41818 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment because it 

simply promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. § 117.445 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.445 Franklin Canal. 

The draw of the Chatsworth Bridge, 

mile 4.8 at Franklin, shall open on 

signal from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. if at least 

one hour notice is given. From October 

1 through January 31 from 9 p.m. to 5 

a.m., the draw shall be opened on signal 

if at least three hours notice is given. 

From February 1 through September 30 

from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall 

open on signal if at least 12 hours notice 

is given. 

Dated: August 4, 2009. 

Mary E. Landry, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–19825 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0470; FRL–8946–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

California; Motor Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan revisions 

submitted by the State of California on 

June 5, 2009 relating to the State’s basic 

and enhanced vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program. EPA is also 

proposing to find, with two exceptions, 

that California’s program meets the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

EPA regulations for basic and enhanced 

I/M programs. EPA is making the 

proposed approval contingent upon 

California’s submittal of revisions to the 

enhanced program performance 

standard evaluations to address a 

different attainment year for the 

Western Mojave Desert 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area and to address 

California’s base-year program 

performance. If the necessary 

information is not provided, then EPA 

is proposing a partial approval and 

partial disapproval of California’s June 

5, 2009 I/M submittal. Under these 

circumstances, EPA is proposing 

approval of all of the submittal, except 

for the enhanced I/M performance 

standard evaluations for which EPA is 

proposing disapproval. The effect of this 

action would be to make the revisions 

federally enforceable as part of the 

California state implementation plan. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 18, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0470, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Jeffrey Buss (Air-2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41819 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http://

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov portal is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send e-mail directly to EPA 

without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disc or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov 

or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4152, buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of California Submittal 

III. EPA Review of the SIP Revision 

A. SIP Procedural Requirements 

B. Substantive I/M Requirements 

C. Section 110(l) of the Act 

IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The general purpose of motor vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (‘‘I/M’’) 

programs is to reduce emissions from 

in-use motor vehicles in need of repairs 

and thereby contribute to state and local 

efforts to improve air quality and to 

attain the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). 

California has operated an I/M 

program, also known as the ‘‘Smog 

Check’’ program, in certain areas of the 

state for over 20 years. Over these years, 

California has expanded both the 

geographical scope of the program and 

the types of vehicles covered by it. 

Under California law, the Bureau of 

Automotive Repair (BAR) is responsible 

for developing and implementing the 

State’s I/M program. The California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) is designated 

under California law as the agency 

responsible for the preparation of the 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

required by the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

‘‘Act’’). The I/M program is one of the 

many elements of the California SIP. 

The CAA, as amended in 1990, 

requires that certain urban areas adopt 

either ‘‘basic’’ or ‘‘enhanced’’ I/M 

programs, depending on the severity of 

their air quality problem and their 

population. CAA section 182(a)(2)(B) 

directs EPA to publish updated 

guidance for state I/M programs, taking 

into consideration the findings of EPA’s 

audits and investigations of these 

programs. The Act further directs that 

each area required to have an I/M 

program incorporate this guidance into 

its SIP. Based on these CAA 

requirements, EPA promulgated I/M 

regulations on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 

51950), as corrected at 58 FR 59366 

(November 9, 1993) and at 59 FR 32343 

(June 23, 1994). EPA’s I/M regulations 

are codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

S (‘‘Inspection/Maintenance Program 

Requirements’’), sections 51.350 

through 51.373. 

The I/M regulations establish 

minimum performance standards for 

‘‘basic’’ and ‘‘enhanced’’ I/M programs 

as well as requirements for the 

following: Network type and program 

evaluation; adequate tools and 

resources; test frequency and 

convenience; vehicle coverage; test 

procedures and standards; test 

equipment; quality control; waivers and 

compliance via diagnostic inspection; 

motorist compliance enforcement 

program oversight; quality assurance; 

enforcement against contractors, 

stations and inspectors; data collection; 

data analysis and reporting; inspector 

training and licensing or certification; 

public information and consumer 

protection; improving repair 

effectiveness; compliance with recall 

notices; on-road testing; SIP revisions; 

and implementation deadlines. 

The performance standard for basic 

I/M programs remains the same as it has 

been since EPA’s initial I/M policy was 

established in 1978, pursuant to the 

1977 CAA amendments. The 

performance standard for enhanced I/M 

programs was established in 1992 

pursuant to the 1990 CAA amendments 

and is based on a high-technology 

transient test, known as IM240, for 1986 

and later model year vehicles, including 

a transient loaded exhaust short test 

incorporating hydrocarbons (HC), 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and carbon 

monoxide (CO) cutpoints, an 

evaporative system integrity (pressure) 

test and an evaporative system 

performance (purge) test. 

As a general matter, ‘‘basic’’ and 

‘‘enhanced’’ I/M programs both achieve 

their objective by identifying vehicles 

that have high emissions as a result of 

one or more malfunctions, and requiring 

them to be repaired. An ‘‘enhanced’’ 

program covers more of the vehicles in 

operation, employs inspection methods 

which are better at finding high emitting 

vehicles, and has additional features to 

better assure that all vehicles are tested 

properly and effectively repaired. 

Under subparts 2 and 3 of Part D, title 

I of the Act, as amended in 1990, any 

area having a 1980 Bureau of Censusdefined (Census-defined) urbanized area 

population of 200,000 or more and 

either: (1) Designated nonattainment for 

ozone and classified as serious or worse 

or (2) designated as nonattainment for 

CO and classified as moderate with a 

design value greater than 12.7 parts per 

million (‘‘ppm’’) or serious must 

implement enhanced I/M in the 1990 

Census-defined urbanized area. CAA 

sections 182(c)(3), 182(d), 182(e), 

187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1). The Act requires 

basic I/M programs to be implemented 

in 1990 Census-defined urbanized areas 

within moderate ozone nonattainment 

areas. CAA section 182(b)(4). Any area 

classified as marginal ozone 

nonattainment or moderate CO 

nonattainment with a design value of 

12.7 ppm or less must continue 

operating I/M programs that were part of 

its approved SIP at the time of the 1990 

Act Amendments or implement any 

previously required program, and must 

update the program to meet the basic 

I/M requirements set forth in 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart S. CAA sections 

182(a)(2)(B) and 187(a)(4). 

