|
|---|
|
Air Plan Revisions; California; Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Contingency Measure Publication: Federal Register Agency: Environmental Protection Agency Byline: Martha Guzman Aceves Date: 9 July 2024 Subjects: American Government  , The Environment
|
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56222-56231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14355]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0524; FRL-11525-02-R9]
Air Plan Revisions; California; Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Contingency Measure
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to
the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
an amendment to the California motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
(I/M) program (also referred to as ``Smog Check'') to include a
contingency measure that, if triggered, would narrow the Smog Check
inspection exemption for newer model year vehicles in certain
California nonattainment areas. The EPA is taking final action to
approve, as part of the California SIP, the contingency measure and a
related statutory provision that authorizes the contingency measure
because they meet all the applicable requirements.
DATES: This rule is effective August 8, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0524. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with a
disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 947-4152; email:
buss.jeffrey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. EPA Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Proposed Action
On December 20, 2023 (88 FR 87981) (``proposed rule''), the EPA
proposed to approve a SIP revision concerning an amendment to the
California Smog Check program to include a contingency measure to
address in part the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 for certain nonattainment areas in
California. This contingency measure, if triggered, would narrow the
existing Smog Check inspection exemption for newer model year vehicles
in certain California nonattainment areas. The SIP revision is titled
``California Smog Check Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan
Revision'' (Released: September 15, 2023) (``Smog Check Contingency
Measure SIP''). The Smog Check Contingency Measure itself is presented
in Section 4 of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP. Other sections
of the submission address the contingency measure requirements, discuss
the opportunities for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to
adopt contingency measures, provide the background on the California
Smog Check program, and present the emission reductions estimates for
the ten California nonattainment areas for which the Smog Check
Contingency Measure was developed. The appendices included with the
Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP include an infeasibility analysis,
documentation of emissions estimates, and California Health & Safety
Code (H&SC) section 44011(a)(4)(A) and (B), effective October 10, 2017.
In Table 1, we list the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and the
related statutory provision with the dates they were adopted and
submitted by CARB.
[[Page 56223]]
Table 1--Submitted Measure and Statutory Provision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure/statutory
Agency Statute No. provision title Adopted/amended/ revised Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB......... Not Applicable.... California Smog October 26, 2023............. November 13, 2023.
Check Contingency
Measure State
Implementation
Plan Revision.
CARB......... California H&SC Certificate of Effective on October 10, 2017 November 13, 2023.
section compliance or
44011(a)(4)(A) noncompliance;
and (B). biennial
requirement;
exceptions;
inspections;
exemption from
testing for
collector motor
vehicle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our December 20, 2023 proposed rule, we provided a discussion of
the regulatory background leading to CARB's adoption and submission of
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP. In short, CARB submitted the
Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to address, in part, the contingency
measure requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40
CFR 51.1014 for certain nonattainment areas with respect to certain
ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS).
The applicable nonattainment areas and NAAQS are Coachella Valley
(2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS), Eastern Kern County (2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS), Mariposa County (2015 ozone NAAQS), Sacramento Metro Area (2008
and 2015 ozone NAAQS), San Diego County (2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS),
San Joaquin Valley (1997, 2008, and 2015 ozone NAAQS; 1997 annual, 2006
24-hour, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS), South Coast Air Basin
(2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS; 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS),
Ventura County (2015 ozone NAAQS), Western Mojave Desert (2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS) and Western Nevada County (2015 ozone NAAQS).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, Table 1, at page 3. The
Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP lists the various NAAQS by their
associated concentration level rather than by the year the EPA
promulgated the standard. The various ozone NAAQS addressed by the
Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP include the 70 parts per billion
(ppb) ozone NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), the 75 ppb ozone NAAQS (2008
ozone NAAQS), the 80 ppb ozone NAAQS (1997 ozone NAAQS), the 15
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) PM2.5 NAAQS
(the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS), the 35 [micro]g/m\3\
PM2.5 NAAQS (the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS),
and the 12 [micro]g/m\3\ PM2.5 NAAQS (the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our proposed rule, we explained that, under the current
California Smog Check program, certain vehicles are exempt from the
biennial inspection requirement, including vehicles eight or fewer
model years old. The Smog Check Contingency Measure, if triggered, will
reduce this exemption to vehicles seven or fewer model years old in the
nonattainment area(s) at issue upon the first triggering event and to
vehicles six or fewer model years old in the nonattainment area(s) at
issue upon a second triggering event. Reducing the inspection exemption
will increase the number of inspected and repaired vehicles and
therefore result in additional emission reductions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 88 FR 87981, page 87983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Smog Check Contingency Measure, within 30 days of the
EPA's determination that a nonattainment area covered by the measure
has failed to meet a reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone, meet
a qualitative milestone, submit a required quantitative milestone
report or milestone compliance demonstration, or attain the relevant
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, CARB will be obligated to
transmit a letter to the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR)
and the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). CARB's letter
will include the necessary finding that providing an exemption from
Smog Check for certain vehicles in the area(s) (defined by specified
ZIP Codes) at issue will prohibit the State from meeting the State's
commitments with respect to the SIP required by the CAA, effectuating a
reduction in the Smog Check vehicle inspection exemption to begin with
the new calendar year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, at pages 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon receipt of the CARB letter and the applicable ZIP Codes, CARB,
BAR and DMV staff will begin implementation of the change in exemption
length to Smog Check and take the following actions: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMV will update their Smog Check renewal programing to
require a Smog Check inspection for the eight model years old vehicles
(or seven model years old vehicles in the case of a second trigger) in
the ZIP Codes provided by CARB staff;
The eight to seven model years old (or seven to six model
years old) exemption change will begin for registrations expiring
beginning January 1st of the applicable year, considering the time it
takes for DMV to program this change and their registration renewal
process;
60 days before the expiration date of the vehicle
registration, DMV will send out registration renewals that include
these newly impacted vehicles along with those already subject to Smog
Check inspection;
The notice will include information on the change in
exemptions, reason for change, and resources for obtaining a Smog Check
inspection from a certified station;
CARB staff will work with DMV to develop and include an
informational paper that will accompany the registration renewal with
the information as included in the notice; and
BAR and DMV will administer and enforce the new changes to
the Smog Check Program.
In our December 20, 2023 proposed rule, we provided our evaluation
of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and our rationale for
proposing approval.\5\ In short, we found that CARB had met the
procedural requirements for SIPs and SIP revisions, found that CARB had
adequate legal authority to implement the Smog Check Contingency
Measure, and found that the applicable State agencies would have
adequate personnel and funding for carrying out the Smog Check
Contingency Measure. We also explained how the Smog Check Contingency
Measure would be enforceable as required under CAA section 110(a)(2),
how the Smog Check Contingency Measure would meet the requirements for
an individual contingency measure under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014, and how approval of the Smog Check
Contingency Measure would not interfere with RFP, attainment, or any
other applicable requirement of the Act consistent with the
requirements under CAA section 110(l). In addition, we presented CARB's
estimates of the expected emissions reductions from implementation of
the Smog Check Contingency Measure in the various nonattainment areas
for the relevant NAAQS for which the measure was developed. We
indicated that, based on
[[Page 56224]]
our review, we found the estimates to be reasonable and adequately
documented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 88 FR 87981, pages 87983-87987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last, we explained that we were proposing to approve the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency measure
for the various applicable nonattainment areas and NAAQS, but we were
not proposing to make any determination as to whether the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP would be sufficient by itself for CARB and the
relevant air districts to fully comply with the contingency measure SIP
requirements in any specific nonattainment area for any specific NAAQS
under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. We
indicated in our proposed rule that we will be evaluating the
contingency measure SIP plan elements for compliance with the full SIP
requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR
51.1014 in the relevant future actions on nonattainment plan SIP
submissions for each respective nonattainment area. In these separate
actions, we will evaluate the estimated emissions reductions from the
Smog Check Contingency Measure, in conjunction with the estimated
emission reductions from any other submitted contingency measures for
each area and each NAAQS at issue, to determine whether the contingency
measures, taken together, provide the requisite emissions reductions or
otherwise meet the contingency measure requirements under CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014, as applicable.
Our December 20, 2023 proposed rule contains more information on
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and our rationale for proposing
approval.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from CARB,\6\ comments from a
group comprised of the Central California Environmental Justice
Network, Committee for a Better Arvin, Medical Advocates for Healthy
Air, and Healthy Environment for All Lives (collectively referred to in
this document as ``Valley EJ Organizations'') \7\ and comments from a
group comprised of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, National
Park Conservation Association, Little Manila Rising and Valley
Improvement Projects (collectively referred to in this document as
``CVAQ'').\8\ All the comment letters and exhibits can be found in the
docket for this rulemaking. In the following paragraphs, we summarize
the comments and provide our responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Letter from Steven S. Cliff, Ph.D., Executive Officer, CARB,
to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated
January 12, 2024.
\7\ Letter from Brent Newell, Attorney for Central California
Environmental Justice Network, Committee for a Better Arvin, Medical
Advocates for Healthy Air, and Healthy Environment for All Lives, to
Jeffrey Buss and Rory Mays, EPA Region IX, dated January 19, 2024.
The letter includes 16 exhibits as attachments.
\8\ Letter from Dr. Catherine Garoupa, Executive Director, CVAQ,
et al., to Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, dated January 19, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB Comment #1: CARB indicates that, in the proposed rule, the EPA
erroneously indicates that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is
designed to achieve the estimated emissions reductions within roughly a
year of the triggering event. CARB clarifies that instead, the Smog
Check Contingency Measure is designed to achieve emissions reductions
as soon as possible within a two-year time frame after the triggering
event, recognizing that changes in Smog Check exemptions would begin at
the start of a calendar year, that the California DMV will require time
to update their systems and notify vehicle owners impacted by the
measure, and that triggering events are dependent on the effective date
of the EPA action. The California DMV's vehicle registration renewal
program cycles annually beginning on January 1st of each year. Thus,
CARB explains that, depending upon when the Smog Check Contingency
Measure is triggered, when the DMV completes the related systems'
update and provides notification to affected vehicle owners, and the
length of time left until the beginning of the next calendar year, it
could take more than one year to achieve the associated emissions
reductions, but that these reductions should occur within two years
from an applicable triggering event. CARB believes that this timeline
for achieving reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure is
consistent with the EPA's draft contingency measure guidance concerning
the timing of emissions reductions from contingency measures.
EPA Response to CARB Comment #1: The EPA appreciates CARB's
clarification of the timeline for when emissions reductions from the
measure would be achieved (once triggered). While the timeline for
achieving emissions reductions is potentially longer than we described
in our proposed rule, we do not find the more extended timeline to
present an obstacle to approval of the contingency measure because the
reductions occur within two years and CARB's explanation is reasonable
as to why the reductions cannot occur within the first year.
Based on CARB's explanation, we now more fully understand that the
California DMV's vehicle registration renewal program cycles annually
beginning on January 1st of each year, and thus, if the contingency
measure triggering event (e.g., finding of failure to attain the NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date) occurs late in the calendar year,
DMV will not have time to update its Smog Check renewal programming in
the ZIP Codes provided by CARB in time for the registration renewals to
be available for mailing to vehicle owners who must renew their
registrations in January. If there is insufficient time, then DMV's
update to the Smog Check renewal programming will not be reflected in
vehicle registration renewal notices until the following January 1st.
The EPA understands that as a result of the existing vehicle
registration cycle, the full anticipated emission reductions would take
longer to achieve, but this is reasonable given the nature of the
measure.
In March 2023, the EPA published notice of availability of a new
draft guidance addressing the contingency measure SIP requirements in
section 172(c)(9) for nonattainment areas generally and in CAA section
182(c)(9) for ozone nonattainment areas classified Serious and higher.
This document is entitled ``Draft: Guidance on the Preparation of State
Implementation Plan Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area
Contingency Measure Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter
(DRAFT-- 3/17/23--Public Review Version)'' (referred to in this
document as the ``Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance''). The
EPA provided an opportunity for public comment.\9\ The principal
differences between the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance and
existing guidance on contingency measures relate to the EPA's
recommendations concerning the specific amount of emission reductions
that implementation of contingency measures should achieve and the
timing for when the emissions reductions from the contingency measures
should occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 88 FR 17571 (March 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the time period within which reductions from
contingency measures should occur, the EPA previously recommended that
contingency measures take effect within 60 days of a triggering event,
and that the resulting emission reductions generally occur within one
year of the triggering event. Under the Draft
[[Page 56225]]
Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, in instances where there are
insufficient contingency measures available to achieve the recommended
amount of emissions reductions within one year of the triggering event,
the EPA believes that contingency measures that provide reductions
within two years of the triggering event would be appropriate to
consider toward achieving the recommended amount of emissions
reductions. We think that contingency measures that result in
additional emissions reductions during the second year following the
triggering event, as contemplated by the Draft Revised Contingency
Measure Guidance, would still serve the important purpose of
contingency measures to continue progress towards attainment, as the
State develops and submits, and the EPA acts on, a SIP submission to
address the underlying deficiency.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in our Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance
document, we believe that reductions from contingency measures should
be achieved as soon as possible. If an air agency elects to adopt
contingency measures that will require more than one year from the
triggering event to achieve the full amount of necessary reductions,
then it should provide an adequate explanation of why the reductions
could not be achieved within the first year and how much additional
time is needed (up to one additional year).\11\ We find that CARB's
clarification of the timeline for achieving full emissions reductions
from the Smog Check Contingency Measure (summarized in CARB Comment #1)
adequately explains why the reductions may not be fully achieved until
the second year after the triggering event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB Comment #2: CARB disagrees with the EPA's presentation in
Table 2 of the proposed rule of the emissions reductions estimates for
the Smog Check Contingency Measure in the applicable nonattainment
areas for the relevant NAAQS. Specifically, CARB contends that the EPA
should not have discounted the emissions reductions calculated for
implementation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure by the potentially
foregone emissions reductions calculated from the reduction in Carl
Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (``Carl Moyer
Program'') \12\ funding due to decreased funding from the Smog Check
abatement fee that would result from the narrowing of the Smog Check
inspection exemption for newer model year vehicles.\13\ CARB asserts
that the estimated potential loss in reductions from the foregone Carl
Moyer Program funding should not be factored into the estimated
reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Carl Moyer Program provides grant funding for cleaner-
than-required engines, equipment, and other sources of air
pollution. The Carl Moyer Program is implemented as a partnership
between CARB and California's 35 local air districts.
\13\ As explained on page 1 of the Smog Check Contingency
Measure SIP, the California Smog Check program allows vehicles eight
or less model-years old to be exempt from requirements for Smog
Check inspections. In lieu of an inspection, this law requires seven
and eight model-year old vehicles owners to pay an annual Smog
Abatement Fee of $25, $21 of which goes to the Air Pollution Control
Fund for use to incentivize clean vehicles and equipment through the
Carl Moyer Program. Narrowing of the inspection exemption for such
vehicles would reduce Smog Abatement fee funds collected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB explains that the estimated emissions reductions from the Smog
Check Contingency Measure are calculated from CARB's current baseline
SIP emissions inventory, while potential reductions from anticipated
future projects funded through the Carl Moyer Program are not accounted
for in baseline SIP inventories. Although the Smog Check Contingency
Measure's impact on funding for the Carl Moyer Program is described as
a potential emissions disbenefit, CARB indicates that the information
was included only to better inform the public of potential impacts and
should not be accounted for in the calculated emissions reductions for
the Smog Check Contingency Measure. CARB contends that the emissions
reductions listed in the table titled ``Potential Reductions from
Measure'' for each nonattainment area in Section 5 of the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP are the correct estimates for the Smog Check
Contingency Measure.
EPA Response to CARB Comment #2: We do not agree that the overall
estimate of emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency
Measure should not take into account reasonably foreseeable emissions
consequences. However, upon reconsideration, we agree with CARB that
the foregone emissions reductions calculated by CARB resulting from
reduced Carl Moyer Program funding should not be taken into account
when evaluating the emissions reductions from the Smog Check
Contingency Measure because the timing of the reduced funding and its
impact on emissions reductions would not occur during the two-year
implementation period for the Smog Check Contingency Measure.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For perspective, we note, based on CARB's estimated
emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure and
foregone emissions reductions from reduced Carl Moyer Program
funding presented in Section 5 of the Smog Check Contingency Measure
SIP, that the foregone emissions reductions are about one, to more
than two, orders of magnitude lower than the emissions reductions
from implementation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reduced funding that would follow the triggering of the
contingency measure would potentially affect emissions-reducing
projects three or more years following the triggering event, based on
the typical timeline for issuing grants and implementing emissions-
reducing projects using Carl Moyer Program funding. This conclusion is
based on information on implementation of the Carl Moyer Program
provided by CARB.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See email from Ariel Fideldy, Manager, CARB, dated February
16, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We, therefore, have re-published Table 2 from the proposed rule
without accounting for the predicted emissions impacts from
corresponding reductions in funds paid into the Carl Moyer Program, and
find the amounts in Table 2 to be reasonable estimates of the emissions
reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure for the applicable
nonattainment areas and relevant NAAQS.
Table 2--Revised Estimated Emissions Reductions From Smog Check Contingency Measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions reductions (tons per
day) \a\
Nonattainment area Applicable NAAQS Analysis year -------------------------------
NOX VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coachella Valley...................... 2008 Ozone NAAQS........ 2031 0.008 0.003
2015 Ozone NAAQS........ 2037 0.008 0.003
Eastern Kern County................... 2008 Ozone NAAQS........ 2026 0.003 0.001
[[Page 56226]]
2015 Ozone NAAQS........ 2032 0.003 0.001
Mariposa County....................... 2015 Ozone NAAQS........ 2026 0.0003 0.0001
Sacramento Metro...................... 2008 Ozone NAAQS........ 2024 0.077 0.037
2015 Ozone NAAQS........ 2032 0.047 0.015
San Diego County...................... 2008 Ozone NAAQS........ 2026 0.065 0.027
2015 Ozone NAAQS........ 2032 0.056 0.016
San Joaquin Valley.................... 1997 Ozone NAAQS........ 2023 0.112 0.056
2008 Ozone NAAQS........ 2031 0.079 0.025
2015 Ozone NAAQS........ 2037 0.076 0.024
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 2023 0.117 0.052
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 2024 0.120 0.052
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 2030 0.086 0.027
South Coast Air Basin................. 2008 Ozone NAAQS........ 2029 0.295 0.096
2015 Ozone NAAQS........ 2035 0.254 0.077
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 2030 0.300 0.093
Ventura County........................ 2015 Ozone NAAQS........ 2026 0.013 0.005
West Mojave Desert.................... 2008 Ozone NAAQS........ 2026 0.021 0.009
2015 Ozone NAAQS........ 2032 0.018 0.006
Western Nevada County................. 2015 Ozone NAAQS........ 2026 0.002 0.001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emissions estimates shown in this table are summarized from information presented in section 5 of the Smog
Check Contingency Measure SIP. For ozone nonattainment areas, the estimates represent summer planning season
values. For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the estimates represent annual average values.
Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1: Citing 40 CFR
52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)(2)(i), Valley EJ Organizations assert that CARB
submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to comply with a Court
order and the approved SIP, which require CARB to adopt and submit
contingency measures for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS meeting the
requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Act.\16\ Valley EJ
Organizations contend, however, that the EPA has proposed approval of
the Smog Check Revision without deciding whether the emissions
reductions the Smog Check Contingency Measure achieves comply with
either the EPA's current interpretation of the Act with respect to
contingency measures or the EPA's proposed Draft Revised Contingency
Measure Guidance. Valley EJ Organizations further assert that the EPA
fails to acknowledge or explain why it proposes to defer action for
contingency measures for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley when the EPA has already approved the 2007 Ozone Plan, including
contingency measures, and has approved the commitment by CARB to adopt
and submit the contingency measures.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The approved SIP in this instance refers to the San Joaquin
Valley 2007 Ozone Plan and related documents and includes a
commitment that CARB made to submit attainment contingency measures
for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
\17\ Valley EJ Organizations refer to the EPA's final action on
the San Joaquin Valley attainment plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
(2007 Ozone Plan) at 77 FR 12652, 12670 (March 1, 2012) and 40 CFR
52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1: The EPA agrees
that CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP for several
purposes. First, CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP
to address, in part, the contingency measure SIP requirements for
certain nonattainment areas for certain NAAQS. The relevant areas and
NAAQS that CARB addressed in the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP
include 10 nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, seven areas
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, two areas for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, one area for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and one
area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\18\ The San Joaquin Valley is the one
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to which the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to
respond to recent court actions to meet statutory deadlines related to
contingency measures.\19\ In connection with one of the recent court
actions, CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to
respond to a Court order \20\ compelling CARB to fulfill CARB's
commitment to develop, adopt and submit attainment contingency measures
\21\ meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) that the EPA
approved in connection with the approval of the San Joaquin Valley
ozone attainment plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\22\ In this final
action, we are not determining whether the Smog Check Contingency
Measure SIP fulfills CARB's commitment, but we are approving the Smog
Check Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency
measure for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, among other
areas and other NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, page 1.
\20\ Central California Environmental Justice Center v.
Randolph, E.D. Cal., 22-cv-01714, ECF Nos. #41 and #52.
\21\ Under CAA sections 172(c)(9), States required to make an
attainment plan SIP submission must include contingency measures to
be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP (``RFP contingency
measures'') or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date (``attainment contingency measures''). Unless
otherwise indicated, references to ``contingency measures'' in this
document do not distinguish between the two types of contingency
measures.
\22\ 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012); 40 CFR
52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our proposed rule, we acknowledged that we are not, in this
action, making a determination as to whether the State and relevant
District have fully met the contingency measure SIP requirements under
CAA sections 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) in any given area, but rather, we
explained that we are taking action to approve the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency measure
for the various nonattainment areas and NAAQS to which the SIP
applies.\23\ We indicated that we will be
[[Page 56227]]
acting on the full contingency measure SIP plan elements in the
relevant nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the respective areas
and NAAQS in separate rulemakings and will consider the emissions
reductions associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure in
conjunction with the reductions from other submitted contingency
measures, at that time.\24\ An example of such a separate rulemaking is
our recent proposed approval of the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
contingency measure SIP element in which we are proposing to approve
the components that comprise the contingency measure plan,
collectively, as meeting the requirements for contingency measures for
the San Joaquin Valley for the various PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA
section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014.\25\ As part of our evaluation and
proposed approval, we are taking into account the emissions reductions
presented in the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP for the San Joaquin
Valley for the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 88 FR 87981, page 87987.
\24\ Id., pages 87987 and 87988.
\25\ 88 FR 87988 (December 20, 2023).
\26\ 88 FR 87988, 88003-88005 (December 20, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have taken this approach of acting on the Smog Check Contingency
Measure as an individual contingency measure separately from acting on
the contingency measure element for each given nonattainment area,
consistent with CARB's conceptual design for the Smog Check Contingency
Measure SIP, which anticipates that the Smog Check Contingency Measure
would, if triggered, change the exemptions for motor vehicles under the
California Smog Check Program for the relevant local nonattainment area
and NAAQS, and that, together with the local air districts' contingency
measures, address the contingency measure requirements of the Act.\27\
In future actions, we will evaluate whether CARB and the relevant
District have addressed the full contingency measure SIP element
requirements of the CAA by considering the emissions reductions
attributed to the Smog Check Contingency Measure taken together with
each local air districts' additional submitted contingency measures,
along with any infeasibility justifications that may also be submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, pages 11 and 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our evaluation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as an
individual contingency measure included a review of the Smog Check
Contingency Measure itself for compliance with the requirements for
individual contingency measures as set forth in CAA sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. In short, we found that that the Smog
Check Contingency Measure is designed to be both prospective and
conditional, that the Smog Check Contingency Measure includes an
appropriate triggering mechanism, that the narrowing of the exemption
for newer vehicles from Smog Check inspections is not required for any
other CAA purpose, that the emissions reductions from the Smog Check
Contingency Measure are not included in any RFP or attainment
demonstration in any of the applicable nonattainment areas, that the
Smog Check Contingency Measure is structured so as to be implemented in
a timely manner without significant further action by the State or EPA
and that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is designed to achieve the
estimated emissions reductions within roughly a year of the triggering
event.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 88 FR 87981, pages 87985 and 87986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As summarized in CARB Comment #1, CARB has explained why the Smog
Check Contingency Measure is designed to achieve the estimated
emissions reductions within two years of the triggering event, but not
necessarily within a year of the triggering event. As discussed in EPA
Response to CARB Comment #1, we find CARB's explanation to be adequate
and that the timeline for achieving the emissions reductions from the
Smog Check Contingency Measure to be acceptable for the purposes of CAA
section 172(c)(9). For these reasons, we find that the Smog Check
Contingency Measure meets the requirements for individual contingency
measures.
With one exception, we expect the Smog Check Contingency Measure
SIP to be supplemented by additional SIP revisions that, considered
together, will be evaluated for compliance with the contingency measure
SIP element requirement for each nonattainment area and NAAQS to which
the Smog Check Contingency Measure applies. The one exception is the
San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
We acknowledge that, in the proposed rule, we did not include a
specific discussion of the implications of our proposed action with
respect to the contingency measure SIP planning requirements for the
1997 ozone NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley. Unlike the other
nonattainment areas, we also acknowledge that, as the EJ Valley
Organizations assert, the EPA has already taken action on the
contingency measure element for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.\29\ We approved the contingency measure element, in part, in
reliance on CARB's commitment to adopt and submit contingency measures
to comply with the contingency measure SIP requirements under CAA
section 172(c)(9) as those requirements relate to a potential failure
to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.\30\
CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to, among other
reasons, fulfill the commitment made by CARB in connection with the
EPA's approval of the San Joaquin Valley plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012).
\30\ 77 FR 12652, 12670 (March 1, 2012); 40 CFR
52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, we are approving the Smog Check Contingency Measure
as a contingency measure for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, along with the other areas and NAAQS. But, we will be taking
separate action on the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to evaluate
whether the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP fulfills the attainment-
related contingency measure requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9)
for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The CAA
establishes a deadline for EPA action on SIP submissions of 12 months
from the determination of completeness.\31\ We issued our completeness
determination for the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP in our
December 20, 2023 proposed rule.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ CAA section 110(k)(2).
\32\ 88 FR 87981, page 87982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valley EJ Organizations Comment #2: Valley EJ Organizations assert
that the EPA fails to decide whether the Smog Check Contingency Measure
SIP complies with the existing SIP and the CAA with respect to the
amount of emissions reductions achieved for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Citing CAA section 172(c)(9), the Valley EJ Organizations contend that
this violates the plain meaning of the Act's contingency measures
provision and is arbitrary and capricious because contingency measures
must be fully adopted, ready for implementation, and included in the
plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case
without further action by the State or the Administrator. The Valley EJ
Organizations also contend that the EPA must act on the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP so that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is
part of the plan, no further action by the EPA is pending, and the
measure is
[[Page 56228]]
ready for implementation upon a failure to attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, i.e., June 15, 2024. The Valley EJ Organizations assert that,
without EPA action to determine that the Smog Check Contingency Measure
SIP meets the requirements for contingency measures for San Joaquin
Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Smog Check Contingency Measure
will not be part of the SIP, not ready to take effect without further
action by the EPA, and not federally enforceable.
EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #2: As discussed in
more detail in EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1, the
EPA is taking action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP
as providing an individual contingency measure that meets the
applicable requirements for a contingency measure. As noted by the
Valley EJ Organizations, the EPA is not, in this action, determining
whether the San Joaquin Valley has met the contingency measure
requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. However, this does not mean that
the Smog Check Contingency Measure itself will not be approved as part
of the California SIP or federally enforceable.
Upon the effective date of our final action to approve the Smog
Check Contingency Measure SIP, the Smog Check Contingency Measure will
be federally enforceable as a part of the approved California SIP. This
means that the Smog Check Contingency Measure will be triggered in San
Joaquin Valley if the EPA determines that the San Joaquin Valley failed
to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2024, applicable
attainment date.
Our finding in this regard is based on the language in CARB
Resolution 23-20, adopting the Smog Check Contingency Measure as a
revision to the California SIP, conditioned upon the EPA's final
approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure as a contingency measure
under the CAA.\33\ In our action today, we are approving the Smog Check
Contingency Measure as a contingency measure under the CAA for the
various nonattainment areas and NAAQS addressed by the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ CARB Resolution 23-20 (October 26, 2023), page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valley EJ Organizations Comment #3: Valley EJ Organizations object
to the EPA's proposed approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure
SIP as arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion because the
emissions reductions associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure
for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS are far below the
magnitude of emissions reductions that Valley EJ Organizations assert
are required for San Joaquin Valley to meet the contingency measures
SIP requirement under the CAA. Valley EJ Organizations also object to
the proposed approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP on the
grounds that approval of the contingency measure with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS would violate the anti-backsliding bar in CAA section
110(l) by weakening the amount of reductions required by the commitment
CARB made, and EPA approved, as part of the San Joaquin Valley SIP for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. According to Valley EJ Organizations, the
commitment that CARB made in connection with the EPA's approval of the
San Joaquin Valley ozone SIP can only be achieved through contingency
measures that would achieve collectively one year's worth of RFP, the
EPA's interpretation (at the time of the EPA's approval of the
commitment) of the amount of emissions reductions contingency measures
should achieve to meet the CAA requirements for contingency measures
for a given nonattainment area. Under this premise, Valley EJ
Organizations contend that approval of the Smog Check Contingency
Measure, which would reduce emissions (if triggered) by far less than
one year's worth of RFP would be prohibited under CAA section 110(l).
In the alternative, Valley EJ Organizations assert that the EPA has
unlawfully and arbitrarily failed to consider and make a finding with
respect to whether the approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure
SIP with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard constitutes illegal
backsliding.
EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #3: As discussed in
more detail in EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1, the
EPA is taking action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP
as providing an individual contingency measure that meets the
applicable requirements for individual contingency measures. The EPA is
not, in this action, determining whether the San Joaquin Valley has
fully met the contingency measure requirements for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. Thus, the EPA has not yet determined whether the emissions
reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure suffice, on its own,
to meet the contingency measure requirements for the San Joaquin Valley
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We will be taking another separate action on
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and will evaluate the emissions
reductions associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure, as well
as CARB's infeasibility justification for adopting the Smog Check
Contingency Measure as the sole contingency measure for San Joaquin
Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, at that time.
Lastly, in our proposed rule, we did review the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP for compliance with CAA section 110(l).\34\ In
short, and in light of the scope of this rulemaking, i.e., to evaluate
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual
contingency measure, we found that the Smog Check Contingency Measure,
if triggered, would result in additional emissions reductions beyond
those included in the RFP and attainment demonstration for the
applicable nonattainment areas. Thus, we proposed to find that the
approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP itself is consistent
with CAA section 110(l) and would not interfere with RFP, attainment or
any other applicable requirement of the Act.\35\ We are finalizing that
finding in this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 88 FR 87981, page 87986.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVAQ Comment #1: CVAQ asserts that the EPA has no authority to
approve contingency measures that provide less than one year's worth of
RFP and has no authority to adopt a feasibility-based exemption that
conditions contingency measures on their technological or economic
infeasibility for polluters. CVAQ states that San Joaquin Valley
residents need measures that will result in significant reductions that
put health at the forefront, and the Smog Check Contingency Measure
would only reduce around 0.1 tpd of NOX or less in the San
Joaquin Valley. This is, according to CVAQ, especially problematic for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which the San Joaquin Valley will fail to
attain in six months, and the Smog Check Contingency Measure is the
only contingency measure California has adopted for that NAAQS. CVAQ
asserts that the EPA's interpretation of the contingency measure
requirements only benefits industry to the detriment of some of the
nation's most impacted communities, and that the EPA's actions run
counter to the Biden Administration's commitment to environmental
justice and Civil Rights.
EPA Response to CVAQ Comment #1: In this rulemaking, the EPA is
[[Page 56229]]
approving the Smog Check Contingency Measure as an individual
contingency measure because the measure has the necessary attributes of
a CAA contingency measure,\36\ but the EPA is not making any
determination in this action as to whether the Smog Check Contingency
Measure alone is sufficient to meet fully the contingency measure SIP
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014
in any particular nonattainment area for any particular NAAQS. As noted
in our proposed rule, we will be acting on the contingency measure SIP
plan elements in the relevant nonattainment plan SIP submissions for
the respective areas and NAAQS in separate rulemakings and will
consider the emissions reductions associated with the Smog Check
Contingency Measure at that time.\37\ In future actions on area-
specific contingency measure elements, the EPA will take into account
the amount of emissions reductions from the contingency measures for a
given area and evaluate the approvability of the contingency measure
element as a whole, including any relevant justifications for a
contingency measure or measures that does not, or do not, provide for
the recommended amount of emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ As discussed on pages 87985 and 87986 of our proposed rule,
the necessary attributes for individual contingency measures include
being designed to be prospective and conditional, to include
appropriate triggering mechanisms, to not being required for any
other CAA purpose, to being designed to be implemented in a timely
manner without significant further action by the State or the EPA,
and to achieve emissions reductions within a year or two of the
triggering event.
\37\ 88 FR 87981, pages 87987 and 87988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVAQ Comment #2: CVAQ contends that the Smog Check Contingency
Measure would impose the burden of compliance costs on San Joaquin
Valley residents who fall under the highest socioeconomic disadvantages
in the State, further contradicting the Biden Administration's
commitment to environmental justice and Civil Rights. CVAQ also
contends that adopting the proposed weak contingency measure goes
against this commitment by refusing to hold the region's largest
polluters accountable, discounting community priorities and continuing
racist polluting practices.
EPA Response to CVAQ Comment #2: The burden for compliance with the
Smog Check Contingency Measure would fall on owners of motor vehicles
seven or eight model years old. Using DMV vehicle registration data,
CARB staff found that, in all the subject nonattainment areas, the
proportion of vehicle owners potentially impacted in Disadvantaged
Communities (DACs) \38\ by the Smog Check Contingency Measure, if
triggered, is about equal to the proportion of vehicle owners
potentially impacted in the nonattainment area as a whole.\39\
According to CARB's findings, the burden of compliance and the
environmental benefits of the Smog Check Contingency Measure will not
disproportionately impact DACs in the nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ DAC is defined under State law, namely Senate Bill 535, as
census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in
CalEnviroScreen 4.0. See Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, page
18.
\39\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of CARB's evaluation of the impacts of the Smog Check
Contingency Measure, CARB noted that repair costs under the Smog Check
program vary, but generally cost $750 on average, which could be a
significant cost burden.\40\ However, CARB also noted that financial
assistance for repairs is available for income-eligible vehicle owners
through BAR's Consumer Assistance Program, which provides up to $1,200
for repair costs.\41\ To be eligible for financial assistance, a
vehicle owner must have a gross household income less than or equal to
225% of the Federal poverty level. This financial assistance program
should help to address CVAQ's concern about the burden of compliance
costs for those eligible households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id.
\41\ For more information, visit https://www.bar.ca.gov/consumer/consumer-assistance-program. In addition, the SJVUAPCD
operates its own ``Drive Clean in the San Joaquin'' program that
helps pay for Smog Check tests and repairs: https://ww2.valleyair.org/grants/drive-clean-in-the-san-joaquin/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
This document takes final action to approve the Smog Check
Contingency Measure SIP that CARB submitted to address, in part,
contingency measure SIP requirements for certain nonattainment areas in
California for the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Information on
ozone and PM2.5 and their relationship to negative health
impacts can be found on the EPA's website.
Environmental justice (EJ) is 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. As
explained in the EJ Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice 2022
document,\42\ the CAA provides States with the discretion to consider
environmental justice in developing rules and measures related to
nonattainment area SIP requirements, including contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ EPA, EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, May
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, CARB exercised this discretion and evaluated
environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submission.\43\
CARB analyzed whether there would be disproportionate impact on
disadvantaged communities within the affected nonattainment areas if
the contingency measure were triggered and analyzed the impacts of the
contingency measure on vehicle owners in disadvantaged communities.\44\
Based on the results of these analyses, CARB concluded that the Smog
Check Contingency Measure is consistent with CARB's environmental
justice policies and would not disproportionately impact people of any
race, culture, income, or national origin.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, Section 4.B (``Title VI
and Environmental Justice'').
\44\ Id, at pages 18-20.
\45\ CARB Resolution 23-20, October 26, 2023, page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing CARB's analysis, the EPA defers to CARB's reasonable
exercise of its discretion in considering EJ in this way. The EPA is
taking final action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP
because it meets minimum requirements pursuant to the CAA and relevant
implementing regulations. The EPA also finds that consideration of EJ
analyses in this context is reasonable. The EPA encourages air agencies
generally to evaluate environmental justice considerations of their
actions and carefully consider impacts to communities. The EJ analyses
submitted by CARB were considered but were not the basis for the EPA's
decision to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as meeting
the minimum applicable requirements.
IV. EPA Action
Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, and for the reasons
provided in our December 20, 2023 proposed rule and in the responses to
comments provided in this document, the EPA is taking final action to
approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and a related statutory
provision (i.e., California H&SC section 44011(a)(4)(A) and (B),
operative October 10, 2017). Our action is based on our finding that
the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP meets the applicable procedural
and substantive CAA requirements for SIP revisions; that the Smog Check
Contingency Measure itself meets applicable requirements for a valid
[[Page 56230]]
contingency measure under the CAA and the EPA's implementation
regulations; and that the Smog Check Contingency Measure would achieve
additional emissions reductions of NOX and VOC, if triggered
by certain EPA determinations, in Coachella Valley, Eastern Kern
County, Mariposa County, Sacramento Metro, San Diego County, San
Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Basin, Ventura County, West Mojave
Desert, and Western Nevada County.
We are not making any determination presently as to whether this
individual contingency measure is sufficient by itself for CARB and the
relevant air district to fully comply with the contingency measure
requirements in any specific nonattainment area or specific NAAQS under
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. We will be
acting on the contingency measure SIP plan elements in the relevant
nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the respective areas and NAAQS
in separate rulemakings and will consider the emissions reductions
associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure at that time. This
final action adds the Smog Check Contingency Measure and the related
statutory provision to the federally enforceable California SIP.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of
California Health & Safety Code section 44011(a)(4)(A) and (B), which
authorizes CARB to narrow the newer model vehicle Smog Check inspection
exemption. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion
in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference
by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections
110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking
of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves a State measure as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011) 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 an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, this action does not have Tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
Furthermore, 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.'' 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.''
CARB evaluated environmental justice considerations as part of its
SIP submission given that the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
reviewed and considered the air agency's evaluation of environmental
justice considerations of this action, as is described in Section III
(``Environmental Justice Considerations'') of this document, as part of
the EPA's review. 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 areas. In addition, 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 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 September 9, 2024. 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
[[Page 56231]]
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 25, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations 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 F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(613) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(613) The following plan was submitted electronically on November
13, 2023 by the Governor's designee as an attachment to a letter of the
same date.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional Materials.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) ``California Smog Check Contingency Measure State
Implementation Plan Revision,'' adopted on October 26, 2023.
(2) [Reserved]
(B) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
3. In Section 52.220a, amend paragraph (c), Table 1 by adding a heading
for ``Division 26 (Air Resources), Part 5 (Vehicular Air Pollution
Control), Chapter 5 (Motor Vehicle Inspection Program), Article 2
(Program Requirements)'' after the entry for ``41962''; and under the
new heading, adding an entry for ``44011(a)(4)(A) and (B)'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220a Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Table 1--EPA-Approved Statutes and State Regulations \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Additional
State citation Title/subject effective date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 26 (Air Resources), Part 5 (Vehicular Air Pollution Control), Chapter 5 (Motor Vehicle Inspection
Program), Article 2 (Program Requirements)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44011(a)(4)(A) and (B)......... Certificate of 10/10/2017 7/9/2024, [Insert Submitted on
compliance or Federal Register November 13, 2023
noncompliance; CITATION]. as an attachment
biennial requirement; to a letter of
exceptions; the same date.
inspections; exemption
from testing for
collector motor
vehicle.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 lists EPA-approved California statutes and regulations incorporated by reference in the applicable
SIP. Table 2 of paragraph (c) lists approved California test procedures, test methods and specifications that
are cited in certain regulations listed in Table 1. Approved California statutes that are nonregulatory or
quasi-regulatory are listed in paragraph (e).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-14355 Filed 7-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P