Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 9813 

Korea or Thailand as defined in this 

section. Notwithstanding the provisions 

of § 3.204(a)(1), VA will require the 

types of evidence specified in §§ 3.209 

and 3.210 sufficient to establish in the 

judgment of the Secretary that a person 

is the natural child of a Vietnam Veteran 

or a Veteran with covered service in 

Korea or Thailand. 

(5) Spina bifida. For the purposes of 

this section, the term ‘‘spina bifida’’ 

means any form and manifestation of 

spina bifida except spina bifida occulta. 

* * * * * 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1116A, 1116B, 

1805, 1811, 1812, 1821, 1822, 1831, 1832, 

1833, 1834, 5101, 5110, 5111, 5112) 

■ 8. Amend § 3.815 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1) and the authority 

citation at the end of the section to read 

as follows: 

§ 3.815 Monetary allowance under 38 

U.S.C. chapter 18 for an individual with 

disability from covered birth defects whose 

biological mother is or was a Vietnam 

Veteran; identification of covered birth 

defects. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Vietnam Veteran. For the purposes 

of this section, the term Vietnam 

veteran means a person who performed 

active military, naval, or air service in 

the Republic of Vietnam during the 

period beginning on February 28, 1961, 

and ending on May 7, 1975, without 

regard to the characterization of the 

person’s service. Service in the Republic 

of Vietnam includes service in the 

waters offshore of the Republic of 

Vietnam, as defined in 38 CFR 

3.307(a)(6)(iii). Service in other 

locations will constitute service in the 

Republic of Vietnam if the conditions of 

service involved duty or visitation in 

the Republic of Vietnam. 

* * * * * 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1116A, 1811, 1812, 

1813, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1831, 1832, 1833, 

1834, 5101, 5110, 5111, 5112) 

■ 9. Amend § 3.816 by revising 

paragraph (f)(3) and the authority 

citation at the end of the section to read 

as follows: 

§ 3.816 Awards under the Nehmer Court 

Orders for disability or death caused by a 

condition presumptively associated with 

herbicide exposure. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) Identifying payees. VA shall make 

reasonable efforts to identify the 

appropriate payee(s) under paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section. For the purposes of 

this section, reasonable efforts to locate 

a Nehmer payee are limited to the 

following: 

(i) Claims processors must review the 

claims folder for beneficiary contact 

information. Documents in the claims 

folder that might contain this contact 

information can include but are not 

limited to: 

(A) benefit applications; 

(B) statements from the Veteran; and 

(C) medical records 

(ii) Claims processors must review 

electronic claims processing systems for 

potential beneficiary contact 

information, including: 

(A) corporate database review, and 

(B) claims processing system notes 

review 

(iii) Claims processors must utilize 

online public record investigation 

software authorized by VA to locate 

potential beneficiary contact 

information. 

(iv) If review of both the claims folder 

and electronic claims processing 

systems do not provide contact 

information, VA will attempt to contact 

any known or applicable authorized 

representatives of record, next of kin, 

individuals who provided first notice of 

death, the executor/administrator of the 

class member’s estate, or funeral homes 

that provided funeral/burial services, if 

that information is available. 

(v) If no beneficiary, authorized 

representative, next of kin, individuals 

who provided first notice of death, 

executor/administrator of the class 

member’s estate, or funeral home that 

provided funeral/burial services is 

located in the review above, then claims 

processors must: 

(A) Send a letter to the last known 

address of the veteran and wait 30 days 

for a response, and 

(B) Attempt contact via the Veteran’s 

last known telephonic contact 

information found in the Veteran’s file. 

(vi) If, following such efforts, VA 

releases the full amount of unpaid 

benefits to a payee, and additional 

qualifying payees subsequently identify 

themselves to VA, VA will pay the 

newly identified payees the portion of 

the award to which they are entitled, 

and then attempt to recover the 

overpayment from the original payee(s). 

* * * * * 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501) 

[FR Doc. 2024–02590 Filed 2–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0649; FRL–11647– 

01–R9] 

Air Plan Revisions; California; Feather 

River Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Feather River Air Quality 

Management District (FRAQMD or 

‘‘District’’) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns a rule submitted to 

address section 185 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘the Act’’). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 13, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2023–0649 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: Kira 

Wiesinger, EPA Region IX, 75 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9814 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1 January 5, 2010 (75 FR 232). Although the 

imposition of sanctions due to this finding was 

deferred on May 18, 2011 (76 FR 28661), and was 

permanently stopped with our October 28, 2022 

completeness letter, there remains an obligation for 

the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) associated with the January 5, 2010 

action. 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105; phone: (415) 972–3827; email: 

wiesinger.kira@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. The EPA’s recommendations to further 

improve the rule 

D. Proposed action and public comment 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

amended by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

FRAQMD ................................ 7.15 Clean Air Act Nonattainment Fees ......................................... 04/04/2022 07/05/2022 

On October 28, 2022, the EPA 

determined that the submittal for Rule 

7.15 met the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be 

met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 7.15 in the California SIP. The 

FRAQMD originally adopted an earlier 

version of this rule on December 6, 

2010, but that version of the rule was 

never submitted for inclusion in the SIP. 