In response to the various ozone and 

CO nonattainment area designations 

established for California in the wake of 

the 1990 CAA Amendments, BAR made 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41820 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1For carbon monoxide, in a 2007 final action 

redesignating the South Coast to ‘‘attainment’’ for 

the carbon monoxide NAAQS, we approved 

California’s demonstration that the State’s I/M 

program meets the alternate ‘‘low’’ enhanced I/M 

performance standard in the South Coast under 

CAA section 187(a)(6) and 40 CFR 51.351(g). See 72 

FR 26718 (May 11, 2007). In our 2007 redesignation 

rule, we indicated that the State’s I/M program 

submittal of January 22, 1996 remains an approved 

part of the SIP. See 72 FR 26718, at 26719. 

2 In 2008 we lowered the 8-hour ozone standard 

to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

The references to the 8-hour standard in this 

proposed rule are to the 1997 standard as codified 

at 40 CFR 50.10. EPA has not yet completed the 

designation and classification process for the 2008 

standard. 

significant changes to the California I/M 

program during the early 1990s, 

culminating in a complete I/M SIP 

submittal dated January 22, 1996. 

On January 8, 1997, we approved the 

California I/M statutes and regulations 

submitted on January 22, 1996 as 

strengthening the SIP and contributing 

specific emission reductions toward the 

progress, attainment, and maintenance 

requirements of the Act. See 62 FR 

1150, at 1168. We also approved the 

California I/M program, statutes and 

regulations submitted on January 22, 

1996, as meeting the requirements of 

section 182(b)(4) of the Act for basic 

I/M in applicable areas of the State 

classified as moderate for ozone and as 

meeting the requirements of section 

187(a)(4) for the following areas of the 

State classified as moderate for CO with 

design values less than 12.7 ppm: 

Fresno, Sacramento, Modesto, Chico, 

Stockton and San Diego. 

We also granted interim approval, to 

last no more than 18 months, to the 

California I/M submittal of January 22, 

1996, as meeting the requirements of 

section 182(c)(3) of the CAA for 

enhanced I/M in applicable areas of the 

State classified as serious and above for 

ozone, and the requirements of section 

187(a)(6) of the Act for enhanced I/M in 

the South Coast, which was classified at 

the time as a ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment 

area for CO. By the end of the 18-month 

period, California was to complete and 

submit a demonstration that the 

emissions reductions claimed by 

California for the enhanced I/M program 

were appropriate. California did not 

submit such a demonstration and thus 

the interim approval for the enhanced 

I/M program as meeting the CAA 

requirements under section 182(c)(3) for 

ozone and section 187(a)(6) for CO 

expired on August 7, 1998. See 40 CFR 

52.241. Since August 7, 1998, with 

respect to ozone,1 the California SIP no 

longer meets the specific requirements 

of the Act relating to enhanced I/M, but 

the State’s I/M statutes and regulations 

remain in the SIP. 62 FR at 1168. 

As approved in 1997, the California 

I/M program is implemented on a 

county-by-county basis as: (1) A high 

enhanced biennial program; (2) a basic 

biennial program; or (3) a requirement 

only upon change of ownership. For 

counties in California, the type of I/M 

program in effect varies depending upon 

air quality designations and whether the 

area is urbanized. 

California’s basic program is a 

decentralized test-and-repair program 

utilizing two-speed idle testing. 

California’s enhanced program is a 

hybrid program consisting of a network 

of test-only testing stations as well as 

privately operated test-and-repair 

testing stations. Approximately 15 

percent of the dirtiest vehicles, based 

upon high-emitter profile and remote 

sensing results as well as other factors, 

are targeted for test-only inspection. All 

vehicles in the enhanced areas are 

subject to loaded-mode testing. 

Licensing requirements for technicians 

are more stringent and the frequency of 

enforcement related activities such as 

on-road testing are greater in enhanced 

areas than in basic areas. The two 

programs are essentially the same in all 

other respects. 

The approved California I/M program 

was intended to meet the requirements 

of EPA’s original 1992 I/M regulations 

(as corrected in 1993 and 1994). EPA 

has subsequently revised the I/M 

regulations a number of times. The 

revisions include: 

• Revision of I/M SIP requirements 

for certain areas subject to basic I/M that 

otherwise qualify for redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

carbon monoxide or ozone NAAQS, 

allowing such areas to defer adoption 

and implementation of certain I/M 

requirements. See 60 FR 1735 (January 

5, 1995); 

• Establishment of an additional, less 

stringent enhanced I/M performance 

standard (known as the alternate ‘‘low’’ 

enhanced performance standard) for 

certain areas, revision of the ‘‘high’’ 

enhanced I/M performance standard to 

include additional inspection 

requirements for light-duty vehicles and 

light duty trucks, and revisions to 

waiver repair cost requirements. See 60 

FR 48029 (September 18, 1995); 

• Establishment of minimum 

requirements for inspecting vehicles 

equipped with on-board diagnostic 

systems as part of the inspections 

required in basic and enhanced I/M 

programs. See 61 FR 40940 (August 6, 

1996), as amended at 61 FR 44119 

(August 27, 1996); 63 FR 24429 (May 4, 

1998); (April 5, 2001); 

• Revisions to provide additional 

flexibility to state I/M programs by, 

among other things, modifying the 

enhanced I/M performance standard 

modeling requirements; providing states 

greater flexibility in how they meet the 

performance standard; and removing the 

I/M rule provision establishing the 

decentralized, test-and-repair credit 

discount. See 65 FR 45526 (July 24, 

2000); 

• Revision and simplification of 

certain provisions related to onboard 

diagnostic (OBD) inspections including 

the failure criteria for the OBD–I/M 

check. See 66 FR 18156 (April 5, 2001); 

and 

• Revision of the I/M regulation to 

update the submission and 

implementation deadlines and other 

timing-related requirements to more 

appropriately reflect the 

implementation schedule for meeting 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 67 FR 

17705 (April 7, 2006). 

A more detailed description of these 

revisions can be found in the technical 

support document (TSD) for this 

proposal. 

The approved California I/M program 

was developed in response to 

nonattainment designations 

promulgated under the CAA, as 

amended in 1990, for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS (as well as for the CO NAAQS). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 

8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm to 

replace the 1-hour ozone standard.2 In 

2004, EPA designated all areas of the 

country for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) and 

40 CFR part 81, subpart C. EPA revoked 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS effective June 

15, 2005. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 

2004) and 40 CFR 50.9(b). 

We promulgated in two phases the 

final rules to implement the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The Phase 1 rule, which 

was issued on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 

23951), establishes, among other things, 

the classification structure and 

corresponding attainment deadlines, as 

well as the anti-backsliding principles 

for the transition from the 1-hour ozone 

standard to the 8-hour ozone standard. 

I/M programs are among the ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ subject to the antibacksliding principles, which means 

that I/M programs continue to apply in 

an eight-hour ozone nonattainment area 

after revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS to 

the extent that I/M programs were 

required in the area by virtue of the 

area’s previous designation and 

classification for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.905. 

The Phase 2 rule, which was issued 

on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), 

addresses the remaining SIP obligations 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41821 

3To be redesignated from ‘‘nonattainment’’ to 

‘‘attainment,’’ an area must have an approved 

maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) 

and must adopt as contingency measures all 

measures with respect to the control of the air 

pollutant concerned which were contained in the 

SIP for the area before redesignation of the area as 

an attainment area but that are subsequently 

repealed or relaxed. See CAA section 175A(d). For 

all 11 California CO ‘‘maintenance’’ areas, the 

California I/M program as approved by EPA in 

1997, as modified for the South Coast through EPA 

approval of the South Coast CO redesignation 

request in 2007, constitutes the applicable measure 

in the SIP for the purposes of CAA section 175A(d). 

We are, however, not requiring California to adopt 

a commitment to reinstitute the 1997 SIP version 

of the I/M program as a contingency measure for the 

11 California carbon monoxide ‘‘maintenance’’ 

areas based on our finding (in section III.C. of this 

document) that the net effect of the changes in the 

I/M program under the 2009 I/M Revision would be 

beneficial from an emissions reduction standpoint. 

including the requirements for vehicle 

I/M programs. 

In section II of this document, we 

describe the major changes in 

California’s I/M program relative to the 

existing SIP-approved I/M program. In 

section III of this document, we evaluate 

the changes in light of the revisions to 

our I/M regulations, the 8-hour ozone 

designations, and the anti-backsliding 

principles in EPA’s Phase 1 rule. 

II. Summary of the California Submittal 

On June 5, 2009, CARB submitted the 

Revised State Implementation Plan for 

California’s Motor Vehicle Inspection & 

Maintenance Program (release date 

April 7, 2009) (‘‘2009 I/M Revision’’) as 

a revision to the California SIP. The 

June 5, 2009 submittal includes a copy 

of the 2009 I/M Revision itself plus 12 

attachments; a letter dated July 16, 2007 

from Sherry Mehl, BAR Chief, to Mary 

D. Nichols, CARB Chairman, 

committing BAR to work with CARB to 

obtain additional emissions reductions 

through changes to the I/M program as 

outlined in the State Strategy for the 

2007 SIP; CARB Executive Order S–09– 

008 adopting the 2009 I/M Revision; 

public process documentation 

(including public comments); and tables 

listing the changes made to California’s 

I/M statutes and BAR’s I/M regulations 

from 1995 through 2008, accompanied 

by supporting procedural 

documentation for the regulatory 

changes. 

Attachments to the 2009 I/M Revision 

include: Listing of Smog Check 

Programs Laws and Regulations; Map of 

Program Areas; List of Zip Codes by 

Program Area; Enhanced I/M 

Performance Modeling Files; Basic I/M 

Performance Modeling files; Fund 

Condition for Vehicle Inspection and 

Repair Fund (VIRF) and High Polluter 

Repair or Removal Account (HPRRA); 

Vehicle Model Years Subject to Smog 

Check; Estimate of the California Fleet 

Subject to Smog Check Program in 2008; 

the DMV Handbook of Vehicle 

Registration Procedures, Chapter 21; 

BAR–97 Revised Emission Inspection 

System Specifications (December 2002); 

Draft Smog Check Inspection Manual; 

and the Low Pressure Fuel Evaporative 

Tester (LPFET) Specification. 

The 2009 I/M Revision reflects many 

changes to the program relative to the 

existing SIP I/M program. The most 

significant changes include: 

• Many areas have opted into the 

enhanced I/M program. Such areas, 

referred to as ‘‘partially enhanced’’ 

areas, are subject to the same 

requirements as enhanced I/M areas 

except that no vehicles are directed to 

have their biennial inspection 

performed at a test-only station; 

• California has expanded the 

existing exemption for older vehicles 

from the biennial inspection 

requirement to include vehicles 

between model years 1966 through 1975 

and has added a new exemption, with 

certain exceptions, for vehicles six or 

less model-years old; 

• Since 1998, California has 

conducted random roadside pullover 

inspections in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.351(b); 

• Since 2002, California has 

inspected 1996 and later OBD-equipped 

vehicles in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.351(c) and 40 CFR 51.352(c); 

• California has replaced the BAR–90 

specification for I/M emissions 

inspection systems with updated BAR– 

97 specifications; and 

• Lastly, the I/M program has been 

revised to include improved quality 

control methods, data collection 

systems, and more stringent 

requirements for certified technicians 

and instructors who provide training/ 

retraining to technicians. 

III. EPA Review of the SIP Revision 

A. SIP Procedural Requirements 

CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) 

require that revisions to a SIP be 

adopted by the State after reasonable 

notice and public hearing. EPA has 

promulgated specific procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions in 40 

CFR part 51, subpart F. These 

requirements include publication of 

notices, by prominent advertisement in 

the relevant geographic area, of a public 

hearing on the proposed revisions, a 

public comment period of at least 30 

days, and an opportunity for a public 

hearing. 

CARB’s June 5, 2009 SIP revision 

submittal includes public process 

documentation for all of the specific 

changes in BAR regulations from 1995 

through 2008. In addition, the SIP 

revision includes documentation of a 

duly noticed public hearing held by 

BAR on May 7, 2009 on the proposed 

2009 I/M Revision. The following 

month, CARB adopted the 2009 I/M 

Revision as a revision to the California 

SIP and submitted it to EPA for action 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k) of the 

Act. We find that the process followed 

by BAR and CARB in adopting the 2009 

I/M Revision complies with the 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions under CAA section 110 and 

EPA’s implementing regulations. 

B. Substantive I/M Requirements 

EPA’s requirements for basic and 

enhanced I/M programs are found in 40 

CFR part 51, Subpart S. The SIP revision 

submitted by the State must be 

consistent with these requirements as 

well as meeting EPA’s requirements for 

enforceability and section 110(l) 

requirements of the CAA. With the 

exception of our review of the 2009 

I/M Revision under CAA section 110(l) 

(see section III.C. of this document), we 

are limiting the review of the I/M 

changes submitted as part of the 2009 

I/M Revision to ozone because 

California no longer has any CO 

nonattainment areas.3 More details on 

our review of the 2009 

I/M Revision and the substantive 

program element requirements in part 

51, subpart S are provided in the TSD 

prepared for this proposed action. 

1. Applicability 

Under 40 CFR 51.350, states may be 

required to operate either an enhanced 

or basic I/M program in each of their 

ozone nonattainment areas, depending 

upon the population and nonattainment 

classification of that area. Any area 

designated and classified as serious or 

worse nonattainment for an ozone 

NAAQS, and having a 1980 Censusdefined urbanized area population of 

200,000 or more, must implement 

enhanced I/M in the 1990 Censusdefined urbanized area. Any area 

classified moderate ozone 

nonattainment must implement basic 

I/M in any 1990 Census-defined 

urbanized area with a population of 

200,000 or more. Any area classified as 

marginal ozone nonattainment must 

continue to operate I/M programs that 

were part of the SIP prior to the 1990 

CAA Amendments and must update 

these programs to meet EPA’s basic I/M 

requirements. Any marginal ozone 

nonattainment area that had been 

required to have an I/M program under 

the Act, as in effect before the 1990 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41822 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

4We also redesignated ‘‘East Kern County’’ as 

‘‘attainment’’ for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS effective 

June 21, 2004, several days after the effective date 

for our 8-hour ozone designations (June 15, 2004), 

and thus too late for anti-backsliding purposes. 

Amendments, must also implement a 

basic I/M program. 

Under 40 CFR 51.350, I/M program 

areas must nominally cover at least the 

entire urbanized area, based on the 1990 

census. Exclusion of some urban 

population is allowed, however, as long 

as an equal number of non-urban 

residents of the same metropolitan 

statistical area (MSA) are included in 

the program to compensate. I/M SIPs 

must describe the applicable areas in 

detail and, consistent with 40 CFR 

51.372, must include the legal authority 

or rules necessary to establish program 

boundaries. 

Applicability for the approved I/M 

SIP is set forth in California Health & 

Safety Code (H&SC) sections 44003 and 

44004. Since development of the 

approved I/M SIP, circumstances have 

changed in several ways that might 

affect geographic applicability of the 

basic and/or enhanced I/M requirement. 

First, several areas of California have 

been reclassified to higher 

classifications for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, including Sacramento (serious 

to severe) and San Joaquin Valley 

(serious to severe to extreme). None of 

these reclassifications changed the I/M 

program requirement for the area since 

all such areas were already subject to 

the enhanced I/M requirement, and in 

any event, the H&SC statutory 

provisions cited above are drafted to 

automatically apply to ozone areas that 

are classified as serious or above. 

According to the 2009 I/M Revision, the 

state continues to implement enhanced 

I/M in the urbanized areas within the 

South Coast Air Basin, Sacramento 

Metro, San Joaquin Valley, Western 

Mojave Desert, Coachella Valley, and 

Ventura County. 

Second, we redesignated a number of 

areas to ‘‘attainment’’ for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. These include 

the Monterey Bay Area, San Diego 

County, and Santa Barbara County.4 The 

consequence of redesignation for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS prior to the 

effective date of designation under the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS is that I/M is no 

longer an ‘‘applicable requirement’’ for 

the area for anti-backsliding purposes 

under our Phase 1 implementation rule 

for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For such 

areas that are designated as 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for the 

8-hour ozone standard (Monterey Bay 

Area and Santa Barbara County), a state 

may request that I/M be shifted to 

contingency measures, consistent with 

sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act, but 

cannot remove the obligation from the 

SIP entirely. See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4). 

For such areas designated as 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard (San Diego County), the state 

must continue to implement I/M to the 

extent I/M is required under the existing 

SIP. See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(2). According 

to the 2009 SIP Revision, the state 

continues to implement basic I/M in 

Monterey Bay Area and Santa Barbara 

County and continues to operate 

enhanced I/M in the urbanized area 

within San Diego County. 

Lastly, we have promulgated area 

designations and classifications for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. In California, we 

maintained the same geographic 

boundaries for nonattainment areas 

under the 8-hour ozone standard as 

under the 1-hour ozone standard. For 

California nonattainment areas under 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, our 

classifications under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS are the same or lower than 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and 

thus the I/M requirement that had 

applied by virtue of the 1-hour ozone 

classification remains applicable under 

anti-backsliding principles. We did, 

however, designate several California 

areas as ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS that had not been so 

designated under the 1-hour standard or 

that had been redesignated to 

‘‘attainment’’ prior to the 8-hour ozone 

designations. All of these new 

nonattainment areas have not yet been 

classified under subpart 2 of title I of the 

CAA (i.e., as marginal, moderate, 

serious, etc.). EPA has issued a 

proposed rule seeking comment on our 

proposed reclassification of these 

nonattainment areas under subpart 2 (74 

FR 2936, Jan. 16, 2009), but until we 

finalize this action, these new areas are 

not subject to I/M program requirements 

under the 8-hour NAAQS. These new 

areas include Amador County, Calaveras 

County, San Diego County, Mariposa 

County, Tuolumne County, Sutter 

Buttes, and Western Nevada County. 

Nonetheless, although it is not yet 

required to do so under the CAA, the 

state already implements basic I/M in 

Western Nevada County. 

Two other 8-hour ozone designations 

of note include Imperial County 

(moderate) and the San Francisco Bay 

Area (marginal). With respect to the 

former, as a moderate ozone 

nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, but a ‘‘section 185A’’ area 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, basic 

I/M would be a new applicable 

requirement for Imperial County but for 

the population criterion. Based on its 

limited population, there is no I/M 

requirement for Imperial County. With 

respect to the San Francisco Bay Area, 

as a ‘‘marginal’’ ozone area under the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and a ‘‘not 

classified’’ nonattainment area under 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

implementation of a basic I/M program 

is now a requirement because the area 

had been subject to the I/M requirement 

prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments. However, under H&SC 

44003.5, which is cited in the 2009 I/M 

Revision, the State of California has 

already chosen to implement not just 

basic, but enhanced, I/M in the San 

Francisco Bay Area and thereby exceeds 

the requirements of the Act and EPA’s 

regulations. 

The 2009 I/M Revision includes an 

updated description of the applicability 

of the I/M program within the State of 

California along with updated maps and 

a list of each zip code, with the 

corresponding I/M program 

implemented therein. Upon review of 

these materials against the requirements 

under the Act and EPA’s regulations, we 

find that California continues to apply 

the appropriate type of I/M in the 

appropriate urbanized areas and has 

chosen to extend I/M into many other 

areas where it is not expressly required, 

to meet broader air quality attainment 

goals. Thus, we propose to find that the 

state’s I/M program, as revised by the 

2009 I/M Revision, continues to meet 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.350. 

2. High Enhanced I/M Performance 

Standard 

Under 40 CFR 51.351(f), enhanced 

I/M programs must be designed and 

implemented to meet or exceed a 

minimum performance standard. This 

performance standard is expressed as 

emission levels in area-wide average 

grams per mile (gpm), achieved from 

highway mobile sources as a result of a 

specified model I/M program design. 

The emission levels achieved by the 

state’s program design must be 

calculated using the most current 

version, at the time of submittal, of the 

EPA mobile source emission factor 

model and must meet or exceed the 

emission reductions achieved by the 

performance standard program both in 

operation and for SIP approval. For 

subject ozone nonattainment areas, the 

performance standard must be met for 

both NOX and VOC unless a NOX waiver 

has been approved for the area. 

Enhanced I/M program areas must be 

shown to obtain the same or lower 

emission levels as the model program 

described in section 51.351(f) by 

January 1, 2002 and must demonstrate 

through modeling the ability to 

maintain this level of emission 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41823 

5Through a SIP submittal dated November 16, 

2007, CARB requested reclassification of San 

Joaquin Valley to ‘‘extreme.’’ Through a SIP 

submittal dated November 28, 2007, CARB 

requested reclassification of South Coast Air Basin 

and Coachella Valley to ‘‘extreme’’ and ‘‘severe-15,’’ 

respectively. By letter dated February 14, 2008, 

CARB requested reclassification of Ventura County 

(to ‘‘serious’’), Sacramento Metro (to ‘‘severe-15’’), 

and Western Mojave Desert (to ‘‘severe-17’’). 

6We note that CARB’s enhanced I/M modeling 

evaluations indicate California’s enhanced program 

will achieve emission reductions generally 

exceeding the EPA performance standards by 3% to 

10% for VOCs and by 5% to 22% for NOX, in the 

horizon year for each area. See main body of 2009 

I/M Revision, pp. 4–12, and attachment 4 

(‘‘Enhanced I/M Performance Modeling Files’’). 

7CARB’s modeling evaluation for the Western 

Mojave Desert area demonstrates that by year 2020, 

California’s enhanced I/M program will achieve 

emissions reductions exceeding the EPA 

performance standards by at least 5% for VOCs and 

17% for NOX. See main body of 2009 I/M Revision, 

pg. 10, and attachment 4 (‘‘Enhanced I/M 

Performance Modeling Files’’). 

reduction (or better) through their 

attainment deadline for the applicable 

NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.351(f)(13). 

The 2009 I/M Revision includes high 

enhanced I/M performance standard 

evaluations for the urbanized areas 

within eight ozone nonattainment areas: 

the South Coast Air Basin, San Joaquin 

Valley, Sacramento Metro, Coachella 

Valley, Ventura County, Western 

Mojave Desert, San Diego County, and 

the San Francisco Bay Area. See main 

body of 2009 I/M Revision, pages 2 

through 12, and attachment 4 

(‘‘Enhanced I/M Performance Modeling 

Files’’). The latter two areas, San Diego 

County and the San Francisco Bay Area, 

are not subject to the enhanced I/M 

performance standard requirement 

under the Act or EPA’s regulations, and 

thus, we have not reviewed the 

submitted performance evaluations for 

these areas for compliance with 40 CFR 

51.351(f) in this action. 

For the six California areas subject to 

the high enhanced I/M requirement, the 

2009 I/M Revision presents a 

comparison of the percent emissions 

reduction achieved under the EPA 

model enhanced I/M program (relative 

to the no I/M scenario) in 2002 for VOC 

and NOx with the corresponding percent 

emissions reduction achieved under the 

California enhanced I/M program in the 

year before the attainment year. For 

South Coast Air Basin and San Joaquin 

Valley, the ‘‘year before the attainment 

year’’ corresponds to year 2023 based on 

the state’s previous requests to reclassify 

these two areas to ‘‘extreme’’ for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Also based on the 

state’s previous reclassification requests, 

the ‘‘year before the attainment year’’ for 

Western Mojave Desert, Sacramento 

Metro, Coachella Valley, and Ventura 

County corresponds to 2020 (severe 17), 

2018 (severe 15), 2018 (severe 15), and 

2012 (serious), respectively.5 As shown 

in the summary tables on pages 4 

through 12, the 2009 I/M Revision 

shows that the California enhanced I/M 

program would achieve greater percent 

emissions reductions (relative to the no 

I/M scenario) for VOC and NOx in each 

of the six areas in the year before the 

attainment year than the corresponding 

percent emissions reductions under the 

EPA model enhanced I/M program in 

2002. 

With two exceptions discussed below, 

we find the high enhanced I/M 

performance standard evaluations in the 

2009 I/M Revision to be acceptable. This 

conclusion is based on a review of the 

modeling files for each of these areas 

and our conclusion that the state’s 

reliance on its reclassification requests 

to identify the horizon years for the 

performance standard evaluations is 

appropriate given that EPA is required 

to grant such requests under CAA 

section 181(b)(3). However, a base year 

modeling run is also required for the six 

subject areas under the California 

enhanced I/M program to allow for a 

more definitive conclusion that the 

California enhanced I/M program 

obtained the same or lower emission 

levels as the EPA model program by 

January 1, 2002, and that the California 

program will maintain this level of 

emission reduction (or better) through 

the applicable 8-hour ozone attainment 

deadlines. With only a horizon year 

modeling run, a conclusion to this effect 

can be inferred but is not definitive. 

In addition, EPA interprets CAA 

section 181(b)(3) as disallowing state 

requests to reclassify ozone 

nonattainment areas to ‘‘severe-17,’’ 

which is the basis for the state’s choice 

of 2020 as the horizon year for 

performance modeling for Western 

Mojave Desert. As such, the state must 

select a more appropriate horizon year 

for this area, such as 2009 (based on its 

current classification as ‘‘moderate’’ for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS) or some other 

horizon year pending a revised 

reclassification request for Western 

Mojave Desert. 

Thus, we are making our proposed 

approval of the 2009 I/M Revision as 

meeting the enhanced I/M program 

requirement contingent upon receipt of: 

(1) base year performance modeling 

runs for the six subject areas under the 

California enhanced I/M program, and 

(2) a revised enhanced I/M performance 

standard evaluation using an 

appropriate attainment year for the 

Western Mojave Desert area. 

Preliminary modeling analyses of the 

enhanced program in the South Coast 

Air Basin in year 2002 indicate that 

California’s program achieved emission 

reductions equivalent to EPA’s model 

program by January 1, 2002. See the 

TSD for more information. Given this, 

we expect the modeling evaluations for 

other nonattainment areas subject to the 

enhanced program will also 

demonstrate equivalence with the 

model program in year 2002.6 We also 

expect that a revised modeling 

evaluation for the Western Mojave 

Desert area based on an appropriate 

attainment year will demonstrate 

compliance with EPA’s enhanced I/M 

performance standard in that area, given 

the emission reductions demonstrated 

in CARB’s submittal.7 We propose to 

fully approve the 2009 I/M Revision if 

we receive the required data to support 

these conclusions. If, however, the 

required modeling data is not provided, 

we plan to take final action approving 

all of the 2009 I/M Revision except for 

the enhanced I/M performance 

evaluation, as SIP strengthening, and 

disapproving the submitted enhanced I/ 

M performance evaluation as failing to 

meet the requirements of section 

182(c)(3) of the Act and 40 CFR 

51.351(f). We will notify the public of 

any additional information that is 

provided to address these issues. 

3. Basic I/M Performance Standard 

Under 40 CFR 51.352, basic I/M 

programs must be designed and 

implemented to meet or exceed a 

minimum performance standard. The 

nature of the performance standard 

evaluation for basic I/M is similar to 

that described above for enhanced I/M, 

except that the model program for basic 

I/M is less stringent in many ways 

relative to the model program for 

enhanced I/M. 

The 2009 I/M Revision includes basic 

I/M performance standard evaluations 

for seven ozone nonattainment areas: 

East Kern County, Sutter Buttes (Sutter 

County), Western Nevada County and 

Chico (Butte County), and the nonurbanized portions of San Joaquin 

Valley, San Diego County and Western 

Mojave Desert. See the main body of the 

2009 I/M Revision beginning on page 13 

through page 21, and attachment 5 

(‘‘Basic I/M Performance Modeling 

Files’’). None of these areas is subject to 

the basic I/M performance standard 

requirement under the Act or EPA’s 

regulations, and thus we have not 

reviewed the submitted performance 

evaluations for compliance with 40 CFR 

51.352 in this action. 

As noted above under section III.B.2 

of this document, however, the San 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41824 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

8All test stations are subject to this requirement, 

except that the hardware and the software necessary 

to conduct dynamometer based, loaded-mode 

emissions are required only in enhanced areas. 

Francisco Bay Area is subject to the 

‘‘basic’’ I/M requirement by virtue of its 

classification as ‘‘marginal’’ for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and the fact that the 

area had been subject to the I/M 

requirement prior to the 1990 Clean Air 

Act Amendments. The 2009 I/M 

Revision presents an enhanced I/M 

performance evaluation for the San 

Francisco Bay Area that shows the 

California enhanced I/M program 

achieves the same or better percent 

emissions reductions in year 2006 as 

compared to the Federal model 

enhanced I/M program in 2002. In 

contrast, under 40 CFR 51.352(e), the 

comparison should be a direct 

comparison of the California I/M 

program in the San Francisco Bay Area 

versus the Federal model basic I/M 

program in year 2010 (i.e., six years after 

designation). Nonetheless, the showing 

in the 2009 I/M Revision that 

California’s I/M program, as 

implemented in the San Francisco Bay 

Area, essentially meets the EPA 

enhanced I/M model program provides 

sufficient demonstration that 

California’s I/M program, as 

implemented in the San Francisco Bay 

Area, at the very least meets the EPA 

basic I/M model and thus meets the 

basic I/M performance evaluation 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.352(e). 

4. Vehicle Coverage 

Under 40 CFR 51.356, the 

performance standard for enhanced I/M 

programs assumes coverage of all 1968 

and later model year light duty vehicles 

and light duty trucks up to 8,500 

pounds gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR), and includes vehicles 

operating on all fuel types. The standard 

for basic I/M programs does not include 

light duty trucks. Under EPA’s 

regulations, other levels of coverage may 

be approved if the necessary emission 

reductions are achieved. 

The existing I/M SIP exempts certain 

vehicle types from biennial I/M 

inspection requirements, including pre1966 model-year vehicles, dieselpowered vehicles, electric vehicles, and 

motorcycles. The 2009 I/M Revision 

amends these provisions to also exempt 

1966 through 1975 model-year vehicles 

and vehicles six or less model-years old 

from biennial inspection requirements, 

and to exempt transfers of vehicles four 

or less model-years old from change-ofownership inspection requirements. 

However, as described in sections III.B.2 

and III.B.3 above, we have concluded 

that the State has demonstrated that it 

meets the performance standards for 

both the federal enhanced and basic 

I/M programs, contingent upon receipt 

of revisions to the enhanced 

performance standard evaluation to 

provide base year modeling runs and to 

use an appropriate attainment year for 

Western Mojave Desert. Thus, the 

increase in the types of exempt vehicles 

is acceptable under 40 CFR 51.356. 

5. Test Procedures, Standards, and 

Equipment 

Under 40 CFR 51.357, I/M programs 

must establish and implement written 

test procedures and pass/fail standards 

for each model year and vehicle type. 

Under 40 CFR 51.358, official emissions 

tests must be performed using 

computerized emissions test systems 

that are certified by the program and 

updated from time to time to 

accommodate new technology vehicles 

and program changes. 

The existing I/M SIP requires loaded 

testing for vehicle inspections in 

enhanced areas and use of the BAR–90 

two-speed idle test in basic areas. The 

2009 I/M Revision updates the test 

procedures and standards in several 

ways, including: (1) To require use of 

the BAR–97 Emission Inspection 

System (EIS) Specifications in all 

program areas; (2) to require all vehicles 

subject to the program to undergo a lowpressure test of the fuel evaporative 

control system as part of the Smog 

Check inspection, unless specifically 

exempt; (3) to require all vehicles 

subject to the program to undergo a 

visible smoke test; and (4) to require 

that all vehicle inspections include a 

functional test of emission controls, 

including, for 1996 and newer model 

year light-duty vehicles, a test of onboard diagnostic (OBD) equipment. 

Each testing station must have a BARcertified emissions inspection system 

that meets the specifications in the 

BAR–97 EIS Specifications.8

In addition, the 2009 I/M Revision 

requires that all required emission 

inspection systems used in the Smog 

Check program be connected to the 

internet in order to transmit required 

program information to BAR. Any 

emission inspection systems that BAR 

finds do not comply with the hardware 

and software requirements and 

specifications in the regulations will be 

disconnected from BAR’s central 

computer database and network, and 

thereby prohibited from being used to 

perform smog checks and to transmit 

certificates of compliance to the 

Department of Motor Vehicles, until 

they are brought into compliance. These 

revisions strengthen the SIP program 

and satisfy the requirements for test 

procedures, standards, and equipment 

in 40 CFR 51.357 and 51.358. 

C. Section 110(l) of the Act 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if it 

would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. 

CARB’s June 5, 2009 SIP submittal did 

not include a section 110(l) analysis for 

the 2009 

I/M Revision. However, we can 

reasonably conclude, as discussed 

below, that the net effect of the revised 

I/M program would be greater emissions 

reductions under the California I/M 

program as revised through the 2009 

I/M Revision than under the existing 

California I/M SIP, as approved in 1997. 

To arrive at this conclusion, we 

identified the following I/M program 

changes that would be the most likely 

to result in emissions changes: 

(1) Expansion of the older vehicle 

exemption to include 1966 through 

1975 model year vehicles; (2) the 

addition of an exemption for newer 

vehicles (six or less model-years old); 

(3) the expansion of areas within the 

South Coast Air Basin, Sacramento 

Metro area, San Diego County, San 

Joaquin Valley, Western Mojave Desert, 

Coachella Valley, Ventura County, and 

San Francisco Bay Area subject to 

enhanced or partially enhanced I/M as 

opposed to basic I/M; and (4) 

implementation of OBD systems checks. 

For these areas, the emissions changes 

under the revised California I/M 

program result from a program that 

would require inspections of slightly 

fewer vehicles but increase the 

stringency of the I/M requirements for 

those vehicles subject to the program. 

To qualitatively assess the net effect 

of these changes, we first note that the 

new or expanded exemptions under the 

revised I/M program would relate to a 

very small fraction of the vehicle fleet 

(i.e., those from model years 1966 

through 1975) or would relate to the 

cleanest portion of the vehicle fleet 

(those vehicles six or less model-years 

old) that is least likely to fail an 

inspection. Thus, we expect the new or 

expanded exemptions to have a minimal 

emissions effect. On the other hand, we 

note that California has expanded the 

geographic scope of the enhanced or 

partially enhanced program in each 

ozone nonattainment area subject to I/M 

requirements under the CAA. In 

addition, based on the enhanced and 

basic performance standard evaluations 

included as part of the 2009 I/M 

Revision, we note that significantly 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 41825 

9OBD system tests are generally expected to 

achieve air quality benefits compared to tailpipe 

emissions tests through accurate diagnosis and 

early detection of needed vehicle repairs. See 

http://www.epa.gov/obd/. 

greater emissions reductions are 

expected under enhanced or partially 

enhanced I/M requirements relative to 

those under basic I/M requirements. For 

instance, California enhanced I/M in 

San Joaquin Valley is estimated to 

provide 24 to 27 percent reduction in 

ozone precursors relative to the ‘‘no 

I/M’’ scenario, whereas California basic 

I/M in San Joaquin Valley is estimated 

to provide only 3 to 17 percent 

reduction in ozone precursors also 

relative to the ‘‘no I/M’’ scenario. See 

pages 5 and 15 of main body of 2009 I/ 

M Revision. Finally, we note that the 

addition of OBD testing requirements 9

for all 1996 and newer model-year 

vehicles and the improvements to 

California’s quality control methods, 

data collection systems, and technician 

training requirements adequately offset 

the potential emissions impacts of the 

revised vehicle exemptions in all 

program areas, including those 

nonattainment areas that are subject to 

California’s basic I/M program under the 

existing SIP and 2009 I/M Revision and 

do not benefit from the more stringent 

requirements of the enhanced or 

partially enhanced I/M program. 

In all then, given the minimal 

emissions increase associated with the 

new or expanded exemptions and the 

relatively significant emissions decrease 

associated with the greater geographic 

applicability of enhanced or partially 

enhanced I/M in each area subject to 

CAA I/M requirements, in addition to 

California’s OBD testing requirements 

and improvements in program 

implementation and enforcement 

mechanisms in all program areas, we 

fully expect the net effect of approval of 

the 2009 I/M Revision to be beneficial 

from an emissions reduction standpoint 

in all California ozone nonattainment 

areas. Therefore, we propose to find that 

the 2009 I/M Revision would not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment of 

the NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. 

IV. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air 

Act, EPA is proposing to approve 

CARB’s June 5, 2009 submittal of a 

revision to the California I/M program 

as a revision to the California SIP. Our 

proposed approval for one area, Western 

Mojave Desert, is contingent upon 

California’s submittal of a revised 

evaluation of the enhanced program 

performance standard for the area based 

on an appropriate attainment year. In 

addition, our proposed approval of the 

enhanced I/M program is contingent 

upon our receipt of base year 

performance modeling evaluations for 

the six areas subject to enhanced I/M 

that demonstrate compliance with the 

federal performance standard in 2002. 

(We will notify the public of any 

additional information that is provided 

to address these issues.) With these 

exceptions, EPA finds that the State’s 

submittal meets all applicable 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations. The updated elements of 

the California I/M program that we 

propose to approve include the 

following: 

(1) Discussion of each of the required 

design elements of the I/M program; 

(2) Description of the current 

geographic coverage of the program, 

including updated maps and list of 

program requirements by zip code; 

(3) I/M-related statutes and 

regulations; 

(4) Enhanced I/M performance 

standard evaluations for the urbanized 

areas within six California ozone 

nonattainment areas as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 182(c)(3); 

(5) Basic I/M performance standard 

evaluation for the urbanized area within 

the San Francisco Bay Area ozone 

nonattainment area under 182(a)(2)(B); 

and 

(6) Emission analyzer specifications 

and test procedures, including BAR–97 

specifications. 

If the necessary enhanced I/M 

performance standard documentation 

for the six areas subject to enhanced 

I/M is not provided, then EPA proposes 

a partial approval and partial 

disapproval of the State’s 2009 I/M 

Revision as authorized under section 

110(k)(3) of the Act. Under these 

circumstances, EPA is proposing 

approval of all portions of the 2009 

I/M Revision, except for the enhanced I/ 

M performance evaluations for the six 

subject areas, as improving the SIP, and 

is proposing disapproval of the 

enhanced I/M performance evaluations 

as failing to meet the requirements of 

section 182(c)(3) of the Act and 40 CFR 

51.351(f). If this disapproval is finalized, 

sanctions will be imposed under section 

179 of the Act unless EPA approves 

subsequent SIP revisions that correct the 

deficiencies within 18 months of the 

disapproval. These sanctions would be 

imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A 

final disapproval would also trigger the 

two-year clock for the Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) requirement 

under section 110(c). 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this document and on issues relevant to 

EPA’s proposed action. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal until the date noted in the 

DATES section above. 

V. 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, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

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 proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
41826 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Carbon 

monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 31, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–19858 Filed 8–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0024; FRL–8943–7] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan. These revisions 

concern a local fee rule that applies to 

major sources of volatile organic 

compound and nitrogen oxide 

emissions within the San Joaquin Valley 

ozone nonattainment area. We are 

proposing action on a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. 

We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 18, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0024, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http:// 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae 

Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4124, 

wang.mae@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rule did the State Submit? 

B. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule? 

C. Why Was This Rule Submitted? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies? 

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rule Did the State Submit? 

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

adopted Rule 3170, Federally Mandated 

Ozone Nonattainment Fee, on May 16, 

2002. This rule was submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

on August 6, 2002, for incorporation 

into the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). On August 30, 2002, this rule 

submittal was found to meet the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V. 

B. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule? 

SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 requires certain 

major stationary sources of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the San 

Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment 

area to pay a fee to the SJVUAPCD if the 

area fails to attain the 1-hour national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

for ozone by its Federally established 

attainment date. The fee must be paid 

for each calendar year after the 

attainment year until the area is 

redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard. 

C. Why Was This Rule Submitted? 

Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), and 185 

of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act), States are required to 

adopt an excess emissions fee regulation 

for ozone nonattainment areas classified 

as severe or extreme. The 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS classification for the San 

Joaquin Valley area is extreme (see 69 

FR 20550, April 16, 2004). Although 

EPA has revoked the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004), 

Section 185 requirements still apply for 

1-hour ozone non-attainment areas 

(South Coast Air Quality Management 

District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882, DC Cir. 

2006). The fee regulation specified by 

the Act requires major stationary 

sources of VOCs in the nonattainment 

area to pay a fee to the State if the area 

fails to attain the standard by the 

attainment date set forth in the Act. 

Section 182(f) of the Act requires States 

to apply the same requirements to major 

stationary sources of NOX as are applied 

to major stationary sources of VOCs. 

Emissions of VOCs and NOX play a role 

in producing ground-level ozone and 

smog, which harm human health and 

the environment. SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 

applies to major sources of both NOX

and VOCs. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). Rule 3170 was evaluated for 

compliance with the requirements in 

CAA section 185. The rule was also 


CPrice-Sewell on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS