‘‘Adoption and Submittal of Technical 

Clarifications to the South Coast On-Road HeavyDuty Incentive Measure,’’ November 23, 2020). 

3Letter dated May 28, 2019, from Adriano L. 

Martinez, Earthjustice, to Rynda Kay, EPA, Region 

IX, Subject: ‘‘Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2019– 

0176’’ (on behalf of the California Communities 

Against Toxics, Center for Community Action and 

Environmental Justice, Coalition for a Safe 

Environment, and the Natural Resources Defense 

Council) and letter dated May 28, 2019, from 

anonymous commenter. 

4CAA section 302(e) (defining ‘‘person’’ to 

include a State or political subdivision thereof). 

5Section 304(f) of the CAA defines ‘‘emission 

standard or limitation,’’ in relevant part, to mean ‘‘a 

schedule or timetable of compliance’’ which is in 

effect under the Act ‘‘or under an applicable 

implementation plan.’’ Section 302(p) of the Act 

defines ‘‘schedule and timetable of compliance’’ to 

mean ‘‘a schedule of required measures including 

an enforceable sequence of actions or operations 

leading to compliance with an emission limitation, 

other limitation, prohibition, or standard.’’ Section 

302(q) of the Act defines ‘‘[a]pplicable 

implementation plan,’’ in relevant part, as ‘‘the 

portion (or portions) of the implementation plan, or 

most recent revision thereof, which has been 

approved under section 110 of [title I of the Act] 

. . . and which implements the relevant 

requirements of [the Act].’’ 

6See also Committee for a Better Arvin, et al. v. 

EPA, 786 F.3d 1169, 1181 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding 

that California’s commitments to propose and adopt 

emission control measures and to achieve aggregate 

emission reductions are enforceable ‘‘emission 

standards or limitations’’ under the CAA). 

emission reduction credit. Our proposal 

was based on our evaluation of the 

documents provided in the SIP 

submission, including the measure itself 

(i.e., the State commitments set forth on 

page 5 of CARB Resolution 18–3), 

CARB’s analysis of the measure in a 

document entitled ‘‘South Coast OnRoad Heavy-Duty Vehicle Incentive 

Measure,’’ Release Date: February 16, 

2018 (hereafter ‘‘Demonstration’’), and a 

document entitled ‘‘Additional 

Information for the South Coast OnRoad Heavy-Duty Vehicle Incentive 

Measure.’’ Our proposed rule and 

associated technical support document 

(TSD) 1 contain more information about 

the SIP submission and our evaluation 

thereof. 

On November 24, 2020, CARB 

submitted a technical clarification to the 

South Coast On-Road Heavy-Duty 

Vehicle Incentive Measure that clarifies 

its commitment to make certain 

documents concerning the incentive 

projects implemented to achieve 

emission reductions available to the 

public upon request. CARB adopted this 

technical clarification to the measure by 

Executive Order S–20–030 (November 

23, 2020).2 We refer to CARB’s 

commitments in Resolution 18–3, as 

clarified by Executive Order S–20–030, 

as the ‘‘South Coast Incentive Measure.’’ 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received comments from 

Earthjustice, on behalf of a coalition of 

environmental and community 

organizations, and comments from an 

anonymous commenter.3

We respond below to a selection of 

the most significant comments on our 

proposed rule. We respond to all other 

comments that are germane to the 

proposed rule in our separate Response 

to Comments document available at 

https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID 

No. EPA- R09–OAR–2019–0176. We do 

not respond to the comments from the 

anonymous commenter because they 

fail to identify any specific issue that is 

germane to our action on this measure. 

Comment 1: Earthjustice states that 

the South Coast Incentive Measure does 

not satisfy the enforceability 

requirements in section 110(a)(2)(A) of 

the CAA. Citing the EPA’s Memo to 

Docket for a rulemaking entitled ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Finding of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to 

Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction,’’ 

Earthjustice states that to be 

‘‘enforceable,’’ a measure must be 

enforceable by the state, the EPA, and 

citizens. Earthjustice also states that the 

mere approval of a measure into the SIP 

does not convert an unenforceable 

provision into an enforceable one, and 

that the EPA’s SIP rulemaking must 

explain how the proposed measure can 

be enforced. According to Earthjustice, 

the EPA’s proposed rule to approve the 

South Coast Incentive Measure has not 

provided a legally defensible analysis of 

how this rule is enforceable. 

Response 1: We agree with 

Earthjustice’s statement that the mere 

approval of a measure into the SIP does 

not convert an unenforceable provision 

into an enforceable one, but we disagree 

with Earthjustice’s claim that CARB’s 

commitments in the South Coast 

Incentive Measure are not enforceable. 

We explain below how the EPA and 

citizens may enforce the provisions of 

CARB’s SIP commitments in the South 

Coast Incentive Measure. We respond to 

Earthjustice’s more specific comments 

concerning enforceability in our 

responses to comments 2 through 11. 

We note that our evaluation here is 

limited to CARB’s commitments in the 

South Coast Incentive Measure and that 

the EPA will review each incentivebased control measure submitted by a 

state on a case-by-case basis, following 

notice-and-comment rulemaking, to 

determine whether the applicable 

requirements of the Act are met. 

Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs 

must include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the Act, as well as 

timetables for compliance. Similarly, 

section 172(c)(6) provides that 

nonattainment area SIPs must include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

such other control measures, means or 

techniques as may be necessary or 

appropriate to provide for attainment of 

the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) by the applicable 

attainment date. 

Control measures, including 

commitments in SIPs, are enforced 

through CAA section 304(a), which 

provides for citizen suits to be brought 

against any ‘‘person,’’ including a state,4

who is alleged ‘‘to be in violation of . . . 

an emission standard or limitation. . ..’’ 

‘‘Emission standard or limitation’’ is 

defined in subsection (f) of section 304.5

As observed in Conservation Law 

Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et al., 

79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1st Cir. 1996): 

Courts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction 

have largely focused on whether the 

particular standard or requirement plaintiffs 

sought to enforce was sufficiently specific. 

Thus, interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction as 

limited to claims ‘‘for violations of specific 

provisions of the act or specific provisions of 

an applicable implementation plan,’’ the 

Second Circuit held that suits can be brought 

to enforce specific measures, strategies, or 

commitments designed to ensure compliance 

with the NAAQS, but not to enforce the 

NAAQS directly. See, e.g., Wilder, 854 F.2d 

at 613–14. Courts have repeatedly applied 

this test as the linchpin of citizen suit 

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Coalition Against 

Columbus Ctr. v. City of New York, 967 F.2d 

764, 769–71 (2d Cir. 1992); Cate v. 

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 904 F. 

Supp. 526, 530–32 (W.D. Va. 1995); Citizens 

for a Better Env’t v. Deukmejian, 731 F. 

Supp. 1448, 1454–59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 

746 F. Supp. 976 (1990). 

Thus, courts have found that the 

citizen suit provision cannot be used to 

enforce the aspirational goal of attaining 

the NAAQS but can be used to enforce 

specific strategies to achieve that goal.6

SIP control measures and 

commitments may also be enforced by 

the EPA under section 113(a)(1) of the 

Act, which authorizes the EPA to issue 

notices and compliance orders, assess 

administrative penalties, and bring civil 

actions against any ‘‘person,’’ including 

3822 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

7CAA section 113(a)(1)-(2) (establishing EPA’s 

SIP enforcement authorities), section 302(e) 

(defining ‘‘person’’ to include a state or political 

subdivision thereof), and section 302(q) (defining 

‘‘applicable implementation plan’’ to include the 

portion(s) of the implementation plan approved 

under CAA section 110 that implement relevant 

CAA requirements). 

8CARB Resolution 18–3, ‘‘South Coast On-Road 

Heavy Duty Vehicle Incentive Measure’’ (March 22, 

2018), 5 and CARB Executive Order S–20–030, 

‘‘Adoption and Submittal of Technical 

Clarifications to the South Coast On-Road HeavyDuty Incentive Measure’’ (November 23, 2020) 

(hereafter ‘‘South Coast Incentive Measure’’). 

9 Id. We use the shorthand term ‘‘insufficiency 

finding’’ to refer to a determination by the EPA that 

information submitted by CARB is insufficient to 

demonstrate that CARB will fulfill the tonnage 

commitment on schedule. An insufficiency finding 

by the EPA triggers CARB’s obligation, under the 

terms of paragraph 5 of the South Coast Incentive 

Measure, to adopt and submit substitute measures 

and/or rules that address any shortfall in required 

emission reductions. 

10 Demonstration, 14. 

11South Coast Incentive Measure, para. 1. CARB 

is required under California law to monitor air 

district implementation of Carl Moyer projects to 

ensure compliance with the applicable guidelines. 

California Health & Safety Code (Ca. HSC) section 

44291(d) (requiring CARB to ‘‘monitor district 

programs to ensure that participating districts 

conduct their programs consistent with the criteria 

and guidelines established by the state board and 

the commission pursuant to this chapter’’). 

12The 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines require that 

each implementing air district maintain a file for 

each funded project (a ‘‘project file’’) that includes, 

among other things, a copy of the application, a 

copy of the executed project contract and any 

related amendments, photographic and other 

documentation of the baseline (replaced) engine, 

vehicle, or equipment, and photographic and other 

documentation of the new engine, vehicle, or 

equipment. 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Volume I, 

Part 1, Chapter 3, Section S (‘‘Requirements for 

Project Applications’’), para. 2; Section T 

(‘‘Application Evaluation and Project Selection’’), 

paras. 1 and 8; Section V (‘‘Minimum Contract 

Requirements’’); Section W (‘‘Project PreInspection’’); and Section X (‘‘Project PostInspection’’). Air districts must generally maintain 

each project file for three years after the end of the 

contract term. Id. at Section T (‘‘Application 

Evaluation and Project Selection’’), para. 8. 

13 Id. at Section M (‘‘Yearly Report’’), para. 4 and 

Section R (‘‘Incentive Program Review’’), para. 5. 14 Id. at Section M (‘‘Yearly Report’’). 15 Id. at Section V (‘‘Minimum Contract 

Requirements’’), para. 10. 16 Id. at Section Q (‘‘Program Nonperformance’’). 17 Id. at Section V (‘‘Minimum Contract 

Requirements’’), para. 11 (‘‘Repercussions for 

NonPerformance’’). 18CARB uses the term ‘‘baseline inventory’’ to 

refer to the projected emissions inventories for 

future years that account for, among other things, 

the ongoing effects of economic growth and adopted 

emissions control requirements. 19South Coast Incentive Measure, para. 2. We 

understand that the reference to ‘‘substitute 

measures’’ in paragraph 2 is intended to reference 

the ‘‘substitute measures and/or rules’’ that CARB 

must adopt and submit under paragraph 5 if the 

EPA determines that information submitted by 

CARB fails to demonstrate that CARB will fulfill the 

tonnage commitment on schedule. 

a state, who ‘‘has violated or is in 

violation of any requirement or 

prohibition of an applicable 

implementation plan. . . .’’ 7

CARB’s commitments in the South 

Coast Incentive Measure are set forth on 

page 5 of CARB Resolution 18–3 (March 

22, 2018), as clarified by Executive 

Order S–20–030 (November 23, 2020),8

and include six key components, as 

summarized below: 

(1) A commitment to monitor the District’s 

implementation of 1,300 on-road heavy-duty 

compression ignition truck repower and 

replacement projects in accordance with 

specified portions of the 2017 Carl Moyer 

Guidelines; 

(2) a commitment to achieve 1 ton per day 

(tpd) of reductions in NOX emissions from 

the 2023 baseline inventory in the 2016 

South Coast AQMP through implementation 

of these repower or replacement projects or 

substitute measures in the South Coast Air 

Basin (hereafter ‘‘tonnage commitment’’); 

(3) a commitment to submit reports to the 

EPA by March 31 of each year from 2020 

through 2023, each of which must include, 

among other things, specific information 

about the incentive projects funded through 

the previous year, about changes to the 

applicable guidelines, and about actions by 

CARB and the District to monitor projects for 

compliance with contract requirements 

(hereafter ‘‘annual demonstration reports’’); 

(4) a commitment to make each annual 

demonstration report publicly available or 

available upon request; 

(5) a commitment to provide to the public, 

upon request, certain project-specific 

documents relied upon in the preparation of 

CARB’s annual demonstration reports, 

including project applications, grant 

contracts, and inspection-related documents, 

and 

(6) a commitment to adopt and submit to 

the EPA, by September 1, 2022, substitute 

measures or rules that address any shortfall 

in emission reductions required to meet the 

tonnage commitment by no later than January 

1, 2023, if the EPA determines by July 1, 

2021 that information submitted by CARB is 

insufficient to demonstrate that it will fulfill 

the tonnage commitment on schedule.9

In the Demonstration, CARB states 

that ‘‘CARB is the responsible party for 

enforcement of this measure and is 

responsible for achieving the emission 

reductions from this measure,’’ 10 thus 

expressing CARB’s decision to 

voluntarily commit itself to fulfilling the 

tonnage commitment and to being held 

accountable for failure to fulfill this 

commitment. 

Upon the EPA’s approval of these 

commitments into the SIP under CAA 

section 110, the commitments will 

become federally enforceable 

requirements of an ‘‘applicable 

implementation plan’’ as defined in 

CAA section 302(q). Therefore, as 

discussed below, both citizens and the 

EPA may enforce these commitments 

under CAA sections 304(a)(1) and 

113(a)(1), respectively. We describe 

each enforceable component of the 

South Coast Incentive Measure below. 

First, the South Coast Incentive 

Measure obligates CARB to monitor 

District implementation of 1,300 onroad heavy-duty compression ignition 

truck repower and replacement projects 

in accordance with specified portions of 

the 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines.11 The 

2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines enable 

CARB to carry out its oversight 

responsibilities by requiring, among 

other things, that air districts (1) 

maintain, for specified periods of time, 

all project-related documentation 

obtained from participating sources and 

through the air district’s on-site project 

inspections; 12 (2) make such documents 

available to CARB staff during CARB’s 

periodic ‘‘incentive program reviews’’ 

and upon request; 13 (3) submit a 

certified ‘‘yearly report’’ to CARB 

containing specific information about 

funded projects, including information 

sufficient to calculate emission 

reductions and cost-effectiveness for 

source categories where required; 14 and 

(4) allow CARB and its designees to 

conduct fiscal audits and to inspect 

project engines, vehicles, and/or 

equipment and associated records 

during the contract term.15 The 2017 

Carl Moyer Guidelines also specifically 

identify types of actions on the part of 

the implementing air district that CARB 

may treat as violations of program 

requirements—e.g., misuse of Carl 

Moyer Program funds to fund ineligible 

projects and insufficient, incomplete, or 

inaccurate project documentation 16— 

and authorize CARB to enforce the 

terms of a project contract at any time 

during the contract term to ensure that 

emission reductions are obtained.17 If 

CARB fails to document in each annual 

demonstration report the steps it has 

taken to exercise these monitoring 

responsibilities, that failure would 

constitute a violation of the SIP 

commitment. 

Second, the South Coast Incentive 

Measure obligates CARB to achieve, by 

December 31, 2022, 1 tpd of reductions 

in NOX emissions from the 2023 

baseline inventory 18 in the 2016 South 

Coast AQMP through implementation of 

these projects in the South Coast Air 

Basin or substitute measures and/or 

rules consistent with paragraph 5 of the 

commitment.19 If CARB fails to achieve 

1 tpd of NOX emission reductions by 

December 31, 2022 through 

implementation of the identified 

incentive projects or substitute 

measures and/or rules that meet the 

identified criteria, that failure would 

constitute a violation of the SIP 

commitment. 

Third, the South Coast Incentive 

Measure obligates CARB to submit 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3823 

20 Id. at para. 3. 

21Citizens for a Better Environment v. 

Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 1454–59 (N.D. Cal. 

1990) (‘‘the basic commitment to adopt and 

implement additional measures, should the 

identified conditions occur, constitutes a specific 

strategy, fully enforceable in a citizens action, 

although the exact contours of those measures are 

not spelled out’’), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 (1990) 

(holding state and district liable for failing to satisfy 

SIP commitment). 

annual demonstration reports to the 

EPA by March 31 each year from 2020 

through 2023, each of which must 

include, among other things, specific 

information about the incentive projects 

funded through the previous year, about 

changes to the applicable guidelines, 

and about actions by CARB and the 

District to monitor projects for 

compliance with contract 

requirements.20 If CARB fails to timely 

submit an annual demonstration report 

containing all of the information listed 

in paragraph 3 of the South Coast 

Incentive Measure, that failure would 

constitute a violation of the SIP 

commitment. 

Fourth, the South Coast Incentive 

Measure obligates CARB to make each 

annual demonstration report publicly 

available or available upon request. If 

CARB fails to make any annual 

demonstration report publicly available 

or to provide it within a reasonable 

period after receiving a request for it, 

that failure would constitute a violation 

of the SIP commitment. 

Fifth, the South Coast Incentive 

Measure obligates CARB to provide to 

any requestor, beginning May 15, 2021 

and through 2029, certain projectspecific documents relied upon in the 

preparation of CARB’s annual 

demonstration reports, including project 

applications, grant contracts, and 

inspection-related documents. If CARB 

fails to provide any of these project 

records within a reasonable period after 

receiving a request, that failure would 

constitute a violation of the SIP 

commitment. 

Finally, the South Coast Incentive 

Measure obligates CARB to adopt and 

submit to the EPA, by September 1, 

2022, substitute measures and/or rules 

that address any shortfall in emission 

reductions no later than January 1, 2023, 

if the EPA determines by July 1, 2021 

that information submitted by CARB is 

insufficient to demonstrate that it will 

fulfill the tonnage commitment on 

schedule. If CARB fails to adopt and 

submit timely substitute measures and/ 

or rules sufficient to address a shortfall 

in required emission reductions, this 

failure would constitute a violation of 

the SIP commitment. We provide a more 

detailed discussion of CARB’s 

obligation to adopt and submit 

substitute measures in Response 7 in the 

Response to Comments document. 

This series of actions mandated by the 

South Coast Incentive Measure 

constitutes a specific enforceable 

strategy for achieving a specific amount 

of NOX emission reductions by the 

beginning of 2023. The fact that CARB 

may meet its SIP commitments by 

adopting measures that are not 

specifically identified in the SIP, or 

through one of several available 

techniques, does not render the 

requirement to achieve the emissions 

reductions unenforceable.21

For all of these reasons, we conclude 

that CARB’s commitments in the South 

Coast Incentive Measure to monitor and 

report annually on the implementation 

of specific types of incentive projects, to 

achieve a specified tonnage of NOX

emission reductions from these projects 

or substitute measures, to make the 

annual demonstration reports and 

related documentation available to the 

public, and to adopt and submit 

substitute control measures where 

necessary to address an emission 

reduction shortfall identified by the 

EPA, constitute appropriate means, 

techniques, or schedules for compliance 

under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 

172(c)(6) of the Act. 

Comment 2: Earthjustice states that 

citizens and the EPA can only enforce 

‘‘violations,’’ and that the EPA must 

describe what would constitute a 

violation of the SIP provisions being 

approved here. Citing section 304(a)(1) 

of the CAA, Earthjustice states that 

citizens can commence civil actions for 

violations of emission standards or 

limitations or orders issued by the EPA 

or a state with respect to such standards 

or limitations. Additionally, citing 

section 113(a)(1) of the Act, Earthjustice 

states that the EPA can enforce a 

violation of any requirement or 

prohibition of an applicable 

implementation plan. According to 

Earthjustice, the EPA ‘‘suggests that EPA 

and citizens can enforce the 

commitments to achieve and report on 

emission reductions’’ but that the EPA 

and the South Coast Incentive Measure 

‘‘muddy what exactly would constitute 

a violation.’’ 

Earthjustice notes the EPA’s statement 

in the TSD that to be enforceable, 

program violations must be defined, and 

asserts that the EPA must explain where 

in the South Coast Incentive Measure 

such definitions are provided. 

Response 2: We disagree with 

Earthjustice’s claim that the 

commitments at issue in this action do 

not create obligations that EPA or 

citizens can enforce, were CARB or the 

District to violate them. We identify in 

Response 1 the types of violations of the 

commitments that could provide the 

basis for an enforcement action by the 

EPA or by citizens under section 

113(a)(1) or 304(a)(1) of the CAA, 

respectively. As explained in Response 

1, CARB’s commitments, as set forth in 

the South Coast Incentive Measure, 

constitute a specific enforceable strategy 

for achieving 1 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions on a fixed schedule and, 

upon approval into the SIP, become 

requirements of an ‘‘applicable 

implementation plan’’ as defined in 

CAA section 302(q). Although the South 

Coast Incentive Measure does not 

specifically define potential violations 

of the commitments, we find that it 

describes each of the actions that CARB 

has committed to undertake in sufficient 

detail to enable the EPA and the public 

to determine whether and when a 

violation has occurred. Accordingly, 

these commitments are enforceable by 

citizens under CAA section 304(a)(1) 

and by the EPA under CAA section 

113(a)(1). 

Comment 3: Earthjustice states that 

CARB’s commitment to ‘‘monitor’’ 

District implementation of projects in 

accordance with the Carl Moyer 

Guidelines is a ‘‘vague and 

unenforceable commitment.’’ 

Earthjustice asks what would constitute 

a violation, and how one could prove 

that CARB is not monitoring 

implementation in accordance with the 

guidelines. Earthjustice asserts that 

there is no means of measuring or 

independently verifying compliance 

because there is no reporting 

requirement and no deadline. 

Additionally, Earthjustice claims that 

the reference to ‘‘1300 repower and 

replacement projects’’ in CARB’s 

commitment ‘‘is a deliberate attempt to 

mislead the reader on what is actually 

required.’’ For example, Earthjustice 

states, nothing in this monitoring 

‘‘requirement’’ specifies that these 

projects actually need to occur. 

Response 3: We disagree with these 

comments. CARB’s commitment to 

monitor District implementation of 

projects in accordance with the 2017 

Carl Moyer Guidelines is enforceable 

through specific provisions in the South 

Coast Incentive Measure that require 

CARB to, among other things, report 

annually on the incentive projects it is 

relying on to achieve emission 

reductions and the actions that CARB 

has taken to ensure that these projects 

comply with the contracts issued by the 

District in accordance with the 2017 

Carl Moyer Guidelines. See Response 1. 

Specifically, the South Coast 

Incentive Measure obligates CARB to 

3824 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

22South Coast Incentive Measure, para. 3.a. The 

‘‘project life’’ begins on the purchase date of the 

new equipment and is the period during which the 

project is under contract. Email dated February 13, 

2020, from Austin Hicks (CARB) to Rynda Kay (EPA 

Region IX), Subject: ‘‘RE: Follow-up questions on 

the Valley Incentive Measure.’’ We understand the 

‘‘implementation date’’ to mean the post-inspection 

date, which is the date on which the District verifies 

that the old equipment has been destroyed and that 

the new equipment has been purchased, is 

operational, and is the same equipment that was 

used in the emission reduction calculations. 2017 

Carl Moyer Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, Chapter 

3, Section V (‘‘Minimum Contract Requirements’’) 

and Section X (‘‘Project Post-Inspection’’). 

23 Id. at paras. 3.b–3.d. 

24The 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines require that 

each contract issued to a grantee contain provisions 

to ensure compliance with Carl Moyer program 

requirements. See, e.g., 2017 Carl Moyer 

Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, Chapter 3, Section V, 

para. 6(C) (requiring that each contract state that the 

project complies with Moyer Program requirements) 

and para. 11(C) (requiring that each contract inform 

grantee that CARB and the District may seek any 

remedies available under the law for 

noncompliance with Moyer Program requirements). 

25 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines, Volume I, Part 1, 

Chapter 3, Section AA (‘‘Air District Audit of 

Projects’’), para. 1. 26South Coast Incentive Measure, para. 1. 27See footnotes 12–15, supra. 28See footnotes 16 and 17, supra. 29South Coast Incentive Measure, para. 2. 30 Id. 

identify, in each annual demonstration 

report submitted to the EPA by March 

31 of each year from 2020 through 2023, 

those specific projects funded through 

the previous year that CARB is relying 

on to achieve the tonnage commitment. 

CARB must identify each of these 

projects ‘‘by project identification 

number, project life and implementation 

date, description of both baseline and 

new equipment, applicable incentive 

program guidelines, and quantified 

emission reductions.’’ 22 Additionally, 

each annual demonstration report must 

describe any changes to the 2017 Carl 

Moyer Guidelines and related impacts 

on program integrity, describe CARB’s 

and the District’s actions to monitor 

selected projects for compliance with 

contract requirements, and contain 

CARB’s determination of whether the 

identified projects are projected to 

achieve the full 1 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions in the South Coast Air Basin 

by 2023.23

These provisions ensure that CARB’s 

annual demonstration reports will 

contain both the project-specific 

information needed to independently 

calculate the emission reductions that 

CARB attributes to each project and the 

programmatic information needed to 

determine whether CARB and the 

District are taking appropriate steps to 

ensure that the identified projects 

comply with contract terms, which in 

turn assure compliance with the 2017 

Carl Moyer Guidelines.24 The 2017 Carl 

Moyer Guidelines specifically require 

that air districts audit at least five 

percent of active Carl Moyer projects or 

20 active projects (whichever is less), 

including any audits conducted 

following unsatisfactory annual 

reporting.25 If CARB’s annual 

demonstration report for a given year 

fails to identify the project-specific 

information described in paragraph 3.a 

of the South Coast Incentive Measure or 

to document the steps that CARB and 

the District have taken to monitor 

selected projects for compliance with 

contract terms, consistent with 

paragraph 3.c of the South Coast 

Incentive Measure, the EPA or citizens 

may bring an enforcement action against 

CARB for violating its monitoring and 

reporting obligations. 

We also disagree with Earthjustice’s 

claim that the reference to ‘‘1300 

repower and replacement projects’’ in 

CARB’s commitment is misleading as to 

what is actually required. As explained 

in Response 1, CARB is specifically 

obligated to monitor the District’s 

implementation of at least 1,300 on-road 

heavy-duty compression ignition truck 

repower and replacement projects in 

accordance with specified portions of 

the 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines.26 The 

2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines enable 

CARB to monitor the District’s 

compliance with these guidelines by 

requiring, among other things, that air 

districts maintain compliance-related 

documentation, make such documents 

available to CARB staff upon request, 

submit certified ‘‘yearly reports’’ to 

CARB containing specific information 

about funded projects, and allow CARB 

and its designees to inspect project 

engines, vehicles, and/or equipment and 

associated records during the contract 

term.27 The 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines 

also specifically identify types of 

actions on the part of the implementing 

air district that CARB may treat as 

program violations and authorize CARB 

to enforce the terms of a project 

contract.28 If CARB fails to document in 

each annual demonstration report the 

steps it has taken to exercise these 

monitoring responsibilities, that failure 

would constitute a violation of the SIP 

commitment. 

Additionally, as explained in 

Response 1, CARB is obligated to 

achieve 1 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions in the South Coast Air Basin, 

either through implementation of the 

identified truck repower and 

replacement projects or through 

substitute measures adopted and 

submitted in accordance with the 

deadlines specified in paragraph 5 of 

the South Coast Incentive Measure.29

Thus, although CARB is not necessarily 

obligated to ensure that 1,300 incentive 

projects are implemented or to achieve 

1 tpd of NOX emission reductions 

through these incentive projects, CARB 

is obligated to monitor at least 1,300 

such projects for purposes of 

determining whether those projects will 

achieve 1 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions by December 31, 2022. If 

those projects do not fulfill the tonnage 

commitment, CARB is obligated to 

adopt and submit substitute measures 

sufficient to address the shortfall.30

Comment 4: Earthjustice states that 

nothing in CARB’s commitment to 

‘‘achieve 1 ton per day of [NOX] 

emission reductions . . . by December 

31, 2022’’ specifies where these 

emission reductions must come from or 

where they must occur. Earthjustice 

claims that nothing specifies whether 

these reductions must be the result of 

some action by the agencies or merely 

the result of favorable economic 

conditions, and that CARB has relied on 

the latter in the past to claim 

compliance with similar 

‘‘commitments.’’ Earthjustice further 

claims that there is no way for the EPA 

or citizens to look at the entire 

emissions inventory for the South Coast 

on December 31, 2022 and determine 

whether CARB has achieved this 

emission reduction, and that even if 

overall emissions increase between 2019 

and 2022, CARB could still claim that 

but for some unspecified reason, the 

total NOX emissions would have been 1 

tpd higher. Earthjustice argues that 

because there is no way to prove that 

CARB has not achieved the 1 tpd of 

NOX reductions, the commitment fails 

to define any possible violation and is 

not practicably enforceable. 

Response 4: We identify in Response 

1 the types of violations of the 

commitments that could provide the 

basis for an enforcement action by the 

EPA or by citizens under section 

113(a)(1) or 304(a)(1) of the CAA, 

respectively. As explained in Response 

1, CARB’s commitments constitute a 

specific enforceable strategy for 

achieving 1 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions on a fixed schedule and, 

upon approval into the SIP, become 

requirements of an ‘‘applicable 

implementation plan’’ as defined in 

CAA section 302(q). Accordingly, these 

commitments are enforceable by 

citizens under CAA section 304(a)(1) 

and by the EPA under CAA section 

113(a)(1). 

Earthjustice’s characterization of 

CARB’s commitments is incorrect in 

several respects. First, with respect to 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3825 

31South Coast Incentive Measure, paras. 1, 2, and 

5. 

32 Id. at para. 2 (requiring CARB to achieve NOX

emission reductions ‘‘from the 2023 baseline 

inventory, as detailed in the 2016 South Coast Air 

Quality Management Plan and discussed in the 

State SIP Strategy, through implementation of these 

projects or substitute measures for the [South Coast 

Air] Basin.’’). The 2016 South Coast Air Quality 

Management Plan (AQMP), relevant portions of the 

2016 State Strategy and other related documents 

(hereafter ‘‘2016 South Coast Ozone SIP’’) contain 

California’s attainment demonstrations for the 1979 

1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the South Coast Air 

Basin. 84 FR 52005, 52012–52013 (October 1, 2019). 

33South Coast Incentive Measure, paras. 2, 5. 

34CARB Resolution 18–3, 4 (‘‘Whereas, the South 

Coast Incentive Measure provides a publiclyenforceable commitment to achieve emission 

reductions’’). 

35 Demonstration, 14. 

36See, e.g., 76 FR 69896, 69914–16 (November 9, 

2011) (approving PM2.5 attainment demonstration 

for San Joaquin Valley). 

37South Coast Incentive Measure, para. 3. 

38 Id. at para. 4. 

39By its terms, the commitment is to ‘‘adopt and 

submit to U.S. EPA. . . substitute measures and/or 

rules’’—i.e., new or revised control measures 

subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking—that 

achieve the necessary emission reductions, if the 

EPA makes an insufficiency finding. Id. at para. 5. 

40See EPA, Memorandum dated November 22, 

2011, from Janet McCabe, Deputy Assistant 

Administrator, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, to 

Air Division Directors, EPA Regions 1–10, 

Attachment B (‘‘Guidelines to States Agencies for 

Preparing the Public Notices for State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions’’) (noting that 

state public notices must state that the regulation 

or document at issue will be submitted to the EPA 

for approval into the SIP). 

CARB’s commitment to achieve 1 tpd of 

NOX emission reductions by December 

31, 2022, Earthjustice claims incorrectly 

that the commitments do not specify 

where these emission reductions must 

come from or where they must occur. 

The South Coast Incentive Measure 

specifies that CARB must achieve 1 tpd 

of NOX emission reductions through 

implementation of one or both of the 

following types of measures: (1) Heavyduty compression-ignition truck 

repower and replacement projects 

implemented in accordance with 

specified portions of the 2017 Carl 

Moyer Guidelines, and/or (2) substitute 

measures and/or rules adopted and 

submitted to the EPA by specified 

deadlines.31 It also makes clear that 

these emission reductions must occur in 

the South Coast Air Basin.32

Second, Earthjustice claims 

incorrectly that nothing in the 

commitment ‘‘specifies whether [the 

emission reductions] must be the result 

of some action by the agencies or merely 

the result of favorable economic 

conditions,’’ and that CARB has relied 

on the latter in the past to claim 

compliance with similar 

‘‘commitments.’’ As explained in 

Response 1, the South Coast Incentive 

Measure explicitly states that CARB will 

do the following: 

By December 31, 2022, achieve one ton per 

day of reductions in NOX emissions from the 

2023 baseline inventory, as detailed in the 

2016 South Coast Air Quality Management 

Plan and discussed in the State SIP Strategy, 

through implementation of these projects or 

substitute measures for the [South Coast Air] 

Basin; [and] 

If U.S. EPA determines by July 1, 2021, that 

information submitted by CARB is 

insufficient to demonstrate that emission 

reductions required under Paragraph 2 will 

occur on schedule, adopt and submit to U.S. 

EPA, no later than September 1, 2022, 

substitute measures and/or rules that will 

achieve emission reductions addressing the 

shortfall as expeditiously as practicable and 

no later than January 1, 2023.33

Thus, by its terms, the South Coast 

Incentive Measure obligates CARB to 

‘‘achieve’’ 1 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions no later than January 1, 2023, 

either by confirming implementation of 

identified incentive projects in 

accordance with the specified portions 

of the 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines or by 

adopting and submitting to the EPA 

substitute measures and/or rules that 

achieve equivalent emission reductions. 

