Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0470-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; MotorVehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program
Posted Date: 2009-08-19T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 19, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41818-41826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19858]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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)

[[Page 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:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 
http:[sol][sol]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:[sol][sol]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 Census-defined (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

[[Page 41820]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 anti-backsliding 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,

[[Page 41821]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ To 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Census-defined 
urbanized area population of 200,000 or more, must implement enhanced 
I/M in the 1990 Census-defined 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

[[Page 41822]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 41823]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Through 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We 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'').
    \7\ CARB'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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 non-urbanized 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

[[Page 41824]]

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 pre-1966 model-year vehicles, 
diesel-powered 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-of-ownership 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 low-
pressure 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 on-board diagnostic (OBD) equipment. Each 
testing station must have a BAR-certified emissions inspection system 
that meets the specifications in the BAR-97 EIS Specifications.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ All 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 41825]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ OBD 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).

[[Page 41826]]

    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