[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61971-61977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19377]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0343; FRL-11279-01-R6]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of the 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted to the EPA by the 
State of Texas (the State) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The SIP revisions being approved describe 
how CAA requirements for vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) are 
met in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) 
Serious ozone nonattainment areas.

[[Page 61972]]


DATES: This rule is effective on October 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0343. All documents in the docket are listed 
on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the internet. Publicly available docket 
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Clovis Steib, EPA Region 6 Office, 
Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 214-665-7566, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bf8ffeee2e9a5e8e7e4fde2f8cbeefbeaa5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c2b1b6a7aba0eca1aeadb4abb182a7b2a3eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Please call or email the contact listed above if you need alternative 
access to material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our March 
1, 2021, proposal (86 FR 11913). In that document, we proposed to 
approve portions of two revisions to the Texas SIP submitted to the EPA 
on May 13, 2020, that describe how CAA requirements for Enhanced 
vehicle I/M and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) are met in the 
DFW and HGB Serious ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Our March 2021 proposal provided a detailed description of the 
revisions and the rationale for the EPA's proposed actions, together 
with a discussion of the opportunity to comment. The public comment 
period for our March 2021 proposal closed on March 31, 2021. We 
received comments during the public comment period pertaining to the 
vehicle I/M portion of EPA's proposal from the Air Law for All (ALFA), 
on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for 
Environmental Health.\1\ The comments received are available for review 
in the docket for this rulemaking. The EPA finalized the proposed 
approval of revisions that address the CAA requirements for NNSR in a 
separate rulemaking (see 87 FR 59697, October 3, 2022). Our responses 
to the comments addressing vehicle I/M are provided in Section II of 
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Henceforth, we refer to ALFA as ``commenters.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our March 2021 proposal addresses the DFW and HGB Serious ozone 
nonattainment area requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, on 
October 7, 2022, the EPA reclassified the eight-county HGB area 
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, 
and Waller counties) and the ten-county DFW area (Collin, Dallas, 
Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise 
counties) from Serious to Severe nonattainment (87 FR 60926). The 
attainment date for these Severe nonattainment areas is July 20, 2027. 
Also on October 7, 2022, the EPA reclassified the six-county HGB area 
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and Montgomery 
counties) and the nine-county DFW area (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, 
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Tarrant, and Wise counties) from Marginal to 
Moderate nonattainment under the 2015 ozone NAAQS (87 FR 60897). The 
attainment date for these Moderate nonattainment areas is August 3, 
2024. These reclassifications are important to mention here because CAA 
section 182(c)(3) requires the implementation of an Enhanced I/M 
program in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Serious or higher 
and CAA section 182(b)(4) requires the implementation of a Basic I/M 
program in Moderate ozone nonattainment areas. This final action does 
not address whether the DFW and HGB Moderate nonattainment areas meet 
the Basic I/M requirement for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which instead will 
be addressed in a separate future SIP revision from Texas and EPA 
action.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: Commenters assert that in proposing to approve the Texas 
SIP submission inasmuch as it describes how vehicle I/M requirements 
are met for the HGB and DFW nonattainment areas, the EPA expressly 
relies on EPA's performance standard which requires states to show that 
their I/M program is equivalent to a model program defined by EPA.\2\ 
Commenters maintain that I/M performance standard modeling (PSM) is not 
a one-time obligation and should be performed each time a nonattainment 
area is classified as Serious for a revised NAAQS. Commenters also 
assert that Texas has not demonstrated that its Enhanced I/M program is 
equivalent to a model program as defined under the I/M Rule and that 
EPA's proposal is silent about whether the Texas I/M program continues 
to meet the Enhanced program performance standard for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS. Commenters maintain that equivalence cannot be assumed. 
Commenters state that in order to demonstrate equivalence, a state must 
utilize the most current version of the EPA's mobile source emissions 
model, which, at the time of the comment, was MOVES3.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the Enhanced I/M performance standard, see 40 CFR 
51.351(d).
    \3\ MOVES is the EPA's MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator. 
Information on MOVES is available at https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: An I/M performance standard is a collection of program 
design elements which defines a benchmark program to which a proposed 
or existing I/M program is compared in terms of its potential to reduce 
emissions of relevant pollutants and precursors (e.g., in ozone areas, 
namely volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)) 
by certain comparison dates. In general, Enhanced I/M programs shall be 
designed and implemented to meet or exceed a minimum performance 
standard, which is expressed as emission levels in area-wide average 
grams per mile (gpm), achieved from on-road vehicles as a result of the 
program. The purpose of conducting PSM is to demonstrate that an I/M 
program meets the applicable performance standard, as defined within 
the I/M regulations (40 CFR part 51, subpart S) and the Clean Air 
Act.\4\ The EPA has recognized that areas have had to meet the I/M 
requirements for previous standards. In the case of Texas, the DFW and 
HGB areas had to meet the Enhanced performance standard in response to 
requirements under the 1-hour ozone standard. The EPA previously 
approved Texas's I/M program as meeting the Enhanced performance 
standard under the 1-hour standard.\5\ For areas that had previously 
met certain SIP requirements, the EPA's practice has been to accept 
``certification SIPs'' to help streamline the development of SIPs. In 
this SIP revision, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) 
certified that the current Texas I/M program meets the I/M requirements 
for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ October 2022, EPA-420-B-22-034: ``Performance Standard 
Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/
M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile Source Emissions Model.''
    \5\ The Clean Air Act requires certain urbanized ozone 
nonattainment areas classified Moderate and higher to have I/M 
programs to ensure that emission controls on vehicles are properly 
maintained. The Texas vehicle I/M program, which is referred to as 
the Texas Motorist Choice (TMC) Program, was approved by the EPA in 
the Federal Register on November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57261).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For SIPs submitted to meet requirements under the 2008 standard,

[[Page 61973]]

previous EPA guidance \6\ was not clear whether certification SIPs 
should include PSM. In the SIP requirements rule for the 2015 ozone 
standard, EPA indicated that SIPs submitted to address I/M requirements 
under the 2015 ozone standard must provide PSM to support that an area 
continues to meet the I/M requirement for that standard. The DFW and 
HGB areas were reclassified as Moderate under the 2015 standard and 
must demonstrate through modeling that the existing I/M programs for 
both areas meet the Basic I/M requirements. Texas recently proposed a 
SIP revision to address these Moderate area requirements. In that SIP 
revision,\7\ Texas provided performance standard modeling that 
sufficiently shows that its current I/M program meets the Enhanced I/M 
standard. So, even though EPA's previous guidance was unclear, a review 
of the PSM (as described below) shows that the Texas program meets the 
Enhanced standard for the 2008 standard. As a result, the comment is 
moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The old 2014 guidance: January 2014, EPA-420-B-14-006: 
``Performance Standard Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle 
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile 
Source Emissions Model).''
    \7\ On May 31, 2023, the State approved proposal of both the DFW 
and HGB Moderate Area Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIP Revisions 
for the 2015 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Non-Rule Project #s: 2022-021-
SIP-NR and 2022-022-SIP-NR, respectively). Included in Appendix C of 
each of these proposals were I/M Performance Standard Modeling (PSM) 
for the existing I/M Program in their respective 2015 Ozone NAAQS 
nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PSM analyses of existing I/M programs in DFW and HGB show the 
applicable I/M performance standard for the DFW and HGB nonattainment 
areas are met. The PSM was included in the state's proposed SIP 
revisions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on May 31, 2023.\8\ The PSM 
demonstrations were submitted by the state as part of its 2015 I/M 
requirements. The submissions consist of separate PSM analyses for the 
DFW and HGB nonattainment areas. Copies of the modeling summary are 
included in the docket \9\ for this action. This additional modeling 
information was reviewed and helped inform the EPA's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Ibid.
    \9\ https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with EPA's October 2022 Performance Standard Modeling 
Guidance,\10\ a single analysis year and corresponding analysis can 
satisfy more than one PSM demonstration for an area under two different 
NAAQS if the analysis year is appropriate for both NAAQS. In the case 
of HGB and DFW, the State must demonstrate that the current I/M program 
satisfies the Basic I/M SIP requirement for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and in 
doing so can demonstrate the Enhanced I/M SIP requirement for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS is also satisfied. Considering this scenario, EPA's current 
guidance \11\ allows the State to use the 8-hour ozone Enhanced 
performance standard (40 CFR 51.351(i)), if the PSM demonstration is 
for an analysis year that satisfies both I/M SIPs and ozone NAAQS. In 
other words, if an I/M program meets the Enhanced performance standard, 
then it would also meet the Basic performance standard so long as the 
analysis years are appropriate for the two ozone standards in question. 
Consistent with the I/M rule, the EPA's current guidance \12\ states 
that the appropriate analysis year for all reclassifications is the 
``Attainment date OR program implementation date, whichever is later.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ October 2022, EPA-420-B-22-034, pgs 9-10: ``Performance 
Standard Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle Inspection and 
Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile Source Emissions 
Model.''
    \11\ Ibid.
    \12\ Ibid. See Table 1: Analysis Years for PSM for an 8-hour 
Ozone NAAQS on page 10 of the guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has clearly stated that PSM modeling is required when 
states certify compliance under the 2015 ozone standard. Texas 
performed such modeling of the DFW and HGB programs required for 
Serious areas designated and classified under the 8-hour ozone 
standard.
    Upon review of the modeling files and summary results of the TCEQ 
PSM analyses, EPA concludes that the modeling was conducted consistent 
with the I/M rule and EPA's 2022 PSM guidance; and that TCEQ has 
demonstrated that the Enhanced performance standard was met in the DFW 
and HGB subject I/M areas.
    TCEQ used MOVES3.1 to conduct the analyses using 2023 as the 
analysis year. The reason why 2023 is an appropriate analysis year for 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS is because (per page 10 of the guidance \13\)--
``For cases in which the attainment date has passed, PSM should be 
performed for an analysis year contemporary to when the corresponding 
I/M SIP will be submitted.'' Since the attainment year for the Serious 
ozone classification has been passed, then using the most recent future 
year is appropriate, i.e., 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TCEQ correctly modeled the existing DFW I/M and HGB I/M programs 
against the Enhanced performance standard benchmark program (40 CFR 
51.351(i)). The results of the analyses demonstrated that the emissions 
rates, expressed in gpm for the existing DFW I/M and HGB I/M programs 
for VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> are lower than the modeled emission rates 
using the Enhanced performance standard benchmark program: \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Evaluating whether an existing I/M program meets the 
Enhanced Performance Standard requires demonstrating that the 
existing program emission rates for NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC do not 
exceed the benchmark program's emission rates within a 0.02 gram per 
mile buffer.

