Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices 643 

vehicles under the existing fleet-average 

standard and aim to reduce cold-start 

emissions by applying the emissions 

standards to a broader range of in-use 

driving conditions. The ZEV 

requirements of ACC II include, for 

example, a requirement for vehicle 

manufacturers to sell increasing 

percentages of ZEVs beginning with the 

2026 MY. Manufacturers can meet up to 

20 percent of their sales requirements 

using plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) 

that meet specified requirements. A 

comprehensive description of 

California’s ACC II program can be 

found in the Decision Document for this 

waiver and in materials submitted to the 

Docket by CARB. 

Section 209(b) of the Act provides 

that the Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, shall 

waive Federal preemption for California 

to enforce new motor vehicle emission 

standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures unless certain 

criteria are met. The criteria for denying 

such a waiver include consideration of 

whether California arbitrarily and 

capriciously determined that its 

standards are, in the aggregate, at least 

as protective of public health and 

welfare as the applicable Federal 

standards; whether California does not 

need such State standards to meet 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions; and whether such State 

standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not 

consistent with section 202(a) of the 

Act. 

CARB determined that these 

standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures do not cause 

California’s standards, in the aggregate, 

to be less protective to public health and 

welfare than the applicable Federal 

standards. The administrative record, 

including information presented to me 

by parties opposing California’s waiver, 

did not demonstrate that California 

arbitrarily or capriciously reached this 

protectiveness determination. Therefore, 

based on the record, I cannot find 

California’s determination to be 

arbitrary and capricious under section 

209(b)(1)(A). 

CARB has demonstrated the existence 

of compelling and extraordinary 

conditions justifying the need for such 

State standards. The administrative 

record, including information presented 

to me by parties opposing California’s 

waiver request, did not demonstrate that 

California does not need such State 

standards to meet compelling and 

extraordinary conditions. Thus, based 

on the record, I cannot deny the waiver 

based on section 209(b)(1)(B). 

CARB has submitted information that 

its emission standards and test 

procedures are technologically feasible, 

present no inconsistency with Federal 

requirements, and are consistent with 

section 202(a) of the Act. The 

administrative record, including 

information presented to me by parties 

opposing California’s waiver request, 

did not satisfy the burden of persuading 

EPA that the standards are not 

consistent with section 202(a). Thus, 

based on the record, I cannot deny the 

waiver based on section 209(b)(1)(C). 

Accordingly, I hereby granted the 

waiver requested by California. 

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs 

judicial review of final actions by the 

EPA. Petitions for review must be filed 

by March 7, 2025. 

As with past waiver decisions, this 

action is not a rule as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is 

exempt from review by the Office of 

Management and Budget as required for 

rules and regulations by Executive 

Order 12866. 

In addition, this action is not a rule 

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has 

not prepared a supporting regulatory 

flexibility analysis addressing the 

impact of this action on small business 

entities. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply 

because this action is not a rule, for 

purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31128 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0332; FRL–9902–02– 

OAR] 

California State Motor Vehicle and 

Engine and Nonroad Engine Pollution 

Control Standards; The ‘‘Omnibus’’ 

Low NOX Regulation; Waiver of 

Preemption; Notice of Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of decision. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (‘‘EPA’’) is providing notice of 

its decision to grant the California Air 

Resources Board’s (‘‘CARB’’) request for 

a waiver of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

preemption for its Heavy-Duty Vehicle 

and Engine ‘‘Omnibus’’ Low NOX

Regulations (‘‘Omnibus Low NOX

program’’). EPA’s decision also includes 

an authorization for portions of the 

Omnibus Low NOX program that pertain 

to off-road diesel engines. This decision 

was issued under the authority of the 

Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘Act’’) section 

209. 

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed 

by March 7, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0332. All 

documents relied upon in making this 

decision, including those submitted to 

EPA by CARB, are contained in the 

public docket. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, WJC West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 

The Docket Center’s hours of operation 

are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it 

is open Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The electronic mail 

(email) address for the EPA Docket is: aand-r-Docket@epa.gov. An electronic 

version of the public docket is available 

through the Federal government’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. You may access EPA dockets at 

http://www.regulations.gov. After 

opening the www.regulations.gov 

website, enter EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0332 in the ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ fillin box to view documents in the record. 