The FRAQMD amended Rule 7.15 on 

April 4, 2022. If we take final action to 

approve the April 4, 2022 version of 

Rule 7.15, this version will be 

incorporated into the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), (f) and 

185 of the Act, states with ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

‘‘Severe’’ or ‘‘Extreme’’ are required to 

submit a SIP revision that requires 

major stationary sources of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) or oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx) emissions in the area to 

pay a fee if the area fails to attain the 

standard by the attainment date. The 

required SIP revision must provide for 

annual payment of the fees, computed 

in accordance with CAA section 185(b). 

The Sacramento Metro, CA ozone 

nonattainment area has been classified 

as Severe for the 1979 1-hour, 1997 8- 

hour, and 2008 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The Sacramento Metro area 

includes a portion of Sutter County that 

is under the jurisdiction of the 

FRAQMD. The EPA has previously 

issued a finding that the State of 

California had failed to submit the 

required revisions for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS for portions of the Sacramento 

Metro area, including the portion under 

the jurisdiction of the FRAQMD.1 The 

FRAQMD submitted Rule 7.15 for the 

portion of the Sacramento Metro area 

under the jurisdiction of the District to 

satisfy the requirement to submit a CAA 

section 185 fee program for each federal 

ozone NAAQS for which the 

Sacramento Metro area is classified as 

Severe or Extreme. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? 

Rules in the SIP must be enforceable 

(see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not 

interfere with applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA 

requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), 

and must not modify certain SIP control 

requirements in nonattainment areas 

without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 

193). The EPA is also evaluating the rule 

for consistency with the statutory 

requirements of CAA section 185. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we used to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

This rule meets CAA requirements 

and is consistent with relevant guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

revisions. The EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

on our evaluation. 

C. The EPA’s Recommendations To 

Further Improve the Rule 

The TSD includes recommendations 

for the next time the local agency 

amends the rule. 

D. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

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

the Act, the EPA proposes to approve 

submitted Rule 7.15 because it fulfills 

all relevant requirements. The rule is 

not limited to a particular ozone 

NAAQS, and we therefore propose to 

find that it satisfies the District’s 

obligations under the 1979 1-hour, 1997 

8-hour, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal until March 13, 

2024. If we take final action to approve 

the submitted rule, our final action will 

incorporate this rule into the federally 

enforceable SIP and address the EPA’s 

obligation to promulgate a FIP arising 

from our previous finding that the State 

of California has failed to submit the 

required CAA section 185 SIP revisions 

for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

portion of the Sacramento Metro area 

under the jurisdiction of the FRAQMD. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

FRAQMD Rule 7.15, ‘‘Clean Air Act 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 9815 

Nonattainment Fees,’’ amended on 

April 4, 2022, which addresses the CAA 

section 185 fee program requirements. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these materials available 

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). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive 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. Law 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 oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 5, 2024. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02770 Filed 2–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2023–0419; FRL–11736– 

01–R3] 

Redesignation of Portions of 

Westmoreland and Cambria Counties, 

Pennsylvania for the 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS): 

Notification of Availability and Public 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability and public 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

providing notice of our intent to 

redesignate portions of Westmoreland 

County and Cambria County, 

Pennsylvania, to ‘‘nonattainment’’ for 

the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or 

standard). Westmoreland County is 

currently designated ‘‘attainment/ 

unclassifiable,’’ and Cambria County is 

currently designated ‘‘unclassifiable.’’ 

EPA’s intended redesignation of 

portions of these counties is based on 

modeled violations of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. If the redesignation to 

nonattainment is finalized, the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would 

be required to undertake certain 

planning requirements to reduce SO2

concentrations within this area, 

including, but not limited to, the 

requirement to submit within 18 months 

of redesignation a revision to the 

Pennsylvania state implementation plan 

(SIP) that provides for attainment of the 

SO2 standard as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of redesignation to 

nonattainment. 

Notice is hereby given that EPA has 

posted on our public electronic docket 

and internet website the intended 

redesignation for relevant portions of 

Westmoreland and Cambria counties, 

Pennsylvania under the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. The Agency invites the public 

to review and provide input on our 

intended redesignation during the 

comment period specified in the DATES

section. EPA notified the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of our 

intended redesignation action via a 

letter to the Governor on or about 

February 17, 2023, which is included in 

the docket for this notice of availability 

(NOA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 28, 2024. Please refer to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS