Air Plan Approval; Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance, 61971-61977 [2023-19377]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
61971
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
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.
This action is subject to the
Congressional Review Act, and EPA will
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. This action
is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by November 7, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
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.
2. In § 52.1870:
a. Amend the table in paragraph (d) by
adding an entry for ‘‘Globe
Metallurgical, Inc.’’ before the entry for
‘‘Hilton Davis’’.
■ b. Amend the table in paragraph (e)
under the heading ‘‘Summary of Criteria
Pollutant Attainment Plans’’ by revising
the entry entitled ‘‘SO2 (2010)’’ for
‘‘Muskingum River’’.
The addition and revision read as
follows:
■
■
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: August 31, 2023.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:
§ 52.1870
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
EPA APPROVED OHIO SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
Name of source
Ohio effective
date
Number
*
*
*
Globe Metallurgical Inc ........... DFFOs ...................................
*
*
*
5/23/2023
*
EPA approval date
*
*
9/8/2023, [Insert Federal Register Citation]
*
*
*
Comments
*
*
(e) * * *
EPA APPROVED—OHIO NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Applicable geographical or
non-attainment area
Title
*
*
State date
*
EPA approval
*
*
Comments
*
*
Summary of Criteria Pollutant Attainment Plans
*
*
*
SO2 (2010) .............................. Muskingum River ...................
*
*
*
5/24/2023
*
3. Section 52.1873 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (b).
■
[FR Doc. 2023–19201 Filed 9–7–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
*
*
9/8/2023, [Insert Federal Register Citation]
*
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
[EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0343; FRL–11279–
01–R6]
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Clean Air
Act Requirements for Enhanced
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Sep 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is approving portions of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted to the EPA by the State of
Texas (the State) for the 2008 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The SIP revisions
being approved describe how CAA
requirements for vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) are met in the DallasFort Worth (DFW) and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria (HGB) Serious ozone
nonattainment areas.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
61972
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
This rule is effective on October
10, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0343. 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 or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Clovis Steib, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 214–
665–7566, steib.clovis@epa.gov. Please
call or email the contact listed above if
you need alternative access to material
indexed but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA.
DATES:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
I. Background
The background for this action is
discussed in detail in our March 1,
2021, proposal (86 FR 11913). In that
document, we proposed to approve
portions of two revisions to the Texas
SIP submitted to the EPA on May 13,
2020, that describe how CAA
requirements for Enhanced vehicle I/M
and Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) are met in the DFW and HGB
Serious ozone nonattainment areas for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Our March 2021 proposal provided a
detailed description of the revisions and
the rationale for the EPA’s proposed
actions, together with a discussion of
the opportunity to comment. The public
comment period for our March 2021
proposal closed on March 31, 2021. We
received comments during the public
comment period pertaining to the
vehicle I/M portion of EPA’s proposal
from the Air Law for All (ALFA), on
behalf of the Center for Biological
Diversity and the Center for
Environmental Health.1 The comments
received are available for review in the
docket for this rulemaking. The EPA
finalized the proposed approval of
revisions that address the CAA
requirements for NNSR in a separate
rulemaking (see 87 FR 59697, October 3,
2022). Our responses to the comments
addressing vehicle I/M are provided in
Section II of this action.
Our March 2021 proposal addresses
the DFW and HGB Serious ozone
1 Henceforth,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
we refer to ALFA as ‘‘commenters.’’
16:01 Sep 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
nonattainment area requirements for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. However, on
October 7, 2022, the EPA reclassified
the eight-county HGB area (Brazoria,
Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris,
Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller
counties) and the ten-county DFW area
(Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson,
Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant,
and Wise counties) from Serious to
Severe nonattainment (87 FR 60926).
The attainment date for these Severe
nonattainment areas is July 20, 2027.
Also on October 7, 2022, the EPA
reclassified the six-county HGB area
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, and Montgomery
counties) and the nine-county DFW area
(Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson,
Kaufman, Parker, Tarrant, and Wise
counties) from Marginal to Moderate
nonattainment under the 2015 ozone
NAAQS (87 FR 60897). The attainment
date for these Moderate nonattainment
areas is August 3, 2024. These
reclassifications are important to
mention here because CAA section
182(c)(3) requires the implementation of
an Enhanced I/M program in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
Serious or higher and CAA section
182(b)(4) requires the implementation of
a Basic I/M program in Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas. This final action
does not address whether the DFW and
HGB Moderate nonattainment areas
meet the Basic I/M requirement for the
2015 ozone NAAQS, which instead will
be addressed in a separate future SIP
revision from Texas and EPA action.
II. Response to Comments
Comment: Commenters assert that in
proposing to approve the Texas SIP
submission inasmuch as it describes
how vehicle I/M requirements are met
for the HGB and DFW nonattainment
areas, the EPA expressly relies on EPA’s
performance standard which requires
states to show that their I/M program is
equivalent to a model program defined
by EPA.2 Commenters maintain that I/
M performance standard modeling
(PSM) is not a one-time obligation and
should be performed each time a
nonattainment area is classified as
Serious for a revised NAAQS.
Commenters also assert that Texas has
not demonstrated that its Enhanced I/M
program is equivalent to a model
program as defined under the I/M Rule
and that EPA’s proposal is silent about
whether the Texas I/M program
continues to meet the Enhanced
program performance standard for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Commenters
2 For the Enhanced I/M performance standard, see
40 CFR 51.351(d).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
maintain that equivalence cannot be
assumed. Commenters state that in
order to demonstrate equivalence, a
state must utilize the most current
version of the EPA’s mobile source
emissions model, which, at the time of
the comment, was MOVES3.3
Response: An I/M performance
standard is a collection of program
design elements which defines a
benchmark program to which a
proposed or existing I/M program is
compared in terms of its potential to
reduce emissions of relevant pollutants
and precursors (e.g., in ozone areas,
namely volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)) by
certain comparison dates. In general,
Enhanced I/M programs shall be
designed and implemented to meet or
exceed a minimum performance
standard, which is expressed as
emission levels in area-wide average
grams per mile (gpm), achieved from onroad vehicles as a result of the program.
The purpose of conducting PSM is to
demonstrate that an I/M program meets
the applicable performance standard, as
defined within the I/M regulations (40
CFR part 51, subpart S) and the Clean
Air Act.4 The EPA has recognized that
areas have had to meet the I/M
requirements for previous standards. In
the case of Texas, the DFW and HGB
areas had to meet the Enhanced
performance standard in response to
requirements under the 1-hour ozone
standard. The EPA previously approved
Texas’s I/M program as meeting the
Enhanced performance standard under
the 1-hour standard.5 For areas that had
previously met certain SIP
requirements, the EPA’s practice has
been to accept ‘‘certification SIPs’’ to
help streamline the development of
SIPs. In this SIP revision, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) certified that the current Texas
I/M program meets the I/M
requirements for purposes of the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
For SIPs submitted to meet
requirements under the 2008 standard,
3 MOVES is the EPA’s MOtor Vehicle Emission
Simulator. Information on MOVES is available at
https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motorvehicle-emission-simulator-moves.
4 October 2022, EPA–420–B–22–034:
‘‘Performance Standard Modeling for New and
Existing Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
Programs Using the MOVES Mobile Source
Emissions Model.’’
5 The Clean Air Act requires certain urbanized
ozone nonattainment areas classified Moderate and
higher to have I/M programs to ensure that emission
controls on vehicles are properly maintained. The
Texas vehicle I/M program, which is referred to as
the Texas Motorist Choice (TMC) Program, was
approved by the EPA in the Federal Register on
November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57261).
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
previous EPA guidance 6 was not clear
whether certification SIPs should
include PSM. In the SIP requirements
rule for the 2015 ozone standard, EPA
indicated that SIPs submitted to address
I/M requirements under the 2015 ozone
standard must provide PSM to support
that an area continues to meet the I/M
requirement for that standard. The DFW
and HGB areas were reclassified as
Moderate under the 2015 standard and
must demonstrate through modeling
that the existing I/M programs for both
areas meet the Basic I/M requirements.
Texas recently proposed a SIP revision
to address these Moderate area
requirements. In that SIP revision,7
Texas provided performance standard
modeling that sufficiently shows that its
current I/M program meets the
Enhanced I/M standard. So, even
though EPA’s previous guidance was
unclear, a review of the PSM (as
described below) shows that the Texas
program meets the Enhanced standard
for the 2008 standard. As a result, the
comment is moot.
PSM analyses of existing I/M
programs in DFW and HGB show the
applicable I/M performance standard for
the DFW and HGB nonattainment areas
are met. The PSM was included in the
state’s proposed SIP revisions for the
2015 ozone NAAQS on May 31, 2023.8
The PSM demonstrations were
submitted by the state as part of its 2015
I/M requirements. The submissions
consist of separate PSM analyses for the
DFW and HGB nonattainment areas.
Copies of the modeling summary are
included in the docket 9 for this action.
61973
modeling of the DFW and HGB
programs required for Serious areas
designated and classified under the 8hour ozone standard.
Upon review of the modeling files and
summary results of the TCEQ PSM
analyses, EPA concludes that the
modeling was conducted consistent
with the I/M rule and EPA’s 2022 PSM
guidance; and that TCEQ has
demonstrated that the Enhanced
performance standard was met in the
DFW and HGB subject I/M areas.
TCEQ used MOVES3.1 to conduct the
analyses using 2023 as the analysis year.
The reason why 2023 is an appropriate
analysis year for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS is because (per page 10 of the
guidance 13)—‘‘For cases in which the
attainment date has passed, PSM should
be performed for an analysis year
contemporary to when the
corresponding I/M SIP will be
submitted.’’ Since the attainment year
for the Serious ozone classification has
been passed, then using the most recent
future year is appropriate, i.e., 2023.
TCEQ correctly modeled the existing
DFW I/M and HGB I/M programs
against the Enhanced performance
standard benchmark program (40 CFR
51.351(i)). The results of the analyses
demonstrated that the emissions rates,
expressed in gpm for the existing DFW
I/M and HGB I/M programs for VOC and
NOX are lower than the modeled
emission rates using the Enhanced
performance standard benchmark
program: 14
This additional modeling information
was reviewed and helped inform the
EPA’s decision.
Consistent with EPA’s October 2022
Performance Standard Modeling
Guidance,10 a single analysis year and
corresponding analysis can satisfy more
than one PSM demonstration for an area
under two different NAAQS if the
analysis year is appropriate for both
NAAQS. In the case of HGB and DFW,
the State must demonstrate that the
current I/M program satisfies the Basic
I/M SIP requirement for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS and in doing so can
demonstrate the Enhanced I/M SIP
requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
is also satisfied. Considering this
scenario, EPA’s current guidance 11
allows the State to use the 8-hour ozone
Enhanced performance standard (40
CFR 51.351(i)), if the PSM
demonstration is for an analysis year
that satisfies both I/M SIPs and ozone
NAAQS. In other words, if an I/M
program meets the Enhanced
performance standard, then it would
also meet the Basic performance
standard so long as the analysis years
are appropriate for the two ozone
standards in question. Consistent with
the I/M rule, the EPA’s current
guidance 12 states that the appropriate
analysis year for all reclassifications is
the ‘‘Attainment date OR program
implementation date, whichever is
later.’’
The EPA has clearly stated that PSM
modeling is required when states certify
compliance under the 2015 ozone
standard. Texas performed such
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NOX PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION FOR DFW 2015 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT
AREA EXISTING I/M PROGRAM 15
I/M program NOX
emission
rate
County
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Collin ....................................................................................
Dallas ...................................................................................
Denton ..................................................................................
Ellis .......................................................................................
Johnson ................................................................................
Kaufman ...............................................................................
Parker ...................................................................................
Tarrant ..................................................................................
6 The old 2014 guidance: January 2014, EPA–420–
B–14–006: ‘‘Performance Standard Modeling for
New and Existing Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES
Mobile Source Emissions Model).’’
7 On May 31, 2023, the State approved proposal
of both the DFW and HGB Moderate Area
Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIP Revisions for
the 2015 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Non-Rule
Project #s: 2022–021–SIP–NR and 2022–022–SIP–
NR, respectively). Included in Appendix C of each
of these proposals were I/M Performance Standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Sep 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
0.25
0.26
0.30
0.40
0.47
0.46
0.54
0.26
0.25
0.26
0.29
0.40
0.47
0.46
0.54
0.26
Modeling (PSM) for the existing I/M Program in
their respective 2015 Ozone NAAQS nonattainment
areas.
8 Ibid.
9 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R06OAR-2020-0343.
10 October 2022, EPA–420–B–22–034, pgs 9–10:
‘‘Performance Standard Modeling for New and
Existing Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
Programs Using the MOVES Mobile Source
Emissions Model.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I/M NOX
performance
standard
benchmark
plus buffer
I/M NOX
performance
standard
benchmark
0.27
0.28
0.31
0.42
0.49
0.48
0.56
0.28
Does existing
program meet
I/M performance
standard?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid. See Table 1: Analysis Years for PSM for
an 8-hour Ozone NAAQS on page 10 of the
guidance.
13 Ibid.
14 Evaluating whether an existing I/M program
meets the Enhanced Performance Standard requires
demonstrating that the existing program emission
rates for NOX and VOC do not exceed the
benchmark program’s emission rates within a 0.02
gram per mile buffer.
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
61974
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF VOC PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION FOR DFW 2015 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT
AREA EXISTING I/M PROGRAM 16
I/M program
VOC emission
rate
County
Collin ....................................................................................
Dallas ...................................................................................
Denton ..................................................................................
Ellis .......................................................................................
Johnson ................................................................................
Kaufman ...............................................................................
Parker ...................................................................................
Tarrant ..................................................................................
I/M VOC
performance
standard
benchmark
plus buffer
I/M VOC
performance
standard
benchmark
0.17
0.14
0.18
0.14
0.19
0.14
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.14
0.18
0.14
0.20
0.14
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.16
0.20
0.16
0.22
0.16
0.19
0.19
Does existing
program meet
I/M performance
standard?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF NOX PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION FOR HGB 2015 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT
AREA EXISTING I/M PROGRAM 17
I/M program
NOX emission
rate
County
Brazoria ................................................................................
Fort Bend .............................................................................
Galveston .............................................................................
Harris ....................................................................................
Montgomery .........................................................................
I/M NOX
performance
standard
benchmark
plus buffer
I/M NOX
performance
standard
benchmark
0.29
0.27
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.29
0.27
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.31
0.29
0.26
0.28
0.30
Does existing
program meet
I/M performance
standard?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF VOC PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION FOR HGB 2015 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT
AREA EXISTING I/M PROGRAM 18
I/M program VOC
emission rate
County
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Brazoria ................................................................................
Fort Bend .............................................................................
Galveston .............................................................................
Harris ....................................................................................
Montgomery .........................................................................
Therefore, the DFW I/M and HGB I/
M programs meet the Enhanced
performance standard for the 2008
ozone standard.
Comment: Commenter asserts that
EPA has failed to enforce its rules
requiring biennial evaluations of
Enhanced I/M programs, and the
proposal is silent on whether Texas
conducts these evaluations, and if so,
what the evaluations show.
Response: This comment is outside
the scope of this rulemaking. However,
the EPA notes that Texas has and
continues to provide, EPA Region 6
with their biennial performance
15 PSM for the Existing I/M Program in the DFW
2015 Ozone Nonattainment Area: See Table 3–1.
16 Ibid: See Table 3–2.
17 PSM for the Existing I/M Program in the HGB
2015 Ozone Nonattainment Area: See Table 3–1.
18 Ibid: See Table 3–2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Sep 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.14
0.16
0.17
0.20
0.18
0.14
0.16
evaluations pursuant to 40 CFR
51.353(c)(1). The most recent and past
biennial reports are posted on TCEQ’s
website.19 The biennial reports are
sufficient and satisfy the reporting
requirements of the regulation.
III. Final Action
We are approving portions of the
Texas SIP revisions submitted to the
EPA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
SIP revisions being approved describe
how CAA requirements for the
Enhanced vehicle I/M are met in the
DFW and HGB Serious ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
19 See https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/
mobilesource/vim/im_rules_links.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I/M VOC
performance
standard
benchmark
plus buffer
I/M VOC
performance
standard
benchmark
0.19
0.22
0.20
0.16
0.18
Does existing
program meet
I/M performance
standard?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
IV. Environmental Justice
Considerations
The EPA reviewed demographic
data,20 which provides an assessment of
individual demographic groups of the
populations living within the affected
DFW and HGB 2008 ozone
nonattainment areas, as well as the State
of Texas as a whole. The EPA then
compared the data to the national
average for each of the demographic
groups. The results of this analysis are
being provided for informational and
transparency purposes. The EJScreen
model can only generate output for five
counties at a time, and since the DFW
2008 8-hr ozone nonattainment area
consists of ten counties and HGB 2008
8-hr ozone nonattainment area consists
20 See https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/
table/US/PST045222.
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
of eight counties, each area was split
into two sections. As mentioned
previously, the HGB and DFW
nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS are a subset of the HGB and
DFW nonattainment areas for the 2008
ozone NAAQS and therefore, the
EJscreen reports for the DFW and HGB
2008 nonattainment areas include all
the nonattainment counties in these two
areas.
Section 1 of the DFW nonattainment
area covers Denton, Collin, Dallas,
Tarrant, and Rockwall counties. For
Section 1 of the DFW nonattainment
area, the results of the demographic
analysis indicate that, for populations
within the five-county area, the percent
people of color (persons who reported
their race as a category other than white
alone (not Hispanic or Latino)) is above
the national average for the five-county
area; and above the national average for
the State of Texas as a whole (59.3 and
59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7
percent). Within people of color, the
percent of the population that is Black
or African American alone is above the
national average for the five-county
area; and slightly below the national
average for the State of Texas as a whole
(18.4 and 13.2 percent, respectively
versus 13.6 percent), and the percent of
the population that is American Indian/
Alaska Native is below the national
average for both the five-county area
and the State as a whole (0.9 and 1.1
percent, respectively versus 1.3
percent). The percent of the population
that is ‘‘two or more races’’ is slightly
lower than the national average for both
the five-county area and State as a
whole (2.5 and 2.2 percent, respectively
versus 2.9 percent). The percent of
people living below the poverty level is
slightly below the national average for
the five-county area; and above the
national average for the State of Texas
as a whole (11.2 and 14.2 percent,
respectively versus 11.6 percent).
Section 2 of the DFW nonattainment
area covers Wise, Parker, Kaufman,
Ellis, and Johnson counties. For Section
2 of the DFW nonattainment area, the
results of the demographic analysis
indicate that, for populations within the
five-county area, the percent people of
color (persons who reported their race
as a category other than white alone (not
Hispanic or Latino)) is below the
national average for the five-county
area; and above the national average for
the State of Texas as a whole (34.9 and
59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7
percent). Within people of color, the
percent of the population that is Black
or African American alone is below the
national average for the five-county
area; and slightly below the national
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Sep 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
average for the State of Texas as a whole
(8.9 and 13.2 percent, respectively
versus 13.6 percent), and the percent of
the population that is American Indian/
Alaska Native is slightly below the
national average for both the five-county
area and the State as a whole (1 and 1.1
percent, respectively versus 1.3
percent). The percent of the population
that is ‘‘two or more races’’ is slightly
lower than the national average for both
the five-county area and State as a
whole (2.1 and 2.2 percent, respectively
versus 2.9 percent). The percent of
people living below the poverty level is
below the national average for the fivecounty area; and above the national
average for the State of Texas as a whole
(9 and 14.2 percent, respectively versus
11.6 percent).
Section 1 of the HGB nonattainment
area covers Harris, Galveston,
Chambers, Fort Bend and Brazoria
counties. For Section 1 of the HGB
nonattainment area, the results of the
demographic analysis indicate that, for
populations within the five-county area,
the percent people of color (persons
who reported their race as a category
other than white alone (not Hispanic or
Latino)) is above the national average for
the five-county area; and above the
national average for the State of Texas
as a whole (69.3 and 59.7 percent,
respectively versus 40.7 percent).
Within people of color, the percent of
the population that is Black or African
American alone is above the national
average for the five-county area; and
slightly below the national average for
the State of Texas as a whole (19.8 and
13.2 percent, respectively versus 13.6
percent), and the percent of the
population that is American Indian/
Alaska Native is slightly below the
national average for both the five-county
area and the State as a whole (1 and 1.1
percent, respectively versus 1.3
percent). The percent of the population
that is ‘‘two or more races’’ is slightly
lower than the national average for both
the five-county area and State as a
whole (2.1 and 2.2 percent, respectively
versus 2.9 percent). The percent of
people living below the poverty level in
the five-county area and the State as a
whole, is above the national average
(14.5 and 14.2 percent, respectively
versus 11.6 percent).
Section 2 of the HGB nonattainment
area covers Montgomery, Liberty, and
Waller counties. For Section 2 of the
HGB nonattainment area, the results of
the demographic analysis indicate that,
for populations within the three county
area, the percent people of color
(persons who reported their race as a
category other than white alone (not
Hispanic or Latino)) is very close to the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
61975
national average for the three-county
area; and above the national average for
the State of Texas as a whole (40.2 and
59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7
percent). Within people of color, the
percent of the population that is Black
or African American alone is below the
national average for the three-county
area; and slightly below the national
average for the State of Texas as a whole
(8.2 and 13.2 percent, respectively
versus 13.6 percent), and the percent of
the population that is American Indian/
Alaska Native is slightly below the
national average for both the threecounty area and the State as a whole
(1.1 and 1.1 percent, respectively versus
1.3 percent). The percent of the
population that is ‘‘two or more races’’
is slightly lower than the national
average for both the three-county area
and State as a whole (2 and 2.2 percent,
respectively versus 2.9 percent). The
percent of people living below the
poverty level is slightly below the
national average in the three-county
area; and above the national average for
the State as a whole (11.3 and 14.2
percent, respectively versus 11.6
percent).
This final SIP action finds that the
Texas I/M program meets the I/M
requirements in the DFW and HGB
Serious ozone nonattainment areas per
the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS revisions. We expect that this
action and resulting emissions
reductions will generally be neutral or
contribute to reduced environmental
and health impacts on all populations in
the State of Texas, including people of
color and low-income populations. At a
minimum, this action would not worsen
any existing air quality and is expected
to ensure the area is meeting
requirements to attain and/or maintain
air quality standards. Further, there is
no information in the record indicating
that this action is expected to have
disproportionately high or adverse
human health or environmental effects
on a particular group of people.
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 approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 action:
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
61976
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
• 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 approves a state program;
• 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 CAA.
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 (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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Sep 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
regulations, and policies.’’ 21 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.’’ 22
TCEQ 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 performed an EJ analysis, as is
described earlier in the section titled,
‘‘Environmental Justice
Considerations.’’ The analysis was done
for the purpose of providing additional
context and information about this
rulemaking to the public, not as a basis
of the action. Due to the nature of the
action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of the affected
area. In addition, there is no information
in the record upon which this decision
is based inconsistent with the stated
goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for
people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
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 proposed 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).
This action is subject to the
Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House
of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. This action
is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
21 See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/
learn-about-environmental-justice.
22 https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/
learn-about-environmental-justice.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by November 7,
2023. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 30, 2023.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 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 SS—Texas
2. In § 52.2270, the second table in
paragraph (e), titled ‘‘EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures in the Texas SIP’’
is amended by adding an entry at the
end for ‘‘Enhanced Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance (I/M) Requirement for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Serious
Nonattainment Areas’’ to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.2270
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
*
*
61977
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP
Applicable geographic or nonattainment
area
Name of SIP provision
*
*
Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Requirement for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS Serious Nonattainment Areas.
*
*
Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Areas.
[FR Doc. 2023–19377 Filed 9–7–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118; FRL–11349–01–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AG12
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Determination 38 for Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Determination of acceptability.
This determination of
acceptability expands the list of
acceptable substitutes pursuant to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
Significant New Alternatives Policy
program. This action lists as acceptable
additional substitutes for use in the
refrigeration and air conditioning and
fire suppression sectors.
DATES: This determination is applicable
on September 8, 2023.
ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket
for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118
(continuation of Air Docket A–91–42).
All electronic documents in the docket
are listed in the index at
www.regulations.gov. 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. Publicly available
docket materials are available either
electronically at www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Air Docket
(Nos. A–91–42 and EPA–HQ–OAR–
2003–0118), EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), William J. Clinton West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
1742. For further information on EPA
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Sep 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
*
5/13/2020
Docket Center services and the current
status, please visit us online at
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Margaret Sheppard by telephone at
(202) 343–9163, by email at
Sheppard.Margaret@epa.gov, or by mail
at U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 6205A, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
State submittal/effective
date
I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes
A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
B. Fire Suppression and Explosion
Protection
Appendix A: Summary of Decisions for New
Acceptable Substitutes
I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes
This action is listing as acceptable
additional substitutes for use in the
refrigeration and air conditioning and
fire suppression sectors. This action
presents EPA’s most recent decisions
under the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program to list as
acceptable several substitutes in
different end-uses. New substitutes are:
• R–471A in retail food refrigeration,
industrial process refrigeration, and
cold storage warehouses (new
equipment only);
• R–515B in retail food refrigeration
(refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment, remote
condensing units, and supermarket
systems), commercial ice machines, and
cold storage warehouses (new
equipment only);
• Powdered Aerosol I in total
flooding fire suppression (both occupied
and normally unoccupied areas).
EPA’s review of certain substitutes
listed in this document is pending for
other end-uses. Listing decisions in the
end-uses in this document do not
prejudge EPA’s listings of these
substitutes for other end-uses. While
certain substitutes being added through
this action to the acceptable lists for
specific end-uses may have a higher risk
in one or more SNAP criteria than
certain other substitutes already listed
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA approval date
Comments
*
9/8/2023 [Insert
Federal Register
citation].
*
as acceptable or acceptable subject to
restrictions, they have a similar or lower
overall risk than other acceptable
substitutes in those end-uses.
For additional information on SNAP,
visit the SNAP portion of EPA’s Ozone
Layer Protection website at:
www.epa.gov/snap. Copies of the full
lists of acceptable substitutes for ozonedepleting substances (ODS) in the
industrial sectors covered by the SNAP
program are available at www.epa.gov/
snap/substitutes-sector. For more
information on the Agency’s process for
administering the SNAP program or
criteria for evaluation of substitutes,
refer to the initial SNAP rulemaking
published March 18, 1994 (59 FR
13044), and the regulations codified at
40 CFR part 82, subpart G. SNAP
decisions and the appropriate Federal
Register citations are found at:
www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.
Under the SNAP program, EPA may list
a substitute as acceptable for specified
end-uses where the Agency has
reviewed the substitute and found no
reason to restrict or prohibit its use.
Substitutes listed as unacceptable;
acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits; or acceptable, subject to use
conditions are also listed in the
appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart
G.
The sections below discuss each
substitute listing in detail and
summarize the results of EPA’s
assessment of the human health and
environmental risks posed by each
substitute. EPA’s evaluation considers
the criteria at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7),
including: atmospheric effects and
related health and environmental
effects, ecosystem risks, consumer risks,
flammability, and cost and availability
of the substitute. When evaluating
potential substitutes, EPA evaluates
these criteria in risk screens, which are
technical documents that evaluate risks
to human health and the environment
from substitutes in specific end-uses,
including comparisons to other
available substitutes and evaluations
against relevant thresholds of risk
starting with protective assumptions.
E:\FR\FM\08SER1.SGM
08SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61971-61977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19377]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0343; FRL-11279-01-R6]
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for Enhanced
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted to the EPA by the
State of Texas (the State) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The SIP revisions being approved describe
how CAA requirements for vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) are
met in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB)
Serious ozone nonattainment areas.
[[Page 61972]]
DATES: This rule is effective on October 10, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0343. 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 or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Clovis Steib, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 214-665-7566, [email protected].
Please call or email the contact listed above if you need alternative
access to material indexed but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our March
1, 2021, proposal (86 FR 11913). In that document, we proposed to
approve portions of two revisions to the Texas SIP submitted to the EPA
on May 13, 2020, that describe how CAA requirements for Enhanced
vehicle I/M and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) are met in the
DFW and HGB Serious ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Our March 2021 proposal provided a detailed description of the
revisions and the rationale for the EPA's proposed actions, together
with a discussion of the opportunity to comment. The public comment
period for our March 2021 proposal closed on March 31, 2021. We
received comments during the public comment period pertaining to the
vehicle I/M portion of EPA's proposal from the Air Law for All (ALFA),
on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for
Environmental Health.\1\ The comments received are available for review
in the docket for this rulemaking. The EPA finalized the proposed
approval of revisions that address the CAA requirements for NNSR in a
separate rulemaking (see 87 FR 59697, October 3, 2022). Our responses
to the comments addressing vehicle I/M are provided in Section II of
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Henceforth, we refer to ALFA as ``commenters.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our March 2021 proposal addresses the DFW and HGB Serious ozone
nonattainment area requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, on
October 7, 2022, the EPA reclassified the eight-county HGB area
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery,
and Waller counties) and the ten-county DFW area (Collin, Dallas,
Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise
counties) from Serious to Severe nonattainment (87 FR 60926). The
attainment date for these Severe nonattainment areas is July 20, 2027.
Also on October 7, 2022, the EPA reclassified the six-county HGB area
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and Montgomery
counties) and the nine-county DFW area (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis,
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Tarrant, and Wise counties) from Marginal to
Moderate nonattainment under the 2015 ozone NAAQS (87 FR 60897). The
attainment date for these Moderate nonattainment areas is August 3,
2024. These reclassifications are important to mention here because CAA
section 182(c)(3) requires the implementation of an Enhanced I/M
program in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or higher
and CAA section 182(b)(4) requires the implementation of a Basic I/M
program in Moderate ozone nonattainment areas. This final action does
not address whether the DFW and HGB Moderate nonattainment areas meet
the Basic I/M requirement for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which instead will
be addressed in a separate future SIP revision from Texas and EPA
action.
II. Response to Comments
Comment: Commenters assert that in proposing to approve the Texas
SIP submission inasmuch as it describes how vehicle I/M requirements
are met for the HGB and DFW nonattainment areas, the EPA expressly
relies on EPA's performance standard which requires states to show that
their I/M program is equivalent to a model program defined by EPA.\2\
Commenters maintain that I/M performance standard modeling (PSM) is not
a one-time obligation and should be performed each time a nonattainment
area is classified as Serious for a revised NAAQS. Commenters also
assert that Texas has not demonstrated that its Enhanced I/M program is
equivalent to a model program as defined under the I/M Rule and that
EPA's proposal is silent about whether the Texas I/M program continues
to meet the Enhanced program performance standard for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Commenters maintain that equivalence cannot be assumed.
Commenters state that in order to demonstrate equivalence, a state must
utilize the most current version of the EPA's mobile source emissions
model, which, at the time of the comment, was MOVES3.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the Enhanced I/M performance standard, see 40 CFR
51.351(d).
\3\ MOVES is the EPA's MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator.
Information on MOVES is available at https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: An I/M performance standard is a collection of program
design elements which defines a benchmark program to which a proposed
or existing I/M program is compared in terms of its potential to reduce
emissions of relevant pollutants and precursors (e.g., in ozone areas,
namely volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx))
by certain comparison dates. In general, Enhanced I/M programs shall be
designed and implemented to meet or exceed a minimum performance
standard, which is expressed as emission levels in area-wide average
grams per mile (gpm), achieved from on-road vehicles as a result of the
program. The purpose of conducting PSM is to demonstrate that an I/M
program meets the applicable performance standard, as defined within
the I/M regulations (40 CFR part 51, subpart S) and the Clean Air
Act.\4\ The EPA has recognized that areas have had to meet the I/M
requirements for previous standards. In the case of Texas, the DFW and
HGB areas had to meet the Enhanced performance standard in response to
requirements under the 1-hour ozone standard. The EPA previously
approved Texas's I/M program as meeting the Enhanced performance
standard under the 1-hour standard.\5\ For areas that had previously
met certain SIP requirements, the EPA's practice has been to accept
``certification SIPs'' to help streamline the development of SIPs. In
this SIP revision, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
certified that the current Texas I/M program meets the I/M requirements
for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ October 2022, EPA-420-B-22-034: ``Performance Standard
Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/
M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile Source Emissions Model.''
\5\ The Clean Air Act requires certain urbanized ozone
nonattainment areas classified Moderate and higher to have I/M
programs to ensure that emission controls on vehicles are properly
maintained. The Texas vehicle I/M program, which is referred to as
the Texas Motorist Choice (TMC) Program, was approved by the EPA in
the Federal Register on November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57261).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SIPs submitted to meet requirements under the 2008 standard,
[[Page 61973]]
previous EPA guidance \6\ was not clear whether certification SIPs
should include PSM. In the SIP requirements rule for the 2015 ozone
standard, EPA indicated that SIPs submitted to address I/M requirements
under the 2015 ozone standard must provide PSM to support that an area
continues to meet the I/M requirement for that standard. The DFW and
HGB areas were reclassified as Moderate under the 2015 standard and
must demonstrate through modeling that the existing I/M programs for
both areas meet the Basic I/M requirements. Texas recently proposed a
SIP revision to address these Moderate area requirements. In that SIP
revision,\7\ Texas provided performance standard modeling that
sufficiently shows that its current I/M program meets the Enhanced I/M
standard. So, even though EPA's previous guidance was unclear, a review
of the PSM (as described below) shows that the Texas program meets the
Enhanced standard for the 2008 standard. As a result, the comment is
moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The old 2014 guidance: January 2014, EPA-420-B-14-006:
``Performance Standard Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile
Source Emissions Model).''
\7\ On May 31, 2023, the State approved proposal of both the DFW
and HGB Moderate Area Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIP Revisions
for the 2015 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Non-Rule Project #s: 2022-021-
SIP-NR and 2022-022-SIP-NR, respectively). Included in Appendix C of
each of these proposals were I/M Performance Standard Modeling (PSM)
for the existing I/M Program in their respective 2015 Ozone NAAQS
nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSM analyses of existing I/M programs in DFW and HGB show the
applicable I/M performance standard for the DFW and HGB nonattainment
areas are met. The PSM was included in the state's proposed SIP
revisions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on May 31, 2023.\8\ The PSM
demonstrations were submitted by the state as part of its 2015 I/M
requirements. The submissions consist of separate PSM analyses for the
DFW and HGB nonattainment areas. Copies of the modeling summary are
included in the docket \9\ for this action. This additional modeling
information was reviewed and helped inform the EPA's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid.
\9\ https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with EPA's October 2022 Performance Standard Modeling
Guidance,\10\ a single analysis year and corresponding analysis can
satisfy more than one PSM demonstration for an area under two different
NAAQS if the analysis year is appropriate for both NAAQS. In the case
of HGB and DFW, the State must demonstrate that the current I/M program
satisfies the Basic I/M SIP requirement for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and in
doing so can demonstrate the Enhanced I/M SIP requirement for the 2008
ozone NAAQS is also satisfied. Considering this scenario, EPA's current
guidance \11\ allows the State to use the 8-hour ozone Enhanced
performance standard (40 CFR 51.351(i)), if the PSM demonstration is
for an analysis year that satisfies both I/M SIPs and ozone NAAQS. In
other words, if an I/M program meets the Enhanced performance standard,
then it would also meet the Basic performance standard so long as the
analysis years are appropriate for the two ozone standards in question.
Consistent with the I/M rule, the EPA's current guidance \12\ states
that the appropriate analysis year for all reclassifications is the
``Attainment date OR program implementation date, whichever is later.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ October 2022, EPA-420-B-22-034, pgs 9-10: ``Performance
Standard Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile Source Emissions
Model.''
\11\ Ibid.
\12\ Ibid. See Table 1: Analysis Years for PSM for an 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS on page 10 of the guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has clearly stated that PSM modeling is required when
states certify compliance under the 2015 ozone standard. Texas
performed such modeling of the DFW and HGB programs required for
Serious areas designated and classified under the 8-hour ozone
standard.
Upon review of the modeling files and summary results of the TCEQ
PSM analyses, EPA concludes that the modeling was conducted consistent
with the I/M rule and EPA's 2022 PSM guidance; and that TCEQ has
demonstrated that the Enhanced performance standard was met in the DFW
and HGB subject I/M areas.
TCEQ used MOVES3.1 to conduct the analyses using 2023 as the
analysis year. The reason why 2023 is an appropriate analysis year for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS is because (per page 10 of the guidance \13\)--
``For cases in which the attainment date has passed, PSM should be
performed for an analysis year contemporary to when the corresponding
I/M SIP will be submitted.'' Since the attainment year for the Serious
ozone classification has been passed, then using the most recent future
year is appropriate, i.e., 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCEQ correctly modeled the existing DFW I/M and HGB I/M programs
against the Enhanced performance standard benchmark program (40 CFR
51.351(i)). The results of the analyses demonstrated that the emissions
rates, expressed in gpm for the existing DFW I/M and HGB I/M programs
for VOC and NOX are lower than the modeled emission rates
using the Enhanced performance standard benchmark program: \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Evaluating whether an existing I/M program meets the
Enhanced Performance Standard requires demonstrating that the
existing program emission rates for NOX and VOC do not
exceed the benchmark program's emission rates within a 0.02 gram per
mile buffer.
Table 1--Summary of NOX Performance Standard Evaluation for DFW 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area Existing I/M
Program \15\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/M NOX
I/M program NOX I/M NOX performance Does existing program
County emission rate performance standard meet I/M performance
standard benchmark plus standard?
benchmark buffer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collin...................... 0.25 0.25 0.27 Yes.
Dallas...................... 0.26 0.26 0.28 Yes.
Denton...................... 0.30 0.29 0.31 Yes.
Ellis....................... 0.40 0.40 0.42 Yes.
Johnson..................... 0.47 0.47 0.49 Yes.
Kaufman..................... 0.46 0.46 0.48 Yes.
Parker...................... 0.54 0.54 0.56 Yes.
Tarrant..................... 0.26 0.26 0.28 Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61974]]
Table 2--Summary of VOC Performance Standard Evaluation for DFW 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area Existing I/M
Program \16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/M VOC
I/M VOC performance Does existing program
County I/M program VOC performance standard meet I/M performance
emission rate standard benchmark plus standard?
benchmark buffer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collin...................... 0.17 0.17 0.19 Yes.
Dallas...................... 0.14 0.14 0.16 Yes.
Denton...................... 0.18 0.18 0.20 Yes.
Ellis....................... 0.14 0.14 0.16 Yes.
Johnson..................... 0.19 0.20 0.22 Yes.
Kaufman..................... 0.14 0.14 0.16 Yes.
Parker...................... 0.17 0.17 0.19 Yes.
Tarrant..................... 0.16 0.17 0.19 Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Summary of NOX Performance Standard Evaluation for HGB 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area Existing I/M
Program \17\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/M NOX
I/M program NOX I/M NOX performance Does existing program
County emission rate performance standard meet I/M performance
standard benchmark plus standard?
benchmark buffer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazoria.................... 0.29 0.29 0.31 Yes.
Fort Bend................... 0.27 0.27 0.29 Yes.
Galveston................... 0.24 0.24 0.26 Yes.
Harris...................... 0.26 0.26 0.28 Yes.
Montgomery.................. 0.28 0.28 0.30 Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Summary of VOC Performance Standard Evaluation for HGB 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area Existing I/M
Program \18\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/M VOC
I/M VOC performance Does existing program
County I/M program VOC performance standard meet I/M performance
emission rate standard benchmark plus standard?
benchmark buffer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazoria.................... 0.17 0.17 0.19 Yes.
Fort Bend................... 0.19 0.20 0.22 Yes.
Galveston................... 0.17 0.18 0.20 Yes.
Harris...................... 0.14 0.14 0.16 Yes.
Montgomery.................. 0.16 0.16 0.18 Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the DFW I/M and HGB I/M programs meet the Enhanced
performance standard for the 2008 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ PSM for the Existing I/M Program in the DFW 2015 Ozone
Nonattainment Area: See Table 3-1.
\16\ Ibid: See Table 3-2.
\17\ PSM for the Existing I/M Program in the HGB 2015 Ozone
Nonattainment Area: See Table 3-1.
\18\ Ibid: See Table 3-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenter asserts that EPA has failed to enforce its rules
requiring biennial evaluations of Enhanced I/M programs, and the
proposal is silent on whether Texas conducts these evaluations, and if
so, what the evaluations show.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
However, the EPA notes that Texas has and continues to provide, EPA
Region 6 with their biennial performance evaluations pursuant to 40 CFR
51.353(c)(1). The most recent and past biennial reports are posted on
TCEQ's website.\19\ The biennial reports are sufficient and satisfy the
reporting requirements of the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/mobilesource/vim/im_rules_links.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
We are approving portions of the Texas SIP revisions submitted to
the EPA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The SIP revisions being approved
describe how CAA requirements for the Enhanced vehicle I/M are met in
the DFW and HGB Serious ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
The EPA reviewed demographic data,\20\ which provides an assessment
of individual demographic groups of the populations living within the
affected DFW and HGB 2008 ozone nonattainment areas, as well as the
State of Texas as a whole. The EPA then compared the data to the
national average for each of the demographic groups. The results of
this analysis are being provided for informational and transparency
purposes. The EJScreen model can only generate output for five counties
at a time, and since the DFW 2008 8-hr ozone nonattainment area
consists of ten counties and HGB 2008 8-hr ozone nonattainment area
consists
[[Page 61975]]
of eight counties, each area was split into two sections. As mentioned
previously, the HGB and DFW nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS are a subset of the HGB and DFW nonattainment areas for the 2008
ozone NAAQS and therefore, the EJscreen reports for the DFW and HGB
2008 nonattainment areas include all the nonattainment counties in
these two areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1 of the DFW nonattainment area covers Denton, Collin,
Dallas, Tarrant, and Rockwall counties. For Section 1 of the DFW
nonattainment area, the results of the demographic analysis indicate
that, for populations within the five-county area, the percent people
of color (persons who reported their race as a category other than
white alone (not Hispanic or Latino)) is above the national average for
the five-county area; and above the national average for the State of
Texas as a whole (59.3 and 59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7
percent). Within people of color, the percent of the population that is
Black or African American alone is above the national average for the
five-county area; and slightly below the national average for the State
of Texas as a whole (18.4 and 13.2 percent, respectively versus 13.6
percent), and the percent of the population that is American Indian/
Alaska Native is below the national average for both the five-county
area and the State as a whole (0.9 and 1.1 percent, respectively versus
1.3 percent). The percent of the population that is ``two or more
races'' is slightly lower than the national average for both the five-
county area and State as a whole (2.5 and 2.2 percent, respectively
versus 2.9 percent). The percent of people living below the poverty
level is slightly below the national average for the five-county area;
and above the national average for the State of Texas as a whole (11.2
and 14.2 percent, respectively versus 11.6 percent).
Section 2 of the DFW nonattainment area covers Wise, Parker,
Kaufman, Ellis, and Johnson counties. For Section 2 of the DFW
nonattainment area, the results of the demographic analysis indicate
that, for populations within the five-county area, the percent people
of color (persons who reported their race as a category other than
white alone (not Hispanic or Latino)) is below the national average for
the five-county area; and above the national average for the State of
Texas as a whole (34.9 and 59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7
percent). Within people of color, the percent of the population that is
Black or African American alone is below the national average for the
five-county area; and slightly below the national average for the State
of Texas as a whole (8.9 and 13.2 percent, respectively versus 13.6
percent), and the percent of the population that is American Indian/
Alaska Native is slightly below the national average for both the five-
county area and the State as a whole (1 and 1.1 percent, respectively
versus 1.3 percent). The percent of the population that is ``two or
more races'' is slightly lower than the national average for both the
five-county area and State as a whole (2.1 and 2.2 percent,
respectively versus 2.9 percent). The percent of people living below
the poverty level is below the national average for the five-county
area; and above the national average for the State of Texas as a whole
(9 and 14.2 percent, respectively versus 11.6 percent).
Section 1 of the HGB nonattainment area covers Harris, Galveston,
Chambers, Fort Bend and Brazoria counties. For Section 1 of the HGB
nonattainment area, the results of the demographic analysis indicate
that, for populations within the five-county area, the percent people
of color (persons who reported their race as a category other than
white alone (not Hispanic or Latino)) is above the national average for
the five-county area; and above the national average for the State of
Texas as a whole (69.3 and 59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7
percent). Within people of color, the percent of the population that is
Black or African American alone is above the national average for the
five-county area; and slightly below the national average for the State
of Texas as a whole (19.8 and 13.2 percent, respectively versus 13.6
percent), and the percent of the population that is American Indian/
Alaska Native is slightly below the national average for both the five-
county area and the State as a whole (1 and 1.1 percent, respectively
versus 1.3 percent). The percent of the population that is ``two or
more races'' is slightly lower than the national average for both the
five-county area and State as a whole (2.1 and 2.2 percent,
respectively versus 2.9 percent). The percent of people living below
the poverty level in the five-county area and the State as a whole, is
above the national average (14.5 and 14.2 percent, respectively versus
11.6 percent).
Section 2 of the HGB nonattainment area covers Montgomery, Liberty,
and Waller counties. For Section 2 of the HGB nonattainment area, the
results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for populations
within the three county area, the percent people of color (persons who
reported their race as a category other than white alone (not Hispanic
or Latino)) is very close to the national average for the three-county
area; and above the national average for the State of Texas as a whole
(40.2 and 59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7 percent). Within
people of color, the percent of the population that is Black or African
American alone is below the national average for the three-county area;
and slightly below the national average for the State of Texas as a
whole (8.2 and 13.2 percent, respectively versus 13.6 percent), and the
percent of the population that is American Indian/Alaska Native is
slightly below the national average for both the three-county area and
the State as a whole (1.1 and 1.1 percent, respectively versus 1.3
percent). The percent of the population that is ``two or more races''
is slightly lower than the national average for both the three-county
area and State as a whole (2 and 2.2 percent, respectively versus 2.9
percent). The percent of people living below the poverty level is
slightly below the national average in the three-county area; and above
the national average for the State as a whole (11.3 and 14.2 percent,
respectively versus 11.6 percent).
This final SIP action finds that the Texas I/M program meets the I/
M requirements in the DFW and HGB Serious ozone nonattainment areas per
the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS revisions. We expect that this
action and resulting emissions reductions will generally be neutral or
contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on all
populations in the State of Texas, including people of color and low-
income populations. At a minimum, this action would not worsen any
existing air quality and is expected to ensure the area is meeting
requirements to attain and/or maintain air quality standards. Further,
there is no information in the record indicating that this action is
expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or
environmental effects on a particular group of people.
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 approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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 action:
[[Page 61976]]
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 approves a state program;
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 CAA.
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 (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.'' \21\ 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.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
\22\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCEQ 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 performed an
EJ analysis, as is described earlier in the section titled,
``Environmental Justice Considerations.'' The analysis was done for the
purpose of providing additional context and information about this
rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the
nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have
a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this
decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
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 proposed 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).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 7, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 30, 2023.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart SS--Texas
0
2. In Sec. 52.2270, the second table in paragraph (e), titled ``EPA
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the
Texas SIP'' is amended by adding an entry at the end for ``Enhanced
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Requirement for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS Serious Nonattainment Areas'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 61977]]
EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State
Name of SIP provision geographic or submittal/ EPA approval date Comments
nonattainment area effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Dallas-Fort Worth 5/13/2020 9/8/2023 [Insert ...................
Maintenance (I/M) Requirement and Houston- Federal Register
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Serious Galveston-Brazoria citation].
Nonattainment Areas. Ozone
Nonattainment
Areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2023-19377 Filed 9-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
