24060 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1The State of California refers to reactive organic 

gases (ROG) rather than VOC in some of its ozonerelated SIP submissions. ROG and VOC refer 

essentially to the same set of chemical constituents, 

and for the sake of simplicity, we refer to this set 

of gases as VOC in this final rule. 

2See ‘‘Fact Sheet—2008 Final Revisions to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone’’ 

dated March 2008. 3The ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1979 was 

0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour 

period (‘‘1-hour ozone NAAQS’’). See 44 FR 8202 

(February 8, 1979). The ozone NAAQS promulgated 

in 1997 was 0.08 ppm averaged over an 8-hour 

period (‘‘1997 ozone NAAQS’’). See 62 FR 38856 

(July 18, 1997). 

4 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

5 Information on the 2015 ozone NAAQS is 

available at 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 

Subpart EE—New Hampshire 

■ 2. In § 52.1520(e) amend the table by 

adding entries for ‘‘Boston-ManchesterPortsmouth Area Second 10-Year 

Limited Maintenance Plan for 1997 

Ozone NAAQS’’ and ‘‘Letter from New 

Hampshire and attachment G 

Amendment’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

NEW HAMPSHIRE NON-REGULATORY

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date/ 

effective date 

EPA approved 

date 1 Explanations 

*******

Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth Area 

Second 10-Year Limited Maintenance 

Plan for 1997 Ozone NAAQS.

Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth Maintenance Area.7/29/2021 4/22/2022 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Approval for 2nd 10-year 

LMP for 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Letter from New Hampshire and attachment G Amendment.Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth Maintenance Area.12/23/2021 4/22/2022 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Supplemental information for 

2nd 10-year LMP for 1997 

ozone NAAQS. 

1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08392 Filed 4–21–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0146; FRL–9681–01– 

R9] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; California; Ventura County; 

8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Requirements; Correction Due to 

Vacatur 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or ‘‘Agency’’) is correcting 

the state implementation plan (SIP) for 

the State of California to remove from 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

revisions to the California SIP that were 

initially approved into the SIP in a June 

25, 2020 final action that was 

subsequently vacated and remanded to 

the EPA by the Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit. This action is exempt 

from notice-and-comment rulemaking 

because it is ministerial in nature. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 22, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0146. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

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

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972–3856, or 

by email at kelly.thomasp@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Rationale for This Action 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Rationale for This 

Action 

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 on-and 

off-road motor vehicles and engines, 

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 elevated levels of 

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.2

Under section 109 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), the EPA promulgates 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for pervasive air pollutants, 

such as ozone. The EPA has previously 

promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979 

and 1997.3 In 2008, the EPA revised and 

further strengthened the ozone NAAQS 

by setting the acceptable level of ozone 

in the ambient air at 0.075 parts per 

million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour 

period (and herein referred to as the 

‘‘2008 ozone NAAQS’’).4 Although the 

EPA further tightened the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to 0.070 ppm in 2015, this 

action relates to the requirements for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS.5

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the EPA is required 

under CAA section 107(d) to designate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 24061 

6 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). 

7 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). 

8 85 FR 11814 (February 27, 2020); and 85 FR 

38081 (June 25, 2020). The EPA’s February 27, 2020 

final approval of all other elements of the 2016 

Ventura County AQMP was not challenged and this 

action does not relate to that final action. 

9 85 FR 38081, 38085. 

10 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005); see also 

2008 Ozone SRR, 80 FR 12264, 12285. 

11 80 FR 12264, 12285. 

12 84 FR 70109, 70124 (December 20, 2019). 

13The specific contingency measure that the 

District committed to adopt consists of revisions to 

the District’s architectural coatings rule, such as 

lower VOC content limits for certain coating 

categories, consistent with CARB’s 2019 update of 

its Suggested Control Measures for architectural 

coatings, to take effect if the EPA determines that 

Ventura County failed to achieve an RFP milestone 

or failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. 

14 84 FR 70109. 

areas throughout the country as 

attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. 

The EPA classifies ozone nonattainment 

areas under CAA section 181 according 

to the severity of the ozone pollution 

problem, with classifications ranging 

from ‘‘Marginal’’ to ‘‘Extreme.’’ State 

planning and emissions control 

requirements for ozone are determined, 

in part, by the nonattainment area’s 

classification. The EPA designated 

Ventura County as nonattainment for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS on May 21, 

2012 and classified the area as 

‘‘Serious.’’ 6 Ventura County lies within 

California’s South Central Coast Air 

Basin, which includes the counties of 

Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo, in 

addition to Ventura County. The 

Ventura County ozone nonattainment 

area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

includes the entire county except for the 

Channel Islands of Anacapa and San 

Nicolas Islands. 

In California, the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB or ‘‘State’’) is 

the state agency responsible for the 

adoption and submission to the EPA of 

California SIP submissions, and it has 

broad authority to establish emissions 

standards and other requirements for 

mobile sources. Under California law, 

local and regional air pollution control 

districts in California are responsible for 

the regulation of stationary sources and 

are generally responsible for the 

development of regional air quality 

plans. In Ventura County, the Ventura 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(VCAPCD or ‘‘District’’) develops and 

adopts air quality management plans to 

address CAA planning requirements 

applicable to that region. The District 

then submits such plans to CARB for 

adoption and submission to the EPA as 

proposed revisions to the California SIP. 

Under the CAA, after the EPA 

designates areas as nonattainment for a 

NAAQS, states with nonattainment 

areas are required to submit SIP 

revisions. With respect to areas 

designated as nonattainment, states 

must implement the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS under Title 1, part D of the 

CAA, which includes section 172 

(‘‘Nonattainment plan provisions in 

general’’) and sections 181–185 of 

subpart 2 (‘‘Additional Provisions for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’). To assist 

states in developing effective plans to 

address ozone nonattainment problems, 

in 2015, the EPA issued a SIP 

Requirements Rule (SRR) for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS (‘‘2008 Ozone SRR’’) that 

addresses implementation of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, including attainment 

dates, requirements for emissions 

inventories, attainment and reasonable 

further progress (RFP) demonstrations, 

and the transition from the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 

associated anti-backsliding 

requirements.7 The 2008 Ozone SRR is 

codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA. 

In 2017 and 2018, CARB submitted 

SIP revisions to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements 

for Ventura County for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, including the District’s ‘‘Final 

2016 Ventura County Air Quality 

Management Plan’’ (February 14, 2017) 

(‘‘2016 Ventura County AQMP’’) and 

CARB’s ‘‘2018 Updates to the California 

State Implementation Plan’’ (‘‘2018 SIP 

Update’’). In two separate final rules, we 

approved the 2016 Ventura County 

AQMP and the 2018 SIP Update as 

meeting all the applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements for the Ventura 

County Serious nonattainment area for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with the 

exception of the contingency measure 

requirement.8 For the contingency 

measure requirement, we issued a 

conditional approval that relied upon a 

commitment by the District to amend 

the District’s architectural coatings rule 

to include contingency provisions and a 

commitment by CARB to submit the 

amended District rule to the EPA within 

a year of final conditional approval of 

the contingency measure element for 

Ventura County.9

Under the CAA, ozone nonattainment 

areas classified under subpart 2 as 

Serious or above must include 

contingency measures in their SIPs 

consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9). Contingency measures are 

additional controls or measures to be 

implemented in the event the area fails 

to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by 

the attainment date. Contingency 

measures must be designed to be 

implemented prospectively; alreadyimplemented control measures may not 

serve as contingency measures even if 

they provide emissions reductions 

beyond those needed for any other CAA 

purpose. See Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 

1218, at 1235–1237 (9th Cir. 2016). The 

SIP should contain trigger mechanisms 

for the contingency measures, specify a 

schedule for implementation, and 

indicate that the measure will be 

implemented without significant further 

action by the state or the EPA.10 Neither 

the CAA nor the EPA’s implementing 

regulations establish a specific amount 

of emissions reductions that 

implementation of contingency 

measures must achieve, but the 2008 

Ozone SRR reiterates the EPA’s 

guidance recommendation that 

contingency measures should provide 

for emissions reductions approximately 

equivalent to one year’s worth of RFP, 

thus amounting to reductions of 3 

percent of the baseline emissions 

inventory for the nonattainment area.11

The contingency measure element for 

Ventura County for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS consists of the contingencyrelated portion of the 2016 Ventura 

County AQMP and the 2018 SIP 

Update’s updated evaluation of the 

surplus emissions reductions in Ventura 

County from already-implemented 

measures.12 To supplement the 

contingency measure element for 

Ventura County, the District and CARB 

committed to adopt and submit a 

contingency measure within one year of 

the EPA’s final conditional approval of 

the contingency measure element.13 In 

December 2019, we proposed 

conditional approval of the contingency 

measure element of the 2016 Ventura 

County AQMP, as modified by the 2018 

SIP Update,14 and the Center for 

Biological Diversity (CBD) submitted 

comments challenging that proposed 

action. 

CBD objected to our proposed 

conditional approval on several 

grounds. First, CBD noted that the 

Agency had not provided an estimate of 

the emissions reductions that would be 

achieved by the contingency measure 

and asserted that the Agency must 

therefore assume the reductions to be de 

minimis. CBD also challenged the 

proposed conditional approval on the 

grounds that the EPA’s consideration of 

surplus emissions reductions from 

already-implemented measures in 

evaluating the adequacy of contingency 

measures is functionally no different 

than simply approving the alreadyimplemented measures as contingency 

measures, which is inconsistent with 

the Bahr v. EPA decision. CBD also 

asserted that the EPA’s approach would 

allow states to meet the contingency 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
24062 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

15 85 FR 38081, 38083. 

16Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 20–72513. 

17Association of Irritated Residents. v. EPA, 10 

F.4th 937 (9th Cir. 2021). 

18Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 20–72513, 

Docket Entry: 15–1, December 6, 2021. 

19Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 20–72513, 

Docket Entry: 16, March 1, 2022. 

measure requirement through 

submission of token contingency 

measures so long as alreadyimplemented measures provide for 

surplus emissions reductions equivalent 

to one year’s worth of RFP. Contingency 

measures, according to CBD, should at 

a minimum equal one year’s worth of 

RFP. 

For our final action, in light of CBD’s 

comment regarding the quantification of 

emissions reductions, based on 

preliminary estimates provided by the 

District and CARB, the EPA estimated 

that the contingency measure, i.e., the 

contingency provision in the 

architectural coatings rule, would 

achieve emissions reductions equivalent 

to approximately two to five percent of 

one year’s worth of RFP.15

Notwithstanding expected emissions 

reductions from the contingency 

measure equivalent to only a fraction of 

one year’s worth of RFP, we found that 

the one contingency measure (i.e., once 

adopted, submitted, and approved by 

the EPA) would be sufficient for the 

State and District to meet the 

contingency measure requirement for 

Ventura County for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS because of the substantial 

surplus emissions reductions we 

anticipate to occur in the future from 

already-implemented measures. 

CBD filed a petition for review of the 

EPA’s June 25, 2020 conditional 

approval of the contingency measure 

element for Ventura County for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS.16 In September 2020, 

the Court granted the EPA’s unopposed 

motion to hold the case in abeyance 

until a decision was reached by the 

Ninth Circuit in the Association of 

Irritated Residents v. EPA case (No. 19– 

71223). The petitioners in the 

Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

case had filed a brief challenging the 

EPA’s conditional approval of the 

contingency measure element for San 

Joaquin Valley for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS on similar grounds as CBD had 

raised in comments on our proposed 

conditional approval of the contingency 

measure element for Ventura County. 

On August 26, 2021, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published 

its decision in the Association of 

Irritated Residents v. EPA case, granting 

the petition in part and denying the 

petition in part. The Court held that 

EPA’s conditional approval of the 

contingency measure element was 

arbitrary and capricious because, in the 

court’s view, the Agency had changed 

its position by accepting a contingency 

measure that would achieve far less 

than one year’s worth of RFP as meeting 

the contingency measure requirement 

without a reasoned explanation.17 The 

Court found that by taking into account 

the emissions reductions from alreadyimplemented measures to find that the 

contingency measure would suffice to 

meet the applicable requirement, the 

EPA was circumventing the court’s 2016 

holding in Bahr v. EPA. The court 

rejected the EPA’s arguments that the 

Agency’s approach was grounded in its 

long-standing guidance and was 

consistent with the court’s 2016 Bahr v. 

EPA decision. The court remanded the 

conditional approval action back to the 

Agency for further proceedings 

consistent with the decision. 

In light of the decision in the 

Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

case and the overlap in the rationales 

presented by the EPA to justify the 

conditional approvals of the 

contingency measure elements for San 

Joaquin Valley and Ventura County and 

the grounds for challenging those 

actions, the EPA filed an unopposed 

motion for vacatur and voluntary 

remand in the Center for Biological 

Diversity v. EPA case.18 The court 

granted the motion by order dated 

March 1, 2022.19 We will be proposing 

a new action on the contingency 

measure element from the 2016 Ventura 

County AQMP, as modified by the 2018 

SIP Update, in a separate rulemaking. 

II. Final Action 

The EPA is correcting the codification 

of the California SIP in the CFR to 

reflect the vacatur of the EPA’s June 25, 

2020 final action. The EPA is taking this 

action as a final rule without providing 

an opportunity for public comment 

because the EPA finds that the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

good cause exemption applies. In 

general, the APA requires that general 

notice of proposed rulemaking shall be 

published in the Federal Register. Such 

notice must provide an opportunity for 

public participation in the rulemaking 

process. However, the APA also 

provides a way for an agency to directly 

issue a final rulemaking in certain 

specific instances. This may occur, in 

particular, when an agency for good 

cause finds (and incorporates the 

finding and a brief statement of reasons 

in the rule issued) that notice and 

public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B). 

The EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to provide an opportunity for 

public comment on this action because 

the correction of the CFR to reflect the 

vacatur of EPA’s June 25, 2020 final 

action is a necessary ministerial act. The 

Court, through its Order referencing the 

Motion, vacated the rule conditionally 

approving the revisions to the California 

SIP that this action removes from 

display in the CFR and remanded this 

matter to the EPA. Therefore, removing 

the affected regulatory text simply 

implements the decision of the Court, 

and it would serve no useful purpose to 

provide an opportunity for public 

comment on this issue. In addition, 

notice-and-comment would be contrary 

to the public interest because it would 

unnecessarily delay the correction of the 

applicable California SIP as identified in 

the CFR. Such delay could result in 

confusion on the part of the regulated 

industry and state, local, and tribal air 

agencies on the actual SIP-approved 

provisions in the California SIP. For 

these reasons, the EPA finds good cause 

to issue a final rulemaking pursuant to 

section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B). Moreover, the EPA finds 

that the problems outlined above 

regarding the effects of delaying 

issuance of the rule also provide good 

cause for not delaying its effective date. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Accordingly, the 

requirement for a delay in effective date 

does not apply and the rule will take 

effect upon publication in the Federal 

Register. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

This action merely makes ministerial 

corrections to the SIP consistent with 

state law that the EPA had previously 

approved as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 24063 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where the EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, this action 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). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

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

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

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

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 21, 2022. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action 

correcting the California SIP to reflect 

the vacatur of EPA’s June 25, 2020 final 

rule may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 18, 2022. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

§ 52.220 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(c)(514)(ii)(A)(6) and (c)(532)(ii)(A)(2). 

§ 52.248 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.248 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (j). 

[FR Doc. 2022–08570 Filed 4–21–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Parts 300–3, 301–10, 301–51, 

and 302–16 

[FTR Case 2020–301–1; Docket No. GSA– 

FTR–2021–0017, Sequence No. 2] 

RIN 3090–AK45 

Federal Travel Regulation; Rental Car 

Policy Updates and Clarifications 

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide 

Policy (OGP), General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule clarifies that 

agencies may reimburse relocating 

employees rental car fees when their 

privately owned vehicle (POV) suffers a 

shipping delay when arriving at or 

returning from a foreign or non-foreign 

area outside the continental United 

States (OCONUS). The rule also defines 

the terms: OCONUS and fuel. It also 

clarifies when collision damage 

waiver(s) and theft insurance are 

reimbursable during car rentals. 

DATES: Effective May 23, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ed Davis, Program Analyst, Office of 

Government-wide Policy, at 202–669– 

1653 or travelpolicy@gsa.gov for 

clarification of content. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division at 202–501–4755 or 

GSARegSec@gsa.gov. Please cite ‘‘FTR 

Case 2020–301–1.’’ 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

GSA published a proposed rule at 86 

FR 50863 on September 13, 2021, to 

provide clarifications to rental car use 

policies and definitions. 

Agencies are authorized to provide 

eligible employees a miscellaneous 

expenses allowance (MEA) to defray 

some of the costs incurred while 

relocating. A non-exhaustive list of 

examples of MEAs can be found at FTR 

§ 302–16.2. While not specifically 

mentioned as an example of an MEA, 

agencies are allowed to provide 

reimbursement for relocating employees 

for rental car use while awaiting arrival 

of their privately owned vehicle (POV) 

due to shipment delay from or to 

OCONUS. The lack of specific mention 

of this type of miscellaneous expense in 

the FTR has caused agency confusion 

surrounding its authorization for 

reimbursement. 

The reimbursement of the cost of 

collision damage waiver (CDW) or theft 

insurance when renting a vehicle for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1