Although a part of the official docket, 

the public docket does not include 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

EPA’s Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality (‘‘OTAQ’’) maintains a web 

page that contains general information 

on its review of California waiver and 

authorization requests. Included on that 

page are links to prior waiver Federal 

Register notices, some of which are 

cited in this notice; the page can be 

accessed at: https://www.epa.gov/stateand-local-transportation/vehicleemissions-california-waivers-andauthorizations. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Nelson, Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood 

Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. 

Telephone: 734–214–4278. Email: 

California-Waivers-andAuthorizations@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

13, 2022, EPA published a Federal 

Register notice announcing its receipt of 

California’s waiver request. In that 

notice, EPA invited public comment on 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
644 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices 

1 87 FR 35765 (June 13, 2022). 

2A transcript for each day of the hearing (June 

29th and 30th, 2022) can be found in the docket: 

June 29th Hearing Transcript, Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2022–0332–0035; June 30th Hearing 

Transcript, Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0332– 

0036. All written comments are also located at 

regulations.gov at EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0332. 

3EPA’s Decision Document is located at EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2022–0332. EPA’s waiver decision 

includes the Omnibus Low NOX Regulation which 

was adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

on August 27, 2020 by Resolution 20–23, and 

includes amendments approved by the CARB 

Executive Officer on September 9, 2021 under 

CARB Order No. R–21–007. The Omnibus Low NOX

Regulation is comprised of new title 13, California 

Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.) sections 

2139.5, and 2169.1 through 2169.8; amendments to 

title 13, Cal. Code Regs., sections 1900, 1956.8, 

1961.2, 1965, 1968.2, 1971.1, 1971.5, 2035, 2036, 

2111, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2118, 

2119, 2121, 2123, 2125, 2126, 2127, 2128, 2129, 

2130, 2131, 2133, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2142, 

2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2149, 2166, 

2166.1, 2167, 2168, 2169, 2170, 2423, and 2485; and 

amendments to title 17 Cal. Code Regs. sections 

95662 and 95663. EPA’s waiver decision also 

includes the 2023 Targeted Amendments to 

Omnibus which were adopted on December 28, 

2023 by CARB Executive Order No. R–23–006. The 

2023 Targeted Amendments are comprised of title 

13, California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.) 

sections 1956.8, 1971.1, and 1971.5. 

4The Decision Document can be found at EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2022–0332. 

5States are expressly preempted from adopting or 

attempting to enforce any standard or other 

requirement relating to the control of emissions 

from new nonroad engines which are used in 

construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm 

equipment or vehicles and which are smaller than 

175 horsepower. Such express preemption under 

section 209(e)(1) of the Act also applies to new 

locomotives or new engines used in locomotives. 

6See ‘‘Air Pollution Control; Preemption of State 

Regulation for Nonroad Engine and Vehicle 

Standards,’’ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994). 

7See ‘‘Control of Air Pollution: Emission 

Standards for New Nonroad Compression-Ignition 

Engines at or Above 37 Kilowatts; Preemption of 

State Regulation for Nonroad Engine and Vehicle 

Standards; Amendments to Rules,’’ 62 FR 67733 

(December 30, 1997). The applicable regulations are 

now found in 40 CFR part 1074, subpart B, Part 

1074. 

8EPA has interpreted section 209(b)(1)(C) in the 

context of section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers. 

California’s waiver request and an 

opportunity to present testimony at a 

public hearing.1 EPA held a public 

hearing on June 29 and June 30, 2022; 

EPA has considered all comments 

submitted, including those submitted 

after the close of the comment period.2

On December 17, 2024, I signed a 

Decision Document granting California a 

waiver of preemption pursuant to 

section 209(b) of the CAA, as amended, 

42 U.S.C. 7543(b), for regulations 

applicable to new 2024 and subsequent 

model year (MY) California on-road 

heavy-duty vehicles and engines, 

hereafter the Omnibus Low NOX

regulations.3 The Omnibus Low NOX

program includes requirements for 

revised heavy-duty emission standards, 

test procedures, regulatory useful life, 

and emissions warranty. As part of my 

decision, I have also decided to grant an 

authorization pursuant to section 209(e) 

of the CAA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

7543(e) for portions of the Omnibus 

Low NOX program regarding off-road 

diesel engines. The Omnibus Low NOX

program includes new PM emission 

standards for off-road diesel-fueled 

auxiliary power units. A comprehensive 

description of California’s Omnibus 

Low NOX program can be found in the 

Decision Document for this waiver and 

in materials submitted to the Docket by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB).4

For the portions of the Omnibus Low 

NOX program that pertain to on-road 

emission standards, section 209(b) of 

the Act provides that the Administrator, 

after notice and opportunity for public 

hearing, shall waive Federal preemption 

for California to enforce new motor 

vehicle emission standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures 

unless certain criteria are met. The 

criteria of denying such a waiver 

include consideration of whether 

California arbitrarily and capriciously 

determined that its standards are, in the 

aggregate, at least as protective of public 

health and welfare as the applicable 

Federal standards; whether California 

does not need such State standards to 

meet compelling and extraordinary 

conditions; and whether such State 

standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not 

consistent with section 202(a) of the 

Act. 

For the portions of the Omnibus Low 

NOX program that pertain to nonroad 

emission standards, section 209(e)(1) of 

the Act permanently preempts any state, 

or political subdivision thereof, from 

adopting or attempting to enforce any 

standard or other requirement relating 

to the control of emissions for certain 

new nonroad engines or vehicles.5 For 

all other nonroad engines (including 

‘‘non-new’’ engines), states generally are 

preempted from adopting and enforcing 

standards and other requirements 

relating to the control of emissions, 

except that section 209(e)(2)(A) of the 

Act requires EPA, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, to 

authorize California to adopt and 

enforce such regulations unless EPA 

makes one of three enumerated findings. 

Specifically, EPA must deny 

authorization if the Administrator finds 

that (1) California’s protectiveness 

determination (i.e., that California 

standards will be, in the aggregate, as 

protective of public health and welfare 

as applicable federal standards) is 

arbitrary and capricious, (2) California 

does not need such standards to meet 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions, or (3) the California 

standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not 

consistent with section 209 of the Act. 

On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a 

rule interpreting the three criteria set 

forth in section 209(e)(2)(A) that EPA 

must consider before granting any 

California authorization request for 

nonroad engine or vehicle emission 

standards.6 EPA revised these 

regulations in 1997.7 As stated in the 

preamble to the 1994 rule, EPA has 

interpreted the consistency inquiry 

under the third criterion, outlined above 

and set forth in section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii), 

to require, at minimum, that California 

standards and enforcement procedures 

be consistent with section 209(a), 

section 209(e)(1), and section 

209(b)(1)(C) of the Act.8 In order to be 

consistent with section 209(a), 

California’s nonroad standards and 

enforcement procedures must not apply 

to new motor vehicles or new motor 

vehicle engines. To be consistent with 

section 209(e)(1), California’s nonroad 

standards and enforcement procedures 

must not attempt to regulate engine 

categories that are permanently 

preempted from state regulation. To 

determine consistency with section 

209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews 

nonroad authorization requests under 

the same ‘‘consistency’’ criteria that are 

applied to motor vehicle waiver 

requests under section 209(b)(1)(C). 

That provision provides that the 

Administrator shall not grant California 

a motor vehicle waiver if the 

Administrator finds that California 

‘‘standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not 

consistent with section 202(a)’’ of the 

Act. 

CARB determined that these 

standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures do not cause 

California’s standards, in the aggregate, 

to be less protective to public health and 

welfare than the applicable Federal 

standards. The administrative record, 

including information presented to me 

by parties opposing California’s waiver, 

did not demonstrate that California 

arbitrarily or capriciously reached this 

protectiveness determination. Therefore, 

based on the record, I cannot find 

California’s determination to be 

arbitrary and capricious under section 

209(b)(1)(A) or section 209(e)(2)(A)(i). 

CARB has demonstrated the existence 

of compelling and extraordinary 

conditions justifying the need for its 

own motor vehicle emission control 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices 645 

program as well and justifying the need 

for its own nonroad vehicle emission 

control program, which includes the 

subject standards and procedures. 

Although EPA believes it unnecessary, 

CARB has also demonstrated the need 

for the Omnibus Low NOX standards 

within the Omnibus regulations. The 

administrative record, including 

information presented to me by parties 

opposing California’s waiver (and 

authorization) request, did not 

demonstrate that California no longer 

has compelling and extraordinary 

conditions justifying a need for its own 

motor vehicle emission control program 

and its own nonroad vehicle emission 

control program, or alternatively, a need 

for the Omnibus Low NOX standards. 

Therefore, based on the record, I agree 

that California continues to have 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions which require its own 

programs, or alternatively, a need for the 

Omnibus Low NOX standards. 

Information presented to me by parties 

opposing the waiver did not 

demonstrate otherwise. Thus, I cannot 

deny the waiver based on section 

209(b)(1)(B) or section 209(e)(2)(A)(ii). 

CARB has submitted information that 

its emission standards and test 

procedures are technologically feasible 

and present no inconsistency with 

Federal requirements and are, therefore, 

consistent with section 202(a) of the Act 

and are consistent with section 209 as 

required by section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii). The 

administrative record, including 

information presented to me by parties 

opposing California’s waiver and 

authorization requests, did not satisfy 

the burden of persuading EPA that the 

standards are not technologically 

feasible within the available lead time, 

considering costs, or are otherwise 

inconsistent with section 202(a) (for 

onroad) or section 209 (for nonroad). 

Thus, based on the record, I cannot 

deny the waiver based on section 

209(b)(1)(C) or section 209(e)(2)(A)(iii). 

Accordingly, I hereby granted the 

waiver and authorization requested by 

California. 

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA govern 

judicial review of final actions by EPA. 

Petitions for review must be filed by 

March 7, 2025. 

As with past waiver and authorization 

decisions, this action is not a rule as 

defined by Executive Order 12866. 

Therefore, it is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget as 

required for rules and regulations by 

Executive Order 12866. 

In addition, this action is not a rule 

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has 

not prepared a supporting regulatory 

flexibility analysis addressing the 

impact of this action on small business 

entities. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply 

because this action is not a rule, for 

purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31125 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2018–0320; FRL–11655– 

02–OCSPP] 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

Review of CBI Claims for the Identity 

of Chemicals in the TSCA Inventory; 

Extension of Review Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) is announcing 

the extension of the review period for 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

claims for specific identities of all active 

chemical substances listed on the 

confidential portion of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

Inventory submitted to the EPA under 

TSCA. EPA has determined that a 

further extension of the statutory review 

period for the review of CBI claims 

under TSCA is necessary to allow the 

Agency to complete the required 

reviews under TSCA. 

DATES: The review period is extended to 

February 19, 2026. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2018–0320, is 

available online at https://

www.regulations.gov. Additional 

instructions for visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical information: Jessica 

Barkas, Project Management and 

Operations Division (7401), Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 

250–8880; email address: 

barkas.jessica@epa.gov. 

For general information: The TSCAHotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South 

Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; 

telephone number: (202) 554–1404; 

email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be affected by this action if 

you submitted a Notice of Activity Form 

A to EPA under TSCA section 8(b)(4) 

and 40 CFR part 710, subpart B and 

asserted any CBI claims concerning the 

specific identities of the chemical 

substances you reported. Persons who 

seek information on such submissions 

may also be affected by this action. The 

following list of North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

to help readers determine whether this 

document applies to them. Potentially 

affected entities may include: 

• Manufacturers, importers, or 

processors of chemical substances 

(NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., 

chemical manufacturing and petroleum 

refineries. 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the technical 

contact person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

II. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

TSCA authorizes the extension of the 

Review Plan deadline in TSCA section 

8(b)(4)(E)(ii)(I), 15 U.S.C. 

2607(b)(4)(E)(ii)(I). 

III. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is announcing to the public that 

it is further extending an Agency review 

deadline pursuant to the authority in 

TSCA section 8(b)(4)(E)(ii)(I), 15 U.S.C. 

2607(b)(4)(E)(ii)(I). The additional time 

is necessary to complete the reviews 

given the volume of submissions that 

require review, information technology 

issues, insufficient resources and other 

legal and administrative delays that 

have affected the review process. EPA 

previously extended the review period 

by one year, to February 19, 2025 (89 FR 

4605, January 24, 2024 (FRL–11655–01– 

OCSPP)). As discussed in that 

document, EPA has evaluated its 

progress toward completing the 

requirements for the Agency to review 

CBI substantiations outlined in the final 

rule titled ‘‘Procedures for Review of 

CBI Claims for the Identity of Chemicals 

in the TSCA Inventory’’ (Review Plan 

rule), (85 FR 13062, March 6, 2020 

(FRL–10005–48)) and has concluded 

that a further one year extension will be 

necessary to complete the Review Plan 

reviews. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES