7320 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

NAAQS for the Department. In support 

of this proposed action, we have 

concluded that our approval of the 

submitted 2015 ozone certification for 

the Department would comply with 

section 110(l) of the Act because our 

approval of the ozone certification will 

not interfere with continued attainment 

or maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

Department. Similarly, we find that the 

submitted revision is approvable under 

section 193 of the Act because it does 

not modify any control requirement in 

effect before November 15, 1990, 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emission reductions. The EPA has 

concluded that the State’s submission 

fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1314 revision 

requirement and meets the requirements 

of CAA sections 110, 172(c)(5), 173, 

182(a)(2)(C), 193, and the minimum SIP 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.165. If we 

finalize this action as proposed, our 

action will incorporate this certification 

into the federally enforceable SIP and be 

codified through revisions to 40 CFR 

52.1470 (Identification of plan). 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, the State’s submission and all 

other materials available electronically 

through https://www.regulations.gov 

and at the EPA Region IX Office (please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). We 

will accept comments from the public 

on this proposal until March 4, 2024. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it proposes to approve a state 

program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• 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. 

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). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The State did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA did not perform an 

EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in 

this action. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this action, and there 

is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 29, 2024. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02088 Filed 2–1–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0626; FRL–11614– 

01–R9] 

Air Plan Disapproval; California; Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin; 1997 

8-Hour Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove a state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

California to meet a Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requirement for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) in 

the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, 

California ozone nonattainment area 

(‘‘South Coast’’). This submission, titled 

‘‘Final Contingency Measure Plan— 

Planning for Attainment of the 1997 80 

ppb 8-hour Ozone Standard in the 

South Coast Air Basin,’’ (‘‘Contingency 

Measure Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’), addresses the 

CAA requirements for the submission of 

contingency measures that will be 

implemented if emissions reductions 

from anticipated technologies associated 

with the area’s 1997 ozone NAAQS 

attainment demonstration are not 

achieved. We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 4, 2024. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7321 

1The State of California refers to ‘‘reactive 

organic gases’’ (ROG) rather than VOC in some of 

its ozone-related SIP submissions. As a practical 

matter, ROG and VOC refer to the same set of 

chemical constituents, and for the sake of 

simplicity, we refer to this set of gases as VOC in 

this proposed rule. 

2The EPA’s definition of ‘‘nonroad engine’’ is 

found at 40 CFR 1068.30. The State of California 

uses the term ‘‘off-road’’ instead of ‘‘nonroad.’’ The 

terms are interchangeable. 

3 ‘‘Fact Sheet—Final Revisions to the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone,’’ dated 

March 2008, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2015-08/documents/ozone_fact_

sheet.pdf. 

4 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 

5 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). 

6 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008) 

7 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 

8 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). 

9 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). 

10 40 CFR 51.1100(o). Continuing applicable 

requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS include 

the contingency measures requirement of CAA 

section 182(e)(5). Id. at 51.1100(o)(16); see also id. 

at 51.1105. 

11The CAA section 182(e)(5) requirements are 

discussed in more detail in Section I.C. of this 

document. 

12For a precise definition of the boundaries of the 

South Coast 1997 ozone nonattainment area, see 40 

CFR 81.305. 

13 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP (‘‘2016 AQMP’’), 

p. 1–5. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2023–0626 at https://

www.regulations.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with a 

disability 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: 

Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105. By phone: (415) 972–3964 or by 

email at vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Ozone Standards, Area Designations, 

and State Implementation Plans 

B. The South Coast Ozone Nonattainment 

Area 

C. Clean Air Act Provisions for New 

Technologies 

D. The EPA’s Prior Approvals of New 

Technology Provisions for the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone Standards 

II. Submission From the State of California 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Procedural Requirements 

B. Evaluation for Compliance With Clean 

Air Act Requirements 

IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Ozone Standards, Area Designations, 

and State Implementation Plans 

Ground-level ozone pollution is 

formed from the reaction of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of 

sunlight.1 These two pollutants, referred 

to as ozone precursors, are emitted by 

many types of sources, including onroad and nonroad motor vehicles and 

engines,2 power plants and industrial 

facilities, and smaller area sources such 

as lawn and garden equipment and 

paints. 

Scientific evidence indicates that 

adverse public health effects occur 

following exposure to ozone, 

particularly in children and adults with 

lung disease. Breathing air containing 

ozone can reduce lung function and 

inflame airways, which can increase 

respiratory symptoms and aggravate 

asthma or other lung diseases.3

Under section 109 of the CAA, the 

EPA promulgates NAAQS for pervasive 

air pollutants, such as ozone. The 

NAAQS establish concentration levels 

whose attainment and maintenance the 

EPA has determined to be requisite to 

protect public health and welfare. In 

1979, the EPA established primary 

(public health-based) and secondary 

(welfare-based) NAAQS for ozone at 

0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged 

over a 1-hour timeframe (‘‘1-hour ozone 

NAAQS’’).4 In 1997, the EPA revised the 

primary and secondary ozone NAAQS 

to set the acceptable level of ozone in 

the ambient air at 0.08 ppm averaged 

over an 8-hour timeframe (‘‘1997 ozone 

NAAQS’’).5 The EPA further tightened 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm 

in 2008 (‘‘2008 ozone NAAQS’’),6 and to 

0.070 ppm in 2015 (‘‘2015 ozone 

NAAQS’’).7 The EPA subsequently 

revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 8 and 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS,9 but has 

retained applicable requirements for 

anti-backsliding purposes for areas that 

remained designated as nonattainment 

for those standards at the time of 

revocation.10

Section 110 of the CAA requires states 

to develop and submit SIPs to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. States with nonattainment 

areas are required to submit revisions to 

their SIPs that include a control strategy 

and technical analysis to demonstrate 

how the area will attain the NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date (referred 

to as an ‘‘attainment demonstration’’), 

and to meet other requirements 

according to each area’s nonattainment 

classification. Under CAA section 181, 

the EPA classifies ozone nonattainment 

areas as ‘‘Marginal,’’ ‘‘Moderate,’’ 

‘‘Serious,’’ ‘‘Severe,’’ or ‘‘Extreme.’’ 

The SIP revision that is the subject of 

this proposed action was submitted to 

address the contingency measures 

requirement of CAA section 182(e)(5) 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Under this 

provision, states relying on the 

development of new control techniques 

or improvement of existing technologies 

(‘‘new technology measures’’) to 

demonstrate attainment in an Extreme 

nonattainment area must submit 

contingency measures to the EPA that 

will be implemented if the anticipated 

new technology measures do not 

achieve the planned reductions.11

B. The South Coast Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

The South Coast nonattainment area 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS consists of 

Orange County, the southwestern twothirds of Los Angeles County, 

southwestern San Bernardino County, 

and western Riverside County. The 

South Coast encompasses an area of 

approximately 6,600 square miles and is 

bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the 

west and by the San Gabriel, San 

Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains 

to the north and east.12 The population 

of the South Coast is over 17 million 

people.13

The EPA has classified the South 

Coast as an ‘‘Extreme’’ nonattainment 

area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 1997 

ozone NAAQS, 2008 ozone NAAQS, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7322 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

14The EPA initially designated and classified the 

South Coast as a ‘‘Severe-17’’ nonattainment area 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2004. 69 FR 23858 

(April 30, 2004). We later granted CARB’s request 

to reclassify the area to Extreme. 75 FR 24409 (May 

5, 2010). 

15 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012). These submittals 

and the related materials are included in the 

associated docket, available at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R09-OAR-2011- 

0622. 

16See 79 FR 52526 (September 3, 2014). The 2012 

AQMP and related materials are included in the 

associated docket, available at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R09-OAR-2014- 

0185. 

17See 84 FR 52005 (October 1, 2019). The 2016 

AQMP and related materials are included in the 

associated docket, available at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R09-OAR-2019- 

0051. 

18CAA section 182(e)(5) specifies ‘‘the first 10 

years after November 15, 1990,’’ which reflects the 

effective date of designation for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The EPA has interpreted this 10-year 

timeframe to run from the effective date of 

designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 

57872, 57881, n.24. 

19CAA section 182(e)(5). In this document, we 

refer to such contingency measures as ‘‘182(e)(5) 

contingency measures’’ to distinguish them from 

the contingency measures that are required under 

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for a failure 

to make reasonable further progress (RFP) or to 

attain by the attainment date. Attainment and RFP 

contingency measures are a required element of an 

attainment plan submission under part D of title I 

of the CAA and are subject to the same submittal 

deadline as the attainment plan. A state relying on 

new technology measures in an Extreme area 

attainment plan must submit 182(e)(5) contingency 

measures in addition to the attainment and RFP 

contingency measures otherwise required for the 

area. 57 FR 13498, 13524 (April 16, 1992). 

20 57 FR 13498, 13524. 

21 Id. 

22CAA section 182(e)(5). 

23 77 FR 12674, 12693 (March 1, 2012). California 

relied on these reductions from new technology 

measures for the attainment demonstration, but not 

for the RFP demonstration or other provisions. 76 

FR 57872, 57882. 

24 77 FR 12674, 12693. See also CARB Resolution 

11–22 (July 21, 2011) (CARB commitment to 

‘‘develop, adopt, and submit contingency measures 

by 2020 if advanced technology measures do not 

achieve planned reductions’’) and letter dated 

November 18, 2011, from James N. Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX (further 

clarifying CARB commitment). 

