Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 61971 

action. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this action, and there 

is no information in the record 

inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 

12898 of achieving environmental 

justice for people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and EPA will 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 7, 2023. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: August 31, 2023. 

Debra Shore, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 52.1870: 

■ a. Amend the table in paragraph (d) by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Globe 

Metallurgical, Inc.’’ before the entry for 

‘‘Hilton Davis’’. 

■ b. Amend the table in paragraph (e) 

under the heading ‘‘Summary of Criteria 

Pollutant Attainment Plans’’ by revising 

the entry entitled ‘‘SO2 (2010)’’ for 

‘‘Muskingum River’’. 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA APPROVED OHIO SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

Name of source Number Ohio effective 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Globe Metallurgical Inc ........... DFFOs ................................... 5/23/2023 9/8/2023, [Insert Federal Register Citation]

* * * * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED—OHIO NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Applicable geographical or 

non-attainment area State date EPA approval Comments 

*******

Summary of Criteria Pollutant Attainment Plans 

*******

SO2 (2010) .............................. Muskingum River ................... 5/24/2023 9/8/2023, [Insert Federal Register Citation]

*******

■ 3. Section 52.1873 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (b). 

[FR Doc. 2023–19201 Filed 9–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 DallasFort Worth (DFW) and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria (HGB) Serious ozone 

nonattainment areas. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
61972 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

1Henceforth, we refer to ALFA as ‘‘commenters.’’ 

2For the Enhanced I/M performance standard, see 

40 CFR 51.351(d). 

3MOVES is the EPA’s MOtor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator. Information on MOVES is available at 

https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motorvehicle-emission-simulator-moves. 

4October 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.’’ 

5The 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). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

10, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0343. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically 

through https://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Clovis Steib, EPA Region 6 Office, 

Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 214– 

665–7566, steib.clovis@epa.gov. Please 

call or email the contact listed above if 

you need alternative access to material 

indexed but not provided in the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

The background for this action is 

discussed in detail in our March 1, 

2021, proposal (86 FR 11913). In that 

document, we proposed to approve 

portions of two revisions to the Texas 

SIP submitted to the EPA on May 13, 

2020, that describe how CAA 

requirements for Enhanced vehicle I/M 

and Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) are met in the DFW and HGB 

Serious ozone nonattainment areas for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Our March 2021 proposal provided a 

detailed description of the revisions and 

the rationale for the EPA’s proposed 

actions, together with a discussion of 

the opportunity to comment. The public 

comment period for our March 2021 

proposal closed on March 31, 2021. We 

received comments during the public 

comment period pertaining to the 

vehicle I/M portion of EPA’s proposal 

from the Air Law for All (ALFA), on 

behalf of the Center for Biological 

Diversity and the Center for 

Environmental Health.1 The comments 

received are available for review in the 

docket for this rulemaking. The EPA 

finalized the proposed approval of 

revisions that address the CAA 

requirements for NNSR in a separate 

rulemaking (see 87 FR 59697, October 3, 

2022). Our responses to the comments 

addressing vehicle I/M are provided in 

Section II of this action. 

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

Response: An I/M performance 

standard is a collection of program 

design elements which defines a 

benchmark program to which a 

proposed or existing I/M program is 

compared in terms of its potential to 

reduce emissions of relevant pollutants 

and precursors (e.g., in ozone areas, 

namely volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)) by 

certain comparison dates. In general, 

Enhanced I/M programs shall be 

designed and implemented to meet or 

exceed a minimum performance 

standard, which is expressed as 

emission levels in area-wide average 

grams per mile (gpm), achieved from onroad vehicles as a result of the program. 

The purpose of conducting PSM is to 

demonstrate that an I/M program meets 

the applicable performance standard, as 

defined within the I/M regulations (40 

CFR part 51, subpart S) and the Clean 

Air Act.4 The EPA has recognized that 

areas have had to meet the I/M 

requirements for previous standards. In 

the case of Texas, the DFW and HGB 

areas had to meet the Enhanced 

performance standard in response to 

requirements under the 1-hour ozone 

standard. The EPA previously approved 

Texas’s I/M program as meeting the 

Enhanced performance standard under 

the 1-hour standard.5 For areas that had 

previously met certain SIP 

requirements, the EPA’s practice has 

been to accept ‘‘certification SIPs’’ to 

help streamline the development of 

SIPs. In this SIP revision, the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) certified that the current Texas 

I/M program meets the I/M 

requirements for purposes of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

For SIPs submitted to meet 

requirements under the 2008 standard, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 61973 

6The 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).’’ 7On 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. 

8 Ibid. 

9https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-R06- 

OAR-2020-0343. 

10October 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. 

13 Ibid. 

14Evaluating whether an existing I/M program 

meets the Enhanced Performance Standard requires 

demonstrating that the existing program emission 

rates for NOX and VOC do not exceed the 

benchmark program’s emission rates within a 0.02 

gram per mile buffer. 

previous EPA guidance 6 was not clear 

whether certification SIPs should 

include PSM. In the SIP requirements 

rule for the 2015 ozone standard, EPA 

indicated that SIPs submitted to address 

I/M requirements under the 2015 ozone 

standard must provide PSM to support 

that an area continues to meet the I/M 

requirement for that standard. The DFW 

and HGB areas were reclassified as 

Moderate under the 2015 standard and 

must demonstrate through modeling 

that the existing I/M programs for both 

areas meet the Basic I/M requirements. 

Texas recently proposed a SIP revision 

to address these Moderate area 

requirements. In that SIP revision,7

Texas provided performance standard 

modeling that sufficiently shows that its 

current I/M program meets the 

Enhanced I/M standard. So, even 

though EPA’s previous guidance was 

unclear, a review of the PSM (as 

described below) shows that the Texas 

program meets the Enhanced standard 

for the 2008 standard. As a result, the 

comment is moot. 

PSM analyses of existing I/M 

programs in DFW and HGB show the 

applicable I/M performance standard for 

the DFW and HGB nonattainment areas 

are met. The PSM was included in the 

state’s proposed SIP revisions for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS on May 31, 2023.8

The PSM demonstrations were 

submitted by the state as part of its 2015 

I/M requirements. The submissions 

consist of separate PSM analyses for the 

DFW and HGB nonattainment areas. 

Copies of the modeling summary are 

included in the docket 9 for this action. 

This additional modeling information 

was reviewed and helped inform the 

EPA’s decision. 

Consistent with EPA’s October 2022 

Performance Standard Modeling 

Guidance,10 a single analysis year and 

corresponding analysis can satisfy more 

than one PSM demonstration for an area 

under two different NAAQS if the 

analysis year is appropriate for both 

NAAQS. In the case of HGB and DFW, 

the State must demonstrate that the 

current I/M program satisfies the Basic 

I/M SIP requirement for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS and in doing so can 

demonstrate the Enhanced I/M SIP 

requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

is also satisfied. Considering this 

scenario, EPA’s current guidance 11

allows the State to use the 8-hour ozone 

Enhanced performance standard (40 

CFR 51.351(i)), if the PSM 

demonstration is for an analysis year 

that satisfies both I/M SIPs and ozone 

NAAQS. In other words, if an I/M 

program meets the Enhanced 

performance standard, then it would 

also meet the Basic performance 

standard so long as the analysis years 

are appropriate for the two ozone 

standards in question. Consistent with 

the I/M rule, the EPA’s current 

guidance 12 states that the appropriate 

analysis year for all reclassifications is 

the ‘‘Attainment date OR program 

implementation date, whichever is 

later.’’ 

The EPA has clearly stated that PSM 

modeling is required when states certify 

compliance under the 2015 ozone 

standard. Texas performed such 

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. 

TCEQ correctly modeled the existing 

DFW I/M and HGB I/M programs 

against the Enhanced performance 

standard benchmark program (40 CFR 

51.351(i)). The results of the analyses 

demonstrated that the emissions rates, 

expressed in gpm for the existing DFW 

I/M and HGB I/M programs for VOC and 

NOX are lower than the modeled 

emission rates using the Enhanced 

performance standard benchmark 

program: 14

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NOX PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION FOR DFW 2015 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT

AREA EXISTING I/M PROGRAM 15

County 

I/M program NOX

emission 

rate 

I/M NOX

performance 

standard 

benchmark 

I/M NOX

performance 

standard 

benchmark 

plus buffer 

Does existing 

program meet 

I/M performance 

standard? 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
61974 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

15PSM for the Existing I/M Program in the DFW 

2015 Ozone Nonattainment Area: See Table 3–1. 

16 Ibid: See Table 3–2. 

17PSM for the Existing I/M Program in the HGB 

2015 Ozone Nonattainment Area: See Table 3–1. 

18 Ibid: See Table 3–2. 

19See https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/ 

mobilesource/vim/im_rules_links.html. 

20See https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/ 

table/US/PST045222. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF VOC PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION FOR DFW 2015 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT

AREA EXISTING I/M PROGRAM 16

County 

I/M program 

VOC emission 

rate 

I/M VOC 

performance 

standard 

benchmark 

I/M VOC 

performance 

standard 

benchmark 

plus buffer 

Does existing 

program meet 

I/M performance 

standard? 

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

County 

I/M program 

NOX emission 

rate 

I/M NOX

performance 

standard 

benchmark 

I/M NOX

performance 

standard 

benchmark 

plus buffer 

Does existing 

program meet 

I/M performance 

standard? 

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

County I/M program VOC 

emission rate 

I/M VOC 

performance 

standard 

benchmark 

I/M VOC 

performance 

standard 

benchmark 

plus buffer 

Does existing 

program meet 

I/M performance 

standard? 

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. 

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

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 fivecounty area; and above the national 

average for the State of Texas as a whole 

(9 and 14.2 percent, respectively versus 

11.6 percent). 

Section 1 of the HGB nonattainment 

area covers Harris, Galveston, 

Chambers, Fort Bend and Brazoria 

counties. For Section 1 of the HGB 

nonattainment area, the results of the 

demographic analysis indicate that, for 

populations within the five-county area, 

the percent people of color (persons 

who reported their race as a category 

other than white alone (not Hispanic or 

Latino)) is above the national average for 

the five-county area; and above the 

national average for the State of Texas 

as a whole (69.3 and 59.7 percent, 

respectively versus 40.7 percent). 

Within people of color, the percent of 

the population that is Black or African 

American alone is above the national 

average for the five-county area; and 

slightly below the national average for 

the State of Texas as a whole (19.8 and 

13.2 percent, respectively versus 13.6 

percent), and the percent of the 

population that is American Indian/ 

Alaska Native is slightly below the 

national average for both the five-county 

area and the State as a whole (1 and 1.1 

percent, respectively versus 1.3 

percent). The percent of the population 

that is ‘‘two or more races’’ is slightly 

lower than the national average for both 

the five-county area and State as a 

whole (2.1 and 2.2 percent, respectively 

versus 2.9 percent). The percent of 

people living below the poverty level in 

the five-county area and the State as a 

whole, is above the national average 

(14.5 and 14.2 percent, respectively 

versus 11.6 percent). 

Section 2 of the HGB nonattainment 

area covers Montgomery, Liberty, and 

Waller counties. For Section 2 of the 

HGB nonattainment area, the results of 

the demographic analysis indicate that, 

for populations within the three county 

area, the percent people of color 

(persons who reported their race as a 

category other than white alone (not 

Hispanic or Latino)) is very close to the 

national average for the three-county 

area; and above the national average for 

the State of Texas as a whole (40.2 and 

59.7 percent, respectively versus 40.7 

percent). Within people of color, the 

percent of the population that is Black 

or African American alone is below the 

national average for the three-county 

area; and slightly below the national 

average for the State of Texas as a whole 

(8.2 and 13.2 percent, respectively 

versus 13.6 percent), and the percent of 

the population that is American Indian/ 

Alaska Native is slightly below the 

national average for both the threecounty area and the State as a whole 

(1.1 and 1.1 percent, respectively versus 

1.3 percent). The percent of the 

population that is ‘‘two or more races’’ 

is slightly lower than the national 

average for both the three-county area 

and State as a whole (2 and 2.2 percent, 

respectively versus 2.9 percent). The 

percent of people living below the 

poverty level is slightly below the 

national average in the three-county 

area; and above the national average for 

the State as a whole (11.3 and 14.2 

percent, respectively versus 11.6 

percent). 

This final SIP action finds that the 

Texas I/M program meets the I/M 

requirements in the DFW and HGB 

Serious ozone nonattainment areas per 

the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS revisions. We expect that this 

action and resulting emissions 

reductions will generally be neutral or 

contribute to reduced environmental 

and health impacts on all populations in 

the State of Texas, including people of 

color and low-income populations. At a 

minimum, this action would not worsen 

any existing air quality and is expected 

to ensure the area is meeting 

requirements to attain and/or maintain 

air quality standards. Further, there is 

no information in the record indicating 

that this action is expected to have 

disproportionately high or adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on a particular group of people. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
61976 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

21See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ 

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

learn-about-environmental-justice. 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. The EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ 21 The EPA 

further defines the term fair treatment to 

mean that ‘‘no group of people should 

bear a disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 22

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 2. In § 52.2270, the second table in 

paragraph (e), titled ‘‘EPA Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures in the Texas SIP’’ 

is amended by adding an entry at the 

end for ‘‘Enhanced Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance (I/M) Requirement for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Serious 

Nonattainment Areas’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 173 / Friday, September 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 61977 

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment 

area 

State submittal/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Requirement for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS Serious Nonattainment Areas.

Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Areas.5/13/2020 9/8/2023 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

[FR Doc. 2023–19377 Filed 9–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118; FRL–11349–01– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AG12 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Determination 38 for Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Determination of acceptability. 

SUMMARY: This determination of 

acceptability expands the list of 

acceptable substitutes pursuant to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

program. This action lists as acceptable 

additional substitutes for use in the 

refrigeration and air conditioning and 

fire suppression sectors. 

DATES: This determination is applicable 

on September 8, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118 

(continuation of Air Docket A–91–42). 

All electronic documents in the docket 

are listed in the index at 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically at www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the EPA Air Docket 

(Nos. A–91–42 and EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2003–0118), EPA Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), William J. Clinton West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. For further information on EPA 

Docket Center services and the current 

status, please visit us online at 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Sheppard by telephone at 

(202) 343–9163, by email at 

Sheppard.Margaret@epa.gov, or by mail 

at U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code 6205A, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes 

A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

B. Fire Suppression and Explosion 

Protection 

Appendix A: Summary of Decisions for New 

Acceptable Substitutes 

I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes 

This action is listing as acceptable 

additional substitutes for use in the 

refrigeration and air conditioning and 

fire suppression sectors. This action 

presents EPA’s most recent decisions 

under the Significant New Alternatives 

Policy (SNAP) program to list as 

acceptable several substitutes in 

different end-uses. New substitutes are: 

• R–471A in retail food refrigeration, 

industrial process refrigeration, and 

cold storage warehouses (new 

equipment only); 

• R–515B in retail food refrigeration 

(refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment, remote 

condensing units, and supermarket 

systems), commercial ice machines, and 

cold storage warehouses (new 

equipment only); 

• Powdered Aerosol I in total 

flooding fire suppression (both occupied 

and normally unoccupied areas). 

EPA’s review of certain substitutes 

listed in this document is pending for 

other end-uses. Listing decisions in the 

end-uses in this document do not 

prejudge EPA’s listings of these 

substitutes for other end-uses. While 

certain substitutes being added through 

this action to the acceptable lists for 

specific end-uses may have a higher risk 

in one or more SNAP criteria than 

certain other substitutes already listed 

as acceptable or acceptable subject to 

restrictions, they have a similar or lower 

overall risk than other acceptable 

substitutes in those end-uses. 

For additional information on SNAP, 

visit the SNAP portion of EPA’s Ozone 

Layer Protection website at: 

www.epa.gov/snap. Copies of the full 

lists of acceptable substitutes for ozonedepleting substances (ODS) in the 

industrial sectors covered by the SNAP 

program are available at www.epa.gov/ 

snap/substitutes-sector. For more 

information on the Agency’s process for 

administering the SNAP program or 

criteria for evaluation of substitutes, 

refer to the initial SNAP rulemaking 

published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 

13044), and the regulations codified at 

40 CFR part 82, subpart G. SNAP 

decisions and the appropriate Federal 

Register citations are found at: 

www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations. 

Under the SNAP program, EPA may list 

a substitute as acceptable for specified 

end-uses where the Agency has 

reviewed the substitute and found no 

reason to restrict or prohibit its use. 

Substitutes listed as unacceptable; 

acceptable, subject to narrowed use 

limits; or acceptable, subject to use 

conditions are also listed in the 

appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart 

G. 

The sections below discuss each 

substitute listing in detail and 

summarize the results of EPA’s 

assessment of the human health and 

environmental risks posed by each 

substitute. EPA’s evaluation considers 

the criteria at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 

including: atmospheric effects and 

related health and environmental 

effects, ecosystem risks, consumer risks, 

flammability, and cost and availability 

of the substitute. When evaluating 

potential substitutes, EPA evaluates 

these criteria in risk screens, which are 

technical documents that evaluate risks 

to human health and the environment 

from substitutes in specific end-uses, 

including comparisons to other 

available substitutes and evaluations 

against relevant thresholds of risk 

starting with protective assumptions. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1