[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 19, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41818-41826]
[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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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)

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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,

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

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

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

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

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).

    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


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 70659]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22478]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4334-017]

EONY Generation Limited; Notice of Waiver Period for Water
Quality Certification Application

    On September 29, 2023, EONY Generation Limited submitted to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its
application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality
certification filed with New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (New York DEC), in conjunction with the above captioned
project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and section 4.34(b)(5) of the
Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby notify the New York DEC of the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: September 26, 2023.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One
year (September 26, 2024).
    If New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality
certification request on or before the above date, then the agency
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: October 4, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22478 Filed 10-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 887]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00017]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9921-46-Region 3]

Tentative Approval and Solicitation of Request for a Public
Hearing for Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the
Commonwealth of Virginia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of tentative approval and solicitation of requests for a
public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given in accordance with the provision of
section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, and the
requirements governing the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation, 40 CFR part 142, that the Commonwealth of Virginia is
revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. The
Commonwealth has adopted the Lead and Copper Rule Short Term Revisions
which will provide for better public health protection by reducing
potential reproductive and developmental health risks from lead. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that these
revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding Federal
regulations. EPA is taking action to tentatively approve these program
revisions. All interested parties are invited to submit written
comments on this determination and may request a public hearing.

DATES: Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted by
February 6, 2015. This determination shall become effective on February
6, 2015 if no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received
and the Regional Administrator does not elect on his own to hold a
hearing, and if no comments are received which cause EPA to modify its
tentative approval.

ADDRESSES: Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. Comments may also be submitted
electronically to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All documents relating to this
determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices:
     Drinking Water Branch (3WP21), Water Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
     Office of Drinking Water, Virginia Department of Health,
Madison Building, 6th Floor, 109 Governor Street, Room 632, Richmond,
VA 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Rizzo at the Philadelphia
address given above, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All interested parties are invited to submit
written comments on this determination and may request a public
hearing. All comments will be considered; if necessary, EPA will issue
a response. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be
denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request
for a public hearing is made by February 6, 2015, a public hearing will
be held. A request for public hearing shall include the following: (1)
The name, address, and telephone number of the individual,
organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief
statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional
Administrator's determination and of information that the requesting
person intends to submit at such a hearing; and (3) the signature of
the individual making the request; or, if the request is made on behalf
of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible
official of the organization or other entity.

     Dated: December 3, 2014.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, EPA, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-00017 Filed 1-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your RID Desk Officer @ 260 2706. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ Air & radiation/ OTAQ/ CCD 2. OMB control number b. G None a_ 2060 0345 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title  Regulations for a Voluntary Emissions Standards Program Applicable to Manufacturers of Light Duty Vehicles and Trucks Beginning in Model Year 1997  40 CFR 86.1700 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1761.03 9. Keywords  Clean Air Act, EPA, air pollution control, NLEV, banking, averaging, Tier 1, production, manufacturers, vehicles 10. Abstract  This information collection involves the periodic reporting and recordingkeeping by manufacturers participating in the voluntary emissions standards program applicable to manufacturers of light duty vehicles and light duty trucks beginnng in model year l997. Manufacturers would submit information regarding the annual sales, calculation, generation, and usage of emission credits in an annual report. In addition, upon transferring credits to another manufacturer, the manufacturer would submit this information along with their annual report.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 18 b. Total annual responses 18 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically % c. Total hours requested 4,338 d. Current OMB inventory 6,032 e. Difference ( 1,694)

f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment ( 1,694) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs  0 b. Total annual costs( O& M)  0 c. Total annualized cost requested  0 d. Current OMB inventory  0

f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P__ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. Q Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. X  Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? X Q Yes Q No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Chestine Payton Phone: 202 564 9328 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95