25A list of the SCAQMD and CARB new 

technology measures in the 2012 AQMP is included 

in Table 6 of the EPA’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 79 FR 29712, 29722 (May 23, 2014). 

26 79 FR 52526, 52537 (September 3, 2014). The 

amount of reductions to be achieved through new 

technology measures for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard (40 tpd of VOC and 241 tpd of NOX) was 

unchanged. 

and 2015 ozone NAAQS. For the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, the area has an 

attainment date of June 15, 2024.14

California first addressed the planning 

requirements for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS with the ‘‘Final 2007 Air 

Quality Management Plan’’ (‘‘2007 

South Coast AQMP’’), prepared by the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD), and the ‘‘State 

Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan’’ (‘‘2007 State 

Strategy’’), prepared by the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB). These 

submittals were subsequently revised in 

2009 and 2011.15 Collectively, we refer 

to these submittals and revisions as the 

‘‘2007 South Coast Ozone SIP.’’ CARB 

subsequently submitted revisions to the 

2007 South Coast Ozone SIP’s control 

strategy and commitments for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS in 2012 (‘‘2012 

AQMP’’) 16 and 2016 (‘‘2016 South 

Coast Ozone SIP,’’ including the ‘‘2016 

AQMP’’).17

C. Clean Air Act Provisions for New 

Technologies 

For ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as Extreme, the CAA 

recognizes that an attainment plan may 

rely to a certain extent on new or 

evolving technologies, given the long 

time period between developing the 

initial plan and attaining the standards, 

and the amount of emissions reductions 

needed to attain. CAA section 182(e)(5) 

authorizes the EPA to approve 

provisions in an Extreme area plan that 

anticipate development of new 

technology measures, and to approve an 

attainment demonstration based on such 

provisions, if the state demonstrates 

that: (1) such provisions are not 

necessary to achieve the incremental 

emission reductions required during the 

first 10 years after the area’s 

nonattainment designation; 18 and (2) 

the state has submitted enforceable 

commitments to develop and adopt 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if the anticipated 

technologies do not achieve the planned 

reductions (‘‘182(e)(5) contingency 

measures’’).19 New technology measures 

may include those that anticipate future 

technological developments as well as 

those that require complex analyses, 

decision making, and coordination 

among a number of government 

agencies.20 An attainment 

demonstration that relies on planned 

reductions from new technology 

measures under section 182(e)(5) must 

identify the measures for which 

additional time would be needed for 

development and adoption. The plan 

must also show that the new technology 

measures cannot be fully developed and 

adopted by the submittal date for the 

attainment demonstration and must 

contain a schedule outlining the steps 

leading to final development and 

adoption of the measures.21

The state must submit the required 

182(e)(5) contingency measures to the 

EPA no later than 3 years before 

proposed implementation of the plan 

provisions that anticipate development 

of new technology measures. The EPA 

approves or disapproves section 

182(e)(5) contingency measures in 

accordance with CAA section 110. The 

contingency measures must be adequate 

to produce emissions reductions 

sufficient, in conjunction with other 

approved plan provisions, to make 

reasonable further progress (RFP) and to 

attain by the applicable dates. If the EPA 

later determines that the Extreme area 

has failed to make RFP or to attain, and 

that such failure is due in whole or part 

to an inability to fully implement the 

new technology measures approved 

under CAA section 182(e)(5), the EPA 

will require the state to implement the 

contingency measures to the extent 

necessary to assure compliance with the 

applicable requirement.22

D. The EPA’s Prior Approvals of New 

Technology Provisions for the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone Standards 

In our action on the South Coast 

attainment demonstration for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS in the 2007 South Coast 

Ozone SIP, the EPA approved a number 

of commitments regarding the 

development of new pollution control 

measures by CARB and the SCAQMD. 

These included CARB’s commitments to 

achieve, by 2023, 141 tons per day (tpd) 

of NOX reductions and 54 tpd of VOC 

reductions from defined measures and 

to achieve 241 tpd of NOX reductions 

and 40 tpd of VOC reductions from new 

technology measures.23 We also 

approved CARB’s commitment to 

provide 182(e)(5) contingency measures 

to cover any new technology measures 

shortfall as part of our approval of the 

2007 South Coast Ozone SIP.24

The 2012 AQMP included a list of 

proposed new technology measures 

intended to provide the emissions 

reductions necessary to attain both the 

1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard.25 We approved 

these measures both for purposes of the 

1-hour ozone attainment demonstration 

and as an update to the 2007 South 

Coast Ozone SIP’s new technology 

measures for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard.26

In the 2016 South Coast Ozone SIP, 

which included an updated control 

strategy and attainment demonstration 

for the 1997 ozone standards, CARB 

provided a revised list of new 

technology measures and revised the 

amount of reductions needed from 

defined measures and new technology 

measures. CARB committed to 

achieving aggregate emissions 

reductions of 113 tpd of NOX and 50 to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7323 

27 84 FR 28132 (June 17, 2019). See esp. id. at 

Table 7 (identifying new technology measures 

projected to generate 108 tpd NOX and 41 tpd VOC 

emissions reductions needed by 2023). 

28 57 FR 13498, 13524; CAA section 182(e)(5). 

29Letter dated December 6, 2019, from Wayne 

Nastri, Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Richard 

Corey, Executive Officer, CARB and SCAQMD 

Board Resolution 19–26. 

30Letter dated December 31, 2019, from Richard 

W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael 

Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 

(submitted electronically December 31, 2019). 

31Contingency Measure Plan, p. 2. 

32 Id. at 35. 

33 Id. at 39. Although California’s approved SIP 

relies on planned reductions from new technology 

measures for both NOX and VOC emissions 

reductions, and the State committed to submitting 

contingency measures for both, the Contingency 

Measure Plan focuses on achieving NOX reductions. 

In support of this approach, the State notes that for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS the area is more sensitive 

to NOX emissions reductions, and that VOC 

reductions from CARB’s commitment will occur 

through implementation of the NOX reductions 

strategy. Id. at 16. 

34 Id. at Table 3–1. 

35 Id. at Tables ES–1 and ES–2, and at 49–52. 

36 Id. at 47. 

37 Id. at Table ES–1. 

38 Id. at 5. 

51 tpd of VOC, with 108 tpd of NOX

reductions and 41 tpd of VOC 

reductions coming from new technology 

measures, identified as ‘‘further 

deployment of cleaner technologies’’ 

addressing emissions from on-road 

light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, 

aircraft, locomotives, ocean-going 

vessels, and off-road equipment.27 We 

approved this updated demonstration 

based on CARB’s previously-approved 

commitment to submit 182(e)(5) 

contingency measures by 2020 as 

necessary to cover any emissions 

reduction shortfall from new technology 

measures. 

Because reductions from new 

technology measures were relied on to 

ensure sufficient emissions reductions 

by 2023 to provide for attainment of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 

2024 attainment date, the 182(e)(5) 

contingency measures would be 

triggered upon the EPA finding that the 

area failed to attain and that this failure 

was due in whole or in part to a failure 

to implement provisions approved 

under CAA section 182(e)(5).28

II. Submission From the State of 

California 

The SCAQMD prepared the 

Contingency Measure Plan in 

collaboration with CARB.29 It was 

submitted by CARB to the EPA on 

December 31, 2019,30 and became 

complete by operation of law on July 1, 

2020. 

The Contingency Measure Plan is 

intended to address the requirement in 

CAA section 182(e)(5) that states relying 

on reductions from new technology 

measures to demonstrate attainment 

must submit contingency measures no 

later than three years before the 

proposed implementation of those new 

technology measures.31 Under CAA 

section 182(e)(5), these contingency 

measures are required to produce 

emissions reductions sufficient to make 

up any shortfall in reductions attributed 

to new technology measures that were 

relied upon to meet the applicable RFP 

or attainment requirements. In this 

instance, California committed to 

achieve the NOX and VOC reductions 

necessary to attain the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS by 2023, relying in part on 

reductions from new technology 

measures. CARB’s submittal also 

includes a CARB staff report titled 

‘‘South Coast 8-Hour Ozone SIP 

Update’’ (‘‘CARB Staff Report’’), a 

response to public comments received 

on the Plan (‘‘CARB Response to 

Comments’’), and other supporting 

documents, which are included in the 

docket for this rulemaking action. 

The Contingency Measure Plan does 

not include contingency measures that 

could be implemented in the event the 

area fails to attain because the 

previously anticipated new technologies 

have not achieved the planned 

reductions. Instead, the Plan updates 

the State’s approach for achieving the 

108 tpd of NOX reductions that the 2016 

AQMP attributed to further deployment 

of cleaner technologies.32 This updated 

approach includes three specific 

strategies: (1) identified emissions 

reductions strategies (24–26 tpd); (2) 

additional incentive funding (15 tpd); 

and (3) federal sources and federal 

measures (67–69 tpd).33

1. Identified Emissions Reductions 

Strategies 

Section 3 of the Contingency Measure 

Plan identifies NOX reductions that 

exceed the anticipated reductions from 

defined SCAQMD measures and CARB 

regulations identified in the 2016 

AQMP. According to the Contingency 

Measure Plan, by 2023, an additional 

10.2–12.2 tpd of NOX reductions would 

be achieved through the following: (1) 

RECLAIM transition rules (2 tpd); (2) 

facility-based mobile source measures 

for commercial airports (0.5 tpd); (3) 

facility-based mobile source measures 

for marine ports (3.2–5.2 tpd); (4) 

incentive funding (expected future 

funding) (1.5 tpd); and (5) Metrolink tier 

4 locomotives conversion (3.0 tpd).34

The Plan estimates that new mobile 

source measures implemented by CARB 

would provide an additional 6.15 tpd of 

NOX reductions toward the 108 tpd of 

NOX reductions that the State 

committed to achieving through new 

technology measures under CAA section 

182(e)(5). These measures are listed in 

Table 3–5 of the Plan and consist of the 

following: (1) low-carbon fuel standard 

and alternative diesel fuels regulation 

(1.7 tpd); (2) airborne toxic control 

measure (ATCM) for portable engines 

and the statewide portable equipment 

registration program (0.25 tpd); and (3) 

heavy duty truck inspection and 

maintenance program (4.2 tpd). 

The Contingency Measure Plan also 

describes a suite of innovative measures 

that were not identified in the 2016 

AQMP, but which had been adopted, or 

would soon be adopted, by CARB.35

These measures, which the Contingency 

Measure Plan estimates will provide 

NOX reductions of 3.0 tpd, include 

requirements for State contractors to use 

the cleanest equipment available and for 

State agencies to purchase the cleanest 

vehicles and equipment available; 

pricing programs to encourage people to 

take public transit, carpool, or walk at 

congested times of the day; and a 

measure that would require certain 

railroads to set aside funding for the 

purchase of cleaner locomotives. 

As described in the Contingency 

Measure Plan, these reductions, in 

conjunction with a 4.2 tpd adjustment 

resulting from a previous overcommitment for reductions from oceangoing vessels,36 will provide a total of 

24–26 tpd of NOX reductions towards 

the 182(e)(5) commitment.37

2. Additional Incentive Funding 

Section 4 of the Contingency Measure 

Plan discusses additional incentive 

funding that could speed the transition 

to technologies that are cleaner than 

required by current regulations. The 

2016 AQMP identified a need for over 

$1 billion per year in funds to 

incentivize the transition to clean 

vehicles, infrastructure, and equipment. 

The SCAQMD notes that in the years 

between the adoption of the 2016 

AQMP and the adoption of the 

Contingency Measure Plan, its efforts to 

increase funding resulted in an 

approximate doubling of incentive 

funding, to $200–300 million per year.38

To address the shortfall between 

existing funding and the amount the 

SCAQMD estimated would be needed to 

adequately fund incentive measures that 

would provide reductions needed for 

attainment, the SCAQMD identifies 

several additional sources of funding for 

incentive programs and describes its 

ongoing advocacy efforts to secure more 

funding, including sponsoring 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7324 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

39 Id. at 53–55. 

40 Id. at 56. 

41 Id. at 6. 

42 Id. at Table 5–3. 

43 77 FR 12674, 12693. CARB’s commitment is 

outlined in CARB Resolution 11–22 (dated July 21, 

2011) and in the letter dated November 18, 2011, 

from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, 

to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region IX. 44For example, CARB’s Response to Comments 

indicates that the State intends to later develop the 

Plan’s incentive measures into SIP submittals that 

are ‘‘surplus, quantifiable, permanent, and 

enforceable,’’ and that include an enforceable 

mechanism to achieve the reductions from 

substitute projects ‘‘if necessary,’’ but that those 

elements were not required at the time that the 

Contingency Measure Plan was submitted. 

legislation that would allow the public 

or the SCAQMD Board to put a sales tax 

measure on the ballot in the South Coast 

region. The SCAQMD estimates this 

could generate a sustainable source of 

funding in the amount of $1.4 billion 

per year, and that this amount could 

generate 15 tpd of NOX emissions 

reductions in 2023.39

3. Federal Sources and Federal 

Measures 

Section 5 of the Contingency Measure 

Plan designates additional reductions 

from federal sources and measures that 

the SCAQMD asserts will be necessary 

for attainment. This section describes 

California’s successful efforts to reduce 

NOX emissions from sources subject to 

its regulatory authority and explains 

that the State has limited authority to 

impose emissions controls on other 

significant sources of emissions, such as 

heavy duty trucks and engines sold 

outside California; passenger and freight 

locomotives, aircraft engines, 

construction and agricultural equipment 

under 175 horsepower; and ocean-going 

vessels (which the Plan refers to 

collectively as ‘‘federal sources’’).40 The 

SCAQMD notes that, while NOX

emissions in the South Coast have 

decreased by 70 percent since 1997, 

NOX emissions from federal sources 

have only decreased by 15 percent over 

that same time period. Figure ES–3 in 

the Contingency Measure Plan 

illustrates the reductions that have been 

achieved since 2000 and highlights the 

increasing portion that federal sources 

contribute to the overall emissions 

inventory.41

The SCAQMD identifies the 

emissions reductions potential, by 2023, 

for the following four categories of 

sources under federal authority or 

responsibility: (1) low-NOX heavy-duty 

vehicles (up to 35 tpd); (2) low-NOX

ocean-going vessels (up to 28 tpd); (3) 

low-NOX locomotives (up to 11 tpd); 

and (4) low-NOX aircraft (up to 4 tpd).42

III. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Procedural Requirements 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

section 110(l) require a state to provide 

reasonable public notice and an 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submission of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet these procedural 

requirements, every SIP submission 

should include evidence that the state 

provided adequate public notice and an 

opportunity for a public hearing 

consistent with the EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR 51.102. 

CARB’s December 31, 2019 SIP 

submittal package includes 

documentation of the public processes 

used by the SCAQMD and CARB to 

adopt the Contingency Measure Plan. As 

documented in the SIP revision 

submittal package, on November 6, 

2019, the SCAQMD published a notice 

in newspapers of general circulation in 

the South Coast that a public hearing to 

consider adoption of the Plan would be 

held on December 6, 2019. As 

documented in the Minute Order of the 

Air Pollution Control Board that is 

included in the SIP revision submittal 

package, the SCAQMD Governing Board 

adopted the Contingency Measure Plan 

on December 6, 2019, following the 

public hearing. 

On November 8, 2019, CARB 

published on its website a notice of a 

public hearing to be held on December 

12, 2019, to consider adoption of the 

plan. As evidenced by CARB Resolution 

19–31, CARB adopted the Contingency 

Measure Plan on December 12, 2019, 

following a public hearing. Based on 

documentation included in the 

December 31, 2019 SIP revision 

submittal package, we find that both the 

SCAQMD and CARB have satisfied the 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for reasonable public 

notice and hearing prior to the adoption 

and submission of the Contingency 

Measure Plan. Therefore, we find that 

the submission of the Contingency 

Measure Plan meets the procedural 

requirements for public notice and 

hearing in CAA sections 110(a) and 

110(l) and in 40 CFR 51.102. 

B. Evaluation for Compliance With 

Clean Air Act Requirements 

As described in Section I.C of this 

document, CAA section 182(e)(5) allows 

the EPA to approve an attainment 

demonstration for an Extreme ozone 

area that relies on anticipated new 

technology measures, if (A) the 

measures are not necessary to achieve 

emission reductions required in the first 

10 years after the area’s nonattainment 

designation, and (B) the state submits 

enforceable commitments to develop 

and adopt contingency measures to be 

implemented if the new technology 

measures do not achieve the planned 

reductions. The state must submit these 

contingency measures no later than 

three years before the new technology 

measures would be implemented. 

The EPA approves or disapproves 

182(e)(5) contingency measures as SIP 

revisions under CAA section 110. The 

contingency measures must be adequate 

to produce sufficient emission 

reductions, in conjunction with other 

provisions of the approved SIP, to allow 

the Extreme area to make RFP and to 

attain by the applicable attainment date, 

and must be capable of being 

implemented in the event of a failure to 

make RFP or to attain that is due in 

whole or part to an inability to fully 

implement the new technology 

measures approved under CAA 

182(e)(5). 

As recounted in Section I.C of this 

document, the 2007 South Coast Ozone 

SIP’s attainment demonstration for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS relied on new 

technology measures to achieve 241 tpd 

of NOX reductions and 40 tpd of VOC 

reductions by 2023. With respect to the 

182(e)(5) requirements, our approval of 

the 2007 South Coast Ozone SIP relied 

on CARB’s commitment to ‘‘develop, 

adopt, and submit contingency 

measures by 2020 if advanced 

technology measures do not achieve 

planned reductions.’’ 43 The 2016 

AQMP subsequently revised the 

reductions assigned to new technology 

measures to 108 tpd of NOX and 41 tpd 

of VOC by 2023. 

The Contingency Measure Plan 

identifies a combination of state and 

federal strategies that CARB and the 

SCAQMD project would result in the 

108 tpd of NOX reductions previously 

determined to be necessary for the area 

to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As 

recounted in Section II of this 

document, these include measures 

identified since the 2016 AQMP that 

were projected to be adopted by CARB 

or the SCAQMD and to be implemented 

prior to 2023, as well as reductions 

anticipated from additional incentive 

funding included in new and 

anticipated state legislation, and 

additional reductions assigned to 

federal sources and measures that the 

State asserts will be needed to reach 

attainment. Thus, while some of the 

identified measures are enforceable and 

are presently being implemented to 

achieve reductions, others (including 

additional state incentive funding and 

federal measures) are not fully 

developed or implemented and are not 

enforceable.44


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7325 

45A state would not need to submit 182(e)(5) 

contingency measures if it can demonstrate 

attainment without relying on emission reductions 

from future development of new technology 

measures. See 84 FR 52005, 52009–52010 

(explaining that California was not required to 

submit 182(e)(5) contingency measures for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS once the State demonstrated 

that it was no longer relying on new technology 

measures for attainment). See also Contingency 

Measure Plan at 1–2 (‘‘In this submittal, the State 

must demonstrate that the assumed reductions from 

future technology were already achieved, or if not, 

the State must submit contingency measures 

capable of achieving the remaining emission 

reductions’’). Because the Contingency Measure 

Plan continues to rely on emissions reductions from 

measures requiring additional time for development 

and adoption, the State remains subject to the 

requirement to submit 182(e)(5) contingency 

measures. 

46See, e.g., 61 FR 10920, 10936 (March 18, 1996); 

62 FR 1150, 1152 (January 8, 1997); 64 FR 1770, 

1776 (January 12, 1999); 75 FR 71294, 71309 

(November 22, 2010). 

47The executive summary to the CARB Staff 

Report acknowledges that federal assignments are 

not permitted as a matter of law, and that the 

reductions assigned to federal sources and measures 

do not constitute a legally binding requirement 

upon the EPA. CARB Staff Report, p. 6. While we 

agree with this statement, we do not rely on it to 

reach our conclusion that the Plan as submitted 

fails to meet the contingency measure requirements 

of 182(e)(5). 

48See also CAA section 110(l) (specifying that 

EPA may not approve a SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment or any other applicable CAA 

requirement). 

Critically, while the Plan 

acknowledges a continuing need for 

additional measures to be developed 

and adopted to satisfy the remaining 

108 tpd of NOX projected to be 

necessary for the South Coast to attain 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS, it does not 

include any contingency measures that 

would be implemented if these 

anticipated measures fail to achieve the 

necessary reductions. This is 

inconsistent with CAA section 182(e)(5), 

which requires a state that relies on new 

technology measures for an Extreme 

area attainment demonstration to submit 

contingency measures that can be 

implemented in the event that the area 

fails to attain as a result of the state’s 

inability to fully implement the new 

technology measures that were the basis 

for the EPA’s approval.45

Additionally, the Contingency 

Measure Plan’s assignment of NOX

reductions to federal measures and 

sources subject to federal authority is 

not approvable as a matter of law. In 

evaluating prior SCAQMD attainment 

plans that included similar ‘‘federal 

assignments,’’ the EPA has consistently 

taken the position that states do not 

have authority under the CAA or the 

U.S. Constitution to assign SIP 

responsibilities to the federal 

government.46 For the same reasons, we 

see no basis for approving the federal 

assignments included in the 

Contingency Measure Plan.47 In effect, 

the Contingency Measure Plan purports 

to shift responsibility to achieve 

reductions needed for the South Coast 

to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS from 

the State to the federal government, 

while failing to include any contingency 

measures that could be implemented if 

the planned reductions from new 

technology measures are not achieved. 

This approach falls short of CARB’s 

specific enforceable commitment to 

develop, adopt, and submit by 2020 

contingency measures to be 

implemented if new technology 

measures do not achieve the planned 

emissions reductions, as well as the 

statutory requirement for CARB to 

submit contingency measures adequate 

to produce emission reductions 

sufficient, in conjunction with other 

approved plan provisions, to achieve 

the emission reductions necessary for 

attainment. 

For the reasons outlined herein, we 

are proposing to determine that the 

Contingency Measure Plan does not 

fulfill the contingency measure 

requirements of CAA 182(e)(5), and on 

that basis to disapprove the Plan.48

IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action and 

Public Comment 

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

the CAA, we are proposing full 

disapproval of the Contingency Measure 

Plan, because it fails to provide 

contingency measures as required by 

CAA section 182(e)(5), and because it 

relies on improper ‘‘federal 

assignments’’ to achieve the necessary 

reductions. If we finalize this 

disapproval, CAA section 110(c) would 

require the EPA to promulgate a federal 

implementation plan within 24 months 

after the effective date of the final 

action, unless we approve subsequent 

SIP revisions that correct the 

deficiencies identified in the final 

approval. 

In addition, final disapproval would 

trigger the offset sanction in CAA 

section 179(b)(2) 18 months after the 

effective date of a final disapproval, and 

the highway funding sanction in CAA 

section 179(b)(1) six months after the 

offset sanction is imposed. A sanction 

will not be imposed if the EPA 

determines that a subsequent SIP 

submission corrects the deficiencies 

identified in our final action before the 

applicable deadline. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed disapproval for 

the next 30 days. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

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 review state choices, 

and approve those choices if they meet 

the minimum criteria of the Act. 

Accordingly, this action proposes to 

disapprove a state submittal as not 

meeting federal requirements, and does 

not impose any additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is not a 

significant regulatory action and was 

therefore not submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

because this proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens, but simply disapproves certain 

state requirements submitted for 

inclusion into the SIP. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) a small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7326 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that this proposed 

action will not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule does not 

impose any requirements or create 

impacts on small entities. This proposed 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements but simply disapproves 

certain state requirements submitted for 

inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it 

affords no opportunity for the EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will result from 

disapproval actions does not mean that 

the EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

proposed action. Therefore, this 

proposed action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed action contains no 

Federal mandates under the provisions 

of title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

EPA has determined that the proposed 

disapproval action does not include a 

federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either state, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under state or local law and imposes no 

new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to state, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this proposed action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires the EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ This 

proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain state 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this proposed action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP that 

the EPA is proposing to disapprove 

would not 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, and the EPA notes that it 

will not impose substantial direct costs 

on tribal governments or preempt tribal 

law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this proposed action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP 

disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain state requirements submitted for 

inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs the 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. The 

EPA believes that this proposed action 

is not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

Neither CARB nor the SCAQMD 

evaluated environmental justice 

considerations as part of this SIP 

submission; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

The EPA did not perform an 

environmental justice analysis and did 

not consider environmental justice in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7327 

this action. Consideration of 

environmental justice is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of Executive Order 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 29, 2024. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02082 Filed 2–1–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 383 and 384 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2023–0115] 

RIN 2126–AC46 

Amendments to the Commercial 

Driver’s License Requirements; 

Increased Flexibility for Testing and for 

Drivers After Passing the Skills Test 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to increase 

flexibility for State Driver Licensing 

Agencies (SDLAs) and commercial 

driver’s license (CDL) applicants by 

expanding applicants’ ability to take a 

CDL skills test in a State other than their 

State of domicile; permitting a 

commercial learner’s permit (CLP) 

holder who has passed the CDL skills 

test to operate a commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV) on public roads without 

having a qualified CDL holder in the 

passenger seat; eliminating the 

requirement that an applicant wait at 

least 14 days to take the CDL skills test 

following initial issuance of the CLP. 

The NPRM also proposes to remove the 

requirement that CMV drivers must 

have a passenger (P) endorsement to 

transport CMVs designed to carry 

passengers, including school buses, 

when the vehicle is being transported in 

a driveaway-towaway operation and the 

vehicle is not carrying any passengers. 

Additionally, FMCSA proposes to 

require that third-party knowledge 

examiners be subject to the training, 

certification, and record check 

standards currently applicable to State 

knowledge examiners and third-party 

knowledge testers be subject to the 

auditing and monitoring requirements 

now applicable to third-party skills 

testers. The NPRM responds to petitions 

for rulemaking from the American 

Trucking Associations (ATA) and the 

New Hampshire Department of 

Transportation (NHDOT), as discussed 

below. FMCSA believes these proposals 

would improve the efficiency and 

convenience of CDL issuance and 

improve highway safety by further 

ensuring the integrity of third-party CDL 

knowledge testing. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 2, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Docket Number FMCSA– 

2023–0115 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

FMCSA-2023-0115/document. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 

Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Dockets 

Operations, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

To be sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 366–9317 or (202) 366– 

9826 before visiting Dockets Operations. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick D. Nemons, Director, Office of 

Safety Programs, FMCSA, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590–0001; (202) 385–2400; 

patrick.nemons@dot.gov. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Dockets 

Operations at (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA 

organizes this NPRM as follows: 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Comments on the Information 

Collection 

II. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory 

Action 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

C. Costs and Benefits 

III. Abbreviations 

IV. Legal Basis 

V. Background 

VI. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis 

VIII. Severability 

IX. Regulatory Analyses 

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. Congressional Review Act 

C. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small 

Entities) 

E. Assistance for Small Entities 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection of 

Information) 

H. E.O. 13132 (Federalism) 

I. Privacy 

J. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments) 

K. National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

NPRM (FMCSA–2023–0115), indicate 

the specific section of this document to 

which your comment applies, and 

provide a reason for each suggestion or 

recommendation. You may submit your 

comments and material online or by fax, 

mail, or hand delivery, but please use 

only one of these means. FMCSA 

recommends that you include your 

name and a mailing address, an email 

address, or a phone number in the body 

of your document so FMCSA can 

contact you if there are questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

FMCSA-2023-0115/document, click on 

this NPRM, click ‘‘Comment,’’ and type 

your comment into the text box on the 

following screen. 

If you submit your comments by mail 

or hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. 

FMCSA will consider all comments 

and material received during the 

comment period. 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS