Air Plan Approval; Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

Air Plan Approval; Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

Publication: Federal Register
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Byline: Earthea Nance
Date: 8 September 2023
Subjects: American Government

, The Environment

[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, 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.

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