In the interpretative statements 

preceding these commitments and in 

the Demonstration, CARB states that it 

is creating a ‘‘publicly-enforceable 

commitment to achieve emission 

reductions’’ 34 and confirms that ‘‘CARB 

is the responsible party for enforcement 

of this measure and is responsible for 

achieving the emission reductions from 

this measure.’’ 35 Nowhere in the South 

Coast Incentive Measure or in CARB’s 

interpretative statements does CARB 

indicate that favorable economic 

conditions may suffice to achieve the 

aggregate tonnage commitments. 

We note that in prior EPA actions 

approving aggregate tonnage 

commitments from CARB, the EPA has 

rejected claims that ‘‘actual emission 

decreases’’ resulting from an economic 

recession or other circumstances may 

count towards meeting the 

commitments and made clear that the 

only permissible means for achieving 

the required emission reductions is 

through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking procedures leading to the 

adoption and implementation of 

enforceable control measures.36

Third, Earthjustice suggests, 

incorrectly, that the EPA and citizens 

would have to look at the entire 

emissions inventory for the South Coast 

on December 31, 2022, to determine 

whether CARB has achieved 1 tpd of 

NOX emission reductions. For the 

reasons stated in this response and 

earlier in Response 1, it is not necessary 

to review an emissions inventory to 

determine whether CARB has achieved 

the required reductions. The South 

Coast Incentive Measure obligates CARB 

to provide, in each annual 

demonstration report submitted to the 

EPA from March 2020 through March 

2023, detailed information about each 

incentive project that CARB is relying 

on to achieve the required 1 tpd of NOX

emission reductions.37 Each of these 

annual demonstration reports must be 

readily available to the public on 

CARB’s website or available upon 

request.38 If CARB’s 2023 annual 

demonstration report (which is due 

March 31, 2023) fails to demonstrate 

that the identified projects have 

achieved 1 tpd of NOX emission 

reductions from the 2023 baseline 

inventory in the 2016 South Coast 

AQMP, citizens may sue CARB for 

violating its SIP commitment. The 

tonnage commitment remains 

enforceable even if the EPA has not 

made an insufficiency determination in 

accordance with paragraph 5 of the 

South Coast Incentive Measure. See 

Response 6 and Response 8 in the 

Response to Comments document. 

Additionally, if the EPA determines 

by July 1, 2021, that information 

submitted by CARB is insufficient to 

demonstrate that the emission 

reductions necessary to fulfill the 2023 

tonnage commitment will occur on 

schedule, CARB must adopt and submit 

to the EPA, no later than September 1, 

2022, substitute measures and/or rules 

that will achieve emission reductions 

addressing the shortfall as expeditiously 

as practicable and no later than January 

1, 2023.39 Any such substitute control 

measure must be adopted following 

state rulemaking procedures through 

which the EPA and the public may track 

the State’s progress in achieving the 

requisite emissions reductions. We 

expect CARB to make clear during any 

such rulemaking that it is proposing the 

identified measure or rule for purposes 

of submission to the EPA consistent 

with its commitment in the South Coast 

Incentive Measure.40 If, following an 

insufficiency finding by the EPA, CARB 

fails to adopt and submit substitute 

control measures that fully address the 

identified shortfall in required emission 

reductions by the relevant deadline, 

citizens may sue CARB for violating its 

SIP commitment. 

For all of these reasons, we disagree 

with Earthjustice’s claim that the South 

Coast Incentive Measure fails to define 

any possible violation and is not 

practicably enforceable. 

3826 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

41 84 FR 52005, 52013–52014 (October 1, 2019) 

(referencing CARB Resolution 17–7 (March 23, 

2017), Attachment A (‘‘Proposed New SIP Measures 

and Schedule’’)) and 84 FR 28132, 28149 (June 17, 

2019) (Table 6, ‘‘Defined Measures in the 2016 State 

Strategy—Continued’’). 

III. Final Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rule as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, the EPA is fully approving 

this measure into the California SIP in 

accordance with section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act. 

In addition, the EPA is determining 

that CARB’s adoption, implementation, 

and submission of the South Coast 

Incentive Measure satisfy the State’s 

commitment in the 2016 South Coast 

Ozone SIP to bring to the Board for 

consideration an incentive-based 

measure for on-road heavy-duty 

vehicles and achieves 1 tpd of CARB’s 

aggregate NOX emission reduction 

commitment for 2023, as codified in 40 

CFR 52.220(c)(517)(ii)(A)(3).41

We are codifying this measure as 

additional material in the code of 

federal regulations (CFR), rather than 

through incorporation by reference, 

because, under its terms, the measure 

contains commitments enforceable only 

against CARB and because the measure 

is not a substantive rule of general 

applicability. 

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 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); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the 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 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). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 16, 2021. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 11, 2020. 

John Busterud, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—CALIFORNIA 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(550) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan-in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(550) The following plan was 

submitted on May 4, 2018 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. (A) 

California Air Resources Board. 

(1) CARB Resolution 18–3, adopted 

March 22, 2018, as revised by Executive 

Order S–20–030, adopted November 23, 

2020. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(B) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2020–28020 Filed 1–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P