Table 1--Summary of NOX Performance Standard Evaluation for DFW 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area Existing I/M
                                                  Program \15\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         I/M NOX
                               I/M program NOX        I/M NOX          performance       Does existing program
           County               emission rate       performance          standard         meet I/M performance
                                                      standard        benchmark plus           standard?
                                                     benchmark            buffer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collin......................               0.25               0.25               0.27  Yes.
Dallas......................               0.26               0.26               0.28  Yes.
Denton......................               0.30               0.29               0.31  Yes.
Ellis.......................               0.40               0.40               0.42  Yes.
Johnson.....................               0.47               0.47               0.49  Yes.
Kaufman.....................               0.46               0.46               0.48  Yes.
Parker......................               0.54               0.54               0.56  Yes.
Tarrant.....................               0.26               0.26               0.28  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61974]]


Table 2--Summary of VOC Performance Standard Evaluation for DFW 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area Existing I/M
                                                  Program \16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         I/M VOC
                                                      I/M VOC          performance       Does existing program
           County              I/M program VOC      performance          standard         meet I/M performance
                                emission rate         standard        benchmark plus           standard?
                                                     benchmark            buffer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collin......................               0.17               0.17               0.19  Yes.
Dallas......................               0.14               0.14               0.16  Yes.
Denton......................               0.18               0.18               0.20  Yes.
Ellis.......................               0.14               0.14               0.16  Yes.
Johnson.....................               0.19               0.20               0.22  Yes.
Kaufman.....................               0.14               0.14               0.16  Yes.
Parker......................               0.17               0.17               0.19  Yes.
Tarrant.....................               0.16               0.17               0.19  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 3--Summary of NOX Performance Standard Evaluation for HGB 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area Existing I/M
                                                  Program \17\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         I/M NOX
                               I/M program NOX        I/M NOX          performance       Does existing program
           County               emission rate       performance          standard         meet I/M performance
                                                      standard        benchmark plus           standard?
                                                     benchmark            buffer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazoria....................               0.29               0.29               0.31  Yes.
Fort Bend...................               0.27               0.27               0.29  Yes.
Galveston...................               0.24               0.24               0.26  Yes.
Harris......................               0.26               0.26               0.28  Yes.
Montgomery..................               0.28               0.28               0.30  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 4--Summary of VOC Performance Standard Evaluation for HGB 2015 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area Existing I/M
                                                  Program \18\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         I/M VOC
                                                      I/M VOC          performance       Does existing program
           County              I/M program VOC      performance          standard         meet I/M performance
                                emission rate         standard        benchmark plus           standard?
                                                     benchmark            buffer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazoria....................               0.17               0.17               0.19  Yes.
Fort Bend...................               0.19               0.20               0.22  Yes.
Galveston...................               0.17               0.18               0.20  Yes.
Harris......................               0.14               0.14               0.16  Yes.
Montgomery..................               0.16               0.16               0.18  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the DFW I/M and HGB I/M programs meet the Enhanced 
performance standard for the 2008 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ PSM for the Existing I/M Program in the DFW 2015 Ozone 
Nonattainment Area: See Table 3-1.
    \16\ Ibid: See Table 3-2.
    \17\ PSM for the Existing I/M Program in the HGB 2015 Ozone 
Nonattainment Area: See Table 3-1.
    \18\ Ibid: See Table 3-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenter asserts that EPA has failed to enforce its rules 
requiring biennial evaluations of Enhanced I/M programs, and the 
proposal is silent on whether Texas conducts these evaluations, and if 
so, what the evaluations show.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 
However, the EPA notes that Texas has and continues to provide, EPA 
Region 6 with their biennial performance evaluations pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.353(c)(1). The most recent and past biennial reports are posted on 
TCEQ's website.\19\ The biennial reports are sufficient and satisfy the 
reporting requirements of the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/mobilesource/vim/im_rules_links.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    We are approving portions of the Texas SIP revisions submitted to 
the EPA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The SIP revisions being approved 
describe how CAA requirements for the Enhanced vehicle I/M are met in 
the DFW and HGB Serious ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS.

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    The EPA reviewed demographic data,\20\ which provides an assessment 
of individual demographic groups of the populations living within the 
affected DFW and HGB 2008 ozone nonattainment areas, as well as the 
State of Texas as a whole. The EPA then compared the data to the 
national average for each of the demographic groups. The results of 
this analysis are being provided for informational and transparency 
purposes. The EJScreen model can only generate output for five counties 
at a time, and since the DFW 2008 8-hr ozone nonattainment area 
consists of ten counties and HGB 2008 8-hr ozone nonattainment area 
consists

[[Page 61975]]

of eight counties, each area was split into two sections. As mentioned 
previously, the HGB and DFW nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS are a subset of the HGB and DFW nonattainment areas for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS and therefore, the EJscreen reports for the DFW and HGB 
2008 nonattainment areas include all the nonattainment counties in 
these two areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1 of the DFW nonattainment area covers Denton, Collin, 
Dallas, Tarrant, and Rockwall counties. For Section 1 of the DFW 
nonattainment area, the results of the demographic analysis indicate 
that, for populations within the five-county area, the percent people 
of color (persons who reported their race as a category other than 
white alone (not Hispanic or Latino)) is above the national average for 
the five-county area; and above the national average for the State of 
Texas as a whole (59.3 and 59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7 
percent). Within people of color, the percent of the population that is 
Black or African American alone is above the national average for the 
five-county area; and slightly below the national average for the State 
of Texas as a whole (18.4 and 13.2 percent, respectively versus 13.6 
percent), and the percent of the population that is American Indian/
Alaska Native is below the national average for both the five-county 
area and the State as a whole (0.9 and 1.1 percent, respectively versus 
1.3 percent). The percent of the population that is ``two or more 
races'' is slightly lower than the national average for both the five-
county area and State as a whole (2.5 and 2.2 percent, respectively 
versus 2.9 percent). The percent of people living below the poverty 
level is slightly below the national average for the five-county area; 
and above the national average for the State of Texas as a whole (11.2 
and 14.2 percent, respectively versus 11.6 percent).
    Section 2 of the DFW nonattainment area covers Wise, Parker, 
Kaufman, Ellis, and Johnson counties. For Section 2 of the DFW 
nonattainment area, the results of the demographic analysis indicate 
that, for populations within the five-county area, the percent people 
of color (persons who reported their race as a category other than 
white alone (not Hispanic or Latino)) is below the national average for 
the five-county area; and above the national average for the State of 
Texas as a whole (34.9 and 59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7 
percent). Within people of color, the percent of the population that is 
Black or African American alone is below the national average for the 
five-county area; and slightly below the national average for the State 
of Texas as a whole (8.9 and 13.2 percent, respectively versus 13.6 
percent), and the percent of the population that is American Indian/
Alaska Native is slightly below the national average for both the five-
county area and the State as a whole (1 and 1.1 percent, respectively 
versus 1.3 percent). The percent of the population that is ``two or 
more races'' is slightly lower than the national average for both the 
five-county area and State as a whole (2.1 and 2.2 percent, 
respectively versus 2.9 percent). The percent of people living below 
the poverty level is below the national average for the five-county 
area; and above the national average for the State of Texas as a whole 
(9 and 14.2 percent, respectively versus 11.6 percent).
    Section 1 of the HGB nonattainment area covers Harris, Galveston, 
Chambers, Fort Bend and Brazoria counties. For Section 1 of the HGB 
nonattainment area, the results of the demographic analysis indicate 
that, for populations within the five-county area, the percent people 
of color (persons who reported their race as a category other than 
white alone (not Hispanic or Latino)) is above the national average for 
the five-county area; and above the national average for the State of 
Texas as a whole (69.3 and 59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7 
percent). Within people of color, the percent of the population that is 
Black or African American alone is above the national average for the 
five-county area; and slightly below the national average for the State 
of Texas as a whole (19.8 and 13.2 percent, respectively versus 13.6 
percent), and the percent of the population that is American Indian/
Alaska Native is slightly below the national average for both the five-
county area and the State as a whole (1 and 1.1 percent, respectively 
versus 1.3 percent). The percent of the population that is ``two or 
more races'' is slightly lower than the national average for both the 
five-county area and State as a whole (2.1 and 2.2 percent, 
respectively versus 2.9 percent). The percent of people living below 
the poverty level in the five-county area and the State as a whole, is 
above the national average (14.5 and 14.2 percent, respectively versus 
11.6 percent).
    Section 2 of the HGB nonattainment area covers Montgomery, Liberty, 
and Waller counties. For Section 2 of the HGB nonattainment area, the 
results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for populations 
within the three county area, the percent people of color (persons who 
reported their race as a category other than white alone (not Hispanic 
or Latino)) is very close to the national average for the three-county 
area; and above the national average for the State of Texas as a whole 
(40.2 and 59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7 percent). Within 
people of color, the percent of the population that is Black or African 
American alone is below the national average for the three-county area; 
and slightly below the national average for the State of Texas as a 
whole (8.2 and 13.2 percent, respectively versus 13.6 percent), and the 
percent of the population that is American Indian/Alaska Native is 
slightly below the national average for both the three-county area and 
the State as a whole (1.1 and 1.1 percent, respectively versus 1.3 
percent). The percent of the population that is ``two or more races'' 
is slightly lower than the national average for both the three-county 
area and State as a whole (2 and 2.2 percent, respectively versus 2.9 
percent). The percent of people living below the poverty level is 
slightly below the national average in the three-county area; and above 
the national average for the State as a whole (11.3 and 14.2 percent, 
respectively versus 11.6 percent).
    This final SIP action finds that the Texas I/M program meets the I/
M requirements in the DFW and HGB Serious ozone nonattainment areas per 
the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS revisions. We expect that this 
action and resulting emissions reductions will generally be neutral or 
contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on all 
populations in the State of Texas, including people of color and low-
income populations. At a minimum, this action would not worsen any 
existing air quality and is expected to ensure the area is meeting 
requirements to attain and/or maintain air quality standards. Further, 
there is no information in the record indicating that this action is 
expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or 
environmental effects on a particular group of people.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

[[Page 61976]]

    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 
2023);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA.
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' \21\ The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to 
mean that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
    \22\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TCEQ did not evaluate Environmental Justice considerations as part 
of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations 
neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA performed an 
EJ analysis, as is described earlier in the section titled, 
``Environmental Justice Considerations.'' The analysis was done for the 
purpose of providing additional context and information about this 
rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the 
nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have 
a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. 
In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this 
decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 
achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations, and 
Indigenous peoples.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 
November 9, 2000).
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 7, 2023. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 30, 2023.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270, the second table in paragraph (e), titled ``EPA 
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the 
Texas SIP'' is amended by adding an entry at the end for ``Enhanced 
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Requirement for the 2008 Ozone 
NAAQS Serious Nonattainment Areas'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 61977]]



              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or       submittal/     EPA approval date         Comments
                                    nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and    Dallas-Fort Worth         5/13/2020  9/8/2023 [Insert     ...................
 Maintenance (I/M) Requirement      and Houston-                         Federal Register
 for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Serious   Galveston-Brazoria                   citation].
 Nonattainment Areas.               Ozone
                                    Nonattainment
                                    Areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-19377 Filed 9-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>